r

ED 109 157

AUTHORTITLE

DOCUMENT RESUME

95

Manning, Brad A.The "Trouble Shooting" Checklists Revisited:TheDevelopment-of New Innovation-Free Checklists toMeasure Change Potential in Higher Educational andSchool-Based Settings.

TO 004 604

-INSTITUTION-

' eSPONS AGENCY

PUB DATE :

NOTE'. CONTRACT

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

Texas. Univ., Austin. Retearch and Dewelopment.Ceftter.fpr teacher Education. .

National Inst. of Education (DHEW), Washington,D.C. ''`"

(Ap 75]

-51p;; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of theAlerican Educational Research Associationpashington, D.C., March 30 -April. 31'1975)

MF-$0.76 HC-$3.32 mps POSTAGE*Change-Agents; *Change. Strategies; *Checklists;:Educational Assessment; *Educational InI,ovation;Evaluation Methods;' Higher Education; Model*Prediction; Schools ,

2

ABSTRACT ,

_This paper describes the continued'dOelopment of the"Trouble SMCbting" Checklists. These checklists are based on ,change,agent responses and are - designed to be predictive of an institution'schange potential for the adoption of innovations., The development oftwo new instruments is described, both innovation-fred. 04e appliesto higher educational settings, while the other.-"applies toschool7based settings: As in the earlier, innovation-specific formsrthe new fotms are divided into distinct information areas andidentify the ideal"situation sarginally acceptable and unaccntable.7situations for innovation adopt,ion.(Authqr)

A

'1

4.

,

4 ,: vt. 1

tC*************.********************.***4!****************4** **#******** Documents acquired by ERIC include many informal unpiblished ** materials not available from other sources.. ERIC makes every.ef fort ** to obtain the best copy available. neverthelesgi,.items of marginal *

* reproducibility/are often encountered and this affects the quality .**.Of the microfiche and hardcopy reproductions ERIC makes available *

* via the ERIC DocumeW00#04AcXion Service (EDRS). EDRS is ,not , _44

* responsible for 010qalittjv(Ohe orippal_Aocument.'Reproductions ** supplied;by.:EDRS:a1:4,t4e b§W*10A.,-.:!0.iaii.l.eititlfide, fromhe original, *!

, *"****,****,********i.#****#.4********10A-#004**************************,'-'

. . -,,,-_,., ,....t ;:,;.: , f 4 L'. ' .'1'!,:e.4. .;.1.'y u ", .: \ ,.:,

' , . : ', '. .--. t , ,'i: :

.'

U S DEPARTMENT OF HE&LTH.:EDUCATION &WELFARENATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

EDUCATIONTHIS DOCUMENT HAS SEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED 'FROMTHE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION oupiti,ATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONSSTATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPAESENT'OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF

kEOUCAT ION POSITION OR eputy

!,

rr

4(

The Research and,Deyelopment Center for,Teacher Education

The University of Texas at Austen

V

,

Pr.

I

...

;

..".11 J.., 1

ti

am*

,The "Trouble Shooting" Checklists Revisited:

.The Development of New Innovation-Free

Checklists to Measure Chahge Potential

In'Higher Educational and

School -Based 'Sett' ngs

e

c Brad A.14anning

Procedures for Adopting Educati dna I 1 nnovatioris/CBAM Project

The Research and Development Center

for Teacher EduCation

The University of Texas

Austin; Texas 4' .

$

4/

A paper presented to the AERA Meeting ,

Washington, D. C., March 30 -April 3, 1975

4

e

a

°

The work'reported here has been conducted with ,the support of the National I nsti-

lute of Education, Contract No: 'NI E.-C-74-0087 The opinions expressed herein,

however, are thFse of the author, 'and no endorsement by the.Nationat, Institute of

Education 41s impl iyd.

"; "C1:

1.3

4

1

The "Trouble Shooting" Checklists Revisited: The bevelopment of New Innovation-flrbe

Check-lists to Measure Change Potential in Higher Educational and School-Based ettings7 ,

°

Brad A: Manning'

A paper presented to-The,AERA Meeting

Washington, EL C., Warch 30-Apri143, 1975

The "Trouble Shooting" Checklists have been developed to assist education. -

al chan

of orga

ge agents and administrators, concerned

nizational- variables predictive of an i

cwsfully adopting innovations. Two previdus

and the TSC-B Anningi- 1973, 1974), were limi

with change,

nstitutiodls

experimental

ted to highe

in their assessment

potential for suc-.

checklists, the TSC-A

r educational settings

and were innovation-speci in that they focused on institutions adopting wa-

ules and personal assessment feedback systems (PAF) with a counseling orienta-

tion. Two new, experimental "Trouble Shooting" Checklists have now'beefl designed

which are innovation-free and which are predictive of institutional change po-%

tential in higher educational and school-based settings.dTheoretfcal Framework

The'"Trouble Shooting" Checklists have been developed in conjunction with)

a project which has as its theoretical framework a concerns-based adoption model

(Hall, 1974; Hall, Wallace,' 8:Dossett, 103). In brief, the concerns.Lbased

doption model orders the effects of stages of human _concern in interaction with

levels of use of an innovation. The ordering is a developmental one which pos-

tulatestulates that both stages of concern and levels of use become'progressiveiy more

sophisticated throughout the adoption-implementation process. The relatiOnship .

of the TSC to the concerns-based adoption model is based on the assumption that

5

a

;11

2

a

in order for stages of concern and levels ,of ,use to develop progressively through

the adoption- diffusion process, an institution must meet certain conditions and. r

be in an appropriate state of readiness.

. ..

All forms of the TSC !dentrfy for! the adminittrgtor or the change agent

both.? deal and unacceptable , organizational variables related to the adoption and

imp 1 ementation of innovations (the earlier TSC forms .a I so" identified margi nal., .

....I , . o N

\ia r i ab les) . - I n. order rto .make such an assessment, the "Trouble Shooting "'. Check-

\

ili Sts have been based on the assumption. that the following dimensions are crucial:.,

the ,genera I organizational structure of the, institution; the .descriptive charac-,

teristi Cs of its members and the organizational climate;' personality, leadership

sty les and concerns. of its members; the nature of communi\cations which occur.

0

both within and without the institution; the levels at which previous innovations

have been used,/ and, the personality and.socia 1 characteristics of the students.

The Innovation-Free form of the TSC

for Hi gherzEducati ona I Settings

a'

The dev,elopment of the original TSC-A and the TSC-B has been documented

detail in both the TSC. manual (Manning, 19.73) and a 1974 AERA paper (Mannin9,

1974).. In br ief r a -Nulty-nine page, open'-ended questionnaire was given tot six

change agents. This questionnaire was broken into id';

marginal, and unac-

ceptable question areas. The responses to this questionnaire served as a data

bafp for the two ori.ginal checklists (TSC-A and TSC-B). After 'a series of re-,

writings and, refinements, 'these responses gradual I y became check' is+ iterts.

They were arbitrari ly assigned-score values of 2, 1, and 0 for items classified

as ideal, ma rgi nal 6nd, uraacceptab le, respectively.

3

, 7

-The innovation-free for'm of .the TSC for higher education, was built direct-

ly frIrm the TSC-A and the TSC-B. The first steps was the elimination Of 911 items°

o

which specifically referred to modules, counseling or assessment batteries, as

. (

well as rterns which had any innovation- specific reference, The, remaining items

were then examined for their appropriateness,in each subscale. 1 Since the TSC-BAi. A

had items in common with the TSC-A, these items were eliminated. The remaining

items were pooled0o form the new instrument. The next step was to modify'Scale ,

and subscale titles in order to make them applicable to all departmeqts n high-.

i

er educational institution's. g a result of these modifications, one subscale. ..

,A

was eliminated. l'n its place another subscale was built from the TSC. iliforma-

tion base..

This first experimental, innovation-free form of the.TSC fo'r higher educa-

tional" institutions consisted of 495 items organized into 16 subscales in 5 major

scales, and was 39 pages.- All subscales were forced-choice requestingthat" 1/3

/ of the total item's in each subscale be selected: The-scales and subscales were

as follows:

Scale I: Organi

Subsgale A:

Subscale B:

Subscale C:

Subscale D:

Scale II: Facul

dynamics)

Subscale A:

Subscale B:

zational Structure

Organizational Characteristi

'Social-Professional Climate

Descriptive Characteristics

Qescriptive CharaCteristics

typ Department Chairperson and

,Personality, Leadership Styl

Person,ality, Leadership Styl

Chairperson

cs

of the Organization

of the Faculty

of the Administration

Dean (personality- and leadership

es and Concernsof-Faculty

es and Concerns, of tl)e Department '

Subscale C: Personality, Leadershipp-Yles and Concerns of the Dean

Scale 111: Nature of Communications t

Subscale A: General Nature of All Communications

Subscale B: Frequency and Nature of Letters and Phone Calls.

Subscale C: Frequency and Nature of esonal Visits

wr X

\

., .

c,

Scale IV: bovel ql Usage ,

. . .

Subscale A: First Stages 9f Adoption * .1

Subscale B: Predictiohs o( Later Stages of Adoption- 1

Subscale C:.-Organizations Membe'rs' Attitudes Towards Innovations

Scale V: Students , /Subscale P Personality and Social Characteristics of Students

Subscale B: Academic Style of Students

Subscale C: Students' attitudes towards innovation

...Item Analysis

p

The first experimental, innovation-free form of the TSC for Wgher educe-. '

tional institutions was distributed to a small, nation -wide sample.-of'change

agents who were asked to complete the TSC and to'critique and comment upon: H- in'N

1

detail. In such a way, it was possible to obtain detailed responses from a re-

sample ofwould-be users in addition to the data necessary for the'

item analysis. A synthesIs of the critiques was compiled and remedial.actions.

outlined. Altogether, thirty institutions were rated and included in the follow--.

ing analyses.

The first type of analysis focused on 'the following question: do items as-

signed -to one.of the two groups of.items (ideal and unacceptable) belong with

their respective groups? This analysis7was made on all items in a single analysis

P

and resulted in correlations between each item and t e total score for each group

of items (ideaY and unacceptable.) The alphas for the two. groups of 'items were

as follows: items classified as ideal = .99; and,'items classiflad as unacce

able = .97 (see table I).

A second type of analysis focused on the following,question: do items hich

are margin&I ly classified belong with their own group or with one of -the, tw re-

..tmLining groups (i.e., ideally classifieditems or unacceptably classified items.)?. N . ',,

1

/..N .

.

.

O

O

5

Table 1*

Each item classified as ideal, correlated with the total score'of items classi-

fied az ideal; each item classified as unacceptable correlated with the-total0

score of i.tems as unacceptable.,

ID. e

Item Numbe* Item classified as

correlated with

Item classified -es unaccept-

able'correlated with total

totalscore-of items

classified as'idea4'

-score of items'crassified

as unacceptable

-

'f

433

1

3

4

5

7

8

9

1Q,,

11

12

13 .

i4

15

1/

1'8

1920.

21

22

25

26,27

29

30

31

32

34

35

es

c--

0- 7,

.698i

.7678

.6835

.6882

.7574

;6251

:6678

.7061

.7650

.8130

7270

.7432

.716)1

..5489

.8591

.5563

0,

.5763

.71'15

.5294

.4516

.4882

.6973

:8029.

.6676

.6626

.5027.

.6073

:5472

.4427

s,

1

C

. ,

o

a,

* This table includes information only on the final 100-item§ setected.

** Item numbers refer to numbers used -min the second 'innovation -free form of tfie

hicher educational TSC included in the appendix.

/

i

Item Number

r

Table I (continue-d)

Item classified a'

ideal correlated with

total score of items

classified as ideal

1.

.. 6

Items classified as unaccept-.

.abje correlated with total

score of items classified

as Aacceptable

36

38

39

40

41

42

44

45

46

47

. 48

49

50

51

52

53

5455

57

58

59

60.

61

62

63. ,

64

65

66

67

68'

69

70'.

71

72

73

.

-0

74

75

76

77

F 78 .

e.

-5995

..6497

.6344./.

4

...4.5830

.4732.

.5795i

.5489 .

.6046

.7841

.6339

. .6550.

.7037

. .7326

.7386

.7400

.6371

.6423

.5366)

.61041

.6345

..6608

.

.6099

..6913

li

.6537, .8947

.7048 ,. ..:' 1- .8933.. .894r

.7851

.5567

.16415

.5563

. .7589...

.5346.

, .4496, A

S. .5283

4..6420

.8330 ;

.8108 ,

(,.

.6583

i

,,,

,,

10

Item Number

1,

Table I (.continud)

Item classified as

ideal correlated with

.total score of items

classified as idea4

' Item classified as unaccept-

able correlated with total

score of items classified

as unacceptable-

79

80 .7525

\

.6030

..

81 .7821

82 . . /.4571

83 .7246

85 .6505..,,

86 .7882

87 .6208

88a .5022

89 .6987

90 -.

.7333

92 .6536

93 .6783

94. .6319,

95 .8947

96 :6061

97..5500

98 .5925

99 .

.4855

100 _5976

t1

tv,

11

O

r.

st:

Wm.

V

8

A single correlational analysis was made to answer\this question and resulte

4n two correlations: a correlation between each marginal item and the total

score of unacceptable .items; and, a correlation between each marginal item and

the total score of ideal items. Items which correlated highly with the total

score for ideally classified items and which correlated low with the total score

for unacceptably classified items, were then considered in a later analysis for

assignplent to the ideally classified item pool; items-which correlated highly

with the total score for the unacceptably classified items and which correlated. .

low with the' total score for the ideally classified items, were then considered

in a later analysis for assignment to the unacceptably classified, item pool.

(See Table 2.)

A third type of analysis focused on whetherfor not items were internalhy

consistent within each of the five scales. This analysis actually cOnsisted of

two separate analyses'(since each item was taken from one 'dif two data pools, con-.

(

sisting of items designated as ideal and items designated as unacceptable). These)

analyses resulted in correlations between eath4Oem and each of the total scale

? , -

scores. (see TaVe 3). Items'Ich correlated above .34 in these analyses were

saved. for the final p described below. One of the results of these amalysee

was that the scaleslemonStrated a lack of independence. In other words, it can,

\ ...,-,z, .

.

be concluded that institutions which rate highly in one scale,are likely to rate,O

, It,

highly in Other ,scales as well.

The final type of analysis, like the third aralysis, focused on whether or

.p

not items were internallyconsistent within each scale and withjn the entire in-

strument. Howeyer, this analysis included only the items w h correlated aboveN,

.34 ,on the third analysis described above, and the marginal items defected from

NN

1.42..;

Ira

.Lm

.

Tab, le'2*.

f.

Correlations of-items. classified as

5classi.fied as idesal and ,toti-a'l

Item-Number**

e

marginal' with total scoreS of ,

.score of items 't lass unacceptable,

_Correlations with total

\score of items classified

as .unacceptable; -

t

elafions withi

core 01: items I ass '

f ied .a"s i dea 1.

1I . A.. 6

0 I. A.20. A. 26

. B. 7'

I. B. 13_

: B. 21

I. B. 23,

I. C. 12

I. C. 23

1. D. II'

J.D. 15I. D. 18

I. D. 34

11.A. 12*

1'1. A, 1'4

*I I . A. 419

1 1 . A.° 24

I I : B. 17 :

. I I . C. 3

.1) .C. ,

I I 1: A.

'IN. B.

111. C..7I I I C. 15

IV. B. 8

IV. C. 3

'11/. C. 8

. 111. C. 2`:

.568

.463

. .645

.521,

.62

.455

.531

.675

.678

.435

.464

.643

-.665

:41.9

.590

.588

.470

.513

.621

.528

.6'41

.531

.400

.446

43.0

--;67677-

- .708

\* -". 558-.624

-.597

-.519

-.522

-.627

-.553

n9

=. 461,

-.562

-.4Z4

-.440

-.467

= .525

(524

a:513

-.530

-.545

a..

*This. table includes information only on items classified as marginal which

were reclassified as ideal or unacceptable for the

**Item

final analysis..

numbers refer to the first experimental form of the innovation -free TSC.

r

4

13

10

Table 2 (Continued)

COI-relations of items classified as marginal with total scores4of items

classified as ideal and total score of items classified as unacceptable.

Item Number Correlations with total

score of items .classified

as unacceptable

CorrelationS with total

score of items classi-

fied as ideal

IV. C. 28 .666.,

V. A. 10

V. B. I

.636

.557

-.543

-.591r

s z V. B. 4 .507 -.535

V. B. 10 .469 -.515

V.B. 12 .598 -.508

B.1 17 .632 -.688

V. B. 36 .503 -.461

7.

-7

...Y1

_A.

- <

-rJ

t

4

t.

a

I

/

N

'1

i, .4t.

,.. \ '/: '

:5ach i -fop co rre I ate:dry/1"th tote 14

M

. ."fable 3,

Item ,Numbe r**

"": '

ogrps fOr f .ve cales:. `.

, , r

ITEMS CLASSIF.-IED AS ur4AccERTAbLE

2 3,

4:,a rr.

.

; /, /I (,111. C 13).... .474 /'.621'' / :.543 / (:, .487. :295

. 1..., 7 (III A 20)'; .551 ,-.60 ;; ,'..5.63::-/-' .,438, .305

9 (II A 5) '.. .689 / .1764' 46:( 4' i ' ,66O .559/

t#,.. , .1:

12 (V B 9) .863 i:172 . / .498 1.;' ." :,''.799 .738..-,

13 1111 C '3) .. 325 , .''.4,39 ' ;(552.'"17:; ,.'98' ;3I II5 HI A 36) ' .375/ / ,,:",,..,368. .584::' ' .526 .390

17 (V B 15) .366 / '`,1.332 ./469; .. .496 :' .-.665

18 (IV A 19) .65 // .634/ ,;/' 7.5631., .761 ,/' .500 ,....

19 (III C'2) .716/ .729 ,"" : .794,.,/-

. .747 r--° .607.:,

20 (1 D 5) .796 . // .758 ,/' ;445. .484 .339. .

26 ( I I C 8"),.,.',. .565", -. .682 /"./ .,;.667. .- ''.657 .334

5

...' -,--

. ., ,-, - . .

'Trable.,3';&.-CORtin.ued). :

r

Each item correVted .1fith total kale scoi-es for frtie scales-." . or

. ITEMS CLASSI Ft ED AS IDEAL

Item Number I , .7_ 3 4

t12'

5

2 (V B .18) t -.05,',.' '.5.1 :':-..416: ..6333 (11-AA 26) : 1.869 ./ /;; 181 ":-; -.475 . -- .853.4 (1 C 4) .37 ' '.-.' ,640,- /,'; ,_.409.,,:: ;7825' (1 D 8)". i 6.9 3'''' -'-t45-i---- .580

. I .4 8 (V13 34). 670 , -"' ..-'31,3,, /,. .466 . .663

10 (V B 5), .1' .639./..- 1 , .643 '',/' .61-r .681

11 (1,11 C I I ) , .46.3 ', "/ /6.18 :-750. .533

.I4 (1,C I8)" . .689 - /.5.13 .480 .667

16 (IrB 9) ., .720' ' :646," .457 . .791

'21 (I D 14' .806 ,-

'.80I ,488 - .675

22 (II A-28) .780 .806 .. ..565 .752

25.(IV A 21)- .' .712 .561 2. -',......-50 3 .717

.678

.677'.463;738.767.433. 593

.479.525.651.725 7:

27 ( I V .A 2) .612- -.370 .862 , .632

-." 3 '( I I; .7O3' ..457 .654 .67b

34 (1,--:1-2.1.,'"v -;60 -; ..257 _ ° , .5b5 .354 4

.663322

.696

.494

.723'

498.744.515. 517.587'.612. 556.369. 715.701

35 (,K A-'23-)'' ;.<.855'-`,/ .844 .. .542 .842

-36 ()4-1:1:.=k5)'; ,/,.---,- .44* , ..59 I -,. .868 "-. .,161

38 (Ni-/A 1-'6) -...-,... .623 - .501 , - .439 ' i620.

39 (I -A 1 iy- ..- . , .596 . ..600 -.507 .592

.. 42 KV A-.5)" '', .459 - .460 .385 .5131,

'44 OP B-21) ..420 .501 .761 .371'

' .5 (.16) "-". '. --.580 .520 .367, . .711

st 46--(.1y-B- 10) .764 . .661 .464 .826,!-.

.,..: .47 It D 19): .722. .629 .235 '.612-,:;.".,-- ."49.(.11 B 5)' .., .65 I

13'...72 3 .493 .698

::-' -, ''', 50'" (IV B I-) .692 ' .5 72 .,604.- .810.

....- 52 .4V B 7) :660 .648 .727 .638

"?.Z.-..',- ..",-.,.

:Y ''.

-. '53(111 A-21).54.. (1 I B 11)

>1%. (V. 'A I 9)'...4 57 (V- A 7)--

60 (II: A 16)- :

,'6I (III' A'-', /12)

t '/"63 (1V 131".

:- 64 (I .0:7) s.

65 (IV C 7)

.536 .534 :744 *.479.644 .699 .475 - .593.477 . .423 .296 .474. .,

. .539 .542 .348 .572.538 .615- . .412- .493.352- .555. : ".745i - . .428.902- .795 - .935.666 .778 t .51& ; T. .615.881 .836 .584 - :903

) I, 41P.k. .

V

16

.618

.519

.753.485.710

l

Item Number

Table, 3 (continued)

ITEMS CLASSIFIED AS-IDEAL

2 .

P( 86 (IV C .902

67'(I11 A 26), .695

'66 (V A 22) 1 :494

69 (V B 38)

71 (IV C )9) .769

76 (1°V C 16)

/77 (1V A 10) .769$04 (V .B 23) .719

81 (iV 0.14) .835

85 (111'0.12) .502

86 (V B 14), 73092 (III C 27) ,.470

93 '(111'C 23) :534

94 (XIV A 5) ,582

95 (IV C tC0 - .902

96 IV B 24)' .604

98 (V C 15) .463

100 (V -C 3) ,.504

'

.795

1735

.395, s'

489

.576

.,741

.661

-.60.1. A

.690

.586

.664---

.586',

//.795

1.470° .496

'.509

13'

3 4 5

.537 .935 .753

.777 .675 ,593

.306 .524 .770

.480 .616 .677

.496 .877 .643

.649 .B09 .654

.602 .806 .759

.475 .702 .755

.371 .827 .681'

.810 -.523 .502

.43_ .786 .716

.858 .498 .441

.606 .472'

. 305 .723 N .540

.537 .935 .753

.252 .576 ..765

.363 .53,4 ,.799

.389 .507 .750

Of.

.

or

17

N

s

.

.

the second analysis, also described above. T(. .1...s analysis actually consisted of

'14

,

'two separate analyses (since each item Was taken from one of two data pools con-

sisting.of items designated as ideal and items designated as unacceptable). These is

analyses resulted in correlations of each item-with the total score of. the in-

strument and with its total scale score (see table' 4).. The alphas of the five

scales'fordlideal ly classified items' are follows: scale I = .96; scale 2 =.:.96; scale 3 = .95; scale 4 = .96; scale '5 = .95; and total alphas of the five

scales for the unacceptably clIssified items are as follows: scale I = .95;

scale 2 = .94; scale 3' =.-.94; scale 4'. .92;.scale 5 = .89; and total alpha = .98.

Item Selection

After the sampling was completed it w s.decided-that the Ideal'length of the

/

.

instrument shpuld be 100 iitmg, and that the .forced -choice format should changed.

,to a five-point Likeart-type 8Cating. Consequently,..alr marginal items were re-

4

moved except those which correlated highly in the fina analysis' after having been

.

re-classified as idear or unacceiStabk. The 100 items whith the highestover-

..all correlations for alL of tflA:analyses we're, then, seleotqd,from the remaining

item's. Finally., these,h4ghett correlating items were examined in terms of:the

detailed comments made by clianget agents who had completed the checklist. Some, ..-

.';,,:- f

/

items were then rewritten for grdater clarity. h

t,

Dtie to, the fact that'the:staling has .now been changed from forced-choice to

s 1 ,1

Cildrt-type an4; because some of the finally selected items havq;been rewritten,

,0

',, a secon114 and final., items analysis is planned. However, a: second item analysis

4 . '

. -'!',

i'

"probably will riot resultin any great artewation of the present instrument, since'

,; 4

. * 1.8 .a

a.

-

I:ti

Table 4*

15:

Eachcitem correlated with total score of instrument and total scale score.

ITEMS CLASSIFIED AS UNACCEPTABLE

Item Number** Correl,etion with total Correlation with total

,score*of instrument scale score

I (III C 13)

6 (1 BeI3)

7 (III A 20)'-'

9 (II A 5)

12 (V 8 9)

13 (Ili C 3)

15 (II A 36)

17 (V B 15)

18 (IV A 19)

19-(111 C 2)

20 (ID 5)

24G(IV C 8)

26 (II C 8)

28 (I A 6)

29 1IV C 20)

30 (III A 7)

31 (I C 5)-

32 (II B 32)

33 (IV C 28)

460 B41 (11-,,C 5)

43 (V B 36)

48 1(14K29)

51 (V '3)56,(1,C 23)

58 (III A 2) .-

59 (III B 13)

62 (II A 25)

70 J11 A 37)

.72 (AI Q 27)

73 (I C 3)

74 (IV C 27)

75 (I C 32)

'78 (II 8 21)

, 79 (IV

82 (II A 42)

,.8073

.6774

.7229

;7096

'.7327

.7688

.6608

.5427

.7202

.6606

. .5668

.6911

.6561

.6725

.6653

.5210

..6758'

.5864

.6310

.6379

.629e

.5830

.6040

.5925

.5875

.6059

.5823,

.703

.626

.6845

6310.5747 'eh,e

.6037

.5904

.7430

.

.8145

.6961

.8272

.7465

.5987

.7932

cs .6750

.6887

.7428

.7198

.7005

.7384

.6124

.7931

t7036c

.7292

.7322

.6545

.6100

.6571

.7032

.6438

.7527

.6292

.6120 1

.7396

.6069

.7322

.6821

.7438

.6876

.6584

.6729

.6110"T7

.6570

*This table include'informetion only on the final 1100 items selected.

**Item numbers'refef-lo numb6rs,used ip the second experimental form of the higher-

eduW,Vaal TSQ. Numbers in parenthesis refer,to numbers used in the first experi-

ment-al 'form of the higher- educational

19

16

\

,

I f\ Table 4 (continued)

,.,

. \Each item correlated with total score of instrument and total scale score.

. -

-ITEMS CLASSIFIED AS UNACCEPTABLE'

Item Number

(conti nued)

Co rrel at i on with' total

score of instrument

.f

Correlation wi#c

scale score

83 (III C 26) .6298 .7470

84 (III C 15) .7181 .7968

87 (II 8 14) .7297 :7975

88 (III B .6220 .7399

89 (I A ,5) .7094 .7328

90 (II I A'17) .8343 .8699

91 (I D II) .5906 .6863

97 (V B 37) .5014 .6958

99 (I I A 22) .6466 .6125

r.

total

I teen Number .%

I TEMS'CLASS I F I ED AS IDEAL

Correlation with 'tota I .

score of instrument

2 (V B 18)

3 (11 A 26)

4 (I C 4).

5 (1 D 8)

7

.

..6939

.856$

'065Dy'

.7045

8. (V 34)- .6872 \

10 (V B 5) .7500

II (III C,I1) "...6355

14 (I C 18) \7024

16 (IV B 9) .7144

21 (I D 14) .8256-

22*(11 A28) :8464

23(1 A 26) .7579

25 (IV A 21) .7280

'1'27 (IV A 9) .7441

33 (II A 9) .7167

34 (I D 12) .6119

35 (I I A23) .7965

36 (III A 5) .5990

38 (V A 16) .6409

39 (I A'14) .6370

42 (V A 5) .5773

_Correlation with total

'scale score

.7619

.43533

7I28..6712 7

.7384'

. 7732

.7526

\ .7(7:5):

\ .8515

.7964

.7724

.7167 4:

.8618

.7091

.7457

. 7640

.8715

.6936

. 6129

, .7184

17

) ,

4. Tab le 4 "(continued). t, .

Eac* item correlated with total score. of instrunent, and total scale score.:

-Item Number

,ITEMS CLASSIFIED AS IDEAL

Correlapion, with total Correlation with total'''.

score off instrument

44 (11.1 B 21)45 (I A16)

46 (IV B 10)

47 (I D '19)

49 (11 B5)

50 (1V B I)

'52 (V B 7)

53 (III A.21)

54 (II B II) ,-

55 (V A 19) .

57 (V, A 7)

60 01 A 16)

61 (III A 12)

63 (iy t 15)

64 (I D 7)

65 (IV C

66' (IV C 4)

67 (N I A 26)

68 (V A'22)

69 "(V B 38)

71 (IV C 19)

(IV C 16).o

7 (IV A 10)

80 (V B 23)

81 (IV C 14)

85 (III C 12)

86 (V B '14)

.92.(1 11 C 27)

93 (III C 23)

94 (IV A 5)

95 (IV C 10)

-96 (V B 24)'

98 (V C 15)

100 (V C' 3)

.5429-

. 6194,

. 7845`"

.7724

,.-7/783

--;713H

.,7349

435

/7032

5290

. 6101

.6072

.5711

.8957

.7992L

.8947

:8957

.7801.

.5502

. 6322'

.7563

8279

.8065

.7503

.7789

. 6528

.7906

. 6543

. 6805.

.6338

.8957

.5871

.5955

yY

scale score

.7654

.6166

.8256

.8217

.8074

.8099

.6061

;7519

.7238

.7159 ',

'.6152

-.7449

.9347

.8317

.9025

.9347

. 7815

. 7696

.6698

.8768

. 8091 ,*

.8000

. 76.19

.8272

. 7233

.8574

.8574

. 7231

.9347

.7684

/7932

. 7515

46

21

t.

S

C.

the item correlation5 were reagonatily high. The'refore, the second i

will be more precautionary than exploratory-in nature..

:Description of

*Since the instrument .has.beenl limited to 100 item in a Likert-format, the

I.

I'

t

m analysis

marginal items and all 16 subscales have been 61-iminated., The instrument now

consists of 100 randomized items which'can be broken. into 5distinct scales con-<

taining twenty itemsseach. Some of the-scale names have tbeen modified fOr greater

clarity and are now as 41l ..;)

ows: .

. i

Scale I: Organizationlal Climate '' /'

(Items In Sqle Iattempt, fo i-ap information about the organizationl

....

climate by .6ocusing in such variabls as: the 'power systemwithin

the organization; the kinds of behaviors that are reinforced; "organiza-

tional valuis and normWarYd,"openness" of the'ordanization.) .

. #

Scale 11: Orlanizatiortal Staff- =

(Items in SC:ale II describe personality and ,leadership characteristics

of faculty And adMinistrators related to the sUctessful,adoptibn of

innovations Items focus an interaction between faCulty members, be-

tween admittstrators, and between =faculty and addlinistratorS. in-addi-

tion, items seek to°idbntify attitudes and.44terestsiof the'faculty,:

and admihistration as they are relatedto innovation.)

Scale III: Communication = .. ...

(Items in Sale. In are related to the communication process associated .

with succespful adoption and 'TiiipHementation ol:innoN;ations. The items

probe the ciegree to which information exchange:Issuperf'icial, restrict-'

ed, or pt:o4uctIve. Items also attempt -to tap the quality of communica-

tion betwedn change agents (both internal and %-l-ernals) and the staff '

of the 4nslitutIon.) ., ,

,9 v,

I1,1

Scale IV: Innovative Experience . ..,. , 7,/ ,.. 19

(Items in Scale IV describe the expe;Lience and degree of sophistication

' 't t. 1--that an inqt, u Ion as had with the,adOptlh and impleMentation of

innovationi. Items attempt to identify degrees of awareness of basic

informatio4 about innovations, and indications by faculty members that

they haVe home idea how to integrate anihnovation into their-teaching.)

4

Scale V: Students ,,-..

(Items in Scale V attempt to measure characteristics of students which

*aaCaffect the adoption-implementatiOn.rrodegvt.L lh measuring these

characteriOics of students' attitudes towardi the faculty, and their

course work are considered to be crucia,,as wellas student enthusiAsm

studegt interaction with peers and. faculty, and studeh:tindividuality: .

22

Scoring of the Instrument

419

Detailed instructions for scoring the instrument are incLuded, with the

instrument in Appendix A. In brief, a reverse key issgiven for unacceptably

classified items, and five keys are given .1isting the randomized numbers for each

of the five separate scales. There are a total of six scores derikiable from

.the instrument, five scale scores and a total score.

Future'Plans for the Higher Educational- Based TS6,

Before the second item analysis is conducted, the higher educational based

.Se will be given to organizational development spebialists in order to obtain '.

suggestions' for modification of individual items. After the instrument has been

scrutinized in this manner, it will' be submitted to a sample of change agents,

and minimum of.thirty institutions will be rated. The types of item analyses

used dill be identical to thOse used in the first analyses.

Initial Norming'and Validation5

A minimum. of Jen external change agents will be contacted and asked to

subjectively select fifty -two institutions: 25% (13) of which are ideally suited

to successfully adopt an innovation; 50% (26) of which are marginally suited; and;

25% (I3),of which are unacceptable. This distribution should increase the chances

that a fullwanTrepresentative range of scores are obtained. After these fifty-two

institutions have been identified, an internal change agent and faculty membert

for each institution will be selected and asked to rate their institution by,using

the T'SC. Score ranges of their. TSC ratings will, of course, then be used to deter-

.

23 ;

0

mine norms for the scale scores' and total score..1

(

'..!

A.va I i di ty coefficient will, be determined by corre I tli ng the first gro up' ,

,..._ . .

. . 7 4-

of external change agents' subjective ratings with the second group of internal

o 1

change agent and facultyty rat i ngs ..- . However, (le fore th i s .va H di ty coefficient. .

is computed, a ompari son wi I I be made. between the ratings of the internal change

.

agent grOup (who may have higher status6)due to the fact that they are in a

20

, .

position to brihg about change) and the faculty group., This comparison wi I I be

made ,to -chedk for the contaminating affects of a higher status TSC respondent'

giving more favorable ratings for their instlJution. '14 these two groups do

differ si gni ficantly, two separate coefficients wi IA. be recorded. f

tiThe Innovation - Free Form of the TSC

For School-Based' Settings

The items for the school-based TSC w re col lected from two sources: an

t , -

extensive literature search for information descri b i ng innovative and non- i nno-

vative schools; and, interviews with ten practicing school-based change.agents.fa

The information col lected from the literature search Was organized in the form

of a series of referenced paragraphs summarizing study findings. Items were-

. -

in turn written using these paragraphs .as an information base (see Appendix B

for the reference 1-ist resulting from the literature search).

In taped interviews with school-based change agents (see Appendix C for the

Interviewing form), the change agents were asked questions about the school and

School district environment. The specific questions generally corresponded with

,

24

21 ,

the major areas, which emerged from the literature, The tapes were then partially

transcribed for information, which Would be _likely to yield items,. and items were

subsequently written. Based on these interviews and the literature search, an

item pool'.of.500/descriptivestatements has been collected to date.and fall ,into

-the following seven scale areas :.

Scale I: ' School-Based Staff.

(Items in thit scale%describe,characteristics of school-based staff

in relation to the school's potential for successfully adopting inno-

vations. The items tap information on personaliteknd leadership

styles of teachers, principals, and.counselorg, in relation to School

innovativeness; Variables sucp as interpersonal and professional

interaction patterns, staff attitudes previous working experience,

and demographic characteristics are also considered in thisscale)

Scale 11: Communications

e(Items in this,scale attempt to i.dentify,communication variables which

A

significantly affect a schdol's potential,forisuccesfuny adopting

an innovation. ;his scale-particularly aims at uncovering information

on.patferns of coMmunication both within the school ana*ttib entire

school system. Particular items foculon the-initiators, :types,

and forms of, communication with respect to both formal and informal

chagnels of communication.). /

Scale Ill: Innovative Experience.

(Items in thiS scale descrjbe a school's experience with innovations

andattitudes towardsInnovation. Items in this scale are concerned

with both past attempts at rnnovation and present plans for ipnovation.

Particular focus is'. on the degree to which a school has prepared itself

for the adoption of innovations, the reasons for considering adoptipn

of innovations, and the extent to whiCh the School has realistically

assessed its needs. The consultant role, the district role, and the

community role are also considered in relation tooth past and resent

plans for adopting innovations.)

.Scale IV: Central Administration

(The Central Administration Scale focuses on relations between the

central offCes, school, and school board, and identifies attitudes

of th central offi.ces,and school board toward innovation', their

role in relation,to the school, and their,.awareness of the school's.

,par cuter problems.) ,

. :,--

Scale V: School/b mmunity Relations .

(Items in the School/Community Relations Scale arttempt to tap informa-

tion on su h variables as theamount and sources of funding, the degree

of interest and involvement of community groups in the school: system,

the social-e onOMic environmeQt, and attitudes of the communitytoward5

the schools.)7

Its

22

<4

Scale VI: Organizational Climate .

"(Items in this scale describe the work clithate end organizational, :

structure of.both the school and the central district office. Some

of the parficular organizatfonai variables which are tapped include:

hoW decisionsare'made; how gpals are established; what task groups

exist; how task groups function; how planning takes place; what

resources are avaialble; how resources are used.; how the organizationa l

hierarchy is'Oefined both within the school and the school district;

and, thd degree. of centralization wrthin the school_district.) 4 *

Scale VII: Students(IteMs in this scale describe student behavior, attitudes and demo-

graphic characteristics. Items attempt totap information on student

attitudes by focusing on student behaviors in the classroom and the

lunchroom, as well as particular behaviors such as absenteeism, tardi-

ngss.,,and number of discipline problems. Minority relations among

the students, teacher/student rapport, and academic excellence are

also considered to tieimportant variables affecting the adoption/

diffusion process.

)

Item Analys4s and Initial Validation andNormingI

A200 of'46fnitially,collected560.Ttems, will be'seJected to build theIS

.

experimehtal form for the item analyses. However, before these items are,Sub-

''

mittedto 244mpie of change agents for the analyses, they will be given'to ati

group of organizational specialists to be examined in the same manner as the

. .

items on the higher educational based TSC.,

°The items, formatting, .instructions,,

e / I e%

.

and scoring,,,syst will identical to thoAkise o4 -the higher educational based TgC.

w \

or.the initial norming and )validatiOn will be theSimilarly, 'tie plans to dat

. .

same as the plans for the higher education64 based TSC (see Appencax,D for a".

isamplingzofthe schoo1.7based

t

TSC.items). -:

0

0

.1

`tt

673

ReferehZes

'23

Halt, G. E.. The conder4-based adoption model: A developmental conceptualiza-

tion of the adoption process within educational institutions. Paper

'bresented at the abnualimee4ing of the American Educational Reseach

, Association, Chicago, AprLi, 1974.

Hall, G. Wallace, R. C., & Dosse+t-, W.'F. A structured model for developing .

a case' study of PTE adoption. Aystin,'/T1<as: The University of Texas,

Research and Development Center forTeacher Education, Mbrch, 1973.._"

Manning, B, A. The "trouble shooting" checklist: A manual +co aid educational

change agents"in the prediction of organizational change potential. Con!--act

No. 0E-6-10-108, Austin, Texas: The University of TeXas, Research and

DeVelopment Center forJeacher Education, 1973.

4Manning; B. A. The "trouble shooting"

change agent. Paper presented'at.

Educational ReSearch Associatn,

checklist:. A gtride for tte educational

the annual meeting of the American

Chicago, April,

ti

Copyright, 1975 by Brad A Manning,

Appendix A

The "Trouble Shooting" Check I i st -(TSC)

for Higher Educational Based Settings

(Experimental Form No. 2)

24

Please rate on a I - 5 scale (as indicated below), how closely each item, describes

the -deprtment you ace rating:

5 = very typical

4 = -somewhat typical

3 = neither typical nor untypical

2 = somewhat untypical

I = very untipical ,

I. Any contacts with change agents that this departMOt requests will be'at the

wrong 'time and/or for the wrong reasons.

The students are in frequent contact with one another (e. g., in seminars

in the field, in the learning resource center).

. .z t

3. The faculty are concerned with increased understanding of both themselOs v,,,

-and others, oh,,

y ,

. .,,. s,

. ., 1 1,.

4. The famtIty seem to be' well informed about current educational dew loprnentsk;'-c.--. -:-.7-, -'''--

in many: f ie ids ...

...-:,-->-,----

. ...,f

5. The department chairperson has support from admi ni strators04ver.:4-

the .organizational hierarchy. --

s.6. Individual members of the department are not in a positiori

.each other.

7. There is little real, substantial .communication

ca Ions may include remarks about the' fi nancial

bases, what is go(ng to be done, etc.).

' 8. TheAANdents are enthusiastically involved n the program. ,

9. The faculty canndt imagine either themselves or others innew roles.

10. Students' ideas' are taken seriously by the faculty.

II. Frequent contacts have resulted in an increased rapport between change agents

and the depwItment.

12. "The,'students do not respect faculty opiniOn.

13. Th'e department has not responded to the on6 or two contacts that have been

made by a change ,agent.

-V' e" ::t1V11/

,

''-f r' r(

.41101;"'"i,14'.(IN 14.4

**We;'0, ,

10. ...a .

I ; / Pi;eaSe rate On-a f - 5 scale (6s

'department you are, rati-ng.:,'

(:* ;ff.,/

. fle

' "I*

.1'

,..!...6,,.ermtl%,--:.,41-t.,,:,\:

1",.. 7 `') .i'v"

,

. .

25

'

indi eat6 b,6 c lose I y each item describes

,5 = verY-typical

4 = sOtriewt) at typ i ca I .

3 ".7.-ne typical' no ',4ntyp i ca21= somewhat untyp.i car :

untyp i ca I

14.,'The faculty are reflectrve-atrd.analytical about the adoption-implementation

Process.

;

.,15. The faculty are.;inclifferenf, to the interpersonal dynamics within/their department.

k,6. This departnient uses resounce material effectively to develop, "its own materials.

17-Th de4-stunts view thei r,education only as a mans to an end.'

.. '?18 Tbl.s/department has minimal awareness aboUt innoyAtion. z-

..---

19. IA ,the administration can be sold on, an -inn,eYat-i-Oi'l,2, lt will then be necessary to ,\

'convince a doubting faculty of the adnlinistrailikterest..

20. The leadership i n key posi ti ons-desi res. 1.6 main4'

-'-- .., _ _---: '"1*. * : -- -: - .-

. . - _ -.-.,,,.

. %--

.7-et.,...a.tus quol ;''. '14. 14'

. 4/*/ . :"`-- ., .

...I

,

2 h . The adrai n i strati-on is flexible: d -

,.... - .:..:..:..

22. The faculty b re interested in teaching students.

23. The structure of the organization includes reasonab I y we H.- f unction' csiMmuni ca--ti on channels. .

. 7/: .

24. ,There are only a few. faculty 'who are trying to arouse interest in actual t41. testing of an innovation:

-,;

.,. .

,i':.,.'

t..-- 4 '' '..: ''.:

0 ' ,T -,

25. The departaerrf is involved with the successful adoption of other, innovations40 ,.. .

''

Nr, .

-, ' ...* adoption4\ .,,

1.----7 _--26. The de,..acts, as a tandrance to 6doption and dilffusqon of innovation.

4 .:, .

r

-271. Thisdepartmerithas 61 r'eady,, ,alked abotit ,(nodi fy,,ing 'testing materials to aft their.

- needs 'for pilot testing.e 4

. . . - . 4 . -

26. The change agent working 6-i thie0;,departm?nf, is not in a position of authority., .

':. ,/, ' 2 *.4

7' -29. The;facuJty/Are threatened by new approachest/: 4 .

. ; / . leirr. . r., ,-,.. - ....-- \\,.....,.. 4

..4,. .

., /

, ,

,

LI:

..

.

Please rate on a I - 5 stale (as indicated below), how closely I item' desCrities

the department you are rating:

5 = very typical

4 = somewhat typical

3 neither typical nor untypic

2 = somewhat untypical

= very untypictl.91111,

30. Communications between a change agent and this department ar primarily social,

rather Tthan professional..

31. The faculty make much noise about."standards."

32. The department has no- recognized leadership. .

33. The .faculty exchange ideas with one another.

34. The dean supports the faculty n'adoptirig innovations.

35. There is a willingness to initiate needed change rather t an maintain the

77--- .status quo. . J

'36. This departmenv. t feels comfortableiwith+regultr communicat on from the beginning1...

,

of the adoption prpcess. I

,

1\

37. Many of the faculty, while,not actively opposed to innov tion, wi I I not commit

themselves...,

'38. The students take ylitiative in seeking out challenge.

(.39. There is-,a,smal I ,group of highly involved adopters who oric in close proximity.

..,,,,

40 . ,There. i s an Oitan i zatip..a I inertia at this i ntti.tut 1 on,

,..

-41-.- The dean, -isnotas-sert,i ye' -in -estab-l-i-shInTab_dtor_at_t_i ming_ goals

42. The students have ahigh energy level.. \... ,

43.. studentsstudentare passf ye.Y.

r

,,,,

44. Communications result 11) constructive action.,. , 4 ;%-".

' . ' '...... .1 .:;'''.45. There is a smelt group O,'f adopters who clearly demonstrat-L'on'Oi I ity toeffec7

tively communidtte with t larger faculty group in order to gain their supporf:

r`

I

27

Please rate on I - 5 scale (as indicated-be-IOW-, how closely each iteMidescribes

the department you are rating:

5-= very typical -.

4 = somewhat typical

3 = neiher typical nOruntypical'2 = somewhat untypical

I = 'very untypical

46, An Innovation already adopted by this department shows prOmise of being,a cataly-

tic force behind the adoption of future innovations.

47. The department chairperson is strongly supportiv through public statements,

promotion rewards, provision of resources, etc.).

4

48. The department chairperson uses many cliches (e.g., why change for the sake of

change? 'before we buy any program, we must establish a sound philosophical

base, etc.) .

49.Q department chairperson is concerned with current, relevant to an.1

_

innovation alder consideration for adoption.

;

50. This department characteristicallydisqusses plans for research and refinement

when considering any:innovation.

51. The students quite often succeed in spite of the institutional influence.%

52. The students praise their program for the interrelatedness of its courses.

53. This.department shares their problems and experiences with a change agent.

. 54. itie department chairperson -is concerned with the quality -of instruction.

55. The. students treat each other as

56. The facility do not have the knowledge to systematically adopt an innovation.

57. The students are eager to share experiences and ideas with each other,

58. This department may be avoiding contact with a change agent consulting on one

of projects.

59. The departmental efforts in seeking out assistance in implementing innovations

have been meager.

60,. There. is mutual trust among members of the faculty.:

k31

o4,

4

. '

26

Please rate on 'a I - 5 scale (ai indicated below), how closely each item describes

the.department:YoU are rating: '..

5 = very typical.'

4 = somewht typical

.3 = neither typical'nor untypical'

2 = somewhat untypical

1 = very untypical

61. Some individual faculty members have made much,progress with respect to an

innovation.

I

62. Faculty members are either insecure and/or overly protective of an image.

63. The faculty members are interested in how innovation can bring about specific

changes in their department.'

64. E4ther the department chairperson orldean isotognizant of curriculum develop-

mdnt'procedures.

65. The faculty seem ready to commit themselves to adopting innovations.

66. The faculty are highly interested in innovation..,.

67. COmmunications concerning innovation have all been enthusiastic and positive.

r ,.

68. The students'are Personally aware. ,.-

69. The students relate personal problems to faculty members.

70. The faculty are remote and/or aCtively'hosti le:. .

.

71. In the past, the high interest of the faculty has

toward pilot-testing of innovations,

72..Thetlean is unwiffing tofight with anyone above him /her.

resulted in eerily ,plans,

73. An older faculty diScourage younger faoul-tvfrom remaining. ,

74. The faculty like to think of themselves as innovative because they can

mention some program names.::",.-.":"-:--,

.

-75. The facultylack the ability to apprOach a new situation analytically.

m ... /

.--

76. There is much reinforcement for development and implementatir-of in-.. ....

. , -,..2...

novations. ,

..-

321

al

29

Please rate on a I- 5 scale (as indicated below), how closely each item describes

the department you are rating:

45 = very ypfltal

4 = somewhat typiCal'

3 = neither typi-dal nor untypical

2 = somewhat untypical

I = veryuntypIcal

77. This department haseveloped'its own products andrhas its own well-de-

, fined standards for the acceptance of an innovation.

78. The department chairpersonvieWs most change as a personal affront.

79. Any material, regarding innovations, made available to the department,

( will probably remain on the shelf unexamined.

80. The students are encouraged to develop their own style.

;

81. All of the faculty seem equally involved in increasing the level of use

of previously adopted innovations.

82. Some faculty may already be committed to traditional teaching methods:-

83. Thisyriepartment seems to resent change agent visits.-

484.-Departmental efforts to communicate With change agents have not always

been appropriate.a .

85. Contacts with change agents have been far enough apart that developments

can be evaluated4

86. The students are constantly exposed to new ideas.

87. The department chairperson iiiews;-the curriculum as the'final word.

88. Long lapses jn communication maioeCur between the department and Change

agents.

89. The 'supporters of innovation have serious communication problems with

, the faculty at large.:,:-e

0. There are only weak endorsements instead Of real commitments to'any

'sic changewithin the department.

The department cftbill)erson (or direct supervisor) ls not encouraged in

'hl i.nterest in .innovation.

33

30

v

,. Please rate on a I - 5 scale (as indicated below), how clbsely each item describes

the department you are rating:

/'5 = ve typical

4 = somewhat typical

3 = neither typical nor untypical

2 = somewhat untypical

I = very untypicalr

92. Personal visits have helped the department and change agents establish

common goals.

93. Interested faculty memberstre in regular communication with change agents.

94. This department has had the discipline to follow precisely the directions

of a developer of an innovation until they have mastered basic skills.

95. The faculty is highly. involved in developing innovations..-.

96. The students realistically assess their own abilities and needs.

,, 97. The students feel frustrated tnd disillusioned-because of a lack of "stan-

dards" in their field. )

98. The students are,challenged by, innovative developments.. .

99. The faculty are interested in teaching tools as opposed to ideas.

100. The students are excited about innovative approaches which comp

their.

individual learrOng5tyles. 0

,

, ....

-;-.

< ..

liment-

4

0

Scoring

Reverse Key Scoring

31

The item numbers listed below are reverse-keyed and should have 'heir rating

values changed in the following manner:

1

5 = 1

4 = 2

3 = 3 (reverse keyed items rated 3, should not

be changed)

2 = 4

I = 5

For example, ij you have marked one of the following items a

changed to a 115 f

HI II it should be

for scoring purposes; if you haVe marked one of the following

items a "4," it should be changed to a "2" for scoring purposes.

The following items should be reverse-keyed:

13 20 30' 41 58

6 15 24 31 43 59

7 17 26 32 48 62

9 1-18 28 37 51 70

12 19 29 .40 56 72

s4

Deriving Total Score

73 82 ' 89

74': 83 90

7(5 84 91

78 °' 87 97

79 88 99,

After the item ratings have been chnged as described above, add' up all ratings

to the left of items for thectotal score.

Deriving Scale.Scorea

The scare names and descriptions are as follows:

0

Scale I: Organizational Climate

(Items in this scale describe the work climate and organizational struc-

ture of both the department and the' institution as e whole.).

Scale II: Or=ganizational Staff

(Items in this scale describe pIrsonality and leadership styles of

faculty and administrators within the department.)

0. 85 .

, ,

32

Scale III: Communication .

(Items inthis scale desCribe communications both within the department

and within the institution as `a*who.le.). 3

Scale IV: Innovative Experience . , . . , .

(Items in this scale describe a department's experience with innovations, .

and attitudes towards innovationt) IF .

,

.

Scale V: Students :

(Items in this scale describe student behavior,_attitudes,z4an'd demo,

graphic characteristics.)

..'

,In order to derive each scale score, add .the ratings of their respective item,. , ...

numbers listed below:

410Scale I:

.

SCale II:

Scale III:

Scale IV:

4 20 31

5 21 34

6 23 39

14 28 40

3 26 41

9 32 48

15 33 49

22 35 54

I A9 53

7 30 58

II 36 59

13 44 61

16 27 50

18 29 63

.24 '37 6.5

25 46' 66

Scale V: 2 17 51

8 38 52

10 42 , 55

12 43 . 57%,

rr

45

47

56

-64

.

y

73

75

89

91

60- ° 78

62 8270 . 87

72 . 99. ,r

67 88

83 .). 90

84 , 92

85 9

.'

I

71 79

74 . 81

.16 94

77' 95 -

68 96

69 97 .

80 98

86 100

365 a

33

Interpretation of Test Scores withopt ling Norms:

Since norms have not yet been dOelOPAI for the higher-educational TSC,

the scoring system outlined aboveviS, for-the time being, primarily demonstrative.

However, since the items are both empirically and literature based, they do reveal

some descriptive information about an Institution. btemswhich are not reverse-

keyed, describe characteristics of;lide,p1 institutions; items which are reverse-keyed

describe.characteristics of institutions which are not likely to succeed in the

adoption/implementation process. )

Normally-keyed items which have received high ratings (ratings of 4 or 5),

.describe Ldeal characteristics which can be observed. Conversely; low ratings on

these items would indicate the extent to which the institution falls short of these

ideal characteristics. If the reverse-keyed items are examined, high ratings

(before reverse-keying the items) will be indicative of an institution which has "

characteristics inhibiting the adoption and implementation of innovations. Con-

versely, low ratings will describe characteristics which would be positively re-

-'

lated to the successful adoption of innovations. -

Items within each scale can be examined in the same manner, for descriptions of

how the institution stands in relation to each.of the areas described by the scales.

0

37

Scoring Sheet

TOTAL SCORE

'SCALE SCORES:

SCALE I: 'Orgahizational Climate

'SCALE _II: Organizational Staff.

SCALE SCORE'

SCALE SCORE-

34

't

SCALE 111: Communication SCALE SCORE__-

SC/tE IV: Innovative Experience SCALE SCORE

SCALE V: Students SCALE SCORE

4

4

4:

0 0

4.."'"'Ri

r.

40.

fAppvn x B

REFERENCES

N.c

35

Ahrens, M. R. Innovations succeed-or-or fail. Childhood tducation,

1972, 49(4), 170-173. 1

.. , ,

Allen, R. K. A comparison of,.communication behaviors in innovative

and non-innovative secondary schools. .(Doctoral dissertatj.on,

Michigan State University) Ann Arbor, Michigan: University

Microfilms, 1970, No. 71-18,154.s-

)Atkins, T. A. It's time for a change--or is it? The N tiohal

Elementary Principal, 1969, 48(4), 46-48. /.

f

Aubrey, R. F. Power 'bases: The consultant's vehicle for change.Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 1972, 7(2), 90-97.

.Barraclough, T. The role of the elementary school principal. Edu=

cational management review series number 9. Contraet No. ON-

0-8-030353- it, Eugene, Oregon: Oregon University, ERIC Clear-

inghouse on Ed cational Management, 1973.

Bennett, 1,-. E. , Change.in occupational education programs: A

study of local .administrative and community factors afftet-

ing.program change in public secondary schoOls. Grant No.0EG-2-7-070348-2698, Raleigh, North Carolina: North Carolina "

State University, Center for Occupational Education, 1970. .

(ERIC ED 057 229.)

Bickert, R. Selected organizational values and characteristics of

innovative and,non-innovative school systems. Report for the

Iowa Center for Research in School Administration. Iowa City,

Iowa: Iowa University, 1968., I

.

Blanchard, K. H. & Hersey, P. The importance of communication

patterns in implementing change strategies. The Journal of

Research and Development in Education, 1973, 6(4) , -66-75.,

Brickell, H. M. Organizing New York state educational change.

Albany, New York: State Educatioh Department, 1961.--,.

Carmichael, D. Mastery learning:- Its administrative implica-

iiOns, Paper presented at the meeting of the American,

Educational Research Association, New. Orleans, April, 1973.

Oheslers, M: A. & Barakat, H. I. The innovation and searing of

teaching practices 1: A study of professional roles and

sopi41 structures in schoo* Final report. Contract No.

OEC-5-10-241, Ann Arbor, Michigan: Uniyeisity of MiChigah,

Institute for Social Research, 1967..

B

39

4

.r

36

,...

hesler, M., Schmuck, R., & Lippitt, R. The principal's role in .

facLlitating innovation. Theory into Practice, 1063, 2(5),

269277. .ce.

'.' i, '.. '

Childress, J, R. In-service education of teachers. In R. L.'Ep*of

.., - .

(Ed Ali, Encyclopedia of educatioft9. research (4th ed.) Toronto: . \..

The Macmillan Co., 1969.,

.

Christie, S. G. & Scribner, J. D.. A social system analYsis df

,innovation in sixteen sch ol districts. Paper presented atthe meeting of the American Education Research Association,Los Angeles, February, 1969.

r.

Clark, M. N. Characteristics associated-ovith innovative behaviorspecified organizational climates. Dissertation Abstracts

International, 1971, 32(6-A), 2902-2903.

'Cooke, R. A. & -Zaltman, G. Change ageqts and social system change

Paper presented at the meeting of the American EducationalResearch Association, Chicago, April, 1972.

Corwin, R. G. Organizational structure and educational innovatorin more and less modernized urbanized regions of the United

States: Some directions for cross-national research. Inter-

natiral Review of Education, 1972, 18, 85-94.

Crosby, M. Who changes the' curriculum and how? Phi Delta Kappan,

'1970, 51, 385-189.

Cunningham, L.L. Community involvement in change4 'EducatioNal

Leadership, 1970, 27, 363-366.

Deak,,E. D. Organizational climate: Prelude to change. Educa

.tional Leadership, 1970, 27, 367-371.

Eberle, R. F. Personnel management for ,change and innovation in

education. Journal of Creative Behavior, 1969, 3, 277-283.

Eibler, H. J. Characteristics for innovation. ERIC Clearinghouse,1969, 41(9), 523-526. 0, I

Epiltsen,A. & Messiy, J. The dynamics of leadership in ari in-

formal school. Journal of Research and Development iii EdOL

i cation, 1972, 5(3), 29-39.

EVe,'A. W. Variables of institutional ,change at the elefnentary

and secondary school levels. Report for the Burlpd of Edu-cational Personnel Devellopment, Washington, D. C.: Division

of Assessment/and Coordination, 1971%

40am

4

c°

gm,

37

,

Flanagan, J. C. Administrative behavior in implementing educational

'innovations. Paper presented at the meeting of the. American, .

alucational Research Association, Chicago, February, 1968..

Flanagan, J. C. Administrative behavior in implementing educational

' innovations. Education, 1970, 90,'213-220, 238.

Foreman, N. An investigation of personality and situational fac-,tors 6sociated with teacher innovativeness. Dissertation_,Abstracts_International,-'1971; 32(6-A), 3087.

Giacquinta, J. B. The process of Organizational change in schools.In F. N: Kerlinge.r (Ed.), Review of research in education.

Vol. 1, Ithaca,-Illinois: F. E. Peacotk, 1973.

.

Gittell, M., The potential for change: Community roles. Journal

of Negro Education, 1971, 40(3),Z 216-224.

C

Goldberg, H. R. The role of administration in edueational change.In K. 'M, Lifton (Ed.), Educating for tomorrow: The role of

-slit media, career development, andsotiety. New York: Wildy,

1970. /

-Granito, J. A. Preparing school leaders for educational change-:,Journal of Research and Development in Education; 1972, 5(3),

64-75.

."" Griffitfig, D. E. The'eelementary-schpor.principal ands - change in

theschooL system. Theory into Practice, 1963; 2(5), 278-

Lk 284.

Gross, R. E. The Social studies teacher: Agent of C4nge. Paper

presented .at the Annual Conference of the National COuncil

foT the Social Studies, Denver,,Coloradoc, November; 171.

%.

(ERIC -ED 056 -951,1,-;,) t'11 e

Hand,J. S. Letterls to the editor: "Bloeketo-Change": A Teply.

Educational Leadership, 1970,'27,,835-836:

Hansen, M. H. Planning for,changesr'in education. In E. L. Morphet

& C. 0. Ryan (Eds.), Planning and effeting ,needed changes id

education. lqgw York: Citation Press, 1967

Havelock, G. Resource linkage in innovativieducational probled-

.

:-solying:- Ideal v5. actual. Journal-of Research and Develop-

0

ment'in Edveation,'1973, 6(4); 76-87..

-Hazard; W.A. School adminIstration as change agents: A rolePaper presOnted,6t the meeting of` the American

Association of School Administrators, atlantic City, New,

Jersey7February, 1969.'* .

1 , ..".477.4414t.

.

38

Heald, J. E. Supervision. 'In R. L. Ebel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of

educational research (4th ed.) Toronto: The Macmillan Co., 19.6g.

Journal of

Heathers, G. The Pittsburgh-based project to train educational,

R & D personnel. Paper presented at the meeting of the Ameri4

can Educational Research Association, Chicago,. April, 1972.

& WiLlqP.J.ypr, p.* Teachers pexcep-

climate and expectations of successful

Experimental Equcation, 1969, 38(2), 39

Helsel, A. R., Surbach, H. Ations'bf organizationalchange. The

HerSh, R. H. & Yarger, S. J. Prerequisites,for'change. The Journal

of Teacher Education, 1972, 23, 141-144.

Winker, L. R. The relationship of school system innovativeness

to selected dimensions of interpersonal behavior in eight

school systems. COntract No.-OEC-5-10-154, Madison: Wisconsin

University, 1969.

Hilfiker, L. R. Interpersona.1 characteriptics and innovativeness

in school systems. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science,

1969, 5, 441-445,., .

.o.

-.

Hiltiker, L. R. Factors relating to ttie innovativeness sof so

systems. The Journal Of-Educational Research, }.970, 64(1),43-45.

-44..

tP %,,

and%.i.,..

Hillman,-L.°W.' Organizational cliMate,'leaderghip characteristics '

,

.s-innovation in selected high schools of Ohio: A study of re-

--lationships. Dissertation .Abstracts International, 1971, 31(8i.-A),

'--- 3816r3817. . .

----, -.

House; E. 'R.; i(erIns, T. ;. & Steele, M. Attest of the research

and-development model of changeEducational Administration

Quarterly,'\,1972-, 8(1) ,, 1714.. 1.

(t

.,-;:.

..4 t

' . I 'S.,,,_ '

Hug' E. E. A teacher looks at the adakOilStratoris role in the pro-

cess ofY change. Science Educaedo969, 53, 235-236., , t. V*.

.

,\,.0,

hes-, L. W. A Achilles, C. M.---- The pup0:%/sor as a change agent.

. Educational Leadership, f971,28cf910340-g4L

,\',,\;:., \y'\ , -

Jacobs, J. W.. Leader behavior of the *Odry-sOhool principal.

.. NASSP Bulletin, 1965, 49(303),-,13-1X;:'; :\'.:,

,-13,% 14. \I% Nt ' .. \

\k N ' o

Johnson, H:-M.,et al. Personality chqtac 00.41cS,,o ,,schoel,Super-:

intendents in rilation to their wil nepp%fo\erpritInnovd-

t4Rp in education. Grant, No. 0Eb-3-6. 15-1,n7, Logan, U_tah:

Utah State University, 1967.Y,0,. ,

,t.,12 ,v:,St, !Ask\

(

' -el\',\;;.

.

')i..-tr'' z'",'

:,1,410,\ \A, --.

,,,,,,; . lk,. ,..:,.. ;

'1 ,

,

I 39

I

0

4//_ /

0 .

.t/

/

JpOson.,111.1M.,&Mapc4m, B. L. Organizational climate and the, adop-.

ii /Itioiv-of educaponalinnovations.Paper,presented at the meeting.

4. ',1/of :the Amer'ican Educational Reseai4ch Association, Los Angeles,

,, Feruary /g69. '....

.k.I ' 1

k ''''' f r f _. 3t -

1,,/11 c. .Aslr_ucture for innovation in education. Educational

:,:i i:TechnologYif 1'969 , 9 (10) , 35-40 .

; .

Ximbrough, R. -B:' Todd, E. A., Burequcrative organizational change.

::-Educafional Leadership, 1967, 25, 220-224 1

Kirnpst-bn,.. R. D. & Sonnabend, L. C. Organizational health: ,A re-

quisite' for innovatin? Educational Leadership, 1973, 30(6),

S43-547.

,g .

Kline, C.,E. '1,e,ader behavior, curricular implementation and cur-

ricul,ar change. Dissertation Abstracts International,, 1969,

30(3i40',

957.,

..

--, ,

Klingenbeizt A. J. A study of selected administrative behaviors.

among administrators from innovative and nonlinnovative public

School astracts. Grant No. OEG -6 -10- 8064-173 7 Lansing, Mich-

igan: Michigan State Department of Public Instruction, 1967.

(ERIC ED 014 128.)

Klopf, G. J. The principal as an educational!ltader in the ele-

mentary schodl. Journal of Research and Development in Edu-

cation, 1972, 5(3), 119-125.

KckI, J. W. Adoption, adoption stages, and perceptions of charac-

teristics of innovations. California Journal of Educational

Research, 1969, 20(3), 120-131.

Kreitlow, B. W.:& Duncan, J. A. Theacceptancerof educational pro-

grams in rural Wisconsin. Report No. Bull-525, Madison, Wis-

consin: Wisconsin University, DepartMent of Agrd,Ext4 Eduda-

.tion, 1956.

Laplanti J. C. School districts innovativenegs and expectations

'for the school board role. Paper preiented at the meeting

of the American ational Research-Association, New York,

February; 1967.

Leithwood, K. A. & Russell, H. H. Foci's on implementation. Triter-

change, 1973, 4(1) , 10-25. b.

Leithwood, K.A. & Russell, H. H; ,The:developMent and evaluation

N.

of one strategy for implementing/change in schools. Paper

presented at the meeting of the,American'EducatiOnal Research-

:Association ; NeuOrleans, February; 1973.

,st

434./

4

11.

4

Leles, S. Educational structure: Is- it Capable of innovation9.:, 7

ERIC Clearinghouse, 1970, 44, 368-372. i09%

Maguire, L. M. Observations and analysis of th literatu6' on

change. Philadelphia: Research for Better Schools,

1970.

Mangione, S. Bringing perspective to the change situation. Edu-

cational Leadership, 1,970, 27, 359-362.

Marcum, R. L. Organizational climate and the adoOtionof education-

al innovation. Grant No, OEG-4-7-018119-2901, Logan, Utah:

Utah State University, 1968. (ERIC ED 023 158%)

McClelland,. W. A. The process of effecting change. Alexandria,

Virginia: George Washington University, Human Resources

Research Office, 1968. A

M.ckler, W. A., Jr,. New-roles can facilitate change. Educational

`Leadership, 1972, 29, 515-517.

Mil- , M. B. The development of' innovative climates in educatirn-

k, 1 orgOizations. Edited and extended from remarks at the

eeting of the National Conference of Innovative Educators,,

M= lo Park, California: Stanford Research Institute, 1969.-

E IC ED 030 971.).

'*

r

Miller, P L. A.'man to fill the gap: The Change agent. Journal.

'Of He lth,'Physical Education, & Recreation, 1969, 40(8), 34-3

..

Miller,P L. Innovation and change in education. Educational

Leadershi , 1970, 27, 339.-340.

1 ,

.

Mussel, E J. & ,hnson, M. Who obstruCts innovation'? study

of1tOacher pe ception of"possible obstacles tiii Andova .

Journal of Sec dary Education, 1969, 44, 3-11,f

. ...

.

Orl-osky,'D: & Smith, B. 0. .Educational change: ,Its origins and

Dcharaeteristics. 'i Delta Kapnah, 1972, 53(7), 412-414.

. t

Pafford, W. N. Relationshi s between innovation and selected:schoOl factors. Occasi4-1a1 paper-3. Lelangton, Kentucky: .:

University of Kentucky, s' ogram on Educational Change,,,, :

1949. ,

,...

...,

..71

....

Peferfrcund, S. et al., Innovatio and change in public school ., 1,

Systems. Englewood id AeftPffClis, New Jersey: eerrunso- . -

elates Inc. 1970.

e

4IF

-a

44

O

' .t

41

Peterson, I. M. Reldtionships between school superintendents',

personality orientations, perceived situational pressures,

and innovativeness. (Doctoral dissertation, Rutgerstriiyer-

sity) Ann Arbor,, Michigan:4 University Microfilms; 1068,

*No. 69,1.053.

Pincus, J. & Weiler, C. A program of research on incentives for

educational innovation. Final report. Report for the

National Institute of Education (DHEW), Washington,, D. C.:-

National Institute of Education1973.-

Rafky, D. M. & Beckerman, M. Teachers' acceptanCe of innovations:

Self-interest, altruism, and professionalism. 1971. (ERIC

ED 079 267.). .

Reynolds, L. Problems of implementing organizational change in

the elementary school: A case study. Paper presented at

the meeting of the American Educational Research Association,

Chicago, April, 1972. -

Rogers, E. M. et al. Diffusion of innovations research report.

East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State.University, Institute

'for International' Studios, 1968.

fl

Rogers, E. M. et al. Diffusion of innovations.: Educational change in

Thai government secondary schools.. East Eansing, Michigan:

Michigan State University, College of ComMunicatien Arts, 1969.

,

Rogers,. E.:M. Social structure and social change. American Be-

havioral Scientist, '1991:i,. 14(2), 767-782. 'i,-%

,

Rogers, E; M."& Shoemafser, Fe 77.:'Communication of innovations.

New York :, The Eree,Press,. 971..

,; .. .

_

Sanchez,,H. W. Differences im selected attitudes, behaviors, and

.

debogr'aphic variables among three innovator groups. (Doctoral

dissetation,iindiSna University) ATTrArbor,. Michigan: Univer-

sity Microfilm's;-17:2, No:-7249,502. ,.

.

. .

'Saville, A. Topograpl*bf -change:, An administrator's guide for"-,

.,.

!-ection. _ERIC CleeKhghouse; 18,,42, 271-273. -,.-

.

Schmick, R.' Social psychological 'factors in knowledge utilization,.'

In T,. I,: Eidell &,,I. M. Kitchel (Eds.), Knowledge_production

and utilizatiotrin educational administration. Eugene;Oregon: ,

University of Oregon, 19,68.

, ,

.

.

Schmuck', R..A. & Runkel, C. J. :Integrating organizationa specia-

lists into schoofdistricts. Paper presented at the atiOnal'---

Training LaboratoilIe's Invitational Conference on New T chno-

logy in Organizational.Develcpment,/gewYork, October, 971.

:..

Sieber, S. D. Organizational influences on innovative roles. In

T. L. Eidel,1'.& J. M. Kitchel (Eds.), Knowledge production andutilization in educational administration.. Eugene, Oregon:Uniirersity of Oregon, 1968.

Sieber, S. D. Images of the practioner and strategies of educational-,'change. Sociology-of EdUcation','1972,45, 362-385.

.

' Silverblank, F. Creilting the climate- f- or successful innovation.ERIC Clearinghouse, 1973, 48, 239-241..mfr

';'//-- Simonds, J. St. Lawrence, T. Methodological andtheoretical'

t

bases for designing local educ onal change programs. Paperpresented at the meeting of t e A crican Educational ResearchAssociation, Chicago, April, 972.

0

Stout, R. Leadership. In_R. L.'Ebel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of eduea-_tional resOrch (4th'ed.) Toronto: The Macmillan Co., 1969.

Toepfer,.C. F., Jr. The ,supervisor's responsibility for innovatilon.Ed6:64.tiona' Leadership, 1973, 30, 740-743.

Turnage, M. .Tbei p lie school principal as the iplonge agent in the_desegregate integration process. Paper presented at the meet-ing- Of t Southern Sociological Society, Miami, May, 1971.

Tyd, fC. A. Thee. principal as a change agent. Th44ational Elemen-tary Principal, 1970, 49(4),141-51-.

Tye, K. A. the school prineip_Key man in educati6hal change.National Associ.atiob of Secondary Schobl Principals, 1972,St(364),784. .

.

t

of Wiener;;W. y. Interpersonal 6.6mpatibilitie's of innovative and non-inrcovative "school,princ.g?als and curriculum coordina brs. Pa-per preseilted at the.meng of the American .Edteat onal Re-search Association, Chi. go-; April, 1972--.:',--

wieas, J. Mlifferenoes bdtween influential and non-influential ad-ministrators. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 1970,,16(2), 103-110. '

Wiley, R. W., B16cks to change. Educational Leadership, 197b, 27,35/-353: -.

e

S0 ..

(

Wood, F. H. A climate f---"innoVation. Educational Leadership, 1973,30(6), 516-518.

Zimmerman, B. J. Experimental program impact on attitudes of schoolpersonnel. The Journal of Experimental, 1970, 38(4),

88-92.ft...W...

If

Zimmerman, R. E. Teacher perdeptions and personality, characteris-tics associated with innovation. Dissertation Abstracts Inter-national , 1971, 31(12 -A) , 64662:

4

[11:11

w43

Appendix C

.Soho() -Based TSC I cite ry i ew i ng. Form-r4

c-

5.

),,,k

I am developing a, diagnostic and predictive instrument for schools which

focuses orb assessing the likelihood of any given schooL svccess fu I I y adopting:.-

.,.

an i n novati on, The' innovation could be anything ftbm an entire I GE program

t

.., .-

to a single. Th'structional module used in a reading or math program. I am

-assuming that there are sets of circumstances, conditions, characteristics, eta.

which exist in order for-.enyform of change to take place. From the correspon-

dence that I _have received in resppnse to R simi I ar ,instrument .1 am. developing

- -.... _. _.- ,. % ,

which focuS'es on h.i.gher educational institutions, there appears to be a very...

marked need' for a school-based ins*ument'which would assess such a set of

- condi ti ons.

.t c

.-

-4 IWould like to-ask you about what you tKink are the major characteristics of.

schools which _add .and detract from a .school in, Its succestfur adjustment to change.

Iwould like you to think -about jndivi dua I stooLs in relation to the school

_.

. _

system and community. Rather than jyst asking about the entire pictuPe at once,

. ..

I will I foc14.,Qtvone area of the school denvironment at a time. For example, I

. --_,--,-.. .---r -_.:.

wilt first ask about a tchibol'S corhOuhiCation system,. and then go on to ask 441

$

--_,_about what types of organizational structures facilitate the change process and

-,...

.,_-,.. ,. '

what- types detract Trom,the process of change, and se on.1,,

47

a.

07,

Communications.

. 44'

What kind of communication system would be in operation ill a school which

you would consider to be innovative? ,How about a non-innovative school?

Prompting Examples: Are communications usually biy word of mouth or memo;

who initiates communicationsi how is importaht infocmation communicated--

41'

through informal or formal channels; what could be expected of - communication

between the particular school and the other parts of the school system--the...ft.

central offices, school board, and superintendent?

62. Organizational Structure.a

How would you describe the organization,structure at_innovitive schools?

How about ncln-i.nnovative schools?

Prompting Questions: What are unit structures, team structures, and inter-

disciplinary efforts like? Are team leaders, subunits and paraprofessionals

characteristic of this school?

3. Students. How would you des.cribe students in a school system which was ideal4y .

suited for adopting innovati,

What about students in schools which are clearly,pon,innovative?.

4. Curriculum Specialists.

What mould be the characteristics of:curriculumrspecialists at innovative.

schools. --botil with respect to their pepsonal,chdracteris,tics and their role _ 0

in the school?.%.

What iabout at non-innovative SChools?.. -

"*

48.

45

5. Counselors..

,

What are the counselors likeat innovative schOOls? What is their role

in the school?

What would the counselors be like at non- inr?ovative.schools?

6. Central Offices

Hos4 would you describe the central offices at,Oriovative schools'? What

activities should they focus on, and hOW would you describe their function

within the school and the school system?

How about the central offices in non-innovative schools?

,7. Innovative Experience

r -

What kinds of experiences,do you think innovative schools have had with

innovations in the p t, and what do you think would be the approach an

Ak

innovative school would Use in implementing an innovation?

How about a non-innovative institution?-

8. School/Community Relations.

What kinds of relatipns would one find between an innovative schbol and. its

community? What about a-non-innovative school and its community?11

Probe: -How well informed ise,the community about changes, in the school system?

'Mit are the sources of funding for the innovation? How involved

,community in the-school system? 'What is the per capita income of the community?

ft*

49 .

. :

7

46

9. Work Climate. How would you describe the work climate,in an ihnoVative

school, and in its central offices..

How about a nom-innovative school?C

10. Principal.

OW,

How would you describe the principal and'his leade'rS.hfp style#in f.elatiOn'

to the teachers, the school board, superintendent, counselors, curriculum

specialists and central offiCes?

What about principals,- in non-innovative schools?

11. Teachers. .00' A

What- w d you- expect the teacher-s to be like in ar innovatiyi.schooll?'

1

What would you expect their role to be in the school distitp0 Hok-do,

you-think they perceive themsetves?

What abdut teachers irisaIlon-innovative school?

-.1,

, Atzt, s

r)4 a, .4..;

50

5,

O

)

Appendix D

Sample Items (School Based TSG)

47

A community group exists as a go-between for -the school system and the community

(e.g., an ombudsman,,assessment council, and/or advisory committee).

Many students at this school 'are falling.

The curriculum leaders set expectations in both written and ocat communications.

The innovations which have been' adopted by this particular school are similar to

the innovations which have been adopted by the entire district.

This organization has sulficient personnel, or-will be able to acquire sufficient

personnel for thesUccessful implementation. of innovations.

Board members communicate often with the superintendent.

The school administrator initiates communications with the change agent.

There are intricate nequirements for the applidation for funding, which include

specific references tp,procedures and evaluation.

The faculty is unaware of'the curriculum specialist and his

This school.is considering innovations that contain easily alterable material;

capable of meeting the.demands of varied teaching'situatioqs.

.The research community and.the school are in constant communication with one another.

Specific problems and needs have been identified by members of this school system.

The comMunity is high in per capita wealt

There is a relatively high expenditure per siudent.

Student tardiness i s i n the range of avera e or be low'average in occurrence.

The curriculum specialists have systematically ollected information about the

needs of the shcool through direct contact:with teachers.

The currrqulum specialist is a person who has been .specifically trained for the job:

The students seem to, have..formed.strict cliques among/themselves.

I

1.

....

51