Goldstein, M. T. (1982). Using administrative tactics to introduce curriculum innovation. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association. ERIC ED 214 310.
Comments: The 24-item Leadership Actions Survey (LAS) identifies the tactics used by administrators in an attempt to influence the introduction of special education curriculum innovations. The survey was adapted from the work of Hull and others based on their theoretical framework of tactic types.
Sample: Surveys and interviews were obtained from administrators in 39 sites. These were administrators identified as advocates of a particular innovation.
Reliability: Although it was indicated that reliability estimates were obtained, actually, reliability values were not pro- vided.
Validity: The categorizing of the initial item pool into tactic types was accomplished by a panel of six administrators serving as a panel of judges. Additional preliminary analyses were conducted to determine the content validity of the instrument.
Factor Analysis: A principal components, varimax rotation factor analysis was conducted, which yielded three factors that were named following Chin and Benne’s conceptualization of strategies of changing.
Definition of Factors: The three factors are: empirical-rational, which involves the communication of information; power coercive, which involves the use of mandates or orders; and the normative-reeducative, which involves the creation of conditions within which teachers may innovate.
Hull, W. L., et al. (1973). A conceptual framework for the diffusion of innovations in vocational and technical education. Columbus: Center for Vocational and Technical Education, Ohio State University.
Widmer, J. L. (1977). Innovation and bureaucracies: A reexamination of diffusion strategies for state and local systems. Paper presented at American Educational Research Association.
Leadership Actions Survey
1. Provided teachers with printed materials about the innovation.
2. Asked persons respected by the teachers to present the innovation to them.
3. Provided information about how the innovation has been used in other places.
4. Presented the innovation as unfinished to allow teachers to make it their own.
5. Emphasized aspects of the innovation that are consistent with what the teacher expects.
6. Answered questions about the innovation at meetings.
7. Gave recognition to teachers for trying the innovation.
8. Set a deadline for teachers to incorporate the innovation into their classroom activities.
9. Asked teachers to give their reasons for accepting or rejecting the innovation.
10. Observed the effectiveness of the innovation in classrooms.
11. Warned teachers of the consequences of resisting using the innovation.
12. Endorsed the innovation through persons perceived as highly credible by the teachers.
13. Provided explicit instructions by the developer on how to use the innovation.
14. Allowed the teachers to adapt the innovation to local conditions.
15. Explained the innovation through conferences with professional staff.
16. Visited a site which has installed the innovation.
17. Compelled teachers to use the innovation.
18. Conducted a pilot test of the innovation.
19. Gave pay to teachers for using the innovation.
20. Observed the innovation in operation.
21. Established program policies to insure the use of the innovation.
22. Informed teachers about the innovation at meetings.
23. Required teachers to use the innovation in their classrooms.
24. Tried the innovation on a small scale.
Scoring: A five-point Likert-type response set is labeled: All, Most, Half, Few, or None.