Since the inception of the Arizona-Mesa Differentiated Staffing Project in June 1970, the project staff was charged with the responsibility of evaluating the effects of the changes brought about as a result of implementation in three pilot schools. It was found that experimental-design research in an ongoing social system was extremely difficult because of inability to control internal and external variables. After reviewing various methods used to evaluate social innovations, the staff decided on a combination of the case-study technique advocated by Weiss and Rein and the quasi-experimental design advocated by Campbell. Factors jeopardizing internal and external validity were identified and tentative research designs were outlined for five questions. The questions involved comparing project and non-project schools in relation to student achievement, school climate, staff attitudes, teacher ability to perform tasks specified in the original proposal, and degree of actual staff differentiation. Each research design specifies a hypothesis, data-gathering instruments, dependent and independent variables, and statistical treatment. (RT)
Authors
- Authorizing Institution
- Mesa Public Schools, AZ.
- Peer Reviewed
- F
- Published in
- United States of America
Table of Contents
- ED 056 993 1
- TITLE Evaluation. NOTE 1
- MF-0.65 HC-3.29 DESCRIPTORS 1
- Purpose 3
- Definition of Terms. 3
- PURPOSE 4
- Junior High Lincoln and Holmes Elemen4ary Schools. 5
- These 5
- However 7
- 405 December 1970 p. 617 7
- Ibid. p. 611 7
- Yearbook NSSE 1960 pp. 222-242. 7
- These tude involve a few sites.6 of experimental 4 the experimental 8
- Aim Programs 8
- 151 March 8
- - Ibid. p. 102. 8
- While control schools were solicited a t a later date 9
- Furthermore 9
- Ibid. p. 103 9
- Science pp. 11-07ITY7-------- 10
- Donald T. Campbell cit.p. 111 10
- Maturation 11
- Selection biases 11
- Experimental Mortalit v Two of the schools involved with staff 12
- QUESTION 13
- Did the differentiatedstaffing training program make 13
- HYPOTHESIS 13
- No significant Statistical- difference between 13
- HYPOTHESIS 14
- QUESTION inputs 15
- HYPOTHESIS 15
- MTAI scores 16
- IOTA humanization scores. 16
- HYPOTHESIS 17
- Rating of RFPs 17
- HYPOTHESIS 18
- Instrument 19
- Inventory MTAI 19
- 8 scales 19
- 4 scales 19
- Reaching new Met 70 19
- It represents the 20
- Training. me involv- 20
- Bid. 20