KELLY C. LOCKHART DODSONT R E V E C C A N A Z A R E N E U N I V E R S I T Y, C O H O RT 1 1

S Y M P O SI U M M A R C H 2 6 , 2 0 1 1

Establishing Effective Communication with External

Stakeholders: The Impact of Training

Introduction

Accreditation report

Negative

news

cove

rage

Background

Research Questions

Specific Research Question

#1 = Knowledg

e

Specific Research Question

#2 = Applicatio

n

Specific Research Question

#3=

Attitude

Specific Research

Question #4 =

Role of critical

incidents

Guiding Question: What is the effect of the designed system-wide communication plan and professional development training on school administrators’ competencies and attitudes related to communicating with external stakeholders, especially the media?

School Public Relations

Review of Literature

•ISSLC, 2008

•Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup, 2009

•Bagin & Gallagher, 2001

•Coombs, 1999a, et.al

Attitude and Involvement

Review of Literature

•Greenwald &

Leavitt, 1984

•Cameron, 1993

•Slater in Dillard

& Pfau, 2002

•Zaichkowsky,

1986

Training

Review of Literature

•Calvin & Stark, 2003; Graham, 1997•Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992; Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001•Tannenbaum & Yukl, 1992; Wexley & Latham, 1991; Noe, 1986•Konig & De Jong, 2004

Methodology

Nonequivalent control group design

Mixed methodology -- both quantitative and qualitative

Pretest/Treatment/Posttest/

Interviews

GeneralizabilitySelection historyPretest-treatment

interactionExperimenter effectsTreatment diffusion

Design Limitations

Methodology

Population=128 Sample=74 (57.9%)3 participating Tennessee counties without

school public relations professional

• Population = 75 administrators • Sample = 44 administrators • From 2 suburban school districts• No training

Control

• Population = 43 administrators• Sample = 30 administrators• From suburban school district with

smallest ADM• Received communication training

Experimental

Methodology

InstrumentPretest/posttest created by researcherCompilation of published communication testsPilot tested in fall 2009 with group of retired administrators

64 multiple choice questions gauged knowledge and application (Research Questions 1 and 2)

Knowledge Crombach = .851 pretest; .902 posttestApplication Crombach = .747 pretest; .894 posttest

Attitude (Research Question 3) assessed using the Personal Involvement Inventory, a published semantic differential scale with 20 items

Attitude Crombach = .944 pretest; .953 posttest

Methodology

5 participants interviewed using Critical Incident Technique (Research Question 4)

Training tool designed for use with leadersReflect on critical incidentsMay be positive or negative

Sessions digitally recorded, kept confidentialResponses categorized, enumerated to

explain quantitative results

Findings: Research Question #1 – Knowledge

• Multiple regression

• Overall model significant, p < .001 • Both individual predictors showed a significant

relationship to the dependent variableSchool System: p < .001Pre Communication Knowledge: p < .001.

• Regression coefficient = Experimental group scored 8.02 points better than the control group on the posttest while accounting for the pretest.

Findings: Research Question #2 – Application

• Multiple regression

• Overall model significant, p < .001 • Both individual predictors showed a significant

relationship to the dependent variableSchool System: p < .001Pre Communication Application: p < .001.

• Regression coefficient = Experimental group scored 4.07 points better than the control group on the posttest while accounting for the pretest.

Findings Research Question #3 – Attitude

• Multiple regression

• Overall model significant, p < .001 • Both individual predictors showed a significant

relationship to the dependent variableSchool System: p < .01Pre Personal Involvement: p < .001.

• Regression coefficient = Experimental group scored 7.106 points better than the control group on the posttest while accounting for the pretest.

Findings Research Question #4 Critical Incidents

Question #92: “Have you ever had an unpleasant incident with the media as a school administrator?”

Independent samples t testCompared attitudes toward

school public relations initiatives with question #92 responses

Result was significant, p < .05

Administrators with unpleasant incident with media scored significantly “less involved” or had a poorer attitude toward school public relations initiatives

Findings Research Question #4

Critical Incidents

5 administrators interviewed2 of 5 critical incidents =

negative 20 of 31 negative words or

phrases came from 2 critical incidents deemed negative

25 of 36 positive words or phrases came from 3 critical incidents deemed positive

Positive words included: “relationship,” “proactive,” “positive,” “trust,” and “very pleased”

Qualitative

Other Findings

Question #91 on the pretest/posttest:

“Did you receive college instruction about communicating with the media as part of your schooling for your current job title?”

30 experimental and 44 control group participants responded

71.6% of study participants had not received college instruction about communicating with the media

Other Findings

Independent samples t test

Compared responses to Question #91 and participants’ pretest scores (knowledge, application, and attitude)

Participants with college instruction = significantly more involvement or better attitudes toward school public relations initiatives on pretest

p < .05College instruction did

not significantly impact knowledge or application pretest scores

Other Findings

When examining the changes in scores, more than 80% of participants experienced gains

Conclusions

Significant posttest data supported positive impact of training materials and professional development training on knowledge, application, and attitude

Pretest attitudes toward school public relations initiatives significantly impacted by

1. Previous college-level instruction2. “Unpleasant” critical incidents with

media

Recommendations

The researcher recommends the following:

1. More communication training for administrators

2. Further utilization of Critical Incident Technique

3. Further use of the Personal Involvement Inventory

in educational settings

4. Further study of school public relations, especially

within the area of relationship building

Acknowledgements

GodCohort 11Dr. Linda Collins, Dissertation AdviserDr. Esther Swink, Dissertation ReaderDr. James Agee, Statistician

Questions?