School learning environment, organizational structures and effectiveness: A synthesis of research in...

CHAPTER 1

SCHOOL LEARNING ENVIRONMENT, ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURES AND EFFECTIVENESS: A SYNTHESIS OF

RESEARCH IN 443 SCHOOLS

CHAD D. ELLETT*, CONNIE S. LOGANtr, JOSEPH G. CLAUDET$, KAREN S. LOUPS, BOB L. JOHNSON, Jrfl and SHEILA W. CHAUVIN**

*Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, U.S.A. TUniversity of Southeastern Louisiana, Hammond, LA, U.S.A.

$Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, U.S.A. SUniversity of Georgia, Athens, GA, U.S.A.

vniversity of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, U.S.A. **Tulane University, New Orleans, LA, U.S.A.

Abstract

This chapter is a synthesis of findings from five research studies linking school learning environment and organizational characteristics to multiple indices of school effectiveness. Descriptions of a variety of new measures of school level environment characteristics are included and implications of the findings for research and theory development in the future study of school learning environments, schools as organizations and school effectiveness are discussed. 0 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd

Contemporary approaches to the development of organizational theory have recognized the complex and interactive nature of schools and present them as complex social systems concerned with both institutional and individual dimensions of organizational functioning (Getzels & Guba, 19.57; Lipham, 1981; Hoy & Miskel, 1991). At the same time, the education literature of the past twenty years characterizes American education by frequent and recurring calls for educational reform (Cuban, 1990; Murphy, 1990), and considerable attention has been directed toward understanding planned change processes in schools (Astuto & Clark, 1985; Hall & Hord, 1987; Darling-Hammond, 1990; Fullan, 1990) as well as key correlates of school improvement, effectiveness, and productivity (Firestone & Wilson, 1985; Wimpelberg, Teddlie, & Stringfield, 1989; Teddlie & Stringfield, 1993). There are also on-going concerns about school restructuring and

mThis chapter is dedicated to the memory of Connie S. Logan, fellow doctoral student, colleague and friend who completed the first dissertation study within the general conceptual framework and lines of inquiry reflected in the studies summarized in this chapter. Her work initiated subsequent explorations of many of the issues described here.

273

274 C. D. ELLETT et al.

professionalization (Darling-Hammond & Goodwin, 1993; Fullan, 1993; Rungeling & Clover, 1991) and identifying and measuring school environment characteristics conducive to learning (Licata & Johnson, 1989; Fraser & Walberg, 1991; Wang, Haertel, & Walberg, 1993; Loup, 1994).

Within this context, debates continue about several issues essential to the current and future study of school learning environments and schools as organizations. These include the role of deductive and inductive approaches to theory development (Willower, 1980, 1988; Greenfield, 197.5, 1984), the use of quantitative versus qualitative research methodologies and paradigms (Patton, 1990; Lincoln, 1990; Eisner, 1992; Erickson, 1992; S&rag, 1992), statistical and design concerns (e.g., unit of analysis) (Knapp, 1982; Sirotnik & Burstein, 1985; Claudet, 1993; Teddlie & Stringfield, 1993), and appropriate conceptualizations of school effectiveness (Glickman, 1987; Teddlie & Stringfield, 1993).

This chapter describes a recent synthesis of five large studies of school learning environment, organizational, and effectiveness variables. The synthesis identifies a need to further elaborate models guiding research and theory development in the study of school environments and effects originally proposed by Claudet (1993) and further discussed by Claudet and Ellett (1993a, 1994). The studies are all conceptually-based studies designed to link a variety of school environment and organizational variables to multiple school effectiveness indices. The school organizational features measured in the various studies are considered important subelements of the larger school- wide learning environment and its effects on the everyday life in schools.

Methodology

The five studies synthesized here were: Logan (1990), Johnson (1991), Chauvin (1992), Clau- det (1993), and Loup (1994). These studies were grounded in a common conceptual framework linking school organizational and environment variables to multiple indices of school organizational effectiveness, productivity (student achievement), and holding power (student average daily attendance) (Morris, 1986). The results reported here give emphasis to linkages among various school-level measures and the effectiveness of schools as organizations. Sample sizes for these studies varied from 53 schools (Loup, 1994) to 162 schools (Claudet, 1993) with a combined total sample of 443 schools and some 12,000 teachers. In each study, sample schools were balanced by school level, SES, size, attendance, and achievement, resulting in reasonable representation of the various school districts from which they were selected.

Measures

Each of the five studies included a different set of original, researcher-developed or adapted measures. The five studies and the various measures included were as follows: 1. Logan (1990), Organizational Coupling Structure Inventory-Teacher Form (OCSI) (Logan

& Ellett, 1989); 2. Johnson (1991), School Decisional Participation Scale (SDPS) (Bacharach, Bamberger,

Conley, & Bauer, 1990), Sense ofAutonomy Scale (SAS) (Charters, 1974), Work Alienation Scale (WAS) (Aiken & Hage, 1966);

3. Chauvin (1992), Change Facilitator Style Questionnaire (CFSQ) (Hall & Vandenberghe, 1987), Bureaucratic Orientation Scale (BOS) (Kuhlman & Hoy, 1974), Attitudes of Profes- sional Autonomy (APA) (Forsyth & Danisiewicz, 1985), Receptivity to Change Inventory (RCI) (Hennigar, 1979; Crisafulli, 1982; Chauvin, 1992);

Advances in Research on Educational Learning Environments 275

4. Claudet (1993), Organizational Supervisory Climate Inventory (OSCI) (Claudet & Ellett, 1993b).

5. Loup, (1994), Professional Learning Environment Inventory (PLEI) (Loup, Ellett, & Hill, 1993), Teacher Self and Organizational Efficacy Assessment (TSOEA) (Loup & Ellett, 1993), Receptivity to Change Inventory (RCI) (Modified Form) (Hennigar, 1979; Chauvin, 1992; Loup, 1994).

Extensive evidence was generated in each study to reasonably support the psychometric proper- ties of each of these measures. Construct validity evidence for most of these measures included: 1) initial derivations and conceptualizations of measurement constructs in available literatures; 2) content verification of measurement items by experts; 3) extensive exploratory or confirma- tory factor analyses; 4) bivariate and multivariate criterion-related validity analyses; and 5) explorations of validity generalizations with multiple units of analysis. Reliabilities of all measures used in each of the five studies were explored using internal consistency procedures. All of the measures described above are paper and pencil assessments of teachers’ perceptions of school environment, organizational and personal constructs. With few exceptions, each of the measures uses a Likert-type rating scale for items (i.e., extent of agreement/disagreement).

Four of the five studies (Logan, 1990; Johnson, 1991; Claudet, 1993; Loup, 1994) used multiple indices of school organizational effectiveness, productivity (student standardized achievement test scores), and holding power (school average daily attendance) (Morris, 1986; Morris & Ellett, 1987) as a set of criterion variables. Chauvin’s (1992) study used teacher receptivity to change (RCI) as a criterion measure.

Of primary concern here is the global measure of school organizational effectiveness used in the various studies, the Index of Perceived Organizational Effectiveness (IPOE) (Miskel, Fevurly, & Stewart, 1979; Mott, 1972). The 1979 version of the IPOE is a school-based adaptation of an earlier instrument (Mott, 1972) designed to measure organizational effectiveness in government and industry settings. The IPOE is an eight-item, self-report instrument that uses five-point scales to measure teachers’ perspectives of the extent to which the school, as an organization, is effective in terms of accomplishing quantity and quality of products, and school organizational efficiency, adaptability, and flexibility. Alpha reliabilities for IPOE measurements typically exceed .90 and stability coefficients over two- to three-week periods typically exceed .80. In the four studies included in this paper, the Alpha coefficients all exceeded .88.

Data Collection Procedures

In each of the five studies, the primary source of data was teachers, who received and anonymously completed an instrument packet over a five to seven day period. In addition to quantitative data collection, the Claudet (1993) study collected on-site, qualitative school-level data.

Data Analyses

Quantitative data analyses completed in each of the five studies included: 1) descriptive statistics for sample and sub-sample characteristics and the measures used; 2) factor analyses to examine


items to identify latent measurement constructs; 3) dimension/subscale reliability analyses; 4) bivariate and partial correlations among the measurement subscales and the IPOE; 5) multivariate analyses (canonical correlations and selected multiple regressions); and 6) school outlier analyses. School means for teachers, individual teachers within schools, and total samples of teachers were used as units of analysis.

Based upon findings and recommendations from the Logan (1990) and Chauvin (1992) studies, Claudet (1993) conducted extensive qualitative data collection and analysis using a sub- sample of “outlier” and “comparison pair” schools identified through the results of his quantitative analyses. These unique schools were identified by examining extreme variation in correlations between the Organizational Supervisory Climate Inventory (OSCI) and the IPOE. Claudet (1993) also selected schools for qualitative investigation by matching selected schools using student achievement, attendance, SES, school level, and school size variables. His strategy was to identify schools with highly similar (or quite different) quantitative relationships between the OSCI and IPOE with extreme contrasts in demographics for subsequent qualitative investigation.

Results

A synthesis of the findings from the five studies well documented a general pattern of important replicated relationships among the various measures used in each study and the IPOE, achievement, and attendance variables. For example, the variety of school environment and organizational characteristics (and selected teacher personal characteristics such as teacher efficacy) showed statistically significant (pc.05) and consistent linkages to the measure of school organizational effectiveness (IPOE), rather than to school productivity (achievement) and school holding power (attendance). A variety of school level environmental/organizational correlates of organizational effectiveness were identified (e.g., coupling structure, centralization of decision making, organizational/supervisory climate, opportunities for professional learning). Correlations of these measures with the IPOE using school means as the units of analysis varied from r=-.59, p<.Ol) (Centralization with the IPOE) (Johnson, 1991) to r-.84, p<.Ol (Goal Consensus/Vision with the IPOE) (Logan, 1990). Across the five studies, 85% of the posited directional relationships between the measures and the IPOE were confirmed as statistically significant (p<.O5) using school means as the units of analysis.

In examining results of the quantitative synthesis, an additional replicated pattern of findings emerged. When teachers within individual schools were used as the units of analysis, there was a clear pattern documenting extreme variations in correlations between the various measures and the IPOE in all five studies. These correlations were quite at odds with the correlations established using school means as the units of analysis. As mentioned earlier, in the Logan (1990) study, the school means correlation between the Goal Consensus/Vision subscale of the OCSI and the IPOE was .84, p<.OOl (n=79). However, within-school correlations for this same pair of variables ranged from.13 to.86 In the Claudet (1993) study, the correlation between the Organizational/ Supervisory Climate measure and the IPOE was .73, p<.OOl (n=130), with a range of within- school correlations from -.94 to .88. In the Loup (1994) study, within-school correlations between the PLEI Opportunities for Professional Learning and Development subscale and the IPOE ranged from .85 @<.OOl) to -. 11 @>.05) (n=53). A similar pattern of findings was evident in the other two studies as well. Within each of the five studies, comparisons between schools with highly similar demographic characteristics and descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations) for


the measures, suggested that such wide variations among the within school correlations could not easily be attributed to chance or statistical artifacts.

The results of various regression analyses completed in four of the five studies were somewhat mixed. For example, in the Chauvin (1992) study, principal change facilitator style and teacher bureaucratic/professional orientation in combination accounted for very little variation in teacher receptivity to cultural/normative change. In the Logan (1990) and Claudet (1993) studies respectively, significant amounts of IPOE variance were increasingly accounted for by combina- tions of the various structural coupling (OSCI) and organizational/supervisory climate (OSCI) subscales. In the Loup (1994) study, professional learning environment variables accounted for greater IPOE variance when combined with teacher personal characteristics variables (i.e., teacher efficacy).

In the Claudet (1993) study, within-school OSCI Organizational/Supervisory subscale/IPOE correlations and socio-economic status, student attendance, and student achievement data were used to identify a set 20 unique “outlier” and “comparison pair” schools for subsequent study using qualitative methodologies. Extensive, on-site systematic observations were made and semi- structured interviews (Patton, 1990; Erickson, 1986) were held with teachers and administrators in these schools over five months to identify school context variables mediating variations in quantitative relationships between the Organizational/Supervisory Climate subscale of the OSCI and the IPOE. The results of this extended qualitative work identified a set of five school culture and climate context variables believed to mediate the large differences in quantitative linkages between the OSCI and the IPOE. Claudet (1993) termed these variables: 1) Principal Supervisory/ Leader Style; 2) Decision Making Structure; 3) Organizational/Supervisory Focus; 4) Supervisory Stance; and 5) District/School Supervisory Relationships.

Interestingly, in all five studies, the primary quantitative relationships established between the various measures and the IPOE were shown to be rather statistically independent of school size and SES (based on the results of partial correlation analyses). In addition, few significant and/or meaningful correlations were evident between the various environmental and organizational variables and student achievement and attendance.

Discussion, Conclusions, and Implications

The synthesis of these five large-scale studies is important from a variety of perspectives. First, each was designed within a common conceptual framework seeking to establish linkages between the school-level environment and organizational measures and multiple indices of school effectiveness. Thus, replication of general relationships among the various school-level measures could be examined for five studies, completed at five different points in time, with five different, large samples of schools, using eleven different measurement systems with teachers. Each of the studies included new measures and/or adaptation of existing measures to the school context, and results for the most part supported the psychometric quality of these measures.

Subscales on these measures, particularly newer measures like the Organizational Coupling Structure Inventory (Logan, 1990) and the Organizational/Supervisory Climate Inventory (Clau- det, 1993), demonstrated incremental, criterion-related validity with the school organizational effectiveness index used (IPOE). This finding suggests that school organizational effectiveness and its linkages to school environment and organizational variables cannot be explained unidi- mensionally. Interestingly, school environment and organizational variables generally were unrelated to school productivity (student achievement) and school holding power (school ADA).


Thus, the organizational effectiveness of schools may best be understood as the product of a complex combination of school environment and organizational features, and “good” schools, as discussed by Glickman (1987), may indeed need to be distinguished from “effective” schools. Future studies might use different measures of school-level environment and organizational constructs to develop a nomological net (Cronbach & Meehl, 1955) that further elaborates a general theory of school organizational effectiveness.

Second, and of considerable methodological and theoretical importance, were the common findings across the five studies pertaining to extreme variation in relationships between the various measures and school organizational effectiveness within schools, using teachers as the units of analysis. The replicated, extreme variation in these relationships calls into question generalizations that might have been made in each study if the quantitative results using school means as the units of analysis had been considered alone. Much of the quantitative literature on school effects and effectiveness has been dominated by research designs examining variation among schools, rather than variation within schools (Teddlie & Stringfield, 1993).

The findings reported here suggest that theoretical frameworks developed to understand linkages between school environment, organizational structures, and effectiveness should be developed in a manner that is sensitive to between- and within-school variation, and, to the unique contextual features of schools as well. Claudet’s (1993) followup qualitative studies of “outlier” and “comparison pair” schools document the considerable value- addedness of such studies and serve to further elucidate the meaning of linkages between school climate/supervisory subconstructs and school organizational effectiveness. His work identified an additional set of school-level context variables (e.g., supervisory stance, decision making structures), that seemed to mediate linkages between subscales of the school supervisory climate and organizational effectiveness. The studies reported here each suggest that school organizational coupling features, leadership style, organizational/supervisory climate, professional learning environment characteristics, and other school-level variables should be conceptualized as “dynamic and processual” (Claudet, 1993), rather than static, bureaucratic, and functionalist (Etzioni, 1961; Weber, 1922). Schools are comprised of organizational members who interact and negotiate their learning and understandings through a variety of social processes that shape, and in some instances, transform the school’s learning environment and organizational culture (Czarniawska-Joerges, 1992).

Third, as suggested in each of the studies reviewed here, and initially explicated in Claudet’s (1993) work, a case can be made for a two-stage (quantitative/qualitative), two-level (school means and individuals within schools as the units of analysis) model of research and theory development on school environment, organization, and effectiveness. The results reported here show that singular stages of data collection or singular units of analysis will yield rather incomplete, if not quite misleading results. Recent arguments pertaining to qualitative and quantitative methodologies and epistemologies aside (Gage, 1989; Salomon, 1991; Rizo, 1991), the results quantitatively replicated in these five studies and qualitatively extended in the Claudet (1993) study, suggest the considerable, additive richness of using research and theory-building perspectives of a two-stage/two level exploration.

The call for the use of multiple methodologies to enhance research and theory development in the study of schools and schooling has been made many times before and has been reiterated by Shulman (1988). In addition, Willower (1962) has recognized “scope” (i.e., the ability of a theory to explain phenomena as they occur at a broad, general level as well as the ability to explain individual contextual differences in isolated instances) as a general characteristic of theoretical adequacy. Claudet (1993) suggests that criteria of theoretical adequacy such as those proposed by Willower (1962) can be enhanced by a criterion of “complimentarity” of both quantitative


and qualitative methodologies (two-stage methodology) and multiple units of analysis (two-level analysis). A two-stage/two- level model of theory development implies the use of both inductive and deductive processes (in either order), qualitative and quantitative methodologies (in either order), and schools and individuals as the units of measurement/analysis (in either order) as means of developing more inclusive and comprehensive theories of schools as complex organizations. Thus, those rigidly holding singular conceptual and methodological viewpoints may be limiting the development of knowledge by failing to appreciate and incorporate more comprehensive, integrated views of the complementarity of ways of knowing.

Fourth, the quantitative methods used in these studies to identify unique schools for possible further study and the outlier schools actually explored with subsequent qualitative methodologies can be contrasted with procedures more typically used in past effective schools research. Recent summaries of effective schools research and research on school effects (Wimpelberg et al., 1989; Teddlie & Stringfield, 1993) have typically described procedures to identify demonstrably effective (poor/relatively high achieving) and demonstrably ineffective (relatively rich/low achieving) schools for further qualitative study. The important concern in the studies synthesized here was to identify particular schools for further qualitative study using extreme variation in quantitative linkages (i.e., correlations) among school environment, organizational, and effectiveness variables. These relationships were examined within pairs of schools matched by various levels of socio-economic status and achievement, when teachers within schools were used as the units of analysis. Subsequent qualitative research on schools identified with this procedure (Claude& 1993) served to generate a set of school-level context variables that greatly enriched and deepened understandings of the hypothesized quantitative linkages among various measures. The potential richness of these kinds of approaches to research and theory-building in the study of school effects has also been recently noted by Teddlie and Stringfield (1993). However, a variety of individual school results in the studies reported here showed that some schools that would be identified by traditional effective schools/school effects research definitions as demonstrably ineffective can concomitantly demonstrate relative strength on selected environment/ organizational (e.g., structural coupling, supervisory climate, professional learning environment) and personal (e.g. teacher self and organizational efficacy) characteristics. These same schools can show high levels of school organizational effectiveness as well. These findings are reminiscent of, and may provide additional support for, Glickman’s (1987) call for school change agents to first be concerned about producing “good” schools, and only subsequently, to be concerned about producing “effective” schools.

Fifth, findings for the variety of school environment and organizational variables explored in the five studies synthesized here also call into question the definition and use of school demographic variables (e.g., school level, size, SES, etc.) to explain “context effects” popular- ized in the traditional and more recent school effectiveness and school effects literatures (Wim- pelberg et al,, 1989; Teddlie & Stringfield, 1993). The conceptualization, measurement and exploration of variables like those described here provides a much more humanly rich and in-depth view of school “context effects” than the manner in which context has typically been described in the traditional school effectiveness literature (Wimpelberg et al., 1989). Interestingly, and from this perspective, few subscales of the school-level environment and organizational measures in the studies summarized here showed empirical linkages to student achievement (school productivity) or school holding power (student attendance). Therefore, it might be reasonably expected in future research on schools that student productivity (achievement) and school holding power (student attendance) will show relatively weak linkages to school-level environment


and organizational variables. However, these same school effectiveness variables (i.e., achievement and attendance) are known to correlate rather strongly and consistently with school demographic variables such as socio-economic status (Morris & Ellett, 1987; Logan, 1990), and these demographic variables have typically, and perhaps somewhat tautologically, been treated as “school context” variables in past school effectiveness research. Of additional interest here, were general findings from the five studies that documented the statistical independence of school environment and school organizational effectiveness from school size and socio-economic status.

Finally, as suggested by Logan (1990), with some support from the other four studies synthesized here, school organizational effectiveness may be a necessary but not sufficient condi- tion for enhancing school outcomes such as student achievement. If this is the case, then identifying school-level environment correlates of school organizational effectiveness, and developing meaningful conceptual models of school effectiveness and change, are important research and theory building concerns. Of course, the difficulty of this task seems exacerbated by the findings in these five studies of extreme within-school covariations among the variables explored. However, identifying and subsequently more intensely studying the nature of atypical, within school covariations among variables, with the intent of explaining these covariations, seems suggested by the studies summarized here. Such efforts are consistent with the recognized historical importance of the role of in-depth study of unusual cases and anomalies in the progress of science (Kuhn, 1970). The five studies summarized and the two-stage, two- level model of theory development proposed here are intended to appreciate these important issues.

References

Aiken, M., & Hage, J. (1966). Organizational alienation: A comparative analysis. American Sociological Review, 31, 497-507.

Astute, T., & Clark, D. (1985). Strength of organizational coupling in the instructionally effective school. Urban Educa- tion, 19,331-3.55.

Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P., Conley, S. C.. & Bauer, S. (1990). The dimensionality of decision participation in educational organizations: The value of a multi-domain evaluative approach. Educarional Administration Quarterly, 26, 126167.

Charters, W. W. (1974). Sense ofteacher autonomy: Measurement andfindings. Project MITT/Management Implications of Team Teaching. Center for Educational Policy and Management, University of Oregon.

Chauvin, S. W. (1992). An exploration of principal change facilitator style, bureaucratic and professional orientation and teacher receptivity to change. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University.

Claudet. J. G. (1993). An exploration of the organizational structure ofsupervision. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University.

Claudet, J. G., & Ellen, C. D. (1993a, October). Developing, measuring and testing an organizational model of instructional supervision; lmplicationsfor administrative leadership. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the University Council of Educational Administration, Houston, Texas.

Claudet, J. G., & Ellett, C. D. (1993b). Organizational/Supervisory Climate inventory (OSCIJ. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: College of Education, Louisiana State University.

Claude& J. G., & Ellett, C. D. (1994, April). Conceptualizing the study of professional learning environments: Some initial theoretical and empirical perspecrives. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, Louisiana.

Crisafulli, D. A. (1982). The relationship between teachers’ receptivity to change and the organizational school climate. Dissertation Abstracrs International, 44, 381 A. Doctoral dissertation, George Peabody College for Teachers, Vander- bilt University.

Cronbach, L., & Meehl, P. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 53.281-302. Cuban, L. (1990). Reforming again, again, and again. Educational Researcher, 19(l), 3-13. Czamiawska-Joerges, B. (1992). Exploring complex organizations: A cultural perspective. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Darling-Hammond, L. (1990). Instructional policy into practice: “The power of the bottom over the top”. Educational

Evaluarion and Policy Analysis, 12,233-241.


Darling-Hammond, L.. & Goodwin, A. L. (1993). Progress toward professionalization in teaching. In G. Cawelti (Ed.), Challenges and achievemenrs of American education. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Eisner, E. W. (1992). Are all causal claims positivistic? A reply to Francis Schrag. Educational Researcher, 21(5), 8-9. Erickson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M. C. Wittrock, (Ed.), Handbook of research on

teaching (pp. 119-161). New York: Macmillan. Erickson, F. (1992). Why the clinical trial doesn’t work as a metaphor for educational research: A response to Schrag.

Educational Researcher, 21(5), 9-11. Etzioni, A. (1961). A comparative analysis of complex organizations. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe. Firestone, W., & Wilson, B. (1985). Using bureaucratic and cultural linkages to improve instruction: The principal’s

contribution. Educational Administrative Quarterly, 21, 7-30. Forsyth, P. B., & Danisiewicz, T. J. (1985). Toward a theory of professionalization. Work and Occupations, 12, 59-76. Fraser, B., & WaIberg, H. (1991). Educational environments: Evaluation, antecedents and consequences. Oxford, England:

Pergamon Press. Fullan, M. (1990). Staff development, innovation, and institutional development. In B. Joyce (Ed.), Changing school

culture through staffdevelopment (pp. 3-25). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Develop- ment.

Fullan, M. (1993). Innovation, reform, and restructuring strategies. In G. Cawelti (Ed.), Challenges and achievements of American education, (pp. 116-133). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Gage, N. (1989). The paradigm wars and their aftermath: A “historical” sketch of research on teaching since 1989. Educational Researcher, L??(7), 4-10.

Getzels, J. W., & Guba, E. G. (1957). Social behavior and the administrative process. School Review, 65, 423-44 I. Glickman, C. D. (1987). Good and/or effective schools: What do we want? Phi Delta Kappan, 68,622-624. Greenfield, T. B. (1975). Theory about organization: A new perspective and its implications for schools. In M. G. Hughes

(Ed.), Administering education: International challenge (pp. 71-99). London: Athlone. Greenfield, T. B. (1984). Theories of educational organization: A critical perspective. International encyclopedia of educa-

tion: Research and studies. Oxford, England: Pergamon Press. Hall, G., & Hord, S. (1987). Change in schools: Facilitating theprocess. New York: State University of New York Press. Hall, G. E., & Vandenberghe, R. (1987). The Change Facilitator Style Questionnaire. Greeley, CO: Concerns Based

Systems International. Hennigar, J. W. (1979). A research study of relationships between the perceived managerial style of selected middle

management public school administrators and their perceived receptivity to change. Unpublished doctorat dissertation, Vanderbilt University.

Hoy, W. K., SC Miskel, C. (1991). Educational administration; Theory research and practice. (Fourth edition). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Johnson, B. L. (1991). School centralization andorganizational eflectiveness: The role ofteacher alienation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University.

Knapp, T. R. (1982). The unit and context of analysis for research in educationaf administration. Educational Administra- tion Quarterly, I9, I- 13.

Kuhlman, E. L., & Hoy, W. K. (1974). The socialization of professionals into bureaucracies: The beginning teacher in the school. Journal of Educational Administration, 12, 18-27.

Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Licata, J. & Johnson, B. (1989, April). Research on environmental robustness: A review and synthesis. Paper presented

at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, California. Lincoln, Y. S. (1990). The making of a constructivist: A remembrance of transformations past. In E. Guba (Ed.), The

paradigm dialogue, (pp. 47-66). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Lipham, J. (1981). Eflectiveprincipal, effective school. Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals. Logan, C. S. (1990). An exploration of the “paradoxical” nature of coupling structure and school effectiveness.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University. Logan, C. S., & Ellett, C. D. (1989). Organizational Coupling Structure Inventory - Teacher Form (OSCI-T). Baton

Rouge, LA: College of Education, Louisiana State University. Loup, K. S. (1994). An exploration of school professional learning environment characteristics, teacher self and

organizational efftcacy and receptivity to change, and multiple indices of school effectiveness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University.

Loup, K. S., & Ellen, C. D. (1993). Teacher Selfand Organizational Efftcacy Assessment (TSOEA). Baton Rouge, LA: College of Education, Louisiana State University.

Loup, K. S., Ellett, C. D., & Hill, F. (1993). Professional Learning Environment Inventory (PLEI). Baton Rouge, LA: College of Education, Louisiana State University.

Miskel, C., Fevurly, R., & Stewart, J. W. (1979). Organizational structures and processes, perceived school effectiveness, loyalty, and job satisfaction. Educational Administration Quarterly, IS, 97-118.


Morris, B. (1986). Teacher perceptions ofmulriple dimensrons of the work environment, environmental robustness, and holdingpower. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State University.

Morris, B.. & Ellen, C. D. (1987). School environmental robustness, holding power and achievement: Implications for effective middle schools. Middle School Research: Selected Studies 1987. Research Monograph of the National Mid- dle School Association.

Mott, P. E. (1972). The characteristics ofeffective organizations. New York: Harper & Row. Murphy, J. (1990). The educational reform movement of the 1980s: A comprehensive analysis. In J. Murphy (Ed.), The

educational reform movement ofthe 1980s (pp. 3-55). Berkeley, CA: McCutchan. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Rizo, F. M. (199 I). The controversy about quantification in social research: An extension of Gage’s “historical” sketch.

Educational Researcher, 20(9), 9-12. Rungeling, B., & Glover, R. (1991). Educational restructuring -The process for change? Urban Education, 25,415-

427. Salomon, G. (199 1). Transcending the qualitative-quantitative debate: The analytic and systemic approaches to educational

research. Educational Researcher, 20(6), 10-I 8. S&rag, F. (1992). In defense of positivist research paradigms. Educational Researcher, 21(S), 5-8. Shulman, L. S. (1988). Disciplines of inquiry in education: An overview. In R. M. Jaeger (Ed.), Complementary methodr

for research in education (pp. 3-23). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Sirotnik, K. K., & Burstein, L. (1985). Measurement and statistical issues in multilevel research on schooling. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 21, 169-185. Teddlie, C., & Stringfield, S. (1993). Schools make a difference: Lessons learnedfrom a IO-year study of school effects.

New York: Columbia University, Teachers’ College Press. Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1993). Toward a knowledge base for school leaming. Review of Educational

Research, 63, 249-294. Weber, M. (1922) The three types of legitimate rule. In A. Etzioni & E. W. Lehman (Eds.), A sociological reader on

complex organizations (1980 edition). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Willower, D. J. (1962). Some illustrated comments on hypothesis construction and research. The Journal of Educational

Research, 56.210-212. Willower, D. J. (1980). Contemporary issues in theory in educational administration. Educational Administration Quarterly,

16, l-25. Willower, D. J. (1988). Synthesis and projection. In N. J. Boyan (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational administra-

tion (pp. 729-747). New York: Longman. Wimpelberg, R. K., Teddlie, C., & Stringfield. S. (1989). Sensitivity to context: The past and future of effective schools

research. Educational Administration Quarterly, 25(I), 82-107.

Biographies

Chad D. Ellett is Professor of Educational Administration and Educational Research Methodol- ogy, College of Education, Louisiana State University. His research interests include the study of school and classroom learning environments, performance assessment and evaluation of education personnel, organizational studies, and change processes.

Joseph G. Claude& is Assistant Professor, Division of Educational Psychology and Leader- ship, College of Education, Texas Tech University. His research interests are studies of schools as organizations and social systems and technology-based administrator preparation.

Karen S. Loup is Assistant Professor, College of Education, Department of Educational Leader- ship, University of Georgia. Her research interests include the study of learning environments, self and organizational efficacies, and change and reform in schools.

Bob L. Johnson, Jr is Assistant Professor, Graduate School of Education, Department of Educational Administration, University of Utah. His research interests include politics and policy studies in education and schools as social systems.

Sheila W. Chauvin is Assistant Professor, Department of Psychiatry, Tulane University Medi- cal School. Her research interest include curriculum evaluation studies, faculty development, and school change.

School learning environment, organizational structures and effectiveness: A synthesis of research in...

Documents

Transcript of School learning environment, organizational structures and effectiveness: A synthesis of research in...