Diagrama Entidad Relación

ESEA Accountability System Grade

The 2012-2013 ESEA grade data were used. The information was collected from the 2013 South Carolina Department of Education School ESEA Flexibility Waiver. Eleven (25.58%) of the respondents’ districts had ESEA grades between 0-74.9% and thirty-two (74.41%) of the districts had ESEA grades between 75-100%. Frequency and percentages reflecting South Carolina public school district 2012-2013 ESEA grades are summarized in Table 4.10.

Table 4.10

District ESEA Grades

ESEA Grade (%) N %

0 – 74.9 11 25.58

82

The composite mean scores reflecting South Carolina public school superintendents’ perceptions of individual innovativeness and organizational

innovativeness regarding ESEA grades were calculated. A two-tailed, unpaired t test was conducted for individual and organizational innovativeness. No significant difference was found between South Carolina public school districts with ESEA grades between 0-74.9 (M = 3.28) and districts with ESEA grades between 75-100 (M = 3.36) regarding superintendents’ perceptions of individual innovativeness, t (41) = 1.123, p = .268 (two- tailed). A significant difference was found between South Carolina public school districts with ESEA grades between 0-74.9 (M = 3.02) and districts with ESEA grades between 75-100 (M = 3.16) regarding superintendents’ perceptions of organizational

innovativeness, t (41) = 2.12, p = .04 (two-tailed). The results of this analysis can be found in Table 4.11.

Table 4.11

District ESEA Grades and Perceptions of Innovation

Individual Innovativeness (ESEA grades) N M t p

0-74.9 11 3.28

1.123 .268

75-100 32 3.36

Organizational Innovativeness (ESEA grades) N M t p

0-74.9 11 3.02

2.12 .04

83

Perceptions of Individual and Organizational Innovativeness related to Demographics

Research question four examined the differences in perceptions of South Carolina public school superintendents regarding individual and organizational innovativeness related to demographic factors including age, sex, and years of experience. The data for age, sex, and years of experience were collected from questions 1-3 of the survey instrument. Frequencies and percentages were calculated for each variable.

Age

A total of 43 respondents indicated their age on the survey instrument. The survey responses indicated that eight (18.6%) of the respondents were between the ages of 30-49 and thirty-five (81.39%) of the respondents were between the ages of 50-69. Frequency and percentages reflecting South Carolina public school district superintendents’ ages are summarized in Table 4.12. Table 4.12 Superintendents’ Ages Age N % 30 – 49 8 18.6 50 – 69 35 81.39

The composite mean scores reflecting South Carolina public school superintendents’ perceptions of individual innovativeness and organizational

84

for individual and organizational innovativeness. No significant difference was found between South Carolina public school district superintendents with ages between 30-49 (M = 3.43) and superintendents with ages between 50-69 (M = 3.32) regarding

superintendents’ perceptions of individual innovativeness, t (41) = 1.296, p = .202 (two- tailed). No significant difference was found between South Carolina public school district superintendents with ages between 30-49 (M = 3.22) and superintendents with ages between 50-69 (M = 3.10) regarding superintendents’ perceptions of organizational innovativeness, t (41) = 1.501, p = .140 (two-tailed). The results of this analysis can be found in Table 4.13.

Table 4.13

Superintendents’ Ages and Perceptions of Innovation

Individual Innovativeness (Age) N M t p

30-49 8 3.43

1.296 .202

50-69 35 3.32

Organizational Innovativeness (Age) N M t p

30-49 8 3.22

1.501 .14

85 Gender

A total of 43 respondents indicated their gender on the survey instrument. The survey responses indicated that thirty-two (74.41%) of the respondents were male and eleven (25.58%) of the respondents were female. Frequency and percentages reflecting South Carolina public school district superintendents’ gender are summarized in Table 4.14. Table 4.14 Superintendents’ Gender Gender N % Male 32 74.41 Female 11 25.58

The composite mean scores reflecting South Carolina public school superintendents’ perceptions of individual innovativeness and organizational innovativeness related to gender were calculated. A two-tailed, unpaired t test was

conducted for individual and organizational innovativeness. No significant difference was found between South Carolina public school district superintendents that are male (M = 3.36) and superintendents that are female (M = 3.29) regarding superintendents’

perceptions of individual innovativeness, t (41) = 1.035, p = .306 (two-tailed). No significant difference was found between South Carolina public school district

86

regarding superintendents’ perceptions of organizational innovativeness, t (41) = .810, p = .422 (two-tailed). The results of this analysis can be found in Table 4.15.

Table 4.15

Superintendents’ Gender and Perceptions of Innovation

Individual Innovativeness (Gender) N M t p

Male 32 3.36

1.035 .306

Female 11 3.29

Organizational Innovativeness (Gender) N M t p

Male 32 3.14

.810 .422

Female 11 3.08

Years of Experience

A total of 43 respondents indicated their total years of experience as a

superintendent on the survey. The survey responses indicated that thirty-four (79.06%) of the respondents had between 1-6 years experience as a superintendent and nine (20.93%) of the respondents had 7 or more years experience as a superintendent. Frequency and percentages reflecting South Carolina public school district superintendents’ years of experience are summarized in Table 4.16.

87 Table 4.16

Superintendents’ Years of Experience

Yrs. Exp. N %

1-6 34 79.06

7 or more 9 20.93

The composite mean scores reflecting South Carolina public school superintendents’ perceptions of individual innovativeness and organizational

innovativeness related to superintendents’ years of experience were calculated. A two- tailed, unpaired t test was conducted for individual and organizational innovativeness. No significant difference was found between South Carolina public school district

superintendents with 1-6 years of experience (M = 3.35) and superintendents with 7 or more years of experience (M = 3.32) regarding superintendents’ perceptions of individual innovativeness, t (41) = .302, p = .763 (two-tailed). No significant difference was found between South Carolina public school district superintendents with 1-6 years of

experience (M = 3.13) and superintendents with 7 or more years of experience (M = 3.09) regarding superintendents’ perceptions of organizational innovativeness, t (41) = .604, p = .548 (two-tailed). The results of this analysis can be found in Table 4.17.

88 Table 4.17

Superintendents’ Ages and Perceptions of Innovation

Individual Innovativeness (Yrs. Exp.) N M t p

1-6 34 3.35

.302 .763

7 or more 9 3.32

Organizational Innovativeness (Yrs. Exp.) N M t p

1-6 34 3.13

.604 .548

7 or more 9 3.09

Summary

The data presented in this chapter examined the perceptions of South Carolina public school superintendents regarding individual and organizational attitudes toward

innovation. Specific characteristics of South Carolina public school superintendents and public school districts were analyzed by characteristics of individual and organizational innovativeness. The characteristics of individual and organizational innovativeness were compared to determine individual superintendents’ and their school districts’ orientations toward innovation.

The primary features of the data were described using descriptive statistics including frequencies, percentages, means, and standard deviations. Conclusions from the data

89

were drawn using inferential statistics including t tests, analyses of variance (ANOVAs), Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient, and Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) post-hoc tests. Data were analyzed using MS Excel and SPSS version- 19 statistical software. The .05 level of significance was used for all statistical analyses. Chapter 5 will summarize the findings, and present conclusions and recommendations for future research.

90