In this chapter, the findings of the study are presented. This chapter begins with an introductory section that briefly describes the scope of the study, restates the research questions, and reviews the methodology. A brief overview of the study is next, followed by sections outlining the findings for each research question.
Description of the Study
The purpose of this study was to explore what influence a school district’s transformation to a PLC had on culture. In particular, the study examined what dimensions of a PLC are
evident, how the district approached the change process, and their influence on student
achievement. The overarching question was: what influence does the implementation of a PLC have in one school district’s culture? Therefore, data were gathered and analyzed to address the following sub-questions.
1. What dimensions of a PLC are evident in this school district? 2. How did South Central ISD (SCISD) facilitate the change process? 3. How has the implementation of a PLC influenced student achievement?
The methodology employed in this study was a Type 2 single-case study. Data regarding this district’s implementation of a PLC and its influence on school culture was gathered via
sources of evidence common in case study research, i.e., survey, documents, archival records,
direct observations, and interviews (Yin, 2009).
Presentation of the Data
Data collected from the PLCA-R, interviews, field notes, and documents were organized to respond to each of the research questions. The PLCA-R data were calculated by the online version provided by Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL). As respondents
80
completed the survey, the online version automatically graphed each group, individual, and subgroups with a mean score and standard deviation for each dimension. Respondents used a 4 point scale to indicate the degree to which they agree or disagree with each statement. Data sets were analyzed to determine mean sores for each dimension. The results were sorted into four categories; 1.00-1.99 (Strongly Disagree); 2.00-2.99 (Disagree); 3.00-3.99 (Agree); and, 4.00- 4.99 (Strongly Agree). According to SEDL (2010) a mean score of 3.00 or higher represents a general consensus with the dimension. Because participants’ scores are included in the
calculation of mean scores (Vogt, 2007), mean scores of 2.99 or 2.97 as in this case study, are close to becoming 3.00. Thus, the researcher can interpret mean scores of 2.99 and 2.97 as close to demonstrating a general consensus that the dimension is evident. Table 6 presents the mean scores conversion for the 4 point Likert scale.
Table 6
Mean Score Conversion Table
Mean Score Range Likert Scale
1.00 – 1.99 Strongly Disagree SD
2.00 – 2.99 Disagree D
3.00 – 3.99 Agree A
4.00 – 4.99 Strongly Agree SA
Descriptive statistics were used to analyze PLCA-R results. The use of descriptive statistics allowed the researcher to summarize data from a population to make assumptions (Vogt, 2007). Olivier and Hipp (2010) support the use of descriptive statistics to analyze PLCA- R results by dimension and by individual item. Descriptive statistics allow researchers to summarize large amounts of data into a few indices to formulate conclusions about a given population. This statistical method uses measures of central tendency or average scores of a group of scores. The mean score is the most common measure of central tendency. Due to the manner in which it is computed, a mean score represents every participant’s score (Vogt, 2007).
81
Data collected from the PLCA-R comments section, documents, field notes, and interviews were uploaded to Ethnograph 6.0 (E6) software and coded. E6 is data analysis software that assists researchers in compiling and organizing qualitative data. The coded data was analyzed to extract themes. Interview excerpts are presented in both single quote and conversation formats. The single quote presents an excerpt from a single interviewee. The conversation excerpt cites a dialogue exchange between the researcher and the interview participant. The conversation format was utilized to present portions of the dialogue exchange that convey the interview participant’s lived experience and the meaning they make of that experience (Seidman, 2013). Data collected were triangulated to corroborate findings from the different sources of evidence. According to Yin (2009), using multiple sources of evidence to corroborate a fact results in a stronger case study.
82
Research Question One
What dimensions of a PLC are evident in this school district?
Question one sought to uncover which dimensions of a PLC are evident within the context of one school district. Data from the PLCA-R and interviews with participants were used to identify evidence related to each of the five dimensions of a PLC. The five dimensions of a PLC used in this study were: Shared and Supportive Leadership, Shared Values and Vision, Collective Learning and Application, Shared Personal Practice, and Supportive Conditions. Hord (2004a) identified two types of Supportive Conditions - Relationships and Structures.
Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data collected from the PLCA-R. Out of the 1,401 individuals invited to participate in the survey, 511 completed surveys were returned, resulting in a 37% response rate. Mean scores were calculated using the following Likert Scale: (1) Strongly Disagree, (2) Disagree, (3) Agree, and (4) Strongly Agree (see Table 6).
A total of 38 interviews (see Table 2) were conducted. Individuals interviewed included the following: 15 elementary teachers, five middle school teachers, six high school teachers, six principals, four central office administrators, the superintendent, and one school board member. Campus assignments for the principals interviewed were as follows: 5 elementary school
principals, and 1 high school principal. The researcher triangulated data from in-depth interviews, documents, archival records, and PLCA-R for reliability.
Table 7 illustrates a summary of results from the PLCA-R by dimensions of a PLC as identified by Hord (1997, 2004a).
83 Table 7 PLCA-R Results PLC Dimensions D1 D2 D3 D4 D5a D5b Q1: 1428 Q12: 1500 Q21: 1593 Q31: 1400 Q38: 1599 Q43: 1464 Q2: 1461 Q13: 1513 Q22: 1551 Q32: 1416 Q39: 1491 Q44: 1440 Q3: 1453 Q14: 1541 Q23: 1592 Q33: 1595 Q40: 1567 Q45: 1476 Q4: 1510 Q15: 1582 Q24: 1513 Q34: 1515 Q41: 1447 Q46: 1531 Q5: 1426 Q16: 1504 Q25: 1530 Q35: 1481 Q42: 1536 Q47: 1504 Q6: 1506 Q17: 1480 Q26: 1585 Q36: 1535 Q48: 1612 Q7: 1395 Q18: 1588 Q27: 1471 Q37: 1434 Q49: 1561 Q8: 1465 Q19: 1443 Q28: 1616 Q50: 1540 Q9: 1492 Q20: 1602 Q29: 1602 Q51: 1495 Q10: 1396 Q30: 1578 Q52: 1566 Q11: 1634 No. of respondents 511 511 511 511 511 511
Sum of raw scores: 16166 13753 15631 10376 7640 15189
Average Raw Score:
(Sum / respondents) 31.64 26.91 30.59 20.31 14.95 29.72
Mean:
(Avg. raw score / No. of statements)
2.88 2.99 3.06 2.90 2.99 2.97
Standard Deviation: 0.81 0.74 0.70 0.75 0.76 0.73
Note. D1- Shared and Supportive Leadership; D2- Shared Values and Vision; D3- Collective
Learning and Application; D4- Shared Personal Practice; D5a- Supportive Conditions-
Relationships; D5b- Supportive Conditions- Structures; n- Number of Survey Respondents; Mean Score Range; 1.00-1.99= Strongly Disagree; 2.00-2.99= Disagree; 3.00-3.99= Agree; and 4.00-4.99 Strongly Agree; Q=Question.
PLCA-R results indicate the highest mean score of 3.06 for Collective Learning and Application (D3). Shared and Supportive Leadership (D1) had the lowest mean score of 2.88. Both Shared
Values and Vision (D2), and relationships (D5a) on the Supportive Conditions dimension had a
mean score of 2.99. Additionally, Shared Personal Practice (D4) had a mean score of 2.90, and
84
SEDL’s analysis program for the PLCA-R allowed data to be organized and analyzed by specific subgroups. Table 8 illustrates the mean scores for all respondents and by subgroups based on positions and/or responsibilities in the district.
Table 8
PLCA-R Results by Subgroup and All Respondents
Subgroups D1 D2 D3 D4 D5a D5b n
All Teachers, Counselors, and Librarians 2.87 2.98 3.05 2.90 2.98 2.96 489
Campus Administrators 3.20 3.40 3.34 3.00 3.30 3.23 14
Central Office 2.71 2.73 2.78 2.60 2.60 2.98 5
Elementary Teachers only 2.78 2.96 3.06 2.87 2.93 2.93 262
Middle School Teachers only 3.00 3.04 3.12 2.96 3.06 3.04 110
High School Teachers only 2.94 3.00 3.01 2.90 3.04 2.89 121
All 2.88 2.99 3.06 2.90 2.99 2.97 511
Note. D1- Shared and Supportive Leadership; D2- Shared Values and Vision; D3- Collective
Learning and Application; D4- Shared Personal Practice; D5a- Supportive Conditions- Relationships; D5b- Supportive Conditions- Structures; n- Number of Survey Respondents Mean Score Range; 1.00-1.99= Strongly Disagree; 2.00-2.99= Disagree; 3.00-3.99= Agree; and 4.00-4.99 Strongly Agree.
Mean scores of particular importance regarding Research Question One are presented in bolded numerals. Campus administrators’ mean scores were above 3.00 (Agree) on a 4-point scale for all dimensions. Collective Learning and Application (D3) was the only dimension with a mean score above a 3.00 (3.06 actual) for all respondents.
The following sections present the findings for Research Question One. The findings are presented by dimension. They are as follows; Shared and Supportive Leadership; Shared Values and Vision, Collective Learning and Application, Shared Personal Practice, and Supportive Conditions (Hipp & Huffman, 2010b; Hord, 1997). For each dimension, the findings are presented by the following subgroups: elementary teachers, middle school teachers, high school teachers, campus administrators, and central office. The only dimension that deviates from this
85
format is Supportive Conditions – Structures (D5b). The findings for this dimension are presented in two sections: district structures and campus level structures.