A STUDY OF RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CONTINUING.
EDUCATION AND INNOVATION AMONG ELEMENTARY
TEACHERS IN ANURBAN SCHOOL SYSTEM

, Dissertation I‘Or the'Degree Of Ph.‘ D; '
, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
IAMES STEPHEN SWIFT
' ' 1976

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

' w IIIII‘I‘I “I‘IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ”

3 1293 10 43

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

A STUDY OF RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CONTINUING
EDUCATION AND INNOVATION AMONG ELEMENTARY
TEACHERS IN AN URBAN SCHOOL SYSTEM

presented by

James S tephen Swift

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degree in Admin. 5: Higher Ed.

@WWL

k AMT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m
_

MIINIIiI/ I

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 

m

 

 

 

 

flip/n ABSTRACT
,A STUDY OF RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CONTINUING EDUCATION
AND INNOVATION AMONG ELEMENTARY TEACHERS
IN AN URBAN SCHOOL SYSTEM
By

James Stephen Swift

Three explanations were advanced for failure of several
earlier studies to reveal significant relationships between innovative
behavior and participation in continuing education among employed
professionals: 1) there are no direct relationships, 2) previous
studies did not have sufficient data variety or depth, 3) there are
modifying variables which obscure associations that exist. To
investigate these explanations an analytical study was undertaken of
relationships between three levels of specificity in continuing
education and three levels of specificity of innovative behavior.
Participants in the study were elementary school teachers (N=125) with
a response rate of 89% (n=95).

The three levels of specificity of participation in continu—
ing education were: 1) Non—Vocational Continuing Education (NVCE),
expressed as the degree of participation in general adult education;

2) General Continuing Professional Education (General COPE), indicated
by participation in all forms of in—service education but excluding
mathematics; and 3) Specific Continuing Professional Education (Speci—
fic COPE), taken as in—service training in mathematics education.
Levels 2 and 3 were each subdivided by source into intra—system, that
sponsored by the employing school system, and extra—system, that not

sponsored by the employing system. This subdivision was made since

 

 

. .
I C3311

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

James Stephen Swift
it was posited that the effect of bureaucratic—professional orienta—
tion and reference groups would interact with the effect of source of
continuing education to modify the association between participation
in continuing education and innovative behavior.

Since the traditional measure of innovative behavior,
"innovativeness," relative time of adoption, has severe limitations in
studying innovation in organizations where simultaneous adoption may be
required of all employees, a new general measure, "Innovation Situation
Behavior (ISB)," was proposed. Three levels of specificity of ISB were
used: I) General Change Orientation, indicated by respondent teachers'
scores on a scale of general mental set towards educational change;

2) General Innovation Use, indicated by a teacher's score on an index
of use of fifteen selected innovations; and 3) Innovation Internaliza—
tion, the degree to which a teacher is aware and convinced of the value
of an innovation adopted via institutional policy. Innovation Interna—
lization involves elements of awareness, valuing, and commitment,
isomorphic to free adoption paradigms and to Bloom's taxonomy of the
affective domain.

The study placed these variables in an £233 w Egg design,
using a mailed questionnaire. Data were quantified, analyzed, and
interpreted with the aid of multivariate regression analysis.

Reliability and validity of instruments were assumed since they had
been demonstrated in previous studies. Factor analysis of several
variables was used to check on validity and increase reliability.

Other means for improving reliability and validity included use of

 

 

 

...’L A'.

'I-Ar-

 

. .
1W“

 

 

 

.“l
1 W
.ul

 

 

 

 

 

 

James Stephen Swift
conceptually grounded variables and Hoyt reliability coefficients.
Relationships were hypothesized and tested on three levels of specifi—
city: 1) Non—Vocational CE with General Change Orientation; 2) General
COPE with General Innovation Use; and 3) Specific COPE. with specific
Innovation Internalization. Hl tested same—level associations as well
as all cross—level associations. H2, H3, and H4 posited relationships
between role variables and participation or ISB. H5 posited an inter—
action between role and source that was related to ISB.

Hl was supported; there is an association between participa—
tion in continuing education and innovation among employed profession—
als, level by level but not across levels. The more general the continu—
ing education was, the more highly it was related to ISB. Not all COPE
activities were related to ISB in a positive direction but extra—system
COPE, especially university sponsored coursework, was highest in posi—
tive associations. No reasons could be determined from the data for
this but there were indications that cosmopoliteness was related to
both participation in continuing education and participation. H2, H3,
and Hit were rejected. Although there were no significant relationships
between the selected role variables and participation or innovation,
professionalism, in the sense of anti—bureaucratic, did appear to be
related to ISB. H5 was not supported but there was some evidence of
interaction. It was decided that it could not be demonstrated within
the confines of the study. The findings indicated that elementary
teachers could not be divided along the lines of the classical profes-
sional continuum but rather along positive and negative attitudes and

information—seeking behavior towards bureaucratic values and groups“

 

 

 

 

 

James Stephen Swift

General Innovation Use and Innovation Internalization were
positively related to each other but neither was positively related
to General Change Orientation. Those high on General Change Orienta—
tion saw the principal as also interested in general change. Building
principals were perceived by the average teacher as innovative but
not by those teachers who were high in innovation use or internaliza—
tion implying that the high innovators will act regardless of their
Perception of their principal's stand. High users and internalizers
"By have been more isolated from the staff and principal. Age,
marital status, numbers of dependents, and teaching experience were
nUtbarriers to participation in COPE or ISB.

The use of the affective domain as an opinion measuring
paradigm appeared to be successful. There were also indications
thatself—actualization measures would be useful in future studies

Shme self—esteem was positively related to participation and ISB.

 

 

A STUDY OF RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN CONTINUING EDUCATION
AND INNOVATION AMONG ELEMENTARY TEACHERS

IN AN URBAN SCHOOL SYSTEM
By

James Stephen Swift

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Administration and Higher Education

1976

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
__.~______~____

The writer wishes to express his gratitude for the help and

guidance of Russell J. Kleis. The writer would also like to express

his thanks to the other members of the committee, George F. Meyers

and Shirley A. Brehm, and to many other members of the Department of
Administration and Higher Education who have been helpful and

supportive .

Thanks also go to Nan Lin and Everett Rogers, Department of
Communication, for their aid and permission to use their instrument

items. The writer also wishes to thank Ronald Corwin, Ohio State

University, for permission to use his instrument items. A great deal

0f help came from John Schweitzer and other members of the Research
Consultation Staff and the Computer Center in programming and
Statistical analysis for which the writer is grateful.

Finally the writer would like to acknowledge the support
and encouragement received from all members of his family over the

past years in completing this project-

ii

 

E I. D o F. C. t .wII I wT. I.
“Inc. ,I.: .

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1. OVERVIEW OF THE INVESTIGATION. .1
Area of Concern. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1
Purpose. . . . . . . . . - . .5
General Definitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6
Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Scope and Limitations of this Investigation. . . . . . . . . . 13
Summary and Outline of Chapters. . . . . . . . . 19

CHAPTER 2. THE BACKGROUND OF THE INVESTIGATION. 21
Participation in Continuing Education. . . . . 22
Innovative Behavior. . . 2H
The Association Between Participation in Continuing

Education and Innovation Situation Behavior. 33
Modification of the Association Between Participation

in Continuing Education and Innovative Behavior. 36
Situational Variables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Summary of Chapter 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

CHAPTER 3. THE HYPOTHESES AND PROCEDURES OF THE INVESTIGATION . 60
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
General Problem Statement. . . . . . . . . . . . 62
The Development and Use of the InStrument. . . . . . . . . . . 74
Data Analysis and Interpretation . . . . . . . . . .110
Summary of Chapter 3 . . . . . . .115

GMPTERLL THE FINDINGS OF THE INVESTIGATION. . . . . . . . . . .116
Description of the Sample . .116
Associations Between Participation, Innovation, Role

Orientations, Reference Group Activity, and the
Situational Variables. . . . . . . . . . . .162
Results of Tests of Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .189
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .229

Summary of Chapter 4

 

 

GMPTER 5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS.

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusions. . . . . . . . .

Observations . . . . . . . . . . .
Suggestions. . . . . . . . .

Closing Statement.

APPENDICES.

A. The

B. Principal Response Sheet and Follow— Up Letter

C. Partial Correlations Tables for H 1—5 with
Correlations for Situational Variables.

Instrument Items.

to Teachers in Survey .

BIBLIOGRAPHY.

iv

o

.230

.230
.243
.246
.249
.253

.254

.254

.274

.276

.321

 

 

I e
be
lie
Tile
.‘l
J
l
.

w—

1

 

 

Table '1.
Table 2.
Table 3.
Table 4.
Table 5.

Table 6.
Table 7.
Table 8.
Table 9.
Table 10.
Table 11.
Table 12.

LIST OF TABLES

Age distribution of the 95 elementary teacher
respondents in terms of numbers and percentage

Distribution by marital and family data for 95
elementary school teachers . . . . .

Distribution by attained educational level of 95
elementary school teachers . . . . .

Distribution of teachers by three measures of teaching

experience: total years in teaching, years of
employment in present system, and years in
present assignment . . . . .

Distribution by grade assignment for 95 elementary
teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Distribution of respondent teachers according to
pre—exposure to specific innovation. .

Use of specific innovation by text series on the
part of 95 elementary school teachers.

frequency distribution and characteristics of data for
Role Satisfaction among 95 elementary school
teachers.. . . .

Distribution and characteristics of data for
Self Rating as teachers for 95 elementary
school teachers. . . . . .

Distribution and characteristics of data for
principal rating as a teacher for 95
elementary school teachers

Distribution and characteristics of data for
performance feedback from principal for
95 elementary school teachers. . . . . . . . .

Distribution and characteristics of scores for
principal's General Change Orientation (G.C.O.)
as perceived by 95 elementary school teachers

 

.118

.119

.120

.120

.121

.123

.123

.125

.126

.128

.128

.130

IA..." ID». MI. in I.... In» 1.. I
.nu. Tad . u... .9”. . ....~ I e C Ix «\

 

‘ - u. -.-~ --_ _
W':.'u=~-'

13. Distribution and characteristics of data for principal's
support of specific innovation as perceiVed by
95 elementary school teachers. . . . . . . . . . .130

Table

Table 14. Distribution and characteristics of scores for
participation in decision making in the school as
perceived by 95 elementary school teachers .131

Table 15. Distribution and characteristics of scores for
legitimacy of participation in decision making
as perceived by 95 elementary school teachers. .132

Table 16. Distribution and characteristics of scores for staff
group cohesiveness as perceived by 95
elementary school teachers . . . .

Tablel]. Distribution and characteristics of scores for opinion
leadership among staff by respondents as perceived
by 95 elementary school teachers . . . . . . .134

Table 18. Distribution of respondent teachers according to
relative time spent participating in selected
forms of Non—Vocational Continuing Education .137

Tame 19. Distribution of respondent teachers according to
relative time spent during the year participating
in Intra—System General Continuing Professional

Education. .138

Table 20. Distribution of respondent teachers according to
relative time spent during the year participating
in Extra—System General Continuing
Professional Education . . .

 

.139

Tdfle ZL Distribution of respondent teachers according to
relative total time spent during the year
participating in General Continuing Professional
Education. . . . . . . . . . . . .140

Distribution of respondent teachers according to
relative time spent during two years participating
in Intra—System Specific Continuing Professional

Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .141

Table 22

0

Distribution of respondent teachers according to
relative time spent during two years participating
in Extra— System Specific Continuing Professional
. . . . . . . .141

Table 23

‘ o

Education. . . . . . . . . . . . .

vi

 
 
 

k i9." Tm...» Pr" i9" kn I . i I
TAU .dfl “TN NJ um... l..~ J...» quw I

 

 

 

Table 24..Distribution of respondent teachers according to relative
time Spent during two years participating in total
Specific Continuing Professional Education . . . . .142
Table 25. Number and percent of teachers by level of General
Change Orientation exhibited . . . . . . . . . .144
Table 26. Number and percent of teachers by level of General
Innovation Use reported in raw scores. . . . .146
Table 27. Number and percent of teachers by level of General
Innovation Use reported in factor scores . . . .146
Table 28. Number and percent of teachers by exhibited level of
Innovation Internalization reported in raw scores. .148
Table 29. Number and percent of teachers by exhibited level of
Innovation Internalization reported in factor

SCOPGS............

.148

Table 30. Number and percent of teachers by rank on a
Bureaucratic Opinion Subscale. . .

Table 31. Number and percent of teachers by rank on a
Professional Opinion Subscale. . .153

Table 32. Number and percent of teachers by rank on a
Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity Subindex .155

Table 33. Number and percent of teachers by level of

Professional Reference Group Activity. . . . . .156

Table 34. Number and percent of teachers by

Professional Orientation factor scores .157

Table 35. Number and percent of teachers by factor scores for
. . . .159

Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity. .

Table 36. Number and percent of teachers by factor scores for
Professional Reference Group Activity. . . . . . . .160

Table 37

.

Correlations among scores on three role factors:
Professional Orientation, Professional Reference
Group Activity, and Bureaucratic Reference
Group Activity as found among 95 elementary

school teachers. . . . . . . . . . . . .161

Table 38. Associations between participation in Non—Vocational
Continuing Education and 22 situational variables
among 95 elementary school teachers. . . . . . . . .165

 

\

 

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

49.

50.

 

Associations between participation in General Continuing
Professional Education and 22 situational variables
among 95 elementary school teachers. . . . . . . . .166

Associations between participation in Intra—System
General Continuing Professional Education and 22
situational variables among 95 elementary school
teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .168

. Associations between participation in Extra—System

General Continuing Professional Education and
22 situational variables among 95 elementary
school teachers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .169

. Associations between participation in Specific Continuing

Professional Education and 22 situational variables
among 95 elementary school teachers. . . . . . . . .171

. Associations between participation in Intra—System

Specific Continuing Professional Education and
22 situation variables among 95 elementary
school teachers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .172

. Associations between participation in Extra—System

Specific Continuing Professional Education and
22 situational variables among 95 elementary
school teachers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .174

. Associations between General Change Orientation and

22 situational variables among 95 elementary
school teachers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .176

. Associations between General Innovation Use and

22 situational variables among 95 elementary
school teachers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .178

. Associations between Innovation Internalization and

22 situational variables among 95 elementary
school teachers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .179

- Associations between Professional Orientation and

22 situational variables among 95 elementary
school teachers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .182

Associations between Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity
and 22 situational variables among 95 elementary 84
school teachers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -1

Associations between Professional Reference Group Activity
and 22 situational variables among 95 elementary

school teachers. . . . . . . . . . . ’185

viii

 

 

 

 

‘I'Ils

’ Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

' Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

51

52.

53.

54.

..__ _--_.... 4‘... - - 1'.

 

Frequency distribution of teachers by units of
participation in Non-Vocational Continuing
Education and scores on General Change Orientation .191

Frequency distribtuion of teachers by units of
participation in General Continuing Professional
Education and factor scores for General
Innovation Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .192

Frequency distribution of teachers by units of
participation in Specific Continuing Professional
Education and factor scores for Innovation

Internalization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .193

PPM correlations between participation in continuing
education at three levels and innovation situation
behavior at three levels as found among 95
elementary school teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . .194

. Partial correlations between participation in continuing

education at three levels and innovation situation
behavior at three levels among 95 elementary

school teachers. . . . .196
. Partial correlations from stepwiSe. regression between

participation in continuing education at three

levels and innovation situation behavior at three

levels among 95 elementary school teachers . . . . .197

. PPM correlations between participation on three levels of

continuing education and three role factors as
found among 95 elementary school teachers. . . . . .201

. Partial correlations between participation in continuing

education at three levels and three role factors as
found among 95 elementary school teachers. . . . . .202

PPM correlations between participation in COPE by source
and reference group activity among 95 elementary
school teachers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .206

- Partial correlations between participation in COPE by

source and reference group activity among
95 elementary school teachers. . . . . . . . . . . .207

. PPM correlations between innovation situation behav1or

in three forms and role factors in three forms

among 95 elementary school teachers. . . . . . . . .209

ix

 

 

 

 

 

 

.
IA'NI
._.

Table 62. Partial correlations between innovation situation
behavior in three forms and role factors in three
forms among 95 elementary school teachers. . . .

Associations between General Innovation Use and
vectors consisting of the pairwise product of
participation in General COPE by source and
role orientation reference group activity
among 95 elementary school teachers as
obtained in a step—wise regression equation.

(0

Table 6 .

Table 64. Associations between Innovation Internalization and
vectors consisting of the pairwise product of
participation in Specific COPE by source and
role orientation or reference group activity
among 95 elementary school teachers as
obtained in a step—wise regression equation.

Table 65. Associations between participation in COPE, by level
and source, and innovation situation behavior
by level among 95 elementary school teachers

Table 66. Associations between the various activities that made
up General and Specific COPE and two levels of
innovation situation behavior among 95
elementary school teachers

Table 67. Partial correlations between General Change Orientation
and Non—Vocational Continuing Education with 22
situational variables. . . . . . . . . . . .

Table 68. Partial correlations between General Change Orientation
and Non-Vocational Continuing Education with 22
situational variables after step—wise
regression analysis. . . . . . . . . . .

Table 69. Partial correlations between General Innovation Use
and General Continuing Professional Education
with 22 situational variables. . . . . .

Table 70. Partial correlations between General Innovation Use
and General Continuing Professional Education
with 22 situational variables after stepwise
regression analysis. . . . . . . .

Table 7l. Partial correlations between Innovation Internalization
and Specific Continuing Professional Education
with 22 situational variables. . . . . . . .

Tflfle 72. Partial correlations between Innovation Internalization
and Specific Continuing Professional Education
with 22 situational variables after stepwise

regression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.210

.216

.220

.226

.227

.277

.278

.280

.281

3631673. F

31675. E

. .

Pie BI

 

 

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

73. Partial correlations between General Change Orientation
and General Continuing Professional Education
with 22 situational variables. . . . . . . .

. Partial correlations between General Change Orientation
and Specific Continuing Professional Education
with 22 situational variables. . . . . . . . .

75. Partial correlations between General Change Orientation
and Specific Continuing Professional Education
and 22 situational variables after stepwise
regression analysis. . . . . . . . . . . .

. Partial correlations between General Innovation Use and
Non—Vocational Continuing Education with 22
situational variables. . . . . . . . . . .

77. Partial correlations between General Innovation Use
and Specific Continuing Professional Education
with 22 situational variables. . . . . . . . .

78. Partial correlations between Innovation Internalization
and Non—Vocational Continuing Education
with 22 situational variables.

79. Partial correlations between Innovation Internalization
and General Continuing Professional Education
with 22 situational variables.

80. Partial correlations between Non-Vocational Continuing
Education and Professional Reference Group Activity
Factor score with 22 situational variables .

81. Partial correlations between General Continuing
Professional Education and Professional
Reference Group Activity Factor Score
with 22 situational variables.

82. Partial correlations between Specific Continuing
Professional Education and Professional
Reference Group Activity Factor Score
with 22 situational variables. . . . . . .

83. Partial correlations between Non—Vocational Continuing
Education and Professional Orientation Factor
Score with 22 situational variables. . .

84. Partial correlations between General Continuing
Professional Education and Professional Orientation
Factor Score with 22 situational variables . . . .

.282

.283

.284

.285

.286

.287

.288

.289

.290

.291

.292

.293

 

file 85.

Table 86.

Tile 59.

“Na M
.1“ j“

 

i Table 85. Partial correlations between Specific Continuing

) Table

i Table

Table

.' Table

Table

Table

I Table

Table

Table

Table

87.

95.

Professional Education and Professional
Orientation Factor Score with 22 situational

variables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .294

. Partial correlations between NOn—Vocational Continuing

Education and Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity
Factor Score with 22 situational variables . . . . .295

Partial correlations between General Continuing
Professional Education and Bureaucratic
Reference Group Activity Factor Score

with 22 situational variables. . . . . . . . . .296

. Partial correlations between Specific Continuing

Professional Education and Bureaucratic
Reference Group Activity Factor Score

with 22 situational variables. . . . . . . .297

. Partial correlations between Extra—System General

Continuing Professional Education and Professional
Reference Group Activity Factor Score

with 22 situational variables. . . . . . . .298

. Partial correlations between Extra—System General

Continuing Professional Education and Bureaucratic
Reference Group Activity Factor Score

with 22 situational variables. .299

. Partial correlations between Intra—System General

Continuing Professional Education and Professional
Reference Group Activity Factor Score
with 22 situational variables. .300
Partial correlations between Intra—System General
Continuing Professional Education and Bureaucratic
Reference Group Activity Factor Score
with 22 situational variables. . . . . . . . . . . .301

. Partial correlations between Extra—System Specific

Continuing Professional Education and Professional
Reference Group Activity Factor Score

with 22 situational variables. . . . . . . . . . . .302

. Partial correlations between Extra~System Specific

Continuing Professional Education and Bureaucratic

Reference Group Activity Factor Score

with 22 situational variables. . . . . . . . .303

Partial correlations between Intra—System Specific
Continuing Professional Education and Professional
Reference Group Activity Factor Score

with 22 situational variables. . . . . . . . . . . .304

Table 96. Partial corn
Continu
Referen
with 22

HR 9% Partial corr
and Pro
Factor

DH 98.?artial corr
and Bur
Factor
ink 91 Partial corr
and Pro
with 22
:6HIOU Partial corr
and Pro
Factor

TRAIN. Partial corp
and Bur
Factor

DU N2.Partial corr
with PF

with 22

it N3.Partial corr
and Pro
Factor

.ueMA.Partial corr
and Bur

Factor
.uImS.Partial COPr
and Pro

with 22

Variabl

 

—: ' - L""‘" — " " ' ‘ "‘ ‘ \- . i Lav-pairihvflah
I}
l

 

Partial correlations between Intra-System Specific
Continuing Professional Education and Bureaucratic
Reference Group Activity Factor Score
with 22 situational variables .

Table 96.

.805

Partial correlations between General Change Orientation
and Professional Reference Group Activity
Factor Score with 22 situational variables.

Table 97.
.306

 

Partial correlations between General Change Orientation
and Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity
Factor Score with 22 situational variables.

Table 98

.307

Partial correlations between General Change Orientation
and Professional Orientation Factor Score
with 22 situational variables . . . .

Table 99.

Table 100. Partial correlations between General Innovation Use
and Professional Reference Group Activity
Factor Score with 22 situational variables. . . . .309

Table 101. Partial correlations between General Innovation Use
and Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity
Factor Score with 22 situational variables. . . . .310

Table 102. Partial correlations between General Innovation Use
with Professional Orientation Factor Score
with 22 situational variables . . . . . . . . . .311
Table 103. Partial correlations between Innovation Internalization
and Professional Reference Group Activity
Factor Score with 22 situational variables. . . . .312

Tafle lmL Partial correlations between Innovation Internalization
and Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity
Factor Score with 22 situation variables. . . . . .313

Table 105. Partial correlations between Innovation Internalization
and Professional Orientation
with 22 situational variables

 

.314

Table 106. Partial correlations between General Innovation Use
and the vectors of Intra—System and Extra-System
General COPE with Professional Orientation
with 22 situational variables for test of
H5a and H5b . . . ; . . . . . . . . . . . .315

Table l07. Partial correlations between General Innovation Use
and the vectors of Intra—System and Extraesystem
General COPE with Bureaucratic Reference Group
Activity Factor Score and 22 situational
variables for test of HSC and H5d . . .

xiii '

.316

iMeNB.Partial corre
and the
General
Activity
variable

IaklOl Partial corre

and the

Specific

Factor E

for test

ihilt Partial corre
and the
Specific
Activity
for test

5515 1L1. Partial corre
and the
Specific
Act iVitx
for tes1

 

 

—_.‘._‘__‘_ .

Table 108.

Table 109.

Table 110.

Table 111.

Partial correlations between General Innovation Use
and the vectors of Intra~System and Extra-System
General COPE with Professional Reference Group
Activity Factor Score and 22 situational
variables for test of H5e and HSf . . . . . . . .

Partial correlations between Innovation Internalization
and the vectors of Intra—System and Extra—System
Specific COPE with Professional Orientation
Factor Score and 22 situational variables
for test of H5g and HSh . . . . . . . .

Partial correlations between Innovation Internalization
and the vectors of Intra—System and Extra—System
Specific COPE with Bureaucratic Reference Group
Activity Factor Score and 22 situational variables
for test of H5i and HSj . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Partial correlations between Innovation Internalization
and the vectors of Intra—System and Extra-System
Specific COPE with Professional Reference Group
Activity Factor Score and 22 situational variables
for test of H5k and H51 . . . . . . . . . .

.317

.318

.319

.320

 

 

Fire 1. A comparison
with
Cent:

Eigre 2. A comparison

affet
Inno‘

Eiize 3. Communicatio:
35536 ”- Communicatio:
3:539 Communicatio:
litres. Model 1v: Th.

£5136 7' Scales, indi

 

Figure

Figure

Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure

Figure

l.

2.

7.

LIST OF FIGURES

A comparison of the taxonomy of the affective domain

with the adoption paradigms of both the North

Central Subcommittee and Rogers. . . . . .

A comparison of the levels in the taxonomy of the
affective domain to the subscales of the
Innovation Internalization Scale . . . .

. Communication Model I: The One-Way Model .

. Communication Model II: The Two—Step Model .

Communication Model III: The Transactional Model .

. Model IV: The Role and Reference Group Model .

Scales, indices, and other items in the instrument .

XV

.37

.37

.38

.39

108

 

 

 

OVERV

The ranid gro

:echolorv, the institu

Enrieize organizations
:aiel skills, have led
izeedfor lifelong ava

mining education he

1~;.:..

mutatization, liters

558‘ng some civic anc

3135353- Continuing ec

339" Of life, identf

Among profess
fixation was adequate
tin ' ‘

...etognized, thew
i-jip

“9011 a Common fin

x

M L“ a reasonable '

ascent tines the ra'
{fiv‘ot'
M 101’} and fI‘EQUe'

manning educat ion i

. nPeterF Dr

. uck

Wind Row, 1969)
3

 

CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW OF THE INVESTIGATION
AREA OF CONCERN

The rapid growth of knowledge, the increasingly complex
technology, the institutionalization of the processes of change in
knowledge organizations,:L and changes in employment patterns and
needed skills, have led to a national awareness that all persons have
a need for lifelong availability of continuing education. Until 1940
continuing education had as its main function the training for
Americanization, literacy, and basic vocational skills as well as
offmfing some civic and cultural exposure to the middle and lower
classes. Continuing education was for most, a temporary, sporadic
feature of life, identified largely as a workingman's education.

Among professionals it was held that their pre—service
education was adequate to meet their needs. As new professions came
to be recognized, they, too, held this opinion that a profession was
based upon a common fund of knowledge that prospective members could
learn in a reasonable time before being admitted to full standing. But
in recent times the rapid changes brought about by higher levels of
information and frequent changes in practice led to a realization that
continuing education is a necessity for all members of a profession.

W I c
1. Peter F. Drucker, The Age of DiSCODtlDUlty— (New York:
Harper And Row, 1969), p. 269.

 

 

Even the parish clergy
Anyong the W
education as a method l
for innovative behavio‘
nannies concerned wi
innand who ennlov la
Public scho
inn; and the importa
aenfunct of agrarian
more of the key pc
1'12 others, continucus
:59 changes taking p15
mileage and inventic
liliinh and Schuller n
Illa few hrieft
onnl Ste depend:

WV“ it require
uPPFOpriate new

Necesgi LV 0f SUCh

winning profession

he
en plan of all ten

1.

:S‘Fs AW Went ex

. are pledged t

v::l|-<1liollh1thin a th
Oct 1969

 

 

2
Even the parish clergy are now involved.l

Among the more serious users of continuing professional
education as a method of systematically handling information needed
for innovative behavior are knowledge organizations, institutions and
companies concerned with the generation and dissemination of informa—
timnand who employ large numbers of professionalized workers.

Public schools are an example of such knowledge organiza—
timw; and the importance of facilitating change among them is empha—
sized by the new position of schools in our society. For many years
mnadjunct of agrarian and industrial society, the schools are moving
hmo one of the key positions among knowledge organizations, and, as in
Hm others, continuous innovation becomes of central importance to meet
Hm changes taking place, such as, for example, the rapid growth of
hmwledge and invention which have changed many aspects of teaching.
Wittich and Schuller remind us:

In a few brief decades teaching has changed from an almost

complete dependence upon face—to~face verbal instruction;

today it requires knowledge of how to select and use

appropriate new media of communication...

Wm necessity of such knowledge is leading to a consensus that formal
conthnfing professional education should be an integral part of the
career plan of all teachers.”

1. A current example is the Academy of Parish Clergy in which
members are pledged to complete 150 hours of approved continuing
education within a three year period. See: Th§_gall, Vol. nu,

No. n, Oct. 1969, p. 3.

2. Drucker, loc. cit.
3. Walter A. Wittich and Charles F. Schuller, Audio—Visual

Materials: Their Nature and Use, 3rd ed.(New York: Harper and Row,
mi—m—M—

U. See: The Development gf_the_Career Teacher (Washington, D.C.:
Nm National Education Association, 1964)

 

 

 

lack of Research

____________
Professional
nften participate in pr
fecedvith possible inn
file: such participation
of bringing a.out accet
flare is little direct
freeucratized professi
This lack of
turning professional
?i'3‘-Ciiation hv teache

239.; v .
Men to Their approv

ug‘.‘ _

“craved clear and

nitration 73V teacb‘

v‘lest

lhis relati'

tenr P ‘
are or the sup”

cairn"
._ng education 3‘

wavered. Among the

2‘=~

s ' ‘
«satiation and uh
hese questions W011

it]: x:
.nnovation in sch

ll the
se concerned wi

n:

%L

The number

{<9
\‘:I\‘

.‘dtlons I V 1y
S
e u

 

Lack of Research

Professionals employed by large bureaucratic organizations
often participate in programs of continuing professional education when
faced with possible innovations in practice. Although it is assumed
that such participation in continuing education is an effective means
of bringing about acceptance and use of innovations among participants,
there is little direct research to support this assumption among
bureaucratized professionals .

This lack of supportive evidence extends to programs of
continuing professional education for school teachers. Although
participation by teachers in such programs is generally believed to be
related to their approval and use of innovations, research has not
demonstrated clear and consistent relationships between such
participation by teachers and their levels of innovative behavior.
Questions Raised

This relatively low level of research based knowledge about
the nature of the supposed association between participation in
continuing education and innovative behavior leaves many questions
unanswered. Among them are questions about the relative strength of
the association and what factors might affect the association. Answers
to these questions would be useful and informative to those concerned
with innovation in schools and other knowledge organizations as well as
for those concerned with innovative behavior in organizations.

Previous Studies Not Useful
The number of studies that have directly investigated these

qUestions is very limited. Usually studies of innovative behavior of

 

 

teachers have been cont
cvelopmel'lt, mamagemen
domination and adop‘
Tnefev studies directl
education have not gene
Eemeen participation
in v '- 2
thong. ledress Cl
C: teaching as major r
onlimt cite any stu
I‘M-e: narti cipa tion

Ee‘navior.

{C1523 \Em
This 1

”31C Cinnovatf ve be

tween the two and fl:
is redundant, for a te
regardless of particle:
Tzeseennd possible e)
him did not examine
iiiivities and did not

:iV-diips
. T ‘
hli‘dly, (

 

 

 

 

L1.
teachers have been concerned with other factors such as curriculum
development, management practices by administrators, or inter—district
dissemination and adoption of innovations on the district—wide level.1
The few studies directly focused upon the impact of in—service
education have not generated evidence for assuming a relationship
between participation in continuing education and innovative behavior.
Although Childress2 considers the changing methodology and technologv
of teaching as major reasons for in—service education, he apparently
could not cite any studies which demonstrated significant relationships
between participation in continuing education and innovative classroom
behavior.
Possible Explanations
This lack of a demonstrated relationship between participa—

tion and innovative behavior might be attributed to any of three possi—
bilities. The first is that there is really no direct relationship
between the two and the use of continuing education to promote change
is redundant, for a teacher might accept or reject an innovation
regardless of participation or non—participation in continuing education.
The second possible explanation is that previous research on inno—
vation did not examine a sufficient range of continuing education
activities and did not gather data that would bring out existing rela-
tionships. Thirdly, even if a sufficient range of varieties of

l. Ev—ene-frlr—Rogers, "Toward a New'Model for Educational Change,"
(East Lansing: Department of Communication, Michigan State Univer—
sity, 1965), p. 8.

2. Jack R. Childress, "In—Service Education of Teachers,“

Robert Ebel, ed., Encyclopedia of Educational Research, 4th ed.
(New York: MacMillan, 1969): P- 645'

 

...._.—»—.~-_.

 

continuing education W8?
eniohscured a relation
anion and innovative 13

Among such mo
9 related reference g
:llh) source or spons
izeractioo with the pa
$319.1 Role orientati
{agree to which continu
Hitler innovation i

In: study that credibl

“hen ‘~
\lxm 90

he the degree
....;.:on is perceived
refer n

ene groups simile

Freer“ *'
.dLlC role orier

wife level who pal‘l
one“
..d by bureaucrat
illhazi
.Ve behavior in
The purpose (

'15 5min
r the nnderste

 

 

 

 

5
continuing education were included, other variables may have modified
and obscured a relationship between participation in continuing edu—
cation and innovative behavior.

Among such modifying variables might be (a) role orientations
and related reference groups of participants in continuing education
and (b) source or sponsorship of continuing education programs in
interaction with the participant's role orientation or reference
group}L Role orientations and reference groups may influence the
degree to which continuing education in general or in relation to a
particular innovation is considered credible. It has been assumed in
this study that credible information is more likely to influence

attitude towards an innovation. The degree of credibility has been

“a“. ~ -.—.

taken to be the degree to which the source or sponsor of continuing
education is perceived by a participant has having role orientations or
reference groups similar to his own. Thus a teacher with a high
bureaucratic role orientation or a high bureaucratic reference group
activity level who participated in programs of continuing education
sponsored by bureaucratic sources should exhibit a higher level of

innovative behavior in an innovative situation.

 

was
The purpose of this investigation was to test hypotheses
to further the understanding of the relationship between participation
_~______________ .
1. Such as suggested by the Katz—Lowenfeld Two—Step Model of ‘

Communication. See: Elihu Katz and Paul F. Lazarfeld, Personal
Influence (New York: The Free Press, 1955), PP- 32'33-

incontinuing Educatio
and innovative behaVio
specificity of continu
shuation behavior, PT
and their related FSfE
angle of urban elemer
questions: (1) were ’0
hscntihuing educati<
isicallv related to ‘
IE5 teachers at three
:tiijring vaiables,
General Hv;
itiohwere (l) there
115598 of participat
151515 0f specificiu
535-705 three levels
i555“ associated \

.e: extent of these I

‘itelefltial influeh
. ‘ l
Wall

95 are taken

The follow

'1. .
final)

les uSed in th

in
w
“he-3°- defini

 

 

6
in continuing education, especially continuing professional education,
and innovative behavior, using a variety of forms and levels of
specificity ,of continuing education, a variety of types of innovation
situation behavior, professional and bureaucratic role orientations,
and their related reference group activity levels as found among a
sample of urban elementary school teachers.

Questions examined. The investigation examined two broad
questions: (1) were teachers' rankings on indices of participation
in continuing education at three different levels of specificity syste—
matically related to variances in measures of innovative behavior of
the teachers at three different levels, and (2) were other selected
modifying variables, role orientations and reference groups, systema—
tically related to the amounts of such variances?

General Hypotheses. The general hypotheses of this investi—
gation were (1) there is a relationship between a teacher's rank on
indices of participation in continuing education at each of three
levels of specificity and his rank on scales of innovative behavior at
each of three levels of specificity such that differences in participa—
tion are associated with differences in innovative behavior, and (2)
the extent of these relationships will be modified When the intervening
differential influences of bureaucratic, professional, and situational
Variables are taken into account.

GENERAL DEFINITIONS

 

The following are definitions of the three general types of
variables used in this investigation. A glossary of specific terms

follows these definitions.

 

Particioation in Contim
Participation
reported activity in va‘
free levels of specifi
and involvement in

eelities. The second

general professional 5k
ageciiically related tc
tease levels include Sl
stings, and readings.
minions of higher

The continuil

 

V" ied as either i‘:

11‘ the employing insti
«an: sponsored hv
lent .

aS a source va
“=3, and used in ex

“"435 section. Sou

:5 ‘M‘ .
.-.uessmnal source

‘iute'

“01% Sources
Elaine, o
”am SOUFCes

3

mat.
N“ lon. hll
‘ prog

that
.Educettion Wer e

5h .
i 01‘ extra.
washed to have
a

SYStEI

its
WP membership

 

.._§__ —_.._._ ._ _ _

 

7

Participation in Continuing Education.

 

Participation in continuing education is indicated by self-
reported activity in various types of continuing education programs at
three levels of specificity of content and purpose. One level includes
general involvement in personal growth, but not vocationally related
activities. The second level includes study concerned with enhancing
general professional skills. The third level includes study activities
specifically related to mathematics and mathematics education. All of
these levels include such types of activity as workshops, lectures,
meetings, and readings, as well as credit and non—credit work at
institutions of higher education.

The continuing professional education activities were
classified as either intra—System sponsored (all activities sponsored
by the employing institution) or as extra—system sponsored (all activi—
ties not sponsored by the employing institution). Such sponsorship was
treated as a source variable, dichotomized as intra—system and extra—
system, and used in examining the second broad question given in the
previous section. Sources classified as extra—svstem were assumed to
be professional sources, attractive to those holding a professional
orientation. Sources classified as intra—system were assumed to be
bureaucratic sources, attractive to those holding a high bureaucratic
orientation. All programs of General or Specific Continuing Profes—
sional Education were classified as to source and treated as either
intra- or extra-system. Non—Vocational Continuing Education was not
considered to have a relationship to either role orientation or refer—

ence group membership and thus was not so classified. When General or

 

Specific Continuing PI“
rated what is meant '13
in both Extra-System
There were 5
education: (1) Non-Voc
Continuing Professiona
Eniessional Education
ditucation, (5) Spec
System Specific Contir

:gecific Continuing Pt

ethic; would be relé
tires were weighted <

Mt
.tours, a partict

“‘35”

.3 were weighted

”MM.
NW;

ion Situation 1

Bv innovatit

 

lies or attitud
Eihw“: -
teessronal when
:3“.

”58 were used' (

55.2135 I
an s self~ren

.z‘r t .
first

ed by a resooh
in

use (if a number

to. . .

“shorten, ind'
- l

lifl

to '
f internalized

 

 

 

8

Specific Continuing Professional Education is mentioned with no source
named what is meant is a total score for that type of activity includ—
ing both Extra—System and Intra—System scores.

There were seven measures of participation in continuing
education: (1) Non—Vocational Continuing Education, (2) General
Continuing Professional Education, (3) Intra—System General Continuing
Professional Education, (14) Extra—System General Continuing Profession-
al Education, (5) Specific Continuing Professional Education, (6) Intra—
System Specific Continuing Professional Education, and (7) Extra—System
Specific Continuing Professional Education.

It was assumed that the length of time involved in any such
activity would be related to its level of effectiveness; thus the
scores were weighted on the basis of the length of time, in relative
clock hours, a particular form had taken, e.g. , full—term university
courses were weighted more than week long workshops.

Innovation S ituat ion Behav ior

 

By innovation situation behavior is meant self—reported
activities or attitudes, measured by scales or indices, of the employ—
ed professional when confronted with an innovation situation. Three
measures were used: (1) General Change Orientation, indicated by a
respondent's self-reported rank on a scale of attitudes towards change
in professional practices in general, (2) General Innovation Use,
indicated by a respondent's self—reported "rank on an index of interest
in or use of a number of selected innovations, and (3) Innovation
Internalization, indicated by respondent's self—reported rank on a

scale of internalized attitudes towards a specific innovation, a newly

 

 

 

adopted elementary matl

Role orienta'
associated with a role
ere groups are groups
esterhers of a group,
utilities. Both role
where an influence L
ifonation for it was
he credible if it ca
hm

....g a role oriente

“rain 1
..... 5. 0n the We

   

._1ed as having
.65: credible. The r
Luis study were th

..::e-: with and value

 

1011 were clas
if:

.and valued the <
aw
. ~55 vere classi‘i<

up -
l6 bests of reso

group ' .
- actlvlties

l.
dies 5 said in
"Woo o iii

 

 

9
adopted elementary mathematics curriculum.

Role Orientations and Reference Groups

 

Role orientations are the norms, values, and lovalities
associated with a role and exhibited by a person in that role. Refer-
ence groups are groups of people holding similar role orientations who,
as members of a group, reinforce each other's norms, values, and
loyalities. Both role orientations and reference groups were assumed
to have an influence upon the credibility attributed to sources of
information for it was assumed that information would be perceived as
more credible if it came from a source identified by receivers as
holding a role orientation or belonging to a reference group similar to
theirs.l On the other hand, information might come from sources
identified as having opposing orientations and thus be perceived as
less credible. The role orientations and related reference groups used
in this study were the professional and bureaucratic. Those who iden—
tified with and valued the opinion of the hierarchy of the employing
institution were classified as bureaucratic while those who identified
with and valued the opinion of other professionals and professional
groups were classified as professional. These Classifications were made
on the basis of responses to opinion scales and indices of reference
group activities.

1. As seen in the Model III of Hollander of the communication

process.“ See: Edwin Paul Hollander, Principles and Methods 9: Social
Psychologv (New York: Oxford, l967), p. 155.

 

 

 

 

lop-Vocational Contin
_..___._..___.__—
culttral, org
concerned with
Continuing Profession
service, vocati
Ceperal Continuing Pr
in all forms of
subject matter
to educational

those activiti<

Speiific Continuing 1
\x
pation in all
innovation (in
limited as to '
Pinicipation. Renor
education such

weighted so as

in each study.

We ‘
“\9 Programs of

by institutior
‘0 be sources

PFOfessional I

one Credibilitv-

the Pebfieptiox

by theip role

 

 

 

 

 

lO
GLOSSARY

Non-Vocational Continuing Education. Participation in enrichment,

 

cultural, or general adult education, none of which were directly

concerned with professional issues.

Continuing Professional Education (COPE). Participation in in—

 

service, vocational, or professional training.

General Continuing Professional Education (General COPE). Participation

 

in all forms of in—service training, not limited either as to
subject matter or mode of presentation and assumed to be related
to educational innovations in general, with the exception of
those activities contained in the category of Specific COPE.

Specific Continuing Professional Education (Specific COPE). Partici—

 

pation in all forms of in—service training, related to a specific
innovation (in this case a new mathematics curriculum) but not
limited as to mode of presentation.

Participation. Reported involvement in various modes of continuing
education such as workshops, travel—study, or courses, all
weighted so as to reflect the relative extent of time spent
in each study.

Source. Programs of continuing professional education are sponsored
by institutions or organizations which were considered thereby
to be sources of information concerning innovations in
professional practice.

EEEE§_§§§§ibili£y: This credibility was assumed to vary according to
the perceptions of the source by the participants as influenced

by their role orientation or reference group activity.

 

 

M- a.
sponsored by the
ple. Assumed to
cher. Asubcate

hire-System COPE. Thi
sponsored by the
to the bureaucra
of both General
which were not 5

to be credible 1

ina-

Svsten General (
were sponsored l
credible to a ht

which were not

to be credible

in: S

which were 8130“
be credible t0
lactation Situation
innovation sitt
affect towards
anal Change Orient

attitude of an

s‘
ton and school

 

 

\, — -v »————

ll

Extra—System COPE. This refers to all in—service training not directly
sponsored by the school system employing the teachers in the sam—
ple. Assumed to be credible to the professionally oriented tea—
cher. A subcategory of both General and Specific COPE.

Intra—System COPE. This refers to all in—service training directly
sponsored by the employing school system. Assumed to be credible
to the bureaucratically oriented teacher.‘ This is a subcategory
of both General and Specific COPE.

Extra—System General COPE. Subcategory of General COPE activities

 

which were not sponsored by the employing school system. Assumed
to be credible to a professionally oriented teacher.

hmra—System General COPE. Subcategory of General COPE activities which

 

were sponsored by the employing school system. Assumed to be
credible to a bureaucratically oriented teacher.

Extra—System Specific COPE. Subcategory of Specific COPE activities
which were not sponsored by the employing school system. Assumed
to be credible to professionally oriented teachers.

Inna-System Specific COPE. Subcategory of Specific COPE activities

 

which were sponsored by the employing school system. Assumed to
be credible to a bureaucratically oriented teacher.

hnmvation Situation Behavior (ISB). Response of a person in the
innovation situation in terms of either (a) positive or negative
affect towards innovations or (b) use of innovations.

General Change Orientation. A form of ISB which refers to an overall

attitude of affect towards innovation in general in the profes—

sion and school system. Least specific form of ISB.

 

of innovations .
in using. Midd
Innovation Internali
________
which a profess
value upon a so
host specific f
Pole Orientation. A s
with a role and
lovalities char
identifies hims
trative superio
acontinuum of

bureaucratic at
rtntessionfl Role Ori
lovalities char

identifies hims

sxonal peers an

a buPeancratio

L-
.:fn

Jence
Emu? ACtiv

memberships) Ce
aEsocifited With
lumber“ Refere
font a second t
that of I‘Ole 01

than affective

 

 

 

12

General Innovation Use. A form of ISB which is a measure of the number

 

of innovations a teacher reports himself as using or interested
in using. Middle level of specificity of ISB.

Innovation Internalization. A form of ISB which is the extent to

 

which a professional has used and has come to place a positive
value upon a specific innovation which he is required to use.
Most specific form of ISB. ‘

Role Orientation. A set of norms, values, and loyalities associated

with a role and exhibited by a person in that role.

Eneaucratic Role Orientation. A set of attitudes, values, and

 

loyalities characteristic of an employed professional who
identifies himself with his employing institution, his adminis—
trative superiors, and their value system. It is at one end of
a continuum of attitudes, values, and loyalities going from
bureaucratic at one end to professional at the other end.

Professional Role Orientation. A set of attitudes, values, and
loyalities characteristic of an employed professional who
identifies himself with his profession, his academic and profes—
sional peers and their value system. It is at the other end of
a bureaucratic—professional continuum.

Reference Group Activity. A set of actavities such as committee
memberships, career planning, and information or advice seeking
associated with membership in a group and exhibited by a group
member. Reference group activity in this study was assumed to
form a second bureaucratic—professional continuum parallel to
that of role orientation, but based on objective behaviors rather

than affective measures.

 

 

 

 

In.

W
committee membe
advice seeking
respond to norn
the professions

hneaucratic Referenc
committee membe
seeking characi
the norms and e
at the bureaucz

continuum.

a.
he...
mu"

.tional Variables

considered like
and experientie
images, self~pi
relationships.
SCOPE. ‘

ANJ

In the con]

are i -
The innovation

h
tut . -
an innovation <

Kim I

3 0f communicg

donations. Teache‘

"E oiiEinat
‘ OI‘ of an

M
Pres

vie Tree Deu‘
3: 1969

 

 

 

v——

13

Professional Reference Group Activity. A set of activities such as
committee memberships, career planning, and information or
advice seeking characteristic of employed professionals who
respond to norms and expectations of their profession. It is at
the professional end of the bureaucratic-professional continuum.

mneaucratic Reference Group Activity. A set of activities such as
committee memberships, career planning, and information or advice
seeking characteristic of employed professionals who respond to
the norms and expectations of their employing institution. It is
at the bureaucratic end of the bureaucratic—professional
continuum.

Situational Variables. Variables found in the innovation situation
considered likely to be related to ISB. Consists of demographic
and experiential factors, exposure to specific innovation, self
images, self—principal relationships, and self—peer
relationships.

SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS INVESTIGATION

 

In the course of what Deutschl terms imitative innovation,
where the innovation comes from outside the social system, information
about an innovation can flow to members of the system through many
chwnmls of communication. This usually is the case for educational
hnmvations. TeacherS, lacking acquaintance and direct contact with
'fiw originator of an innovation, are dependent upon intermediary

1. Karl w. Deutsch, The Nerves of Government (New York:
The Free Press, 1969), p. 167.

 

channels of communicati
of this investigation v
channels, continuing eC
Furthermore,
involved in the teacher
ior; however this invv
anacher innovative, ]
hthee selected form:
the extent of particip.
Secondly the study was
at situational, that 1

it might be

67...: .
“MLLOH is not due t

 

jnfe -1 -
SS.onal Judgment

«ALEFESIM

5 0f the clien

Séifi: .
““E an innovatio

sen population term

reduce the element 0f
h using professional
iéshahle changes-
Another limi
infinite formation whi

Ebniio
n 0f attitude:

3":qu
HOWQVQI, thi<

h I
‘1‘!"

‘uiti .
°n 1“ atrium.

 

 

 

 

14
channels of communication for exposure to it. One of the limitations
of this investigation was that it was restricted to just one of these
channels, continuing education.

Furthermore, there are undoubtedly many factors which are
involved in the teachers' responses in the form of innovative beha—
vior; however this investigation was not concerned with what makes
a teacher innovative, p31: _s__e_, but rather with the amount of variance
in three selected forms of innovative behavior that was associated with
the extent of participation in three forms of continuing education.
Secondly the study was concerned with some selected variables, role
and situational, that might influence said associations.

It might be argued that resistance to change in a forced use
situation is not due to a lack of willingness to change but to a
professional judgment that the change would not be in the best
interests of the clientele. This problem was met to some extent by
selecting an innovation that many professional peers outside the
chosen population termed useful and necessary. This was intended to
reduce the element of true negative professional judgment as contrasted
to using professional judgments as a rationalization to avoid otherwise
desirable changes.

Another limitation was imposed by selecting a theory of
attitude formation which assumed that the fundamental motivation in the
formation of attitudes is a drive for consistency on the part of the
subject. However this is only one of seventeen theories of

motivation in attitude formation reported by Madsen to have generated

 

 

significant and reli

Another 1i
is often pursued, no
for certification re
toneasure participa
obtain scores influe
hthis studv the st
ticn‘nv its requiren
Drier of course cre
file wears of teachi
required that all it
:rsiits before salai
Iéichers. These cr<

n m; "
.tonsioe the echo

Iii" t
1.0 reduce var-i.

listen beginning a]

the
“Hess was handler

.: ,.
f-Ill‘

“1 out the yap

TWO other

n.
W 1‘
.pl

Pability of tie

 

fi———— "Ifireé‘T-TI "

lS

 

significant and reliable results.1

Another limitation upon validity was that continuing education
is often pursued, not to enhance innovation but because it is required
for certification renewal and salary advancements. Any index designed
to measure participation in continuing education for teachers will
obtain scores influenced by regulations of the employing school system.
hithis study the state certification code also influenced participa—
tion by its requirement that a beginning teacher must acouire a certain
number of course credits for permanent certification during the first
five years of teaching. Furthermore the employing school system

remfired that all its teachers obtain a number of in—service training

 

credits before salary increments would be granted. This applied to all

I teachers. These credits could be obtained from sources either inside

 

or outside the school system. To some extent this requirement would
tend to reduce variance in participation scores due to differences
between beginning and fully certified teachers. In any case the

skewness was handled through multivariate procedures which can

partial out the variation due to these differential pressures.2

Two other measurement problems, accuracy of recall and

comparability of time Spans, were met by limiting participation

1. K.B. Madsen, Theories of Motivation, 2nd ed. (Cleveland:
Allen, 1961), pp. issues. I“

2. This was done through the identification and elimination of the
action of suppressor variables in the equation. See: Richard B.
Darlington, ”Multiple Regression in Psychological Research and
PPaCtiCe," (Psychological Bulletin, 69, N0. 3), p- 163.

 

 

 

mestions to a period
survey. Since there .

pation it was assumed

a

particrpa

tion and rec
iueio availability 0
selecting only a sing
Other limit
sniv. Since it used
:easrenents and no c
skewness in the sampl
:5 the findings.
Limitations
1Eminent itself; hc
fitnments it is be]

mi“: through the

nSSlhliliy of gener‘
C
T5593

CH 15 believed

iireli- ~ -.

“anion

. S ,
Gales, and,
Rents,

MultiVapia.
ere many Vari‘
(
Li a

W the

 

16
questions to a period of not more than two years before the date of the
survey. Since there were salary and qualification rewards for partici—
pation it was assumed that the subjects would have a high level of
participation and recall accuracy for this time period. Differences
mm to availability of continuing education were controlled by
selecting only a single district from which to sample.

Other limitations were imposed by the methodology of the
study. Since it used an §x_p2§t_fagtg_design, with no before—and—after
measurements and no control group, there is the possibility of unknown
skewness in the sample that would cast doubts upon the generalizability
of the findings.

Limitations upon validity and reliability were imposed by the
hmtrument itself; however, by using previously tested and proven
hmtruments it is believed that this limitation was diminished.

Ruther, through the selection of conceptually grounded variables, the
possibility of generating hypotheses that will aid in advancing
research is believed to have been increased. Other aids to validity
andreliability were: a) factor analysis of the attitude scales and
ophfipn scales, and, b) the use of factor scores in place of raw
scores.

Multivariate analysis was used to analyze the data since
fimre were many variables and the relationships could best be seen when
all Um relevant variables could be analyzed together. However we are
warned that:

Multiple regression is really a univariate model since
only the criterion variable is treated as subject to
errors. It follows that any effort to generalize from

sample to population is open to serious danger of
capitalization on chance, particularily if it involves

 

 

 

selecting some
Finally, t1

tion. Basically the
smcmral-functional
the underlying paradi
activations, paradigm
processes, all worked
itetay in which the
anal variables usec
This is not

if structural~functic
Pill-a .es that the 5

:litrtllhately in anv

....

wet to the exslar

tfottulating the

H
the basic a

\S stu‘ ,
0y as that t

N
M illiamw C

C! y
\‘ \Zlehaviorals

2like
\ ‘ltdy. rt Idesi:

 

 

 

l7

selecting some predictors and discarding others.l

Finally, there is the possibility of a more general limita—
tion. Basically the variables examined in this study represent the
structural—functionalism approach to socio—psychological studies with
the underlying paradigm being the social man model. The model of human
motivations, paradigms of adoption, and models of Communication
processes, all worked together to determine the“ scope of the problem,
the way in which the problem was Viewed, and the selection of the
actual variables used in the study.

This is not the only approach for there is another version
of structural—functionalism which uses a social systems model and
postulates that the social climate is related to innovative behavior.2
Unfortunately in any piece of social research it is not possible to
include all known variables. Nor will the variables selected
necessarily have the most explanatory power, for the variables are
limited to the explanatory power of the underlying model of man used
in formulating the problem, its parameters, and the hypotheses.

The basic assumption of the models and paradigms used in
this study was that the social relationships of men are the most

1. William W. Cooley and Paul R. Lohnes, Multivariate Procedures
iggthe Behavioral Sciences (New York: Wiley, 1962), p. 35.

2. Likert describes this social systems approach in organization-
al study. See: Rensis Likert, The Human Organization: Its Management
B519. Value (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967). For an interesting
critique of this approach see: Victor A. Thompson, Bureaucracy and
Innovation (University, Ala.: University of‘Alabama Press, l969).

For an example of the climate approach to innovation study see:
George H. Litwin, ”Climate and Motivation: An Experiemental Study,"

Taguri and Litwin, eds. Organizational Climate (Boston: Harvard
Graduate School of Business Administration, 1968), pp. 169—19Lt.

 

 

 

 

 

ivartant variables '
innovation bEhaVior'
tave it could "911 b
undated. FOP examp
used here used the 1‘
Alan Smith while 0th
which was first vali
nifty years ago-
This outda
review of psychoanal
cfagiven time and
are transformations
if literature for th
Etagehent studies,
smiles, were all it.
fittest and the und
sitvlt lead to more
will are from a
“it“? were develops
tidillv and possil
31- Levenson shov

{its ‘ - .
"llnlstte mechai
h.
eathtough a comm
1

 

 

 

18
important variables to consider in explaining participation and
innovation behavior. This imposed some limits on the study. Further-
more it could well be that these models and paradigms are becoming
outdated. For example, one of the innovation adoption paradigms
used here used the rational—economic model of man which dates from
Adam Smith while other paradigms and models used the social man model
which was first validated in studies of society as it existed forty
or fifty years ago.
This outdating of models was explored by Levensonl in his
review of psychoanalytic thought. Models or paradigms are reflections
of a given time and place, he says, and as such ”all these systems

are transformations of each other.“2

This can be seen in the review
of literature for this study where communication models,
management studies, innovation studies, participation studies, role
studies, were all interlocked in their views of the variables of
interest and the underlying assumptions. Although this interlocking
flwuld lead to more validity and reliability, if the persons
muveyed are from a period of history different from the time the
moifls were developed, tested, and validated, it might well be that
Validity, and possibly reliability, and hence generalizability, would
fall. Levenson showed how psychoanalysis itself went through a
deterministic mechanical model, much like the rational—economic model,
then through a communication model suggested by the success of the
application of knowledge to work in other vocations, to a new model,
1.Edgar S. Levenson, The Fallacy of Understanding. an inquiry

into the changing structure of wpsychoanalysis (New York: Basic Books,
1972).

 

2. ibid., p. 52.

 

 

 

nameless as yet, but
nication along the l

structuralism of Lev

gun
Chapter 1
vast'ne lack of eVid
tutinuing education
sionais in knowledge
urine this associa
ticigation, innovati
-l situational vari
ranchers. Following
definitions and a gl
late of the scope
Chapter 2
lit the variables e
Ell theoretical and
will.“ of partici
lllll‘c‘ltiables, and
Chapter 3

fig .
mud}. togelher w

\

Eightnasnau Mc
(levlonk: Bantzliid i
“talk Claude Lgvl
:rk: Basic Bot
.Jean Piaget

 

 

 

 

19
nameless as yet, but appearing to depend upon changes in human commu—
nication along the lines suggested by Marshall McLuhan1 and the

structuralism of Levi—Strauss2 and Piaget.3

SUMMARY AND OUTLINE OF CHAPTERS

 

Chapter 1 has stated that the area of concern for the study
was the lack of evidence for a association between participation in
continuing education and innovative behavior among employed profes—
sionals in knowledge organizations. The purpose of the study was to
examine this association with a range of selected variables of par—
ticipation, innovative behavior, role orientations, reference groups,
and situational variables among a sample of urban elementary school
teachers. Following the statement of concern and purpose, general
definitions and a glossary of terms are presented and a brief review
is made of the scope and limitations of the study.

Chapter 2 contains the review of the literature concerned
wiflithe variables examined in this study. The literature contained
both theoretical and empirical evidence concerning the interrela—
tionships of participation in continuing education, innovative behavior,
role variables, and situational variables.

Chapter 3 contains the propositions and hypotheses used in
Hm study together with definitions of the variables in operational
-~‘.d:fMarshall—leuhan; Understanding Media (New York: McGraw—Hill,
1954); ‘ and Quentin Fiore, The Medium i§_thg Massage
(New Yo???“§§fi¥ém, 1967), p. 64. -¢_

2. Claude Levi—Strauss, Structural Anthropology

(New York: BaSic Books, 1963).
3. Jean Piaget, Structuralism (New York: Basic Books, 1963).

 

 

 

 

 

terns, development
statistical bases f
Chapter
including a descrip
and tests of the hy
Chapter
reached, Observatic

nnthen research.

 

 

 

 

20

terms, development and administration of the instrument, and the
statistical bases for organizing, testing, and interpreting the data.
Chapter 4 has the resu1ts of the analysis of the data,
including a description of the sample, basic data for each variable,
and tests of the hypotheses.
Chapter 5 has a summary of the study, conclusions
reached, observations about the study, and suggestions for

further research.

 

 

Introduction
______

This chapt
sonvhich this inve
tistoveved concernin
;anitipation in con

trientations and ref

:fviat is meant by
review covers Innove
situations and a nun
tion and innovation

C‘Fgenization.

Next atten
-ensources which ‘

rel ‘ -
etzonshlps betwet

the '

re 15 a section
zen
' Small and organ
rel

dad to innovati
:Wmdl‘y of the SQ

.. the literature 1,

 

 

 

CHAPTER 2

THE BACKGROUND OF THE INVESTIGATION
Introduction

This chapter reviews the background of theory and research
upon which this investigation is based, covering what has been
discovered concerning the relationships between the major variables:
participation in continuing education, innovative behavior, role
orientations and reference groups, and influence of source of informa—
tion as it affects innovation. The review is begun with a description
of what is meant by participation in continuing education. Then the
review covers Innovation Situation Behavior in free and forced adoption
situations and a number of studies of associations between participa4
tion and innovation among professionalized employees in a knowledge
Organization.

Next attention is given to role orientations and communica—
timnsources which theory and evidence suggest are likely to modify the
relationships between participation and innovation. Following this
fimre is a section on situational variables, including demographics
Personal, and organizational factorS, found in other studies to be
Itlated to innovative behavior. Each section of the chapter contains
a SIm‘mary 0f the section and the chapter ends with a general summary

Of the literature reviewed.

21

 

PARTIt
lescri tion
Particina‘

variable. It was I“
extent to which a t
of continuing educa
opinion as represen
activities of an ed

:‘nein first profess

viii

. e seeking infor
:ncrease their know

gtattices.

Each of t

aromation, itself

g-lgtam. As source

the. e
l SVStem, conti

a(Fla-system, cont‘

«1
was -
SlllCdtlon was

:nentation and Pe'

Lev .
€13 0T Continui'

Particip

idem.
’(2 varttcsp

 

 

 

22

PARTICIPATION IN CONTINUING EDUCATION

 

Description

Participation in continuing education was the first and major
variable. It was represented by a set of self—reported measures of the
extent to which a teacher respondent participated in a number of forms
of continuing education. These were selected on the basis of panel
opinion as representative of the range of possible and probable
activities of an educational nature that teachers, after receiving
their first professional degree were likely to have taken part in
while seeking information and training to further their skills and
increase their knowledge of possible alternatives to prevailing
practices.

Each of these activities, while serving as a channel of

information, itself came from a source, the sponsoring agency of the

 

program. As sources the sponsoring agencies were classified as either
intra—system, controlled within the employing school system, or
extra-system, controlled outside the employing school system. This
classification was used when studying the modifying effects of
orientation and reference groups.
Levels of Continuing Education

Participation was measured on three levels of increasing
Specificity with regard to area and topic. The levels were:
(1) participation in Non—Vocational Continuing Education, a set of
eleven cultural, enrichment, or general adult education activities, not
directly concerned with professional matters or subjects in the class—

room; (2) participation in General Continuing Professional Education,

 

 

in-sewice training
not limited as to m
exception of those a
(ll participation i1
in—service professil
innovation (in this
as to node of prese
In this 5
lion," "continuing
certain amount of 1
Although
Z”ilcation would afi
Kill have had some

names. More in:

m-

into a teacher
sniynay also aff‘
Eis profession.

In this l
Eilcation were des
ill General Contin

dung Prefession

Eons
vary as to s

l. 0
,f‘ . ”Patio
Ellen 1n Chapter r

 

23

in—service training directly related to professional work in teaching,
not limited as to mode of presentation or as to subject matter with the
exception of those activities included under Specific COPE; and
(3) participation in Specific Continuing Professional Education,
in—service professional training, limited to a specific subject or
innovation (in this case a new mathematics curriculum) but not limited
as to mode of presentation.1 ‘

In this study, the words, "participation," ”continuing educa-
tion,” "continuing professional education," and ”COPE,” have a
certain amount of interchangeability.

Although it might not seem that Non—Vocational Continuing
Education would affect teacher behavior, many of the activities might
well have had some effect upon teaching practices of elementary
teachers. More importantly, personal and situational factors which
motivate a teacher to voluntarily undertake general self—improvement
study may also affect the teacher's tendency toward innovation in
his profession.
Summary

In this section three types of participation in continuing
education were described: (1) Non—Vocational Continuing Education,
(2) General Continuing Professional Education, and (3) Specific Con—
tinuing Professional Education. It was pointed out that the three

forms vary as to specificity of subject matter and area of concern.

 

1. Operational definitions for this and succeeding variables are
given in Chapter 3.

 

 

This SeCt
organizations and d
situation behavior
hvvledge OlpfiimizadE
for expanding the C
ions of such inn0\

The Inno‘

\
inlnovledge organ:
such as farmers or
viiiout regard to
hikers, who funet
standardized procel
innovation from of
“lien undertakin

It has ‘9
ions for employed
so
Professionals
Eovnd bv tine cons
is the required an
vine the use of a
he by higher autl

been
Preceded by a

\

- Regens, <

 

 

 

24

INNOVATIVE BEHAVIOR

Introduction

This section reviews the innovation situation in knowledge
organizations and discusses the various possible forms of innovation
situation behavior that can be used to investigate innovation in such
knowledge organizations. The section has two parts: one, a rationale
for expanding the concept of innovative behavior, and two, the possible
forms of such innovative behavior.

Expanding the Concept

The Innovation Situation. Innovation situations for workers

 

in knowledge organizations differ from those of independent workers,
such as farmers or physicians. These latter can adopt innovations
without regard to institutional controls. For employed professional
workers, who function as members of closely linked institutional teams,
standardized procedures and the necessity of gaining approval for
innovation from others, both superiors and peers, make change a more
complex undertaking.

It has been postulated that there are two generalized situa—
tions for employed professional vis—a~vis innovation.l In the first
the professionals are free to use or not use an innovation and are not
bound by time constraints for adoption. The second general situation
is the required and simultaneous adoption situation (forced use)
where the use Of an innovation is mandated both as to time and level of
use by higher authority or majority decision. The mandate may have

been preceded by a consensus among the leading professionals in the

1. Rogers, pp. cit., pp. 9—lO.

 

 

organization-
studies a person is
innovation before sc
fenence in time of i
innovativeness of ti
raise problems. Fii
unit in using the v
viii. some suspicion
The secon:
landons as hopeleS:
first use is set bv
Organizations where

39% situationS, as
mantis in activiti

needed which does n
noble in both free
the existence of a
hivh is all that

’
innovative behaViOY

It was pr

,

ti -
tuition Bethiop
I

) Se, C

in n.

 

 

 

 

 

25

organization.

 

Concept of Innovative Behavior. Normally in innovation
studies a person is said to be more innovative if he begins using an
innovation before someone else with the same social system. This dif-
ference in time of first use is commonly employed as the measure of
innovativeness of the person. However both the term and the measure
raise problems. First there is an implication of the existence of a
trait in using the word "innovativeness,” and trait studies are viewed
with some suspicion among many research authorities.1

The second problem is that the traditional time measurement
abandons as hopeless studies in the forced use situation where time of
first use is set by others. Furthermore there may be situations in
organizations where measures of time might not be meaningful even in

free situations, as for example, restrictions imposed by cyclic

 

changes in activities. It was felt therefore, that a new indicator is
needed which does not depend upon time of first use. It should be
usable in both free and forced use situations. It should not imply
the existence of a trait, but should be based upon approval of change
which is all that, phenomenologically speaking, innovativeness or
innovative behavior can mean.
It was proposed that an appropriate new term was "Innovation

Situation Behavior,” by which is meant the degree of acceptance,
approval, or use, or all three, in an innovation situation of a

1. Phillip E. Vernon, Personality Assessment (London: Methuen,
1963), p. 236. "In thirty years and more of trying to measure traits,
no one has produced a battery of tests which a majority of other

psychologists find sufficently convincing to be worth using for
practical purposes...."

 

particular innovati<
to behavior in a gi‘
is semantically neu‘
forced use situatiol
terms are approxima‘
innovative behavior
Indicators of lnnov
Two types
studies: one, repor
Tie'nasis for selec
satiation. Reporte
aggropriately used
iffective neasurernt
tinnhut may also 1
Reported
Etihsi employs t
355, “mi

e the sect
sing at a given t
that time in his Sc
higher than the me.
ichavior and those
:his approach is u
Sim Use is often
tenure has employ

"p
ventral p
HHOVat'
1C

lie .
0” Interest if

 

26
particular innovation or set of innovations. Since it relates simply
to behavior in a given situation, it avoids implications of traits and
is semantically neutral, which should make it useful when investigating
forced use situations. As employed in this study, the following
terms are approximately ecuivalent: Innovation Situation Behavior,
innovative behavior, or ISB.

Indicators of Innovation Situation Behavior

 

Two types of indicators can be used in innovation situation
studies: one, reported use of an innovation, and two, affective scales.
The basis for selection would be appropriateness to the innovation
situation. Reported use of an innovative practice by self or others is
appropriately used as an indicator in the free choice situation.
Affective measurements are appropriately used in the forced use situa—
tion but may also be used in the free choice situation.

Reported Use Method. There are two varieties of this method.

 

The first employs the traditional innovativeness measure, time of first
use, while the second employs the number of innovations a person is
using at a given time in comparison to the average number in use at

that time in his social system. In the second variety those that are
lfigher than the mean are deemed to be exhibiting high innovation
behavior and those using less than the mean, low innovation behavior.
Hus approach is useful in school innovation studies where time of

first use is often the beginning of a school term. In this study this
measure was employed and was indicated by scores on an index of

"General Innovation Use." It was measured by ascertaining the level of

use or interest in use of any of 15 innovations current in the school

 

system, that is, P1
the administration
Affective
he presumed to he 1
use would be simile
tong individuals .‘
npeof measure is
effect he considerl
indicators can sucl
review of the inno‘
Es conducted.
Adeption
user goes when dec
715 test common pa

1- Aw s
fires

lacks inf
- intere5t~
in the id
Evaluatio
'10 try it
Lei on
scale to
5‘ AdOption

We

M

c.)

This par

‘ 5
time! goes thrt

r a
semblance to Dev

nap};x Everett r
\‘\ ross~c1
n of F;

l IOWa

if Diffusio
i
Mtg, Iona

 

 

 

27
system, that is, practices considered to be innovative at the time of
the administration of the instrument.

Affective Methods. In the forced use situation since all may
be presumed to be using the innovation under study, time and extent of
use would be similar for all, so one can only establish rankings
among individuals in terms of affect toward the innovation. Since this
type of measure is not traditional, two questions arise: one, can such
affect be considered a form of innovative behavior, and two, by what
indicators can such affect be measured? To answer these questions a
review of the innovation adoption paradigms used in previous research
was conducted.

Adoption has been defined as the process through which the
user goes when deciding whether to accept or reject an innovation.1
The most common paradigm of this process consists of five stages:

1. Awareness. The individual knows of the new idea but
lacks information about it;

2. Interest—Information. The individual becomes interested
in the idea and seeks more information about it;

3. Evaluation—Application—Decision. The individual makes a
mental application of the new idea and makes a decision
to try it or not;

H. Trial. The individual uses the practice on a small
scale to validate its workability;

5. Adoption. The individual makes use of the
new practice on a full scale.2

 

 

 

This paradigm, developed to explain or describe the stages
a farmer goes through in adopting new farm practices bears a

resemblance to Dewey's description of the thinking process and owes

l. Everett M. Rogers and Floyd Shoemaker, Diffusion 9f_Innova—
tions: A Cross—Cultural Approach (in press), Ch.
fin‘The North Central Rural Sociology Subcommittee for the Study
Of Diffusion of Farm Practices, How Farm People Accept New Ideas
(Ames, Iowa, Iowa Agricultural. Extension Service, 1955), p. 3.

 

 

 

 

 

some debt to vogue
It assumes that adc
However this has be

has proposed a para

er four may be 30:
occur in approxima‘
through these func'
quickly than other:
tier either of th
reported use netho
this studv.

Both of
describe objective
iinlicit in the f
are information,"
35 attitude format

If pare
EPevific innovatic
Signed that there

nd t
screed Users '1

than“
M. p
Ersons

l
~. ~- n
“lehant aiganem
l .

2.

 

 

 

28
some debt to vogue descriptions of the pattern of scientific thought.1
It assumes that adoption proceeds in an orderly, scientific manner.
However this has been challenged by Rogers as too mechanical and he

has proposed a paradigm using four functions:

I

1. Knowledge

2. Attitude Formation and Change,
3. Decision,

4. Confirmation.2

All four may be going on at once although it would be usual for them to
occur in approximately chronological sequence. The person who moves
through these functions or through the steps of the first paradigm more
mfickly than others is deemed to be the more innovative. Adoption,
under either of these paradigms, may be measured objectively by the
reported use method, e.g., the ”General Innovation Use" measure of

this study.

Both of these paradigms, although they were set up to
describe objective behaviors, contain an affective element. It is
implicit in the first paradigm, in the words ”interest" and "seeks
more information,” and is explicit in the second with its function
of attitude formation.

If paradigms such as the above can use affect towards a
specific innovation as a measure of innovative behavior it could be
argued that there exists an isomorphism of behavior between'the free
and forced users in that both are likely to exhibit forms of affective
behavior. Persons in both situations who come to favor the
"'""TE‘ESEE“BE; §j Logic, the_TheorV 9f Inquiry (New York:

Rinehart and Winston, 1938).
2. Rogers and Shoemaker, loc. cit.

 

 

 

 

 

innovation, whether
mbeefluhiting com
That measu
both free and forced
l’rathmhl and Bloom
meimmvatiom proce
mmeofan inmovati
units himself to :7

Tmsameasure of at

WOW can be call

grocess of intermali

K

Receiving
(Attem

Respondl

Valuing

Organiza

:1 Chara

A Compar
the amp
tee and

l Davida l<
gE Heati

 

 

 

29

innovation, whether it is required use or free adoption, could be said
to be exhibiting comparable forms of innovation situation behavior.

That measurement of such affective behavior is possible in
both free and forced situations can be supported by reference to the
Krathwohl and Bloom taxonomy of the affective domain.1 In their terms
the innovation process is a learning process where a person becomes
aware of an innovation, develops responses to it, values it, and
cmmfits himself to it; in their terms this is called internalization.2
Thus a measure of attitude formation about an innovation based on this
taxonomy can be called an ”innovation internalization” measure. This

process of internalization has strong parallels with the paradigms of

 

 

 

Taxonomy Levels3 Iowa Stagesu Rogers' Functions5
Receiving Awareness Knowledge
(Attending)
Interest-
Information— Attitude
Responding Evaluation— Formation
Application— and
Decision Change
Valuing Trial Decision
Adoption Confirmation
Organization
Characterization

 

Figne l. A comparison of the taxonomy of the affective domain with
the adoption paradigms of both the North Central Subcommit—
tee and Rogers.

1. David B.,Krathwohl, Benjamin S. Bloom, and Bertram B. Masia,
Taxonomy gf_Educational Objectives: The_Affective Domain
(New York: David McKay, 1964), pp. 24—33.

2. ibid., p. 27 ff.

3. ibid., p. 35.

4. North Central Subcommittee, log: git.

5. Rogers and Shoemaker, log: git.

 

 

 

 

 

 

adoption already di
taxonomy, shown in
udsts and affectiv
innovative behavior
In order
necessary to find m
Figure 2 the taxonc
listing the subscal
’ut‘nis study to me
inovation. These
along the taxonomy
Another i
Roan be placed or

..' | . .
~~°l,'for1t is a

evocation change i‘
mess of the tax
CTole since it you

:oeoifio innovatie

The thir
trendy been descr
rtouted use metht
Internalization, C

3&5qu
my one 3

 

 

30
adoption already discussed. A comparison of these paradigms and the
taxonomy, shown in Figure 1. supports the argument that an isomorphism
exists and affective internalization can be considered a form of
innovative behavior.

In order to measure placement on the taxonomy it was
necessary to find measures reflecting the particular levels. In
Figure 2 the taxonomy levels are presented with a parallel column
listing the subscales of the Innovation Internalization Scale, used
hithis study to measure affective behavior towards a specific
innovation. These subscales were adopted from Lin and were located
along the taxonomy in terms of increasing internalization.l

Another affect measure of ISB is General Change Orientation.2
It can be placed on the fifth level of the taxonomy, ”Characteriza—
tion," for it is a generalized mental set expressing approval of
education change in general. According to the internalization
process of the taxonomy it would have been developed on an earlier
cycle since it would probably precede the internalization of a
specific innovation.

The third measure of ISB, General Innovation Use, has
already been described as an objective measure of ISB using the
reported use method of measurement. In contrast to Innovation
Internalization, General Innovation Use, and General Change Orientation
measure only one level of the taxonomy each, both at the upper end.

l. Nan Lin, ”Innovation Internalization in a Formal Organiza—
tionfl’(unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, 1966).

2. Nan Lin, Donald Leu, Everett M. Rogers, and Donald F.

Schwartz, The Diffusion 9f_an_lnnovation iE_Three Michigan High
Schools (East Lansing: Michigan State University, l966), PP. 67—69.

M

 

 

 

-————--——-—"-

Taxonomy

L Receiving ‘
mu
1.2 Willin‘

receiv
1'3 Contro
ottent

t ResnoEding

respon
2.2 willin
reSPOn
2.3 8atiSf
reSPOE

3. yaluin‘é
ment
value
32 Prefel
valUe
3.3 Commi1
value
o orggnéEEEI
v.1 Concei
value
v.2 Organi
5 value
. Character
EETEEEEF
12 Chara
value

domain t
Scale.
hd
tedeneral Chan
no it is a gene
uerol Innovation
or'
u is based in tl

i? .
“Bettye measur
,e

 

31

 

Taxonomy

l. Receiving (Attending)
1.1 Awareness
1.2 Willingness to
receive
Controlled
Attention
Responding
2.1 Acquiesence in
responding
2.2 Willingness to
respond
2.3 Satisfaction in
response

l.

(A)

Valuing
3.1 Acceptance of
value
3.2 Preference for
value
3.3 Commitment to
value
Organization
v.1 Conceptualization of
value
u.2 Organization of a
value system
Characterization by a value

 

5.l Generalized set
5.2 Characterization bV a
value

Innovation Internalization

Accuracy of information
about general innovation
in use

Accuracy of information
about specific innovation

Perception of type of
adoptionhprocess
Vertical communication
about innovation
Perceived legitimacy of
vertical communication
Opinion leadership about
specific innovation

Perceived adequacy of
information about innovation
Perceived student

benefits

Commitment to the

specific innovation

 

Figure 2. A comparison of the levels in the taxonomy of the affective
domain to the subscales of the Innovation Internalization

Scale.

mule General Change Orientation, as mentioned, is at the 5.1 level

since it is a generalized set of high value on educational change,

General Innovation Use would be a measure of commitment to innovation

bUt is based in this study on an objective measure rather than an

affective measure such as in internalization-

 

 

 

 

 

W

This 58‘
behavior in an inn
houledge OPEaniza‘
rationalized the 11‘
in preference to f
ointing out that
organizational emp
his ovm time and 1
often the level at
Itvas pointed out
isnote behavior ir
Scouts. First, it
iiestionable in tt
‘ade comparisons <
ElTuition impossil
3: nos then Silage:

r .
idiom-“late concev

Tampa 05 the Sitv

fill

95% innovativ

°3 behavior that

out that inuovati

lively, throngh 5.

measures.

Three

Sill
iii) Panging fr

 

 

32

Summary

This section dealt with the question of how to describe

behavior in an innovation situation of employed professionals in

knowledge organizations. It began with a conceptual framework which

rationalized the use of the concept "Innovation Situation Behavior,”
in preference to the traditional concept, "innovativeness,” by

pointing out that there were two possible innovation situations for

organizational employees: one, free, in which a person can determine

his own time and level of use, and two, forced, in which time and
often the level are mandated by higher authority or majority decision.
H'

It was pointed out that the use of innovativeness" as a term to

denote behavior in an organizational situation was unwise on two

counts. First, it implied the existence of a trait, which is

questionable in the eyes of many research authorities. Second, it
made comparisons of acceptance in the simultaneous forced use

situation impossible since time of first use would be meaningless.

It was then suggested that Innovation Situation Behavior was a more
appropriate concept, for it did not imply traits, did emphasize the
nature of the situation and did not deny that people might be more

or less innovative in a forced use Situation. To bring out the range
of behavior that could be included under the new term it was pointed
out that innovation situation behavior can be measured either objec—
tively, through indices of use, or subjectively, through affective
measures.

Three levels of specificity of ISB were examined in this

study, ranging from the lowest and least specific level measured by

 

 

 

General Change Orie
nddle level of SP6
involving use Of a
fit, Innovation Int
adopted, mandated
that of the categc:
Iron the most gene:
Central Continuing
Specific Continuin
This bein
inoomtinuing educ
Each of three leve
Looting at this re
Tfaohanee to ”tee

associated with it

on an associativ

Into

.oduotiou
The purp
evidential bases

‘31 continuing edu
“meltllal Basis
Inspecti

n
levied that all

litio
~h ..
and lthVi

 

 

33
General Change Orientation, involving broad attitudes, through a
middle level of specificity measured by General Innovation Use,
involving use of a designated group of innovations, to the most speci—
fic, Innovation Internalization, restricted to a single simultaneouslv

adopted, mandated innovation. This range ofispecificity paralleled

that of the categories of participation in continuing education,
from the most general, Non—Vocational Continuing Education, through
General Continuing Professional Education, to the most specific,
Specific Continuing Professional Education.

This being the case, the association between participation
in continuing education and innovative behavior could be studied at
each of three levels and across three levels. It was hoped that by
looking at this relationship at these levels there would be more
of a chance to test the general hypothesis that participation is
associated with innovative behavior. The reasons for expecting
such an association are presented in the following section.

THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN PARTICIPATION IN CONTINUING
EDUCATION AND INNOVATION SITUATION BEHAVIOR

Introduction

The purpose of this section was to review the conceptual and
eVidential bases for expecting an association between participation
in continuing education and innovative behavior.

Conceptual Basis '

”Inspection of the paradigms of adoption and the taxonomy
revealed that all assumed a relationship between the gaining of infor—

mation and innovative behavior; that innovation behavior cannot

 

 

 

Proceed without inf
aconceptual basis
education should be
tions have been fou
A positi

education and innov
in are free of 01”:
tong farmers a p01
cf continuing educa

later adoption of '

grograns related t

aiooted innovation

however

none, in Buley‘

Eetveen school dis

36divine) and star”

35 personal librai
related in a study

\

nus n1. Thomas B
..s, iioul‘nal 0
liffugiimcooue E
~ of
3| h Kno

 

 

3H

pPOceed without information. It was assumed that this would constitute

a conceptual basis for expecting that participation in continuing
education should be associated with innovative behavior. Such associa—
tions have been found in other vocations and these are reviewed below.
Participation in Continuing Education and Innovative Behavior

A positive relationship between participation in continuing
education and innovative behavior has been found to exist among people

who are free of organizational restraints. For example Averill found

among farmers a positive correlation between participation in programs
of continuing education concerned with farming innovations and the
later adoption of the innovations.1 Verner found that attenders of

programs related to farming practices were more likely to have

adopted innovations than non—attenders.2

However evidence among teachers is much less direct, as for
example, in Buley's study where he found a positive relationship
between school district adaptability (his measure of innovative
behavior) and staff members' years of training, travel, and possession

of personal libraries.3 Achieved educational level was found to be

related in a study of high school teachers.Li A similar finding was

1. Thomas B.-Averill, ”Educational Participation and Innovative—
neSSa"(Journal of Educational Research, 60:10, 1967), pp. HHS—4W9.

2. Coolie Verner and John Welsh, ”A Study of Two Methods for the
Diffusion of Knowledge,” (Adult Education, 12, 1962), pp. 221~237.

3. H. C. Buley, "Personnel Characteristics and Staff Patterns
Associated with the Quality of Education,” cited by A. Etzioni,
'Wrganizational Control Structure," James G. March, ed., Handbook of
Organizations (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965), p. 657. "“

Lin, gt} a1}, 22: git), p. 96.

 

 

 

 

made by Chesler in
studies did not in
and the indirect E
In cont

tobe related to 1
results showed a g
:cvards innovation
of the resistance
in in the middle
lead to either us

It won

05 the associatio

innovation Situat

3‘5 the evidence d

POSitive associat

Both a

3notation 0; 1,

Several studies <
letteen narticioi
It vas concluded
pation and innov
other employed p

dd a
.iec

 

35

made by Chesler in a study of elementary teachers.l However these

studies did not involve any direct investigation of continuing education
and the indirect attention they gave it was relatively trivial.
In contrast to the above, Anderson found innovation resistance

to be related to training and experience.2 However examination of the

results showed a group of beginning teachers, initially neutral
towards innovation, who later moved towards either of the two ends
of the resistance scale after achieving tenure, leaving only a

few in the middle. Apparently experience alone does not always

lead to either use or non—use of innovations.

It would appear on the basis of these studies that the nature
of the association between participation in continuing education and
innovation situation behavior of teachers is an open issue, for none
of the evidence directly supports or refutes the expectation of a
positive association between them.

Summary

Both adoption paradigms and the taxonomy indicated that
acquisition of information was essential to innovative behavior.
Several studies of both free agents and schools showed an association
between participation in continuing education and innovative behavior.
It was concluded that the existence of an association between partici—

pation and innovation is an open issue with teachers, and perhaps

other employed professionals, since the studies reviewed did not

directly bear on this issue.

1. Mark A. Chesler, ”Social Structure and Innovation in Elemen—
tary Schools,” (unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ann Arbor:

University of Michigan, 1966)-
2. James B. Anderson, Bureaucracy in Education (Baltimore:

John Hopkins Press, 1958), P- lu5'

 

 

 

 

 

MODIFICI
~I_N—0

The evid
ucst Dart, adequat
situation of teach
organization. It
meld modify the a
cation and innova‘e
:siels which presu
crientations and I
Euth pauticipatior
Eehavior in the kr
immunisation Node
\\

Three c<
him in this even
Salient motives,
‘ taken into ac

politeness. This

:0 be 6 relevant

Rogers has hypoth
mimePfilliteness.”
SWAPS that migt
It assumes That 1

1- Ho

2 Hand;

Rogeps é

 

36

MODIFICATION OF THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN PARTICIPATION
IN CONTINUING EDUCATION AND INNOVATIVE BEHAVIOR

Introduction

The evidence cited in the preceding section did not, for the
most part, adequately cover the significant factors which make up the
situation of teachers and other employed professionals in a knowledge
organization. It was assumed that certain factors in such situations
would modify the association between participation in continuing edu—
cation and innovative behavior. This section reviews communication
models which presuppose such modification and identify latent role
orientations and related reference groups as variables likely to modify
both participation in continuing education and innovation situation
behavior in the knowledge organization.

Communication Models

Three communication models bv Hollander offer a starting
point in this examination of modifiers.l

Model I. The first model is the simplest. Only internal
salient motives, that is, personal motives germane to the situation,
are taken into account. A typical example of such a motive is cosmo-
politeness. This motive has been shown in many innovation studies
to be a relevant factor in the adoption of innovation. In fact,
ROgers has hypothesized that ”innovativeness varies directly with

Cosmopoliteness.”2 The model does not take into account any outside

factors that might influence the way in which the message is perceived.

It assumes that the message can be isolated from the social matrix

—~——~——.—..__.__.____
l. Hollander, pp: cit., pp. 153—155.

2. Rogers and Shoemaker, pp: cit., Ch. 2.

 

 

 

mouth "m it ‘
gropagaflda model 2

education-

CO‘

H
:igune 3. Communi

duel.
fivs'tnodel but 1
field of group at
filter informatic
izfomation. The
noun member firs
l'etziovenfeld m

to evaluate the r

\

 

37
through which it was set. It is the traditional advertising or
propaganda model and is often the model for instruction in continuing

education.

 

Communicator——-—+————+ ——————
- Salient Motives

Figure 3. Communication Model I: The One—Way Model.l

 

Model II. This model contains the salient motives of the
first model but in addition places the recipient in a phenomenological
field of group affiliations.2 These group affiliations selectively
filter information in the messages by group—normed evaluations of the
information. The process may either be that the message reaches a

group member first and then is sent on in a modified form, as in the

Katz—Lowenfeld model,3 or a group member simply employs group norms

u

to evaluate the message for his own situation.

 
     

Communicatol % 7 IP o'p'

 

Salient Motives
Group Affiliations

 

Figure 4. Communication Model II: The Two~Step Model.5

1. Hollander, op: cit., p. 153.

2. T. W. Wann, Behaviorism and Phenomenology: Contrasting Bases
£93 Modern Psychology (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 196577"—

3. Katz and Lazarfeld, 92: SEE}, pp. 32—33.

4. Leon Festinger, "Informal Social Communication,” Hollander and
HUNT, eds., Current Perspectives iE_Social Psychology
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1963), p. uls.

5. Hollander, log: 93;;

 

 

 

it postulates tha‘
communicator and
of group affiliat
ten as changing
addition of leedb
Eoth message and
tions and salient

back is indeed 0“

1E

Salient l-iotf

Group Affilf
:igure 5. Commun:

the first two m0l
since, as Sherif
an important var
adaptations were
tions and salien
Variables. This

for '
salient moti

:- Holland
individ Muzafer

u I
to httpal S Own

E ‘ «Me and
‘%
S

 

 

 

 

38
Model III. This model is termed the transactional model for

it postulates that any message involves a two—way transaction between

communicator and recipient. It expands on Model II with the addition

of group affiliation and salient motives to the communicator as

well as changing the message flow from one—way to two—way with the
addition of feedback from the recipient to the communicator. Since
both message and feedback pass through the screening of group affilia—

tions and salient motives, the cognitive content of message and feed—

back is judged on the basis of the respective group norms and motives.

 

 

 

 

 

 

lCommunicator 3 9 ‘4
l
Salient MotivesJ _}

Group Affiliations

 

  
 

Salient Motives
Group Affiliations
Message and Feedback

 

Figure 5. Communication Model III: The Transactional Model.l

Model IV. Although many earlier studies of innovation used
the first two models, most innovation research today uses Model III
since, as Sherif and Sherif state, "...it is clear that the source is
an important variable.”2 However for this investigation a number of
adaptations were made to Model III to show the types of group affilia-
tions and salient-mOtives used in this study as possible modifying

Variables. This new model, Model IV, substitutes role orientations

for salient motives and reference groups for group affiliations.

~___1___.__*,__*~__,
l. Hollander, op. cit., p. 155.
2. Muzafer Sherif and Carolyn w. Sherif, "Attitude as the

Individual's Own Catagories: The Social Judgment Involvement Approach
to Attitude and Attitude Change," Sherif and Sherif, eds., Attitude,

Ego-Involvement, and Change (New York: John Wiley, 1969), p. 132.

 

 

 

hshwsexplicitl
recipient's percep
vhieh action in tu
and reference grou
tomounicator, who

is a ”teacher in a

\fi—‘K
C

5 Source
K
Reference (
Perceptie

3.016 and
Group

'29:. he]
one “(ESSaEES .

12nd. -
. .313 of HOV

BEE-ope
a message

Credibi

53mm; .
Jlg IO Kelm

 

 

 

 

39
It shows explicitly the screening action on the message of the
recipient's perception of the sender's role and reference groups;
which action in turn is based upon the recipient's role orientation
and reference group membership. A similar screen is shown for the
communicator, who has become ”source of COPE” while the recipient

is a ”teacher in an innovation situation.” Messages and feedback

 

 

  

 

_ Source of COPEI'

%_Teacher in innovation situatiod

\r

 

T

 

 
 
   

 

 

 

1—Role Orientation
—Reference Group

 

Role Orientation

l
l
l
‘I
|
l
|
l
|
l
|
Reference Group I

Perception of Other's— LPerception of Other's Role
Role and Reference and Reference Group
Group

 

Messages about
innovation

 

figure 6. Model IV: The Role and Reference Group Model.

become "Messages about innovation.”l Underlying this model is the

hypothesis of Hovland that sources must be trustworthy and credible

before a message can be accepted and used in changes of attitude.2

Credibility of source is the central issue in forced change
according to Kelman.3 He hypothesized that internalization of change

would take place if the change agent, or source, was considered

1. Although the model shows both sides, this study is concerned
only with the right hand side, the situation of a teacher.

2. Carl I. Hovland, Irving L. Janis, and Harold L. Kelly,
Communication and Persuasion (New York: Yale University Press, 1953),
p. 20.
3. Herbert C. Kelman, ”Processes of Opinion Change," (Public

Opinion Quarterly, 25, 1961), pp. 65—66.

 

 

tredflvle. This CPE
communicator, the 5
reference grOUP me}
sin Model IV, th‘
nounsl Since re
siuilar credibilit
are similar.
Pole Orientations
Two rel.
"were examined in
if these orientat
previous organize
differences in en
found to be rela'
35 PartiCipation
By rol
and lovalities t
context of his E
“rations: "manif;

idle, and "late'

h‘lli influence

 

 

no

credible. This credibility is aided, according to Hovland, if the
communicator, the source, has group affiliations, or as in Model IV,
reference group memberships, that are perceived by the recipient, or
as in Model IV, the teacher, to be similar to his own reference
groups.1 Since reference groups are based upon role orientation,
similar credibility should be extended when the role orientations
are similar.
iRole Orientations and Reference Groups

Two related role orientations and related reference groups
were examined in this study: professional and bureaucratic. Examination
of these orientations and their reference groups is consistent with

previous organizational research in which they were found to explain

 

 

 

2
differences in employed professionals' behavior. They have been

found to be related to differences in innovative behavior and in rates

 

of participation in continuing education.

By role orientation is meant the complex of norms, values,
and loyalities that guide a person in his decision making within the
context of his social group. Merton proposed two types of role orien—
tations: "manifest," those consciously held as essential and public to a
role, and ”latent,” those unconscious sets of norms and values which
will influence action when not circumscribed by regulations, tradition,
-—~—___....~_._._;..l_

l Hovland, op. cit. p. 135.

2. William Kornhauser, Scientists in Industry. Conflict and Acco—
modations (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1962); Erwin O.
Smigel, The Wall Street Lawyer (Glencoe: The Free Press, 1964);

Joseph Ben—David, "Professional Role of the Physician in Bureaucratic

Medicine: A Study in Role Conflicts,” (Human Relations, 11, 1968),
pp. 255—274.

 

 

 

on other nestrict
Referent

judgment and eval‘
heuhenship in a g
orientations simi
and values of the
tions of the othf
activity in a ref
upon role orient
noun, the exten‘
based measure wh
role orientation
the:

are the role ori
30 he sub~types
The local~cosn01
T(tunies' EeLEin:
according TO Th
looalS, if outs
1°39“ cosmopol
because they he
(Glennie-Rifle?
- e

2- Mark
Cage: Rand
3- Peter
(San hanCiscn
“- Mento
5' ROger

(Chi

 

 

 

#1

or other restrictions.1

Reference groups are groups to which a person will refer for
judgment and evaluation of actions and ideas (shown in Model II).
Membership in a group depends upon a person holding or developing role
orientations similar to those of other members of the group. The norms
and values of the group are acquired by a person "through the expecta—
tions of the other group members” in a socialization process.2 Since
actiVity in a reference group is a form of behavior which is dependent
upon role orientations similar to those of the other members of the
group, the extent or level of activity can be used as an objectively
based measure when it is desired to examine the modifying effect of
role orientation on innovation and participation.

Those used in study. Although bureaucratic and professional
are the role orientations used in this study, they are considered
to be sub—types of the local—cosmopolite pair of role orientations.3
The local—cosmopolite orientations were developed by Merton from

Tonnies' gemeinschaft and gessellschaft and dichotimize subjects

 

according to the center of their values; if within the community,
. . . . u .
locals, 1f outSide the community, then cosmopolites. According to

Rogers cosmopolites are more likely to approve of change than locals

5

because they have wider sources of information. The differences between

1. Robert Merton, Social Theory and_Socia1 Structure, 2nd ed.
(Glencoe: The Free Press, 1957), pp. 287-840.

2. Mark Abrahamson, The_Professional in_thg_0rganization
(Chicago: Rand McNally, 1967), p. 63.

3. Peter M. Blau and Richard Scott, Formal Organizations
(San Francisco: Chandler, 1962): p. 71.

4. Merton, op: cit., pp. 393—907.

5. Rogers and Shoemaker, 92: city, Ch. 3.

 

 

 

ml-cosnopolite
iatteu's nestricti
vocation. Several
iiiferentiation of
Weber's
the basis for des<
ieference to auth(
characteristic of
The pne:
anihuted to a s
it list any sing
that the British
fist of character

4%“ To practice

zeitgoveenment . E
The thf
int of governant
innovations are 1
without having ti
56?; that it is
:ust give his as
filament as to t

1
trills. :

““iVeusit

‘ Max Wei
‘ H- Ha
y Presg
[u 2' Howdl‘d
uhfilfiiiood Clif

3. w
. J_
mMOPk: Putn]

 

 

 

1+2

local-cosmopolite and bureaucratic—professional arise from the

latter's restriction to organized or institutionalized patterns within a
vocation. Several sources have contributed to a description and
differentiation of bureaucratic and professional.

Weber's theories on organization and his ideal typology form
the basis for describing the bureaucratic orientation, including the
deference to authority, the specialization, and the rule—bound behavior
characteristic of this orientation.1

The present image of the professional cannot be so readily
attributed to a single theorist such as Weber. Vollmer and Mills do
not list any single authority as a principal theorist.2 Reader claims
that the British Medical Act of 1858 contained the first legislated
list of characteristics, including entrance only by examination, a
right to practice without interruption (tenure), and internal
self-government.3

The third item by Reader brings out an important difference,
that of governance, which is crucial in knowledge organizations when
innovations are being adopted. A bureaucrat can perform his duties
without having to internally assent to the rightness of each particular
act; that it is required by a superior is enough. But a professional
must give his assent since what he is being paid for is his trained
judgment as to the correctness of the course of action. From this

1. Max Weber, The_Theory gf_Social and_Economic Organization,
trans.: N. H. Harrison and Talcott Parsons (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1947), pp. 329—340.

2. Howard M. Vollmer and Donald L. Mills, Professionalization
(Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice—Hall, 1966), pp. 1—46.

3. W. J. Reader, Life ip_Victorian England
(New York: Putnam, 196”), pp. 129—131.

 

 

 

 

difference arise
istics between bu
Accordi
continua of expe<
individualizatior
ed equally to all
sistence that th«
specialization b
nouledge wherei
on the job as so
19011 theoretical
authority flowi r
The source of a
tuition or offf

:ctuority for a

The d

tureaucrat and

have been Pit-lat
COSDOpolite and

ideas .2 30th 1'

S q'

sources and by

(columbug
9R1 Q j": Roge:

\‘a pp.

Ronal
01h

 

y.___——

43
difference arise most of the distinctions in decision making character—
istics between bureaucrat and professional.

1 these distinctions fall into three

According to Corwin,
continua of expectations. The first is that of standardization versus
individualization. Rules and policies for the bureaucrat must be appli-
ed equally to all clients; this conflicts with the professional’s in—
sistence that the individual client's needs come first. The second is
specialization based upon practice versus specialization based on
knowledge wherein actions of the bureaucrat are based upon practice
on the job as contrasted to actions of the professional which are based
upon theoretical knowledge. Thirdly they differ on the basis of
authority flowing from office versus authority flowing from peers.

The source of a bureaucrat's authorization for action comes from his
position or office in contrast to that of the professional whose
authority for action is granted by peers and associates.

Studies of the association between_participation,
innovative behavior, and orientations or reference groups

 

 

The differences between local and cosmopolite,
bureaucrat and professional, in terms of their innovative behavior,
have been related, hypothetically, to the increased possibility for the
cosmopolite and professional of coming into contact with different
ideas.2 Both have extended contacts with others from outside the local
social groups; both will seek information from a wider variety of
sources; and both have higher levels of education, especially in

(Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 1966), p. SH.
2. Rogers and Shoemaker, op: cit., Ch. 10; Blau and Scott,
2P; Cit, pp. 67-72.

 

abstract Subject
' studie
divided into 931
according to the
adopters were f‘
scientific 61b0111
the very late ac
folk practices .
Profe:
ireaucrats. C.
dents of school

uatics earlier
Gottlieb and Br
villing to inno
Evans
innovative, hac‘
Oriented to out
Parti
COSIHopoliteness
hiEher than rm
1- Rogers

2- North I
( - Richar.

 

 

an
abstract subjects.l
’ Studies by rural sociologists have shown that farmers, when

divided into early and late adopter categories, will also be divided
according to the local/cosmpolite orientation paradigm. Early
adopters were found to be cosmopolite, to have wide interests, to be
scientific about farming, and to be venturesome, whereas the laggards,
the very late adopters, were local, narrow, cautious, and followed
folk practices in farming.2

Professionals appear to have higher rates of change than
bureaucrats. Carlson found that professionally oriented superinten—
dents of schools were more likely to have instituted modern mathe—
matics earlier than the more bureaucratic superintendents.3
Gottlieb and Brookover found profeSsionally minded teachers more
willing to innovate in educational television usage.u

Evans and Leppman found cosmopolite professors were more
innovative, had a wider overall view of the university, were
oriented to outside groups, and tended to ignore students.5

Participation in adult education is apparently related to
cosmopoliteness for Brunner found urban participation rates to be

higher than rural rates of participation in adult education.6

 

1. Rogers and Shoemaker, 122: git}, Corwin, op: git}, p. 43.

2. North Central Subcommittee, op: SEE: , p. .

3. Richard O. Carlson, Adoption of Educational Innovations
(Eugene, Ore.: The Center for the Advanced Study of Educational
Administration, University of Oregon, 1965), pp. 14—98.

4.-David Gottlieb and Wilbur Brookover, Acceptance 9£_New
Educational Practices by_Elementary_School Teachers _—_

(East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1966), pp. 105-121.

5. Richard I. Evans and Peter K. Leppman, Resistance tg_Innova~
3322,23 Higher Education (San Francisco: Josey-Bass, 1967), pp. 92-97.

6. Edmund deS. Brunner, et. al., An Overview of Adult Education

 

 

 

 

 

 

Group ‘
related t0 Parti
adoption. Brunn
aost likfly to c
tions.l Partici
familiarity and
information sour
garticipants ter

Among
integrated into
leaders in opini
neighbors, famil
3n a study of pi
new drug were 01
esteem from the:
their reputatio:
COuutunication a

The g
W138 have bee
redPients. Ka

t u
”or informat

H5

Group affiliations of the recipients have been shown to be
related to participation in continuing education and innovation'
adoption. Brunner found that participants in adult education were
most likely to come from those who were active in formal organiza—
tions.1 Participation was also noted to be related to media
familiarity and to be higher among leaders since they serve as
information sources in their groups. Booth found that conference
participants tended to come from formal and informal group leaders.2

Among farmers the innovative were found to be more
integrated into social groups in their neighborhood and to serve as
leaders in opinion flOW, while laggards were semi—isolated from
neighbors, family centered, and in lower contact with social groups.3
In a study of physicians it was found that the earlier adopters of a
new drug were oriented to leading professional cliques and sought
esteem from these cliques.“ Late adopters were more concerned with
their reputation among laymen and did not use the same channels of
communication as innovators.

The group affiliations of the source and its reference
groups have been shown to be related to innovation on the part of the
reCiPients. Katz and Mendel found that physicians who were looked
to for information came from groups with higher status.5 Since these

1. ibid.
2. Alan Booth, Factors Which Influence Participation £n_Adult

 

ESEESEEBEConferences and Programs by_Members 9f_Professiona;fAsso—
EEEEiSE§_(Lincoln: The University of Nebraska, 1966), p. 39 .

 

3- North Central Subcommittee, 9p: git), p. 6.

H. Elihu Katz and Herbert Mendel, "The Diffusion of an Innova-
ti°n Among Physicians," (Sociometry, xx, Dec. 1957), pp. 255—256.

5° flu pp. 256—257.

 

 

 

gI‘OUPS were Sle
sources's attrac
an as t0 profe
beneen channels
channels considé
were more influc
The .

shoved that the
continuing educ
dance with Mode

codify the assc

Eehavior throng

receivers of ti

it appeared lil

orientations at

study of innov
certain aspect
teachers that

Prof

The
lmfessional t

Hills: be fUlly
Rather than a

professionali

 

46

groups were self—perpetuating elites it would appear likely that a
sources's attractiveness was due as much to professional group member—
ship as to professional knowledge. In two studies of the relationship
between channels of adult education for farmers it was found that
channels considered to be more open to approved sources of information
were more influential in leading to adoption.1

The above studies of role orientations and reference groups
showed that these factors are related to both participation in
continuing education and innovative behavior. Therefore, in accor—
dance with Model IV, it was possible to speculate that they might
modify the association between participation and innovation situation
behavior through interaction both with the source and with the
receivers of the programs of continuing education. Furthermore
it appeared likely that while professional and bureaucratic role
orientations and reference groups might be appropriately used in a
study of innovation situation behavior among teachers, there were
certain aspects of professional and bureaucratic orientations among
teachers that ought to be reviewed.
Professionalization of Teachers

The contrasts mentioned by Corwin between bureaucratic and
professional orientations should not be taken as absolute traits that
must be fully present before a vocation is considered a profession.
Rather than absolutes, one should be more nominalistic and speak of

professionalization, which with its attendant status and privileges

 

l. Coolie Verner and Frank W. Millerd, Adult Education and_the
Adoption 9: Innovations by_0rchardists in_the_0kanagon Valley 2: —“~
British Columbia (Vancouver, B.C.: University of British Columbia,
1966), p. 37; Verner and Welsh, 923 933;: P- 37-

 

 

 

 

vas begun by th
developed profe
barriers of pri
nobility of the
gentility.

it is not
the profs
provided
and snobl
veneratec

Todav

noints out the

use new prof.

The know
"free pr
TO the e

This
Creates
knowledg
the know
not a ”I:
3 ”311130);
do; he i
ledge; c
leaders}

Wicker E098 c

Knowled‘.
on them
by Obje
Perform
authori

One

arises fmm t

1' Read
2‘ Dru
3- u

 

 

1+7

was begun by the Victorians. Reader claims that the Victorians
developed professional status for certain vocations to break down the
barriers of privilege and patronage that restricted the vertical
mobility of the children of the middle class to respectability and
gentility.

It is not quite true to say that the Victorians invented
the professions, but it is true that they extended them,
provided them with a good deal of mystique, tradition,
and snobbery and left them altogether stronger and more
venerated than they did find them.1

Today many vocations are striving for this status. Drucker
points out the potential for conflict between the organization and
these new professionals in this press for recognition

The knowledge worker of today...is not the successor to the
”free professional" of 1750 or 1900. He is the successor
to the employee of yesterday...

This is a very substantial upgrading. But it also
creates an unresolved conflict between the tradition of the
knowledge worker and his position as an employee. Though
the knowledge worker is not a ”laborer," and certainly is
not a "proletarian," he is still an ”employee.” He is not
a ”subordinate” in the sense that he can be told what to
do; he is paid, on the contrary, for applying his know—
ledge; exercising his judgment, and taking responsible
leadership.2

Drucker goes on later to state that:
Knowledge workers also require that the demands be made
on them by knowledge rather than by bosses, that is,
by objectives rather than by people. They require a
performance—oriented organization rather than an
authority-oriented organization.

One aspect of that conflict, of importance for this study,

arises from the fact that professional status enables innovative

1...:

Reader, 9p, cit., pp. 125—126. Italics in original.
2. Drucker, op: cit., p. 276.
3. ibid., p. 289.

 

 

 

 

behavior in knot

to aPPeal to ju‘
l

questioned-

The n
style in an age
of gemeinschalCt
the appeal of P
these reasons f
teachers.

Schoc
and more bureau
beyond the trac
programs callin
chers, adminis‘
schools into In
which moves th
individual. C
infrequently r
'Tmfessional'
is 'unprofessi

The
fund in any ,
Covsistent, f.

1- Lee '

0mm Univer

 

H8

behavior in knowledge organizations since the profeSSional is able
to appeal to judges outside the organization if his actions are
questioned.1

The new professionalization is also appealing as a life
style in an age of large organizations, since it refers back to an era
of gemeinschaft. Feelings of being directed by outside forces add to
the appeal of professional independence and peer group strength. All
these reasons for professionalization may be found among school
teachers.

School organizations, however, are becoming more complex
and more bureaucratic as their institutional structure develops
beyond the traditional one—teacher/one—room operating units. New
programs calling for new staffing patterns, flexible numbers of tea—
chers, administrative personnel, and paraprofessionals are leading
schools into more complex patterns of interaction and interdependence
which moves the locus of decision making authority farther from the
individual. Confusion over roles is common. Administrators not
infrequently refer to compliant teachers who go along with them as
‘professional' teachers and refer to those who indulge in independence
as 'unprofessional.‘

The pattern of professional and bureaucratic orientations
found in any given school district is ouite complex and often is not
consistent, for at times teachers will demand greater bureaucratic

1. Lee Talyor, Occupational Sociology (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1968), p.78.

 

 

 

 

control. Andi
insisted upon
due to diffus
At
to complement
orientations
tional bureau
professionali
is due to a h
according to
their highly
AIthing that
Presses them
he claims the
simal/bureal
their Silpepp
teaching as e
Perhaps, as I
female teach.

dVoiding of

m

' Jame
School Syste‘
p. 312.

3. Dan
Elementary S
aid “Q Dr
(N LL AIDE

ew York; p

 

 

 

49

control. Anderson found that junior high school teachers sometimes
insisted upon adherence to rules in an effort to reduce.their anxiety
due to diffuse goals and ambiguity in the schools‘ directions.l

At times professional and bureaucratic orientations appear
to complement each other. In a study of bureaucratic and professional
orientations among elementary teachers, Hearn found that "organiza—
tional bureaucratization was not found incompatible with structural
professionalization."2 Perhaps this finding among elementary teachers
is due to a high value being placed on autonomy by these teachers, for
according to Lortie, autonomy enables them to escape pressures from
their highly bureaucratic or highly professionalized brethren.
Arguing that the control and reward system under which teachers work
presses them to look for rewards in their relationships with children,
he claims that teachers will go to a middle position on the profes—
sional/bureaucratic continuum which minimizes pressure from either
their superiors or their colleagues.3 This position emphasizes
teaching as an art, individualistic, autonomous, not affiliative.
Perhaps, as Etzioni points out, this position is taken by those
female teachers who insist upon feminine values which involve the

avoiding of conflict.“ This is supported by Griffiths who noted

 

1. Anderson, op. cit., pp. 169—170.

2. James J. Hearn:—fiTeachers' Sense of Alienation with Respect to
School System Structure," (Phi Delta Kappan, LII, 5, Jan. 1971),
p. 312. -

3.-Dan C. Lortie, ”The Balance of Control and Autonomy in
Elementary School Teaching," A. Etzioni, ed., The Semi—Professions
32d Their Organizations (New York: Free Press,~1§69), pp. 40-41.

9. Amitai Etzioni, The Semi—Professions agd_Their Organizations
(New York: Free Press, 1969), p. xv.

 

 

 

 

 

that a large 1
activities out
that the bulk
affect the P61
changes which
The
for this stud
bureaucrat ic
reference gm
to identify a
groups on 0th
that a teache
it would be t
disTinguish t
Wild allow g
In SPite of h
is a Possibl
as deSCribed

continuing p

much“ he t

 

 

50

that a large number of teachers did not want to get involved in
activities outside the classroom.1 If Lortie is correct it appears
that the bulk of teachers will go along with changes that do not
affect the rewards they received from children but will resist those

changes which interfere with or change this relationship.

 

The significance of these professionalization processes
for this study is that individual teachers might hold a mixture of
bureaucratic and professional orientations and vary in their
reference group activities. Such a mixture would make it difficult
to identify and assess the effects of orientations and reference
groups on other variables. The implication of this difficulty is
that a teacher may not remain at a certain point on the continuum and
it would be better to measure each orientation separately as this would
distinguish the relative strength of each orientation in a teacher and
would allow a better estimate of the modifying effect of orientations.
In spite of all these problems, the professional—bureaucratic continuum
is a possible modifying variable, through interaction with source
as described in Model IV, in the association between participation in

continuing professional education and innovation situation behavior.2

 

1. Daniel Griffiths, gt, 2&3, "Teacher Mobility,”
(Educational Administration Quarterly, Winter, l965), p. 23.

2. In a conversation with one of the research assistants
with the Lin, 3:. al., project, it was indicated that a later factor
analysis showed a EEfinite professional factor that was related to
innovative behavior.

inert

Thi
process, in n
night be vari
orientations
since credibi
of perceived
and reference
reference gn

Would be deer

Cl innovatio‘

Si
Weaucratic
Pilated to b
Eehaviop amc
Sheculated t
communicatic
teachers. 1‘
showed that
the 'PI‘ofessj

referenCe g1

In

%

Potion, r01

 

 

r...

.—_.,—_ tr..—

 

51

Summary

This section opened with a review of the communication
process, in model form, that brought out the possibility that there
might be variables which would influence source credibility. Role
orientations and reference groups were considered to be such variables
since credibility of information would vary depending upon the extent
of perceived similarity by the recipient between the orientations
and reference groups of the source with his own orientations and
reference groups. When they were perceived as similar, information
would be deemed credible and thus would likely be effective for
attitude formation and changes in behavior, taken as alternative forms
of innovation.

Since previous studies have shown that the professional—
bureaucratic continua of orientations and reference groups were
related to both participation in continuing education and innovative
behavior among farmers, physicians, and other professionals, it was
speculated that these continua act as modifying variables in the
communication of information and innovation situation behavior of
teachers. However, a review of previous investigations in this area
showed that teachers are by no means clear cut as to their position on
the professional—bureaucratic continua of role orientations and
reference groups.

SITUATIONAL VARIABLES

 

Introduction
The variables described in this section supplement partici—

pation, role orientation, and reference groups as independent variables

 

 

 

 

in attempting
behavior- The
exposure, 891i
relationships'
The:

psychological

itens three t

opinion among
influence the
education sir
30 pursue suc
Lin to be rel

LXperience Va

Th

1' .
united rese

3 '-,T"

 

 

Wat-515......- ‘A-.. a.
‘ v

52

in attempting to account for variance in innovation situation
behavior. They fall into six categories: demographic, experience,
exposure, self—image, self—principal relationships, and self—peer
relationships.
Demographic Variables
These included the usual variables found in socio—

psychological studies and included:
. age
. sex

marital status

working spouse

. dependents
attained educational level.

mmJ—‘ooroea

Items three through five were included since there was a common
opinion among school personnel that any of the three variables would
influence the extent of participation of teachers in continuing
education since they would tend to reduce the amount of time available
to pursue such activities. Attained educational level was found by
Lin to be related to innovation.1

Experience Variables
These included variables that conventional wisdom as well as
limited research, hold as being related to participation or innovation:
1. years in teaching
2. years in system

3. years in assignment
4, grade assignment

1. Lin, op. cit., p. 96.

 

 

ExEosure Varz'
The

l.
2.

These were it
previously u:
previous use
In
Was related
are usually
realistic at
The teacher
t0 accept ch
Productivity
1511de i0 wi
who is dis 55
not found by

prPOdUct 01

Free PreSs)
2- Lin
3- Arti
(303mm Al
i- Lin
5. Da
0 n

W

.53
Exposure Variables
These included two variables:

1. Previous exposure to specific innovation
2. Current exposure to specific innovation.

These were included since it was thought that those teachers who had
previously used the innovation were more likely to approve of it since
previous use has been shown to be related to innovation adoption.l
Self-Image Variables

In the Lin study it was found that a positive self—image
was related to innovation internalization.2 Positive self—images
are usually grounded in high ego—strength. Coombs has said that a
realistic attitude towards change has to be grounded in a strong ego.3
The teacher who feels satisfied with being a teacher was more willing
to accept change.l1t While role satisfaction has been linked to
productivity in manufacturing,5 it is not clear why it should be
linked to willingness to change. It would seem likely that a person
who is dissatisfied would also be willing to change, but this was
not found by Lin. Perhaps, the linkage with change came as a
byproduct of good management practices which helped bring acceptance.

1. Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion gf_Innovations (New York:
Free Press, 1962), p. 10”

2. Lin, et. al.,o _p.. cit., p. 63, p. 93.

3. Arthur W. Coombs, The Professional Education of T"eachers
(Boston. Allyn and Bacon, 1965), p. 69.

M. Lin, et. al., op. cit., pp. 72— 73.

5. Daniel Katz and Robert L. Kahn, The Social Psychology of
Organizations (New York: Wiley, l966), pp. _373— 374.

 

 

 

 

Self-Peer and

0\
changes in bi
investigated.
means of the
research such
since only t?
looked at.
the organiza
differences
0PPortunity
recommendati
dtl‘lSlvely ‘t
states that
ma“ipllleatior
"to do what

i
with The DH
change, PE

conditions ‘

u 1' T
ones 3. 3w
Elemen

\Ea?‘
(New York: .
3. 3,

Li- S
(New York;t

 

 

54

l
Self-Peer and Self—Principal Relationships.

Over the past seven decades the question of bringing about
changes in business in the most effective manner has been intensively
investigated. Generally speaking this research can be classified by

means of the communication models reviewed earlier. Very early

research such as that done by Taylor2 would fit Model I,3

since only the salient motives of the rational—economic man were
looked at. Research fitting Model II assumed that social groups in
the organization were the most important factors responsible for

differences in behavior and urged that management give workers an

opportunity to identify with the company. However, in practice, this

recommendation has been abused and this school of thought is

derisively termed the "say please" school of management. Herman

states that the most common pattern in use is that of seduction--
manipulation, or modern machiavellianism——that is, getting someone
”to do what you want them to do because they like to do it.”‘1L

Most of the management studies under this model have dealt
with the problem of productivity rather than with the acceptance of
However, it can be argued that changes in working

change, per se.

conditions are innovations as far as the worker is concerned. Also,

1. The material in this subsection is largely dependent upon:
James S. Swift, ”The Origins of Team Management,” (National

Elementary Principal, 1, Feb. 1971), pp 26- 35

F. W. Taylor, The Principles of Scientific Management

(New York: Harper, 1923).

3. see p. 37.

H. Stanley M. Herman, The ngplg_§pegialis£s
(New York: Knopf, 1968), p- 250

 

 

if the change
would be a f<
St]
Tavistock an.
productivity
perceived no
hearing from
satisfaction
Un

resemh do
treated well
01: their sup
d(me along t

resulted in
knowledge or
t0 be involV
A

in group dis
effectiVE it
- stem

1
M (Ann 1
Research) U}

l 2- Robe
0&1." (pen
3- E
l- W]
A SUPVey,"

' Re ;

5, Les'
to Change,"

4444444______‘________IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!!!!!!!-Ill!ifaf—'fwf:2 7,1;LF'” _;___

.55
if the changes are accepted and lead to increased productivity, this
would be a form of innovation internalization.

Studies coming from two leading centers for such research,
Tavistock and the Institute for Social Research, have shown that
productivity is related to group cohesiveness,l group norms,2

3 vertical communication patterns,

4

perceived norms of the superiors,

hearing from superiors about ratings and knowledge of results, and

satisfaction with the job.5

Unfortunately, the findings from the previously cited
research do not always work out on the job. People, even when
treated well, will not automatically accept the directives or goals
of their superiors. As this realization grew, further research was
done along the lines of Model III, the feedback model. This research
resulted in participative management techniques and are now common in
knowledge organizations, and most professionalized workers expect
to be involved in organizational decision—making.

A major study by Coch and French found that participation
in group discussion about changes in methods of production was

effective in overcoming resistance to change.6 A later study

1. Stanley E. Seashore, Group Cohesiveness ip_the Industrial Work

Group (Ann Arbor:
Research, University of Michigan, 1954).

2. Robert M. Guion,"Industria1 Morale: The Problem of Termino—
lOgy,” (Personnel Psychology, 11, 1958), pp. 59—64.

3. ibid.

H. M. Mandel Milton, Pauline Duckworth, "The Supervisor's Job,
A Survey," (Personnel, 31, 1955), pp. 456—462.

5. Rensis Likert, New Patterns 2£_Management (New York:
McGraw—Hill, 1961). —'

6. Lester Coch and John R. P. French, Jr., "Overcoming Resistance
to Change," (Human Relations, I, 1948), pp. 512—532.

 

 

partially cc

effective wt

integrated i
decision ma}
those who pe
J
hmovators ,
social stat
much larger
residents w
that was ac
loved the I
difference
starting t1
acceptance
Sinlattion.
likely to
Produced,
host Cent}.
. L o
In Paptici
lgfio)’ pp.

-1
-t

poem

1969)

app

 

 

56

partially confirmed the findings but found that participation was only
effective when the workers perceived it as legitimate.1

Lin found that teachers who perceived themselves as
integrated into the local building staff and into communication and
decision making networks, tended to accept innovations in contrast to
those who perceived themselves as isolated.2

Lin's findings do not conform with Merton's position that
innovators are likely to be in a marginal position with respect to
social status.3 Schulman's findings support Merton. He noted that a
much larger number of innovations in a teaching hospital were made by
residents who did not have the social acceptance from the hierarchy
that was accorded those who had attended the 'right' schools and fol—
lowed the 'right' traditions.“ There is probably a significant
difference here in situation. The teachers in Lin's study were not
starting the innovation on their own but were being measured for their
acceptance of an innovation that was adopted under the forced use
situation. Further, teachers in faculty and professional groups were
likely to be involved in discussions which preceded, and may have
produced, the decision to simultaneously adopt the innovation. Those
(most central and active in the discussions might be expected to accept as

1. John F. French, Joachim Israel, and Dagfinn As, "An Experiment

in Participation in'a Norwegian Factory," (Human Relations, 13,
1960), pp. 3—19.

2. Lin, gt: al:, op: cit., p. 73.
3. Merton, op} cit., pp. 139—140.

4. Jay Schulman, Remaking ap_0rganization: Innovation 23.2
Specialized Hospital (Albany: State University of New York,

1969). pp. 188 ff.

(I

 

 

well as adopt
isolated.

yin
on the basis
research to i
in this stud

Se

T
Michael
that panic
me most ge

Riddle lEVQ
SpeQifiC (i

LWO Wish;

and .mp1

 

 

57
well as adopt more frequently than those who felt themselves as more
isolated.

Variables Selected. The following variables were selected
on the basis of the above cited management and educational innovation
research to examine the innovation situation behavior of the teachers
in this study.

Self—Image Variables

Role Satisfaction
Self Rating as a Teacher
Self—Principal Relationships as Perceived by the Teacher
Principal Rating as a Teacher
Performance Feedback from Principal
Participation in Decision Making
Legitimacy of Such Participation
Principal's General Change Orientation
Principal's Support of Specific Innovation
Self—Peer Relationships as Perceived by the Teacher

Group Cohesiveness
Opinion Leadership by the Teacher

SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 2

 

The chapter began with a discussion of what was meant by
participation in continuing education in this study. It was stated
that participation was measured on three levels of specificity, from
the most general (Non—Vocational Continuing Education), through a
middle level (General Continuing Professional Education), to the most
specific (Specific Continuing Professional Education). The latter
two variables were further subdivided as to source into intra—system
and extra—system categories.

Next it was described how the innovation situation for an

employed professional in a knowledge organization fell into two

 

 

 

 

categories: :
of use, and
simultaneous
tiveness in
he used in k
the person b
It
Behavior be
innovative t
or forced c}
situation w.-

innovations

Situation, .
idXOnomy of
morphism ya
formatim a
has taken 6

Measure has

the taxonoT
mental set

Change on

of Demtici

the magma

 

 

58
categories: free, where the person could elect the extent and time
of use, and forced, where use was mandated and adoption was
simultaneous. It was stated that the traditional measure of innova—
tiveness in innovation studies, time of adoption, frequently could not
be used in knowledge organization studies, since it was dependent upon
the person being free to select time of first use.

It was proposed that the concept of Innovation Situation
Behavior be adopted and under that concept alternative measures of
innovative behavior be selected as to be appropriate for either free
or forced choice situations. The measure to be used in the free choice
situation was General Innovation Use, a self—reported level of use of
innovations current in the district.

In order to have a measure appropriate for the forced use
situation, a comparison was made of adoption paradigms and the
taxonomy of the affective domain. Out of this comparison an iso—
morphism was developed between the adoption paradigms and attitude
formation along the lines of the taxonomy. Attitude formation then
was taken as innovative behavior in the forced use situation. The
measure based on this, Innovation Internalization, measured the
affect of a teacher towards a specific innovation. Also derived from
the taxonomy and previous research was a broad general measure of
mental set or affect towards educational change, termed General
Change Orientation.

It was then pointed out that the study employed measures
of participation on three levels of increasing specificity and that

the measures of innovation situation behavior also fell into three

 

 

 

levels of in
participatic
well as am
R(
pwticipatii
concluded ti
and viable
I
to the idea
and ueferen
action betw-
It was show
group actix
5P0nSored 1
participau
be deemed .
and source
would be 1

the Case 1‘

SitWhine

 

‘59
levels of increasing specificity and the association between
participation and innovation could be studied at these three levels as
well as across the levels.

Research support for hypothesizing an association between
participation and innovative behavior was then reviewed. It was
concluded that the issue of expecting such an association was an open
and viable issue.

In the following section a review of communication models led
to the idea that the bureaucratic and professional role orientations
and reference groups might modify the above associations due to inter—
action between them and the source of continuing education programs.
It was shown that when the role orientation and related reference
group activities of a teacher paralleled those of a source which
sponsored the program of continuing education in which the teacher had
participated, information from that program would be more likely to
be deemed credible and would tend to increase ISB. When the teacher
and source differed as to role orientation, attributed credibility
would be lower and less ISB would be likely. Whether or not this was
the case for teachers appeared to be an open issue.

In the final section of the chapter six categories of

situational variables included in the study were described.

 

 

E ii
Resume or 4.
MM

Tw
ture. Thet

between part

 

behavior. 1
be SVstematf
0f the pens

E-“CEESSionaj

E

3176 idea of

ion betWee
0‘5 farmers
5“ iSsociat
. advamed II
I upon this 6
might exiy
and the 16‘

and foFCed

\l‘A
3‘s

 

 

 

CHAPTER 3

THE HYPOTHESES AND PROCEDURES OF THE INVESTIGATION

 

INTRODUCTION

Resume of Literature Review and Issues Arising from it

 

Two principal issues arose from the review of the litera—
ture. The first was whether or not there was a systematic association
between participation in continuing education programs and innovative
behavior. The second issue was whether or not this association would
be systematically modified by interaction between the role orientation
of the person and the source (sponsorship) of the continuing
professional education programs.

Evidence reviewed for the first issue appeared to support
the idea of further investigation. Although evidence for an associa—
tion between participation and innovation could be cited from studies
of farmers by Averill and Verner,l there were no direct studies of such
an association among teachers. Buley had found an association between
advanced training and innovation for school districts.2 Based
upon this evidence it appeared likely that a positive association
might exist between the level of participation in continuing education
and the level of innovation situation behavior in both the free choice

and forced classroom use innovation situations when measures

1. Averill, loc. cit., Verner, loc. cit.

3. Buley, loc. cit.

60

 

 

appropriate t<
positive relai
Vocational C01
between Gener.
tion Use, and
and lnnovatio
Sup
modifying eff
on the assocf
in the theor.
that communit
motives and
would modify
attitudes to
innovation 5
affiliatiOm
Values) non
iel‘sons holt
when both 5
reference g
as being me
to Pole 0m.
Pole QPiem
and Wes.
”elated to

continuing

 

 

61
appropriate to the innovation situation are used. In particular,
positive relationships were expected between participation in Non—
Vocational Continuing Education and General Change Orientation,
between General Continuing Professional Education and General Innova—

tion Use, and between Specific Continuing Professional Education

 

and Innovation Internalization.
Support for study of the second issue, the potential
modifying effects of the interaction of role orientation and source

on the association between participation and innovation, was found

 

in the theories and evidence reviewed in Chapter 2. It was shOwn
that communication theory would predict the existence of salient
motives and group affiliations for both recipient and source, which
would modify the credibility of information and hence, modify the
attitudes towards information about innovations and thus modify
innovation situation behavior. Suitable salient motives and group
affiliations were found in the form of role orientations, sets of
values, norms, and loyalities, and reference groups, composed of
persons holding similar role orientations. It was indicated that
when both source and receiver had similar role orientations or
reference groups, the receiver would regard the information received
as being more credible than when the source and receiver differed as

to role orientation or reference group membership. The particular

 

role orientations and reference groups selected were the bureaucratic
and professional which had been found in organizational studies to be
related to both innovation situation behavior and participation in

continuing education.

 

Outline of t

Tt
form and the
aprocedure:
procedures :
organizatio

ends the c

135$

1
whether or
score fop ;
tion in cm
This issue

a. No

(1. SI

CI‘QSS ‘1th

d-e

 

 

 

62

Outline of the Chapter

 

The first section contains the issues stated in propositional
form and then restated in the form of hypotheses. This is followed by
a procedures section which covers the types of data collected, the
procedures for collecting the data, the population and sample, and the
organization, analysis, and interpretation of the data. A summary
ends the chapter.

GENERAL PROBLEM STATEMENT

 

Issues

Two issues were investigated in this study. The first was
whether or not there was a positive association between a teacher's
score for innovation situation behavior and his score for participa—
tion in continuing education, regardless of source and ignoring role.
This issue was studied at three levels of specificity:

a. Non—Vocational Continuing Education with
General Change Orientation;

b. General Continuing Professional Education with
General Innovation Use;

0. Specific Continuing Professional Education with
Innovation Internalization.

Cross—level relationships were also examined, i.e.,

d- General Continuing Professional Education with
General Change Orientation;

e. Specific Continuing Professional Education with
General Change Orientation;

f. Non—Vocational Continuing Education with
General Innovation Use;

Specific Continuing Professional Education with
General Innovation Use;

(In

 

 

 

 

h. Non-V0
Innc

j. Genera
Innc

The
orientation at
bmeaucratic-
ofthe progra
thn the pa11
ngnificant 1
behavior. S.
Othether o
PPOgram. If
intra-systen
extra-syste,
ima‘systet
Education,
first issue
t0 Source 1
1HEW 301
Education ,
ing Contix
VariableS

specifica

 

 

 

63

h. Non—Vocational Continuing Education with
Innovation Internalization;

j. General Continuing Professional Education with
Innovation Internalization.

The second issue was concerned with the possibility that role
orientation and reference group activity of the person, on the
bureaucratic—professional continuum, would interact with the source
of the programs of continuing professional education in such a way
that the pairwise product of source and role would account for a
significant proportion of the variance in innovation situation ‘
behavior. Source was defined on the basis of the teacher's report
of whether or not the employing school system had sponsored the
program. If it had, then the program or activity was classified as
intra—system continuing education, if not, then it was classified as
extra—system continuing education. The sum of the two scores,
intra-system continuing education and extra—system continuing
education, is the score for continuing education participation in the
first issue. Only continuing professional education is classified as
to source for neither theory nor research indicated that non-role
related sources such as encountered in Non—Vocational Continuing
Education would interact in the above manner.

Propositions

This investigation examined five major propositions concern—
ing continuing education, innovation situation behavior, and role
variables. Each proposition was matched by a hypothesis that very

specifically stated the expected relationships.

 

Er
teacher's re
and his ran}
particular:

la. b4
Non-Vocatio:
General Cha
[3) a scale

lb. h
General Cor,
of General
and (3) a 5

1c. 1
SPacific Cc
of General

and (3) a

‘1 teachew
activity 6
education.
Crienfam
Reference
General 0

Contin11in

 

6#
Proposition 1. There is a predictable relationship between a
Vteacher's rank on an index of participation in continuing education
and his rank on a scale of innovation situation behavior, in
particular:
la. between a teacher's rank on an index of participation in
Non—Vocational Continuing Education and his rank on: (I) a scale of
General Change Orientation, (2) a scale of General Innovation Use, and
(3) a scale of Innovation Internalization;
lb. between a teacher's rank on an index of participation in
General Continuing Professional Education and his rank on (1) a scale
of General Innovation Use, (2) a scale of General Change Orientation,
and (3) a scale of Innovation Internalization;
lc. between a teacher‘s rank on an index of participation in
Specific Continuing Professional Education and his rank on: (I) a scale
of General Change Orientation, (2) a scale of General Innovation Use,
and (3) a scale of Innovation Internalization.
Proposition 2. There is a predictable relationship between
a teacher's rank on a scale of role orientation or reference group
activity and his rank on an index of participation in continuing
education, in particular, between his rank on scales of Professional
Orientation, Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity, or Professional
Reference Group Activity and his rank on scales of participation in
General Continuing Professional Education and in Specific

Continuing Professional Education.

 

 

I
l

 

E
teacher's re
or Extra-8y:
scale of re:
scales of I:
Extra-Syste:
Specific Co
Specific Co

Bureaucrati

teacher‘s 1
Reference (
and his m
in, respec.

and Innova

3 teacher'
Classified
GEneral Q<
CWinning
Edueatim
teacher: 8
Professio
sional Re
“0 Vania
PairwiSe

tion Beh;

65

Proposition 3. There is a predictable relationship between a
teacher's rank on an index of participation in either Intra—System
or Extra—System Continuing Professional Education, and his rank on a
scale of reference group activity, in particular between his rank on
scales of Intra—System General Continuing Professional Education,
Extra—System General Continuing Professional Education, Intra—System
Specific Continuing Professional Education, or Extra—System
Specific Continuing Professional Education and his rank on scales of
Bureaucratic or Professional Reference Group Activity.

Proposition U. There is a predictable relationship between a
teacher's rank on scales of Professional Orientation, Bureaucratic
Reference Group Activity, or Professional Reference Group Activity
and his rank on scales of Innovation Situation Behavior, as displayed
in, respectively, General Change Orientation, General Innovation Use,
and Innovation Internalization.

Proposition 5. There is a predictable relationship between
a teacher's rank on an index of participation in continuing education,
classified by source, in particular, as displayed by Intra—System
General Continuing Professional Education, Extra—System General
Continuing Professional Education, Intra—System Specific Continuing
Education, and Extra~System Specific Continuing Education, and the
teacher's role orientation, as displayed by his rank on a scale of
Professional Orientation, or on an index of Bureaucratic or Profes-
sional Reference Group Activity such that the interaction of these
two variables (role orientation and source) as measured by their
pairwise product is related to his rank on scales of Innovation Situa—

tion Behavior, as diaplayed in General Innovation Use or Innovation

 

 

 

 

lnternalizat
Tl
situational
they had be
they were n
analysis, t
There is a
modify the
0f ISB att1
situationa.
multivaria

Proposith
laPticipa-
“53 testet
hEtween 1n
(HQ), bet
hemeen I
explored,
an inter;

to innov

Part 1, il

innova.L j

\l

 

 

66
Internalization.

There are no propositions or hypotheses concerning the
situational variables reviewed in Chapter 2. They were included since
they had been shown to be related to innovation or participation but
they were not central to the major hypotheses. During the data
analysis, the amounts of variance attributable to them were displayed.
There is a question as to whether or not these variables might also
modify the relationships posited above, so to find the true variance
of ISB attributable to participation in continuing education, the
situational variables were statistically controlled by means of
multivariate analysis.

Research Hypotheses

The following hypotheses were designed to explore the above
propositions. In Hypothesis l the simple dyadic relationship between
participation in continuing education and innovation situation behavior
was tested while in Hypotheses 2, 3, and H, the interrelationships
between role orientation and participation in continuing education
(H2), between reference groups and sources of information (H3), and
between role orientation and innovation situation behavior (H4) were
explored. In Hypothesis 5 the possibility was tested of there being
an interaction between sponsorship or source and role that is related
to innovative behavior.

Based upon the relationship found by Averill between
participation in continuing education the the later.adoption of

innovations,1 it was hypothesized that there is a relationship

1. Averill, loc. cit.

 

 

between parti
situation bel

Hla: T‘:

620‘

Hlb:

ch: '

The followi
levels of s
the levels,
examine the
pation var
tested in

Hid:

Hle

Hlf

H11

 

 

67
between participatio'n in continuing education and innovation
situation behavior such that:

Hla: There is a statistically significant positive association
between a teacher's rank on an index of participation in
Non—Vocational Continuing Education and the teacher's
rank on a scale of General Change Orientation;

Hlb: There is a statistically significant positive association
between a teacher's rank on an index of participation in
General Continuing Professional Education and the teacher's
rank on a scale of General Innovation Use;

ch: There is a statistically significant positive association
between a teacher's rank on an index of participation in
Specific Continuing Professional Education and the teacher's
rank on a scale of Innovation Internalization.

The following part of Hypothesis 1 deals with the relationships across
levels of specificity.‘ Since no association was seen as likely across

, the levels, the subhypotheses are cast in null form. However they do

. , examine the possibility of there being an association between partici—
pation variables and the ISB variables across the levels of specificity
tested in Hla, Hlb, and ch.

Hld: There is no statistically significant association between
a teacher's rank on the scale of General Change Orientation
and his rank on an index of participation in
General Continuing Professional Education;

Hle: There is no statistically significant association between
a teacher's rank on the scale of General Change Orientation
and his rank on an index of participation in
Specific Continuing Professional Education;

Hlf: There is no statistically significant association between
a teacher's rank on the scale of General Innovation Use
and his rank on an index of participation in
Non—Vocational Continuing Education;

ng: There is no statistically significant association between
a teacher's rank on an index of General Innovation Use
and his rank on an index of participation in
Specific Continuing Professional Education;

 

 

th: T1

Hlj :

role orien‘
upon the p
informatio

Hla:

H'Zb :

H2d

H2e

th:

 

68

There is no statistically significant association between

a teacher's rank on the scale of Innovation Internalization

and his rank on an index of participation in
Non—Vocational Continuing Education;

There is no statistically significant association between

a teacher's rank on the scale of Innovation Internalization

and his rank on an index of participation in
General Continuing Professional Education.

The following hypothesis deals with associations between

role orientation and participation in continuing education. Based

upon the research of Rogers1 that showed orientation is related to

information seeking behavior, it was hypothesized that:

H2a:

H2b:

H2d:

H2e:

H2f:

There is a statistically significant association between
a teacher's rank on a scale of Professional Reference
Group Activity and his rank on an index of participation
Non—Vocational Continuing Education;

There is a statistically significant association between
a teacher's rank on a scale of Professional Reference
Group Activity and his rank on an index of participation
General Continuing Professional Education;

There is a statistically significant association between
a teacher's rank on a scale of Professional Reference
Group Activity and his rank on an index of participation
Specific Continuing Professional Education;

There is a statistically significant association between
a teacher's rank on a scale of Professional Orientation
and his rank on an index of participation in
Non—Vocational Continuing Education;

There is a statistically significant association between
a teacher's rank on a scale of Professional Orientation
and his rank on an index of participation in

General Continuing Professional Education;

There is a statistically significant association between
a teacher's rank on a scale of Professional Orientation
and his rank on an index of participation in

Specific Continuing Professional Education;

l- ROgers and Shoemaker, pp: cit., Ch. 10.

am“ -z ,l _«
P‘s

 

H2g:

H2h:

H21:

the findf
effect 0:
infornat
hypothes

H33

H31

 

 

 

 

 

 

H2g:

H2h:

H2i:

the findings of Brunnerl as well as those of Katz and Mendel2 on the

 

“\Xti“ .x"."n..,.." _ ‘Mg’

‘
v

69

There is a statistically significant association between

a teacher's rank on a scale of Bureaucratic Reference

Group Activity and his rank on an index of participation in
NmkamjmmlCmmkmthmmmfimL

There is a statistically significant association between

a teacher's rank on a scale of Bureaucratic Reference

Group Activity and his rank on an index of participation in
General Continuing Professional Education;

There is a statistically significant association between

a teacher's rank on a scale of Bureaucratic Reference

Group Activity and his rank on an index of participation in
Specific Continuing Professional Education.

Hypothesis 3. The following hypothesis takes into account

‘: .v"

effect of reference group membership of the individual on his

information seeking behavior. Based on this research it was

hypothesized that:

H3a:

H3b:

H3d

There is a statistically significant association between
a teacher's rank on an index of participation in
Extra-System General Continuing Professional Education
and his rank on a scale of Professional Reference Group
Activity;

There is a statistically significant association between
a teacher's rank on an index of participation in
Extra—System General Continuing Professional Education
and his rank on a scale of Bureaucratic Reference

Group Activity;

There is a statistically significant association between
a teacher's rank on an index of participation in
Intra—System General Continuing Professional Education
and his rank on a scale of Professional Reference Group
Activity;

There is a statistically significant association between

a teacher's rank on an index of participation in .
Intra—System General Continuing Professional Education and
his rank on a scale of Bureaucratic Reference Group
Activity;

._________________~__F
l. Brunner, op. cit., p. 109.
2. Katz and Mendel, pp: cit., pp. 255-256.

 

H3e:

H3f:

H3g

H3h

 

associat
behaviop
innoyatj

Hi

 

 

H3e:

H3f:

H3g:

«1

lies}; -_.. ,u __
w

70

There is a statistically significant association between
a teacher's rank on an index of participation in
Extra—System Specific Continuing Professional Education
and his rank on a scale of Professional Reference Group
Activity;

There is a statistically significant association between
a teacher's rank on an index of participation in
Extra—SyStem Specific Continuing Professional Education
and his rank on a scale of Bureaucratic Reference Group
Activity;

There is a statistically significant association between
a teacher's rank on an index of participation in
Intra—System Specific Continuing Professional Education
and his rank on a scale of Professional Reference Group
Activity;

There is a statistically significant association between
a teacher's rank on an index of participation in
Intra—System Specific Continuing Professional Education
and his rank on a scale of Bureaucratic Reference Group
Activity.

Hypothesis 4. The following hypothesis deals with the

association between role orientation and innovation situation

behavior.
innovative

Hua:

Hub:

Huc:

Hud:

l . .
Based on Rogers who saw an assoc1ation between role and
behavior, it was hypothesized that:

There is a statistically significant association between
a teacher's rank on a scale of Professional Reference
Group Activity and his rank on a scale of General

Change Orientation;

There is a statistically significant association between
a teacher's rank on a scale of Bureaucratic Reference
Group Activity and his rank on a scale of

General Change Orientation;

There is'a statistically significant association between
a teacher's rank on a scale of Professional Orientation
and his rank on a scale of General Change Orientation;

There is a statistically significant association between
a teacher's rank on a scale of Professional Reference Group
Activity and his rank on a scale of General Innovation Use;

1. Rogers and Shoemaker, loc. cit.

 

 

Hue:

Hilf‘

Hug

th

between
hVPOthe:
dicted -
Sponsor
informa
Particj
the im
Store i
this t
Howeve
intra.
Situat
Darth

RQCQp

 

 

4—x.:.~r;,.;_4_-v_i< A M,

‘-

7l
Hue: There is a statistically significant association between
a teacher's rank on a scale of Bureaucratic Reference
Group Activity and his rank on a scale of General
Innovation Use;
Huf: There is a statistically significant association between
a teacher's rank on a scale of Professional Orientation
and his rank on a scale of General Innovation Use;
Hug: There is a statistically significant association between
a teacher's rank on a scale of Professional Reference
Group Activity and his rank on a scale of Innovation
Internalization;
Huh: There is a statistically significant association between
a teacher's rank on a scale of Bureaucratic Reference '
Group Activity and his rank on a scale of Innovation
Internalization;
Hui: There is a statistically significant association between
a teacher's rank on a scale of Professional Orientation
and his rank on a scale of Innovation Internalization.
Hypothesis 5. In this hypothesis the triadic relationship
between participation, innovation, and role was taken up. The
hypothesis was based upon the fourth communication model, which pre-
dicted that where the role orientation or reference group of the
Sponsor or source is perceived by the participant to match his own, the
information about an innovation is more likely to be credible to the
participant, and more likely to be displayed in his attitude toward
the innovation. For example, when a teacher with a high bureaucratic
score has a high intra—system participation score, it is expected that
~this teacher will also have a high innovation situation behavior score.
However when the teacher has a low bureaucratic score and a high
intra-system score, there is less likelihood of high innovation
situation behavior since the information contained in the program

- . , y - ' V
Parthipated in was to some degree from an incredible source

according to the norms and values of the orientation of the teacher.

credibilitj
of role on
rank on ro
rank on pa
Profession
produce a
to innovat

HSa‘

HSb

H5(

 

72
Based upon Hovland'sl findings of the effects of source
credibility on attitudes and Katz and Lowenfeld's2 work on the effect
of role on source credibility, it was hypothesized that the teacher's
rank on role orientation or reference group activity and the teacher's
rank on participation in either Intra-System or Extra—System Continuing
Professional Education, either General or Specific, would combine to
produce a pairwise product vector (interaction) that would be related
to innovation situation behavior in such a way that:
H5a: A significant amount of the variance in General Innovation
Use will not be explained by a vector consisting of the
product of (a) a teacher's rank on an index of participation
in Intra—System General Continuing Professional Education
and (b) his rank on a scale of Professional Orientation;
HSb: A significant amount of the variance in General Innovation
Use will be explained by a vector consisting of the
product of (a) a teacher's rank on an index of participation

in Extra-System General Continuing Professional Education
and (b) his rank on a scale of Professional Orientation;

 

H5c: A significant amount of the variance in General Innovation
Use will be explained by a vector consisting of the
product of (a) a teacher's rank on an index of participation
in Intra—System General Continuing Professional Education
and (b) his rank on a scale of Bureaucratic Reference
Group Activity;

H5d: A significant amount of the variance in General Innovation
Use will not be explained by a vector consisting of the
product of (a) a teacher‘s rank on an index of participation
in Extra—System General Continuing Professional Education
and (b) his rank on a scale of Bureaucratic Reference
Group Activity;

HSe: A significant amount of the variance in General Innovation
Use will be explained by a vector consisting of the
product of (a) a teacher's rank on an index of participation
in Extra—System General Continuing Professional Education
and (b) his rank on an index of Professional Reference
Group Activity;

1. Hovland, loc. cit.
2. Katz and Lowenfeld, loc. cit.

 

H5f: l

HSg:

HSh:

H5i:

HSj:

H5k:

H51

 

 

HSf:

HSg:

H5h:

H5i:

H5k:

H51:

73

A significant amount of the variance in General Innovation
Use will not be explained by a vector consisting of the
product of (a) a teacher's rank on an index of participation
in Intra—System General Continuing Professional Education
and (b) his rank on an index of Professional Reference

Group Activity;

A significant amount of the variance in Innovation
Internalization will not be explained by a vector consisting
of the product of (a) a teacher's rank on an index of
participation in IntraeSystem Specific Continuing Profes-
sional Education and (b) his rank on a scale of
Professional Orientation;

A significant amount of the variance in Innovation
Internalization will be explained by a vector consisting
of the product of (a) a teacher's rank on an index of
participation in EXtra-System Specific Continuing
Professional Education and (b) his rank on a scale of
Professional Orientation;

A significant amount of the variance in Innovation
Internalization will be explained by a vector consisting
of the product of (a) a teacher's rank on an index of
participation in Intra—System Specific Continuing
Professional Education and (b) his rank on a scale of
Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity;

': A significant amount of the variance in Innovation

Internalization will not be explained by a vector consisting
of the product of (a) a teacher's rank on an index of
participation in Extra-System Specific Continuing
Professional Education and (b) his rank on a scale of
Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity;

A significant amount of the variance in Innovation
Internalization will be explained by a vector consisting
of the product of (a) a teacher‘s rank on an index of
participation in Extra—System Specific Continuing
Professional Education and (b) his rank on a scale of
Professional Reference Group Activity;

A significant amount of the variance in Innovation
Internalization will not be explained by a vector consisting
of the product of (a) a teacher's rank on an index of
participation in Intra—System Specific Continuing
Professional Education and (b) his rank on a scale of
Professional Reference Group Activity.

 

llethodolog

the nethoc
be colleC'
procedure:
are parts
tasks com
match; in

Of the ir

bV the d;
data are
could st
enhancg
tion, tl

definit;

Profess
hlPOthe
HPOTESS
SChool
decisi<
extra,“
one in

p09111a

 

74

THE DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF THE INSTRUMENT

Methodology

The next step in the research design was the selection of
the methodology, then the situation under which the required data would
be collected, the nature of the data to be collected, and then the
procedures for gathering the data. The interpretation and analysis also
are parts of the overall research design; however discussion of those
tasks comes in a later section. The material in this section is approxi—
mately in the order in which decisions concerning the research design
of the investigation were made.

The selection of a methodology influences and is influenced
by the data to be collected. Furthermore the situation in which the
data are collected will have an influence on the data. Although one
could start with any of the three elements it appeared desirable to
enhance the understanding of the data by describing first the situa—
tion, then the methodology, and then setting forth the operational
definitions of the variables that define the data.

Basically the situation studied was that of the employed
professional in a knowledge organization, but in order to test the
hypotheses it was decided to confine the study to one type of employed

professional, school teachers, in one institution, the employing

school system, at one point in time, the end of the school year. These

decisions were made on the basis of practicality and control over
extraneous variables that might influence innovation behavior from
one institution to another, or from one time to another. The

population then settled on was that of all teachers (N=HOO) of the

 

first thrc
nidwesterl
‘ provided 1
assigning
i select l2
recommend
order to
that recc
out.
ooint of

rather t'

 

dents we
scales 3
into cat
Was free
Opinion:

aetual y

and Hot
design

comes t
P083113]
\

HHdlyS‘
P
we

 

 

75
first through third grades or their non—graded equivalents of a
midwestern metropolitan school system. The teachers' names were
provided by the central personnel office. The sample was selected by
assigning a number to each teacher and using random number tables to
select 125 teachers. The size of the sample was fixed by the
recommendation of Cattelll that an 'n' of 80 to 100 was necessary in
order to use multivariate analysis, and it was assumed that a return of
that recommended size should result if I25 questionnaires were sent
out. Since the study would be looking at individuals at a given
point of time and place to determine attitudes and current actions
rather than interrelationships or cause and effect the sample respon—
dents were not divided into treatment groups. Furthermore since the
scales and indices were continuous the sample could not be divided
into categories as it was assumed that each teacher in the sample
was free to participate in any of the activities or hold any of the
opinions surveyed. The intention of the study was to describe an
actual population of teachers in a non—experimental situation.

Since the inferences to be made were probably associations
and not cause and effect the study could use the simple §§.Eg§:.§§EI£l
design even though this design has some major limitations when it
comes to generalizing the findings. The major limitation is that it is

possible to fail to reject a false hypothesis since there is no check

 

1. Raymond B. Cattell, "The Meaning and Strategic Use of Factor
Analysis," R. Cattell, ed., Handbook pf_Multivariate Experimental
Efigghgiggy_(Chicagoz Rand McNally, 1966), p. 236.

 

from contr
one to par
of unknowt
blens Keri
only thosv
study use

in which

similar a
This use
Supports
duals an
The ques
Viewer 3
PESponds
a tract;

the sanp

this is
validit
a descx
\
guasid
32%
n... Y

Harcou

from control groups or before—andfafter measurements that would enable
one to partial out the effects of random fluctuations in the sample or
of unknown variables that would bias the results.1 To avoid these pro—
blems Kerlinger recommends the use of as few variables as possible and
only those variables arising from previous research and theory.2 This
study used variables, paradigms, and instruments from previous studies
in which significant associations were found.

The data was collected and measured using the same, or as
similar as possible, questionnaire items from this previous research.
This use of the questionnaire approach to the collection of data is
supported by Riley who commented that if one wants to measure indivi-
duals and their orientations, a questionnaire is appropriate to use.3
The questionnaire has the advantages of privacy and lessened inter—
viewer and respondent bias but the disadvantage of self—selected
respondents. This problem is greatest when the response rate is only
a fraction of the sample but is less important when a large part of
the sample responds.

Another major problem of any research design is raised by
this issue of bias of respondents. That problem involves the
validity and reliability of the data collected. Before turning to
a description of the data, the third element in the design, a

1. Donald T; Campbell and Julian C. Stanley, "Experimental and
Quasi—Experimental Designs for Research on Teaching," N. Gage, ed.,
Handbook gf_Research pp_Teaching (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963),
pp. 171—204.

2. Fred N. Kerlinger, Foundations pf_Behavioral Research
(New York: Holt, 1967), pp. Lll-lLl—Ll-Urg.

3. Matilda White Riley, Sociological Research (New York:
Harcourt, Brace and World, 1966)} P- 185-

 

 

 

 

 

discussion

reason for

Can the fit

populations

1

and measure
would be e1
1 which find.
Constructs
elumined s.
Situations
themselVes

beTween th

other aid

 

Felleatabil
three effo
Previous 1y
allow reli
would no t
The Sample
1mttest

E

effort at

l. u
1

2. m
for the 0]

 

 

-77
discussion of validity and reliability is appropriate. The major
reason for considering them is the question of generalization.
Can the findings be generalized to_the population and other
populations?

The assumption made in this study was that by using concepts
and measurements already tested in other populations, generalizability
would be enhanced. It was assumed that the more populations from
which findings had supported the use of the selected paradigms and
constructs of this study, the more likely it was that this study
examined some actual social phenomena that are characteristic of many
situations. The wide support would indicate that the measures
themselves have construct validity, that is, a close relationship
between theory, instrument and prediction.1

The reliability of measurements of the variables is the
other aid to generalization. Only if there is some evidence of the
repeatability of results can findings be generalized. There were
three efforts to assure reliability in this study. The first was to use
Previously tested instruments. It was assumed that such use would
allow reliance upon reliability measurements from other studies and
would not require pretests of reliability specifically for this study.
The samples in the previous studies were much larger than any practical
PPS-test group could have been in this investigation.2 The second
effort at assurance was the use of Hoyt reliability tests for the

l. Kerlinger, lgg: cit.

2. These reliabilities are given when available in the footnotes
for the operational definitions.

 

responses
reliabilit
scores for
allow drop
of other

represent

and thus

,4 .

was the f

General ]

 

lying fac
FeSpouse:
Place of

reductiot

i0? inCI‘
Underlyj
FeSPOTISE

Constrm

Orienta

\

l
Edllcat i
m

2
(New YC

 

 

78

responses of the sample.1 The third effort to obtain higher levels of
reliability was the use of factor analysis and generation of factor
scores for selected variables. Since factor analysis procedures
allow dropping of non—discriminating items from scales and weighting
of other items in the direction of the underlying factor, scores
representing variance due to factors should have less random error
and thus higher reliability.2

An application of factor scores for increased reliability
was the factor analysis and factor score generation for the variable
General Innovation Use. The analysis showed that there was an under—
lying factor which accounted for 72% of the variations of the
responses. By using factor scores which represented this factor in
place of the raw scores, there was believed to be a substantial

reduction in random error and thus an increase in reliability.

 

However the use of factor analysis is even more important
for increased validity. By analyzing variables assumed to have an
underlying construct, say role orientation, the degree to which the
responses to the scale represent responses that are valid for that
construct, role orientation, may be determined.

When applied to the scales for Bureaucratic and Professional
Orientation, the factor analysis did show that there was an underlying

1. William A. Mehrens, Irvin J. Lehmann, Standardized Tests in
Education (New York: Holt, 1969), p. 39. Hoyt procedures yield the
same results as the Kuder—Richardson without losing half the sample.

2. W. W. Cooley, P. H. Lohnes, Multivariate Data Analysis
(New York: John Wiley, 1971), P. 137.

 

 

factor
factor
scales
that te

of pro-

activit
generat
Factor
each ac
Profess
items a
whim
the neg
that th

PPOfeSS

Innovat‘
that a 1
be used

Simian.

General
the fact

the Paw

\1.

 

 

79
factor which would support the validity of the opinion scales. This
factor which accounted for 61% of the variation in responses for both
scales was termed Professional Orientation Factor Score. It showed
that teachers in the sample could be sorted out along the lines
of pro— and anti—bureaucratic orientation.

When a factor analysis was made of the reference group
activity scores, similar results were found and two scores were
generated. These were termed Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity
Factor Score and Professional Reference Group Activity Factor Score;
each accounting for about H5% of the Variations in the scores. The
professional factor consisted of negative responses to bureaucratic
items and at one point it was suggested that this factor be called
anti-bureaucratic rather than professional since that emphasizes
the negative nature of the responses. However it was concluded
that this might lead to unnecessary confusion and the term
professional was retained.

A third application of factor analysis was to the
Innovation Internalization Scale. Support was found for the claim
that a scale based upon the taxonomy of The Affective Domainl could
be used to measure attitude formation in the forced use innovation
situation.

Factor analysis then was used with the role variables,
General Innovation Use, and Innovation Internalization scores and
the factor scores generated during the analysis were used in place of

the raw scores since the factor scores were likely to have less

________.______________
l. Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia, pp. cit. pp. 21—33.

 

 

 

 

random e

Chapter

situati
constru
researc
depends
their r
discus
fourth
the ad
m

(

cipat
Opera
i0 qp
COW
Vega
clas
disc
Prod

Sun

80

random error. Details on the results of the analyses are stated in
Chapter u.

The situation and methodology are the first two elements
of the six elements in a research design. They have been described
in the above passages. The issue of generalization from a particular
situation and sample population was met by using previously tested
constructs, paradigms, and scales. The third element of the
research design is the nature of the data to be collected. This is
dependent upon the operational definitions of the variables and
their validity and reliability. Since the latter have already been
discussed, operational definitions will now be given after which the
fourth element of the research design, the collection of data through
the administration of the instrument, will be discussed.

Operational Definitions of the Variables

 

Continuing Education Variables

 

1. Index of Participation in Non-Vocational Continuipgg
Education. '

 

This index is a measure of the extent of teacher parti—
cipation in general adult education activities. It was defined
operationally as the sum of scores a teacher reported in responses
to questions dealing with the extent of his participation in eleven
common adult education and cultural activities, not directly
vocational for teachers. The activities were: church or religion
classes for adults, evening school classes, public affairs lectures,
discussion groups, Great Book Clubs, musical programs, dramatic
productions, lectures, and hobby clubs. The score was obtained by

summing the products of the response and weights assigned for each

 

activity

indicate

of t
the

pation

 

extend,
was def
t0 quer
work a‘
i ' profes
in con
to a S
divide
activj
teacht

SDOHSI

Weig‘
is t

 

 

81
activity. Each unit was approximately 2—3 clock hours and high scores
indicate more time of participation. A typical item was as follows:1
Please indicate in the appropriate line the number
of times in the past two years you have participated in
the activities below.
a. Church or religious education classes for adults

0 l 2 3 H 5 or more

2. Index of Participation in General Continuipg Professional
m.

This index is a measure of the extent of teacher partici-
pation in activities of a formalized educational nature designed to
extend, enhance, or improve professional knowledge in education. It
was defined operationally as the rank a teacher obtained in response

to questions dealing with participation workshops, meetings, course

 

work at institutions of higher education, travel-study, and

professional reading. It was not limited as to subject matter areas
‘ in contrast to the next variable, Specific COPE which was confined
to a single area. The activities, for the purpose of analysis, were
divided into two subgroups: (a) Extra-System General COPE, all such
activities that were not sponsored by the school system employing the
teachers and (b) Intra-System General COPE, all such activities
sponsored by the employing school system.

Scores for this variable were obtained by weighting the

raw responses in such a way as to obtain quantitative units that
approximated time spent in participation with each unit representing

15 clock hours. All COPE scores were so treated. The weighted

 

1. See Appendix A for the full text of the questionnaire. It lists
all items related to each variable and, for each item, the scoring
Weight assigned that item. The complete list of items for this variable
is to be found in Appendix A, item 25, p. 258.

 

respons<
intra-s:
single

High sc

unit re

 

Partic
design
area c
teachi
Writ
rank .
Patti
work

The a

 

 

82
responses were summed separately for all extra—system items and all
intra-system items and these two subscores were then summed into a
single total. A similar procedure was used in scoring Specific COPE.
High scores indicate more time spent in continuing education with each
unit representing 15 clock hours.1 A typical extra—system item was:2

Approximately how many hours in college or university
credit courses or workshops have you taken since June 1, 1967?

__None ~___l2-lLt hours

3—5 hours 15—17 hours
—6—8 hours :18—20 hours
::9-ll hours __?l hours or more

3. Index of Participation in Specific Continuing Professional
Education.

 

This index is a measure of the extent of teacher

participation in activities of a formalized educational nature

 

designed to extend, enhance, or improve professional knowledge in the
area of the specific innovation which in this study included the
teaching of mathematics and an understanding of the new mathematics
curriculum and accompanying texts. It was defined operationally as the
rank a teacher obtained in response to questions dealing with
participation in mathematics oriented workshops, meetings, course
work at institutions of higher education, and professional reading.
The activities were, for the purpose of analysis, divided into two

I. The units are relativistic and cannot be considered as
absolute scalar units in the sense of uniform time steps. The index
alleges that only the more activity or longer the activity the
higher the score. This was done since there did not seem to
be any way of actually equating every activity to a single time
unit given the diverse nature of modern in-service. However it
was estimated that these COPE units averaged about 15 clock hours.

. 2. A complete list of items for this variable is to be found
1n Appendix A, items l8...24, pp. 257-258.

\
l
r
i
l
l

 

subgroup
were no
Specifir
employi
same as
High St

activi1

tOwar
Open
I‘eSp

and

fOur

int.

 

83
subgroups: (a) Extra—System Specific COPE, all such activities that
were not sponsored by the employing school system, and (b) IntraeSystem
Specific COPE, all such activities that were sponsored by the
employing school system. The process for obtaining scores was the
same as for General COPE and was described above in that section.
High scores indicate more time was spent in participating in this

1

activity. A typical extra-system item was:

How many workshops about mathematics or math education,
but not sponsored by the school district, have you taken
part in the last two school years?

a. short: one to two days or H to 12 hours

_,9 __l __2 __9 or more
b. medium: two to four days or 13 to 20 hours
_~O __l __2 __C or more

c. long: one to two weeks or 21 hours plus

0 l 2 _fl9 or more

Innovation Situation Behavior Variables
I. General Change Orientation Scale
This scale measured the general attitude of the teachers
towards change in general in the field of education. It was defined
operationally as the sum of scores a teacher reported in his
responses to questions dealing with the necessity for, importance of,

and personal adjustment to changes in general in the school system.2

 

l. A complete list of items comprising this variable is to be
found in Appendix A, items 5...lO, pp. 25H—255.
' 2. Items from Lin, pp: git}, p. 33. The scale has a reported
inter—item correlation from .13 to .39., ibid., p. 50.

There we
negative
weighted
indicate

it typica

indica
intere
SChoo]
huildi
ShOWi]
table
accep

hood

 

 

81+
There were four items, two worded positively and two worded
negatively towards change. Scores were obtained by summing the
weighted responses (weights shown below) and high scores would
indicate a high value placed upon educational innovation.
A typical item1 was:
I really believe we could have done a much better
job, or at least done just as well if things hadn't
changed so much in our schools. ‘

Score weights for:

positive items negative items

__agree very much 7 I
__agree on the whole 6 2
‘__agree a little 5 3
__don't know 4 4
disagree a little 3 5
_—disagree on the whole 2 6
l 7

::hisagree very much
2. General Innovation Use Index
This index measured the extent to which a teacher

indicated current use or interest in using, or non—use or non—
interest in using, any of a list of fifteen innovations in the
school system. The index included interest—in—using responses since
buildings varied as to the availability of the innovations. While
showing interest in use might be considered to be a form of accep—
table behavior and thus draw responses biased by perceived social
acceptability rather than showing true interest in use, that likeli—
hood was reduced by using a number of innovations since not all of

them might be seen as socially acceptable by all teachers.

 

l. A complete list of items comprising this variable is to be
found in Appendix A, items 92 to 95, p. 267.

‘ m~¢.n\..‘_

ateache

unerest

The resp

scores i

of the 1

reportet

indicat

huildin
in the

was tc
I buildir
the ex

huildi

Each
disc

aSs

 

 

85

This variable was defined operationally as the sum of scores
a teacher reported in response to questions dealing with their
interest in using, or their actual use of, fifteen innovations.
The responses were summed after weighting to obtain the score. High
scores indicate either high use or high desire to use or a mixture
of the two. However the highest scores could be obtained only through
reported use. A slightly higher weight was assigned to responses
indicating that the innovation was not in use in the particular
building in comparison to a response indicating that it was in use
in the particular building but the teacher was not using it. This
was to make the teacher who had an innovation available in his
building but not using it, less innovative than the teacher lacking
the example of other teachers using the innovation in his own

building. A portion of the item1 was as follows:

scoring weight
circle 0. if it is not in use in your building,
circle I. if it is not in use in your building
but you would like to use it, 2
circle 2. if it is in use in your building, but
you have not been using it,

 

circle 3. if it is in use and you use it yourself. 3
a individualized reading. . . . . . ... .0 l 2 3
b. team teaching . . . . . . . . . .0 l 2 3

Innovation Internalization Scale

00
.

The definition and discusssion for this item deals with
each of the ten subscales making up the full scale. During the
discussion the position of each of the subscales on the Taxonomy
as shown in Figure 2 on page 31 will be mentioned. At the end of the

q l. A complete list of the items comprising this variable is to be
found in Appendix A, item H3, p. 261.

 

gillldikii —' «.x .

discussi

the teat
already
as dete
princip
or will

1.1 or

report
innova
of the
the t1
Innov
for e
Same
A hig
assur
samp

data

a13131

Des

86
discussion a definition will be given of the full scale.

a. Accuracy of information about the extent of use of
innovations in general in the building

Accuracy of information refers to the level of accuracy of
the teacher's perception of which innovations of a list of fifteen,
already used in the General Innovation Use Index, are in actual use
as determined by a comparison of information from the building
principal about these innovations.1 It is an attention, awareness,
or willingness to receive measure and would find its place at the
1.1 or 1.2 levels of the Taxonomy.2

It was defined operationally as the sum of scores a teacher
reported in response to questions dealing with the use of fifteen
innovations, when the teacher's responses were confirmed by those
of the principal. Conversion of data for scoring began by comparing
the teacher's responses for the items in the index for General
Innovation Use with those of the principal. One point was awarded
for each response as to use or non-use in the building that was the
same as that of the principal. The sum of these points was the score.
A high score indicated high levels of knowledge about innovation use,
assuming that the principal's responses were the more accurate. No
sample item is given here since the scores were obtained from the
data for General Innovation Use, already defined.3

1. The index was adapted from Lin with changes to make it
applicable to elementary schools. Lin, 2:: Eire 9p: 93:): pp. 118w119.

2. Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia, pp, Eli), pp. 99—112.

3. A complete list of the items comprising this variable is to

be found in Appendix A, item 43, p.261. The items for principal
response are to be found in Appendix B, p. 274.

 

ledge o
in tern
began.]
confirr
respon
the nu
use in
0? at1
atten‘
the p:
absol
build
sum w
this

One

 

87

b. Accuracy of information about a specific innovation
This subscale measures the accuracy of a teacher's know—

ledge of the extent of use of a specific innovation in his building
in terms of the numbers of teachers using the innovation and when use
began.1 It was defined operationally as the sum of correct (as
confirmed by the building principal) scores a teacher received in
response to questions dealing with a specific innovation, in terms of
the number of teachers using said innovation and the date of first
use in building. In terms of the Taxonomy this is another receiving
or attending item; however it is placed at the 1.3 level, controlled
attention,2 because it deals with a specific innovation as compared to
the previous subscale. The score was obtained by comparing the
absolute value of the teacher response to the absolute value of the
building principal response and then summing the differences. This
sum was subtracted from 14 so as to give a high score to those teachers
whose responses were closer to the principal's. There were two items.
One was:3

How many teachers in your building are using either the
SRA or Addison—Wesley math series?

___0 '_1 __2 ___3' __!+ __5 __6 ___7 ___8 __9 or more

c. Perception of type of decision process
This one item subscale measured the accuracy of the

teacher's knowledge of the process of adoption of the specific

 

1. Adapted from Lin, et. al., with changes necessary for a
different innovation. Lin, etT_a1., p. 103.

2. Krathwohl, Bloom, and—Masia, 92. 9‘13, pp. 113—117.
. 3. A complete list of items comprising this variable will be found
1n Appendix A, items 1 and 2, p. 254. Principal data was obtained from
Principal Response Sheet, Appendix B, p. 27H.

 

innovati
the four

in orgar

teacher
the dec
innovat
Taxonor
will he
an att
type 0
the in
assigr
knOWll
respo

as f0

 

88

innovation within the school district. It uses Rogers’ analysis of
the four—fold nature of the decision—making situation for innovation
in organizations.1

It was defined operationally as the weighted score a
teacher obtained in response to a question dealing with the nature of
the decision—making process used in the adoption of the specific
innovation.2 This subscale was placed in the response area of the
Taxonomy since it was assumed that a teacher who is willing to respond
will have paid attention to the innovation and developed enough of
an attitude toward it so he would be more likely to be aware of the
type of process used in the district to bring about the adoption of
the innovation. The score for this variable equalled the weight
assigned to each response. High scores indicate high levels of
knowledge of process since highest score weights were given to those

3

responses which were correct or nearly correct. The item was

as follows:

Regarding the decision to adopt the new math series,

do you feel it was:
score weights

__your personal decision? 0
__a decision upon which you had no influence
but you had the choice of adopting them or not? 0

__a decision made by consensus within the school
district but you had the option of adopting

or not? 3
__a decision made by consensus within the school

district but you were required to use them? 5
__a decision made for you by others and

you were required to use them? 3

_______,_____~______
1. Rogers, 9p: cit., p. 9.
2. Lin, 3:: 3i}, op: cit., p. 128.
3. The item is reproduced in Appendix A, item 37, p. 260.

 

percept
with tl
with 0'
have i
about

a res;

level

 

89
d. Vertical communication about the innovation

This one item variable referred to the teacher's
perception of the frequency of communication about the innovation
with the building principal on the part of the teacher as compared
with other teachers in the building. It was assumed that teachers who
have internalized the innovation are more likely to have communication
about it with their superiors. That is, they have been willing to make
a response about the innovation thus placing the item at the 2.2
level of the taxonomy.1

It was defined operationally as the score a teacher reported
in response to a question comparing the amount of communication he
has had about the innovation with the principal as compared to other
teachers.2 Scores were obtained from the weighted response. High
scores indicate high levels of communication about the innovation
and thus higher levels of internalization. The item was as follows:3

Compared with an average teacher of the lst, 2nd, or 3rd

grade in the school, do you think you have discussed the

new textbooks with your principal...
score weights
much oftener
"“5 little oftener
::pbout as often

a little less often
__much less often

i—‘MOO-F‘U‘l

e. Perceived legitimacy of said vertical communication
This one item variable refers to the teacher's perception
of the organizational norms of legitimacy concerning the vertical
1. Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia, pp, cit., pp. 12H~l30.
2. Adapted from Lin, pp: cit., p. 30. Reported inter—item mean

reliability correlation is .47, ibid., p. 51
3. The item is reproduced in Appendix A, item u, p. 25M.

 

commun
tion.
tion w

mate ,

obtair
him t
high

count

The i

 

com

inn

 

 

 

90

communication measured in the previous subscale, vertical communica—
tion. It was assumed that a teacher who had internalized the innova—
tion would accept such vertical communication as satisfying and legiti—
mate, that is, the item would fall at the 2.3 level of the taxonomy.1

It was defined operationally as the weighted score a teacher
obtained in response to a question on whether it was customary for
him to take part in decision making discussions about an innovation.2
High scores indicate high perceived levels of legitimacy of vertical
communication and thus higher levels of internalization.
The item,3 negatively worded, was as follows:

Basically I feel I am conSulted all too often about

these innovations.
score weights
agree very much
__agree on the whole
::agree a little
not sure
_—disagree a little
—.disagree on the whole
::disagree very much

\IOU'I-FOOMH

f. Perceived group opinion leadership about the innovation
This is the matching horizontal variable to the vertical
communication variable in "d. Vertical communication about the
innovation.” It was assumed that a high score reflected a willingness
on the part of the teacher to lead discussions concerning the innova—
tion, due to the teacher finding satisfaction as an opinion leader in

discussions related to the innovation. It would fall at the 2.3 level

1. Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia, pp; cit., pp. 130—138: . .
2. Adapted from Lin, pp: cit., p. 35. Inter—item reliability
coefficient reported is .23, ibid., p. 81.

3. The item is reproduced in Appendix A. item 110, p. 269-

. u; ; 1.:L‘...Ea-;—,wx ..

 

......—

since it involve
d. Vertical comr

It was
a teacher obtair

in discussions c

item2 was as fol

Compa:
are you mo:
these tOpi.

mor-
les
abo

"—

of”
[*0

Th

perception of h
tion as compare
reflected not C
Taxonomy) but a

(3.2 level) .Ll

Obtained in rec

0f kHOWledge CC

 

91

since it involves more interaction on the part of the teacher than
d. Vertical communication.

It was defined operationally as the sum of weighted scores
a teacher obtained in his response to questions dealing with his role
in discussions of the innovation.1 It has five items and a typical
item.2 was as follows:

Compared with your circle of friends in the school,

are you more or less likely to be asked for opinions about
these topics?

score weights

__more 3
__1ess 1
__about the same . 2

g. Perceived adequacy of information about the innovation
This single item subscale looks at the teacher's

perception of how well informed he was concerning the specific innova—
tion as compared to other teachers.3 It was assumed that a high score
reflected not only satisfaction in response, at the 3.1 level of the
Taxonomy, but also acceptance of a value in having the information
(3.2 level).L‘L

It was defined operationally as the weighted score a teacher
obtained in response to a question dealing with the relative extent

5

of knowledge concerning the innovation. The item was as follows:

 

l. Adapted from Lin, 3:: Eire pp: Edi}, p. 119 .

2. A complete list of the items comprising this variable is to be
found in Appendix A, item 45, pp. 262-263.

3. Adapted from Lin, e3: al) pp: git}, p. 104.

4. Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia, pp: gig}, pp. 139—145.

5. The item is reprodUced in Appendix A, item 3, p- 254.

 

 

 

taxonomy at the 3

received, respond
unernalized it a
fin innovation t
Hhflrscores indi
thus indicate hig

It was
ateacher receive
extent of the val
item3 was:

My pe
is that th

hen

l-“Krathw
2. Adapte
3. The se
Awhemdix A, ite

 

 

92

if asked to judge your knowledge of the new textbooks,
would you consider yourself to be...
score weights

extremely well informed
::huite well informed
__about average

not very well informed
::hot at all well informed

HMQFU‘I

h. Perceived student benefits

 

This three item variable falls above the middle of the
taxonomy at the 3.2 level for it was assumed that a teacher who has
received, responded to, and valued an innovation, that is, has
internalized it at the lower levels, will gain a conceptualization of
the innovation that will see more students as benefiting from it.1
High scores indicate high perceived benefits for the students and
thus indicate higher levels of internalization.

It was defined operationally as the sum of weighted scores
a teacher receives in response to questions dealing with the perceived
extent of the value of the innovation for his pupils.2 A typical
item3 was:

My personal view regarding the use of the new textbooks

is that the students...
score weights

__benefit greatly 5
benefit somewhat 4
-not sure 3
::no not benefit much 2
1

__do not benefit at all

 

l. Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia, op: cit}, pp. lHS—lug.

2."Adapted from Lin, it: 2&9 92. 5:35., p. 104.

3. The set of items comprising this variable may be found in
Appendix A, items 42 and 46, p. 261 and p. 263.

 

 

 

 

and two negatively

organized set of v
is on the 3.3 leve
internalization me
higher commitment
It was the scale w
It was d
a teacher received
value and signific
tional system as

These ne
improvement 5

__agree
__agr'ee
“agree
'___don' t
___disag1

   
      

u. A com
. ple
1“ Appendix A, i

 

93

i. Commitment to the innovation

 

This four item variable with two items worded positively
and two negatively measured the extent to which a teacher had an
organized set of values about the specific innovation. Probably it
is on the 3.3 level of the Taxonomy.l It is the highest level of
internalization measured in this scale. High scores represent
higher commitment and thus higher internalization of the innovation.
It was the scale which Lin used to measure internalizatiOn.2

It was defined operationally as the sum of weighted scores
a teacher received in response to four questions dealing ”with the
value and significance of a change to his teaching duty and the educa—
tional system as a whole."3 A typical item4 was as follows:

These new mathematics textbooks could constitute an
improvement in educational practices in any school.

score weights

positive items negative items

agree very much 7 l
::egree on the whole 6 2
__agree a little 5 3
__don't know 4 M
__disagree a little 3 5
__disagree on the whole 2 6
l 7

disagree very much

j. Innovation Internalization-full scale
The operational definition for the full complete scale

of innovation internalization was as follows: Innovation Internalization

l. Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia, _p, git}, pp. 149—153.

2. Lin, op. cit., pp. 30—31.

3. ibid.:—p._§61 Reported median inter—item correlation of .M6.
292$}, p. #9.
. H. A complete set of items comprising this subscale is to be found
ln Appendix A, items 16, 17, 38a, and 38b, p. 256 and p. 260.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

was represented by

reponses to questi
about innovations
infomation as to
of his perception
innovation, his ve
perceived legitim
group opinion lea
of the adequacy o
of the student he
rent to it as bei
The ful
for this level is
example, the valun
subscale for com
internalization i
items at other le
tation of the in
conceptual valid'

for the full sca

higher scores in

 

 

on

was represented by the sum of scores a teacher obtained in his
reponses to questions dealing with the accuracy of his information
about innovations in use in his building in general, accuracy of his
information as to the extent of use of a specific innovation, accuracy
of his perception of the type of decision process used in adopting the
innovation, his vertical communication about the innovation, the
perceived legitimacy of said vertical communication, his perceived
group opinion leadership about the specific innovation, his perception
of the adequacy of his information about the innovation, his perception
of the student benefits from the specific innovation, and his commit-
ment to it as being valuable and significant in his teacher role.

The full scale does not go to level five in the Taxonomy

 

for this level is reserved for high level value systems, as for
example, the value of mathematics education, BEEJEE: While the

subscale for commitment was the item set used by Lin as his measure of
internalization it was assumed in this study that the use of additional
items at other levels of the Taxonomy would afford a broader represen—
tation of the internalization process in innovation studies and the
conceptual validity of the scale would thereby be increased. Scores
for the full scale were obtained by summing the subscale scores and

higher scores indicated higher levels of internalization.

Role Orientation and Reference Group Variables

< 1. Role Orientation Measures

 

Role orientation was measured in this study by means of

two subscales, Bureaucratic Opinion Subscale and Professional Opinion

 

 

 

Subscale, both tak

subscale consists

Corwin to identify
bureaucratic outlo
Scores a teacher r
to the administrat
competence, endor
procedures, and l

The so
than the te

The PI
that identify th<
sional outlook.

a teacher reportt
orientation to s
beliefs about c
Scores were obt

were assigned t

1.1Corwin

2- ibid.
of .84. ”"‘
f d 3. A com
oun in Appen
72'75. 77~eu,

 

 

95
Subscale, both taken from Corwin's study.1 The bureaucratic opinion
subscale consists of 24 items selected for their predictive power by
Corwin to identify those teachers with opinions expressive of
bureaucratic outlook.2 It was defined operationally as the sum of
scores a teacher reported in response to questions dealing with loyalty
to the administration, loyalty to the district, beliefs about teacher
competence, endorsement of standardization, emphasis upon rules and
procedures, and loyalty to the community. A typical item3 was:

The school administration should be better qualified
than the teacher to judge what is best for education.

score weights

__strongly agree 1
__somewhat agree 2

not sure 3
-somewhat disagree 4
::strongly disagree 5

The Professional Opinion Subscale consisted of 16 items”
that identify those teachers with opinions expressive of the profes-
sional outlook. It was defined operationally as the sum of scores
a teacher reported in response to questions dealing with the teacher's
orientation to students, colleagues, superiors, and the profession,
beliefs about competence, and beliefs about decision—making authority.
Scores were obtained by summing the weighted responses. Weights
were assigned to both subscales in such a way that high scores

1. Corwin, _p, 923:, pp. ueo—uee.

2. ibid. Corwin reports a split—half reliability coefficient
of .8H.

3. A complete set of items representing this subscale is to be
found in Appendix A, items 50, 51, 53, 55, 56, 58, 51, 54, 55, 67, 70,
72-75, 77—8'4, 86, and 87 found on pp. 264—266.

u. Corwin,_9p._gi;., p. H67. Corwin reports a split-half
reliability coefficient of .65.

 

 

 

 

 

indicated a profes

item1 was as £011
A good

may jeopard
who tells h

In thi
a check on validi
previous section.

used in place of

the reference gr:
indices which co
activity at both
The two subindic
estimation of r
of the opinion

measure the ext
I toward a bureau
concerned with

educational pl

1- A com
found in Appen
68) 7.1) 76’ an

 

 

96

indicated a professional outlook. A typical professional subscale

l was as follows:

item
A good teacher should not do anything that he believes
may jeopardize the interests—of his students regardless of
who tells him or what the rules state.
score weights
__strongly agree

__somewhat agree 4
__pot sure 3

somewhat disagree " 2
::strongly disagree I

In this study the above subscales were factor analyzed for
a check on validity and improving reliability as described in .a
previous section. The factor scores obtained by this analysis were

used in place of the raw scores.

 

2. Reference Group Activity Measures

Reference group activity which was assumed to reflect
the reference group membership of the teacher was measured by two sub—
indices which contained items which were considered to reflect
activity at both ends of the professional—bureaucratic continuum.
The two subindices form an objectively measured instrument for the
estimation of role orientation as contrasted to the subjective nature
of the opinion scales just defined. The subindices were designed to
measure the extent to which a teacher can be identified as oriented
toward a bureaucratic or professional reference group through items

concerned with committee work, memberships in organizations, career and

 

educational plans, and patterns in seeking information and advice.

 

l. A complete set of the items comprising this subscale can be
found in Appendix A, items 48, H9, 52, 54, 57, 59, 60, 62, 63, 65,
68. 71, 76, and 85 on pp. 263—266.

Bureauc
defined as the ran
dealing with parti
further education:
information and at
Scores were obtait
and memberships w:
and plans. High :
group activity si
that high scores
items, a typical

Most c

come from.
least impor
whoo}
__diS<
~di8¢
‘diSl
xdis

dis

IlllllIllIIlIIIIIIII-II---II-III-IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII-IIIIIiiiiifiiiiauanmas.éééésg;w‘

97

Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity was operationally
defined as the rank a teacher obtained in response to questions
dealing with participation in school system committees, career plans,
further educational plans, and the extent to which the teacher sought
information and advice from the school hierarchy and the community. i
Scores were obtained by summing the raw responses for activities
and memberships with the weighted responses for information seeking
and plans. High scores indicate low levels of bureaucratic reference
group activity since the scores, raw and weighted, were weighted so
that high scores would represent professionalism. There were four
items, a typical one1 of which was as follows:

Most of your insights and new ideas regarding education

come from...(p1ease number from 1, most important to 7,
least important)

books and/or magazines on education (a)
~"discussions with other teachers (b)
::discussions with helping teachers (c)

discussions with superiors (d)
-discussions with university people (e)
::discussions with lay people (f)
_flmass media: TV, newspapers, magazines (g)

Items c, d, f, and g are Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity items
and were scored by using the ranking the teacher gave each as the
response for that item. The four response scores were then summed.
Items a, b, and e were Professional Reference Group Activity items and
the same procedure was followed with the additional step of subtracting

the total from 21 so as to invert the score total in order that high

 

 

1. Items 29, 36b, 36d, 36e, 36f, 36g, ch, 41d, ”if, 41g, #70,
47f, 47g, comprise the Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity (RGA)
subindex portion of the Reference Group Activity Index and these items
are to be found in Appendix A on pp. 258~268.

 

 

awn—”v.94- .» ~~

scores represent hi!

Professi<
defined Operational
response to questio
organizations, educ
ateacher sought ad
groups, and the ext
education.l Scores
for the seven items
Example for this de

1. L22

ThQST

 

98

scores represent high professional reference group activity.

Professional Reference Group Activity (Professional RGA) was
defined operationally as the sum of scores a teacher received in
response to questions dealing with participation in professional
organizations, educational and career plans, the extent to which
a teacher sought advice and information from peers and professional
groups, and the extent of information about professional leaders in
education.1 Scores were as described above for Bureaucratic RGA
for the seven items of this index. The item above serves as the
example for this description.

Situational Variables
1. Demographic Variables
These included the following items.

age
sex
. marital status
working spouse

dependents
attained educational level

'"hCDO-aOU'fll

The items were included since each was thought likely to have an
influence on the level of participation in continuing education and
the extent of innovative behavior on the part of the teachers.2
2. Teaching Experience Variables
These included the following items.

__..______*_~____

1. Items 26—28, 30—35, 36a, 36c, 36h, 40, 41c, Ale, 47a, u7b,
and 47e comprise the Professional Reference Group Activity
Subindex portion of the RGA index and are to be found in

Appendix A on pp. 258~26l, p. 263.

2. These items are reproduced in Appendix A, items 39, 138—lu2,
pp. 260 and 273.

WfiW‘WV‘W ' 7 .7

 

 

a. yes
b. yea
o. yea
d. gre

These were includec

of innovative beha‘

3. EXPOS'

a. Pr

was included since
innovation adoptic

out during the tee

as the sum of scor
dealing With prior

innovation. Scorc

“Eights were assi.
eliposure to the s

of which was as f

At some
yedP, were
y0u are now

\no

\one c'
‘for c
\for (

\fOI‘ (
\had 1

1‘ Items 13:
‘ Rogers,
3' Items 12

 

 

99

years in teaching

. years in system

. years in assignment
grade assignment

o.o.o‘m

These were included because they were felt to be related to the extent
of innovative behavior on the part of the teachers.1

3. Exposure to Specific Innovation

a. Previous Exposure to Specific Innovation. This variable

was included since previous use has been shown to be related to
innovation adoption time.2 Thus this variation had to be partialled
out during the testing of the hypotheses. It was defined operationally
as the sum of scores a teacher reported in response to questions
dealing with prior experience with, or work on, the mathematics
innovation. Scores were obtained by summing the weighted responses.
Weights were assigned so as to make high scores indicate high previous
exposure to the specific innovation. There were four items,3 one
of which was as follows:

At some time previous to the beginning of this school

year, were you able to examine a copy of the new textbooks
you are now using?
score weights
__no
__one day
for one week or less
::for one month or less
__for one month or more
__had used book before

(II-FOOMI-‘O

1. Items 134, 135, 136, 146 as shown in Appendix A, pp. 272—273.
Total years in teaching was the sum of 146, years in system, and
134, years out of system.

2. Rogers, op: git}, p. 104.

3. Items 12...15 as shown in Appendix A, p. 256.

 

 

 

b. 9.33
item variable was i
mandated innovatior
grades K-2, and Adc
shme other texts v
texts did not aim
necessary to inclu
between texts, in
zation process. C
score a teacher re
current use of bo<
in the analysis 0
use was given for
Have yo

Please mark

Please mark
years "0".

a. Silt
b. Addi
c. SRA,
d. SMG

Lb Sel-
a.
related to Willi

defined as the q

1' Other .
’PP- 255.256
. ‘ Lin et

 

 

100

b. Current Exposure to Specific Innovation. This single
item variable was included since there were two different texts in the
mandated innovation: SRA (Science Research Associates), basically for
grades K—2, and Addison—Wesley, basically for grades 3—6. However
since other texts were not uncommon and since actual use of the new
texts did not always follow these grade assignments, it was thought
necessary to include this variable so as to partial out differences
between texts, in terms of use and their influence upon the internali-
zation process. Current exposure was defined operationally as the
score a teacher reported in response to a question dealing with
current use of books. Each text was inserted as a separate variable

in the analysis of data and a dummy score of O for non—use or 1 for

 

use was given for each text. The item1 was as follows:

Have you used any of the following math materials?
Please mark grade level of series used this year ”+".
Please mark grade level(s) of series used in previous
years ”0”.

a. Silver Burdett:

b. Addison—Wesley, AW:

0. SRA, Greater Cleveland:

d. SMG, School Mathematics Group:

 

 

2 3 u 5 6 never used

1
l 2 3 4 5 6 never used
1
l

.2 3 u 5 6 never used

2 3 4 5 6 never used

4. Self Image Variables
a. Role Satisfaction. This variable was found to be
related to willingness to accept change.2 It was operationally
defined as the sum of scores a teacher reports in response to
questions dealing with his satisfaction in teaching. Scores were
1. Other texts named were possibilities. Previous grade data

were not used in this study. This item appears as item ll in Appendix

A, pp- 255-256. . .
2. Lin, et. al., op: cit., p. 36. Reported inter—item
reliability CSEffiEient of .36 (median). Lin, 22: c1t., p. 51.

obtained by summini
so as to make high
. l
mere four items.
negatively. A typ

I like It

_agree
_agree
__agree
__don't

' ~~disag
___disag
_disag
b. Self

found to be rela‘
teachers who rat.
accept Change.

WeiBhted scores

With several are

make high scores

all pOSit iVely ‘

Where
aCCelerate.

 

lOl
obtained by summing the weighted responses. Weights were assigned
so as to make high scores indicate high role satisfaction. There
were four items.1 Two were worded positively and two were worded
negatively. A typical item was as follows:
I like my teaching job in this school.‘

score weights

positive items negative items
__agree very much 7 1
__agree on the whole

agree a little

__don't know
-—disagree a little
‘_"disagree on the whole
'::disagree very much

t—warmon
\IOUI-Fw

b. Self-Rating as a Teacher. This variable also has been

 

found to be related to willingness to change.2 Possibly those
teachers who rate themselves highly as teachers feel secure enough to
accept change. Self Rating was defined operationally as the sum of
weighted scores a teacher obtained in response to questions concerned
with several areas of teaching skills. Scores were weighted so as to
make high scores indicate high self rating. There were nine items,3
all positively worded. A typical item was:

Where would you rank your ability to teach an
accelerated class?
score weights
' outstanding
—_among the best
::good ,
above average
‘_—average
"—_below average
::among the poorest

I—‘MOO-r—‘U‘IO‘IQ

1. Items 106—109 as shown in Appendix A, pp. 268—269.

2. Lin, et. al., op, git), p. 92. . . .

3. Natalie sproull, "The Development and Preliminary Analysis of a
Self-Concept of Teaching Ability Scale," Brookover, ed., Self Concept
32g School Achievement, III (East Lansing: Michigan State UniverSity,

1967), p. 125. Items sea—ion as shown in Appendix A, pp. 267—268-

 

 

The fo.
relationships betwe
perceived by the te
related to innovat
scale2 is concerne<
as a teacher. It ‘
scores a teacher r
how he thought the
teaching skills.3
scale and was scol

b- a
scale measures ho
the teacher about
as the sum of wei
response to quest
his teaching peri

”e
help. High scm

mu“ items, all

1' Lin: et.
' Sproufi,
. Items 12
' L111 0
Coefiicienthfk'
5' Items 1:

 

102
5. Perceived Self—Superior Relationships
The following items were concerned with the quality of
relationships between the teacher and the building principal_as
perceived by the teacher. Previous research has shown these to be
related to innovation internalization.l
a. Perceived rating of teaching ability by principal. This

2 is concerned with how the teacher thinks the principal rates him

scale
as a teacher. It was operationally defined as the sum of weighted
scores a teacher reported in response to ten questions dealing with
how he thought the principal felt about him in terms of various
teaching skills.3 The format was identical to the above self—rating
scale and was scored and interpreted in the same way.

b. Perceivedgperformance feedback from principal. This
scale measures how often the principal is perceived to interact with
the teacher about his classroom work. It was defined operationally
as the sum of weighted response scores a teacher reported in
response to questions on how often his principal talked to him about
his teaching performance, gave him encouragement, and rendered him
help.’4 High scores indicated high performance feedback. There were

four items, all positively worded, 5 and a typical one was:

 

1. Lin, 3;. §_i_, 92. cit., pp. 62—68.

2. Sproull, loc. cit., p. 126.

3. Items l20:l29,~as shown in Appendix A, pp. 270—27l.

”. Lin, 22} git}, p. 32. He reports an inter—item reliability
coefficient of .51. ibid., p. 52.

5. Items 112-115, as shown in Appendix A, p. 259,

 

 

 

 

‘1

He offe
performance.

very
ouite

just

does

quit

neve

isa measure of p
palas perceived
participation a '
about things tha'
thesum of score
fitaihe attends
flnught he was w
Obtained bv 8mm]
asto make high
were two itemSQ

One of the item

1 dc
Principa]

[aim/o. {aim If]!

‘1- Lin,
coefficient of

2‘ Item}

 

103

He offers suggestions to help improve my teaching

performance...
score weights

__yery frequently 5
__puite frequently u
__just about the same amount as he

does other teachers 3
__quite infrequently 2
__pever 1

c. Perceived participation in decision making. This scale
is a measure of participative management on the part of the princi-
pal as perceived by the teacher. It is concerned with the level of
participation a teacher feels he has in helping to make decisions
about things that affect the school. It was defined operationally as
the sum of scores a teacher reported in response to questions on how
often he attended decision making discussions and how influential he
thought he was with the principal in such decisions.1 Scores were
obtained by summing the weighted responses. Weights were assigned so
as to make high scores indicate high perceived participation. There
were two items2 of which one was worded positively and one negatively.
One of the items was as fOllows:

I don't think I can influence the decision of the
principal regarding things about which I am concerned.

score weights
positive items negative items

__agree very much
__agree on the whole
__agree a little
__don't know
__disagree a little
__disagree on the whole
__disagree very much

H m w I m m 4
u m m F “'Q'I

 

1. Lin, 9p, cit., p. 35. He reports an inter—item reliability
coefficient of .SM, ibid., p. 51.

2. Items 116-117 as shown in Appendix A, p. 270.

 

 

 

 

"i

d- 2er
goes along with th
ateacher feels it
in decision making
sum of weighted St

it was a general
in such discussio

teacher.l Respor

higilegitimacy.

and one item was

It is

result in

_agr
__agr
~agi
~dox
‘di:
‘di:
__di
e. P

measures how th

It is identica]

define-‘1 in the

Same Way. It .

a teachep Obta
Perceived prot
l. Adap

fi‘ap
2‘ Item

.22,

 

 

lOM

d. Perceived legitimacy of such participation. This scale
goes along with the previous one since it measures the extent to which
a teacher feels it belongs to his role as a teacher to participate
in decision making discussions. It was defined operationally as the
sum of weighted scores a teacher reported in response as to whether
it was a general practice for the other teachers or him to take part
in such discussion in terms of compatibility with the role of the
teacher.1 Responses were weighted so as to make high scores indicate
high legitimacy. There were two items,2 both negatively worded,
and one item was as follows:

It is unusual for me to take part in discussions which
result in decisions regarding school problems and activities

score weights

agree very much
——agree on the whole
_—agree a little
_*don't know
::disagree a little
__disagree on the whole
__disagree very much

u m w t w w H

e. Perceived change orientation of principal. This scale
measures how the teacher rates the principal in willingness to change.
It is identical in format to the General Change Orientation Scale
defined in the ISB section and is both scored and interpreted in the
same way. It was defined operationally as the sum of weighted scores
a teacher obtained in response to questions dealing with the

perceived probable response of the principal to questions dealing

 

l. Adapted from Lin, pp: cit., p. 35. Average correlation is
.22, ibid., p. 5l.

2. Items llB—llg, as shown in Appendix A, p. 270.

 

 

vidithe necessity
change in educatio:
f- P...

This one item scal
new mathematics Cl
operationally as -
concerned with th

principal was giv

vasobtained frog

Paceived suppory

I thi'
textbooks .

whc
son

——_

not

not

110‘

t See
This s
relationships t
in the SChool.
staff the teac
type of intera

OVQI‘ educat 101'

1. ‘Lin
Soefficients’

1 1d
\" P» 50.
130-133,

 

105

with the necessity of, importance of, and personal adjustment to
wageinemmmjmrl

f. Perceived support of principal for specific innovation.
This one item scale2 was concerned with the principal's support of the
new mathematics curriculum as perceived by the teacher. It was defined
operationally as the score a teacher reported in response to a question
concerned with the teacher's perception of the amount of support the
principal was giving the use of the specific innovation.3 The score
was obtained from the weighted response. High scores indicate high
perceived support by the principal. The item was:

I think our principal supports the use of the new

textbooks...

score weights
wholeheartedly
_*somewhat
_—not sure
::not very much
__not at all

From-cm

6. Self-Peer Relationship Variables
This set of scales was used to measure the quality of

relationships that the teacher felt he had with the rest of the staff
in the school. The first scale measures how integrated into the
staff the teacher feels he is and the second is concerned with the
type of interactions the teacher feels he has with other teachers
over educational issues.

1. Lin, pp. cit., p. 30. He reports inter—item reliability
coefficients of from .13 to .39 in the expected direction.
ibid., p. 50. The items are reproduced in Appendix A, items
130—133, pp. 271—272.

2. Item lll as shown in Appendix A, p. 269.
3. Adapted from Lin, 3:: al:, pp: cit., p. 10%.

 

 

‘1

a- e
closeness of rela
his building. It
a teacher obtain:
he wants to stay
school as percei
weighted respons
and one positive
scores indicate

I fee

how Well the 1
hismissions a]
Geher‘al Innov
to the Opinio
in the Innovg
intehpreted f

hf Scores a .

coefficient’
2“ Item
3' Iten

 

106

a. Group Cohesiveness Scale. This scale measured the
closeness of relationships between the teacher and other teachers in
his building. It was defined operationally as the sum of scores
a teacher obtains in his responses to the questions on how much
he wants to stay in the school and how well teachers get along in the
school as perceived by him.1 Scores were obtained by summing the
weighted responses. There were four items, three negatively worded
and one positively worded. Weights were assigned so as to make high
scores indicate high cohesiveness. A typical item was:2

I feel I am really a part of this faculty.

score weights

positive items negative items
__agree very much I
__agree on the whole
__agree a little
__don't know
__disagree a little
__disagree on the whole
__disagree very much

I—MmI-‘monfl
\JOSUi-Pcom

b. Group opinion leadership scale. This scale measures
how well the teacher perceives himself in terms of leadership of
discussions about the general innovations on the list in the
General Innovation Use Index in his school. It is identical in format
to the Opinion leadership about specific innovation subscale as shown
in the Innovation Internalization definition and was both scored and
interpreted in the same way.8 It was defined operationally as the sum

of scores a teacher obtained from ranking himself in comparison to

 

l. Lin,o _p, cit. , p.35. He reports an inter- item reliability
coefficient of .31, ibid. , p.51.

2. Items 88— 91, as “shown in Appendix A, pp. 266— 267.

3. Item 44, as shown in Appendix A, pp. 261— 262.

 

 

 

‘1

other teachers in ‘
general list of in
raised the ouestic
make a similar re:
such as “somewhat
who carefully rea
have a high respc
and validity for
Set item was ins.
midway in the in
Assoc
were EXamined tc
This
and sample ques
these items wep
thesample foil
complete list c
Figure 7, pp. L
For

tFation 0f the
two schohls i1
instrumem) W‘

1- Ada;
psvchohetl‘icg
2' Shot

 

 

107

other teachers in the school as to his role in discussing the
general list of innovations.1
Response set item. The length of the entire instrument
raised the question of respondent set, that is, the tendency to
make a similar response to each item in an opinion questionnaire,

such as "somewhat agree,”

in contrast to the response of a subject
who carefully reads and weighs each response. Those subjects who
have a high response set give responses leading to lower reliability
and validity for the instrument. As a check on this, a response

set item was inserted between two opinion scales approximately
midway in the instrument.2

Associations between these responses and other responses
were examined to test the existence of response set.

This completes the section on operational definitions
and sample questionnaire items. As described in the next section,
these items were placed in an instrument which was administered to
the sample following circulation of a preliminary form. The
complete list of scales, indices, and other items appears in
Figure 7, pp. 108—109.

Administration of the Instrument

 

For this study administration began with a pilot adminis—
tration of the instrument in a temporary format to the staffs of
two schools in the same district. Respondents, after completing the
instrument, were asked for comments upon the clarity of instructions
and arrangement of items. Following this a final form was drafted.
mm Lin, 91. Ell-a 9p. _c__i_t., pp.‘ 118—119. No

psychometrics reported.
2. Shown in Appendix A, item 105, p. 268.

 

 

 

___—_———-
...—Fa.—

Participation
-_—_7E—hbh:Voca‘
2. General
a. lntra
b. Extra
3. Specific
a. lntra
b. Extra
Immvation Situat
1. General
2. General
3. lnnovati
Accur
ACCU]
Perm
Vert
Perc
Perc
Perc
Perc

HrmeP‘PP‘F

'. Co .

Role Orientat ion
1. Role or

a. Burs

b. Proi

2. Refers]

a. Burl

. b. Pro
new
1- Demogr

a. age
b- sex
0- mar
d- WOI
e. deg
f- att

- Teach;
3- ya
b- ye.

A)

o.)

.5:-
U)
(D .
[—1
‘1’":

w

 

 

 

 

108

 

SCALES AND INDICES

Participation
l. Non-Vocational Continuing Education
2. General Continuing Professional Education
a. Intra—System General COPE
b. Extra—System General COPE
3. Specific Continuing Professional Education
a. Intra—System Specific COPE
b. Extra—System Specific COPE
Innovation Situation Behavior
1. General Change Orientation
2. General Innovation Use
3. Innovation Internalization
a. Accuracy of information about general innovations
Accuracy of information about specific innovation
Perception of type of decision process
Vertical communication about the innovation
Perceived legitimacy of said vertical communication
Perceived group opinion leadership about the innovation
Perceived adequacy of information about the innovation
Perceived student benefits
Commitment to the innovation
Role Orientation and Reference Group Activity
1. Role orientation scale
a. Bureaucratic Opinion Subscale
b. Professional Opinion Subscale
2. Reference Group Activitv lndice
a. Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity Subindex
b. Professional Reference Group Activity Subindex
Situational Variables
1. Demographic

 

 

P-D‘OQt'thJOU‘

 

a. age
b. sex

0. marital status

d working spouse

e. dependents

f attained educational level

2. Teaching Experience Variables
a. years in teaching
b. years in system
c. years in assignment
_d. grade assignment
3. Exposure to Specific Innovation
a. Previous exposure to specific innovation
b. Current exposure to specific innovation
w. Self~Image Variables
a. Role Satisfaction
b. Self Rating as a Teacher
5. Perceived Self—Superior Relationships
a. Perceived rating of teaching ability by principal

Figure 7 (COD'C'(
b. Peri

c. Per
d. Per
e. Per
f. Per
6. Self-P
a. Grc
b. Grc
7. Respot

W

The final form
200 responses
broken up by t
Shc
0_llestionnaire
no identifica-
Post card all.
non-responden
Me

0f the sample
ses t0 which
teacher and ]
Scopes for t4
and all ins t
for each Var

deSCI‘ibed ir

1' Re]
2- Re]

 

Figure 7 (cont'd)

Perceived performance feedback from principal
. Perceived participation in decision making
Perceived legitimacy of such participation
. Perceived change orientation of principal
Perceived principal support for specific innovation
6. Self-Peer Relationships
a. Group cohesiveness scale
b. Group opinion leadership scale
7. Response set item

Humane)“

 

Figure 7. Scales, indices, and other items in the instrument.

The final form consisted of a questionnaire calling for slightly over

200 responses and was 18 pages long. This forbidding length was

broken up by the visual devices of page color and section marks.
Shortly before the end of the school year of 1967/68 the

questionnaire was mailed to members of the sample. Although there was

 

no identification by teacher name, coding procedures and an enclosed
post card allowed a follow up request.1 A third follow up was made and
non—respondents were asked why they had not responded.

Meanwhile the principals of the buildings in which members
of the sample were working were also sent a questionnaire,2 the respon-
ses to which were used in scoring those items calling for comparison of

teacher and principal knowledge. The questionnaires were coded and

 

scores for the variables derived. Identification codes were removed
and all instruments and files were destroyed. The individual scores
for each variable'were then analyzed and interpreted as

described in the next section.

I. Reproduced in Appendix B, p. 275.
2. Reproduced in Appendix B, p. 27”.

 

The f
design are analY
study for these
Analysis include
but also the tee
interpretation :
statistics and ‘
among the varia
results of the
the hypotheses.
Analysis of the

M
they were weig‘.
following the
following stat
0t describing
standard ClGVia

number and pet

E31

tlhhs between

ment (PW) an

routineS Whit

 

 

llO

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

The final two elements of the six elements in a research
design are analysis and interpretation. The procedures used in this
study for these elements are described in the following paragraphs.
Analysis included not only the statistics of the individual variables
but also the testing of hypotheses concerning their interrelationships.
Interpretation included the description of the sample in terms of the
statistics and tests and drawing inferences concerning relationships
among the variables. Interpretation also included checking the
results of the tests against the paradigms and constructs underlying
the hypotheses.
Analysis of the Data

Quantification of responses. After the responses were coded,

 

they were weighted and summed into scores representing the variables
following the procedures described in the operational definitions. The
following statistics were generated for each variable for the purpose
of describing the sample and interpreting the data: range, mean,
standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis. Also gathered were the
number and percentages for the cells in the variables.

Hypothesis testing procedures. Following this, the associa~

 

tions between variables were determined by means of Pearson product mo—
ment (ppm) and partial correlations. The partial correlation coeffic—

ients for the variables were obtained from the least squares regression
routines which yield F tests of the significance of the least square

regression coefficients for the correlation of each independent

 

variable to the d
situational varia
level was set at
probability of fz
the investigatio‘
a level higher t
correct hypothes
Since
bEtheen two inch
in COPE by sour
testing differe
by the Pairwise
identified as .
represent inte:
POSsible to te:
same equation

ISB stands f 01

I‘epl‘esented b'

‘ Pram
Southern Ill;

 

lll

variable to the dependent variables. 1 In these equations all the
situational variables were included in the equation. The rejection
level was set at the .05 level, This level was selected to set a low
probability of failing to reject a false hypothesis, however since
the investigation was concerned with problems at the exploratory stage,
a level higher than :05, say, .01, might have led to rejecting some
correct hypotheses where the errors were high.l

Since the fifth hypothesis was a test of the interaction
between two independent variables, role orientation and participation
in COPE by source, as it related to the dependent, ISB, the process of
testing differed from the above. Interaction was detected and measured

by the pairwise product vector of a role variable with a COPE variable

 

identified as to source. Such product vectors, according to Kelley, ,
represent interaction in regression equations.2 Since it was
possible to test pairs of intra—system and extra-system scores in the
same equation the general form of the equation was as follows:
ISB = bO + Bl(INCOPE) + B2(EXCOPE) + B3(ROLE) + B4(INCOPE x ROLE)
+ B5(EXCOPE x ROLE) + el.

ISB stands for the dependent variable, Innovation Situation Behavior as

 

represented by General Innovation Use or Innovation Internalization.

 

. 1. This routine and others mentioned in the text were "STAT
System" routines available on the CDC 6500 computer at the Michigan
State University Computer Center. These routines used standardized
Scores so some weighting problems between variables were avoided.

2. Francis J. Kelley, Multiple Regression Approach (Carbondale:
Southern Illinois University Press, l969), p. 231.

 

.._______—

_.

The B's represent
the relative cont
dependent.1 The
The re
thesis 5 came fr<
significance pro'
coefficient of t
it should be del
theory underlyir
source and teac‘.
lov~low, scores
interaction of
situation beha\
W38 bureaucrat
f0? participat
more related t
(Excovr standi
credibility o:
chers. Thus
Which keeps C
ted to the dc

lated to ISB

ii

2- Sta
CO“‘Puter Lat
D- 12.1.

 

112
The B's represent the beta weights for each variable and indicate
the relative contribution of each independent to the variance of the
dependent.1 The el figure is for error.

The regression equations and routines used to test Hypo—
thesis 5 came from the stepwise regression program LSSTEP where the
significance probability of the F statistic for the least square
coefficient of the variable (FB) was used to determine whether or not
it should be deleted from or added to the equation.2 According to the
theory underlying Hypothesis 5, when teacher participation in a given
source and teacher role variables have matching, i.e., high—high or
low—low, scores there should be a significant association between the
interaction of these two variables and the teacher's innovation
situation behavior. For example, in the general equation when B3
was bureaucratic, the interaction of INCOPE and ROLE (INCOPE standing
for participation in intra—system COPE) in B4 should be higher and
more related to ISB than the interaction in B5 for EXCOPE and ROLE
(EXCOPE standing for participation in extra—system COPE) since the
credibility of intra—system sources is higher for bureaucratic tea—
chers. Thus B5 would be dropped in a stepwise regression analysis
which keeps only those variables and interactions that are highly rela—
ted to the dependent, ISB. B5 would not necessarily be negatively re—
lated to ISB as the'multiplication of high~low or low—high scores would

l.-ibid.
2. Stat Systems Group, M§U_§IAT_System g2g_§§99_(East Lansing:

Computer Laboratory, Michigan State University, Version O8/2l/74),
p. 12.1.

 

 

 

result in a mediun
The formation of s
from the regressi
hypothesis since
both could lead 1
There v
was used in test
the partial corr
level. The use
situational var
This procedure
partials did nc
“Epstein
The
for each varia
demoEl‘aphic t5
Factor analys;
r916 orienta»C
innOil/at ion va
“alization.
variables to
the Correlat
the depender
levels ,er

indePEndent

113

result in a medium score, not likely to be related to the dependent.
The formation of such medium scores and the dropping of those variables
from the regression equation would not necessarily be supportive of the
hypothesis since error caused either by low reliability or validity or
both could lead to the same result.

There was one other instance where step—wise regression
was used in testing hypotheses and that was in Hypothesis 1 when
the partial correlations from the LS routine came close to the .05
level. The use of step—wise regression to get rid of unrelated
situational variables resulted in an increase in significance.
This procedure was not used in testing other hypotheses since the
partials did not come near significance.
Interpretation

The first step in interpretation utilized the statistics
for each variable to yield a description of the sample, not only in
demographic terms, but for all situational and major variables.
Factor analysis was also used to interpret the results for both
role orientation and reference group activity as well as for the
innovation variables of General Innovation Use and Innovation Inter—
nalization. In presenting the correlations of the independent
variables to the dependent variables, where interpretation was done,
the correlation coefficient cited was the highest order partial between
the dependent and each independent variable. However the significance
levels reported are those of the regression coefficients for the

independent variables (due to the nature of the computer routine).

 

 

 

 

The partial coeff
between +1 and -l
limits and cannot
themselves.

Other

the beta weights
weights were use
dependent accour
square of the bv
Also used was t'

of variance in
independent var
the independent
variable and t]
“0T considered
may
Bas

sample and the

. conclusions w‘
“ere reported
variables: pa
(including t}

and with 1813

P

association

\
1' Kel

 

114

The partial coefficient was reported since it is restricted in range
between +1 and -1 whereas regression coefficients may vary beyond these
limits and cannot be interpreted in terms of their own values by
themselves.

Other statistical values used in interpretation included
the beta weights, already mentioned in connection with H5. These
weights were used to obtain the proportion of variance in the
dependent accounted for by each independent variable since the
square of the beta is the proportion of variance accounted for.1
Also used was the multiple R2 which represented the overall proportion
of variance in the dependent variables explained by all of the
independent variables included in the equation. If this was low, then
the independent variables were not highly related to the dependent
variable and the variations in the dependent might be due to variables
not considered in the study.

Findings and Conclusions

 

Based upon the results stemming from the description of the
sample and the tests of the hypotheses, a number of findings and
conclusions were made and reported in Chapters U and 5. Findings
were reported in four categories, matching the four categories of
variables: participation, innovation, role, and situational variables
(including the interrelationships of these variables with each other
and with ISB).

I From these findings conclusions were drawn as to the

association between participation and innovation as well as between

_- l. Kelley, loc. cit.

 

 

 

innovation and 3
variables, inclu
action and furth

conclusions .

lssul
continuing educ
and these were
arising from tt
instrument inc]
reliability, f<
Operational te:
The
the PODUlation
Chapter includ
thOtheses tes
Thv
FeTorts the c‘
Situa’t ional ,
the tests of

concern ing PE

 

115
innovation and situational variables and participation and situational
variables, including those that affected ISB. Recommendations for
action and further research were then made, based upon these
conclusions.
51W or CHAPTER 3

Issues involving relationships between participation in

continuing education and innovative situation behavior were stated

and these were followed by propositions and research hypotheses

arising from the issues. Next a section on the development of the
instrument included a discussion of the design, validity, and

reliability, followed by a description of the variables in

operational terms.

 

The next section described administration of the instrument,

the population, sample and procedures. The final section of the

chapter included information on the quantification of responses,
hvpotheses tests, and interpretations of results.

These results are reported in Chapter 4. That chapter
reports the characteristics of the teachers in terms of the
situational, participation, role, and innovation variables, describes

the tests of the hypotheses, and presents and discusses the findings

concerning relationships among these variables.

Introduction

The f:
chapter in the
the sample to t
description of
including both
towards self, (
is extended by
Participation
and role orien
analeed and z
and the situai
0f partial co:
Section cover

results. A s

3%

Ou
SamPle , lll
incompletene

Who notEd t}

 

CHAPTER 4

THE FINDINGS OF THE INVESTIGATION
Introduction
The findings of the investigation are reported in this
chapter in the following order. First the responses of the members of
the sample to the questionnaire are described. This constitutes a
description of the sample in terms of the situational variables,
including both demographic data and data on personal attitudes

towards self, other teachers, and administrators. Then the description

 

is extended by a report in which data on the major variables, that is,
participation in continuing education, innovation situation behavior,
and role orientation with related reference group activity, are
analyzed and reported. Relationships between these major variables
and the situational variables are then analyzed and reported by means
of partial correlations and regression coefficients. The last
section covers the tests of the hypotheses and an analysis of the
results. A summary closes the chapter.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE

Respondents [_5

Out of the 125 questionnaires mailed to the teachers in the
sample, 111 were returned. Out of the 111, eight were rejected for
incompleteness, three were blank, three others were from respondents

who noted that they were not classroom teachers but held other

 

positions in the
naires, a percer
was high enough
lation.

A res
significantly t
other responses
and activities.

Score
in terms of rat
statistical me;
results of thi

M
30 Years of ag
bimOdal, with
1495 between t}
System Stated
tame for tn

 

 

117

positions in the school district. Thus there were 95 usable question—
naires, a percentage response of 89%. It was concluded that this rate
was high enough to generalize from the sample responses to the popu—
lation.

A response set item did not yield responses which correlated
significantly to other reponses, therefore it was concluded that the
other responses were valid indicators of the teachers' opinions
and activities.

Situational Variables

Scores for twenty—two situational variables were analyzed
in terms of range of scores, means, standard deviation, and other
statistical measures to yield a description of the respondents. The
results of this analysis are given in the following subsections.1

a. Age. The majority (54%) of the respondents were under
30 years of age and all were female. The age distribution was
bimodal, with 67% younger than 35, 17% older than age 55, and only
1H% between these ages. The personnel office of the employing school
system stated that such an age distribution appeared to be represen-
tative for the population although no figures were available for

direct comparison. The data are displayed in Table l on the next page.

 

1. Although the computer carried each calculation out to several
decimal places, the reports in this chapter were rounded off to two
or three places for most statistics and two places for significance
levels. This was done in the interests of making the tables easier
to read. -Certainly the measurements used were not so sensitive
that numbers past the third decimal place would be very important.

 

Table 1. Age d1:
in ter1

M
W

Age in
20-

25-
30-

gt.
sample report:
divorced or w
22% Perected
three or more
heinamni
Single or d1.
Spouses. Th
all three qu
5
educational
aSSOCiated ‘

w°uld Yield

118

Table 1. Age distribution of the 95 elementary teacher respondents
in terms of numbers and percentages.

 

 

 

Age in years Number Percentage
20-2” 27 28.H
25—29 25 26.3
30—3” 12 12.6
35-39 3 3.2
40—4” 5 5.3
ws-ug 3 3-2
so-su 3 3.2
55-59 9 9.5
60+ __8 8.|+

95 100.1

 

mean: 26.50; s.d.= 13.8; skew: —.027; kurtosis: 2.61

b. Marital and Family Data. The majority (67%) of the

 

sample reported they were single and another 10% reported they were
divorced or widowed. Sixty—six percent reported no dependents,

22% reported one dependent, 11% reported two; and only 1% reported
three or more. The responses to the working spouse item cast these
data in doubt in that although 77% of the sample stated they were
single or divorced, H7% of the sample claimed to have working
spouses. This discrepancy might be due to respondent fatigue since
all three questions appeared at the end of the questionnaire.

0. Attained educational level. The three categories of

 

educational level into which teachers were divided were those
associated with steps on the standardized salary scale of the school
system. -It was thought that asking teachers to identify their paystep

would yield more accurate responses than asking for total numbers

 

 

 

Table 2. Distrit
element

___________...._...—.

Marital Sta
Single
Marrie
Divorc
No res

“——

WOrking Spv
No
Yes
No re

K

Dependents
None
One
Two
Thre

XX

0f academic be
What Day Step
earned. Thus
not means. I
"bachelor deg
Since almost
hours bcyond
bee“ actiVQ :
d;
teaching exP

Present Syst

 

119

Table 2. Distribution by marital and family data for 95
elementary school teachers.

 

 

Number Percentage

 

Marital Status

 

 

 

 

Single 6w 67A
Married 21 22.1
Divorced ‘ 9 9.5
No response .__1 1.1
95 100 1

Working Spouse
No 22 23.2
Yes 4% H6.3
No response _29_ 30.5
95 100 O

Dependents

None 63 66.3
One 21 22.1
Two 10 10.5
Three or more 1 1.1
_5 100.0

 

of academic hours since most teachers would be more likely to remember
what pay step they were on than the number of hours of credit they had
earned. Thus the data in Table 3 should be interpreted as minimums,
not means. It would have been possible for a teacher to fall in the
"bachelor degree only" category with up to 21 quarter hours of credit.
Since almost half the teachers (44.2%) had gone at least 22 quarter
hours beyond the bachelor's, it appeared that members of the sample had
been active in continuing their education at the graduate level.

d. Experience in teaching. There were three measures of
teaching experience: total years of teaching, years employment in the

present system, and years in present assignment.

 

 

 

Table 3. Dist:
elem

 

 

M

Bachelor‘
At least

beyc
At least
No resp01

 

Table LT. Dis
exp
pre

M
M

years
l-3
A-6
7-9
10-12
13-15
16-19
20+

\

teaching e)
System les:
pPeSEnt as
first thre
three Year

levels of

 

120

Table 3. Distribution by attained educational level of.95
elementary school teachers.

 

 

Number Percentage

Bachelor's degree at least 50 ’ 52.6
At least 22 quarter hours

beyond bachelor's degree 27 28.4

At least Master's degree 15 15.8

No response 3 .3.2

_.5 100.0

 

Table 4. Distribution of teachers by three measures of teaching
experience: total years in teaching, years of employment in
present system, and years in present assignment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Years in .Years in Years in

teaching system assignment

years no. % no. % no. %

1-3 20 21.1 52 54.7 47 99 5
4—6 16 16.8 16 16.8 22 23 1
7—9 14 14.7 6 6.3 10 10.5
10—12 13 13.7 6 6.3 5 5.3
13—15 9 9.5 2 2.1 3 3.2
16-19 5 5.3 3 3.2 3 3.2
20+ 18 18.9 _19_ 10.5 __§_ 5.3
7% 100.0 95 99.9 95 100.1

 

no.= number; % = percentage of teachers in sample

Nearly four—fifths of the teachers had four or more years of
teaching experience. More than half (54.7%) had been in their present
system less than four years and nearly half (49.5%) had been in their
present assignment less than four years. Since 54.7% were in their
first three years in the system but only 21.1% were in their first
three years of teaching, and since similar observations were made at all

levels of experience, it was concluded that about half the respondents

 

had taught elseuh

mmber (18%) 0f 1
thepresent systl
new that long.

a second mode in
teachers were te
i3h5%) were te
teaching at big

Ungraded later

Table 5. Distrf
h
alarm
Firs
Secc
Th1!
Four

X

5;.
indices, one
innovation p]
exPosure to .
expressed in
units Were c
committees E

actual Wes

baSiQally It

 

121
had taught elsewhere before joining the present system. A substantial
number (18%) of teachers had taught 20 or more years; 11% had been in
the present system that long; and 5% had been in their present assign—
ment that long. This parallels the age distribution which also had
a second mode in its distribution at the upper end.

e. Grade assignment. More than one third (37.8%) of the

 

teachers were teaching at first or second grade levels. Nearly a third
(30.5%) were teaching third grade. A similar proportion (31.8%) were
teaching at higher levels, that is, fourth grade or higher or in

ungraded later elementary classrooms.

Table 5. Distribution by grade assignment for 95 elementary teachers.

 

 

 

 

 

Present grade assignment Number Percentage
First 16 16.8
Second 20 21.0
Third 29 30.5
Fourth or above 30 31.8

“E 100.1

 

 

f. Exposure to specific innovation. This was measured by two

 

indices, one for pre—exposure to the text books employed in the forced
innovation prior to the year of the study, and one for current

exposure to them, i.e., during the year of the study. Pre-exposure was
expressed in units that ranged from 0 to a possible high of 15. These.
units were obtained from length of service on mathematics curriculum
committees as well as from length of time of pre-use examination or
actual pre—use of the mandated texts. The units of measure are

basically relative amounts of time but expressed in a qualitative way,

 

 

not in terms of
one unit is exp
the four years
questionnaire.
The p
(72.5%) had lit
form of pre-use
who gained 0111:
this result co
Weighted one f
W0. The cla
the“ by Dre—e)
0f the books
This lack of .
intense inter
more the Sam;
either On the
mathematics 5
As
Which of f0“:
the texts We
the mandated
for“ 0f math
the Specifh
Associates v

Addisonnnes

mail,
122

not in terms of absolute time units such as weeks or hours; however
one unit is exposure over a 2—3 (quarter year) period.sometime during
the four years preceding the date of administration of the
questionnaire.

The pre—exposure data showed that the bulk of the teachers
(72.5%) had little or no pre—exposure to the specific innovation in the

. form of pre—use or pre—examination of the texts. The 46 teachers

who gained only one unit probably did not really have much exposure for
this result could be due to faulty weighting of item 13 which was
weighted one for no pre—examination although the intended weight was
zero. The classroom use of the new books was not apparently preceded
then by pre—examination, implying the teachers had to begin their use
of the books with little or no experience or training in their use.
This lack of exposure was surprising considering the seemingly
intense interest in mathematics education during this time. Further—
more the sample did not contain more than three who had been working
either on the district level or building level in mathematics or
mathematics innovation, which were practically synonymous at that time.

As to current use of the texts, this was measured by asking
which of four text series the teacher was using. However only two of
the texts were separated out for reporting on as these two constituted
the mandated innovation while the others were involved with some other
form of mathematics innovation. The two texts that Were involved in
the specific innovation were the series published by Science Research
Associates (SRA) for grades 1 and 2, and the series published by the

Addison-Wesley Company for grades 3 and up. Separate scores for the

 

 

Table 6. Dist
pre-

__,______.—.—-——

_______—-

Pre—exp

M
mean: 1.52; S

Table 7, Use
of
N—fi

5““

xii-“ex;

ScienCe
Addison
Neither

 

 

 

123

Table 6. Distribution of respondent teachers according to
pre—exposure to Specific innovation.

 

 

 

 

 

Pre—exposure unitsl Number Percentage
O 25 26.3
1 46 48.2
2 8 8.4
3 3 3.2
4 5 5.3
5 3 3.2
6 l 1.1
7 2 2.1
8 O 0.0
9 l 1.1

10 l 1.1
’7fi5 100.0

 

mean: 1.52; s.d.= 0.895; skewz= 1.38; kurtosis5= 3.72

Table 7. Use of specific innovation by text series on the part
of 95 elementary school teachers.

 

 

 

Texts Number Percentage
Science Research Associates 49 51.6
Addison—Wesley 36 37.9
Neither of the above — 10 10.5

95 100.0

 

 

1. See text for meaning of units.

2. Skewness measures the symmetry of the curve of distribution.
Negative skew would indicate the mean is less than the median Showing
that the bulk of the scores are high while positive Skewness indicates
that the mean is greater than the median showing that the bulk of the
scores are low. The sign of the skewness is in the direction of the
most extreme scores which are causing the mean and median to differ.

A normal curve has a skew of zero.

3. Kurtosis is the measure of the peakedness of the curve of
distribution. The more the scores are clustered, the kurtosis is posi—
tive and high. If scores are spread out evenly the kurtosis is
negative but high. A normal curve has a kurtosis of zero.

 

 

 

 

 

use of the two
were associate
and mandated 11
Not
but the majori
higher percent
and 2. Howew
had Special p.
g;-
attitudes of
and Self Rati
Table 8, were
ing with job
Point scale :
scoring weig
agl‘eement wi
Ponses agree
interPreted
SCOreS below
01‘ neutral 1
above 16 wo
0f the mac
0f the teac
HOWevgr the
by the meat

more there

 

124

use of the two series were obtained to see if differences in text
were associated with differences in attitude toward their adoption
and mandated use.

Not all teachers were using or had used the specific texts
but the majority (51.6%) had been using the SRA texts. This is a
higher percentage than the percentage of teachers assigned to grades 1
and 2. However there were teachers of the 3rd and higher grades who
had special permission to use SRA texts at their levels.

g. Self—Image measurements. There were two measures of

 

attitudes of teachers towards themselves as teachers: Role Satisfaction
and Self Rating as a Teacher. Role Satisfaction scores, portrayed in
Table 8, were obtained from teacher responses to four statements deal—
ing with job satisfaction. Each statement was accompanied by a seven
point scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Since
scoring weights ran from 1 for those responses showing the most dis—
agreement with a claim for satisfaction on the job to 7 for those res—
ponses agreeing that the teacher was indeed satisfied, scores can be
interpreted as ranging from high dissatisfaction to high satisfaction.
Scores below 16 (four items weighted at four points each as the middle
or neutral response) would tend to show dissatisfaction, while scores
above 16 would tend to show satisfaction. Nearly four—fifths (77.8%)
of the teachers scored within eight points of 16, indicating that most
of the teachers were neither highly satisfied or highly dissatisfied.
However the general attitude was one of dissatisfaction as indicated
by the mean score of 14.6, below the neutral response point. Further—

more there were more teachers with major dissatisfaction than major

 

 

 

satisfaction, 1
mately one stat
twenty teacher
deviation belc
tested by Hoyt
generalizatiom

Table 8. Fre
Sat

5“.“

-——-—____

Role Sat

”R‘—

\4
mean: 114 . 6',
“Cut Peliab:

T
6130 Obtain
not a reSp<
point scan

hence the

9)- Score

the state“
would Shot

skills to

 

 

125

satisfaction, for there were no teachers with a score over 20 (approxi—
mately one standard deviation above the neutral point) but there were
twenty teachers with scores of 12 or under (approximately one standard
deviation below the neutral point). The reliability of this scale as
tested by Hoyt reliability tests was not high (.5325) limiting
generalization from these results.

Table 8. Frequency distribution and characteristics of data for Role
Satisfaction among 95 elementary school teachers.

 

 

 

Role Satisfaction scores Number Percentage

1—4 0 0.0

5—8 11 11.5

9—12 9 9.5

13—16 35 36.8
17—20 39 41.1
21-24 0 0.0
25-28 0 0.0

no response 1 1.1

775‘ 100.0

 

mean: 14.6; s.d.= 4.14; skewness: —1.040; kurtosis: 3.61;
Hoyt reliability coefficient: 0.5235.

The scores for Self Rating as portrayed in Table 9, were
also obtained from expressed agreement or disagreement as to whether or
not a respondent thought she had a certain teaching skill, on a seven
point scale with four as the neutral point. There were nine items;
hence the sum of neutral scores for any given teacher was 36 (4 times
9). Scores below 36 would tend to show that the teacher disagreed with
the statements that she had these skills, whereas scores of 36 or above
would show'that the teacher thought she did have some or all of these

skills to some degree.

 

 

 

 

_______a

L.-. _ _.

The 1
modest views 0:
the neutral p0
could be expla
ially early e]
modest attitu<
type of femin

Table 9. Dis
as

 

“g“—

been

Hoyt reliab
those for t
(in the ne>
felt their
by the inc
that the e
ODDoSite g
time for

ltells out

 

 

.126

The results for self rating showed that the teachers held yery
modest views of their skills, for only one teacher rated herself above
the neutral point of 36 and her self assigned score was only 38. This
could be explained on the basis that elementary school teachers, espec—
ially early elementary teachers, are socially rewarded for holding
modest attitudes towards themselves, that is, to conform with a stereo—
type of feminine behavior. However when comparing these results with

Table 9. Distribution and characteristics of data for Self Rating
as teachers for 95 elementary school teachers.

 

 

 

 

Self Rating scores Number Percentage
1—7 9 9.5
8—14 14 14.7

15—21 27 28.4
22—28 30 31.6
29—35 14 14.7
36—42 1 1.1
43—49 0 0.0
50—56 0 0.0
57—63 0 0.0

"9'5 100 o

 

 

 

mean: 20.0; s.d.= 8.23, skew: —0.130; kurtosis: 0.9112;

Hoyt reliability coefficient: 0.9112.

those for teacher predicted principal rating of them as teachers

(in the next subsection), it appeared that there were some teachers who
felt their principals would rate them somewhat higher. This is shown
by the increase in range and change in sign for skew, which implied
that the extreme scores of principal rating were to be found at the
opposite end, that is, the high rating end, of the distribution from

those for self—rating. The scales were identical in wording for nine

items out of ten.

 

 

 

of measurements ‘
of the extent of
perception of th
perceptions abou
There
as perceived by
oneself as a te
scale with stat
to that of self
there were ten
that the teach
she had the sk
that the teach
the listed Skj
As
a mean very 0
(up) heme...
has little 1..
hence, a con
and the prin
Sc
agreement 01
pePCeiVed h'
Various asp

mteI‘PI‘Etec‘

 

127

h. Perceptions of principals by teachers. In this category
of measurements there were three variables, the teacher's perception
of the extent of their own interaction with principals, the teacher's
perception of the general change orientation of the principal, and her
perceptions about decision—making.

There were two indicators of teacher—principal interaction
as perceived by respondent teachers: predicted principal rating of
oneself as a teacher and performance feedback. Principal rating was a
scale with statements worded identically in nine out of ten statements
to that of self rating as a teacher. The neutral point was 40 since
there were ten items instead of only nine. A score below 40 indicated
that the teacher diagreed with statments that the principal would think
she had the skills listed in the items and scores above 40 indicated
that the teacher would predict her principal would state that she had
the listed skills.

As noted above, the teacher-predicted principal ratings had
a mean very close to that for self rating however the correlation
(ppm) between these two rating scales was -.0009, implying that there
was little relationship between the responses in the two cases and
hence, a considerable amount of teacher perceived distance between them
and the principals regarding teaching skill ratings.

Scores for performance feedback were derived from expressed
agreement on four items as to the extent to which the principal was
perceived by the teacher as giving feedback (discussion. advice) about
Various aspects of classroom work. Low scores (below 12) were

interpreted as indicating low or no feedback, and high scores (above 12)

 

 

 

Table 10. Distril
rating

_______.'-——-——'
_____._——-———

_Eiiueieeu

l~7
8—14
15-21
22-28
29-35
36-42
43—49
EEO—SE
57-61
64-71

mean: 19.2; s.
hoyt reliabili

Table ll. Dist
fee<

\_~_
\

M
l-

5.

9.

13-

17

no

“out Peliabf
as indiCati
tEaCher fel

teachers 01

 

128

Table 10. Distribution and characteristics of data for principal
rating as a teacher for 95 elementary school teachers.

 

 

 

Principal rating scores Number Percentage
1—7 17 17.9
8—14 20 21.1

15-21 16 16.8
22—28 22 23.2
29—35 17 p 17.9
36-42 2 2.1
43—49 0 0.0
50—56 1 1.1
57-63 0 0.0
64-70 0 0.0

‘5” 100.1

 

mean: 19.2; s.d.= 10.4; range: 2—54; skew: 0.292; kurtosis: 2.82;
Hoyt reliability coefficient: 0.9575.

Table 11. Distribution and characteristics of data for performance
feedback from principal for 95 elementary school teachers.

 

 

 

 

Performance feedback scores Number Percentage

1—4 17 17.9

5—8 62 65.3

9-12 15 15.8

13—16 0 0.0
17—20 0 0.0

no response 1 1.1

’73? 100.1

 

mean: 6.46; s.d.= 2.48; skew: —O.195; kurtosis: 3.07; range: 1—12;
Hoyt reliability coefficient: 0.5460.

as indicating frequent feedback, with a score of 12 indicating that the
teacher felt she was getting about the same amount of feedback as other

teachers or the staff on the whole.

 

 

 

 

 

A me;
_ of"quite infre
belief among te
teaching perfox
droretical mi<
the reliabilit'
begeneralized
The
both a teachei
(measured in '
for teacher 8
extent of her
modern mathen
Re
showed that ‘
within the r
and lust abc
teélChers on
of change,
Of them gav
and a Slig}
I\‘ehlfilindem E
belief in e
not held b

lntePnaliz

 

129

A mean score of 6.46 which represents an average response
of "quite infrequently" for principal feedback indicated a widespread
belief among teachers that they were not getting feedback on their
teaching performance. The highest score was only 12, which is also the
theoretical midpoint between high and low levels of feedback. However
the reliability of this scale was only .5460 and results should not
be generalized too far.

The two teacher assigned principal innovation scores included
both a teacher's estimate of her principal's General Change Orientation
(measured in four items, which were scaled and worded similarly to that
for teacher General Change Orientation) and her perception of the
extent of her principal's support for the specific innovation, a
modern mathematics curriculum.

Ratings for Principal's General Change Orientation (G.C.O.)
showed that almost half (49.5%) of the teachers rated their principals
within the range of 17—20. This mode was just above the mean of 16.4
and just above the neutral point of 16. This indicated that the
teachers on the whole rated their principals as moderately in favor
of change. There were no extremely high scores. Fifteen percent
of them gave low or very low innovation ratings to their principals
and a slightly higher proportion (15.8%) gave high ratings. The
remainder gave principals medium ratings. As will be seen later this
belief in a moderate interest in change on the part of principals is
not held by those teachers who used the most innovations or had

internalized the specific innovation.

 

 

 

Table 12. Dist}
Gene]
elemt

 

 

Prune
1-4

S-E

9-1

13—:

17—1

21—1

25—

Hoyt reliabil

Da‘

their princi
Single item
five steps,

Principals -
h-Q within

held scores

w\~

Ea“: “.2

 

 

130

Table 12. Distribution and characteristics of scores for principal‘s
General Change Orientation (G.C.O.) as perceived by 95
elementary school teachers.

 

 

Principal's G.C.O. scores Number Percentage

 

1—n 0 0.0
5—8 7 7.4
9—12 7 7.4

13—16 18 18.9

17—20 u7 49.5

21—24 15 15.7

25—28 0 0

‘7“5 100.0

 

mean: 16.4, s.d.= 4.50; range: 5—22; skew: —l.32; kurtosis: 4.49;
Hoyt reliability coefficient: 0.7246.

Data for the teachers' estimate of the extent to which
their principals supported the specific innovation was derived from a
single item scale ranging from "not at all" to "wholeheartedly," in

five steps. The data indicated that most teachers perceived their

 

principals to very much favor the change, so much so that the mean was
4.2 within a range from 1 to 5. Seventy—nine percent of the teachers
held scores of 4 or 5.

Table 13. Distribution and characteristics of data for principal's

support of specific innovation as perceived by 95 elementary
school teachers.

 

 

 

 

Principal‘s support scores Number Percentage
l 2 2.1
2 4 4.2
3 14 14.7
4 28 29.5
5 .Jil 49.5
95 '10070

 

mean: 4.2; s.d.= 0.98; range: 1—5; skew: 1.21; kurtosis: 4.01

 

making proce
in decision
ceived by ti
two item so.
with declar
process. A
having much

about matte

Table 14. 1

Part

N

hOyt reli

This Wouj
Particip
Very low
hated th

modePate

 

131

The teachers' perceptions about their place in the decision—
making process was expressed in two measures, level of participation
in decision making and legitimacy of such participation, both as per—
ceived by the teachers. The participation level was obtained from a
two item scale in which the teachers were asked to agree or disagree
with declarations as to the extent of their influence in the decision
process. A score below 8 indicates that the teacher did not perceive
having much influence in decision making or that she was consulted
about matters that affected her room.
Table 1%. Distribution and characteristics of scores for participation

in decision making in the school as perceived by 95
elementary school teachers.

 

 

 

 

Participation scores Number Percentage

l—2 9 9.5

3—4 4 8.2

5-6 l0 10.5

7—8 17 17.9

9—10 40 42.l

ll-l2 13 13.7
13-14 0 0.0

no response __2 2.1

95 "To-0'76

 

mean: 7.83; s.d.= 3.14; range: 1.12; skew: —O.93; kurtosis: 3.03;
Hoyt reliability coefficient: 0.8039.

The mean was 7.83, almost at 8, the scale's neutral point.
This would indicate that many of the teachers perceived having little
participation in decision making but did have some. There were more
very low scores than very high scores; however the modal group (42.1%)
rated themselves above both mean and neutral point, indicating

moderate participation and a significant group (13.7%) appear to have

 

perceived the
might be said
large group v
tion, a small
who appeared
Th
from two ite
asked to agr
pation for 1
that the tea
1"
tion in dec
However the
tion QUite

Table 15. 1

\Legg

“Oyt reli

 

 

 

132'
perceived themselves as much involved in decision making. Thus, it
might be said that the teachers were divided into three groups, one
large group who beLieved that they had a moderate level of participa—
tion, a small group who felt much involved, and a significant fraction
who appeared to feel not involved.

The scores for legitimacy of participation were derived
from two items each with a seven point scale on which teachers were
asked to agree or disagree as to the appropriateness of such partici—
pation for their role as a teacher. A score above 8 would tend to show
that the teacher held such participation to be legitimate.

The data showed that 85.3% of the teachers viewed participa—
tion in decision making to be legitimate to their role as a teacher.
However the reliability of the scale is so low as to make generaliza—
tion quite suspect.

Table 15. Distribution and characteristics of scores for legitimacy

of participation in decision making as perceived by 95
elementary school teachers.

 

 

 

Legitimacy scores Number Percentage
1-2 0 0.0
3—4 0 0.0
5—6 2 2.1
7—8 12 12.6
9—10 17 17.9
ll—l2 26 27.4
13-1# 38 40.0

 

mean: 11.3; s.d.= 2.2”; range: 5—14; skew: ~3.067; kurtosis= 2.62;
Hoyt reliability coefficient: 0.159”

 

 

 

 

3...
category were
respondent at
the staff by

Da‘
scale which
to how well
on a seven ;
would indice
had high grt

category it
their schoo
very low (.
Table 16. I

<
h;-

w

“Oyt reli

dent were
Est imate

InnOvati

 

133

i. Interactions with other teaChers. The two measures_of this

 

category were the extent of staff cohesiveness as perceived by the
respondent and the extent of self—perceived opinion leadership among
the staff by each respondent.

Data for group cohesiveness were derived from a four item
scale which asked the teacher to agree or'disagree with statements as
to how well the staff members got along with each other. Ratings were
on a seven point scale with 4 as the neutral point. A score above 16
would indicate that a teacher perceived that the members of the staff
had high group cohesiveness. Since 67 teachers (70.6%) fell in this
category it appeared that the respondents, on the whole, perceived
their school staffs to be highly cohesive. However the reliability was
very low (.1235) limiting generalization.

Table 16. Distribution and characteristics of scores for staff group
cohesiveness as perceived by 95 elementary school teachers.

 

 

 

Group cohesiveness scores Number Percentage
l—u 3 3.2
5—8 4 4.2
9—12 8 8.1L
13—16 13 13.7
17—20 28 29.5
21—24 28 29.5
25~28 11 11.6

 

mean: 18.3; s.d.= 5.59; range: 1-25; skew = -0.946; kurtosis: 3.31;
Hoyt reliability coefficient= 0.1235.

Scores for opinion leadership among the staff by the respon—
dent were obtained from a five item scale which asked the respondent to
estimate the extent to which she was asked or asked others about

innovations in the school. A score of 10 or over would indicate that a

 

 

 

teacher perce:

Si
scale at whic
appear that m
15 (15.8%) a;
of 69 teachei
to be asked ‘

ask others.

Table 17. Di

,4
+403

Hoyt reliat

Variables

young, wit
having son
a definite
0f the ex;
Used the 1
Dre"ions

skillS (a

 

134

teacher perceived herself as an opinion leader on the staff.

Since 80 teachers (84.2%) fell at or below the point on the
scale at which staff opinion leadership was taken to begin, it would
appear that most considered themselves not as opinion leaders while
15 (15.8%) appeared to identify themselves as leaders. The majority
of 69 teachers (72.6%) were just as likely to ask about innovations as
to be asked themselves, and 11 teachers (11.6%3 were more likely to
ask others.

Table 17. Distribution and characteristics of scores for opinion

leadership among staff by respondents as perceived by
95 elementary school teachers.

 

 

 

Leadership scores Number Percentage
1—5 11 11.6
6—10 69 72.6
11—15 15 15.8
95 100.0

 

mean: 8.4; s.d.= 2.29; range: 2—12; skew: —.807; kurtosis: 3.17;
Hoyt reliability coefficient: 0.7140.

j. Summary for situational variables. The data for these

 

variables indicated that the respondents were, for the most part,

young, with half having some training past the bachelor's and half

. having some experience in other school districts. However there was

a definite group of older teachers, about a fifth, at the upper end

of the experience and age distributions. Generally the respondents
used the specific innovation in the classroom but had very little
previous exposure to it. The teachers were modest in rating their own

skills (a result perhaps due to stereotyping) but a few felt their

 

 

 

-- .

principals wox
and felt they
and other tea:
sant appearan
'safe‘ variet
cases there v
dissatisfactf
Reliability :
ness and leg
The data on
contradictor
II
for particil
these three
are then de
5
continning
COPE), and
rePresent
each Categ
Categories
education
F01“ the n.

The score

 

135

principals would rate them higher. They were satisfied with their job
and felt they had moderately good relationships with their principals
and other teachers on the staff. It is possible that this not unplea-
sant appearance is due to the respondents having given answers of the
‘safe' variety, that were more socially acceptable. In a number of
cases there were teachers who had scores which might have arisen from
dissatisfactions with themselves, their superiors, or their peers.
Reliability scores were either fair or higher except for group cohesive—
ness and legitimacy of decision making, which had very low reliabilities.
The data on marital status and dependents were suspect because of
contradictory results.

In the next section a similar report is made on the scores
for participation, innovation, and role. The associations between
these three catagories of variables and the situational variables
are then described.
Participation in Continuing Education

Scores for participation in the categories of Non—Vocational
Continuing Education, General Continuing Professional Education (General
COPE), and Specific Continuing Professional Education (Specific COPE),
represent relative measures of time spent in participation. Within
each category the units can be considered comparable, but across
categories comparability suffers. For the two continuing professional
education indices each unit represented approximately 15 clock hours.
For the non-vocational index each unit was approximately 3 clock hours.

The scores however were standardized in the analysis.

 

 

 

L
probably had
respondents i
averaged ab01
scores was m
to the other
distribution

It
types of act
one type of
hlthe ques
obtained by
size of the
likely four

1
CE (chr).
1‘15 hours
had partic
of QVery j
Shall"ply a
pep Year
EPOUP Who

data is d

of Score:

Sum is w

 

,a. Non—Vocational Continuing Education. Non+Vocational CE

probably had the lowest amount of time of participation reported by
respondents for any form of continuing education. It probably
averaged about 20—30 hours per person per year. The distribution of
scores was more even over the range of possible scores in comparison
to the other forms of continuing education but it was not a smooth
distribution. '

It appears likely that respondents participated in several
types of activities within this category. Since responses to any
one type of activity were limited to four units each as a maximum
in the questionnaire format, the mean of 10.72 would not have been
obtained by participating in only one or two types. Therefore the
size of the mean indicates participation in at least three but more
likely four or five types of activities.

All but eight teachers reported involvement in Non—Vocational
CE (NVCE). Nearly one in four were involved at the minimum rate of
l—15 hours per year and just above the mean there was a group that
had participated in 30-45 hours per year and also represented one out
of every four teachers. The rate of participation then dropped off
sharply for only one in eight were in the next group of 45—60 hours
per year and only one in 12 fell in the highest participating
group who probably spent more than one hour per week in NVCE. The
data is displayed in Table 18 on the next page.

i b. General COPE. General COPE was composed from two subsets

Of scores, that is, Extra—System and Intra—System General COPE. Their

SUm is what is referred to in Table 20 as total General COPE.

 

1 18. Dis
Tab e tim
Con

_____...—-—-——
____.———-———

t

1

mean: l0.72

'1
COPE had a
range in ct
Education.
higher, p:
would eng
activity.
Spent thr
Stalwart
This does
misundem
some of .

il as coy-“pa
I
|

 

 

 

 

.137

Table 18. Distribution of respondent teachers.according.to relative
time spent participating in selected forms of NonLVocational
Continuing Education.

 

 

 

Participation unitsl Number Percentage

O 8 8.4
1—5 ,22 23. 2
6-10 19 20.0
11—15 26 27.4
16—20 ' 12 12.6
21—25 3 3.2
26—30 3 3. 2
31-35 2 2.1
36-40 0 O. 0
41—45 ’J o. _____o_
95 1100.

 

mean: 10.72, s.d.= 7.62; range: 0—32; skew: .71; kurtosis: 3.23

The distribution of participants in Intra—System General
COPE had a much stronger clustering of scores at the lower end of the
range in comparison to the distribution for Non—Vocational Continuing
Education. However the mean number of hours of participation was much
higher, probably 150—160 hours per year. This suggests, as one
would expect, that teachers focused on one or two types of this
activity. The mean of 12.33 units would indicate that most teachers
spent three to four hours of participation per week and that a few
stalwart souls were involved as much as 16 to 18 hours per week.
This does not appear to be very credible and possibly there was a
misunderstanding of instructions or a tendency to exaggerate among
some of the respondents. However the high scores, though unlikely,
are possible and were retained in the analysis.

There were more teachers in this group with no participation

as compared with NonQVocational Continuing Education and almost one

 

1. Each unit represents approximately 3 clock hours.

 

 

Table 19. Di
re
11

...—...“—

Parti

in three w
P9P year w
rate of 15

rates abox

Extra-Sys
Clustered
extremely
Participe
1'6 to 2.
hours pe]
Intra-gy
(includi
teachePS
COPE m

Fate of

\l

138

Table 19. Distribution of respondent teachers according to
relative time spent during the year participating in
Intra—System General Continuing Professional Education.

 

Participation unitsl

 

Number Percentage
0 14 14.7
1—10 33 34.7
11—20 29 30.5
21—30 .10 10.5
31—40 5 5.3
41-50 2 2.1
51—60 _~2_ 2.1
95 99.9

 

mean: 12.33; s.d.= 12.4; skew: 1.40; range: 0—60; kurtosis: 5.27.

in three were at the minimum participation rates of 15 to 150 hours
per year while approximately another third were at the next highest
rate of 150—300 hours per year. The final fourth of the sample had
rates above this up to 15 hours per week.

A similar pattern of distribution was seen when the data for
Extra-System General COPE were analyzed. The distribution was
clustered in the low end of the participation index with a few
extremely high scores. The mean of 7.22 would indicate an annual
participation rate somewheres between 85 to 130 hours per year or
1.6 to 2.5 hours per week. The highest scoring teacher claimed 10
hours per week. These rates seem much more reasonable than those for
Intra-System General COPE, especially in View of the many more forms
(including course work, travel-study, and readings, etc.) available to
teachers. Further analysis of participation in Extra—System General

COPE revealed that 40% of the teachers had a minimal participation

rate of 15—60 hours per year, and ten percent had no participation.

 

1. Each unit represents approximately 15 clock hours.

 

Table 20.

Parti

iEEEE7iT§

Approxima
PEmaining
l EPOUp and

week.

displaye
both Int
were not
it Was 4
f0? int]
each so
teaCher
‘ by the
|
Outside
be nOte
I combine

1

 

139
Table 20. Distribution of respondent teachers according to relative
time spent during the year participating in Extra—System
General Continuing Professional Education.

 

Participation unitsl Number Percentage:

 

o 10 10.5
1—4 38 no.0
5-9 28 29.5

10—14 6 6.3

15—19 2 2.1

2o-2w 3 3.2

25—29 3 3.2

so—sw u 4.2

35—39 1 1.1

"Ti? 100.1

 

mean: 7.22; s.d.= 8.70; skew: 1.79; range: 0-35; kurtosis: 5.21.

Approximately a third were in the 75—135 hours per year while the
remaining twenty percent were distributed between that second highest

group and the top scorer who participated at a rate of 12 hours per

week.

Total General Continuing Professional Education scores, as
displayed in Table 21, represent the sum of each teacher's scores for

both Intra-System and Extra—System General COPE. Some differences

were noted in the zero participation figures. For total General COPE

it was 4.2% of the sample, whereas for extra—system, it was 10.5% and

for intra—system, it was 14.7% of the sample. It would appear that

each source drew then on different teachers for participants. Some
teachers tended to participate in those General COPE programs sponsored
by the school system while others did their studying in programs
Outside the school system such as universities. The same pattern can
be noted up through the middle of the distribution.

However the

combined scores at the upper end of the distribution for total General

 

1. Each unit represents approximately 15 clock hours.

 

 

Table 21. Di
to
I Ge

______————-
_.,__.————-

Partici

I-‘__
11mtnrwm_l

hEEE§7i§TER

COPE is 20
indicate t

Participat

for Generz
The most

any parti
a Vel‘y mi
While not
elemental1
in which
aPproval

l effort i

\T

 

‘ :,i;;.kis.

 

140

Table 21. Distribution of respondent teachers according to relative
total time spent during the year participating in
General Continuing Professional Education.

 

 

 

 

Participation unitsl Number Percentage

O 4 4.2
1—10 26 27.4
11—20 26 27.4
21—30 20 21.0
31—40 10 10.5
41—50 4 4.2
51—60 1 1.1
61—70 3 3.2
71—80 1 1.1
T35— 100.1

 

mean: 19.60; s.d.= 15.73; range: 0—74; skew: 1.18; kurtosis: 4.42

COPE is 20 points over the highest intra-System score. This would
indicate that at least some of the more active teachers at the high
participation end were active in General COPE from both sources.

c. Specific COPE. The variable of Specific COPE, like that
for General COPE, came in two forms, Intra—System and Extra—System.
The most striking data here is that only 14 of the teachers reported
any participation in Intra—System Specific COPE and even then only at
a very minimal rate of 1-30 hours over the two year period. This result,
while not surprising in view of the interest in mathematics among

elementary teachers, was surprising in another way. The school district

 

in which they taught had just completed an intensive effort to gain
approval for the Specific innovation, the new mathematics series. That

effort involved as many teachers as possible in workshops such as these.

1. Each unit represents approximately 15 clock hours.

 

Table 22. D:
t
S.

.____...._———-

“...—_—

Parti

mean: .18;

liar

N
mean: 11

Apparent

10W Pate

( activit;
and Con

DOt SUP

\
l

 

 

 

141

Table 22. Distribution of respondent teachers according to relative
time spent during two years participating in Intra—System
Specific Continuing Professional Education.

 

 

 

Participation unitsl Number Percentage
0 81 85 3
1 11 11.6
2 3 _ 3.2
9 100.1

 

mean: .18; s.d.= .46; range: 0—2; skew =2.59; kurtosis: 9.08

Table 23. Distribution of respondent teachers according to relative
time spent during two years participating in Extra—System
Specific Continuing Professional Education.

 

 

 

 

Participation unitsl Number Percentage
O 2 2.1
1—10 65 68.4
11~2O 13 13.7
21—30 7 7.4
31-40 5 5.3
41-50 2 2.1
51—60 0 0.0
61—70 0 0.0
71—80 0 0.0
81—90 _1 1.1
95 100.1

 

mean: 11.04; s.d.=l2.62; range: 0—81; skew: 2.63; kurtosis: 12.65

Apparently the effort did not reach the teachers in this sample. This

low rate of involvement renders the tests of this hypothesis doubtful.
Extra—System Specific COPE cast a wider net in terms of

activities that were measured, including both reading of articles

and courses in college, as well as workshops and lectures, so it is

not surprising that the level of participation appears higher than

 

1. Each unit represents approximately 15 clock hours.

 

 

Table 24. Di
ti

mean: 11.2

that for 1
teachers 1
form of 0
indicated
study Ove
rate of E
these hot
being em
ting tea

163? per

System 5
similar
in the

\

 

 

 

142

Table 24. Distribution of respondent teachers according to relative
time spent during two years participating in total
Specific Continuing Professional Education.

 

 

 

Participation unitsl Number Percentage

O 2 2.1
1—10 63 68.3
11—20 15 15.8
21-30 7 7.4
31—40 5 5.3
41-50 2 2.1
51-60 0 0.0
61—70 0 0.0
71-80 0 0.0
81-90 __1 1.1
95 100.1

 

mean: 11.22; s.d.= 12.5; range: 0-81; skew: 2.62; kurtosis: 12.27

that for Intra—System Specific COPE. But yet more than 70% of the
teachers had made only a minimal or no commitment of time to this
form of COPE. The mean of 11.04 units of Extra-System Specific COPE
indicated that the average teacher committed 160—170 hours to such
study over the two year period. This indicated an average weekly
rate of approximately 1% hours per week. More likely, of course,
these hours were concentrated in courses and workshops, rather than
being equally distributed throughout the time. The higher participa—
ting teachers, the top 30%, ranged from 150—300 hours over to the two
year period to one person who reported a rate of 12 hours per week.
The pattern of combined scores for intra—system and extra—
system scores for Specific COPE found in Table 24 above shows some
similarities to the combination pattern of scores for General COPE

in the way teachers tended to select one source over another.

 

1. Each unit represents approximately 15 clock hours.

 

 

 

If Tables 21
l—lO and 11
each set.
in Intra—Sy
of these tv
a higher s<
had also p
case it wa
teachers t
but not be
COPE was 5
index wi

w

ent sets
Innovati<
weighted
Situatio
Pepl‘eser
educati(
use of I
for Inn
reSpond
high pc
analy35
f0Pmat

of the

 

aria .. . . .

t I

143

If Tables 23 and 24 are compared, it will be noted that the ranks for
1—10 and 11—20 units of participation differ only by two teachers in
each set. Since there were fourteen teachers who had participated

in Intra—System Specific COPE these fourteen should have shown up in one
of these two ranks for total Specific COPE. This should have produced

a higher score if the same persons who had participated in extra—system
had also participated in intra—system COPE. Since this was not the

case it was concluded that in both forms of COPE, General and Specific,
teachers tended to participate in either extra—system or intra—system
but not both sources. The other similarity of Specific COPE to General
COPE was in the massing of teachers at the low end of the activity

index with a few teachers having relatively high rates of participation.

Innovation Situation Behavior

 

Innovation situation behavior was measured with three differ—
ent sets of scores: (1) General Change Orientation, (2) General
Innovation Use, and (3) Innovation Internalization. Responses were
weighted so as to make high scores represent high levels of innovation
situation behavior. High scores for General Change Orientation would
represent high levels of agreement as to the necessity of change in
education. High scores for General Innovation Use would represent both
use of many innovations or high interest in their use. High scores
for Innovation Internalization would represent high levels of receiving,
responding, and valuing of the mandated innovation, or in other terms,
high positive attitude towards the forced change. In this section the
analysis of the responding teachers' scores are reported in a similar
format to that used for participation. Also presented are the analyses

Of the factor scores for General Innovation Use and InnovatiOn

 

 

 

lnternalizat

tests of the

responses 0
with statem
in general
point scale

this yield

Table 25.

“——

x

Orient
M

\_
mean: lu

Scores 0
favor of
to the 1
four p0
teacher
Althoug
Sign of

teaChE]

 

14L;

Internalization that were used in place of the raw scores during the

tests of the hypotheses.

a. General Change Orientation. This measure consisted of the
responses of the teachers to items asking for agreement or disagreement

with statements dealing with the desirability or necessity of change

in general in the field of education. Responses were given on a seven

point scale with 4 as the neutral point. Since there were four items

this yielded a neutral point for the scale of 16.

Table 25. Number and percent of teachers by level of General Change
Orientation exhibited.

 

 

Orientation scores Number

 

 

Percentage

1—4 2 2.1

5—8 4 4.2

9—12 15 15.8

13—16 39 41.0
17—20 32 33.7
21~24 0 0.0
25—28 0 0.0
no response _~3 3.2

95 100.0

 

mean: 14.35; s.d.=4.32; range: 2—20; skew =-1.26; kurtosis: 0.626

Scores of 16 and below would probably represent an attitude not in
favor of change. The mean of the distribution was 14.35, quite close
to the neutral point of 16. Since 74.7% of the teachers were within
four points of the neutral point it would appear that most of the
teachers were neither clearly negative or positive about change.
Although the mean is slightly below the neutral point, the negative

sign of the skew indicates, as does inspection of Table 25, that the

teachers clustered at or slightly above the neutral point with the

 

exception of
these that 1
as strongly
characteris
whole, neut

attitudes a

ponses of
15 innovat
an innovat
would haw
However 0'
0f the ii
the avera
while tw<
innovati.
use Cage

were pro

Orienta-
on each
GEUEPal
below i
Orienta
This w.
to eXh

use th

 

 

145

exception of a few teachers strongly opposed to change. Moreover

these that were opposed to change were not matched by any teachers

as strongly in favor of change as they were opposed to it. These
characteristics indicated that the teachers in the sample were, on the
whole, neutral or moderately positive in their verbally expressed
attitudes about change in education.

b. General Innovation Use. This measure consisted of res-

 

ponses of teachers to questions as to their use or interest in use of
15 innovations current at the time of the questionnaire. Since use of
an innovation was weighted with 3 points, the highest possible score
would have been 45. None of the teachers came near this maximum.
However only two teachers reported no use, or interest in use, of any
of the listed innovations. The raw score mean of 5.95 suggests that
the average respondent was using two of the possible 15 innovations
while two—thirds of the teachers were using between one and three
innovations ( a step of three points probably represents one innovation
use case). A few teachers went beyond this low level for eight
were probably using four innovations.

A comparison of these data with those for General Change
Orientation revealed a difference between the majority of teachers
on each scale as to their position in relation to the mean. For
General Innovation Use the main body of teachers tended to be at or
below the middle of the distribution in comparison to General Change
Orientation where they were at or above the middle of the distribution.
This was taken as indicating that most of the teachers were less likely
to exhibit positive innovation situation behavior when faced with actual

use than when given the opportunity to verbalize about change.

 

 

Table 26. E?

Table 27,

’—
’—

____—

__..__

Leve
\fac
~2J
-1“
-l_1

.0I

___~

account

that mo
differe
the Co!

was Us

’_

 

Table 26. Number and percent of teachers by level of General Innovation

146

Use reported in raw scores.

 

 

 

Level of use in

 

raw scores Number Percentage

O 2 2.1
1—2 8 8.4
3—4 25 26.3
5—6 20 21.1
7—8 18 19.0
9—10 14 14.7
11—12 8 8.4
13—14 0 0.0

15
315 O 0.0
“9’5 100.0

 

mean: 5.95; s.d.= 2.96; range: 0-12; skew: 2.27; kurtosis=9.25

Table 27. Number and percent of teachers by level of General Innovation

Use reported in factor scores.

 

 

Level of use in
factor scores

 

Number Percentage

-2.50— —2.00 1 1.1
—1.99— —1.50 11 11.6
—1.49— —l.OO 32 33.7
-0.99~ —0.50 32 33.7
—O.49— 0.00 18 18.9
0.00— 0.50 1 1.1

—5 100.1

 

mean: -.85; s.d.= 1.85; range: —2.50 —O.50; skew: 1.40; kurtosis: 4.29

The factor analysis of the raw scores revealed a factor,
accounting for 72% of the variance in responses, which demonstrated
that most of the differences in scores were attributable to actual
differences in use, not to responses of interest in use. This supported

the contention from the raw score analysis that the average teacher

was using two innovations.

Since this factor score reduced the variance

 

 

due to errors
tests of the
distribution
&
indices of t
and valued a
mathematics
tion were g;
This comple:
reported wh
behavior.
tions in g6
informatior
accuracy 01
arising fr<
Change, A
tative of
leichers,
all items
was 15, wt
Teacher. 1(
had VEry ,
as mentio
taxonomy
intepnalj

would be

 

147
due to errors it was used in place of the raw scores during the
tests of the hypotheses. The near normality of the factor score
distribution supported such use.

c. Innovation Internalization. This measure consisted of

 

indices of the extent to which a teacher had received, responded,

and valued a mandated and simultaneously adopted innovation, a new
mathematics curriculum. To this end eight different types of informa—
tion were gathered by means of the eight subscales of internalization.
This complexity is in contrast to the indices and scales previously
reported which looked only at a narrow form of innovation situation
behavior. The subscales measured levels of information about innova—
tions in general within the school system and the accuracy of this
information; information levels about the specific innovation and
accuracy of same; perceptions of teachers of benefits for students
arising from the innovation; and the extent to which they valued the
change. All these responses were summed into a single score represen-
tative of the overall level of innovation internalization of the
teachers. The lowest possible score for a teacher who responded to
all items with either low levels of information or negative attitudes,
was 15, while the highest possible score was 106 provided that the
teacher looked at the innovation in the most positive manner and

had very high levels of information concerning it. The subscales,
as mentioned in Chapter 2, were all reflective of the levels of the
taxonomy of the affective domain. To the extent that a teacher had
internalized the innovation, it was assumed, the higher the scores

would be on the combined set of subscales.

 

Table 28. Nu
In

_._.————"'—'
__————-""‘

Level c
it
i ,

____.——————-

l

:nmflmw

mean: 80.7
Hoyt relia

Table 29.

. ' Leve

\
mean: -0
N0 relia

a mean <
exhibit
change _
Cluster
i of the

l appear

 

 

148

Table 28. Number and percent of teachers by exhibited level of
Innovation Internalization reported in raw scores.

 

 

Level of internalization

 

 

in raw scores Number Percentage
lSfi

149 o 0.0
50—59 l 1.1
60—69 6 6.3
70-79 35 36.8
80—89 37 40.0
90-99 14 lH.7
loo—109 __£; 211
95 100.0

 

mean: 80.79; s.d.= 8.27; range: 59—101; skew: 0.04; kurtosis: 2.78;
Hoyt reliability coefficient: 0.6528

Table 29. Number and percent of teachers by exhibited level of
Innovation Internalization reported in factor scores.

 

 

Level of internalization

 

 

in factor scores Number Percentage
—2.99— —2.00 4 4.2
—l.99— —l.OO ll 11.6
—o.99—' 0.00 35 36.8
0.00~ 0.99 31 32.6
l.OO— 1.99 l4 14.7
”95 99.9

 

mean: —0.079; s.d.= l.3l; range: -2.99—l.99; skew: -O.l9; kurtosis: l.32
No reliability coefficient procedure available for factor scores.

The range of scores reported in Table 28 was 59 to 101, with
a mean of 80.79. This would indicate that many of the teachers had
exhibited positive innovation situation behavior in the face of forced
change. Examination revealed that scores for internalization tended to
cluster strongly in the middle of the reported range. Sixty—six percent
of the teachers were found in the middle third of the range. This would

appear to support a contention that the teachers had arrived at a

 

 

 

 

general co
the value

consensus.

revealed
that was
benefits
to answex
tion pro
attitude
domain.
Could be
developr
were me
and inf
while 1

were 3+

measup
tion L
Compax
Verba
of in
Shape
liens
andj

C Omp

149
general consensus by the time of administration of the instrument as to
the value of the specific innovation and that consensus was a positive
consensus.

The factor analysis results were of assistance for they
revealed a factor, accounting for 70% of the variance in responses,
that was based on the responses to the items concerned with student
benefits and overall value of the innovation.”This result also appeared
to answer to some degree the question of whether or not the internaliza—
tion process as defined in this study was a process of development of
attitude along the lines posited by the taxonomy of the affective
domain. The fact that teachers varied only on the two highest subscales
could be viewed as evidence that the scale was a measure of the
development of attitude for the stages of attitude development which
were measured by the lower subscales, concerned mainly with awareness
and information level, were probably gone through earlier in the year,
while those attitudes at the highest end and the last to be formed,
were still in a state of flux.

Taken as a whole the teachers in the sample appeared in this
measure of ISB to be more positive than in the case of General Innova-
tion Use but less positive than for General Change Orientation.
Comparison of the three measures of ISB showed the level of purely
verbal acceptance to be high among the sample compared to actual use
of innovations. Although the scores are not directly comparable, the
shapes of the distribution curves reveal the basis for some generaliza-
tions . Both of the verbal measure curves (General Change Orientation
and Innovation Internalization) had negative or negligible skew as

compared to the curve of General Innovation Use which had positive skew.

 

 

The curve
the low en
the very f
I. distributi
‘ and, while
change, t1
vehementl
between t
This evid

I likely tc

than eitl
and Inno
Correlat
Innovati

With a F

-.—

Internal

‘ Signifi

bias to
to cove
t those n

I Positix

‘ situat

i one ad

 

150
The curve for General Innovation Use Shows teachers were clustered at
the low end with the tail on the right hand side of the curve containing
the very few (8) teachers who had high use scores. The shape of the
distribution curve for General Change Orientation was opposite this
and, while the majority were probably neutral or mildly positive towards
change, the tail of the curve was to the left and held those teachers
vehemently opposed to change. The curve for internalization fell
between these two patterns in an almost normal curve distribution.
This evidence supported the generalization that teachers were more
likely to be innovative on a verbal level than on a use level.

However internalization and use were more closely related
than either to general change orientation. General Innovation Use
and Innovation Internalization were related to each other with a ppm
correlation of .207, almost significant at the .05 level. General
Innovation Use and General Change Orientation were related negatively
with a ppm coefficient of —.223, significant at the .05 level.
Internalization is not related to orientation, —.OlO, at a statistically
significant level.

The findings for General Innovation Use reveal a possible
bias towards grade placement. Although the innovations were intended
to cover the complete l—6 grade range, the popular innovations were
those most suited for upper grade use. This is supported by the
positive association grade assignment had to General Innovation Use.

The results also support the use of the concept of innovation
situation behavior. In the discussion in Chapter 2 it was stated that

one advantage that ISB had over the traditional "innovativeness" was

 

 

 

 

 

that the tr.
would be ex
ISB would t
was faced.

change WhEI
direction 1
trait inte
the argume
study.

Role Orier

fessional
this stud
activity
Scores f(
the assur
PPOfessi
types of
by means
would IE

profESS:

ing tea
26 and
Ways 01
Cumstm

reSPOn

 

151
that the traditional measure implied the existence of a trait that
would be exhibited under many conditions if not all but the concept of
ISB would take into account the situation under which the innovation
was faced. Since the teachers' innovation situation behavior did
change when the situation was different with no overall tendency in one
direction regardless of the situation, this was evidence against a
trait interpretation of innovative behavior and‘evidence supportive of
the argument that ISB is a practical approach to organizational change
study.

Role Orientations and Reference Group Activity

 

The extent to which a respondent teacher exhibited both pro—
fessional and bureaucratic opinions and activities was measured in
this study by means of a role orientation scale and a reference group
activity index, both with professional and bureaucratic subsets.
Scores for each subset are reported separately. This was based on
the assumption of this study that teachers probably hold a mixture of
professional and bureaucratic opinions or are probably active in both
types of reference groups so that the data would be better analyzed
by means of subset scores that overall scores since an overall score
would tend to hide the differential effects of each element in the
professional—bureaucratic mixture.

a. Role orientation. Role orientation was determined by ask—

 

ing teachers to express agreement or disagreement to two sets (one of
26 and the other of 19 items) of statements about schools, appropriate
ways of operating them, and ways teachers should act under given cir—

cumstances. Agreement or disagreement was indicated on a five point

response scale, 3 being the neutral point. High scores were assigned

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

to stateme
with burea
cratic opi
purpose of

professior

Table 30.

Rank

\
mean: 76
0.6507

from a 1
The meat
items I:
almost.
With th
either

with In
Ponse V

60% of

 

152
to statements of agreement with professional opinion and disagreement
with bureaucratic opinion. Low scores represent agreement with bureau—
cratic opinion or disagreement with professional opinion. For the
purpose of comparability high scores on both subsets represent a
professional orientation and low scores a bureaucratic orientation.

Table 30. Number and percent of teachers by rank on a Bureaucratic
Opinion Subscale. ‘

 

 

 

Rank on scale Number Percentage
26—38 0 0.0
39—48 6 6.3
99—58 2 2.1
59-68 17 17.9
69-78 2 33.7
79~88 19 20.0
89-98 16 l6.8
99-l08 3 3.2

l09—llB O 0.0
llg—lBO 0 0.0
W 100 o

 

mean: 76.01; s.d.z 13.91; range: 40-107; Hoyt reliability coefficient:
0.6507

The data for bureaucratic opinion showed a range of scores
from a low of 40 to a high of l07 out of a possible range of 26 to 130.
The mean score, 76.0l, was very close to the neutral point of 78 (26
items times three) indicating that responding teachers appeared to be
almost normally distributed. This normality and closeness of mean
with the neutral point suggest that the 53.7% who were only ten points
either side of the mean and neutral point either responded on the whole
with 'not sure' responses or balanced one professionally oriented res—
ponse with one bureaucratically oriented response. On the whole though,

60% of the sample was at 78 or below while only 40% was above. Thus it

 

 

 

 

 

appeared t
profession

to agree c

the fact ‘
of the me.
the opini

extremes

extreme (

bureaucre

a simila

Opinion

Table 3]

\
"man:
O‘Huec

153
appeared that more teachers were bureaucratically oriented than
professionally oriented when given bureaucratically oriented items
to agree or disagree with.

The unimodal nature of this distribution is highlighted by
the fact that 70.5% of the teachers were within 26 points either side
of the mean. Since 26 points represents a shift of only one step on
the opinion scale, it appeared that the teachers were avoiding the
extremes of agreement or disagreement. However there were more people
(8.4%) at the bureaucratic extreme than were at the professional
extreme (3.2%) so that even the extreme scores support the overall
bureaucratic tendency of these responses.

Data for the Professional Opinion Subscale was clustered in
a similarly unimodal but more skewed distribution than for Bureaucratic
Opinion Subscale. Furthermore the overall response was in the opposite

Table 31. Number and percent of teachers by rank on a Professional
Opinion Subscale.

 

 

 

Rank on scale Number Percentage
14—16 0 0.0
17—22 0 0.0
23—27 1 1.1
28—32 l 1.1
33—37 0 0.0
38—42 7 7.4
43—47 14 14.7
48—52 30 31.6
53—57 25 26.3
58—62 15 15.8
63—67 1 1.1
68-70 1 1.1

‘93 100.2

 

 

mean: 51.45; s.d.= 5.46; range: 31-70; Hoyt reliability coefficient:
0.4480 ‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

direction
point for
that most
the previ
dency for
professic
comparisc
response
subscale
to the n
above th
measurir
statemeI
analysi
bureauc
COeffic

sional

eXhibi1
was me.-
PPOfeS
office
adViCe
refere
schoo]

°Path

Activ

 

direction since only a few teachers (9.2%) were below the neutral
point for this scale. According to these results then it would appear
that most of the teachers were professionally oriented, in contrast to
the previous results. These conflicting-results may be due to a ten-
dency for teachers to agree with each statement regardless of its
professional or bureaucratic content for both subscales. However a
comparison of results show that teachers were more neutral in their
response to the bureaucratic subscale items than to the professional
subscale items. The mean for the bureaucratic responses was quite close
to the neutral point while for the professional responses the mean was
above the neutral point. This indicated that the two subscales were
measuring the same factor, regardless of a tendency to agree with a
statement, and, as will be shown later, this is supported by the factor
analysis of the data. Of the two results though it might be that the
bureaucratic are closer to the real position since its reliability
coefficient is quite good (.6507) in contrast to that for the profes—
sional subscale (.4480).

b. Reference Group Activity. The extent to which a teacher

 

exhibited either bureaucratic and professional reference group activity
was measured by summing the responses for 13 bureaucratic and 18
professional items dealing with committee work, association memberships,
offices held, knowledge of professional matters, and the extent to which
advice and information was sought from professional or bureaucratic
reference groups. Those activities that were sponsored by the employing
school system or reflected local or lay interests were conSidered bureau-
cratic and were summed together in the Bureaucratic Reference Group

Activity Subindex (Bureaucratic RGA) and those activities not sponsored

 

 

 

 

by the empi
were summe
Subindex (

i COPE varia
1 responden‘
l a range 0
\ Table 32
i Burs
\ actix

|
l
f
l
i Althoug
of 24.]
Since-
befeI‘e:
minima

oPinio

|

l

l

|

l

l

1 .
lhto C

\ bumeat

I

l

 

 

155

by the employing system or reflective of peer or cosmopolite interests

were summed together in the Professional Reference Group Activity

Subindex (Professional RGA) This follows the pattern laid out for the

COPE variables for intra—system and extra—system types of participation.
Data for the Bureaucratic RGA subindex revealed that the

respondent teachers again were strongly clustered with 85.2% within

a range of 16 to 25 points out of a possible range of 0 to 72 points.

Table 32. Number and percent of teachers by rank on a Bureaucratic
Reference Group Activity Subindex.

 

 

 

Bureaucratic
activity score Number Percentage
0—5 l 1.1
6—10 3 3.2
ll-lS 3 3.2
16-20 18 18.9
2l—25 63 66.3
26-30 7 7.4
31—35 0 0.0
36-40 0 0.0
41—
—72 __0 0.0

(.0
(I1
p—I
O
O
H

 

mean: 24.16; s.d.= 4.28; range: 0—28; skew: —3.01; kurtosis: 5.03

Although there was no theoretical midpoint for comparison, the mean

of 24.16 was in the bottom third of the possible range from 0 to 72.
Since the highest score was 28, it appeared that their bureaucratic
reference group activity was low. Possibly this was based upon a
minimal commitment to bureaucratic or 'in—house' activities. As in the
opinion subscales the distribution was unimodal, ruling out segregation
into opposing groups and implying that for the respondents on the whole,

bureaucratic activity was not essential to them. Since there were

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

25 teacher
these teac
what burez

tendencie

strong cl
being 13.

36.69 was

Table 33

\
mean: 1

range
to tho
was hi

llC me

and p
same

the f

 

156

25 teachers (26.4%) below the modal group and only 7 (7.4%) above
these teachers, instead of appearing professional, now appear some—
what bureaucratic for high scores on this index indicated professional
tendencies.

Data for the Professional RGA Subindex did not show the
strong clustering seen in the Bureaucratic RGA, the standard deviation
being 13.01 as compared to the Bureaucratic RGA of 4.28. The mean of
36.69 was close to the center (40) of the possible score range which

Table 33. Number and percent of teachers by level of Professional
Reference Group Activity.

 

 

 

Professional
activity score Number Percentage

0—10 0 0.0
11-20 10 10.5
21-30 27 28.4
31—40 23 24.2
41—50 24 25.3
51—60 5 5.3
61—70 5 5.3
71—80 __;L 1.1

95 Tm

 

mean: 36.69; s.d.= 13.01; range: 16—71; skew: 1.05; kurtosis = 2.96

range from 0—80 but was slightly below it. These results are similar
to those for the professional role orientation subscale where the mean
was higher in the possible range; results paralleled by the bureaucra—
tic measures which clustered at a very low point in the possible range.
It should be remembered that the scores for both orientation
and reference group activity are not based on opposing responses to the
same item but on responses to different items in each subset. However

the fact that for both orientation and activity subsets professional

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SCOPES we]
WEPG more

toward bu

factors
orientat
the exte

predicte

sets sh<
teacher
negativ

scale.

T&Ie1

K
mean:

had

fell

 

157
scores were higher than bureaucratic scores suggests that the teachers
were more positive toward profeSSional items and negative or neutral
toward bureaucratic items.

c. Factor Scores. The data was factor analyzed to seek
factors which most clearly discriminate professional and bureaucratic
orientations or reference group activity and thus aid in determining
the extent of the professionalism among the teachers along the lines
predicted by the professional-bureaucratic paradigm.

Factor analysis of the role orientation items from both sub—
sets showed a factor which accounted for 61% of the differences in
teacher responses to the scale items. This factor was composed of
negative or disagreement responses to items on the bureaucratic sub—

scale. It was of interest to note that the scale items which Corwinl

Table 34. Number and percent of teachers by Professional Orientation
factor scores.

 

 

 

Factor scores Number Percentage
—3.99- —3.00 4 4.2
—2.99— —2.00 16 16.8
—l.99- —1.00 25 26.3
-0.99— 0.00 30 31.6
0.00— 0.99 14 14.7
1.00— 1.99 __ji 6.3
95 99.9

 

mean: —.93; s.d.= 1.23; skew: 1.14, range: —3.56—l.78; kurtosis: 1.29

had developed to assess the classical modes of professionalism

fell out of the analysis as not being significant here. The factor

1. Corwin, 9p, cit., p. 467.

 

 

 

 

 

which was
was consid
being ant:
with bure

Orientati

curve’bu‘
of the t
tail of
results
However
discrim

reducti

cratic
accoun
Items
sourca
infom
were‘
those
the s
Refei
gPou
in t
Of 1

tom

 

158
which was found, although arising from bureaucratically oriented items,
was considered to demonstrate profession orientation in the sense of
being anti—bureaucratic for high scores here indicate high disagreement
with bureaucratic items. These factor scores were entitled Professional
Orientation Factor Scores.

Examination of the factor scores showed an almost normal
curve but with a slight skew towards high scores showing that the bulk
of the teachers were somewhat more bureaucratic than those in the
tail of the skew. This appears not to be parallel to the raw score
results which showed a tendency toward professional orientation.
However with the reduction in the number of items to only those which
discriminated, this apparent discrepancy can be explained as the
reduction in error in measuring this factor.

Factor analysis of the reference group items, both bureau—
cratic and professional taken together, revealed two factors, each
accounting for approximately 45% of the variance in teacher responses.
Items which distinguished among the teachers were those dealing with
sources of information and advice. Scores on one factor, showing
information and advice seeking from the hierarchy and local community,
were termed Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity Factor Scores, while
those scores on the other factor, which showed negative responses to
the same type of information and advice source, were termed Professional
Reference Group Activity Factor Scores. This resulted in reference
group scores similar to those from the role orientation factor analysis
in that the respondents, while not classified in the traditional sense
of professional, still could be distinguished as positive or negative

towards bureaucratic reference group activities.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

strong ClU
Bureaucrat

the membei

Table 35.

 

Faci

mean: -:

a clust
0f Burr
when T
factor
seen 1
as we

deriv

159
Distribution for Bureaucratic RGA factor scores showed a
strong clustering of teachers somewhat similar to the raw scores for‘
Bureaucratic RGA. Scores were generally negative, again implying that
the members of the sample were not active in this form of activity.

Table 35. Number and percent of teachers by factor scores for
Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity.

 

 

Factor activity level Number Percentage

—3.99- -3.00 9 9.5
-2.99— ~2.00 42 ww.2
—l.99— —l.00 33 34.8
—o.99— 0.00 9 9.5
0.00— 1.00 __33 "2.1

95 100.1

 

mean: —l.99; s.d.= 1.39; skew: 1.84; kurtosis: 4.62

Distribution for Professional RGA in factor scores showed
a clustering of teachers very similar to that for the raw score form
of Bureaucratic RGA but in the opposite direction as can be seen
when Table 32 on page 155 is compared to Table 36 on page 160. The
factoring process eliminated the empty ranks in Table 32 and as can be
seen from the change in sign of skew, the two tails change positions
as would be expected from the fact that the scores in Table 36 are
derived from negative responses to the same items.

The results for reference group activity and for role orienta-
tion for all three factors showed that factor analysis did bring out
factors that could be explained as measuring variance along the lines
of the traditional professional—bureaucratic paradigm but there were
weaknesses revealed in this process that cast doubt upon the usefulness

of the paradigm among elementary teachers.

 

.... ...-2....

‘14:.-

....J.v-

1.9—...-

 

 

Table 36.

 

Fact<

mean: -1

the orie
found an
results
ported

among t

but app

analys
cratic
SUggeg

autonv

mode
end (

clus

 

 

 

 

160

Table 36. Number and percent of teachers by factor scores for
Professional Reference Group Activity.

 

 

 

Factor activity level Number Percentage
—l.99— -l.OO 59 62.1
—O.99— 0.00 26 27.4

0.00— 0.99 6 6.3
1.00- 1.99 2 2.1
2.00— 2.99 2 2.1

 

mean: —l.78, s.d.= 1.22; skew= 2.32; kurtosisi 5.64

First the analysis revealed that only a few items of either
the orientation or activity subscales accounted for the differences
found among teachers, raising the suspicion that the raw score
results might well be fortuitous. The prospect of fortuity was sup—
ported by randomness among the orientation items that distinguished
among the sample members. These items did not have common concerns
but appeared to be a miscellaneous aggregation.l

Second, the indicators of professionalism found in the factor
analysis were not direct but consisted of negative responses to bureau-
cratic orientation or actions. This could be interpreted, as Lortie
suggested, that teachers in elementary school might differ as
autonomous versus non—autonomous.2

Third, the persistent clustering of scores within a single
mode showed that the teachers were not divisible into groups at each

end of the professional=bureaucratic paradigm but that they tended to

cluster near the low end of the actitivity range or near the

 

1. Items 53, 61, 69, 72, 83, and 84 found in Appendix A

PP. 264—266.
2. Lortie, op: cit., pp. 40-41.

 

center por
conclusion
neither ac

oriented i

are exami

picture.

Table 37.

Fac

Was in
Surpm'
to box
cally
tiVel

fican

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

161

center portion of the orientation ranges. This reinforced the
conclusion drawn from the raw data analyses that the teachers were
neither active in any reference group activity nor were they strongly .
oriented towards either end of the orientation paradigm.

Lastly, if the correlations between the three factor scores
are examined it will be seen that they present a somewhat confused
picture. i
Table 37. Correlations among scores on three role factors: Professional

Orientation, Professional Reference Group Activity, and

Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity as found among
95 elementary school teachers.

 

 

Factor score relationships Correlation (ppm)

Professional Orientation to
Professional Reference Group Activity .23*

Professional Orientation to
Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity .14

Professional Reference Group Activitv
to Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity —.11

 

*significant at the .05 level

The correlation between the two professionalism measures
was in the expected direction and significant at the .05 level.
Surprisingly professional orientation scores were positively related
to bureaucratic RGA scores, however the correlation was not statisti-
cally significant. The two forms of reference group activity were nega—
tively related as would be expected, but not at a statistically signi-

ficant level.

 

 

 

 

 

 

use of t
behavior
have cle
they get
conclus:
Based u
to be m
dinal f
of prof
bureau<

very w¢

examin
role v
betwee

and i]

stud}
Vari
beha
grow
Sior

eth

162

The four difficulties just reviewed do not support further
use of the professional—bureaucratic paradigm as a tool for analysis of
behavior of elementary school teachers. Such teachers apparently do not
have clearcut and strong professional or bureaucratic orientation and
they generally reveal low levels of reference group activity. This
conclusion is based upon both subjective and objective types of data.
Based upon the results of the factor analysis, the sample would appear
to be mildly bureaucratic since they obtained low scores on the attitu—
dinal factor of professionalism, low scores on the activity factor
of professionalism, and moderate scores on the activity factor for
bureaucratic reference groups. This would indicate an overall, but
very weak, bureaucratic tendency among members of the sample.

In the next section these factor scores will be used in
examining the relationships between the situational variables and the
role variables instead of the raw scores. However the correlations
between the situational variables and the variables of participation
and innovation will be presented first.

ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN PARTICIPATION, INNOVATION, ROLE ORIENTATIONS,
REFERENCE GROUP ACTIVITIES AND THE SITUATIONAL VARIABLES

 

Introduction

In order to complete the descriptive analysis phase of the
study, the associations between the situational variables and the major
variables of participation in continuing education, innovation situation
behavior, and role factors, including role orientations and reference
group activity levels, were examined by means of multivariate regres—
sion analysis. This procedure allowed examination of the relative

extent of association between the scores for the twenty—two situational

 

 

 

 

 

variable
tions ar
the sign
levels I
level, a
are mar
as low
believe
It perr
involv
in the

and a

percm
full
obtai
it by
Corre
to t
the
imp:
Thm
app

stu

I‘et

 

163

variables and those for the respective major variables. These associa—
tions are reported in the form of partial correlation coefficients and
the significance level of each of these coefficients. The significance
levels used in this descriptive phase are not restricted to the .05
level, although those correlations that are significant at that level
are marked by asterisks in the tables. At times correlations ranging
as low as the .20 level are discussed in the descriptions. This was
believed to be justified due to the exploratory nature of the study.
It permitted looking at those variables which might be even modestly
involved as modifiers of teacher behavior. Also since errors abound
in these measures, the error would lead to a reduction in correlation
and a hiding of true relationships.l

Another statistic which was computed and reported was the
percentage of variance from the mean which was accounted for by the
full set of situational variables for each major variable. This was
obtained from the multiple correlation coefficient, R2, by multiplying
it by 100. The multiple correlation coefficient represents the
correlation, so to speak, of the entire set of situational variables
to the dependent major variable. Where the multiple correlation is low,
the situational variables, taken as a group, were assumed not to be
important in studying the associations between the major variables.
Thus the multiple correlation coefficient is a way of estimating the
appropriateness of the set of selected situational variables to the
study of participation in continuing education upon innovation behavior.

1. Helen Walker and Joseph Lev, Elementary Statistical Methods,
revised ed.(New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1958), p. 162.

 

4.

 

 

 

 

analysis
a summar
and sigr

Associa1
and par1

only fo
the .05
Teacher
be your
who dh
rested
innova
variah
in pa}
educa-

being

the m

Gene!
Part
legi
belo
teac
not

inn<

 

164
There were 13 major variables. The.resu1ts of this phase of
analysis are presented in Tables 38 to 50. At the end of this section
a summary is made of those situational variables that were frequently
and significantly related to the major variables.

Association between situational variables
and participation in continuing education

 

 

 

a. Non—Vocational Continuing Education. It was found that
only four of the situational variables were significantly related, at
the .05 level, to participation in Non—Vocational Continuing Education.
Teachers who participated in this form of continuing education tended to
be younger and more satisfied with their role as teachers than those
who did not. They also apparently felt their principals were not inte-
rested in general change in education or in supporting the specific
innovation, adoption of the new mathematics program. The situational
variables as a whole accounted for only 26% of the variance (R2=.2559)
in participation by teachers at this most general level of continuing
education. This pattern of only a few of the situational variables
being significantly related to the variable of interest is true for all
the major variables studied.

b. General Continuing Professional Education. Participants in

 

General COPE were more likely to teach at higher elementary grades,
participate in decision making and feel that such participation was a
legitimate part of their role than were those who did not. Dropping
below the .05 level of significance, there were indications that these
teachers rated themselves as good teachers, felt their principals were
not interested in change and had low pre—exposure to the specific

innovation (a function of the principalship and indicative of low

 

 

Table 38.

__———-—
...—_-

Situatio
Mall

Demograp
Age
Marita
Workir
Depent
Attaii

Experie
Years
Years
Years

 

 

 

165

Table 38. Associations between participation in Non-Vocational
Continuing Education and 22 situational variables
among 95 elementary school teachers.

 

 

 

 

Situational partial significance
Variables correlation level
Demographic
Age —.232 .05*
Marital Status .033 .78
Working Spouse . ..025 .84
Dependents .032 .79
Attained Educational Level —.035 .77
Experience
Years in Teaching -.l39 .24
Years in System .133 .26
Years in Assignment -.l66 .16
Grade Assignment .017 .88
Exposure to Specific Innovation
Pre-exposure —.O43 .72
Exposure to SRA Texts .072 .54
Exposure to AW Texts —.093 .43
Self Image Variables
Role Satisfaction .267 .02*
Self Rating as a Teacher —.130 .27
Self-Principal Variables
Principal Rating as a Teacher .120 .31
Performance Feedback —.024 .84
Participation in Decision Making —.024 .84
Legitimacy of Such Participation —.106 .37
Principal's General Change Orientation —.235 .04*
Principal Support for Specific Innovation —.282 .02*
Self-Peer Relationships
Group Cohesiveness .014 .91
Opinion Leadership by Teacher —.015 .90

 

*significant at the .05 level or higher

 

 

 

 

Table 39.

___._.—-——

_..—._————

Situation
Variable

Demograpt
Age
Marital
Working
Depend<
Attain

Experien
Years
Years
Years
Grade

Exposure
Pre-e>
EXpom
Expos

361f-Im.
Role
Self

Self-Pr
Princ
Perfc
Parti
Legit
Prin<
Prim

Self-P
Grou:
Opin

m
"Slgnl

 

166

 

Table 39. Associations between participation in General Continuing

Professional Education and 22 situational variables among

95 elementary school teachers.

 

 

 

Situational partial significance
Variables correlation level
Demographic
Age —.O28 .81
Marital Status -—.022 .85
Working Spouse .103 .38
Dependents —.046 .70
Attained Educational Level .095 .43
Experience
Years in Teaching -.l34 .26
Years in System .141 .23
Years in Assignment .007 .96
Grade Assignment .234 .04*
Exposure to Specific Innovation
Pre—exposure —-197 .09
Exposure to SRA Texts —.062 .60
Exposure to AW Texts —.001 .99
Self—Image Variables
Role Satisfaction —.047 .69
Self Rating as a Teacher .223 .06
Self-Principal Variables
Principal Rating as a Teacher .100 .40
Performance Feedback from Principal —.l36 .25
Participation in Decision Making .235 .04*
Legitimacy of Such Participation .235 .04*
Principal's General Change Orientation —.188 .11
Principal Support for Specific Innovation .006 .96
Self—Peer Relationships
Group Cohesiveness —.057 .63
Opinion Leadership by Teacher —.052 .66

 

 

*significant at the .05 level or higher

 

 

 

perceiv
situati
tion by

level c

bited a
the pa
was no
Genera
extra-

tiatec

Gener
perfo
sion

the s
actix

clos

that
have
more
The

var

 

 

167
perceived interest in change on the part of the principal). The
situational variables accounted for 27% of the variance in participa—
tion by teachers in this form of continuing education at the middle
level of specificity.

Teachers who participated in Intra—System General COPE exhi—
bited a different set of significantly related characteristics than did
the participants in Non-Vocational CE or in total General COPE. This
was not surprising as the distributions for the three scores for
General COPE, that is, the total score, and the two source scores,
extra—system and intra—system, showed that teachers could be differen—
tiated by source at the low and moderate participation levels.1

The teachers who were active as participants in Intra—System
General COPE were probably unmarried, believed they would receive high
performance ratings from their principals, saw participation in deci—
sion making as legitimate, and saw their principals as supportive of
the specific innovation (possibly because they confined their
activities to intra—system sources and thus might have been somewhat
closer to the hierarchy).

Dropping below the .05 level of significance, it would appear
that these teachers had lower attained educational levels which might
have been due to their specialization in intra—system sources, had
more experience in teaching, and less participation in decision making.
The situational variables as a whole accounted for 40% of the
variance (R2: .3985) in participation in Intra—System General COPE.

None of the situational variables turned out to be related

to Extra-System General COPE at the .05 level and these situational

 

1. see page 139.

 

 

Table 40.

Situation
Variable

Demograph
Age
Marital
Working
Depends
Attainr

Experien
Years
Years
Years
Grade

EXposure

Pre—e>

‘ EXPOSI
‘ Expos
l

 

 

 

SGlf—Img
Role
Self

SQlf~Pr
Princ
Perfc
Parti
Legit
Prin<
Prin<

Self-P
Grou

Opin

M
"SJ-gill

 

 

168

Table 40. Associations between participation in Intra—System General
Continuing Professional Education and 22 situational
variables among 95 elementary school teachers.

 

 

 

Situational partial significance
Variables correlation level
Demographic
Age —.l48 .21
Marital Status “—.230 .05*
Working Spouse .095 .42
Dependents —.O2O .86
Attained Educational Level —.l88 .11
Experience
Years in Teaching .213 .07
Years in System —.104 .38
Years in Assignment .005 .97
Grade Assignment .075 .53
Exposure to Specific Innovation
Pre—exposure .146 .22
Exposure to SRA Texts .021 .86
Exposure to AW Texts .024 .84
Self—Image Variables
Role Satisfaction —.023 .85
Self Rating as a Teacher —.048 .69
Self-Principal Variables
Principal Rating as a Teacher .297 .01*
Performance Feedback from Principal —.092 .44
Participation in Decision Making —.210 .07
Legitimacy of Such Participation .281 .02*
Principal's General Change Orientation -.110 .36
Principal Support for Specific Innovation .233 .04*
Self-Peer Relationships
Group Cohesiveness —.089 .45
Opinion Leadership by Teacher .153 .19

 

*significant at the .05 level or higher

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 41-

~—
__.__——-

Situatio
Variabl

Demograp
Age
Marita
Workh
Depenl
Attai

Experie
Years
Years
Years
Grade

Exposui
Pre—e
Expo
Expo:

Self—I
Role
Self
Self-F
Prir
Peri
Part
Leg
Pri
Pri
Self~
Grc
Opi

\-

 

169

 

 

 

Table 41. Associations between participation in Extra—System.General
Continuing Professional Education and 22 situational
variables among 95 elementary school teachers.

Situational partial significance

Variables correlation ' level

Demographic

Age —.050 .67
Marital Status —.003 .98
Working Spouse .007 .96
Dependents .128 .28
Attained Educational Level -.018 .88
Experience
Years in Teaching —.154 .19
Years in System —.045 .71
Years in Assignment .017 .88
Grade Assignment -.155 .19
Exposure to Specific Innovation
Pre—exposure -.034 .78
Exposure to SRA Texts .131 .27
Exposure to AW Texts .078 .51
Self—Image Variables
Role Satisfaction —.058 .62
Self Rating as a Teacher .045 .70
Self—Principal Variables
Principal Rating as a Teacher -.003 .98
Performance Feedback from Principal .122 .30
Participation in Decision Making .157 .18
Legitimacy of Such Participation .083 .48
Principal's General Change Orientation -.025 .83
Principal Support for Specific Innovation —.059 .62
Self-Peer Relationships
Group Cohesiveness —.050 .67
Opinion Leadership by the Teacher —.O75 .52

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

fl...

L_ ”.-.,.__._

variable
Extra-8y
teachers

selves

in tota
at the
partic
chers.
a some
form c
accoui
COPE.
accou
that
form

were

rela
pant

levr

170
variables accounted for only 16% of the variance in participation in
Extra—System General COPE. At significance levels of .18 or .19 these
teachers tended to be inexperienced, teach lower grades, and see them—
selves as participants in decision making.

c. Specific Continuing Professional Education. Participation

 

in total Specific COPE was correlated with only one situational variable
at the .05 level. That was self rating, indicating that teachers who
participated in the specific form of COPE saw themselves as good tea—
chers. Related at the .16 level of significance was age, indicating
a somewhat younger group of teachers might have participated in this
form of continuing education. The situational variables as a whole
accounted for only 16% of the variance in participation in Specific
COPE. This is roughly half the situational factor-related variance
accounted for in General COPE scores. This was explained by the fact
that there were fewer situational variables related to the specific
form of COPE as compared to the general form of COPE. Probablv there
were fewer since only a few teachers participated in this form of COPE.
A different pattern emerged with the analysis of factors
related to participation in Intra—System Specific COPE. Here partici—
pants tended to be inexperienced but have high attained educational
levels and to see themselves as participants in decision making but not
as opinion leaders among the staff. Dropping below the .05 level of
significance, ratings of perceived principal innovativeness were nega~
tively related to such participation, as well as the level of pre—ex—
posure to the specific innovation. These teachers apparently taught

at higher grade levels and saw their staffs as cohesive. The

 

 

 

 

 

 

l
L__1____.,_lfl,_1,,________.__ ._.1.

Table 42

.._———-—
___————-

Situatic
Variabi

Demogra
Age
Marit
Worki
Depen
Attai

Experie
Year:
Year:
Year
Grad

Exposu
Pre—
Expo
Expc

Self—l
Role
Seh

Self—l
Pri
Per

Par
Leg
Pri
Fri

Self

(in

0p

“Sig

171

 

 

 

Table 42. Assbciations between participation in Specific Continuing
Professional Education and 22 situational variables
among 95 elementary schoOl teachers.

Situational partial significance

Variables correlation level

Demographic

Age —.l66 .16
Marital Status .048 .69
Working Spouse 0 .052 .66
Dependents -.l46 .21
Attained Educational Level .039 .74
Experience
Years in Teaching .096 .42
Years in System -.O82 .49
Years in Assignment .022 .85
Grade Assignment —.020 .87
Exposure to Specific Innovation
Pre—exposure .041 .73
Exposure to SRA Texts .115 .33
Exposure to AW Texts .024 .84
Self—Image Variables
Role Satisfaction .017 .88
Self Rating as a Teacher .237 .04*
Self—Principal Variables
Principal Rating as a Teacher .101 .39
Performance Feedback from Principal —.030 .80
Participation in Decision Making .055 .64
Legitimacy of Such Participation -.085 .47
Principal's General Change Orientation —.O4l .73
Principal Support for Specific Innovation —.078 .51
Self—Peer Relationships
Group Cohesiveness -.031 .79
Opinion Leadership by Teacher .002 .99

 

*significant at the .05 level or higher

 

 

 

Table 4

 

Situat
Var ia

Demogr
Age
Mari
Work
Depe
Atte

Exper:
Yea:
Yea
Yea
Gra

Expos
Pre
Exp
Ex;

Self
Roi
Se.

Self

172

Table 43. Associations between participation in Intra—System
Specific Continuing Professional Education and
22 situational variables among 95 elementary school teachers.

 

Situational

 

 

partial significance
Variables correlation level
Demographic
Age —.12L+ .29
Marital Status .033 .85
Working SpouSe .066 .58
Dependents —.133 .26
Attained Educational Level .510 .01**
Experience
Years in Teaching —.230 .05*
Years in System .066 .58
Years in Assignment —.052 .66
Grade Assignment .162 .17
Exposure to Specific Innovation
Pre—exposure —.l70 .15
Exposure to SRA Texts .069 .56
Exposure to AW Texts .061 .61
Self—Image Variables
Role Satisfaction .018 .88
Self Rating as a Teacher .093 .43
Self—Principal Variables
Principal Rating as a Teacher .024 .84
Performance Feedback from Principal —.137 .25
Participation in Decision Making .318 .01**
Legitimacy of Such Participation .087 .46
Principal's General Change Orientation —.158 .19
Principal Support for Specific Innovation -.210 .08
Self—Peer Relationships
Group Cohesiveness .153 .19
Opinion Leadership by Teacher -.239 .04*

J.
I

~significant at the .05 level
**significant at the .01 level

 

 

 

 

 

Situati

partici

were mt
none 0
level

The re
Table

in In
varia

betwe

are (
Spec
11an
depe

Spa

 

 

173
situational variables as a whole accounted for 48% of the variance in
participation in Intra—System Specific COPE.

Those teachers who participated in Extra-System Specific COPE
were more numerous than those in Intra—System Specific COPE. However
none of the situational variables appeared to be related at the .05
level of significance to participation in Extra—System Specific COPE.
The results were very similar to those for total Specific COPE seen in
Table 42. This would be expected since there were so few participants. j
in Intra-System Specific COPE their relationships to the situational
variables would not have had much power to influence the associations
between the situational variables and the total Specific COPE scores.

If correlations at lower levels of statistical significance
are examined it would appear that these participants in Extra—System
Specific COPE were less satisfied with their role, were probably
unmarried and a larger proportion than did non—participants had
dependents. Only 19% of the variance in participation in Extra—System
Specific COPE was accounted for by the situational variables, and
quite possibly, any or all of the apparent relationships were fortuitous.

It is of interest to note that none of the situational vari—
ables were related at the .05 level to participation in extra—system
COPE, either general or specific. In contrast at least four variables
were related at that level to participation in intra—system COPE,
although the factors associated with Intra—System General COPE were
not the same as those associated with Intra—System Specific COPE. Each
source of COPE evidently drew on different types of teachers. The

situational factors associated with total scores for participation in

 

 

 

 

 

Table 44.

 

Situatio
Variabl

Demograp

Marita
Workir
Depene
Attan
Experiei
Years
Years
Years
Grade
EXposur
Pre—e
Expos
Expos
Self-In
Role
Self
Self—P:
Prin.
Perf
Part
Legi
Prin
Prir
Self-E
Gror
Opir

\

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

174
Table 44. Associations between participation in Extra—System Specific
Continuing Professional Education and 22 situational
variables among 95 elementary school teachers.

 

 

 

 

Situational partial significance
Variables correlations level
Demographic
Age .008 .95
Marital Status -.l97 .09
Working Spouse “ .056 .64
Dependents .208 .08
Attained Educational Level .005 .96
Experience
Years in Teaching —.059 .62
Years in System —.116 .32
Years in Assignment —.014 .91
Grade Assignment .020 .86
Exposure to Specific Innovation
Pre-exposure .120 .31
Exposure to SRA Texts —.049 .68
Exposure to AW Texts .068 .56
Self—Image Variables
Role Satisfaction --212 .07
Self Rating as a Teacher .077 .51
Self—Principal Relationships
Principal Rating as a Teacher .037 .76
Performance Feedback from Principal .104 .38
Participation in Decision Making .004 .98
Legitimacy of Such Participation -.056 .64
Principal's General Change Orientation .141 .23
Principal Support for Specific Innovation .111 .35 ‘
Self—Peer Relationships l
Group Cohesiveness .034 .77
Opinion Leadership by Teacher .132 .26

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

General
pation
This co

partici

cipati
factor
at the
tors a
patim
tisfa
self
direc
ables
thom
babl
were
patt
Sitl

Ass
\
er

 

 

175
General and Specific COPE differed from those associated with partici—
pation scores for intra—system and extra—system COPE taken separately.
This could probably have only happened if different teachers tended to
participate in the two different categories of COPE.

Looking at all the situational factors in relations to parti—
cipation in continuing education it can be said that there were no
factors that were consistently and strongly related to participation
at the .05 level. However, it was of interest to note that some fac—
tors appeared to be frequently or moderately or both related to partici—
pation. With one or two exceptions each, age, experience, and role sa—
tisfaction were found to be negatively related to participation while
self rating as a teacher was positively related to participation. The
directions of most of the other relationships between situational vari—
ables and participation scores were mixed. It is possible that many of
those correlations found to be statistically significant, and very pro—
bably those relationships below the .05 level that were pointed out,
were the results of random error. As a whole, since no consisent
pattern was found, the predictive and interactive powers of the
situational variables for participation were judged to be quite low.

Associations between Situational Variables
and Innovation Situation Behavior

 

 

a. General Change Orientation. Data concerning correlations

 

between situational variables and General Change Orientation indicated
that teachers who were generally oriented towards educational change
tended to be dissatisfied in their roles, to participate in decision

making, and to have had low pre—exposure to the specific innovation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 45

.__———
____————-

Situati
Variab

Demogra
Age
Marit
Worki
Depei
Atta

Experi
Year
Year
Year
Grad

Expost
Pre-
EXp(
Exp<

Self-
Rol
Sel
Self—
Pri
Per
Par

«'3‘ f 3 7.1.x,

176

Table 45. Associations between General Change Orientation and 22
situational variables among 95 elementary school teachers.

 

 

 

 

Situational partial significance
Variables correlation level
Demographic
Age —.173 .14
Marital Status .038 .75
Working Spouse .007 .95
Dependents .007 .95
Attained Educational Level —.105 .37
Experience
Years in Teaching —.026 .82
Years in System .076 .52
Years in Assignment .061 .61
Grade Assignment .087 .46
Exposure to Specific Innovation
Pre—exposure -.237 .04*
Exposure to SRA Texts ~.132 .26
Exposure to AW Texts —.161 .17
Self—Image Variables
Role Satisfaction —.229 .05*
Self Rating as a Teacher .015 .90
Self—Principal Relationships
Principal Rating as a Teacher .157 .18
Performance Feedback from Principal -.097 .41
Participation in Decision Making .332 .01**
Legitimacy of Such Participation -.037 .75
Principal's General Change Orientation .186 .11
Principal Support for Specific Innovation -.202 08
Self-Peer Relationships
Group Cohesiveness .179 .13
Opinion Leadership by Teacher —.057 .63

 

='isignificant at the .05 level
**significant at the .01 level

 

 

 

seen the
cohesive
innovatfi

change 1

presume¢
H8% of
situati

aggrega

in thei
related
for edu
their ;
in gene
lower ]
(which

good U

eXPlah

the Sp
that i
Change
t0 be

”PPEr

 

177

If associations below the .05 level are examined it can be
seen that these teachers saw themselves as members of relatively
cohesive peer groups, had little current exposure to the specific
innovation, and saw their principals as generallv oriented towards
change but not supporting the specific innovation.

Since the situational variables were selected for their
presumed relevance to innovation situation behavior, the increase to
48% of total variance in General Change Orientation explained by the
situational variables as a whole was important evidence that in the
aggregate they indeed were relevant to ISB.

b. General Innovation Use. Teachers who used innovations

 

in their classrooms exhibited a different set of significantly

related situational factors from those who expressed a general desire
for educational change. The users saw high performance feedback from
their principals, did not see their principals as interested in change
in general, and had little exposure to SRA texts. They tended, at
lower levels of statistical significance, to be upper grade teachers
(which matches the low SRA exposure) and to rate themselves as

good teachers. The percentage of variance in General Innovation Use
explained by the situational variables as a whole was 4H%.

0. Innovation Internalization. Teachers who internalized

 

the specific innovation under the forced simultaneous use situation,
that is, the teachers who saw their pupils as benefiting from the
change and who viewed the change as good for their school, were likely
to be experienced teachers, new to the system, and teaching in the

upper elementary grades. In contrast to teachers with high General

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4‘

__.—-——
...—.—

Situati
Variat

Demogre
Age
Mari
Work
Depe
Atta

Experi
YeaI
Yea]
Yea]
Gra

Expos
Pre
Exp
Exp

Self-
R0]

178

 

Table 46. Associations between General Innovation Use and 22 situational

variables among 95 elementary school teachers.

 

 

 

 

Situational partial significance

Variables correlation level
Demographic

Age —.037 .77

Marital Status —.055 .64

Working Spouse .156 .19

Dependents —.095 .42

Attained Educational Level —.O43 .72
Experience

Years in Teaching —.lO3 .38

Years in System .ll5 .33

Years in Assignment —.O49 .68

Grade Assignment .209 .07
Exposure to Specific Innovation

Pre—exposure .054 .65

Exposure to SRA Texts —.246 .O4*

Exposure to AW Texts -.047 .69
Self—Image Variables

Role Satisfaction .117 .32

Self Rating as a Teacher .156 .18
Self—Principal Relationships

Principal Rating as a Teacher —.0l4 .90

Performance Feedback from Principal .430 .Ol**

Participation in Decision Making .l07 .36

Legitimacy of Such Participation —.030 .80

Principal's General Change Orientation —.223 .04*

Principal Support for Specific Innovation —.121 .30
Self—Peer Relationships

Group Cohesiveness —.020 .86

Opinion Leadership by Teacher .083 .48

 

*significant at the .05 level
**significant at the .01 level

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 47

Situati
Variab

Demogra

Marii
Work:
Depe
Atta
Experi
Year
Year
Year
Grad
Exp051

Exp

 

179

Table 47. Associations between Innovation Internalization and 22
situational variables among 95 elementary school teachers.

 

 

 

 

Situational partial significance
Variables correlation level
Demographic
Age —.002' .98
Marital Status —.O43 .72
Working Spouse .049 .68
Dependents -.l25 .29
Attained Educational Level —.04l .73
Experience
Years in Teaching .236 .04*
Years in System —.237 .04*
Years in Assignment .075 .52
Grade Assignment .248 .03*
Exposure to Specific Innovation
Pre—exposure —.201 .09
Exposure to SRA Texts .062 .60
Exposure to AW Texts .lO4 .38
Self—Image Variables
Role Satisfaction .205 .08
Self Rating as a Teacher .l75 .14
Self—Principal Relationships
Principal Rating as a Teacher —.l4O .24
Performance Feedback from Principal —.O26 .82
Participation in Decision Making .140 .23
Legitimacy of Such Participation —.l45 .22
Principal's General Change Orientation —.090 .45
Principal Support for Specific Innovation —.ll9 .31
Self—Peer Relationships
Group Cohesiveness .085 .47
Opinion Leadership by Teacher —.O46 .70

 

*significant at the .05 level

 

 

Change (

from th
more at
were me
which,
as it

princi
mildly

explaf

and t
analy
catic
were
the:

inp

innc

exp

Ori

mm
sd

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

180

Change Orientation they tended to rate themselves as good teachers.

Their interest in the specific innovation might have arisen
from their newness. Being new to the system they might have been
more aware of the need for the innovation in their rooms. Since they
were new they might also have been more isolated from other teachers
which, along with their high self—image, might have led to innovation
as it has for others.1 Many of the correlations for the peer and
principal variables were negative (even though very modest in strength)
mildly supporting this idea of isolation. The situational variables
explained 34% of the variance in Innovation Internalization scores.

The results of these analyses of associations between ISB
and the situational variables parallels the results of the similar
analysis of the associations between participation in continuing edu—
cation and the situational variables. Few situational variables
were highly correlated to either set of scores although as a whole
the situational variables explained more of the variance in ISB than
in participation. The amount of variance explained in ISB did fall
as the specificity of innovative behavior increased. As a whole, the
innovative teachers were likely to be upper grade teachers, with little
exposure to the specific innovation. Age apparently was not related
to ISB except for a mildly negative relationship to General Change

Orientation and possibly here only as a manifest role trait of younger

 

l. Schulman, i223 git: Schulman found higher innovation rates
among psychiatric interns who, for reasons of social origin or
schools attended, were not as acceptable socially to the directors
of the hospital. Furthermore opinion leadership in this study was
not significantly related to any ISB measure, possibly reflecting
such isolation.

 

people w
Attained
‘ teachers
: masters
relati01
continu
of ISB.
saw the
who sec
use, 01
low le
specif
it had

Assocf
\-
and R<
__.__

ships
Factc
Varie
Profi
more
teac
Few

Proi

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

181
people who are expected to verbally express more interest in change.
Attained educational level was not related to ISB but since all the
teachers were college graduates and very few had worked beyond the
masters level perhaps there was simply not enough range to develop a
relationship. Self rating was positively related to participation in
continuing education and was mildly positively related to two forms
of ISB. Only those teachers who were high in General Change Orientation
saw their principals as in favor of general change. Further, teachers
who scored high on ISB, whether at the level of general change, general
use, or internalization, saw their principals as negative (though at
low levels of statistical significance) with regard to support for the
specific innovation, the new modern mathematics curriculum, although
it had been mandated by the hierarchy.

Associations between Situational Variables and Role Orientations
and Reference Group Activity Factor Scores

 

 

a. Professional Role Orientation Factor Score. The relation—

 

ships between situational variables and Professional Role Orientation
Factor Scores were somewhat similar to those between situational
variables and internalization in that teachers who scored high on
professional orientation frequently came from outside the system, were
more likely to teach upper grades, and had higher self ratings as
teachers. They also tended to be younger and more likely unmarried.
Few of the other situational variables appeared to be related to

Professional Orientation and only about a third of the variance (36%

in role orientation was accounted for by the situational variables.

 

 

 

 

Table 48

Situati<
Variabl

Demogra
Age
Marit
Worki
Deper
Attai

Bxperie
Year:
Year

Year

 

 

 

 

 

182

Table 48. Associations between Professional Orientation and 22
situational variables among 95 elementary school teachers.

 

 

 

 

 

Situational . partial significance
Variables correlation I level
Demographic
Age —.239 .04*
Marital Status -.290 .01**
Working Spouse . .156 .18
Dependents ,.—.062 .60
Attained Educational Level —.048 .68
Experience
Years in Teaching .l45 .21
Years in System —.240 .04*
Years in Assignment .042 .72
Grade Assignment .287 .01**
Exposure to Specific Innovation
Pre—exposure -.108' .36
Exposure to SRA Texts —.033 .77
Exposure to AW Texts .l2l .3l
Self Image Variables
Role Satisfaction .l03 .39
Self Rating as a Teacher .357 .0l**
Self—Principal Relationships
Principal Rating as a Teacher —.083 .48
Performance Feedback from Principal .029 .81
Participation in Decision Making .057 .63
Legitimacy of Such Participation .l46 .21
Principal's General Change Orientation .034 .77
Principal Support of Specific Innovation .040 .74
Self—Peer Relationships
Group Cohesiveness —.Ol6 .89
Opinion Leadership by Teacher .101 .39

 

*significant at the .05 level
**significant at the .Ol level

 

 

 

 

__-__ .—___—

one of
relate
fits t
pectec
with :
.14 l
tic R
rate

looks
the:

bure

prof
thei
lon
ass

hig

 

183

b. Bureaucratic Reference Group Activitv Factor Score. Onlv

 

one of the situational variables, that of performance feedback, was

related to bureaucratic reference group activity. This relationship
fits the bureaucratic—professional paradigm in that it would be ex—
pected that the more bureaucratic teachers would have high interaction
with superiors. Further examination of those variables related at the
.14 level or higher suggests that teachers who were high on Bureaucra—
tic RGA had a high self rating but felt that their principals would not
rate them highly as teachers. These teachers were probably older and
looked upon themselves as Opinion leaders. An R2 of .3785 showed that
the situational variables accounted for 38% of the variance in
bureaucratic reference group activity.

c. Professional Reference Group Activity Factor Score. The

 

professionally active teachers rated themselves as good teachers, saw
their principals as change oriented, had been in their assignment
longer, and had little pre—exposure to the specific innovation. If
associations below the .05 level of significance are examined those

higher in Professional RGA appear to be younger, have more dependents,

 

and more likely to feel that their principal would rate them highly.
In summary the data on role orientations and reference group

activity showed the professionally oriented and active teachers to be

younger, from outside the system, and teaching upper grades. These

characteristics fitted to some degree the paradigm characteristics of

the professional. It might be expected that younger teachers would be

more professional since they have been exposed in their training to a

later historical stage in the professionalization of teaching. Origin

from outside the system is also characteristic of professionalism.

 

 

 

 

__._ ____—

Table 4

Situatf
Varim
Demogr
Age
Mari
Work
Depe
Atta
Experi
Yea:
Yea}
Yea
Gra
Exposw
Pre

EXp
Self—
R01
Sel
Self-

P81

«_:>_;_‘x~_; a :1 ’, f‘ .f”*"' )-

184

Table 49. Assocations between.Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity and
22 situational variables among 95 elementary school teachers.

 

 

 

 

 

Situational partial significance
Variables correlations level
Demographic
Age .176 .13
Marital Status .007 .95
Working Spouse .l36 .25
Dependents ' .042 .73
Attained Educational Level .026 .83
Experience
Years in Teaching .050 .68
Years in System —.044 .71
Years in Assignment ~.085 .47
Grade Assignment .118 .32
Exposure to Specific Innovation
Pre—exposure .001 .99
Exposure to SRA Texts —.l2l .30
Exposure to AW Texts .071 .55
Self-Image Variables
Role Satisfaction -.064 .59
Self Rating as a Teacher .216 .07
Self-Principal Relationships
Principal Rating as a Teacher —.l74 .14
Performance Feedback from Principal .454 .01**
Participation in Decision Making .029 .81
Legitimacy of Such Participation .103 .38
Principal's General Change Orientation —.044 .71
Principal Support of Specific Innovation —.022 .85
Self-Peer Relationships
Group Cohesiveness .006 .96
Opinion Leadership by Teacher .185 .l2

 

**signficant at the .Ol level or higher

 

 

De;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

185

Table 50. Associations between Professional Reference Group Activity and
22 situational variables among 95 elementary school teachers.

 

 

 

Situational partial signficance
Variables correlations level
Demographic
Age -.209 .07
Marital Status .002 .99
Working Spouse .037 .76
Dependents . - .188 .ll
Attained Educational Level -.O6O .61
Experience
Years in Teaching -.004 .97
Years in System — 106 .37
Years in Assignment .249 .03*
Grade Assignment .132 .26
Exposure to Specific Innovation
Pre—exposure —.245 .O4*
EXposure to SRA Texts .037 .76
Exposure to AW Texts .132 .26
Self-Image Variables
Role Satisfaction —.101 .39
Self Rating as a Teacher .338 .01**
Self—Principal Relationships
Principal Rating as a Teacher .173 .14
Performance Feedback from Principal —.089 .45
Participation in Decision Making ‘-021 -85
Legitimacy of Such Participation —.006 .96
Principal's General Change Orientation .250 .03*
Principal Support of Specific Innovation .102 .39
Self-Peer Relationships
Group Cohesiveness .048 .68
Opinion Leadership by Teacher —.112 .34

 

 

*significant at .05 level
**significant at .01 level

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

bureau(
teache
to rol
freque
sister
was a
prime
speci

Summa
to tt

majo
able
were
innc
char
zat
mea

sit

 

186

A comparison of ages of teaChers in the two groups shows that
bureaucratically active teachers are older and professionally oriented
teachers are younger. Length of experience was not conSistently related
to role orientation; but the professionally oriented appear more
frequently to teach at upper grade levels. There was also little con—
sistency among the relationships between teacher and principal. There
was a slight tendency among professional teachers to credit their
principals more frequently with interest and support for general and
specific change.

Summary of Relationships of Situational Variables
to the Major Variables

 

Analysis of the situational variables in relationship to the
major variables suggests different combinations of situational vari—
ables correlated with each respective major variable. These differences
were by category and within categories, e.g., among the category of
innovation situation behavior, there were differences among general
change orientation, general innovation use, and innovation internali—
zation, as to which situational variables were related to each ISB
measure. Consequently few patterns of relationships between the
Situational variables and the major variables were evident.

Only seven of the twenty—two situational variables were
found to be related to five or more and at the most seven of the
thirteen major variable measurements at or above the .20 level of
statistical significance. These seven variables were age, grade as-
signment, experience in teaching, self rating, participation in deci—
sion making, perceived general change orientation of the principal and

perceived principal support for the specific innovation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

these V
ticipai

tions (

contin
orient
tatior
who w:
tions
conti
highs
expe1
in t

orie

of n
whh
als
org
the
che

Thl

 

~x..-_z--

187

If one were to generalize the few and weak relationships of
these variables to the three categories of major variables, i.e., par-
ticipation, innovation, and role orientation, the following generaliza—
tions could be made.

Younger teachers tended to score higher on participation in
continuing education, innovation situation behavior, and professional
orientation; and older teachers scored higher on bureaucratic orien—
tation. Upper grade teaching assignments were more common among those
who were high on participation, innovation, and professional orienta-
tions. Relationships between years of experience and participation in
continuing education were mixed. More experienced teachers scored
higher on General COPE, especially intra—system, and those with less
experience scored higher on Specific COPE participation. Experience
in teaching was low for those high in innovation and professional
orientation.

Self rating was positively related to all three categories
of major variables. Apparently high self—esteem or high ego strength,
which was found by Coombs to be related to acceptance of change, is
also related to participation in continuing education as well as to
organizational and profeSSional activity.1 It is sometimes supposed
that innovations in education are attractive to low self image tea—
chers who look for innovations to solve their problems, but apparently
the innovations measured in this study were attractive to teachers
with high self image. Those with low self image rarely appeared among

the innovators.

 

l. Coombs, pp: cit., p. 69.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

relate

with o

Genera

were 1

and t1

Perce

teach

' would

tinui
ally
for '
to i

it w

disc

WEN

 

188

Participation in decision making was generally positively
related to participation in continuing education and to innovation
with one exception, that of a negative relationship to Intra—System
General COPE. Two other principal—teacher relationships of interest
were the teacher—perceived general change orientation of the principal
and the teacher—perceived principal support of specific innovation.
Perceived principal GCO, with one exception, was negatively related to
teacher participation in continuing education and to innovation. This
would suggest that those teachers who were active participants in con—
tinuing education and in innovation were active in spite of the gener—
ally perceived negative outlook of their principals. Principal support
for the specific innovation appeared to have no significant relation
to internalization of the specific innovation, the variable for which
it was included in the study as a statistical control.

The rest of the statistically significant correlations
discovered between the situational variables and the major variables
were very scattered. It is possible that these correlations were due
to random error, multicollinearity, or to a tendency to give 'safe'
responses, narrowing the range and thus the likelihood of true rela—
tionships. On the whole the situational variables incorporated in the
study accounted for less than half, and in some cases, only an
eighth of the variance in the major variables of participation, inno—
vation and role.

Based on these findings, it would appear that when examining
participation or innovation, age, experience, and self—rating are
important measurements, while some measurement of interaction with the

principal may also be helpful.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

these:
are h
the m
on du
tions
secti
maj01
betw.

sion

unde

innc

 

189

In the following section, in which the tests of the hypo—
theses are reported, there are places where the situational variables
are included in regression equations. However the relationships between
the major variables and these situational variables were not commented
on during the discussions of the tests for not only were the associa—
tions identical or very similar to those just reported on in this
section, the purpose of the study was to examine relationships between
major variables and no hypotheses were generated as to associations
between the situational variables and the major variables. The inclu—
sion of the situational variables was in the nature of an attempt to
understand and statistically control for their influence in the

innovation situations covered in the study.

RESULTS OF TESTS OF THE HYPOTHESES

 

In this section the results of the tests of the hypotheses
are given following the methodology outlined in Chapter 3. Hypothesis
1 posited possible relationships between continuing education and
innovation situation behavior. Hypotheses 2 to 4 posited possible
relationships between role variables, that is, role orientation and
reference group activity, and participation in continuing education
and innovation situation behavior. Hypothesis 5 posited that the
interaction vector between role variables and participation in contin—
uing education by source would be related to innovation situation

behavior.

 

1. Tables with situational variables similar to those just
used showing the correlations of the situational variables for the
tests of the hypotheses can be found in Appendix C, pp. 276—321.

 

 

 

 

sente
and 1
repre
scorn
Thes
vali

rEpI

Em

 

 

190

Participation scores which were used in these tests repre—
sented units of approximately 3 clock hours each for Non—Vocational CE
and 15 clock hours each for COPE. Innovation Situation Behavior was
represented by raw scores for General Change Orientation and factor
scores for General Innovation Use and Innovation Internalization.
These latter two scores were probably of higher reliability and
validity due to the factor analysis. Role variables also were all
represented by factor scores for the same reason.
Hypothesis 1

This hypothesis was concerned with the relationships between
participation in continuing education and innovation situation behavior.
It was tested on three levels of specificity, the most general level
represented by participation in Non—Vocational Continuing Education
and General Change Orientation (Hla), the middle level was represented
by participation in General Continuing Professional Education and
General Innovation Use (Hlb), and the most specific level represented
by participation in Specific Continuing Professional Education and
specific Innovation Internalization (ch). It was also tested across
levels of specificity (Hld to Hlj). Positive associations were ex—
pected in Hla, Hlb, and ch but no statistically significant correla—
tions were expected in the cross—level relationships. These cross—
level relationships were examined to see if the levels of specificity
functioned as levels on continua or were more in the nature of
separate categories of participation and innovation.

Frequency distributions for the scores of Hla, Hlb, and ch
are presented in Tables 51, 52, the 53. The rows represent the extent

of participation and the columns, ranks on innovation behavior.

 

 

Table

Units
Parti

E?
%

 

 

 

 

 

191

Table 51. Frequency distribution of teachers by units of participation
in Non—Vocational Continuing Education and scores on General
Change Orientation.

 

 

General Change Orientation Scores

 

 

 

Units1 of Total
Participation 0 1-4 5—8 9—12 13—16 17—20 Subjects
0 2 2 U 2 2 8
1-5 1~ 11 10 22
6-10 2 2 2 9 4 19
11—15 2 6 10 8 26
16—20 3 4 5 12
21-25 1 1 1 3
26-30 1 2 3
31—35 1 l 2
Total
Subjects 3 2 4 15 39 32 95

 

1. one unit of participation represents approximately three
clock hours.

 

Hla: There is a statistically significant positive association between
[a teacher's rank on an index of participation in Non—Vocational
Continuing Education and the teacher's rank on a scale of
General Change Orientation.

 

The association between participation in Non-Vocational CE
and General Change Orientation, as shown in the frequency distribution

in Table 51, appears to be negative in nature, for teachers were low

 

in participation but moderately high in change orientation. This was
supported by the ppm coefficient of -.14 given in Table 54 (p. 194) in

Which are summarized the ppm coefficients of Hypothesis 1.

 

 

w n n. in all. an.
....Id. ..U P

 

 

 

192

Table 52. Frequency distribution of teachers by units of participation
in General Continuing Professional Education and factor
scores for General Innovation Use.

 

 

General Innovation Use Factor Scores

 

Units1 of -2.50— *1.99— -1.49— —O.99- —O.49— 0.00— Total
Participation —2.00 —l.50 —l.OO —O.50 0.00 0.50 Subjects

 

O l l 2 _ 4
1-10 3 l2 8 3 26
ll—20 6 7 ll 2 26
21—30 6 7 7 20
31—40 2 4 2 2 10
4l—50 l 2 l 4
51—60 1 1
61—70 1 2 3
71-80 1 1
Total
Subjects 1 ll 32 32 18 1 95

 

 

1. one unit of participation represents approximately 15 clock hours.

 

Hlb: There is a statistically significant positive correlation between
a teacher's rank on an index of participation in General Continuing

Professional Education and the teacher's rank on a scale of
General Innovation Use.

The association between participation in General COPE and

General Innovation Use was next examined. The frequency distribution

reported in Table 52 showed that there was an apparent positive rela-

tionship between these two variables for higher scores in one were

accompanied by higher scores in the other. However the relationship

appears scattered and the ppm coefficient is only .17, not significant

at the .05 level but in the expected direction.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table

Units
Parti

Tot
Sub

1‘!

 

193

Table 53. Frequency distribution of teachers by units of participation
in Specific Continuing Professional Education and factor
scores for Innovation Internalization.

 

 

Innovation Internalization Factor Scores

 

 

 

Unitsl Of -2.99- -1.99- —Ol99- 0.00- 1.00 Total
Participation -2.00 —l.OO 0.00 1.00 2.00 Subjects
0 1 l 2
1—10 2 7 23 22 9 63
11—20 1 7 4 3 15
21-30 1 2 2 2 7
31—40 3 1 1 5
41—50 1 1 2
51—60 , 0
61-70 0
71—80 0
81—90 1 1
Total
Subjects 4 ll 35 31 14 95

 

 

1. one unit of participation represents approximately 15 clock hours.

 

ch: There is a statistically significant positive association between
a teacher's rank on an index of participation in Specific
Continuing Professional Education and the teacher's rank on a
scale of Innovation Internalization.

 

Finally the association between participation in Specific
COPE and Innovation Internalization was examined. The frequency distri—
bution failed to reveal any particular association between the two
Variables, probably due to the relatively low rates of participation in

this form of COPE. One teacher, with the highest participation score,

 

 

 

 

 

Table -

had
ass
var

HTd

 

194

Table 54. PPM correlations between participation in continuing
education at three levels and innovation situation behavior at
three levels as found among 95 elementary school teachers.

 

 

Levels of Continuing Education

 

 

 

Levels of Innovation Non-Vocational General Specific
Situation Behavior CE COPE COPE
General
Change —.14 —.02 .07
Orientation
General
Innovation .09 .17 —.02
Use
Innovation
Internalization -.07 .ll —.06

 

Correlations are Pearson product moment coefficients. For 95 subjects
the .05 level of significance calls for a correlation of at least .21.

had one of the lowest internalization scores. This failure to see any

association is supported by the ppm of —.06 between these two

 

variables.

 

Hld: There is no statistically significant association between a
teacher's rank on the scale of General Change Orientation and
his rank on an index of participation in General Continuing
Professional Education;

Hle: There is no statistically significant association between a
teacher's rank on the scale of General Change Orientation and
his rank on an index of participation in Specific Continuing
Professional Education;

Hlf: There is no statistically significant association between a
teacher's rank on the scale of General Innovation Use and
his rank on an index of participation in Non—Vocational
Continuing Education;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ng: The

th: Th

Hlj: Tl

also f
what I
in the
insen
' situa
contr
First
ables
regp
the

step

I‘ESL

fol

out

   

195

ng: There is no statistically significant association between a
teacher's rank on an index of General Innovation Use and his
rank on an index of participation in Specific Continuing
Professional Education;

th: There is no statistically significant association between a
teacher's rank on the scale of Innovation Internalization and
his rank on an index of participation in Non-Vocational
Continuing Education;

Hlj: There is no statistically significant association between a
teacher's rank on the scale of Innovation Internalization and
his rank on an index of participation in General Continuing
Professional Education.

Examination of the cross-level ppm correlations in Table 5%
also failed to reveal any significant correlations. Apparently then
what relationships existed in H1 were not great enough to show up
in the form of ppm correlations. This might have been due to the
insensitivity of ppm correlations or to the presence of unrelated

situational variables suppressing the relationships. In order to

control for this, least squares regression analysis was employed.

 

First, in the form of regression equations with all situational vari—
ables remaining in the equation, and then second, in the form of
regression equations where those situational variables not related to
the innovation variable at the .05 level at least were removed by
step—wise regression, as shown in Table 56. The first set of equations
resulted in the partials shown in Table 55.l

The results of this least squares analysis for Hla are as
follows. When the influence of the situational variables was partialled
out, the relationship became a positive one with a partial correlation
Of .196 between Non—Vocational Continuing Education and General

Change Orientation, significant at the .10 level.

 

1. Complete tables for these equations can be found in Appendix C,
Tables 67—79, pp. 276~288.

 

 

Table

...—..—

Level
Situe

COI‘]

tim
280

 

 

 

L... ____.__r

 

196

Table 55. Partial correlations between participation in continuing
education at three levels and innovation situation behavior
at three levels among 95 elementary school teachers.

 

 

Level of Continuing Education

 

 

Levels of Innovation Non—Vocational General Specific
Situation Behavior CE ‘ COPE COPE
corr sig corr sig corr sig
General
Change .196 .10 —.008 .95 .174 .08
Orientation
General
Innovation —.O79 .50 .183 .12 —.093 .HB
Use
Innovation
Internalization —.103 .38 —.109 .36 .161 .17

 

corr=coefficient of correlation; sig=level of significance

1. For complete tables displaying situational variable correla-
tions see Appendix C, Tables 67, 69, 71,73,74,76-79, pp. 276, 278,
280, 282, 283, 285—288.

 

 

Table

Level
Situa

C01"

“Si

App

 

 

liq,

 

197

Table 56. Partial correlations from stepwise regression between
participation in continuing education at three levels
and innovation situation behavior at three levels
among 95 elementary school teachers.1

 

 

 

Levels of Continuing Education

 

Levels of Innovation Non—Vocational General Specific
Situation Behavior CE COPE COPE

corr sig corr sig corr sig

 

General
Change .280 .Ol* —— ——
Orientation

General
Innovation —— .215 .04* ~—
Use

Innovation
Internalization —— —— .211 ,ou*

 

corr=coefficient of correlation; sigzlevel of significance
*significant at .05 level or higher.

I. For complete tables displaying situational variables, see
Appendix C, Tables 68, 70, 72, and 75, pp. 277, 279, 281, and 284.

 

which
to Ge
%‘ Tnk
" signf
cone

in N

wit}

fica

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

198

When the data were further subjected to a step—wise routine
which dropped all those situational variables that were not related
to General Change Orientation at the .05 level, the result, as shown in
Table 56, p. 197, was an increase in the partial correlation to .280,
significant at the .01 level. Thus Hla was not rejected and it was
concluded that there is a positive association between participation
in Non—Vocational Continuing Education and General Change Orientation.

When the data for Hlb were placed in a regression equation
with the situational variables, a partial correlation of .183, signi—
ficant at the .12 level, was obtained, as shown in Table 55, p. 196.

By further subjecting this equation to the step—wise procedure which
dropped those situational variables not related to General Innovation
Use at the .05 level, a final partial correlation of .215, significant
at the .04 level, was obtained, as shown in Table 56, p. 197. Thus Hlb
was not rejected and it was concluded that there is a positive asso—
ciation between participation in General Continuing Professional
Education and General Innovation Use.

The data for ch, when the influence of the situational
variables was partialled out, showed a change in the sign of the
association to positive and a partial correlation of .161, significant
at the .17 level, was obtained (Table 55). The step-wise process
increased this partial to .211, which was significant at the .04 level,
as shown in Table 56. Thus ch was not rejected and it was concluded
that there is a positive association between participation in Specific

Continuing Professional Education and Innovation Internalization.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1:1:

199

However examination of the cross—level associations, those
in Hld to Hlj, in the form of partial correlations failed to reveal
any associations significant at the .05 level even though the influence
of the situational variables was taken into account (Table 56). The
partial correlation between General Change Orientation and Innovation
Internalization was .17”, significant at the .14 level (Table 55).
Since this was close to the other significances for Hla, b, and c, it
was of interest to note that it was not retained by the stepwise proce—
dure, for the final value of the partial was only .186, significant
at the .08 level only and thus rejectable (Table 75, p. 284).

i

What was found in these tests for Hypothesis 1 was a positive
correlation between participation in continuing education and innovation
situation behavior at the levels specified in the subhypotheses. All
subhypotheses that were expected to fail rejection were rejected.
Although the correlations found did happen to be low, the fact that
all predictions were supported is evidence that this is a true picture
of the relationships. The results are graphically portrayed in Table
56, p. 197, where the significant associations form a diagonal and the
nonsignificant associations, blanks.
Hypothesis 2

Hypothesis 2, along with H3 and HM, forms a bridge between H1
and H5 in that they posit associations between the two variables,
participation and innovation, and the role factors of orientation and
reference group activity. Hypothesis 2 begins this process by positing
associations between participation in continuing education and

professional or bureaucratic reference group activity levels. It was

 

hypoi
type:
been

did

BEE:

H2b

H2c

 

 

 

 

 

 

   
     
   
   
 
       
   
     
       
   
       
   
   

200

  

hypothesized that there would be an association between these two
types of variables but no direction was forecast although it had
been found that subjects high in professional RGA in other studies

did tend to have higher levels of education.

 

H2a: There is a statistically significant association between a
teacher's rank on a scale of Professional Reference Group
Activity and his rank on an index of participation in
Non—Vocational Continuing Education; '

H2b: There is a statistically significant association between a
teacher's rank on a scale of Professional Reference Group
Activity and his rank on an index of participation in
General Continuing Professional Education;

H2c: There is a statistically significant association between a
teacher's rank on a scale of Professional Reference Group
Activity and his rank on an index of participation in
Specific Continuing Professional Education;

H2d: There is a statistically significant association between a
teacher's rank on a scale of Professional Orientation and
his rank on an index of participation in Non—Vocational
Continuing Education;

H2e: There is a statistically significant association between a
teacher's rank on a scale of Professional Orientation and
his rank on an index of participation in General Continuing
Professional Education;

H2f: There is a statistically significant association between a
teacher's rank on a scale of Professional Orientation and
his rank on an index of participation in Specific Continuing
Professional Education;

H2g: There is a statistically significant association between a
teacher's rank on a scale of Bureaucratic Reference Group
Activity and his rank on an index of participation in
Non—Vocational Continuing Education;

H2h: There is a statistically significant association between a
teacher‘s rank on a scale of Bureaucratic Reference Group
Activity and his rank on an index of participation in
General Continuing Professional Education;

H21: There is a statistically significant association between a
teacher's rank on a scale of Bureaucratic Reference Group
Activity and his rank on an index of participation in
Specific Continuing Professional Education.

 

 

Tab]
Rol
Var

 

.
J'l' ...
7h

flog. ‘1}

 

201

Table 57. PPM correlations between participation on three levels of
continuing education and three role factors as-found
among 95 elementary schoo1 teaChers.

 

 

Levels of Continuing Education'

 

 

 

 

Role Non-Vocational General Specific
Variables CE COPE COPE
Professional
Reference —.271* .13u —.057
Group Activity
Professional -.068 .093 .01u l
Orientation
Bureaucratic ,
Reference .057 -.070 .060

Group Activity

 

*significant at the .05 level

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table

Role
Vari

AP]

 

202

Table 58. Partial correlations between participation in.continuing
education at three levels and three role factors as
found among 95 elementary school teachers.1

 

 

Levels of Continuing Education’

 

Role Non—Vocational General Specific
Variables .CE COPE COPE
corr. Sig. corr. sig. corr. sig.

Professional
Reference . .97
Group Activity

Professional
Orientation

Bureaucratic _ ‘
Reference ‘ .llH . —.081
Group Activity

 

 

corr.=partial correlation; sig.= level of significance
1. For complete tables displaying situational variables see
Appendix C, Tables 80—88, pp. 289—297.

 

 

 

 

conti
COPE

tion

tion
con1
par'

eig

 

 

203

Examination of the associations between the three.levels of

continuing education, Non-Vocational CE, General COPE, and Specific

COPE, and three role factors, Professional RGA, Professional Orienta—
tion, and Bureaucratic RGA, found only one ppm correlation significant
at the .05 level, as shown in Table 57, p. 201. However this associa—
tion did not hold up when the situational variables were statistically
controlled for by regression as shown in Table 58, p. 202, where the
partial was —.191, significant at the .11 level. None of the other
eight associations in this hypothesis were significantly different.
It was concluded that the hypothesis, as a whole, must be rejected
and no association existing between these role factors and participa—

tion in continuing education at the three levels.

 

Examination of the associations for regularity in direction
showed that both professional factors, role orientation and RGA,
were negatively related to Non-Vocational CE and Specific COPE but
positively related to General COPE. The opposite was true for
Bureaucratic RGA. That factor was negatively related to General COPE
but positively to Non—Vocational CE and Specific COPE. This was
true, with one exception, for both the ppm and partial correlations
as can be seen in Tables 57 and 58.

Perhaps this regularity indicates some connection between
role and participation. Since Non—Vocational CE is a locally spon—
sored activity, it would not be surprising that bureaucratic teachers,
who have localite elements in their latent role patterns, would tend
to favor this type of activity. Perhaps, too, the bureaucratic
teachers took part in Specific COPE since it was related to an

innovation that the hierarchy was promoting. Since both the

 

profes
than‘
direc
, the f
profe
zath
On t

rand

hypg

van

het

 

sup

E‘E‘l

 

 

 

 

 

20%
professional factors represented.antiebureaucratic.tendenCies rather
than true professional orientation, this might explain why their

directions were opposite on theSe variables of participation. Also

the finding that General COPE was apparently more attractive to

professionally oriented teachers is further support for the generali—
zation that professionals are likely to seek information more widely.
On the other hand, perhaps all these modest correlations result from
random error.

Hypothesis 3

This hypothesis went beyond H2 to see, when participation

 

variables are broken by source, if there would be any association

between participation in COPE and role factors. The literature

 

supported finding a positive association between intra-system COPE

and bureaucratic reference group activity and between extra—system
COPE and professional RGA. Since Non—Vocational CE was not considered
to be sponsored in the way COPE was, it was not included in the

hypothesis.

 

H3a: There is a statistically significant association between a
teacher's rank on an index of participation in Extra—System
General Continuing Professional Education and his rank on a
scale of Professional Reference Group Activity;

H3b: There is a statistically significant association between a
teacher's rank on an index of participation in Extra—System
General Continuing Professional Education and his rank on a
scale of Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity;

H3c: There is a statistically significant association between a
teacher's rank on an index of participation in Intra—System
General Continuing Professional Education and his rank on a
scale of Professional Reference Group Activity;

 

H3d:

H3e:

H3f:

HSg

H3}

 

 

 

 

 

205

There is a statistically significant association between a
teacher's rank on an index of participation in Intra—System
General Continuing Professional Education and his rank on a
scale of Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity;

There is a statistically significant association between a
teacher's rank on an index of participation in Extra—Svstem

Specific Continuing Professional Education and his rank on a
scale of Professional Reference Group Activity;

There is a statistically significant association between a
teacher's rank on an index of participation in Extra—System
Specific Continuing Professional Education and his rank on a
scale of Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity;

There is a statistically significant association between a
teacher's rank on an index of participation in Intra—System
Specific Continuing Professional Education and his rank on a
scale of Professional Reference Group Activity;

 

H3h: There is a statistically significant association between a
teacher's rank on an index of participation in Intra—System
Specific Continuing Professional Education and his rank on a
scale of Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity.

Examination of the data, displayed in Tables 59 and 60 on
the next two pages, failed to reveal any significant associations
between participation in COPE by source and reference group activity.
The hypothesis was rejected and it was concluded that there was no
association between the source of a program of continuing professional
education as indicated by the extra—system and intra—system scores
for General and Specific COPE and the two reference group activity
measures, Professional and Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity
Factor Scores.

No overall regularity was seen in the directions of the
associations. They did not follow the lines suggested by the litera—
ture. Only in the case of General COPE was a regularity seen in
Table 60 where the intra—system scores were negative to both RGA

measures and the extra—system scores were positive to RGA. Perhaps

 

 

 

Tabb

' Refs

Grm

Prc

Bu]

 

 

 

206

Table 59. PPM correlations between participation in COPE by source and
reference group activity among.95 elementary school.teachers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Participation
Reference '
Group Activity Extra—System COPE Intra—System COPE
General General
Professional .032 .159
Bureaucratic .058 —.031
Specific Specific
Professional .087 —.157
Bureaucratic .141 «.119

 

With 95 subjects, a correlation coefficient of .21 is significant at

the .05 level.

 

l
l
i ,
l

 

 

 

Table

Refe
Grox

 

 

......

207

Table 60. Partial correlations1 between participation in COPE by

source and reference group activity among 95 elementary
school teachers. '

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Participation
Reference
Group Activity Extra-System COPE Intra-System COPE
corr sig corr sig
General ' General
Professional .142 .23 —.O28 .82
Bureaucratic .047 .70 —.080 .50
Specific Specific
Professional -.003 .98 —.O98 .41
Bureaucratic .094 .HB .028 .81

 

corr= partial correlation coefficient; sig: level of significance
1. Partial correlations are from regression equations where all
22 situational variables were statistically controlled.

for tables showing these situational variables see Appendix C,
Tables 89-96, pp. 298—305.

tho:

or.

und

the

f0:

 

 

 

 

 

208

those teachers active in the teaching profession, either professional

or bureaucratic, tended to be active in the types of study listed

under extra—system COPE. However, since in the bottom of Table 60

the reverse pattern was found, random error is probably the reason
for these results.
Hypothesis A

This hypothesis was concerned with associations between role

orientation and innovation situation behavior. It forms the second

of two links between H1 and H5 by testing for association between
ISB and role. The first link, formed by H2 and H3, tested for an
association between role and participation. In H5 all three major
variables will be tested together in one hypothesis.

Although no direction was hypothesized in HM the literature

generally indicated a positive association between professional

orientation and innovation. This hypothesis used the three forms of

ISB: General Change Orientation, General Innovation Use, and
Innovation Internalization, as well as the three role factors:

Professional Orientation, Professional Reference Group Activity,

and Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity.

 

H4a: There is a statistically significant association between a
teacher's rank on a scale of Professional Reference Group
Activity and his rank on a scale of General Change Orientation;

Heb: There is a statistically significant associationb etween a
teacher's rank on a scale of Bureaucratic Reference Group
Activity and his rank on a scale of General Change Orientation;

H4c: There is a statistically significant association between a
teacher's rank on a scale of Professional Orientation and
his rank on a scale of General Change Orientation;

 

 

 

 

TabI

 

'1
P"

209

Table 61. PPM correlations between innovation situation.behavior in
three forms and role factOrs in three forms ameng.95
elementary school teachers.

 

 

Innovation Situation Behavior

 

General General Innovation
Role Change Innovation Internali—
Factors Orientation Use zation
Professional
Reference Group -.O67 -.214* .234*
Activity
Bureaucratic
Reference Group -.149 .448* .338*
Activity
Professional -.115 .161 .137
Orientation

 

*significant at the .05 level. With 95 subjects, a correlation
coefficient of .21 is needed for significance at the .05 level.

 

 

 

Tablt

 

210

Table 62. Partial correlations1 between innovation situation behavior
in three forms and role factors in three forms among 95
elementary school teachers.

 

 

Innovation Situation Behavior

 

 

 

General General Innovation

Role Change Innovation Internali—
Pactors Orientation Use zation

corr sig corr sig corr sig
Professional
Reference Group —.057 .63' —.030 .80 .159 .18
Activity
Bureaucratic -
Reference Group —.020 .87 .321 .01* .087 .46
Activity
Professional
Orientation -.115 .34 .154 .19 .179 .13

 

corr=partia1 correlation coefficient; sig: level of significance
*significant at .05 level or higher.

1. Partial correlations from regression equations with all
situational variables included as statistical controls. See
Appendix C, Tables 97—105, pp. 306—314.

 

 

 

- ....— ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

H4d :

H4e :

H4f

H4g

H4]

 

 

211

There is a statistically significant association between a
teacher's rank on a scale of Professional Reference Group
Activity and his rank on a scale of General Innovation USe;
H4e: There is a statistically significant association between a
teacher's rank on a scale of Bureaucratic Reference Group
Activity and his rank on a scale of General Innovation Use;
H4f: There is a statistically significant association between a
teacher's rank on a scale of Professional Orientation and
his rank on a scale of General Innovation Use;

H4g: There is a statistically significant association between a
teacher's rank on a scale of Professional Reference Group
Activity and his rank on a scale of Innovation Internalization;
H4h: There is a statistically significant association between a
teacher's rank on a scale of Bureaucratic Reference Group
Activity and his rank on a scale of Innovation Internalization;
H4i: There is a statistically significant association between a
teacher's rank on a scale of Professional Orientation and
his rank on a scale of Innovation Internalization.

Pour ppm correlations were significant at the .05 level

as shown in Table 61, p. 209. Two of these were between professional

RGA and the two ISB measures, General Innovation Use, —.241, and
Innovation Internalization, .234. The other two were between
bureaucratic RGA and the same two ISB measures, General Innovation

Use, .448, and Innovation Internalization, .328. However only

the correlation between General Innovation Use and Bureaucratic RGA
was kept at a significance level of .05 when the associations were
tested in least squares equations with.all situational variables being

controlled, .321, significant at .01. None of the other correlations
reached significance level either as ppm or partials.

I Examination of the direction of signs of the correlations
revealed that General Change Orientation was negatively correlated

with all three role factors while Innovation Internalization was

positively associated with all three role factors. Results for

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gene

Proi

fac*

tho;

 

212
General Innovation Use were.mixed. It was negatively correlated.to
Professional RGA and positively correlated with the other two role
factors, Bureaucratic RGA and Professional Orientation. Perhaps
those teachers who were active or had strong attitudes with respect
to the profession would not be likely to commit themselves to change
for the sake of change, but would do so for a specific change that
was, in their professional judgement, seen as worthwhile. Results for
General Innovation Use would then be mixed since a selectivity factor

would be at work.

 

Another possible explanation for internalization of the
specific innovation was covariance. Innovation Internalization

and the three role factors shared, to some extent, consistent

 

relationships to experience outside the system, teaching of upper
grades, and total eXperience in teaching.

For H4 though, since only one subhypothesis was supported
by the partial correlations, it was concluded that the hypothesis
should be rejected. The analysis failed to show any association
between innovation situation behavior and role that was consistent.
The signs of the associations might be explained as above, but it
seems more likely that multicollinearity is the most likely
explanation.

Hypothesis 5

 

The purpose of testing this hypothesis was to examine the
correctness of explanation 3 given in Chapter 1,1 for the lack of
findings of an association between participation in continuing

education and innovation situation behavior among teaChers.'

 

l. p. 4.

 

£pr

par

bet

bet

6

an

thi

 

 

 

 

 

213

Explanation 3 stated that there might.be variables that interact with
participation in such a way as to modify the extent of the association
between participation in continuing education and innovation situation
behavior. The review of the literature showed that role orientations
and their related reference groups might be such modifying variables
through their influence upon credibility of information. The
communication models predicted that when a person gains information
from two different sources, the source with the most credibility,
is the source most influential in changing attitude or action. For
innOvation situation behavior, it would be that source which has
role and reference group elements nearest those of the person
receiving the information. That is, role orientations and related
reference groups could modify the credibility of information
gained in programs of COPE and hence modify the extent of the
effect of COPE upon the recipient's innovation situation behavior.

If such modification does exist in the real world, and
not just in a theoretical model, it should be detectable by
examining for interaction effects between scores for COPE by source
and role upon ISB. The interaction effect being predicted here is that
for any given score of COPE, from any given source, the higher the
score for a role variable that matches that source, the higher the
ISB score is likely to be. Such detection of interaction between
two variables is not dependent upon the use of ANOVA but can be
accomplished in regression analysis by the use of interaction'
vectors formed by the pairwise product of the two variables. In this

hypothesis the pairwise product is the product of a score from COPE,

 

 

 

 

def:

ori‘

reg

E

th

ref

an

p1"

 

 

 

 

 

214
defined as to source, and a score for a role variable, either role
orientation or reference group activity.

The tests of this hypothesis were done by means of
regression equations, with ISB as the dependent variable, and included
the following independent variables: (1) either a role orientation or
reference group activity variable, (2) both the (a) intra—system
and (b) extra—system subsets of a COPE variable, (3) the two pairwise
products of both the role factor and the intra—system COPE and the
product of the role factor and the extra-system COPE, and (4) all 22
situational variables as statistical controls as in the other
hypotheses. This equation was subjected to a stepwise regression
routine to determine. which, if either, of the two interaction products
was related to the ISB variable at the .05 level. If either was, it
would be retained, if not, it would be dropped during the routine.

The hypothesis was written in the form of six pairs of
subhypotheses with each pair being tested by a regression equation
as just described. In one member of a given pair there was a role
variable, either orientation or reference group activity, and an
extra—system COPE variable, while in the other member of the pair
there was the same role variable, but the intra—system COPE variable.
It was predicted that for any given pair, the member which had
matching role and source, such as professional orientation and
extra-system COPE, had an interaction vector that would be signifi—
cantly related to the ISB variable and thus would be retained, while
the other member of the pair, where role and source did not match,

such as professional orientation and intra—system COPE, the

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

inte

sig
rol

fou

 

 

 

 

215

interaction vector would not be significnatly related to ISB and would
be deleted. The subhypotheses therefore predicted not only where
significant associations would be found, that is, where source and
role matched, but also where no significant differences would be
found, that is, in the case of non-matching source and role.

In the tables for the results of the tests both the
partial correlation and significance are cited for any source, role,
or interaction variable that was retained at the .05 level. For
those source, role, and interaction variables that were not retained,
only a significance figure is given. This figure is the significance
that would have been given that variables as if it had been retained
in the equation regardless of significance level. Based upon an
interpretation of the communication models, Non—Vocational CE and
General Change Orientation were not hypothesized to have
relationships to the role variables and were not included in the

hypothesis.

 

H5a: A significant amount of the variance in General Innovation Use
will not be explained by a vector consisting of the product of
(a) a teacher's rank on an index of participation in Intra—
System General Continuing Professional Education and
(b) his rank on a scale of Professional Orientation.
The correlation between scores for participation in Intra—
System General COPE and General Innovation Use was not significant
at the .05 level. If Intra~System General COPE had been retained
in the equation, the significance level would have been .41. The

correlation between Professional Orientation and General Innovation

Use was .228, significant at the .03 level. The correlation between

 

 

 

 

5
H5}
H.
H
l

Tabl
H5

 

 

216

 

Table 63. Associations between General Innovation Use and vectors
consisting of the pairwise product of participation in
General COPE by source and role orientation or reference
group activity among 95 elementary school teachers as
obtained in a stepwise regression equation.

 

 

General
Innovation Use

 

corr sig

 

 

H5a:

Intra—System General COPE .41

Professional Orientation .228 .03*

Their vector .71
HSb:

Extra-System General COPE .06

Professional Orientation .228 .03*

Their vector .17
H5c:

Intra-System General COPE .65

Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity .315 .Ol**

Their vector .53
H5d:

Extra—System General COPE .229 .O2*

Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity .315 .Ol**

Their vector .88
HSe:

Extra-System General COPE .233 .03*

Professional Reference Group Activity .35

Their vector .43
H5f:

Intra—System General COPE .28

Professional Reference Group Activity .35

.37

Their vector

 

corr=partial correlation coefficient; sig=level of significance
**significant at .01 level or higher
*significant at .05 level or higher

 

l. The complete tables with situational variables are in
Appendix C, Tables 106—108, pp. 315-317.

 

 

 

 

t
l
r
at
w
P
C
i

H

In

 

 

 

 

‘ :-..._,—-—-_—T-'-— -—----(- .-.- ~1.._‘_.'._ . . .

 

217

Intra-System COPE was, as eXpected, not significant at the .05 level.

 

H5b: A significant amount of the variance in General Innovation Use
will be explained by a vector conSisting of the product of‘
(a) a teacher's rank on an index of participation in EXtra-
System General Continuing Professional Education and
(b) his rank on a scale of Professional Orientation;

The correlation between the pairwise product vector of”

Professional Orientation and Extra—System General COPE, while not

.‘ s.

significantly related to General Innovation Use at the .05 level

as expected, was related at the .17 level. Extra—System General COPE,

was related to innovation use at the .06 level. As in H5a, the

Professional Orientation variable was significantly related to

General Innovation Use.

 

A significant amount of the variance in-General Innovation Use
will be explained by a vector consisting of the product of

(a) a teacher's rank on an index of participation in Intra-
System General Continuing Professional Education and»

(b) his rank on a scale of Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity;

H5c:

The pairwise product vector of Intra-System General COPE
and Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity was expected to be found

significantly related to General Innovation Use, but it was not

found to be so related. Of the two variables in the vector, only

Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity was correlated to General

Innovation Use, .316, significant at the .01 level.

 

H5d: A significant ampunt of the variance in General Innovation Use
will not be explained by a vector consisting of the product of
'(a)'a teacher's rank on an index of participation in Extra—

System General Continuing Professional Education and
(b) his rank on a scale of Egreaucratic Reference Group Activity;

   

re.

 

 

 

218

The pairwise product vector.for Extra—System General COPE
and Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity was not, as expected,
related to General Innovation Use although both of the members of
the pair were significantly related to it, Bureaucratic Reference
Group Activity with a correlation of .317, at the .01 level, and
Extra-System General COPE with a correlation of .229, at the .02
level. This would appear to support the underlying hypothesis that
while the elements of the vector, participation in continuing
education and a role factor, can be independently related to ISB,
the effect of their interaction, when source and role do not match,

is to cancel effect upon innovation situation behavior.

 

A significant amount of the variance in General Innovation Use
will be explained by a vector consisting of the product of

(a) a teacher's rank on an index of participation in Extra—
System General Continuing Professional Education and

(b) his rank on an index of Professional Reference Group Activity;

H5e:

The pairwise product vector of Extra-System General COPE

and Professional RGA was not found to be related to General Innovation

Use, contrary to expectations. However Extra—System General COPE

was related to General Innovation Use, as before, with a correlation

of .233, significant at the .03 level. Professional RGA was not

found to be related to General Innovation Use.

 

H5f: A significant amount of the variance in General Innovation Use
will not be explained by a vector consisting of the product of
(a) a teacher's rank on an index of participation in Intra—

System General Continuing Professional Education and
(b) his rank on an index of Professional Reference Gropp Activity;

 

 

 

 

 

 

p

.lllld

 

219
The pairwise product vector of Intra—System General COPE

and Professional RGA was not, as expected, significantly related to

General Innovation Use. Neither of the two members of the vector

pair were themselves related to General Innovation Use.

The following subhypotheses use Innovation Internalization
as the dependent variable. The COPE variable is Specific COPE and

the role factors will be repeated from H5a—H5f.

 

H5g: A significant amount of the variance in Innovation Internalization
will not be explained by a vector consisting of the product of
(a) a teacher's rank on an index of participation in Intra—
System Specific Continuing Professional Education and
(b) his rank on a scale of Professional Orientation;

 

The pairwise product vector of Professional Orientation
and Intra-System Specific COPE was not, as expected, found to be
significantly related to Innovation Internalization. However one
member of the pair, Professional Orientation, was correlated at .271,
significant at the .01 level, with Innovation Internalization. The
Intra—System Specific COPE scores were not correlated with

Innovation Internalization.

 

H5h: A significant amount of the variance in Innovation Internalization
will be explained by a vector consisting of the product of
(a) a teacher's rank on an index of participation in Extra—
System Specific Continuing Professional Education and
(b) his rank on a scale of Professional Orientation;

 

The pairwise product vector of Extra—System Specific COPE
and Professional Orientation was not, contrary to expectations,
Significantly related to Innovation Internalization although Profes—
sional Orientation was still.related to internalization at the same

level as in HSg. Extra—System COPE was not related to internalization.

 

    

 

 

 

 

Tab]

H51

 

220

Table 64. Associations between Innovation Internalization and vectors
consisting of the pairwise product of participation in
Specific COPE by source and role orientation or reference
group activity among 95 elementary schoo1 teachers as
obtained in a step—wise regression equation.

 

 

Innovation
Internalization

corr sig

 

H5g:

Intra—System Specific COPE .64

Professional Orientation .271 .01**

Their vector .32
H5h:

Extra—System Specific COPE .88

Professional Orientation .271 .01** 5

Their vector .52 “
H5i:

Intra—System Specific COPE .79

Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity .50

Their vector .18
H5j:

Extra—System Specific COPE .96

Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity .50

Their vector .28
H5k:

Extra—System Specific COPE .96

Professional Reference Group Activity .09

Their vector .79
H51:

Intra~System Specific COPE .78

Professional Reference Group Activity .09

.13-

Their vector

 

corr= partial correlation coefficient; sig: level of significance
Other significances listed

**significant at the .01 level or higher. p
as if the variable had been retained in the equation.

 

1. The results of these equations with situational variables
are reported in Appendix

 

0, Tables 109-111, pp. 318—320.

 

 

 

 

 

221

H5i: A significant amount of the.variance in Innovation Internalization
will be explained by a Vector consisting of the product of"

(a) a teacher's rank On an index of participation in Intra—

System Specific Continuing Professional Education and

(b) his rank on a scale of Bureaucratic Reference Group.Activity;
The pairwise product vector of Intra-System specific COPE

and Bureaucratic RGA was not, contrary to expectations, significantly

related to Innovation Internalization. Neither member of the pair

was related either to Innovation Internalization.

 

HSj: A significant amount of the variance in Innovation Internalization
will not be explained by a vector consisting of the product of
(a) a teacher's rank on an index of participation in Extra-
System Specific Continuing Professional Education and

(b) his rank on a scale of Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity;

The pairwise product vector of Extra—System Specific COPE
and Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity was, as eXpected, not

related to Innovation Internalization. Neither member of the

pair was related to InnOvation Internalization either.

 

H5k: A significant amount of the variance in Innovation Internalization
will be explained by a vector consisting of the product of
(a) a teacher's rank on an index of participation in Extra—
System Specific Continuing Professional Education and
(b) his rank on a scale of Professional Reference Group Activity;

The pairwise product vector of Extra-System Specific COPE
and Professional Reference Group Activity, contrary to expectation,
was not related to Innovation Internalization. However the scores
for Professional RGA, if retained in the equation, would have been

related at the .09 level of significance. ExtraeSystem Specific COPE

was not related to Innovation Internalization.

 

 

 

 

 

 

’ 93-" "a. __—': ‘;

222

 

H51: A significant amount of the variance in Innovation Internalization
will not be explained by a vector consisting of the prodUct of
(a) a teacher's rank on an index of participation in Intra-
System Specific Continuing Professional Education and
(b) his rank on a scale of Professional Reference Group Activity.

The pairwise product vector for Intra-System Specific COPE
and Professional Reference Group Activity, as eXpected, was not related
to Innovation Internalization at the .05 level. It was however,
related at the .13 level. Professional Reference Group Activity was
again related to Innovation Internalization at the .09 level while

Intra—System Specific COPE was not so related.

Summary for Hypothesis 5

In testing Hypothesis 4 there appeared to be some relationship
between Professional Orientation and General Innovation Use and when
either of the COPE scores were included in the equation, as in H5,

their relationship reached significance. Bureaucratic Reference

Group Activity retained its positive and significant relationship to
General Innovation Use. Professional Reference Group Activity,

as shown in tests of H4, was not found to be related significantly to
General Innovation Use.

Although none of the role factors were found to be
significantly related to Innovation Internalization in tests of H4,
Professional Orientation did reach significant levels of association
with Innovation Internalization in tests of H5 when the COPE scores

were included in the equation. The other two associations between

either of the reference group activities, Professional or Bureaucratic,
retained approximately the levels they had shown in tests of H4.

These levels were found to be statistically significant.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

223 _

The results for the tests of the subhypotheses for the
association between the vector scores and the innovation situation
behavior scores showed that all those which were not expected to be
significantly related, were in fact, not significantly related, but

all those which were expected to be significantly related were not

found to be so. The associations which were expected were, however,

dependent upon negative evidence and so are regarded merely as

suggestive.

The results for the first three pairs of subhypotheses,
where the role factors and participation scores were used as members
of the vector pair were examined to see if the vectors that were
expected to be related to General Innovation Use had a higher

significance than those not expected to be related to General

Innovation Use.

In the first pair, involving Professional Orientation
and General COPE by source, the vectors were both positively related
to ISB, and in the expected ratio, .17 (5b) to .71 (5a). In the
second pair, involving Bureaucratic RGA and General COPE, the
vectors were in the expected ratio, being .53 (BC) to .88 (5d).
Furthermore the intra—system vector was positively related while the
extra—system vector was negatively related as predicted by H5.
In the third pair, involving Professional RGA and General COPE, the

vectors were close in significance .43 (5e) and .37 (5f), both

positively related to the ISB variable and not in the expected ratio

 

 

 

 

9'.‘* ‘V ‘- x ... _: ..-

224

The results for the second three pairs of subhypotheses
where the role factors and participation scores were used as members
of the vector pair were examined to see if the vectors that were
expected to be related to Innovation Internalization had a higher
correlation than those which were not expected to be related to
Innovation Internalization.

The first pair, using Professional Orientation and Specific
COPE, had vectors not in the expected ratio, but both were positively
related to ISB (.32 (5g) and .52 (5h)). In the second pair involving
Bureaucratic RGA and Specific COPE, the vectors were in the expected
ratio, being .18 (Si) and .28 (5j) and the direction of the associa-
tions were positive for the intra-system vector and negative for
the extra—system vector. In the third pair involving Professional
RGA and Specific COPE, both vectors were positively related to the
ISB dependent and the ratio of significance was not in the expected
direction being .79 for 5k and .13 for 51.

In summary the ratios of the significances were in the
expected direction in only two cases out of six and in the eXpected
ratio in three cases out of six. On this basis it could not be said
that the hypothesis could be totally rejected or confirmed since the
evidence contained elements which supported both rejection and

failure to reject.

 

Factors which might have accounted for this failure to reject

or retain H5 included certainly the low level of participation in
COPE in general, which was noted earlier in the chapter. Perhaps
there were not enough cases to test the hypothesis. This was

certainly true for Specific COPE where only 14 participated.

 

 

 

 

f

—: ' ‘ 2"“. =-‘* .;.=._..-:__ :1 _~- ._

225

There were also assumptions which might account for these
results. The first is the phenOmonological placement of source of'
COPE (in terms of extra-system COPE being assumed to be professional)
may not have been correct. Most of the activities in this category
were sponsored by universities which are not organized along
anti—bureaucratic lines and it might have been an error to have
construed them as professional and thus attractive to those who
were anti—bureaucratic.

Another assumption, required by the nature of the regression
equation, was that extra—system and intra-system COPE had to be
equally related to ISB in order for a role variation to influence
the relationships. This assumption underlaid Hypothesis 1 where the
two scores for the source subsets were combined in a single variable
but the assumption was never tested. If the two categories of COPE
activity were related to the ISB variable in different ways this
would make the testing of H5 impossible within the study, since
there were no divisions into treatment groups on the basis of either
role or source and a respondent could vary continously on these
variables. A check was made on this assumption and as can be seen
from Table 65 there were differences in the way intra-system and
extra—system COPE were related to ISB. Extra—System General COPE
was related at the .05 level to General Innovation Use while
Intra—System General COPE was not significantly related to General
Innovation Use. In the case of Innovation Internalization neither
form of COPE was significantly related to Innovation Internalization
but there were differences in both Size and direction of the

apparent associations.

 

 

 

5.. ‘

 

 

226

Table 65. Associations between participation in COPE, by level and
source, and innovation situation behavior by level among
95 elementary school teaChers.

 

 

Levels of
Innovation Situation Behavior
Levels and Sources of
COPE corr sig

 

General Innovation Use
Intra—System General COPE I- ~.OO4 .97
Extra—System General COPE .263 .05
Innovation Internalization
Intra—System Specific COPE —.085 .41

Extra-System Specific COPE .012 .96

 

corr= partial correlation coefficient; sig: level of significance

The reasons for the difference between these findings and those for
H1 were sought by examining the relationships between each type of
activity in continuing education for both sources and innovation
situation behavior.

It was found, as shown in Table 66, that there were
distinct differences between the activities in their associations
with innovation situation behavior. Course work at institutions of
higher education was the only form which was consistently highly
related and probably was the element responsible for the positive
associations between COPE and ISB in H1.

However courses are not always positive in their associations
with ISB. Much depends upon the motivation for the course: e.g.,

methods courses, usually required courses, were moderately and

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

227

Table 66. Associations between the various activities that made up
General and Specific COPE and two levels of innovation-
situation behavior among 95 elementary school teachers.

Levels of
Innovation Situation Behavior

beta sig
Activities in COPE

General Innovation Use

Intra-System General COPE

Workshops —.181 .06
Lectures —.040 .69
Extra—System General COPE
Workshops .014 .87
Lectures -.216 .06
Books read .004 .96
Courses taken .321 .01*
Travel—Study .193 .07

 

Innovation Internalization

Intra—System Specific COPE

WorkshOps -.l29 .31
Extra-System Specific COPE

WorkshOps —.057 .67

Books read .112 .39

Magazines or journals read .040 .68

Courses in mathematics—general .313 .01*

Courses in mathematics—methods -.196 .06

 

*significant at the .05 level or higher.
beta=beta weights which show the relative influence of each factor

(continuing education activity) upon the innovation variables
sig=lewel of significance

 

 
 

 

 

228

negatively related to internalization: In checking the data it was
found that pre—service mathematics courses, including methods courses,
had been included in the variable, making it impossible to distinguish
between those who had taken the courses before and after graduation.
However this was not true for General COPE nor for the other Specific
COPE activities which were particularily restricted to the one year
period before the date of administration of the instrument.

The findings that all intra—system COPE activities were
negatively related to innovation use or internalization would tend to
indicate that there were differences among the teachers in regards
to the relationships between participation and innovation that were
not included in this study. Such differences might include
autonomy or even cosmopoliteness since in Table 65 only those sources
outside the system were related to innovation situation behavior.

In conclusion, while the interactions posited in these
subhypotheses of H5 could not be adequately tested in this study,
some questions were raised regarding the effectiveness of continuing
professional education for teachers in altering their innovation
situation behavior. The principal finding was that professionalism
was related both to participation in General COPE and to General

Innovation Use.

 

 

 

"u“

.,.

‘n

 

 

 

 

229

SUMMARY OF CHAPTER 4

 

Chapter 4 reports the findings of the study. It is in two
sections. The first section describes the population sample,
employing frequency distribution tables to display findings with
respect to the twenty—two situational variables. It also analyzes
the data for these situational variables in terms of mean, range,
standard deviation, skew, and kurtosis. These data are employed
to describe the variations among the teachers who responded.
Another part of the section reports the analysis of the major
variables of participation in continuing education, innovation
situation behavior, and role factors measured by orientation and
reference group activity. These data were employed in the same
descriptive way as were those for the situational variables. Still
another part of this section reports the relationships between the
major variables of participation, innovation, and role and the
twenty—two situational variables.

The second section of the chapter reports the tests of the
hypotheses and presents, at appropriate places, discussions of the
findings for each test of the hypotheses. In Chapter 5 these
findings are summarized, conclusions drawn, and implications

of the study are discussed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND SUGGESTIONS

 

SUMMARY

Many organizations, when faced with the problem of bringing
about change, have assumed that participation in continuing education
is related to innovative behavior on the part of their employees. This
has been especially true for knowledge organizations, employing large
numbers of professionalized employees. While this assumption is
commonly applied to elementary school teachers, little research support
for it in that context could be found in the literature. Three pos—
sible explanations for this lack of support were advanced. One, per-
haps there is no direct relationship between participation in continu—
ing education and innovative behavior. Two, perhaps such relation—
ships exist but research which has been done did not include measures
of sufficient precision, depth, and breadth to identify the relation—
ships. Three, perhaps other variables exist which modify the associa—
tion between continuing education and innovative behaviors. This
study was concerned with examining participation in continuing educa—
tion and its relationship to innovation situation behavior with these
explanations in mind.

The literature has shown that participation in continuing
education is related to adoption of innovations on the part of

self—employed persons in a situation where they are free to adopt at

230

 

 

 

 

 

 

231

any time. This type of innovative behavior is often expressed as

' and is measured by the time of adoption of new ideas

”innovativeness,‘
relative to others who might adopt the same change. However in closely
integrated organizations freedom to adopt at any time does not always
exist. There may be time constraints or coordination requirements, or
the organization's directors may require that every one install, or
”adopt," the innovation at the same time. Therefore a need was seen
for a broader concept of innovation adoption to make research possible
among professionals employed in large bureaucratic organizations where
adOption is not always a matter of individual choice, and must often be
done simultaneously.

An umbrella term, "Innovation Situation Behavior,” was pro—
posed to describe the professionalized worker's behavior in any inno—
vation situation. Three measures of innovation situation behavior
were proposed and used. The first and least specific was a measure of
general attitude towards change termed ”General Change Orientation."
The second, at the middle level of specificity and measuring the
number of selected innovations a professional worker had freely
chosen to use, was termed "General Innovation Use." The third and most
specific, and measuring perceived value of and commitment to a mandated
innovation, was termed "Innovation Internalization." The validity of
this third measure, it was argued, could be based upon an isomorphism
between the free and forced use situations, since in both there is a
process of attitude‘development that could best be described by com—
paring the traditional adoption paradigms to Bloom's taxonomy of the

affective domain.1 A comparison of these adoption paradigms and the

 

1. Krathwohl, Bloom, and Masia, 9p, cit., pp. 24—33.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

232

taxonomy was made, together with the subscales of Innovation Interna—
lization derived from Lin.

Three measures of participation in continuing education
were selected to match the three levels of specificity of innovation
situation behavior. The continuing education participation measures
were (1) Non—Vocational Continuing Education, the number of units
(approximately 3 clock hours each) of general adult education activi—
ties engaged in during the past year, (2) General Continuing Profes-
sional Education (General COPE), the number of units (approximately 15
clock hours each) of continuing education activities engaged in during
the past year which pertained to professional matters, with no exclu—
sions (but for the activities in 3 next) as to subject matter, and (3)
Specific Continuing Professional Education (Specific COPE), the number
of units (approximately 15 clock hours each) of professional education
activities, restricted to the area of mathematics and mathematics
education, and engaged in during the two years previous to the admi—
nistration of the questionnaire.2

Both General and Specific COPE were subdivided into two
subsets or categories: intra-system COPE and extra—system COPE. Intra—
system COPE activities were those sponsored and conducted within the

employing school system as in—service training. Extra—system COPE

 

1. Lin, 1966, pp, git}, p. 51ff.

2. The time period varied from one month for magazine articles to
two years for workshops and courses. Unfortunately, due to an oversight
in constructing the questionnaire, undergraduate credits in mathe—
matics and methods in teaching mathematics. were, in the case of some
recently graduated teachers, included in the total arrived at. However
this was only true for course work and for a few of the respondents;
none of the other activities were pre—service in nature.

 

 

{‘L. #401
,...
.. I L"
.
i
i
i .
.'
5 - ' I
l
. ..

 

   

 

233
activities were those which were not sponsored by the employing school
system and which were conducted outside the system.

With both participation and innovation behavior defined, it
was possible to explore the first posited explanation for the lack of
reports in the literature establishing an association between parti—
cipation in continuing education and innovation. The fact that there
were six measures, three by level of specificity of participation and
three by level or form of innovation situation behavior, made it
possible to evaluate the.second explanation. Explanation 2 had posited
that measures of insufficient precision, breadth, and depth had
resulted in failure to identify relationships which may have existed.

To examine explanation 3, that there might be other vari—
ables, not considered in the previous research, that interact with
participation in continuing education to modify the association of
participation with innovation situation behavior, a communication
model using role orientations and reference groups drawn from the
professional-bureaucratic continuum, was derived from the literature.
The basis for expecting interaction lay in the possibility that a
participant in continuing education might attribute differing
degrees of credibility to the sources or sponsors of continuing
professional education (COPE) in which he had participated. The
degree of matching between the teacher's role orientation or refe—
rence groups and those of the source might give rise to varying
degrees of credibility, and thus to variance in innovative behavior.
For example, bureaucratically oriented teachers, according to

several related studies, should give more credence to bureaucratic,

 

 

 

 

_______.. _‘w— -_ ,-....._ ;-_—~-——._

234

i.e., intra-system sources, and less to professionally oriented,
i.e., extra—system sources. Such differences in credibility of
information, it was argued, would lead to differences in attitude
toward innovations in either the free or forced use situations and thus
lead to differences in innovation situation behavior. Raw data,
obtained by instruments derived from the literature, were factor
analyzed in an effort to improve reliabilitv and validity and three
factor measures were obtained: (1) Professional Orientation Factor
Score, (2) Professional Reference Group Activity Factor Score, and
(3) Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity Factor Score. These were
used in place of the raw scores as indices of role orientation and
reference group activity.

Finally other variables, demographic, experiential,
exposure, self—image, and relationships to principals and peers,
termed ”situational variables,” were included as statistical controls
in testing the association between the major variables of participa—
tion, innovation, and role. These situational variables had been
suggested in the literature to have power to modify innovation situa—
tion behavior and participation in continuing education among teachers.

An instrument containing the four types of variables was
develOped from instruments used in previous studies. It was assumed
that validity and reliability would be enhanced by doing so since

the previously used measures had already been tested in use. Further—
more these measures were used without formal pretesting since the
samples from the previous studies were much larger than any practical

pre—test sample could have been for this study.

 

 

 

 

 

235
The instrument was administered by mail to a population of
urban early elementary teachers. A response rate of 89% yielded
95 usable questionnaires. Quantification, analysis, and interpretation
of the data employed frequency distributions, Pearson product moment
correlations, multivariate regression analysis, and factor analysis.
Five hypotheses were set up and tested. H1 dealt with the
direct association between participation in continuing education and
innovation situation behavior on each of the three levels of specifi-
city, and across the three levels. H2 dealt with the relationships
between role orientation, reference group activity, and participation
in continuing education. H3 dealt with the relationship of parti-
cipation in continuing professional education programs subdivided
by source, to role orientation and reference group activity of the
teachers. H4 dealt with the relationship of role orientation and
reference group activity to innovation situation behavior. H5 attem-
pted to test for interaction between participation in continuing
professional education, subdivided by source, role orientation,
reference group activity, twenty—two situational variables and
innovation situation behavior (ISB).
Hypotheses l to 4 were tested by examining product moment
correlations of the two variables of interest in each case. This was

followed by regression analysis using not only the two selected

 

variables in each case but also all twenty-two of the situational
variables so as to control for their possible effect as suppressors
upon the dependent variable. In some cases this was further refined

by stepwise regression analysis which removed from the regression

 

, Jess-1r

 

 

 

236
equation all those factors not related to the dependent variable at
the .05 level or higher. This level was set for rejection of hypo—
theses although a lesser standard of .20 was used in several cases
when discussing apparent relationships between the situational
variables and the major variables. This was justified on the basis
that in an exploratory study it was important not to reject a
possibly true relationship although this increased the possibility of
accepting false associations. Meaningfulness was used as a guide in
the determination of importance of each association found.

Findings from the data showed that the majority of teachers
had very modest levels of participation in continuing education.
Participation for the average teacher in Non-Vocational CE appeared to
involve about 20—30 hours per year. Time allocated to COPE by the
typical teacher ran much higher, 150 hours per year for General COPE
and 100 hours per year for Specific COPE. These totals were very
proximate in nature and offer only a rough guide as to the extent of
participation. The most active participants reported up to 1000 hours
during the year for General COPE. Others reported up to 600 hours
per year for Specific COPE. Teachers tended, it was revealed, to
participate in activities from only one source, either extra-system
or intra-system; however teachers with very high rates participated in
activities from both sources. General Continuing Professional Educa—
tion was most likely to be pursued within the school system. Extra—
System General COPE was only half as frequent as Intra—System General
COPE. The reverse was true for Specific COPE. More of the teachers

whose continuing professional education involved study of mathematics

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

237
did their study outside the school system, usually at a university.
All these rates depended upon availability as well as interest and com-
mitment to participation. The district in which the study took place
has an extensive in—seryice program. There were very few teachers
who did not participate in any of the many types of COPE available
to them.

Findings regarding innovation situation behavior (ISB)
showed that the teachers were generally more ready to give verbal
approval to innovations than they were likely to use them. Although
the three scores of ISB are not directly comparable, it appeared
that for General Change Orientation the sample clustered around the
center of the scale, not showing much enthusiasm either for change
or for stability. The other verbal scale was Innovation Internali-
zation on which there were somewhat more teachers in favor of the
change than against it, although those who were against it were very
much against it. A factor analysis revealed that the subscale scores
of internalization that most clearly differentiated among the teachers
were those concerned with student benefits and commitment to the value
of the innovation. Evidence for the practical nature of scale building
upon the taxonomy of the affective domain came from the overall relia-
bility of the scale, .648.

The results showed that forced use of an innovation does
not necessarily produce harsh judgments on the part of users of an
innovation. The high approval given the mandated innovation here may
have indicated that the simultaneous adoption was not seen as

administratively mandated by all and thus not truly 'forced use,'

 

 

238
but as adoption by consensus. However analysis of the responses to
the item1 which sought opinions as to the method used for adoption
did not support this interpretation. Two teachers thought the adoption
was their personal decision, 12 teachers did not think they had had any
influence in the decision, but were free to use or not use the new
texts, six thought it was a decision arrived at by concensus with the
option of using it or not, twenty also thought it was by concensus but
were required to use the texts, but 52 teachers saw it as a decision
made for them by others and being forced on them. Two did not respond.
Thus 26 saw elements of concensus, but 84 saw an element of forced use
in the innovation situation.

The only objective measure of innovation situation behavior
was General Innovation Use and this was low for all the teachers. Most
of them were using only one to three out of a possible 15 innovations
and the highest users used only four.

The findings regarding role orientations and reference
group activity indicated that elementary school teachers do not
respond along the lines of the classical professional—bureaucratic
continuum. The teachers tended to cluster in a narrow range of
responses indicating, perhaps, that practices measured in these
scales and indices were not perceived by them as germane to their
professional situations. Another problem was that those who were
active tended to be active in both professional and bureaucratic
activities. Factor analysis revealed that only a few indicators of

either role orientation or reference group activity accounted for most

 

1. Item 37, Appendix A, p. 260.

 

 

 

 

289

of the variance and that teachers fell into a pattern of being either
bureaucratic or anti—bureaucratic, but not professional in the classic
sense of that term. These data were gathered just before the period
of unionization of teachers and might have been an early sign of an
adversary relationship between the teachers and the system. The fact
that most of the teachers were clustered narrowly and neither highly
professional or bureaucratic is evidence for Lortie's position that
most elementary.teachers avoid taking the two extremes and prize
autonomy.l

Findings from the association of situational variables with
major variables revealed that elementary teachers who are younger are
more likely to participate in continuing education and more likely to
be professionally oriented. Experienced teachers were more likely to
internalize the specific innovation but experience was not strongly
related to other measures of ISB. Teachers of the upper grades were
more inclined toward general innovation use, toward internalization
of the specific innovation, and toward more participation in COPE.
High self esteem was positivelv related to both high participation and
high innovation.

Few principals were seen as change oriented or supportive of
the specific innovation by those teachers with high ISB scores.
However for the average teacher in the sample, her principal was seen
as moderatively innovative and supportive of the specific change. This
might be another example of the social isolation of the innovative.

Also, perhaps for the bulk of the teachers, the small amount of change

 

l. Lortie, op: cit., pp. uo-ui.

 

 

 

 

240
the principals were demanding was seen as too much while for the high
ISB teacher, this amount was not enough.1

In general only those scaled situational variables with
higher scale reliability were likely to have significant associations
with the major variables. These scales included Self Rating (.91),
Principal Rating (.95), Performance Feedback (.SH), Role Satisfaction
(.52), Principal's General Change Orientation 1.72), and Participation
in Decision Making (.80). Opinion Leadership, although measured on
a scale whose reliability was .71, was not found to be significantly
related to the major variables. Explanatory power for the situational
variables as a whole varied from 16% to 48% with the highest percent
being for innovation situation variables.

Findings from the tests of the hypotheses revealed that
there was a direct association between participation in continuing
education and innovation situation behavior as posited in H1.

However the correlations were not high and they did not appear as
statistically significant until regression analysis controlled the
influence of the situational variables. The correlation and signifi—
cance was highest for the most general case and fell as specificity
increased. The partial correlation between participation in Non—
Vocational CE and General Change Orientation was .280, significant

at the .01 level. The correlation between participation in General
COPE and General Innovation Use, the next highest level of specificity,
was .215, significant at the .04 level. The partial correlation
between participation in Specific COPE and Innovation Internalization

was .211, significant at the .ou level. The partial correlations

 

l. The writer wishes to thank David B. Stevens for this insight.

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 W

241.
between levels of specificity failed to meet the .05 requirement and
thus it was conCluded that there was a direct association by levels
or categories between participation in continuing education and
innovation situation behavior. Perhaps the most important findings
were that differences in ISB that could be attributed to participation
in continuing education accounted for only 5% of the differences in
ISB.

These, modest as they were, results were taken as support
for rejecting explanation one, that there was no direct association,
and as supporting explanation two, that the lack of evidence in the
literature establishing associations between participation in COPE and
innovation in schools, was due to a lack of breadth, depth, and
precision in the data collected.

Tests of H2, H3, and H4 failed to reveal any relationships
at the .05 level between role orientation or reference group activity
and the variables of participation and innovation. However there
were indications, at less rigid levels of statistical significance,
that professionally oriented teachers did not participate in locally
sponsored continuing professional education as frequently as did
bureaucratically oriented teachers. This fits the role characteristics
derived from earlier studies. Professionally oriented teachers were
also less likely to participate in Specific COPE programs than were
bureaucratically oriented teachers. It might be wondered whether this
was because of the subject matter of such programs or because they

were sponsored and conducted by the school system hierarchy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

242

As for relationships between role and innovation, it appeared
that General Change Orientation was negatively related to both profes—
sional and bureaucratic orientations. Innovation Internalization and
General Innovation Use were positively related to both professional and
bureaucratic reference group activity. This may imply that those tea—
chers who were active in organizations, from either a professional or
bureaucratic stance, were more likely to be interested in and using
innovations as an extension of their general activity level.

H5 was determined not to be fully testable within the con—
fines of the study. Support for the interaction between the three major
variables was only of a negative nature in that those subhypotheses that
were supported were those where the interaction was not expected to be
significant. As mentioned above there was some support for seeing role
factors as related to both innovation and participation but there was no
consistent and significant evidence that they interacted to influence
ISB. Three assumptions were cited as possible explanations for this
failure. These included the dubious identification of Extra—System
COPE as typically attractive to professionally oriented teachers, the1
use of a credibility model of attitude change which shares with all
models of motivation in attitude change a weak predictive power, and an
assumption, discovered during the testing, that in order for the tests
to work with the data as collected, all forms of intra—system and extra—
svstem COPE would have had to be equally related to the ISB measurses.

Examination showed this assumption untenable with this data. Only course

 

1. See limitations section of Chapter 1, pp. l4~l5.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

243 1
work at institutions of higher education was consistently and
positively related to ISB, and that many other forms of COPE, including
workshops, were not significantly correlated or were negatively
correlated to ISB. These low correlations may be evidence that
participation in continuing education by teachers is subject to reasons
not surveyed in this study. The high association . extra—system COPE
had with ISB explains the findings in Buley and Lin of an association
between achieved education level and ISB, but not why it was so.

were

Keeping in mind the limitations on generalization imposed by
the low range of scores, the low explanatory power of the variables
selected, and the errors of measurement and design, the following
conclusions appear to be supported by the evidence.

1. There is a positive though low correlation between parti—
cipation in continuing education and innovation situation behavior.

The amount of variance in ISB attributable to participation in continu—
ing education was low, only 5 to 6% at best.

2. General continuing education is more highly associated
with ISB than general COPE which in turn is more highly associated with
ISB than specific COPE. There is high association between university
course work and ISB.

3. Some forms or types of activities in continuing
professional education have no correlation, and some have negative
correlations, with change. Therefore it cannot be said that every
type of activity or in—service program will be generally effective
in inducing positive innovation situation behavior in all participants.

However university work seems to have the highest positive correlations.

 

 

 

 

2w

4. Some teachers can be counted on to support innovations
though they might perceive their building principal as non—supportive.
It was concluded that the innovative behavior of teachers as measured
here could not be said to have a relationship to their perceptions
of innovativeness or support for innovation on the part of principals
for teachers when taken §n_ma§§g.

5. Principals were not seen as monotypes by teachers when
it came to innovation. For most the principal was a leader in
change. This was especially true for those who scored high in
General Change Orientation, reflecting perhaps some degree of
psychological projection on their part. For a few, those who were
using general innovations or approving the specific innovation, the
principal was not seen as innovative. Probably these are the reasons
for the conclusion in 4 above.

6. The responses indicated that the usefulness of the
classical professional—bureaucratic paradigm is limited with elementary
teachers who tended to be distinguished along bureaucratic or
anti—bureaucratic lines. However there were indications that role
orientation was related to some of the participation rates. For
example, professional orientation seemed to be negatively correlated
to Non-Vocational Continuing Education but positively correlated to
vocationally related COPE. Also professional orientation might have
interacted in the case of the association between participation and
innovation at the general (middle) level since professionalism was
positively related to both participation and innovation at this level.

But H5, as noted above, was not fully testable in this study.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...

245

7. Teachers with high role related measurements, that is,
those who probably had a strong professional or bureaucratic self—image
and who were active in related reference groups, were also likely to
be innovative although not necessarily in the same situations. For
example, professionally oriented teachers were more likely to inter—
nalize the specific and simultaneous change, even though it was man—
dated by the administration. On the other hand, bureaucratically
oriented teachers were more inclined to general innovation use. These
teachers were also older and thus might have had more opportunity
to learn about the general innovations and recognize their need.

8. High self—esteem is positively related to both partici—
pation in continuing education and innovation. Teachers who feel

professionally competent can be expected to be good candidates for

 

in—service training and change related programs. Apparently a i
sense of security as to professional competence allows openness to
change.
9. The findings for innovation also appear to show that a
teacher's level of involvement in innovation depends upon the
availability of sources of information and resources for the change.
It also appears to depend upon particular personal characteristics , 1
such as a willingness to participate in extra—system sources. This I
was shown by the relationship between extra—system COPE and Non—
Vocational CE and innovation situation behavior.
10. The diversity of teachers in terms of association between
situational variables and the major variables of participation, innova—

tion, and role almost defy generalization. The situational variables

 

 

246
did explain a modest amount of the variance in participation and more
of that in innnovation. Furthermore some situational variables appear
to function as suppressor factors. For example, until grade assignment
was partialled out in the Specific COPE—Innovation Internalization
equation, the association did not reach the .05 level of significance.
However further tests of such suppression are needed before more
conclusions can be drawn. 1‘

ll. It appears that working conditions and organizational
issues might be related to innovation situation behavior as shown by
the finding that participation in decision making was related to ISB.

OBSERVATIONS
That the associations found between participation and

innovation were not primarily due to multicollinearity or random error

 

is supported by the fact that the associations between them followed I
quite consistently findings of other studies, such as the correlations
between extra-system COPE and ISB was paralleled by the findings of Lin
and Buley of an association between attained educational level and ISB.
The acceptance of the meaningfulness of the correlations de—
pends largely upon this consistency of association and the fact that no
exceptions were found to the predictions of each subhypothesis in H1.
It depends also upon the assumption that information is related to in—
novation and while this assumption is believable and logical it was not
tested in this study. There are other explanations for the findings.
Covariance with some situational variables was considered a
likely possibility for explaining the observed relationships between
innovation and participation. For example, teachers with high interna—

lization scores shared high participation scores and upper grade

 

 

 

 

 

 

247

teaching assignments. Perhaps there was some condition in the upper
grades that led to higher internalization, such as more dissatisfaction
with previous texts, and the apparent association between internaliza-
tion and participation was fortuitous.

Another possible covariate was age in its relationships
to variations on the verbal measures of innovation, General Change
Orientation and Innovation Internalization. Younger teachers were
higher on these two measures and were somewhat more likely to partici—

pate in continuing professional education. These younger teachers

 

might have less commitment to older ways of teaching and might be more
interested in new ways and it is just as likely that many of them might
feel the need for more training due to a lack of confidence in their
skills as well as meeting certification related requirements. Further,
perhaps these younger teachers are more interested in advanced training
for they belong to a generation that takes such training for granted and
as necessary and desirable in and of itself. Thus the apparent associa—
tion between participation and innovation in these cases might be due to
the youth of those high on both measures.

Cosmopoliteness remains a possible covariate. Since
innovation rates and searching for information outside the system
were found to vary together in this study such an interpretation
would be supported although the disadvantages of trait variables
remains a problem.

A hidden covariance may have been responsible for the finding
that Non-Vocational CE was more highly related to General Change

Orientation than the COPE measures were to their ISB. Although the units

 

1L 141g34-
.5 ._,.
$52,473:; ex.

'1‘

 

 

248

of participation in NVCE represent only a fifth of the time compared
to units for COPE, the units of NVCE were slightly higher in their
associations with change. The hidden covariate may have been cosmo—
politeness again for many of the adult education activities listed in
the Non—Vocational CE indexl would probably be attractive to cosmo—
polites (public affairs discussions, lectures, the arts, etc.).

Explanations for the lowness of the-association found
between participation and innovation were also looked for. One possibi—
lity laid in that the study having taken place long after much of the
participation was completed may not have asked the innovation questions
close enough to a time when the information levels were most different.

Furthermore the assumption that most of the programs of continuing

 

education contained information that was new for the majoritv of the
participants may not have been valid. In addition, participation
rates may have been influenced by needs for socialization with

other adults and peers as much as a need for information.

Another possibility of explaining the low correlations was
the quality of the instrument. It had several deficiences, including
low reliabilities, poorly worded items, and excessive length. To a
large degree these were the products of undue haste in the early stages
of the study. Fortunately those items which had the lowest reliabili—
ties were generally not related to the major variables. Failure to
revise and adapt instrument items originally designed for secondary

teachers led to problems with role and situational items.

 

I. See item 25, p. 258.

 

 

249

While the high response rate lent strength to possible
generalization of the findings to other teachers, most of the variables
were not normally distributed. This put a strain on the mathematics
employed since there is a limit to which non-normality can be coped
with by multivariate analysis and still allow the drawing of valid
conclusions, as well as generalizations.

The use of multivariate analysis was helpful in clearing
away suppressor and unrelated variables to see the basic relationships
between participation and innovation.

Lack of comparison groups was not a problem. There were
no data at the beginning for expecting correlation between participa—

tion and innovation except among other professions and groups,

 

therefore comparison groups would have been ahead of time in
research strategy. The study did show that breadth, depth, and
precision in measurements are necessary when studying associations
between continuing education and innovation. In light of the
finding that activities differed in their association with ISB, the
best course to have taken would not have been to generate global
measures of COPE but rather to have let each type of program be an

independent measure.

SUGGESTIONS
Action Suggestions
~ Due to the diversity in urban school systems a diversity of
programs of continuing education is recommended to reach as many as
possible. Although many types of programs appeared unrelated or

perhaps somewhat negatively related, some of the teachers must have

 

 

 

 

250
gained information that later led to positive ISB responses, otherwise
all associations would have been clearly negative. Extra—system
sources seem to play a special role. Perhaps this is due to the possi—
bility they offer for a different point of view towards intra-system
problems but on the other hand those teachers who attend university
courses more frequently may be more open to change for personal reasons
such as a future oriented weltanschauung. It appears that among all
the types of continuing education, the more generalized the subject
matter and modes the more effective continuing education may be in
promoting institutional change in the long run.

Those interested in change can take heart from the findings
that an innovation that had to be adopted simultaneously by all, thus
forced on some, did not lead to negative attitudes among the teachers.
Many teachers will apparently internalize these changes, especiallv
when they see them as benefiting the students. Furthermore age, mari—
tal status, number of dependents, and experience, all variables not un—
der the direct control of administrators, were not found to be barriers
to participation or change; neither were they indicators for interest
in participation or change. The situation seems to be the predominant
factor, not a general trend in teachers to participate and change re—
gardless which if it existed would have shown up in the cross—level as-
sociations in H1. Each innovation situation will merit careful study
on its own terms and not the use of routine procedures.

Principals may need to work on encouraging participation in
decision making and increasing feedback and intercourse with all tea—

chers, or in other words, openness of climate, to increase participation

and innovation by all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Research Suggestions

 

Investigations into the assumptions about the associations
between participation in continuing education and innovation should be
carried to a greater depth. Most studies, including this one, have
been global and probably too diffuse or too general to pick up import—
ant aspects of the situation. Systematic analysis of participation and
other variables, not considered in the study, such as school climate,l
should lead to a deeper understanding of the place of continuing
education among elementary teachers. Perhaps its role is only in a
minor way related to innovation situation behavior in the sense used in
this study. It may play a more important role with the majority of
teachers in stabilizing the system rather than for original change.
Perhaps it might be initially destabilizing as an innovation is intro—
duced, but when the innovation begins to change the system, it becomes
a restabilizer as the innovation gains majoritv approval and use. This
might explain why the bulk of the teachers considered themselves as
somewhat change oriented but as the specificity of programs participat—
ed in went up, the rates dropped off. These teachers were not partici—
pating or innovating at the destabilizing stage.

Technical suggestions for achieving this include measures
taken at various times during the school year, inclusion of pre— and
post—measurements (statistical control has limits), personal interviews,

and perhaps network or path analysis2 to trace the time relationships.

 

l. LaVerne R. Marcum, ”Organizational Climate and the Adoption
of Educational Innovations.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation. (Logan,
Utah: Utah University, 1968).

2. For an example of such use, see: Andrew Greely, Priests ig
th§_United States (New York: Doubeday, 1972).

 

 

 

 

 

 

. luau... ._ 5......

 

252

Cluster analysis would allow the determination of better sets of
variables to be selected.1 Much remains to be seen as to what factors
are covariate or causal in participation and innovation among teachers.
It is apparent that the place of the principal in relation—
ship to mandatory and non—mandatory change needs examination. Since
innovative teachers did not see their principals as innovative while
the majority of them did so implies that research might lead to some
ideas for principal action with various types of teachers.
Finally this study looked at certain assumptions as to
the relationship of participation in continuing education and
innovation situation behavior which arose from the structural—
functional school in sociology. Other paradigms from other schools are
available. The finding that high self esteem is positively related
to participation and innovation implies that once safety factors
have been met, by the gaining of teaching competence and confidence,
then teachers are open to participation, growth, and change. So
probably the most useful model of motivation for further suggestions
as to research and practice would be Maslow's self—actualization
model.2 Other dichotomies of promise might be autonomy versus non—
autonomy or future orientation versus present orientation. While there

is no sign yet in sociology that there is a new consciousness, in

 

1. For an example of this see: Edward Lessin, "Aspects of
Structure in Fromm's Marketing Orientations," unpublished doctoral
dissertation (East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1968). The
technique is helpful in measuring for commonalities in behavior.

2. A. H. Maslow, Motivation §3d_Personality (New York: Harper,
1954), pp. 93—97; , Towards a New Psychology 9f_Being
(Princeton: Van Nostrand, 1962), pp? EI:S2.

 

 

253

Kuhn'sl sense, that would replace the paradigms of this study, these
paradigms may be losing explanatory power due to social changes that

have taken place since the structuralafunctional school was formed.

CLOSING STATEMENT

This study began with three possible explanations of why
previous research had failed to show a relationship among teachers
between their participation in continuing education and their innova—
tion situation behavior. The data revealed the situation to be much
more complex than that predicted by these posited explanations.
Therefore the generalizations and conclusions were not as definitive
as hoped for. The importance of the study lies rather in its
having further clarified certain questions concerning the place of
continuing education in organizations and in the work of profes—
sional employees. The study has raised more questions than it
has answered. It is hoped that these questions may lead to further
hypotheses for research into correlations between continuing education
and innovation, and thus to more appropriate suggestions for the

management of change in knowledge organizations.

 

1. Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
(Chicago. University of Chicago Press, 1962).

 

 

 

..-

    

APPENDICES

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX A

THE INSTRUMENT ITEMS

Scoring weights are shown in brackets following response.
If no brackets are shown, please see Chapter 3 for scoring method,
unless scoring method is listed in brackets or footnoted.

1. Approximately how many teachers in your building are using either
the SRA or the Addison-Wesley math series? Please circle
your estimate. ‘

0 (none) 1 2 3 u 5 6 7 8 9(or more)

2. Approximately when did at least one of the teachers in your
building begin using one or the other of these new series?

__1967/68(this year)__1966/67_~1965/66__1964/65 __pot sure

3. If asked to judge your knowledge of the new math textbooks,
would you consider yourself to be.....

__extremely well informed [5] __not very well informed [2]
__quite well informed [H] __pot at all well informedEl]
__about average [3]

9. Compared with an average teacher of the lst, 2nd, or 3rd grade
in your school, do you think you have discussed the new
textbooks with your principal....

__much oftener [5] __a little less often [2]
__a little oftenerEH] __much less often [1]
'_~about as often [3]

In this study, we are interested in your previous experiences with
mathematics, math education, and the new math materials. Please
answer all the questions regardless of the math.text you have used
this year.

5. Approximately how many credit hours of mathematics have you taken
in college?

254

 

 

 

 

 

 

O)

10.

11.

El

255
‘__None [0] ' __9—11 hours [6] 18 or more hours [12]
__6—5 hours [2] __}2—14 hours [8] _—
1__6—8 hours [M] __15—17 hours [10]

How many of these are semester hours? ; Quarter hours?

Of the above courses, approximately how many hours were in
methods courses?

__None [0] __6-8 hours [u] __12 hours or more [8]
__6—5 hours [2]' __9—11 hours [6]

During the past month have you read any articles on mathematics
or mathematics education in any of the following journals?
Please mark each journal yes or none. If you check”yes,”
circle the number of articles you have read within the month.

a. The Arithmetic Teacher. . none yes 1 2 3 or more
b. Instructor. . . . . . . . ~fihone __yes __1_—2—~6 or more
c. Grade Teacher . . . . . ::hone ::yes ::1::?::} or more
d The Mathematics Teacher . _finone __yes __1__2__6 or more
e. School Science and Mathematics ~_none __yes __l__2__6 or more

[score is total of responses checked]

How many books on modern math or the teaching of it have you
read since June 1, 1967?

O 1 2 3 u __6 or more [score=response number]

How many SIS workshops on math have you taken since June 1, 1967?

O l 2 3 u or more [score weight=response number]

How many workshops about mathematics or math education, but not
sponsored by the school district, have you taken in the last
two years?

a. Short: one to two days, or 4 to 12 hours __p__};_6 or more
b. Medium: two to four days, or 13 to 20 hours__O__1__6 or more
c. Long: one to two weeks, or 21 hours plus __O_;1__6 or more

[scoring weights O=O, la=1, 2a=2, 3a=3g lb=2, 2b=3, 2c=6;
3a=3, 3b: 6, 3c=9]

Have you used any of the following math materials? Please mark
grade level of series used this year ”+". Please mark grade
1evel(s) of series used in previous years ”0".

 

 

 

 

 

256

a. Silver Burdett:

b. Addison—Wesley, AW:

c. SRA, Greater Cleveland:
d. SMG, School Math. Group:

1 _2 _6 Never used

_1 _2 6 Never used

l _2 6 Never used

1 _2 _6 _Never used

12. Previous to this year did you take part in a pilot study use
of one of the new series?

__no [0] __yes, with SRA [1]_"__yes, with Addison—Wesley [1]

13. At some time previous to the beginning of this school year, were
you able to examine a copy of the new texbook you are using now?

__no [1] __for 1 week or less [2] __for 1 month or more [H]
__one day [2]__for 1 month or less [3] __had used book before [5]

14. Are you now or have you been a member of the mathematics curriculum
in the school district? Please check the years in which you were
a member.

__No, never a member [0] Yes, a member in the year:
1967/68 (this year) [1]
w'1966/67 (last year) [1]
—1965/66 [1]
::1964/65 or earlier [1]

15. Were you a member of a committee at your school to study these new
texts when they were being considered for adoption by the school

district?
no committee [0] I was not asked [2] __I was chairman
:did not want to serVe [- 1]_ I did serve [3] [u]

flwas not on staff at time [mean score for sample given here]
To what extent would you agree with the following statements?

16. ”I think the new mathematics textbook series (SRA and/or AW) are
unnecessary in our system.”

_agree very much [1] __don't know [4]
_agree on the whole [2] __disagree a little [5]
agree a little [3] __disagree on the whole [6]
——_ __disagree very much [7]

17. "To me, the new mathematics textbooks are one of the worst things
to come into our school system.”

___agree very much [1] __diagree a little [5]
__agree on the whole [2] __disagree on the whole [6]
agree a little [3] ‘__disagree very much [7]

:don't know [4]

 

 

 

 

 

257

We are also interested in the types and amount of in—service and continuing
education in which you have participated since June, 1967.

18. In how many SIS workshops have you participated in since June, 1967?

 

_O _l _2 _6 _fi _5 _6 _7 or more [scoring weight=response]
19. Approximately how many workshops, not sponsored by the school
district, have you attended since June 1, 1967? These could include
summer workshops at colleges, conference centers, professional
association workshops, or any other short term educational activity.

a- Short: one to two days, or H to 12 hours __6 __l __2 3 or more
b. Medium: two to four days, or 13—20 hours __6 __l __2 __8 or more
c- Long: one to two weeks, or 21 hours plus __O __l 2 __8 or more

[scoring weights: 0:0, la=l, 2a=2, 3a=3; lb=2, 2b=3, 20:6;
3a=3; 3b=6; 3c=9]

20. Approximately how many hours in college or university courses have
you taken since June 1, 1967?

 

None [ 0] Were these hours mainly...
"—8—5 hours [ 2] term hours?
—*6—8 hours [ u] ::semester hours?
::S-ll hours [ 6] 7

12—14 hours [ 8]
_15~17 hours [10]
—18-20 hours [12]

::21 hours or more [14]
21. How many travel—study courses have you taken since June 1, 1967?
None [0] __One [2] __Two or more [4]

22. Since June 1, 1967 how many professional books on education or
educational problems have you read?

__None [0] __l[l] 2 [2] __8 [3] __H [4] __5 or more [5]

The amount of time per week that you devote to professional
reading is approximately? (That is, books and articles about
education and/or educational problems)

23

11 or more hours per week [2 ]
——5—10 hours per week [1%]
"—less than five hours per week [1 ]

 

 

 

 

24.

26.

27.

29.

258

Since June 1967 how many lectures or meetings on education have
you attended where attendance was optional?

a. sponsored by the school district _0, 1, 2, 3 or more

b. not sponsored by the school district _0, :l,__2,_—3 or more
Please indicate in the appropriate line the number of times in the
past two years you have participated in the activities below.
Please circle your answer.

a. Church or religious education classes for adults 0 l 2 3 4 or
b Public Evening School classes for adults ~ 0 l 2 3 4 or
c. Other evening classes for adults 0 1 2 3 4 or
d. Public Affairs lectures. . . . . . . O l 2 3 4 or
e. Evening College general classes. . . . . . .O l 2 3 4 or
f. Discussion groups. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .O l 2 3 4 or
g. Great Books Clubs. 0 l 2 3 4 or
h. Musical programs, concerts, operas, etc. 0 l 2 3 4 or
i. Plays and dramatic productions . O l 2 3 4 or
j. Lectures on general topics . . . . . . . . . O l 2 3 4 or
k Hobby clubs. . . . . . . O l 2 3 4 or
The number of professional education journals you subscribe to 15

approximately...

__0, none[0]__l [l] __2 [2] _~3 [3] __4 [4] __5 or more [5]

more
more
more
more
more
more
more
more
more
more
more

Please mark the number of professional educational associations in
which you have held memberships at one time or another during the
past two years. Please notice that LSEA and LFT memberships are

to be indicated spearately from the others.

Member of LSEA [l]
*Member of LFT [1]
—_Not a member of either LSEA or LFT [O]
__Member of 1 other organization [1]
——Member of 2 other organizations [2]
_—Member of 3 or more other organizations [3]

_—Not a member in any educational organization [0]

Of the above, in how many were you active, either as an officer,
chairman, committee member, or contributor to programs at meetings

during these past two years?
_Not active, dues paying member only [0]
_Active in one organization [1]
—Active in two organizations [2]

—Active in three organizations or more[3]

Please indicate the number of curriculum or committees in the

school district on which you have served in the past two years.

None [0] Two [2] __Four [4]

::One [1] ::Three [3] __Pive [5]

__Six or more [6]

 

[1]
[2]
[2]
[11
[2]
[2]
[2]
[1]
[1]
[1]
[1]

 

   

 

 

 

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

259

Which of the following people was the president of MBA this year?

'__pale Kennedy __Arnold Wolpert __Clifford Worden* Margaret Zempke

Which of the following people was the president of MFT this year?
__Mary Ellen Riorden __Albert Shanker __Henry Linne* __Tom Hill
Which of the following people was the president of LSEA this year?
__er Vellanti __Earle Clegg* V__danet Miller __Uohn Fouts

Which of the following people was the president of LFT this year?
__pavid Hollister* __Richard Reist __Lee Wenk __George Griffiths

What is the method by which the State Superintendent of Public
Instruction is selected in Michigan?

__Appointment by the governor
__Election by the people
__Appointment by the State Board*
__Appointment by the Legislature

How many elected members are there on the State Board of Education?
“_five __six __seven __eight* __nine

[Scoring for items 30—35 is 1 point for each response that matches
a starred item.]

Each of us will go to certain people for advice in educational matters.
Please rank the pople below from "1," the first person you would

turn to, to ”8," the last person you would turn to for advice

and information about education.

a fellow teacher in your school [p] [p=professional item
_—principal in your school [b] b=bureaucratic item
_wteacher in another school [p] score weights for p
_—principal in another school [b] items=inverse of response,
~”director or consultant [b] while score weights for
_—helping teacher [b] b items =response]

__PTA active parent [b]

::college or university professor [p]

 

 

 

 

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

 

 

260

Regarding the decision to adopt the new mathematic textbook
series, do you feel it was:

_Your personal decision? [0]
_A decision upon which you had no influence but you had
—the choice of adopting the series or not? [0]
_A decision made by voting within the school district
_but you had the option of adopting them or not? [3]

__A decision made by voting within the school district and
you were required to use them? [5]
_A decision made for you by others and you were required
—to use them? [3]

To what extent do you agree with the following statements?

a. "These new mathematics textbooks could constitute an
improvement in any school

__agree very much [7] __disagree a little [3]
__agree on the whole [6] disagree on the whole [2]
__agree a little [5] ::hisagree very much [1]
__don't know [4]

b. "I think that the new mathematics texbooks represent an
improvement in educational,practices at my_school."

agree very much [7] __disagree a little [3]
::agree on the whole [6] __disagree on the whole [2]
__agree a little [5] __disagree very much [1]
__don't know [4]

Which of the following is the highest academic level you have
attained?

__bachelor's degree [1]
__bachelor's degree plus 15 semester or 22% term hours [2]
__master's degree [3]

master's degree plus 15 semester hours or 22% term hours [4]

::hoctorate [5]

Are you currently working on...__a master's degree? [1]
__a specialist degree? [2]
__a doctorate? [3]

What are your career plans? Please mark the most appropriate answer.

a. to leave teaching during the next three years for another career [0]
b. to leave classroom teaching for an administrative position

in this school district, if possible [1]
to leave the district but continue teaching elsewhere soon [2]
to leave teaching temporarily for the family's sake

but return later [3]

0.0

 

 

 

261

(D

to leave classroom teaching but teach in a college [3]

f. to stay at the present assignment for the forseeable future [1]
g. to stay in classroom teaching in the district but in

another building if possible [1]

a. What has been the reaction of the children to the new math books? 5

__much better than to the old series [5]

better [4]
::about the same [3]
__}ess favorable [2]
__dis1iked [1]
b. Do you feel achievement has been... _higher? [3]
_about the same? [2]
__lower? [1]

Below are listed a number of programs, methods, and equipment that
are in use in the district. Please circle one of the numbers
following the item according to the following directions:

circle 0. if it is not in use in your building,

circle 1. if it is not in use in your building, but ygg
would like to use it,

circle 2. if it is in use in your building, but ygg
have not been using it,

circle 3. if it is in use, and you use it yourself

 

individualized reading .

team teaching. .
departmentalization.

Joplin plan in reading .

Joplin plan in arithmetic.

The New English.

linguistic readers . .

ITA, Intial Teaching Alphabet
economics. .
non— graded classes .
individualized mathematics
Instructional Materials Center .
overhead projectors. .
single concept film projectors
listening center with headphones

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMN
wmwwwwwmwwwwwww

0 d E F‘KWJ-H-SWN m m 9.0 a m

Please answer the following questions in terms of the items
checked above.

a. During the past six months have you told anyone in your school
about any of the above topics?

Yes [2] __P0 [l]

45.

262

U‘

Compared with your circle of friends in the school are you:
more or less likely to be asked for opinions on these topics?

more [3] less [1] same amount [2]

c. Thinking back to your last discussion about any of the topics:
were you asked your opinion or did you ask someone else?

II was asked, [3] I asked someone else [1] both of these [2]
d. When you and your colleagues discuss any of these topics,
what part do you play? Mainly listen or try to convince
them of your ideas? W

mainly listen [1] try to convince [3] both of these [2]

e. Which of these happens more often, you tell your colleagues
about these topics, or they tell you about these topics?

I tell them [3] they tell me [1] both of these [2]

f. Do you have the feeling that you are generally regarded
by your colleagues as a good source of opinion about these topics?

yes [2] no [1]
Now that you are warmed up on the previous set of questions, we
want to backtrack and ask you the same questions but centered
upon the new math series, SRA or Addison—Wesley only.
a. Compared with your circle of friends in the school are you
more or less likely to be asked for opinions about these
new series?

more [3] less [1] both of these [2]

b. Thinking back to your last discussion about these new books,
were you asked your opinion or did you ask someone else?

I was asked [3] I asked someone else [1] both of these [1]
c. When you and your colleagues discuss the new math books, what
part do you play? mainly listen or try to convince them
of your ideas?

mainly listen [1] try to convince [3] both of these [2]

d. Which of these happens more often, you tell your colleagues
about these new books, or they tell you about them?

I tell them [3] they tell me [1] both of these [2]

 

 

 

46.

47.

 

263

e. Do you have the feeling that you are generally regarded by
your colleagues as a good source of opinion about these
new math materials?

Yes [2] 1_NO [1]

In your personal view regarding the use of these new series,*
especially the one you are using, do the students...

__benefit greatly [5] *If you are not using any new
__benefit somewhat [4] series, please express your
__not sure [3] opinion anyways.

__do not benefit much [2] .
__do not benefit at all [1]

Most of your insights and new ideas regarding education come from...
(Please number from 1, most important, to 7, least important)

__books and/or magazines on education [p] [see item 36 for

__discussions with other teachers [p] weightings]
__discussions with helping teachers [b]
__discussions with superiors [b]
._Jdiscussions with university people [p]
__discussions with lay people [b]

__mass media, TV, magazines, newspapers [b]

The following questions were designed to be used in any school district.
They are opinion questions about teaching and teachers and should be
answered in terms of what you believe should be true in any school
district, not just our district alone. Even if some of them raise
questions that do not exist in your school or on your grade level,

we want your opinion on the question. The sociologists who have

worked out these questions have raised some interesting points and

most teachers will enjoy giving their opinion.

48. It should be permissible for the teacher to Violate a rule if he

is sure that the best interests of the students will be
served in doing so. [p '

b
__strongly agree [5] [l] [p=professional item;
somewhat agree' [4] [2] b=bureaucratic item;
__not sure [3] [3] all items used the same 5 point
——somewhat disagree [2] [4] response cale, so the scale will
::}trongly disagree [1] [5] not be repeated again until

the beginning of the next scale.]

49. Unless he is satisfied that it is best for the student, a

teacher should not do what he is told to do. [p]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

264

50. Teachers should adjust their teaching to the administration‘s

Views of good educational practice. [b]

51. The school administration should be better qualified than the

52.

U“!

55.

62.

3.

 

teacher to judge what is best for education.[b]

A good teacher should ngt_do anything that he believes may
jeopardize the interests of his students regardless of who
tells him or what the rules state. [p]

Teachers should be obedient, respectful, and loyal to the
principal. [b]

Teachers should try to live up to what they think are the
standards of their profession even if the administration or the
community does not seem to respect them.[p]

In the case of a dispute in the community over whether a controversial
textbook or controversial speaker should be permitted in the school,
the teacher should look primarily to the judgment of the
administration for guidance. [b]

Personnel who openly criticize the administration should be
encouraged to go elsewhere. [b]

. One primary criterion of a good school should be the degree of

respect that it commands around the state.[p]

Teachers should not be influenced by the opinions of those teachers
whose thinking does not reflect the thinking of the
administration. [b]

. A teacher should try to put his standards and ideals of good

teaching into practice even if the rules or procedures of the
school prohibit. [p]

. A teacher should be able to make his own decisions about problems

that come into the classroom. [p]

. A good teacher should be able to efficiently teach the children

 

what they need to knsw in the limited time available.[b]

Small matters thpld not have to be referred to someone higher
for final answers. [p]

63. Teachers §h0u1d_subscribe to and diligently read the standard

 

professional journals. [p]

64. What is best for the school is best for education. [b]

65. The ultimate authority over major educational decisions should

be exercised by professional teachers. [p]

 

 

 

 

 

 

265

66. Teachers should be completely familiar with the written
description of the rules, procedUres, manuals, and other
standard operating procedures for running the room. [b]

67. The school should have a manual of rules and regulations
which are actually followed. [b]

68. A teacher should be an active member of at least one professional
teaching association, and attend most conferences and meetings
of the association. [p]

69. Rules stating when the teachers should arrive and depart from
the building should be strictly enforced.' [b]

70. To prevent confusion and friction among the staff, there should 1
be a rule covering almost every problem that might come up
at school. [b] ’

71. A teacher should consistently practice his ideals of the best
educational practices even though the administration prefers
other views. [p]

72. There should be definite rules specifying the topics that are
not appropriate for discussion in a classroom. [b]

73. A good teacher should put the interests of his school above
everything else. [b]

74. In case of doubt about whether a particular practice is better
than another, the primary test should be what seems best for
the overall reputation of the school. [b]

75. Pay should be in relation to experience.[b]

76. A teacher's skill should be based primarily on his acquaintance
with his subject matter. [p]

77. Teachers of the same grade or level throughout the system should
follow the same kind of lesson plan. ]

78. The work of the teachers should be planned so that every child
taking the same work level throughout the state will eventually
cover the same materials. [b]

79. When a controversy arises about the interpretation of school
rules, a teacher should not "stick his neck out" by taking
a definite position. [b]

80. Teachers should take into account the opinions of their community
in guiding what they say in class and in their choiCe of teaching
materials. [b]

   

266

81. Teachers should be evaluated primarily on the basis of their
knowledge of the subjects that are to be taught, and their
ability to communicate them. [p]

82. Teachers should not publically advocate a position on the place
of religion in the school which differs greatly from the majority
opinion of the community. [b]

83. A good teacher is one who conforms, in general, to accepted
standards in the community. [b]

84. The criterion of a good school should be one that serves the
needs of the local community. [b]

85. Schools should hire no one to teach unless he holds at least
a four year bachelor's degree. [p]

86. Teachers should not attempt to discuss any controversial issues 4
(such as abolishing the House Un—American Activities Committee)
which may jeopardize the school's public relations. [b]

87. Local control over schools by school boards represents the
most fundamental form of democracy in education. [b

The balance of the questionnaire (you are more than half way through it)
is concerned with questions about yourself, other teachers at your
school, and your principal. Please check the response which best
describes your position, ideas, or opinions.

88. The teachers in this school (yours) get along with one another
better than those in other schools in this district.

__agree very much [7] __disagree a little [3]
__agree on the whole [6] _ disagree on the whole [2]
___agree a little [5] __disagree very much [1]
__don't know [u]

89. The teachers really help each other on the job in this school
as compared with teachers in other schools in this district.

__agree very much [7] __disagree a little [3]
__agree on the whole [6] __disagree on the whole [2]
__agree a little [5] __disagree very much [1]
__don't know [u]

90. I feel I am really a part of this faculty.

__agree very much [7] __disagree a little [3]
“_agree on the whole [6] __disagree on the whole [2]
__agree a little [5] __disagree very much [1]

__d0n‘t know [4]

   

 

 

 

267

91. If I had a chance to do the same kind of teaching for the same
pay in another school, I would consider moving.

agree very much [13 __disagree a little [5]
::agree on the whole [2] ._disagree on the whole [6]

_agree a little [3] __disagree very much [7]
::don't know [4]

92. Personally I feel I can adjust to changes easily

__agree very much [7] disagree a little [3]
__agree on the whole [6] ::disagree on the whole [2]

agree a little [5] disagree very much [1]
::don't know [4] -"

93. I really believe we could have done a much better job, or at least
done just as well if things hadn’t changed so much in our schools.

__agree very much [1] __disagree a little [5]
__agree on the whole [2] __disagree on the whole [6]
agree a little [3] _rdisagree very much [7]

:::don't know [4]

94. If we want to maintain a healthy and stable educational system,
keep it the way it is and resist the temptation to change.

we must
__agree very much [1] __disagree a little [5]
__agree on the whole [2] __disagree-on the whole [6]
__agree a little [3] __disagree very much [7]
__don‘t know [4]

95. Most changes introduced in the last ten years have contributed
very little in promoting education in our schools.

__agree very much [1] __disagree a little [5]
__agree on the whole [2] _Fdisagree on the whole [6]

agree a little [3] disagree very much [7]
::don't know [4] _—

[The following items 96—104 for the self—rating as teacher scale.
All responses are scored and weighted alike so responses and
weights will be shown only for the first item.]

96. How would you rate yourself in teaching ability as compared with
elementary teachers in general?

__putstanding [7] __average [3]
__among the best [6] _fibelow average [2]
__good [5] __among the poorest [1]

__above average [4]

 

 

 

268
97. Where would you rank your ability to teach an accelerated class?

98. Where would you rank your ability to be a supervising teacher
for a student teacher?

99. How would you rate your ability to get along with students as
compared with teachers in general?

100. How would you rate your ability to enrich instruction compared with
teachers in general?

101. Where would you rank your methods of teaching compared with other
elementary teachers?

102. How would you rate yourself in teaching ability compared with other
teachers who have the same number of years of teaching experience?

103. Where would you rank your methods of classroom discipline compared
with other elementary school teachers?

104. How would you rate yourself ih ability to teach your grade level
as compared with other teachers of the same grade or level?

 

105. If you have read this far, all educational researchers should
be folded, mutilated, and stapled.

agree
disagree

not sure

106. Generally speaking, I don't like being a teacher.

agree very much [1] __disagree a little [5]
_—agree on the whole [2] __disagree on the whole [6]
"Tagree a little [3] __disagree very much [7]
::don't know [4]

107. I like my teaching job in this school.

agree very much [7] __disagree a little [3]
_wagree on the whole [6] __disagree on the whole [2]
_—agree a little [5] __disagree very much [1]
::don't know [4]

108. I am far from satisfied with the school environment here.

agree very much [1] I __disagree a little [5]
__agree on the whole [2] __disagree on the whole [6]
_—agree a little [3] __disagree very much [7]

__don't know [4]

 

 

 

109.

110.

111.

112.

11”.

115.

269

 

I have some very good reasons to refute the general feeling that

anyone can be a teacher.

__agree very much [1]
__agree on the whole .[2]
__agree a little [3]
__don't know [4]

__disagree a little [5]
__disagree on the whole [6]
__disagree very much [7]

Basically I feel that I am consulted too often about all these

innovations.

__agree very much [1]
__agree on the whole [2]
__agree a little [3]
__don't know [4]

__disagree a little (5]
__disagree on the whole [6]
__disagree very much [7]

I think our principal supports the use of the new textbooks....

__wholeheartedy [5]
_~somewhat [”1
__not sure [3]

As compared with other teachers,
my classroom work...

_~much more frequently [5]
__more frequently [4]
__just about the same amount [3]

__not very much [2]
__not at all [1]

the principal talks to me about

__less frequently [2]
“_much less frequently [1]

He gives me encouragement in my work...

__yery frequently
__quite frequently

[5]
[4]

just about the same amount as he does other teachers [3]

__quite infrequently
__never

[2]
[1]

He offers suggestions to help improve my teaching performance...

__yery frequently
__quite frequently

[5]
[4]

just about the same amount as he does other teachers [3]

quite infrequently
__never

He lets me know if he has heard
performance....

__very frequently
__guite frequently

[2]
[1]

any criticism about by teaching

[5]
[u]

just about the same amount as he does other teachers [3]

::huite infrequently
__never

[2]
[1]

 

 

 

 

 

 

270.

116. I don't think I can influence the decision of the principal
regarding things about which I am concerned.'

__agree very much [lJ __disagree a little .[5]
__agree on the whole [2] __disagree on the whole [6]
__agree a little [3] __disagree very much [7]
__don't know [4]

117. The principal usually asks my opinion when a problem comes up
that involves my work.

/
__agree very much [7] __disagree a little [3]
__agree on the whole [6] __disagree on the whole [2]
agree a little [5] ._disagree very much [1]

::don't know [M]

118. It is unusual for me to take part in discussions which result in
decisions regarding school problems and activities.

__agree very much [1] __disagree a little [5]
”_agree on the whole [2] __disagree on the whole [6]

agree a little [3] disagree very much [7]
::don't know [4] _—

119. It isn't really the job of the teachers to take part in any
decision—making discussions regarding school matters.

agree very much [1] __disagree a little [5]
——agree on the whole [2] ”_disagree on the whole [6]
~“agree a little [3] disagree very much [7]
::don't know [H] _—

[the following items from 120-129 form the Principal Rating as a Teacher
Scale. Since all the items have the same responses and are scored the
same way, only the responses and score weights will be shown for the
first item.]

120. How would your principal rate you in teaching ability compared
with elementary teachers in general?

outstanding [7] __average [3]
-—among the best [6] __below average [2]
h—good [5] __among the poorest [1]
::above average [4]

121. Where would your principal rank your ability to become a
teacher on closed circuit television?

122. Where would your principal rank your ability to be a supervising
teacher for a student teacher?

 

 

 

 

 

123.

124.

127.

128.

271

How would your principal rate your ability to work with students
compared with teachers in general?

How would your principal rate your ability to enrich instruction
compared with teachers in general?

How would your principal rate you in teaching ability compared
with other teachers who have the same number of years of
experience?

How would your principal rate you in ability to teach your grade
or level compared with others teaching the same grade or level?

How would your principal rank your methods of classroom discipline
compared with other elementary teachers?

Where would your principal rank your methods of teaching compared
with other elementary teachers?

Where would your principal rank your ability to teach an
accelerated class?

How well do you think your principal would agree with the following
four statements? Please mark the response which you think is most
appropriate.

130.

131.

”Personally, I feel I can adjust to changes easily."

he would agree very much [7]
__—he would agree on the whole [6]
——he would agree a little [5]
~_he would not be sure [4]
::he would disagree a little [3]

he would disagree on the whole [2]
_—he would disagree very much [1]

"Most changes introduced in the last ten years have contributed
very little in promoting education in our schools.”

he would agree very much [1]
_"he would agree on the whole [2]
_—he would agree a little [3]
:The would not be sure [4]
-_—he would disagree a little [5]

_he would disagree on the whole [5]
__he would disagree very much [7]

 

 

 

 

 

272

132. ”If we want to maintain a healthy, stable educational system
we must keep it the way it is and resist the temptation

to change."

__he would agree very much [1]
__he would agree on the whole [2]
__he would agree a little [3]
__he would not be sure [4]
___he would disagree a little [5]
__he would disagree on the whole [6]
__he would disagree very much [7]

133. "I really believe we could have done a much better job, or at least
done just as well, if things hadn't changed so much in our schools."

~___he would agree very much [1]
_whe would agree on the whole [2]
‘_he would agree a little [3]
__he would not be sure [4]

he would disagree a little [5]
::he would disagree on the whole [6]
.__he would disagree very much [7]

The last items are concerned with your background and your present
teaching assignment. Please check the most appropriate answer space.

13H. How many years have you taught in this school district?

~__1—3 years __lO—l2 years __19—21 years
4—6 years __l3—15 years __22—2u years
7—9 years __16—18 years __more than 24

135. a. If you are teaching graded classes, your current grade
assignment is...

1 2 3 4 5 __§ __non—graded

b. If you are teaching non—graded classes, the majority age group
in your room this year has been?

 

five years old __ten years old
_-six years old __e1even years old
—~seven years old __twelve years old
——eight years old __thirteen or older

nine years old

136. How many years have you taught this grade or age group you are
now teaching?

1-3 years __10-12 years __19—21 years
—_h—6 years __13—15 years __22-24 years
__7—9 years .__l6—18 years __more than 24

 

 

 

137.

139.

140.

142.

143.

144.

146.

147.

 

273

What is your place of birth? local area
__this state
__08A
_flabroad
Marital status? __unmarried __married __separated or divorced

Number of dependents who rely upon you for their main support and care.

0 l 2 3 4 5 __fi __7 or more

If married, does your spouse work full time? __yes __po
Your age: __20—24 _“35—39 __50—54

___25—29 __40—44 __55-60

__30-34 __45—49 __fiO or over
Sex: __female __male

College attended by you. Please mark the school from which you
received your bachelor's degree.

Michigan State University
__University of Michigan ,
__state teachers college or university in Michigan (Western, Central,
:::private college in Michigan etc.)
__state college or university in another state
private college in another state
::abroad

In approximately how many local non—educational organizations,
associations, clubs, or groups, are you currentlv active?
These can include churches, fraternal orders, political
organizations, social service and welfare organizations,
veterans, or youth groups.

0 l 2 3 4 5 __§ __7 or more

Have you ever traveled outside the United States? If yes,

mark each and every space that applies.

__no foreign travel __Mexico __South America
__panada __fiurope __0ther countries

Have you taught in another school district besides this one?
If not, check the 0 space, otherwise mark the total number of
other school districts in which you have taught

__0 __l __2 __3 __4 or more

How many years have you taught outside this school district?

0 1-3 4—6 __j-9 10-12 __l3-15 _w16—17 w_18 years or more

 

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX B

 

PRINCIPAL'S RESPONSE SHEET AND FOLLOW—UP i

PLETTER TO TEACHERS IN SURVEY

r

Dear Fellow Principal:

As part of the innovation opinion study that I am conducting
within the District I need the following information about programs
and equipment in use in your building. Would you please take a few
minutes to check off the items below? Thanks for your help.

If any of the items listed below are in current use in your building
this year by anyone or more of your teachers, please place a check
mark in the yes line.

a. individualized reading . . . . . . . . .__yes __no
b. team teaching. . . . . . . . . . . . . .__yes "__no
c. departmentalization. . . . . . . . . . .~_yes __no
d. Joplin plan in reading . . . . . . . . .__yes __no
e. Joplin plan in math. . . . . . . . . . .__yes __no
f. the New English. . . . . . . .__yes __po
g. ITA, Initial Teaching Alphabet . . . . . yes ' no
h. Linguistic readers . . . . . . . .——yes -_no
i. economics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .::yes ::po
j. non- graded rooms . . . . . . . . . .__yes no
k. individualized mathematics . . . . . . .__yes ::po
1. Instructional Materials Center . . . . .__yes __no
m. overhead projectors. . . . . .. . . . .__yes __po
n. single concept films . . . . . . . . . .__yes __no
0. listening centers. . . . . . . . . . . .__yes no

 

Please check the years for which at least one teacher in your building
was using the following materials in math textbooks. An estimate will
be fine. In the last column please note the number of teachers using

each text.

1964/65 1965/66 1966/67 1967/68 Using now...
Silver Burdett
SMG
Addison—Wesley
SRA

School Name

 

274

 

 

 

 

275

FOLLOW—UP LETTER TO TEACHERS IN SURVEY

 

 

TIME IS
(dollar bill was taped in this space)

AND YOUR TIME IS VALUABLE TO ALL —— INCLUDING US —— AND YOUR FELLOW
TEACHERS, BUT YOUR SUPPORT IS ALSO VERY VALUABLE TO YOUR FELLOW
TEACHERS IN THE MATTERS WITH WHICH THIS SURVEY IS CONCERNED.

WE DIDN'T HEAR FROM YOU THE FIRST TIME AROUND BUT YOUR OPINIONS ARE
STILL VERY MUCH NEEDED.

DUE TO THE FACT THAT SUMMER COURSE WORK AT MSU TOOOK MORE TIME THAN
PLANNED, WE DID NOT GET AROUND TO FEED THE ANSWERS WHICH WERE SENT
IN INTO THE COMPUTER.

SO WE ARE HOLDING OFF DOING THIS UNTIL YOUR QUESTIONNAIRE IS RECEIVED.
THE RESULTS WILL BE MUCH METTER WITH YOUR OPINIONS BEING ENTERED.

SAME INSTRUCTIONS APPLY AS BEFORE. THE DATE HAS BEEN CHANGED TO AUGUST
10TH SO THE RESPONSES YOU SEND IN CAN BEGIN TO BE ENTERED ALONG WITH
THE OTHERS BEFORE SCHOOL STARTS. IF YOU HAPPENED TO BE AWAY UNTIL
AFTER THIS DATE PLEASE SEND THEM IN AS THE PROCESS TAKES SOME TIME AND
WE CAN PROBABLY SOUEEZE THEM IN.

REMEMBER THE REPORT WILL BE BASED ON THE QUESTIONNAIRES THAT HAVE BEEN
SENT IN. THESE RESULTS WILL BE REGARDED AS TYPICAL OF ALL THE
TEACHERS SURVEYED. TO MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD, SEND IN YOUR
QUESTIONNAIRE.

THANKS AGAIN

JIM SWIFT

p.s. If you want to keep the "souvenir” above feel free to do so.
It was just an attention getting device.

 

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX C

PARTIAL CORRELATION TABLES FOR H1—5 WITH

 

CORRELATIONS FOR SITUATIONAL VARIABLES

Table 67. Partial correlations between General Change Orientation and
Non—Vocational Continuing Education with 22 situational '

 

 

 

 

variables.
corr sig

Non-Vocational Continuing Education .196 .10
Demographic

Age —.127 .29

Marital Status .082 .79

Working Spouse .002 .99

Dependents .006 .99

Attained Educational Level -.100 .40
Experience

Years in Teaching .001 .99

Years in System .050 .67

Years in Assignment —.O28 .82

Grade Assignment .085 .47
Exposure to Specific Innovation

Pre—exposure -.233 .05*

Exposure to SRA Texts —.148 .21

Exposure to AW Texts —.l45 .22
Self—Image Variables

Role Satisfaction —.273 .02*

Self Rating as a Teacher .042 .73
Self—Principal Relationships

Principal Rating as a Teacher .136 .25

Performance Feedback from Principal —.094 .43

Participation in Decision Making .342 .01**

Legitimacy of Such Participation —.016 .89

Principal‘s General Change Orientation . .228 .05*

Principal Support for Specific Innovation —.l44 .22
Self-Peer Relationships

Group Cohesiveness .179 .13

Opinion Leadership by Teacher —.055 .64

1. Supportive data for Table 55, Hla. Percentage of variance in
General Change Orientation explained by Non—Vocational CE = 2.12%
corr=correlation coefficient; sig=1eve1 of significance

276

 

 

 

 

 

 

277

Table 68. Partial correlations between General Change Orientation
and Non—Vocational Continuing Education with 2 situational
variables after step—wise regression analysis.

 

 

corr sig

Non—Vocational Continuing Education .280 .008**
Demographic
Age .63
Marital Status > .86
Working Spouse .69
Dependents .76
Attained Educational Level .31
Experience
Years in Teaching .80
Years in System .96
Years in Assignment .88
Grade Assignment .66
Exposure to Specific Innovation
Pre-exposure —.213 .05*
Exposure to SRA Texts —.238 .03*
Exposure to AW Texts .31
Self—Image Variables
Role Satisfaction .413 .01**
Self Rating as a Teacher .53
Self—Principal Relationships
Principal Rating as a Teacher .52
Performance Feedback from Principal .57
Participation in Decision Making .387 .01**
Legitimacy of Such Participation .74
Principal's General Change Orientation .304 .01**
Principal Support for Specific Innovation .31
Self—Peer Relationships
Group Cohesiveness .209 .05*
Opinion Leadership by Teacher .36

 

1. Supportive data for Table 56, Hla. Significances listed with—
out correlations are for variables deleted in regression. The
significances are listed as if they had been retained in the
equation.

corr=correlation coefficient; sig=level of significance;
*=significant at .05 level; ‘

v

*“=significant at .01 level or higher.

Percentage of variance in General Change Orientation explained by
Non—Vocational CE = 4.70%

 

 

 

 

 

 

278

 

 

 

 

Table 69. Partial correlations between General Innovation Use and
General Continuing Professional Education with 22 situational
variables.

corr sig

General Continuing Professional Education .183 .12
Demographic

Age —.032 .79

Marital Status _,o52 .55

Working Spouse ' .139 .24

Dependents —.O88 .46

Attained Educational Level —.061 .61
Experience

Years in Teaching —.O79 .51

Years in System .089 .45 1

Years in Assignment ~.050 .67 a

Grade Assignment .165 .16
Exposure to Specific Innovation

Pre—exposure .090 .45

Exposure to SRA Texts —.238 .O4*

Exposure to AW Texts —.O49 .68
Self—Image Variables

Role Satisfaction .127 .28

Self Rating as a Teacher .115 .33
Self—Principal Relationships

Principal Rating as a Teacher —.O33 .78

Performance Feedback from Principal .451 .Ol**

Participation in Decision Making .023 .60

Legitimacy of Such Participation —.O74 .54

Principal's General Change Orientation —.190 .10

Principal Support of Specific Innovation —.l25 .29
Self—Peer Relationships

Group Cohesiveness —.010 .93

Opinion Leadership by Teacher .094 .43

 

1. Supportive data for Table 55, Hlb. Percentage of variance
in General Innovation Use explained by General Continuing Professional
Education = 1.88%.
corr=correlation coefficient; sig=level of significance.
**significant at .01 or higher
*significant at .05 level

 

 

 

279

Table 70.

Partial correlations between General Innovation Use and

General Continuing Professional Education with 22 situational

variables after stepwise regression analysis.

 

 

 

corr sig
General Continuing Professional Education .215 .039*
Demographic
Age .75
Marital Status .52
Working Spouse .33
Dependents .40
Attained Educational Level .19
Experience
Years in Teaching .36
Years in System .44
Years in Assignment .82
Grade Assignment .11
Exposure to Specific Innovation
Pre—exposure .09
Exposure to SRA Texts -.216 .04*
Exposure to AW Texts .98
Self-Image Variables
Role Satisfaction .41
Self Rating as a Teacher .33
Self—Principal Relationships
Principal Rating as a Teacher .64
Performance Feedback from Principal .451 .01**
Participation in Decision Making .92
Legitimacy of Such Participation .40
Principal's General Change Orientation -.242 .02*
Principal Support for Specific Innovation .96
Self—Peer Relationships
Group Cohesiveness .51
.57

Opinion Leadership by Teacher

 

l. Supportive data for Table 56, Hlb.
General Innnovation Use
Education = 3.10%.
variables deleted in regression.
these as if they had been retained in the equation.
corr=correlation coefficient; sig=level of significance
**significant at .01 or higher

*significant at .05 level

Percentage of variance ih_——
explained by General Continuing Professional
Significances without listed correlations are for
The significances are listed for

" 5‘4";_—-yr’ ’ h?"

 

 

 

280

Table 71. Partial correlations between Innovation Internalization and
SpeCific antinuing Professional Education with 22 situational

 

 

 

variables.
corr sig

Specific Continuing Professional Education .161 .17
Demographic

Age .025 .84

Marital Status -.051 .67

Working Spouse .041 .73

Dependents . —.102 .39

Attained Educational Level —.O48 .69
Experience

Years in Teaching .233 .06

Years in System —.226 .05*

Years in Assignment .073 .54

Grade Assignment .254 .03*
Exposure to Specific Innovation

Pre—exposure —.210 .08

Exposure to SRA Texts .044 .71

Exposure to AW Texts .101 .39
Self—Image Variables

Role Satisfaction .205 .08

Self Rating as a Teacher .135 .25
Self-Principal Relationships

Principal Rating as a Teacher ~.157 .19

Performance Feedback from Principal —.022 .86

Participation in Decision Making .133 .26

Legitimacy of Such Participation -.l33 .26

Principal's General Change Orientation —.O85 .48

Principal Support for Specific Innovation —.108 .36
Self—Peer Relationships

Group Cohesiveness .091 .44

Opinion Leadership by Teacher —.047 .69

 

 

l. Supportive data for Table 55, ch. Percentage of variance
in Innovation Internalization explained by Specific Continuing
Professional Education = 0.24%
corr=correlation coefficient; sig=1evel of significance
*significant at the .05 level

 

 

281

Table 72. Partial correlations between Innovation Internalization and
Specific Continuing Professional Education with 22 situational
variables after stepwise regression.1

 

 

corr sig

 

 

Specific Continuing Professional Education .211 .043*
Demographic
Age .66
Marital Status . .89
Working Spouse .98
Dependents .79
Attained Educational Level .37
Experience
Years in Teaching .259 .01*
Years in System -.218 .04*
Years in Assignment .65
Grade Assignment .384 .Ol**
Exposure to Specific Innovation
Pre—exposure .45
Exposure to SRA Texts .86
Exposure to AW Texts .30
Self—Image Variables
Role Satisfaction .16
Self Rating as a Teacher .35
Self—Principal Relationships
Principal Rating as a Teacher .45
Performance Feedback from Principal .62
Participation in Decision Making .46
Legitimacy of such participation .20
Principal's General Change Orientation .82
Principal Support for Specific Innovation .57
Self—Peer Relationships
Group Cohesiveness .56
Opinion Leadership by Teacher .89

 

l. Supportive data for Table 56, ch. Percentage of variance in
Innovation Internalization explained by Specific Continuing Professional
Education = 3.65%. Significances without listed correlations are
for variables deleted in regression. The significances are listed
for these as if they had been retained in the equation.
corr=correlation coefficient; sig=level of significance
**significant at .01 level or higher

*significant at .05 level

 

 

 

Table 73.

 

Partial correlations between General Change Orientation and
General Continuing Professional Education with 22 situational
variables.

 

 

 

corr sig

General Continuing Professional Education —.008 .95
Demographic

Age —.173 .14

Marital Status .038 .75

Working Spouse .007 .95

Dependents .007 .95

Attained Educational Level —.104 .38
Experience

Years in Teaching —.027 .82

Years in System .077 52

Years in Assignment -.060 .61

Grade Assignment .087 .47
Exposure to Specific Innovation

Pre—exposure —.234 .05*

Exposure to SRA Texts —.l32 .26

Exposure to AW Texts —.l6l .18
Self-Image Variables

Role Satisfaction -.229 .05*

Self Rating as a Teacher .017 .89
Self—Principal Relationships

Principal Rating as a Teacher .157 .19

Performance Feedback from Principal —.097 .41

Participation in Decision Making .325 .01**

Legitimacy of Such Participation —.O24 .77

Principal's General Change Orientation .181 .13

Principal Support for Specific Innovation —.202 .09
Self—Peer Relationships

Group Cohesiveness -l77 -l3

—.058 .63

Opinion Leadership by Teacher

 

l. Supportive data for Table 55, Hld.

Percentage of variance in

General Change Orientation explained by General Continuing Professional

Education

corr=correlation coefficient: sig=level of significance
**significant at .01 level or higher

0.00 percent.

*significant at .05 level

 

 

 

 

283

 

Table 74. Partial correlations between General Change Orientation

and Specific Continuing Professional Education with 22

situational variables.

 

 

 

corr sig

Specific Continuing Professional Education' .174 .14
Denographic

Age —.145 .22

Marital Status .030 .80

Working Spouse —.003 .98

Dependents .033 .78

Attained Educational Level —.113 .34
Experience

Years in Teaching —.043 .72

Years in System .091 .44

Years in Assignment -.065 .58

Grade Assignment .092 .44
Exposure to Specific Innovation

Pre—exposure -.247 .O4*

Exposure to SRA Texts —.152 .20

Exposure to AW Texts .167 .16
Self~Image Variables

Role Satisfaction —.235 .05*

Self Rating as a Teacher .027 .82
Self—Principal Relationships

Principal Rating as a Teacher .141 .23

Performance Feedback from Principal —.O93 .43

Participation in Decision Making 1.328 .01**

Legitimacy of Such Participation —.022 .85

Principal's General Change Orientation .195 .10

Principal Support for Specific Innovation —.191 .10
Self—Peer Relationships

Group Cohesiveness ~189 -12

—.059 .62

Opinion Leadership by Teacher

 

l. Supportive data for Table 55, Hle. Percentage of variance
in General Change Orientation explained by Specific Continuing

Professional Education = 2.58%.

corr=correlation coefficient; sigtlevel of significance

**significant at .01 level or higher
*significant at .05 level

 

 

 

 

 

284

Table 75. Partial correlations between General Change Orientation and
Specific Continuing Professional Education and 22 situational
variables after stepwise regression analysis.

 

 

corr sig

Specific Continuing Professional Education .078
Demographic
Age . .28
Marital Status .72
Working Spouse . .76
Dependents .6l
Attained Educational Level .38
Experience
Years in Teaching .69
Years in System .83
Years in Assignment .68
Grade Assignment .74
Exposure to Specific Innovation
Pre—exposure —.219 .O4*
Exposure to SRA Texts -.251 .O2*
Exposure to AW Texts .22
Self—Image Variables
Role Satisfaction —.369 .01**
Self—Rating as a Teacher .85
Self—Principal Relationships
Principal Rating as a Teacher .54
Performance Feedback from Principal .62
Participation in Decision Making .362 .01**
Legitimacy of Such Participation .71
Principal's General Change Orientation .244 .02*
Principal Support for Specific Innovation .11
Self-Peer Relationships
Group Cohesiveness .221 .04
Opinion Leadership by Teacher .33

 

 

1. Supportive data for Table 56, Hle. Percentage of variance
explained by Specific Continuing Professional Education = 0.00%
Significances without listed correlations are for variables deleted
in regression. The significances are listed for these as if they
had been retained in the equation.
corr=correlation coefficient; sigzlevel of significance
**significant at .01 level or higher

*significant at .05 level

 

 

 

285

Table 76. Partial correlations between General Innovation Use and
Non—Vocational Continuing Education with 22 situational
variables.

 

 

 

corr sig

Non—Vocational Continuing Education . —.079 .50
Demographic
Age —.034 .65
Marital Status —.053 .66
Working Spouse .158 .18
Dependents —.093 .43
Attained Educational Level —.O46 .70
Experience
Years in Teaching —.113 .34
Years in System .124 .30
Years in Assignment —.061 .61
Grade Assignment .211 .07
Exposure to Specific Innovation
Pre—exposure .051 .70
Exposure to SRA Texts —.240 .O4*
Exposure to AW Texts —.055 .64
Self—Image Variables
Role Satisfaction .134 .26
Self Rating as a Teacher .146 .22
Self-Principal Relationships
Principal Rating as a Teacher .005 .97
Performance Feedback from Principal .429 .01**
Participation in Decision Making .106 .37
Legitimacy of Such Participation —.039 .75
Principal's General Change Orientation —.235 .05*
Principal Support of Specific Innovation —.139 .24
Self—Peer Relationships
Group Cohesiveness --020 .87
Opinion Leadership by Teacher .082 .49

 

 

l. Supportive data for Table 55, Hlf. Percentage of variance
of General Innovation Use explained by Non—Vocational CE = 1.85%
corr=correlation coefficient; sig=1evel of significance
**significant at .01 level or higher
*significant at .05 level

 

 

 

Table 77.

286

Partial correlations between General Innovation Use and
Specific Continuing Professional Education with.22
situational variables.l

 

 

corr sig

Specific Continuing Professional Education —.093 .43
Demographic
Age —.052 .66
Marital Status . —.051 .69
Working Spouse .161 .17
Dependents —.108 .36
Attained Educational Level —.040 .74
Experience
Years in Teaching —.094 .43
Years in System .107 .37
Years in Assignment —.047 .70
Grade Assignment .208 .08
Exposure to Specific Innovation
Pre—exposure .058 .62
Exposure to SRA Texts —.235 .05*
Exposure to AW Texts —.046 .70
Self—Image Variables
Role Satisfaction .119 .32
Self Rating as a Teacher .174 .14
Self-Principal Relationships
Principal Rating as a Teacher .005 .97
Performance Feedback from Principal .429 .Ol**
Participation in Decision Making .113 .34
Legitimacy of Such Participation —.038 .75
Principal's General Change Orientation —.228 .05*
Principal Support for Specific Innovation —.l29 .28

 

l. Supportive data for Table 55, ng. Percentage of variance
in General Innovation Use explained by Specific Continuing
Professional Education = 0.30%.
corr=correlation coefficient; sig=level of significance
**significant at .01 level or higher .

*significant at .05 level

 

 

 

 

 

 

287

Table 78. Partial correlations between Innovation Internalization and
Non—Vocational Continuing Education with 22 situational

 

 

 

 

 

 

variables.
corr Sig

Non—Vocational Continuing Education —.103 .38
Demographic

Age —.o27 .82

Marital Status —.039 .74

Working Spouse .052 .67

Dependents —.123 .30

Attained Educational Level .045 .71
Experience

Years in Teaching .222 .06

Years in System —.223 .06

Years in Assignment .058 .63

Grade Assignment .251 .03*
Exposure to Specific Innovation

Pre—exposure —.206 .08

Exposure to SRA Texts .070 .56

Exposure to AW Texts .095 .43
Self—Image Variables

Role Satisfaction , .225 .06

Self Rating as a Teacher .162 .17
Self—Principal Relationships

Principal Rating as a Teacher —.127 .28

Performance Feedback from Principal —.029 .81

Participation in Decision Making .138 .24

Legitimacy of Such Participation .155 .19

Principal's General Change Orientation —.112 .35

Principal Support for Specific Innovation —.143 .23
Self—Peer Relationships

Group Cohesiveness -087 -47

Opinion Leadership by Teacher —.048 .69

 

l. Supportive data for Table 55, th. Percentage of variance in
Innovation Internalization explained by Non—Vocational CE = 0.73%.
corr=correlation coefficient; sig=level of significance.
**significant at .01 level or higher

*significant at .05 level

 

 

 

 

 

288

Table 79. Partial correlations between Innovation Internalization and
General Continuing Professional Education with 22 situational

 

 

 

variables.
corr sig

General Continuing Professional Education .109 .36
Demographic

Age .001 .99

Marital Status —.040 .73

Working Spouse ‘ .037 .75

Dependents —.l2l .31

Attained Educational Level —.051 .67
Experience

Years in Teaching .249 .03*

Years in System —.250 .03*

Years in Assignment .075 .53

Grade Assignment .219 .06
Exposure to Specific Innovation

Pre-exposure —.178 .13

Exposure to SRA Texts .069 .56

Exposure to AW Texts .105 .38
Self-Image Variables

Role Satisfaction .211 .07

Self—Rating as a Teacher .149 .21
Self~Principal Relationships

Principal Rating as a Teacher —.150 .20

Performance Feedback from Principal —.011 .93

Participation in Decision Making .112 .35

Legitimacy of Such Participation —.166 .16

Principal's General Change Orientation —.O66 .57

Principal Support for Specific Innovation -.l20 .3l
Self-Peer Relationships

Group Cohesiveness -091 -44

Opinion Leadership by Teacher .040 .73

 

 

1. Supportive data for Table 55, Hlj. Percentage of variance
in Innovation Internalization explained by General Continuing
Professional Education = 0.80%.
corr=correlation coefficient; sig=level of significance
**significant at .01 level or higher

*significant at .05 level

 

 

 

289

Table 80. Partial correlations between Non—Vocational Continuing
Education and Professional Reference Group Activity
Factor Score with 22 situational variables.

 

 

corr sig

 

 

Professional Reference Group Activity Factor Score -.191 .ll
Demographic
Age —.269 .02*
Marital Status , .034 .77
Working Spouse .032 .79
Dependents .069 .56
Attained Educational Level —.O47 .69
Experience
Years in Teaching —.143 .23 ,,
Years in System .115 .33 1
Years in Assignment —.117 .32
Grade Assignment .043 .72
Exposure to Specific Innovation .
Pre-exposure —.090 .45 ;
Exposure to SRA Texts .080 .50
Exposure to AW Texts —.068 .57
Self—Image Variables
Role Satisfaction .252 .03*
Self Rating as a Teacher —.O60 .6l
Self-Principal Relationships
Principal Rating as a Teacher .153 .20
Performance Feedback from Principal —.042 .73
Participation in Decision Making —.028 ..81
Legitimacy of Such Participation —.109 .36
Principal's General Change Orientation —.187 .11
Principal Support for Specific Innovation —.286 .02*
Self—Peer Relationships
Group Cohesiveness -038 -83
Opinion Leadership by Teacher —.037 .75

 

1. Supportive data for Table 58, H2a.
corr=correlation coefficient; sig=level of significance
**significant at .01 level or higher

*significant at .05 level

 

 

 

 

290

Table 81. Partial correlations between General Continuing Professional
Education and Professional Reference Group Activity Factor
Score with 22 situational variables.

 

 

corr sig

Professional Reference Group Activity Factor Score .011 .97
Demographic
Age —.025 .83
Marital Status —.O22 .85
Working Spouse .103 .39
Dependents —.047 .69
Attained Educational Level .095 .43
Experience '
Years in Teaching —.134 .26
Years in System .142 .23
Years in Assignment .003 .98
Grade Assignment .232 .05
Exposure to Specific Innovation
Pre—exposure ~.188 .ll
Exposure to SRA Texts —.062 .60
Exposure to AW Texts —.002 .99
Self—Image Variables
Role Satisfaction —.046 .70
Self Rating as a Teacher .207 .08
Self—Principal Relationships
Principal Rating as a Teacher .097 .42
Performance Feedback from Principal —.l34 .26
Participation in Decision Making .235 .05*
Legitimacy of Such Participation .235 .05*
Principal's General Change Orientation —.185 .12
Principal Support of Specific Innovation .005 .67
Self—Peer Relationships
Group Cohesiveness --058 -63
Opinion Leadership by Teacher -.051 .67

 

l. Supportive data for Table 58, H2b.
corr=correlation coefficient; sig=level of significance
**significant at .01 level or higher \
*significant at .05 level

 

 

 

 

291

Table 82. Partial correlations between Specific Continuing Professional

Education and Professional Reference Group Activity Factor

Score with 22 situational variables.

 

 

 

corr sig

Professional Reference Group Activity Factor Score — 175 .14
Demographic

Age —.201 .09

Marital Status .049 .68

Working Spouse .060 .62

Dependents —.113 .34

Attained Educational Level .028 .81
Experience

Years in Teaching .097 .42

Years in System —.102 .39

Years in Assignment .066 .58

Grade Assignment .003 .98
Exposure to Specific Innovation

Pre-exposure —.003 .98

Exposure to SRA Texts .123 .30

Exposure to AW Texts .047 .69
Self—Image Variables

Role Satisfaction -.001 .99

Self Rating as a Teacher .281 .O2*
Self-Principal Relationships

Principal Rating as a Teacher .131 .27

Performance Feedback from Principal —.046 .70

Participation in Decision Making .052 .66

Legitimacy of Such Participation —.087 .46

Principal's General Change Orientation .004 .97

Principal Support for Specific Innovation .061 .61
Self—Peer Relationships

Group Cohesiveness --023 -85

—.018 .88

Opinion Leadership by Teacher

 

l. Supportive data for Table 58. H2c.
corr=correlation coefficient; sig=level of significance
*significant at .05 level

 

 

 

 

292

Table 83. Partial correlations between Non—Vocational Continuing

 

Education and Professional Orientation Factor Score with

22 situational variables.

 

 

 

 

 

corr sig

Professional Orientation Factor Score —.073 .54
Demographic

Age —.243 .04*

Marital Status .011 .93

Working Spouse .036 .76

Dependents .027 .82

Attained Educational Level —.039 .74
Experience

Years in Teaching —.129 .28

Years in System .113 .34

Years in Assignment — 163 .17

Grade Assignment .037 .75
Exposure to Specific Innovation

Pre—exposure —.050 .67

Exposure to SRA Texts .070 .56

Exposure to AW Texts —.084 .48
Self—Image Variables

Role Satisfaction .213 .02*

Self Rating as a Teacher —.097 .42
Self—Principal Relationships

Principal Rating as a Teacher .114 .34

Performance Feedback from Principal —.022 .85

Participation in Decision Making -.019 .87

Legitimacy of Such Participation —.O95 .43

Principal's General Change Orientation —.203 .05*

Principal Support for Specific Innovation —.280 .01**
Self-Peer Relationships

Group Cohesiveness -013 ~91

—.008 .95

Opinion Leadership by Teacher

 

l. Supportive data for Table 58, H2d.
corr=correlation coefficient; sig=level of significance
**significant at .01 level or higher

*significant at .05 level

 

 

 

 

293

Table 84. Partial correlations between General Continuing Professional
Education and Professional Orientation Factor Score with
22 situational variables.

 

 

corr sig

 

Professional Orientation Factor Score .009 .94
Demographic
Age —.025 .83
Marital Status -.018 .88
Working Spouse .101 .40
Dependents —.045 .70
Attained Educational Level .094 .43
Experience
Years in Teaching —.l34 .26
Years in System .139 .24
Years in Assignment .006 .96
Grade Assignment .223 .06
Exposure to Specific Innovation
Pre—exposure —.l94 .10
Exposure to SRA Texts —.061 .61
Exposure to AW Texts —.001 .99
Self—Image Variables
Role Satisfaction —.O48 .69
Self Rating as a Teacher .206 .08
Self—Principal Relationships
Principal Rating as a Teacher .100 .40
Performance Feedback from Principal —.l36 .25
Participation in Decision Making .234 .05*
Legitimacy of Such Participation .231 .05*
Principal's General Change Orientation —.l88 .11
Principal Support of Specific Innovation .005 .96
Self—Peer Relationships
Group Cohesiveness ~057 -63
Opinion Leadership by Teacher -053 -55

 

l. Supportive data for Table 58, H2e.
corr=correlation coefficient; sig=level of significance,
*=significant at the .05 level.

 

 

 

 

Table 85. Partial correlations between Specific Continuing Professional
Education and Professional Orientation Factor Score with
22 situational variables.

 

 

 

corr sig

 

Professional Orientation Factor Score —.080 .50
Demographic
Age —.181 .13
Marital Status .023 .85
Working Spouse ' .065 .59
Dependents —.151 .20
Attained Educational Level .035 .77
Experience
Years in Teaching .107 .37
Years in System .099 .40
Years in Assignment .025 .83
Grade Assignment .004 .97
Exposure to Specific Innovation
Pre—exposure .032 .79
Exposure to SRA Texts .113 .34
Exposure to AW Texts .033 .78
Self—Image Variables
Role Satisfaction .026 .83
Self Rating as a Teacher .249 .03*
Self-Principal Relationships
Principal Rating as a Teacher .095 .43
Performance Feedback from Principal —.028 .81
Participation in Decision Making .059 .62
Legitimacy of Such Participation —.073 .54
Principal's General Change Orientation —.038 .75
Principal Support of Specific Innovation —.075 .53
Self—Peer Relationships
Group Cohesiveness -033 -79
Opinion Leadership of Teacher ~010 -93

 

l. Supportive data for Table 58, H2f.
corr=correlation coefficient; sig=level of significance
*significant at the .05 level

 

 

 

295

Table 86. Partial correlations between Non—Vocational Continuing
Education and Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity Factor
Score with 22 situational variables.

 

 

corr sig

Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity Factor Score .114 .34
Demographic
Age -.249 .03*
Marital Status ._ .033 .78
Working Spouse .009 .98
Dependents .028 .82
Attained Educational Level —.038 .75
Experience
Years in Teaching -.l45 .22
Years in System .139 .24 3
Years in Assignment —.157 .18 “
Grade Assignment .003 .97
Exposure to Specific Innovation
Pre—exposure —.043 .72
Exposure to SRA Texts .086 .47
Exposure to AW Texts —.101 .39
Self—Image Variables
Role Satisfaction .262 .03*
Self Rating as a Teacher —.152 .20
Self—Principal Relationships
Principal Rating as a Teacher .138 .24
Performance Feedback from Principal —.O74 .54
Participation in Decision Making —.027 .82
Legitimacy of Such Participation —.118 .32
Principal's General Change Orientation —.232 .05*
Principal Support for Specific Innovation —.281 .02*
Self—Peer Relationships
Group Cohesiveness -013 -91
Opinion Leadership by Teacher .037 .76

 

 

 

1. Supportive data for Table 58, H2g.
corr=correlation coefficient; sig=level of significance
*significant at the .05 level

 

 

296

Table 87. Partial correlations between General Continuing Professional
Education and Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity Factor
Score with 22 situational variables.

 

 

 

 

corr sig

 

Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity Factor Score —.081 .50
Demographic
Age —.013 .91
Marital Status . —.021 .86
Working Spouse .114 .34
Dependents —.O43 .72
Attained Educational Level .096 .42
Experience
Years in Teaching —.l30 .27
Years in System .138 .24
Years in Assignment .001 .99
Grade Assignment .242 .04*
Exposure to Specific Innovation
Pre—exposure —.l97 .10
Exposure to SRA Texts —.071 .55
Exposure to AW Texts .006 .96
Self—Image Variables
Role Satisfaction —.042 .73
Self Rating as a Teacher .235 .05*
Self—Principal Relationships
Principal Rating as a Teacher .085 .48
Performance Feedback from Principal —.086 .47
Participation in Decision Making .238 .04*
Legitimacy of Such Participation .242 .O4*
Principal's General Change Orientation —.192 .10
Principal Support for Specific Innovation .004 .97
Self—Peer Relationships
Group Cohesiveness "-057 ~63
Opinion Leadership by Teacher --037 -76

 

 

l. Supportive data for Table 58, H2b.
corr=correlation coefficient; sig=level of significance
*significant at the .05 level

 

 

 

 

297

Table 88. Partial correlations between Specific Continuing Professional
Education and Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity Factor
Score with 22 situational variables.

 

 

corr sig

 

 

Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity Factor Score .063 .60
Demographic
Age —.l73 .14
Marital Status ' ,ou7 .59
Working Spouse .044 .71
Dependents —.l49 .21
Attained Educational Level .037 .76
Experience
Years in Teaching .093 .43
Years in System —.080 .50
Years in Assignment .027 .82
Grade Assignment —.O27 .82
Exposure to Specific Innovation
Pre—exposure .041 .73
Exposure to SRA Texts .122 .30
Exposure to AW Texts .019 .87
Self—Image Variables
Role Satisfaction .013 .91
Self Rating as a Teacher .220 .06
Self—Principal Relationships
Principal Rating as a Teacher .111 .35
Performance Feedback from Principal —.065 .64
Participation in Decision Making .053 .66
Legitimacy of Such Participation —.O91 .44
Principal's General Change Orientation —.038 .75
Principal Support of Specific Innovation —.077 .52
Self-Peer Relationships
Group Cohesiveness ’-032 -79
Opinion Leadership by Teacher —.009 .93

 

1. Supportive data for Table 58, H2i.
corr=correlation coefficient; sig=level of significance
*significant at the .05 level

 

 

 

298

Table 89. Partial correlations between Extra—System General Continuing

Professional Education and Professional Reference Gr up
Activity Factor Score with 22 situational variables.

 

 

 

corr sig

Extra—System General Continuing Professional Education .142 .23
Demographic

Age —.020 .87

Marital Status —.004 .98

Working Spouse .002 .99

Dependents .100 .40

Attained Educational Level —.101 .94
Experience

Years in Teaching —.154 .19

Years in System —.O30 .80

Years in Assignment —.019 .87

Grade Assignment —.173 .14
Exposure to Specific Innovation

Pre—exposure .002 .99

Exposure to SRA Texts .127 .28

Exposure to AW Texts .060 .62
Self—Image Variables

Role Satisfaction —.O44 .71

Self Rating as a Teacher —.005 97
Self—Principal Relationships

Principal Rating as a Teacher —.027 .82

Performance Feedback from Principal .136 .25

Participation in Decision Making .162 .17

Legitimacy of Such Participation —.O83 .49

Principal's General Change Orientation —.060 .62

Principal Support for Specific Innovation —.074 .54
Self—Peer Relationships

Group Cohesiveness '-O57 -63

—.060 .62

Opinion Leadership by Teacher

 

l. Supportive data for Table 60, H3a.
corr=correlation coefficient; sig=1evel of significance

 

 

 

 

 

299

Table 90. Partial correlations between Extra—System General Continuing

Professional Education and Bureaucratic Reference Group
Activity Factor Score with 22 situational variables.

 

 

 

 

corr sig
Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity Factor Score .047 .70
Demographic
Age —.058 .63
Marital Status —.004 .98
Working Spouse .001 .99
Dependents .126 _29
Attained Educational Level —.019 .87
Experience
Years in Teaching —.156 .19
Years in System - 043 .72
Years in Assignment .021 .86
Grade Assignment -.159 .18
Exposure to Specific Innovation
Pre—exposure —.034 .78
Exposure to SRA Texts .136 .25
Exposure to AW Texts .075 .53
Self—Image Variables
Role Satisfaction —.061 .61
Self Rating as a Teacher .034 .77
Self-Principal Relationships
Principal Rating as a Teacher .005 .96
Performance Feedback from Principal .089 .46
Participation in Decision Making .156 .19
Legitimacy of Such Participation —.O87 .46
Principal's General Change Orientation —.023 .85
Principal Support for Specific Innovation —.058 .63
Self—Peer Relationships
Group Cohesiveness ‘-050 '67
-.083 .49

Opinion Leadership by Teacher

 

 

 

 

l. Supportive data for Table 60, H3b. . . '
corr=correlation coefficient; sig=level of Significance

 

 

 

 

 

 

300

Table 91. Partial correlations between Intra—System General Continuing
Professional Education and Professional Reference Group
Activity Factor Score with 22 situational variables.

 

 

corr sig

Professional Reference Group Activity Factor Score -.028 .82
Demographic
Age —.150 .21
Marital Status - -.230 .05*
Working Spouse .096 .42
Dependents —.015 .90
Attained Educational Level —.189 .11
Experience
Years in Teaching .213 .07
Years in System —.107 .37
Years in Assignment .002 .99
Grade Assignment .078 .51

Exposure to Specific Innovation
Pre—exposure .134 .2
Exposure to SRA Texts .022 .85
Exposure to AW Texts 027 82
Self-Image Variables

 

Role Satisfaction —.025 .83
Self Rating as a Teacher —.036 .77
Self—Principal Relationships
Principal Rating as a Teacher .297 .01**
Performance Feedback from Principal —.095 .43
Participation in Decision Making —.211 .07
Legitimacy of Such Participation .281 .02*
Principal's General Change Orientation —.100 .40
Principal Support for Specific Innovation .241 .04*
Self—Peer Relationships
Group Cohesiveness -.087 .46
Opinion Leadership by Teacher .149 .21

 

l. Supportive data for Table 60, H3c.
corr=correlation coefficient; sig=level of significance
**significant at .01 level or higher

*significant at .05 level

 

 

301

Table 92. Partial correlations between Intra-System General Continuing

 

Professional Education and Bureaucratic Reference Group
Activity Factor Score with 22 situational variables}

 

 

 

corr sig
Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity Factor Score —.O8O 50
Demographic
Age -.132 .26
Marital Status —.230 .05*
Working Spouse .105 .38
Dependents —.l07 .86
Attained Educational Level —.l86 .ll
Experience
Years in Teaching .217 .07
Years in System —.108 .36
Years in Assignment —.OlQ .92
Grade Assignment .084 .48
Exposure to Specific Innovation
Pre—exposure .lub .22
Exposure to SRA Texts .Oll .93
Exposure to AW Texts .029 .81
Self—Image Variables
Role Satisfaction —.0l7 .88
Self Rating as a Teacher —.029 .80
Self-Principal Relationships
Principal Rating as a Teacher .281 .02“
Performance Feedback from Principal —.Ou6 .70
Participation in Decision Making - 209 .08
Legitimacy of Such Participation .288 .Ol**
Principal's General Change Orientation -.llH .3”
Principal Support for Specific Innovation .238 .04*
Self—Peer Relationships
Group Cohesiveness —-089 -45
.165 .66

Opinion Leadership of Teacher

 

l. Supportive data for Table 60, H3d.
corr=correlation coefficient; sig=level of significance
**significant at .01 or higher

*significant at .05 level

 

 

 

 

 

302

Table 93. Partial correlations between Extra—System Specific Continuing
Professional Education and Professional Reference Group
Activity Factor Score with 22 situational variables.

 

 

 

corr Sig
Professional Reference Group Activity Factor Score —.003 .98
Demographics
Age .007 .95
Marital Status ' —.197 .10
Working Spouse .056 .64
Dependents .205 .08
Attained Educational Level .005 .97
Experience
Years in Teaching —.059 .62
Years in System —.116 :33
Years in Assignment —.OlS .92
Grade Assignment .021 .86
Exposure to Specific Innovation
Pre—exposure .115 .33
Exposure to SRA Texts —.OH9 .68
Exposure to AW Texts .068 .57
Self—Image Variables
Role Satisfaction —.2ll .07
Self Rating as a Teacher .07” .53
Self—Principal Relationships
Principal Rating as a Teacher .037 .76
Performance Feedback from Principal .103 .39
Participation in Decision Making .004 .98
Legitimacy of Such Participation -.056 .BH
Principal's General Change Orientation .137 .25
Principal Support for Specific Innovation .lll .35
Self—Peer Relationships
Group Cohesiveness -035 -77
Opinion Leadership by Teacher .131 .27

 

 

l. Supportive data for Table 60, H3e.
corr=correlation coefficient; sig=level of significance

 

i

 

 

303

Table 94. Partial correlations between Extra—System Specific Continuing
Professional Education and Bureaucratic Reference Group
Activity Factor Score.

 

 

corr sig

Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity Factor Score .09” .43
Demographic
Age —.009 .gu
Marital Status -.198 .09
Working Spouse .043 .72
Dependents .205 .78
Attained Educational Level .003 .98
Experience
Years in Teaching -.06u .59
Years in System —.ll3 .34
Years in Assignment —.006 .96
Grade Assignment .009 .95
Exposure to Specific Innovation
Pre—exposure .120 .31
Exposure to SRA Texts —.038 .75
Exposure to AW Tests .062 .60
Self—Image Variables
Role Satisfaction —.218 .06
Self Rating as a Teacher .056 .64
Self—Principal Relationships
Principal Rating as a Teacher .052 .66
Performance Feedback from Principal .050 .67
Participation in Decision Making .001 .99
Legitimacy of Such Participation -.065 .58
Principal's General Change Orientation .l45 .22
Principal Support for Specific Innovation .llS .2H
Self—Peer Relationships
Group Cohesiveness -034 ~78
Opinion Leadership by Teacher -ll3 -3”

 

 

l. Supportive data for Table 60, H3f.
corr=correlation coefficient; sig=level of significance

 

 

xiii II

 

 

304

Table 95. Partial correlations between Intra—System Specific Continuing
Professional Education and Professional Reference Group
Activity Factor Score with 22 situational variables.l

 

 

corr sig

 

 

Professional Reference Group Activity Factor Score —.098 .41
Demographic
Age —.142 .23
Marital Status .023 .85
Working Spouse .070 .56
Dependents -.113 .3”
Attained Educational Level .508 .Ol**
Experience
Years in Teaching —.231 .05*
Years in System .056 .eu
Years in Assignment -.026 .83
Grade Assignment .173 .lu
Exposure to Specific Innovation
Pre—exposure —.189 .ll
Exposure to SRA Texts —.Ob6 .58
Exposure to AW Texts .07” .54
Self—Image Variables
Role Satisfaction .008 .95
Self-Rating as a Teacher .120 .31
Self-Principal Relationships
Principal Rating as a Teacher .OHl -73
Performance Feedback from Principal —.145 .22
Participation in Decision Making .317 .Ol**
Legitimacy of Such Participation .087 .u7
Principal's General Change Orientation —.127 .29
Principal Support for Specific Innovation —.196 .lO
Self—Peer Relationships
Group Cohesiveness -l5$ ~18.
Opinion Leadership by Teacher —.249 .03"

 

l. Supportive Data for Table 60, H3g.
corr=correlation coefficient: sig=level of significance
**significant at .01 level or higher

*significant at .05 level

305

Table 96. Partial correlations between

Intra—System Specific Continuing

Professional Education and Bureaucratic Reference Gr
Activity Factor Score with 22 situational variables.

 

 

 

 

 

rip

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

corr sig

Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity Factor Score —.028 .81
Demographic

Age —.ll7 .33

Marital Status .023 .85

Working Spouse .069 .56

Dependents —.132 .27

Attained Educational Level .510 .01**
Experience

Years in Teaching —.228 .05*

Years in System .065 .59

Years in Assignment —.05H .65

Grade Assignment .164 .1?
Exposure to Specific Innovation

Pre—exposure —.170 .15

Exposure to SRA Texts —.072 .55

Exposure to AW Texts .063 .60
Self-Image Variables

Role Satisfaction .020 .87

Self Rating as a Teacher .096 .u2
Self-Principal Relationships

Principal Rating as a Teacher .019 .87

Performance Feedback from Principal —.110 .36

Participation in Decision Making .318 .Ol**

Legitimacy of Such Participation .089 .45

Principal's General Change Orientation -.156 .19

Principal Support of Specific Innovation —.206 .08
Self—Peer Relationships

Group Cohesiveness '153 -20'

—.231 .05"

Opinion Leadership by Teacher

 

l. Supportive data for Table 60, H3h.
corr=correlation coefficient; sig=level of significance
**significant at .01 level or higher

*significant at .05 level

. iii? \I A

 

 

 

 

306

Table 97. Partial correlations between General Change Orientation and
Professional Reference Group Activity Factor Score
with 22 situational variables.

 

 

 

 

 

 

corr sig

Professional Reference Group Activity Factor Score —.057 .63
Demographic

Age —.l81 .13

Marital Status .038 .75

Working Spouse .009 .9”

Dependents .018 .88

Attained Educational Level —.109 .36
Experience

Years in Teaching —.027 .82

Years in System .070 .56

Years in Assignment -.0”” .71

Grade Assignment .09” .”3
Exposure to Specific Innovation

Pre—exposure —.2”2 .0”*

Exposure to SRA Texts —.130 .27

Exposure to AW Texts —.152 .20
Self—Image Variables

Role Satisfaction —.233 .O5='=

Self Rating as a Teacher .08” .78
Self—Principal Relationships

Principal Rating as a Teacher .16” .16

Performance Feedback from Principal -.lO2 .39

Participation in Decision Making .331 .01**

Legitimacy of Such Participation —.037 .75

Principal's General Change Orientation .19” .10

Principal Support for Specific Innovation —.196 .10
Self-Peer Relationships

Group Cohesiveness -181 -13

Opinion Leadership by Teacher -.063 ~59

 

 

l. Supportive data for Table 62, H”a.
corr=correlation coefficient; sig=level of significance
**significant at .01 level or higher

*significant at .05 level

 

 

 

307

Table 98.

 

Partial correlations between General Change Orientation and

Bureaucratic Reference Grpup Activity Factor Score with

22 situational variables.

 

 

corr sig

Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity Factor Score —.O2O .87
Demographic

Age -.167 .16

Marital Status .038 .75

Working Spouse .009 .9”

Dependents .008 .95

Attained Educational Level —.105 .38
Experience

Years in Teaching —.O25 .83

Years in System —.062 .60

Years in Assignment .089 .”5

Grade Assignment .075 .53
Exposure to Specific Innovation

Pre-exposure —.237 .0”*

Exposure to SRA Texts -.133 .26

Exposure to AW Texts —.159 .18
Self—Image Variables

Role Satisfaction -.227 .05*

Self Rating as a Teacher .019 .87
Self—Principal Relationships

Principal Rating as a Teacher .151 .20

Performance Feedback from Principal .078 .51

Participation in Decision Making .33? -Ol**

Legitimacy of Such Participation -~035 ~77

Principal's General Change Orientation .185 .l2

Principal Support of Specific Innovation —.203 .09
Self—Peer Relationships

Group Cohesiveness -l78 -13

~.053 .66

Opinion Leadership

 

l. Supportive data for Table 62, H”b.
corr=correlation coefficient; sig=level of significance
**significant at .01 level or higher

*significant at .05 level

 

 

 

 

308

Table 99. Partial correlations between General Change Orientation

 

 

 

 

and Professional Orientation Factor Score with 22 situational
variables.
corr sig

Professional Orientation Factor Score —.115 .3”
Demographic

Age —.195 .10

Marital Status .063 .98

Working Spouse .025 .8”

Dependents -.001 .99

Attained Educational Level —.111 .35
Experience

Years in Teaching —.009 .9”

Years in System .O”7 .69

Years in Assignment —.056 .6”

Grade Assignment .117 .36
Exposure to Specific Innovation

Pre—exposure - —.2”8 .03*

Exposure to SRA Texts -.136 .25

Exposure to AW Texts -.l”7 .21
Self-Image Variables

Role Satisfaction --218 -06

Self Rating as a Teacher .056 .6”
Self—Principal Relationships

Principal Rating as a Teacher -148 -21

Performance Feedback from Principal —.09” .”3 .

Participation in Decision Making .339 -Ol*“

Legitimacy of such Participation --020 -87

Principal's General Change Orientation .191 .11

Principal Support for Specific Innovation —.199 .10

Self—Peer Relationships
Group Cohesiveness .177 .13
Opinion Leadership by Teacher —.O”6 .70

 

 

l. Supportive data for Table 62, H”c.
corr=correlation coefficient; sig=level of significance
**significant at .01 level or higher

*significant at .05 level

 

 

 

 

309

Table 100. Partial correlations between General Innovation Use and
Professional Reference Group Activity Factor Score
with 22 situational variables.

 

 

corr sig

 

 

 

Professional Reference Group Activity Factor Score —.030 .80
Demographic
Age —.O”2 .72
Marital Status -.055 .6”
Working Spouse .157 .19.
Dependents -.O88 .”6
Attained Educational Level -.0”” .71
Experience
Years in Teaching —.103 .39
Years in System .118 .35
Years in Assignment —.O”0 .7”
Grade Assignment .211 .07
Exposure to Specific Innovation
Pre—exposure .O”5 .70
Exposure to SRA Texts —.22” .0”*
Exposure to AW Texts —.O”3 .72
Self—Image Variables
Role Satisfaction .113 .3”
Self—Rating as a Teacher .157 ‘.18
Self—Principal Relationships
Principal Rating as a Teacher .009 .9”
Performance Feedback from Principal .427 -Ol**
Participation in Decision Making .107 .37
Legitimacy of Such Participation —.030 .80 .
Principal's General Change Orientation —.210 .08 i
Principal Support for Specific Innovation ~.118 .32
Self—Peer Relationships
Group Cohesiveness —.019 .87 1
Opinion Leadership by Teacher .080 .50 1

 

l. Supportive data for Table 62, H”d.
corr=correlation coefficient; sig=level of significance
**significant at .01 level or higher

*significant at .05 level

 

 

 

310

Table 101. Partial correlations between General Innovation Use and
Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity Factor Score
with 22 situational variables.l

 

 

corr sig

 

 

Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity Factor Score .321 .01**
Demographic
Age —.097 .”1
Marital Status . —.061 .61
Working Spouse .118 .32
Dependents —.ll” .3”
Attained Educational Level —.05” .65
Experience
Years in Teaching —.l25 .29
Years in System .135 .26
Years in Assignment —.O22 .85
Grade Assignment .181 .13
Exposure to Specific Innovation
Pre—exposure .057 .63
Exposure to SRA Texts —.219 .06
Exposure to AW Texts —.O7” .53
Self—Image Variables
Role SatiSfaction .101 .39
Self Rating as a Teacher .090 .”5
Self—Principal Relationships
Principal Rating as a Teacher .0”” .71
Performance Feedback from Principal .282 .02*
Participation in Decision Making .10” .38
Legitimacy of Such Participation —.067 .58
Principal's General Change Orientation —.221 .31
Principal Support for Specific Innovation —.l2l .30
Self—Peer Relationships
Group Cohesiveness t-OQH ~8”
Opinion Leadership by Teacher -0?4 -84

 

 

l. Supportive data for Table 62, H”e.
corr=correlation coefficient; sig=level of significance
**significant at .01 level or higher

*significant at .05 level

 

 

311

Table 102. Partial correlations between General Innovation Use with
Professional Orientation Factor Score with 22 situational
variables.l

 

 

corr sig

 

Professional Orientation Factor Score .15” .19
Demographic
Age .001 .99
Marital Status —.008 .9”
Working Spouse .132 .27
Dependents —.O87 .”7
Attained Educational Level —.036 .77
Experience
Years in Teaching —.l25 .29
Years in System .1”9 .21
Years in Assignment —.056 .6”
Grade Assignment .160 .18
Exposure to Specific Innovation
Pre—exposure .071 .55
Exposure to SRA Texts —.2”3 .0”*
Exposure to AW Texts —.O67 .58
Self—Image Variables
Role Satisfaction .102 .”0
Self Rating as a Teacher .095 .”3
Self—Principal Relationships
Principal Rating as a Teacher —.002 .99
Performance Feedback from Principal .”31 .01**
Participation in Decision Making .101 .”O
Legitimacy of Such Participation —.053 .66
Principal's General Change Orientation —.231 .05
Principal Support for Specific Innovation -.l29 .28
Self—Peer Relationships
Group Cohesiveness --018 -88
Opinion Leadership by Teacher -068 -57

 

l. Supportive data for Table 62, H”f.
corr=correlation coefficient; sig=level of significance
**significant at .01 level or higher

*significant at .05 level

 

 

 

312

Table 103. Partial correlations between Innovation Internalization
and Professional Reference Group Activity Factor Score
with 22 situational variables.

 

 

 

corr sig

 

Professional Reference Group Activity Factor Score .159 .18
Demographic
Age .031 .79
Marital Status -.043 _72
Working Spouse .043 _72
Dependents —.15” .19
Attained Educational Level —.O32 .79
Experience
Years in Teaching _239 ,ouk
Years in System -.223 .06
Years in Assignment .03” .78
Grade Assignment .229 .05*
Exposure to Specific Innovation
Pre—exposure -.l60 .18
Exposure to SRA Texts .057 .63
Exposure to AW Texts .083 .”8
Self—Image Variables
Role Satisfaction .222 .06
Self Rating as a Teacher .115 .3”
Self—Principal Relationships
Principal Rating as a Teacher —.166 .16
Performance Feedback from Principal —.012 .92
Participation in Decision Making .l”5 .22
Legitimacy of Such Participation —.l”6 .22
Principal's General Change Orientation —.l28 .28
Principal Support for Specific Innovation —.136 .25
Self—Peer Relationships
Group Cohesiveness .079 -51
Opinion Leadership by Teacher —.O28 .81

 

l. Supportive data for Table 62, H”g.
corr=correlation coefficient; sig=level of significance
**significant at .01 level or higher

*significant at .05 level

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

313

Table 10”. Partial correlations between Innovation Internalization and
Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity Factor Score with
22 situational variables.

 

corr sig

 

Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity Factor Score .087 .”6
Demographic
Age —.018 .88
Marital Status ' —.O”3 .72
Working Spouse .037 .76
Dependents —.l29 .28
Attained Educational Level —.O”” .72
Experience A
Years in Teaching .232 .05*
Years in System —.23” .05*
Years in Assignment .083 .”9
Grade Assignment .238 .0”*
Exposure to Specific Innovation
Pre—exposure —.202 .09
Exposure to SRA Texts .073 .5”
Exposure to AW Texts .098 .”1
Self-Image Variables
Role Satisfaction .200 .09
Self Rating as a Teacher .15” .19
Self—Principal Relationships
Principal Rating as a Teacher —.123 .30
Performance Feedback from Principal —.063 .60
Participation in Decision Making .138 .2”
Legitimacy of Such Participation —.153 .20
Principal's General Change Orientation —.O87 .”7
Principal Support for Specific Innovation —.178 .32
Self—Peer Relationships
Group Cohesiveness —-l53 -”8
Opinion Leadership by Teacher —.061 .61

 

l. Supportive data for Table 62, H”h.
corr=correlation coefficient; sig=level of significance
*significant at .05 level.

(I,

..r

k. _‘.‘

 

 

 

 

 

31”

Table 105. Partial correlations between Innovation Internalization
and Professional Orientation with 22 situational variables.l

 

 

corr sig

Professional Orientation Factor Score .179 .13
Demographic
Age .O”l .73
Marital Status .011 .93
Working Spouse .021 .86
Dependents —.116 .33
Attained Educational Level -.033 .78
Experience
Years in Teaching .213 .07
Years in System —.193 .10
Years in Assignment .069 .56
Grade Assignment .193 .10
Exposure to Specific Innovation
Pre-exposure —.185 .12
Exposure to SRA Texts .069 .56
Exposure to AW Texts .083 .”8
Self—Image Variables
Role Satisfaction .190 .11
Self Rating as a Teacher .103 .38
Self—Principal Relationships
Principal Rating as a Teacher -.l27 .29
Performance Feedback from Principal —.032 .79
Participation in Decision Making .132 .27
Legitimacy of Such Participation —.l7l .15
Principal's General Change Orientation -.098 .”1
Principal Support for Specific Innovation —.l28 .28
Self—Peer Relationships
Group Cohesiveness -089 -”5
Opinion Leadership by Teacher -~055 -59

 

 

 

 

l. Supportive data for Table 62, H”i. .
corr=coefficient of correlation; sig=level of Significance

 

 

 

315

Table 106. Partial correlations between General Innovation Use and the
vectors of Intra—System and Extra—System General COPE with
Professional Orientation with 22 situational variables
for test of H5a and H5b.

 

 

corr sig

 

Professional Orientation .228 .03*
Intra—System General COPE .”l
Extra—System General COPE .06
Vector of Intra—System General COPE and Professional 0. .71
Vector of Extra—System General COPE and Professional 0. .17
Demographic
Age .9”
Marital Status .82
Working Spouse .36
Dependents . .50
Attained Educational Level .28
Experience
Years in Teaching .2”
Years in System .23
Years in Assignment .86
Grade Assignment .17
Exposure to Specific Innovation g
Pre—exposure .08
Exposure to SRA Texts —.221 .O3*
Exposure to AW Texts .77
Self—Image Variables
Role Satisfaction .”O
Self-Rating as a Teacher .”3
Self—Principal Relationships
Principal Rating as a Teacher .87
Performance Feedback from Principal .”32 .01**
Participation in Decision Making .57
Legitimacy of Such Participation -49
Principal‘s General Change Orientation -.291 .Ol**
Principal Support for Specific Innovation .75

Self—Peer Relationships
Group Cohesiveness .70
Opinion Leadership by Teacher .87

 

 

l. Supportive data for Table 63. Significances without listed
correlations are for variables deleted in regression. The listed
Significances are for these as if they had been retained in the equation.
corr=correlation coefficient; sig=level of significance
**significant at .01 level or higher

*significant at .05 level

 

 

a. .-w—

”H

. -. an,

 

 

 
 
 

 

 

 

316

Table 107. Partial correlations between General Innovation Use and the
vectors of Intra—System and Extra—System General COPE with
Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity Factor Score and 22
situational variables for test of HSC and H5d.l

 

 

corr sig

 

 

Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity Factor Score .315 .01**
Intra—System General COPE .65
Extra—System General COPE .229 .02*
Vector of Intra—System General COPE and Bureaucratic RGA .53
Vector of Extra—System General COPE and Bureaucratic RGA .88
Demographic
Age .38
Marital Status .3”
Working Spouse .71
Dependents .20
Attained Educational Level .26
EXperience
Years in Teaching .1”
Years in System .31
Years in Assignment .99
Grade Assignment .08

Exposure to Specific Innovation
Pre—exposure .ll
Exposure to SRA Texts —.2l” .0”*

 

Exposure to AW Texts .71
Self‘Image Variables
Role Satisfaction .2”
Self Rating as a Teacher .52
Self—Principal Relationships
Principal Rating as a Teacher .65
Performance Feedback from Principal —.30” .01**
Participation in Decision Making .”1
Legitimacy of Such Participation .3”
Principal's General Change Orientation -.286 .01** i
Principal Support for Specific Innovation .50 ;
Self—Peer Relationships
Group Cohesiveness .3: .

Opinion Leadership by Teacher

 

 

l. Supportive data for Table 63. Significances without listed
correlations are for variables deleted in stepwise regression. The
listed Correlations are for these as if they had been retained in
the equation.
corr=correlation coefficient; sig=level of significance
**significant at .01 level or higher

*significant at .05 level

 

 

 

317

Table 108. Partial correlations between General Innovation Use and
the vectors of Intra-System and Extra-System General COPE
with Professional Reference Group Activity Factor Score and
22 situational variables for test of H5e and H5f.

 

 

corr sig

Professional Reference Group Activity Factor Score .35
Intra-System General COPE .28
Extra—System General COPE .233 .03*
Vector of Intra—System General COPE and Professional RGA .37
Vector of Extra—System General COPE and Professional RGA .”3
Demographic
Age .59
Marital Status .77
Working Spouse .29
Dependents .5”
Attained Educational Level .”1
Experience
Years in Teaching .”9
Years in System .31
Years in Assignment .72
Grade Assignment .235 .03*
Exposure to Specific Innovation
Pre—exposure .09
Exposure to SRA Texts —.310 .01**
Exposure to AW Texts .67
Self—Image Variables
Role Satisfaction -33
Self Rating as a Teacher -21
Self—Principal Relationships
Principal Rating as a Teacher -8”
Performance Feedback from Principal .”28 .Ol**
Participation in Decision Making .66
Legitimacy of Such Participation '97..
Principal's General Change Orientation —.262 .013"
Principal Support for Specific Innovation .99

Self-Peer Relationships
Group Cohesiveness
‘Opinion Leadership by Teacher

.31
.4”

 

 

 

 

 

l. Supportive data for Table 63. Significances without listed
correlations are for variables deleted in stepwise regression. The
correlations are listed for these as if they had been retained in
the equation.
corr=correlation coefficient; sig=level of significance
**significant at .01 level or higher

*significant at .05 level

 

 

318

Table 109. Partial correlations between Innovation Internalization and
the vectors bf Intra—System and Extra-System Specific COPE
with Professional Orientation Factor Score and 22
situational variables for test of H5g and H5b.

 

 

corr sig

 

Professional Orientation Factor Score ' .271 .01
Intra—System Specific COPE .6”
Extra-System Specific COPE .88
Vector of Intra—System Specific COPE and Professional 0. .32
Vector of Extra-System Specific COPE and Professional 0. .52
Demographic
Age .99
Marital Status .36
Working Spouse .71
Dependents .5”
Attained Educational Level .”5
Experience
Years in Teaching .206 .05*
Years in System .08
Years in Assignment .98
Grade Assignment .26” .Ol**
Exposure to Specific Innovation
Pre—exposure .”6
Exposure to SRA Texts .73
Exposure to AW Texts .53
Self—Image Variables
Role Satisfaction .20
Self Rating as a Teacher -50
Self-Principal Relationships
Principal Rating as a Teacher -74
Performance Feedback from Principal .80
Participation in Decision Making .38
Legitimacy of Such Participation .07
Principal's General Change Orientation ‘ .79
Principal Support for Specific Innovation .6”
Self-Peer Relationships
Group Cohesiveness '3:

Opinion Leadership by Teacher

 

 

 

l. Supportive data for Table 6”. Significances listed without
Correlations are for variables deleted in stepwise regression. The
correlations listed are for these if they had been retained in the
equation.
corr=correlation coefficient; sig=level of signficance
**significant at .01 level or higher

*significant at .05 level

 

 

 

319

Table 110. Partial correlations between Innovation Internalization and

the vectors of Intra—System and Extra—System Specific COPE

with Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity Factor Score and

22 situational variables for test of H5i and H5j.

 

 

 

corr sig

Bureaucratic Reference Group Activity Factor Score .50
Intra-System Specific COPE .79
Extra—System Specific COPE .96
Vector of Intra-System Specific COPE and Bureaucratic RGA .18
Vector of Extra—System Specific COPE and Bureaucratic RGA .28
Demographic

Age .52

Marital Status .69

Working Spouse .9”

Dependents .63

Attained Educational Level .33
Experience

Years in Teaching ,qu .Olkx

Years in System —.221 .03*

Years in Assignment .58

Grade Assignment .381 .01**
Exposure to Specific Innovation

Pre—exposure .69

Exposure to SRA Texts .60

Exposure to AW Texts .25
Self—Image Variables

Role Satisfaction .08

Self Rating as a Teacher .18
Self—Principal Relationships

Principal Rating as a Teacher .58

Performance Feedback from Principal .35

Participation in Decision Making .69

Legitimacy of Such Participation .16

Principal's General Change Orientation .77

Principal Support for Specific Innovation .”9
Self—Peer Relationships

Group Cohesiveness .23

Opinion Leadership by Teacher

 

 

 

l. Supportive data for Table 6”. Significances listed without

correlations are for variables deleted in stepwise regreSSion.

The

correlations listed are for these as if they had been retained in

the equation.

corr=correlation coefficient: sig=significance level
**significant at .01 level or higher

*significant at .05 level

A:
:‘r 1"

 

 

 

 

320

Table 111. Partial correlations between Innovation Internalization and
the vectors of Intra—System and Extra—System Specific COPE
with Professional Reference Group Activity Factor Score
and 22 situational variables for test of H5k and H51.

 

 

corr sig

 

Professional Reference Group Activity Factor Score .09
Intra—System Specific COPE .78
Extra-System Specific COPE .96
Vector of Intra—System Specific COPE and Professional RGA .13
Vector of Extra-System Specific COPE and Professional RGA .79
Demographic
Age .52
Marital Status .69
Working Spouse .9”
Dependents .63
Attained Educational Level .33
Experience
Years in Teaching -265 -Ol**
Years in System —.221 .03*
Years in Assignment ~58
Grade Assignment -382 -Ol**

Exposure to Specific Innovation
Pre-exposure .66
Exposure to SRA Texts .60
Exposure to AW Texts .25
Self-Image Variables

 

Role Satisfaction .08

Self Rating as a Teacher .18
Self—Principal Relationships

Principal Rating as a Teacher .58

Performance Feedback from Principal .69

Participation in Decision Making .36

Legitimacy of Such Participation .16

Principal's General Change Orientation .77

Principal Support for Specific Innovation .”9
Self—Peer Relationships

Group Cohesiveness -33

Opinion Leadership of Teacher

 

 

 

l. Supportive data for Table 6”. Significances listed without
correlations are for variables deleted in stepwise regreSSion. The
correlations listed are for these as if they had been retained in the
equation. -
corr=correlation coefficient; sig=level of significance
**significant at the .01 level or higher

*significant at the .05 level

 

 

B IBLIOGRAPHY

 

 

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abrahamson, Mark. The Professional in the Organization.
Chicago: Rand McNally, 1967.

 

Anderson, James B. Bpreaucracy in Education. Baltimore: The John
Hopkins Press, 1968.

Averill, Thomas B. ”Educational Participation and Innovativeness,"
Journal of Educational Research. Vol. 10, 1967, pp. ””8—””9.

 

Ben—David, Joseph. "Professional Role of the Physician in Bureau-
cratic Medicine: A Study in Role Conflicts," Human
Relations, 11, 1958, pp. 255—27”.

Bennis, Warren G. and others. "Reference Groups and Loyalties in the
Out-Patient Department,” Administrative Science Quarterly,
(2) 1958, pp. ”81—500.

__, Benne, Kenneth D.; and Chin, Robert. The Planning of Change:
Readings in the Applied Behavioral Scignces. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966.

 

 

Blalock, Hubert M. Causal Inferences in Non—Experimental Research.
Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 196”.

 

Social Statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill Company, 1960.

 

Blau, Peter M. and Scott, W. Richard. Formal Organizations: A
Comparative Approach. San Francisco: Chandler, 1962.

 

Booth, Alan. ”Factors Which Influence Participation in Adult Education
Conferences and Programs by Members of Professional
Associations." monograph. Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 1966.

Brookover, Wilber; Erickson, Edsel L; and Joiner, Lee M. Relationship
of Self—Concept to Achievement in High School, III. East
Lansing: Human Learning Research Institute, Michigan
State University, 1967.

 

Brunner, Edmund DeS. and Others. An Overview of Adult Education
Research. Chicago: Adult Education Association of
U.S.A., 1959.

 

321

 

 

 

 

   

322

Buley, H. C. ”Personnel Characteristics and Staff Patterns Associated
with the Quality of Education." Cited: A. Etzioni, "Organiza—
tional Control Structure.” March, James G., ed. Handbook of
Organizations. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1967.

Campbell, Donald T. and Stanley, Julian C. ”Experimental and Quasi~
Experimental Designs for Research on Teaching." Gage, N. G.,
ed. Handbook of Research on Teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally,
1963.

 

Carlson, Richard 0. Adoption of Education Innovations. Eugene, Oregon:
The Center for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration,
University of Oregon, 1965.

 

Cattell, Raymond B. ed. Handbook of Multivariate Experimental
Psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966.

 

”The Meaning and Strategic Use of Factor Analysis."
Cattell, Raymond B.,ed. Handbook of Multivariate Experimental
Psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966.

 

Chesler, Mark A. ”Social Structure and Innovation in Elementary
Schools.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Ann Arbor:
The University of Michigan, 1966.

Childress, Jack R. ”In—Service Education of Teachers." Ebel, Robert L.,
ed. Encyclopedia of Educational Research, ”th ed.
New York: MacMillan, 1969.

 

Coch, Lester, French, John R. P. Jr. "Overcoming Resistance to Change.”
Human Relations, 1, 19”8.

Cohen, Jacob. ”Multiple Regression as a General Data—Analytic System."
Psychological Bulletin, 70.

 

Cooley, William W.and Lohnes, Paul R. Multivariate Procedures for the
Behavioral Sciences. New York: John Wilev 8 Sons, 1962.

 

Multivariate Data Analysis. New York: John Wiley 8 Sons,
1971.

 

Coombs, Arthur, W. The Professional Education of Teachers.’
Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1965.

 

Corwin, Ronald G. Staff Conflicts in the Public Schools. Cooperative
Research Project No. 2637. Columbus: The Ohio State University,
1966.

Darlington, Richard B. "Multiple Regression in Psychological Research
and Practice.” Psychological Bulletin, 69:3.

 

 

 

 

 

323

Deutsch, Karl W. The Nerves of Government: Models of Political
Communication and Control, with a new introduction.
New York: The Free Press, 1966.

Dewey, John. Logic, The Theory of Inquiry, New York: Rinehart and
Winston, 1938.

Draper, N. R. and Smith, H. Applied Regression Analysis.
New York: John Wiley 8 Sons, 1966.

Drucker, Peter F. The Age of Discontinuity. New York:
Harper and Row, 1969.

 

Ebel, Robert L., ed. Encyclopedia of Educational Research, ”th ed.
New York: Macmillan, 1969.

Edman, Marion. A Self—Image of Primary School Teachers: A Cross—
Cultural Study of Their Role and Status in Twelve Cities.
Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1968.

Etzioni, Amitai. "Organizational Control Structure,” March, James G.,
ed. Handbook of Organizations. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1967.

 

The Semi—Professions and Their Organizations.
New York: The Free Press, 1969.

Evans, Richard I. and Leppman, Peter K. Resistance to Innovation
in Higher Education. San Francisco: Josey—Bass, 1967.

Festinger, Leon. ”Informal Social Communication." Hollander and Hunt,
eds. Current Perspectives in Social Psychology;
New York: Oxford University Press, 1963.

French, John F., Israel, Joachim, and As, Dagfinn. ”An Experiment
in Participation in a Norwegian Factory."
Human Relations, 13, 1960.

Gage, Nathaniel, L. ed. Handbook of Research on Teaching.
Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963.

Gordon, Robert A. "Issues in Multiple Regression." American
Journal of Sociology, 73:5, 1968.

Gottlieb, David and Brookover, Wilbur. Acceptance of New Educational
Practices by Elementary School Teachers. Educational
Research Series No. 33. New Media Research Project 0RD 8”9.
East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1966

Gouldner, Alvin W. "Cosmopolitans and Locals: Towards an Analysis
of Latent Social RoleS, I and II.” Administrative Science
Quarterly, 2, December 1957, March 1958, pp. 281—306, ”””—”80.

 

 

 

32”

Goulet, Richard R., ed. Educational Change. A Report on the National
Seminars on Innovation, Honolulu, July 2—23, 1967.
New York: Citation Press, 1968.

Greely, Andrew. Priests in the United States: reflections on a
survey. New York: Doubleday, 1972.

Griffiths, Daniel E. "Administrative Theory and Change in Organization.”
Miles, M., ed. Innovation In Education. New York: Teachers
'College, Columbia University, 196”.

 

., pt: p13 ”Teacher Mobility.” Educational Administration
Quarterly, Winter, 1965.

 

Guion, Robert M. ”Industrial Morale: The Problem of Terminology,"
Personnel Psychology,1l, 1958.

 

Hearn, James J. "Teachers' Sense of Alienation with Respect to School
System Structure.” Phi Delta Kappan, LII, January, 1971.

Herman, Stanley M. The People Specialists. New York: Knopf, 1968.

 

Hollander, E. P., and Hunt, Raymond, eds. Current Perspectives in
Social Psycholog , 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1967.

 

Hollander, Edwin Paul. Principles and Methods of Social Psychology.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1967.

Hovland, Carl 1.; Janis, Irving L; and Kelley, Harold H. Communication
and Persuasion. New York: Yale University Press, 1953.

Katz, Daniel; Kahn, Robert L. The Social Psychology of Organizations.
New York: John Wiley 8 Sons, 1966.

 

 

Katz, Elihu and Lazarsfeld, Paul F. Personal Influence.
New York: The Free Press, 1955.

Katz, Elihu and Menzel, Herbert. "The Diffusion of an Innovation
Among Physicians,” Sociometry, XX, 1957.

Kelley, Francis J. Multiple Regression Approach. Carbondale:
Southern Illinois University Press, 1969.

 

Kelman, Herbert C. ”Processes of Opinion Change." Public Opinion

Quarterly, 25, 1961.

Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research.
New York: Holt, 1967.

 

 

 

 

 

325

Kornhauser, William. Scientists in Industry: Conflict and Accommodation.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1962

Krathwohl, David R.; Bloom, Benjamin S.; and Masia, Bertram B.
Taxonomy of Educational Objectives: The Affective Domain.
New York: David McKay, 196”.

Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1962.

 

Lessin, Edward J. ”Aspects of Structure in Fromm's Marketing
Orientation.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1968.

Levenson, Edgar A. The Fallacy of Understanding: an inquiry into
the changing structure of psychoanalysis. New York:
Basic Books, 1972.

Levi—Strauss, Claude. Structural Anthropology. New York:
Basic Books, 1963.

 

Lieberman, Myron. The Future of Public Education. Chicago:
The University of Chicago Press, 1960.

Likert, Rensis. New Patterns of Management. New York: McGraw—Hill,
1961.

 

. The Human Organization: its management and value.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.

Lin, Nan; Leu, Donald J.; Rogers, Everett M.; and Schwartz, Donald F.
The Diffusion of an Innovation in Three Michigan High
Schools: Institution Building Through Change. Project on the
Diffusion of Educational Practices in Thailand, Research
Report Number 1. East Lansing: Institute for International
Studies in Education and Department of Communication,
Michigan State University, 1966.

 

Lin, Nan. "Innovation Internalization in a Formal Organization,"
Unpublished doctoral dissertation. East Lansing:
Michigan State University, 1966.

Lippitt, Ronald; Watson, Jeanne; and Westley, Bruce. The Dynamics
of Planned Change: a comparative study of principles and
technigues. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1958.

Litwin, George H. "Climate and Motivation: An Experimental Study."
Taguri and Litwin, eds. Organizational Climate. Boston:
Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration, 1968.

 

 

326

Lortie, Dan C. "The Balance of Control and Autonomy in Elementary
School Teaching,” Etzioni, A. ed. The Semi—Professions and
Their Organizations. New York: The Free Press, 1969.

 

Madsen, K. B. Theories of Motivation. 2nd ed. Cleveland: Allen, 1961.

 

March, James G., ed. Handbook of Organizations. Chicago:
Rand McNally, 1965.

 

Maslow, Abraham H. Motivation and Personality. New York: Harper, 195M.

 

Towards a New Psychology of Being. Princeton:
Van Nostrand, 1962.

McLuhan, Marshall. Understanding Media. New York: McGraw—Hill, 1964.

. and Fiore, Quentin. The Medium is the Massage. New York:
Bantam, 1967.

 

Marcum, LaVerne R. "Organizational Climate and the Adoption of
Education Innovations," Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Logan, Utah: Utah University, 1969.

Mehrens, William A. and Lehmann, Irvin J. Standardized Tests in
Education. New York: Holt, 1969.

 

Meierhenrv, W. C. Media and Educational Innovation. Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press, 1966.

 

Merton, Robert. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York:
The Free Press, 1957.

 

Miles, Matthew, ed. Innovation in Education. New York:
Bureau of Publications, Columbia University, 1964.

 

Miller, Richard 1., ed. Catalyst for Change: A National Study
of ESEA Title III (PACA). USOE Contract No. OEC 2-7—
000079—0074. In: Notes and Working Papers Concerning
the Administration of Programs Authorized Under Title III
of Public Law 89—10, the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965 as amended by Public Law 89-750. Subcommittee
on Education of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare,
United States Senate. Washington, D. C.: U. 8. Government
Printing Office, 1967.

 

Milton, M. Mande1.and Duckworth, Pauline. ”The Supervisor's Job,
A Survey,” Personnel, 81, 1955.

Moffitt, John C. In-Service Education for Teachers. Washington, D.C.:

The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc. The
Library of Education, 1963.

 

327

Mort, Paul R. and Cornell, Francis G. Adaptability of Public School
Systems. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1988.

 

National Educational Association. The Development of the Career
Teacher. Washington, D. C.: The National Educational
Association, 1964.

 

North Central Rural Sociology Subcommittee for the Study of
Diffusion of Farm Practices. ”How Farm PeOple Accept New
Ideas." Ames, Iowa: Iowa Agricultural Extension Service, 1955.
Piaget, Jean. Structuralism. New York: Basic Books, 1970.

Reader, W. J. Life in Victorian England. New York: Putnam, 1964.

Riley, Matilda White. Sociologigal Research. New York: Harcourt,
Brace and World, 1963.

Rogers, Everett M. "Towards a New Model for Educational Change.”
East Lansing: Department of Communication, Michigan
State University, 1965.

Diffusions of Innovations. New York: The Free Press, 1962.

Rogers, Everett M. and Shoemaker, Floyd. Diffusion of Innovations:
a cross—cultural approach. (in press).

 

Seashore, Stanley, E. Group Cohesiveness in the Industrial Work Group.
Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of
Michigan, 1954.

Sherif, Muzafer, and Sherif, Carolyn. ”Attitude as the Individual's
Own Categories: The Social Judgment Involvement Approach to
Attitude and Attitude Change." Sherif and Sherif, ed.
Attitude, Ego-Involvement, and Change. New York: John Wiley
8 Sons, 1967.

Eds. Attitude, Ego—Involvement and Change. New York: John
Wiley 8 Sons, 1967.

Schulman, Jay. Remaking an Organization: innovation in a specialized
psychiatric hospital. Albany: The State University of New
York, 1968.

Smigel, Erwin O. The Wall Street Lawyer. Glencoe; Free Press, 1964.

Sproull, Natalie. "The Development and Preliminary Analysis of a
Self—Concept of Teaching Ability Scale." Brookover, ed.
Self—Concept and School Achievement,III. East Lansing:
Michigan State University, 1967.

 

 

328

Stat Systems Group. MSU Stat System CDC 6500. Version 8/21/74.

East Lansing: Computer Laboratory, Michigan State University,
1974.

Swift, James S. "The Origins of Team Management.” National Elementary
Principal Journal, L, Februrary, 1971.

Tagirui, Renato, and Litwin, George, eds. Organization Climate:
Explorations of a Concept. Boston: Harvard Graduate
School of Business, 1968.

 

 

Taylor, F. W. The Principles of Scientific Management. New York:
Harper, 1923.

Taylor, Lee. Occupational Sociology. Oxford University Press, 1968.
The Call, Vol. 44, No. 4, October, 1969.

Thompson, Victor A. Bureaucracy and Innovation. University, Ala.:
University of Alabama Press, 1969.

Verner, Coolie and Millerd, Frank W. "Adult Education and the
Adoption of Innovations by Orchardists in the Okanagon
Valley of British Columbia." monograph. Vancouver, B. C.:
University of British Columbia, 1966.

Verner, Coolie and Welsh, John. "A Study of Two Methods for the
Diffusion of Knowledge." Adult Education, 12, 1962.

Vernon, Phillip E. Personality Assessment: a critical survey.
London: Methuen 6 Co., 1963.

Vollmer, Howard, M. and Mills, Donald L., eds. Professionalization.
Englewood Cliffs: Prentice—Hall, 1966.

Walker, Helen and Lev, Joseph. Elementary Statistical Methods, rev.ed.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1958.

 

Wann, T. W. ed. Behaviorism and Phenomenology: contrasting bases

modern psychology. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press, 1964.

Weber, Max. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization.
N. H. Harrison and Talcott Parsons, trans. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1947.

Wittich, Walter Arno and Schuller, Charles Francis. Audio-Visual
Materials: Their Nature and Use. 3rd ed. New York:
Harper and Row, 1962.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11131111111111111111111111111111111111111131111131111111111111