University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A school for implementing arts and technology: an innovation study

(USC Thesis Other)

A school for implementing arts and technology: an innovation study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

A SCHOOL FOR IMPLEMENTING ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY:
AN INNOVATION STUDY

by

Su Young Park Arnold

A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION

August 2020

Copyright 2020 Su Young Park Arnold

ii
Dedication
나의 영원한 후원자이자 가족을 위해 자신의 삶에 헌신한 어머니에게 이 박사 논문을 바칩니다.
To my partner Roberto, my son Andrew and daughter Piper, words cannot express my gratitude
for your eternal love and support. I am grateful for the countless sacrifices you made to help me
complete this degree.
To my mother and siblings, though we are separated by distance, not a day goes by where you
are not in my thoughts. Your pride in my accomplishments means everything to me.

iii
Acknowledgements
I am sincerely appreciative of the members of my dissertation committee. The chair of
my committee, Dr. Ken Yates provided strong motivation to persevere with my chosen topic in
my early days of the Organizational Change and Leadership program and kept me on track with
both essential guidance and timely feedback every step of the way. Dr. Susanne Foulk provided
an equally robust influence to conclude my study through her mentoring in Chapter 5 towards
the end of the program. Last but not least, Dr. Adrian Donato, thank you for your perceptive and
accurate directions through this process. Likewise, I am admiring all of the Rossier professors
from whom I had the privilege of learning during this exceptional program and whose instruction
informed my research. I am indebted to the constant insightful feedback and various
professionals who populated Cohort 9 and enriched my learning experience tremendously. I want
to acknowledge my colleagues particularly, Astor, Cat, Luz, Merissa, Richard, and Todd.
Moreover, I must acknowledge my writing reviews of Brian, Brianne, Henry, Roberto,
and my son Andrew. They are offered constructive criticism and compelling words of
encouragement and constantly supported me all the way through. Their continuous support and
love allowed me to realize the aspiration I have had of obtaining a doctoral degree. Ultimately,
the EdD in Organizational Change and Leadership program was substantiated and delivered
invaluable experience; which stands to foster not only professional but personal growth. The
satisfaction connected with achieving the OCL EdD program course learning outcomes in and of
itself has immensely instilled confidence. This will assist in transforming me into a formidable
opponent of those who seeks to inhibit and suppress creativity within the realm of education. The
impact of the concepts learned and the experience as a whole will propel me to future success as
an innovative educator, and my appreciation for this OCL EdD program stands tall.

iv
Table of Contents
Dedication ii
Acknowledgements iii
List of Tables vii
List of Figures viii
Abstract ix
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF STUDY 1
Introduction of the Problem of Practice 1
Organizational Context and Mission 1
Organizational Performance Status/Need 2
Related Literature 3
Importance of the Organizational Innovation 5
Organizational Performance Goal 6
Description of Stakeholder Groups 7
Stakeholder Groups’ Performance Goals 7
Stakeholder Group for the Study 8
Purpose of the Project and Questions 8
Methodological Framework 9
Definitions 9
Organization of the Study 10
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 11
Influences on the Problem of Practice 11
Arts Education in the United States 11
Historical Perspectives in Arts Education 12
Current Activities of Arts Education in the Public Schools 14
Arts Integration as School Reform 15
Technology in Arts Education 16
The Contextual Nature of Innovation 17
Environmental Precedents in Innovation 17
Organizational Precedents in Innovation 18
Leadership Precedents in Innovation 20
Clark and Estes’ (2008) Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences Framework 21
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences 22
Knowledge and Skills 22
Motivation 28
Organizational Influences 32

v
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation and the
Organizational Context 39
Conclusion 43
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS 44
Introduction to the Methodology 44
Participating Stakeholders 44
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale 45
Interview Sampling Strategy and Rationale 46
Data Collection and Instrumentation 47
Documents and Artifacts 50
Alignment of KMO Influences and Data Collection Methods and Instruments 51
Data Analysis 54
Credibility and Trustworthiness 55
Ethics 57
Limitations and Delimitations 59
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS 62
Participating Stakeholders 63
Determination of Assets and Needs 64
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes 64
Factual Knowledge 64
Conceptual Knowledge 66
Procedural Knowledge 68
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes 70
Self-Efficacy 70
Goal Orientation 72
Results and Findings for Organization Causes 73
Cultural Models 74
Cultural Settings 77
Summary of Validated Influences 80
Knowledge 80
Motivation 81
Organization 81
CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS 83
Purpose of the Project and Questions 83
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences 84
Knowledge Recommendations 84
Motivation Recommendations 88
Organization Recommendations 92
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 99

vi
Implementation and Evaluation Framework 99
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations 100
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators 100
Level 3: Behavior 101
Level 2: Learning 104
Level 1: Reaction 106
Evaluation Tools 109
Data Analysis and Reporting 110
Summary 112
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach 113
Limitations and Delimitations 114
Future Research 115
Conclusion 115
References 119
Appendix A: Interview Protocol 139
Appendix B: Level 1 Survey 142
Appendix C: Level 2 Survey 143
Appendix D: Blended Evaluation Tool 144

vii
List of Tables

Table 1: Organizational mission, organizational goal and stakeholder performance goals 7
Table 2: Knowledge Influences, Types, and Assessments for Knowledge Gap Analysis 27
Table 3: Assumed Motivation Influence and Motivational Influence Assessments 31
Table 4: Organizational Influences and Organizational Influence Assessments 38
Table 5: Data Collection Methods for Assumed Knowledge, Motivational, and Organizational Influences
51
Table 6: Knowledge Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data 80
Table 7: Motivation Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data 81
Table 8: Organization Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data 81
Table 9: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations 85
Table 10: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations 89
Table 11: Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations 92
Table 12: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes 100
Table 13: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation 102
Table 14: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors 103
Table 15: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program 106
Table 16: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program 108
Table 17: Evaluation of Organizational Changes and Development of the Petition Learning Modality 111

viii
List of Figures

Figure 1: Interaction of Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivation within Organizational Cultural Models
and settings 41

Figure 2: Training plan and evaluation cycle 112

ix
Abstract
This study utilizes Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analysis Framework, Knowledge, motivation,
and organizational (KMO) influences, which systematically and analytically clarifies
organizational goals to identify the current and preferred performance level within an
organization. The purpose of this study was to identify the resources necessary in the creation of
academic programs for the arts, including technology-based education, in preparation for
establishing a charter school. All five board members from Los Angeles Arts and Technology
High School (LAATS; pseudonym) were interviewed and analyzed to determine which of the
nine assumed KMO influences identified in this study were actual needs. Findings from this
study showed that the LAATS board members are somewhat motivated and capable of
successfully developing a petition. However, seven of the nine influences that were assessed and
determined to be actual needs, including all three knowledge influences and all four
organizational influences. Evidence-based recommendations were advanced to address these
gaps and sustain the influences that were determined to be an asset. This study makes
recommendations for improving organizational performance by utilizing the New World
Kirkpatrick Model to plan, implement, and evaluate the validate of an effective training program
designed to provide board members with the knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational tools necessary to achieve their performance goals.

1
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF STUDY
Introduction of the Problem of Practice
Arts education in America’s schools is on the decline. Art programs have continued to
suffer under an increasingly restrictive climate encompassing education, with far fewer public
schools offering visual arts, dance, and drama classes than a decade ago (Alix, 2012). A study by
the Center on Education Policy reported decreased arts education instruction time in 30% of
school districts with at least one underperforming elementary school (McMurrer, 2007).
According to the President’s Committee on the Arts and the Humanities (2011), practically all of
the state arts agencies representatives whom we convened reported curtailments in their arts
education budgets and the arts education residencies in schools as a result of overall budget
reductions. Those residencies may have been the students’ only connection to working artists.
However, most states have either severely reduced or eliminated the schools that can
accommodate residencies.
Furthermore, the continuously increasing use of new information and communication
technologies across nearly all the spectrum of human activity signals the approach of a new era,
the main characteristic of which is the need to use the information and refresh knowledge
rapidly. Our views on art and its teaching cannot remain the same in the era of the internet. In
this frame, the tools that the art teacher uses must be appropriate; they should provide students
with useful information in an engaging and accessible way (Bangery, 2004). As it is at its most
mature level, in its relationship with technology, digital art poses the question of the relationship
between art and technology and promotes, in a most revolutionary way, the cultural dimension of
education.

2
Organizational Context and Mission
The Los Angeles Arts and Technology High School (LAATS; pseudonym) is a proposed
new school that will commence by June 2021, and through collaboration with the Los Angeles
community, LAATS will offer a specialized program combining college-preparatory academic
instruction and conservatory-style training in arts and computer technology. The mission of
LAATS is to provide an innovative program through arts and technology, which promotes
complex critical thinking, development of technical capabilities, and the sharpening of problem-
solving skills. At the same time working to cultivate an environment conducive to cooperative
efforts, and one which guides students to discover their talents through creativity and experience.
Prospective students are between the ages of 14 to 17 years old, the start-up with total enrollment
will be approximately 100 students, and the most prominent ethnicity at LAATS will be
Hispanic. LAATS will have 3 administrators, 25 teachers, and 7 staff members within
educational and academic departments. The primary role of staff members in each department
will be helping all students receive the benefits of a school program that is designed to develop
their varied talents.
Organizational Performance Status/Need
In order to achieve LAATS’ performance goals, the board members are required to
efficiently develop charter petitions, while meeting the requirements and ascertaining credibility.
A charter school cannot succeed academically or economically unless they fill their desks with
students. Attending business operations along with the academic programs is also critical to
starting strong and succeeding. Moreover, recruitment is an essential part of the founding process
and a challenge unique to charter schools in which at least 100 students need to be recruited.
Failure to do so will result in LAATS becoming established. Thus, the board members need to be

3
diligent in recruiting enough students. Accordingly, LAATS’s board members must know how to
remain compliant to gain support and create credibility with authority for defining charter.
Related Literature
In 2015, the U.S. House Representatives ratified the STEM Education Act of 2015 (H.R.
1020) with overwhelming bipartisan support. Through the effort and guidance of Senator Lamar
Alexander (R-TN), Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), and the Senate Education Committee, they
designed and maintained a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (ESEA) (Davidson et al., 2015, p.1). This legislation introduced a new era of federal K-12
education policy with expanded local control and state-level accountability as well as new
opportunities for arts education. This requires that the arts have equivalent billing with reading,
math, science, and other disciplines. This designation is an acknowledgment of the importance of
the arts in a complete education and means that the arts may be a desirable expenditure of funds
for federal education programs (Davidson et al., 2015, p. 2). However, due to policy changes,
less funding has been allotted. The result has been that various government policies, including
the No Child Left Behind Act, placed greater emphasis on core subjects, such as math and
reading. In doing so, they quartered arts education on the back burner. In light of these policies,
school districts began redirecting funds toward subjects that require standardized testing in order
to improve the test scores of the students.
Moreover, when examining the current trends associated with education in the arts, a
pattern is revealed, which constitutes a growing problem: Education in the arts is not simply on
the decline but disproportionately declining within certain ethnic, racial, and economic
boundaries (Engebretsen & Fleet, 2013). The problem can be identified among prevailing trends,
and there is supporting documentation. According to the National Endowment for the Arts

4
(2009), childhood arts education has been distributed unequally throughout different
socioeconomic status (SES) or races. Its decline has been concentrated among low-income
children, and among African American and Hispanic children. Additionally, arts education rates
among young adults were extremely volatile during this same period of that report. There is an
increasing gap in available opportunities for education in the arts between public schools with
low levels of students living below the poverty line and their counterparts comprising high levels
of students residing below the poverty line (Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development [OECD], 2012). This can be identified through the examination of reports by the
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), the primary federal entity for collecting and
analyzing data related to education. A report by NCES shows an overwhelming majority, nearly
all at 97 percent, of the lowest-poverty elementary schools offer music instruction. In
comparison, the highest-poverty elementary schools trailed at just 89 percent. Visual arts
instruction among the same groups represents a gap of 12 percent (Parsad et al., 2012).
In 2008, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), a congressionally
mandated project created for assessing U.S. students’ knowledge, released its report card
establishing that for both music and visual arts the average responding scores for Black and
Hispanic students were 22 to 32 points lower than their White and Asian counterparts (Keiper et
al., 2009). According to NCES, 33 percent of Hispanic students are living in poverty, making
them the largest minority group in the U.S. public school system; correspondingly, this would
place them most likely deprived of an education in the arts. This was confirmed in 2015 by the
U.S. Department of education in their report entitled Hispanics and Arts Education, which found
Hispanic students less likely to receive an arts-rich education (U.S. Department of Education,
2015). Low-income households in the U.S. are increasingly being deprived of access to

5
education in the arts. There is a correlation between students having more exposure to the arts in
the earlier stages of their education with higher levels of achievement, from graduating high
school to attending and completing college; when it comes to minority and economically
disadvantaged students, the lack of education in the arts is linked to lower levels of achievement
(Catterall, Dumais, & Thompson, 2012).
Importance of the Organizational Innovation
It is important for LAATS to implement the arts and technology programs for a variety of
reasons. Many graduating high school seniors are products of narrow curriculums, lacking the
creative and critical thinking skills needed for success in postsecondary education and the
workforce (Lynch, 2000). The arts and technology program also motivates students to ameliorate
creative strategies, technical competencies, and critical thinking skills, while exploring and
establishing new applications of technology and media within a contemporary art practice
(California Institute of the Arts, n.d.). The disparity between the technological skills and interests
of new students and the limited and unsophisticated technology used by educators is alleged to
be generating alienation and dissatisfaction among students (Levin & Arafeh, 2002; Prensky,
2005). Prensky (2001) declares this as “the biggest single problem facing education today” (p.
3). To address this proclaimed challenge, some high-profile commentators are pleading for
radical changes in curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, and professional development in
education. The debate over digital natives is thus based on two major claims that a distinct
generation of “digital natives” exists, and that education must fundamentally evolve to meet the
needs of these “digital natives.”
Furthermore, the call for more rigorous academic standards pertaining to STEM is
insufficient to improve student performance without an attendant focus on developing creativity

6
and imagination (Smith & Szymanski, 2013). If the goal is accurate to better the future minds of
Americans and prepare them to lead the way on a global scale, inhibiting the critical skill sets
necessary stands contrary to the stated intended goals of STEM. Additionally, one of the most
extensive gold-standard studies on arts education finds that increases in students’ arts learning
experiences improve educational outcomes (Catterall et al., 2012; Deasy, 2002; Ruppert, 2006).
In particular, teenagers and young adults of low-SES who have a history of in-depth arts
involvement show better academic outcomes than do low-SES youth who have fewer arts
involvement. They earn better grades and demonstrate higher rates of college enrollment and
attainment (Catterall, Dumais, & Thompson, 2012). Thus, failure to establish LAATS will result
in a forfeiture of support for disadvantaged students and lessen the opportunities that would serve
to benefit affected education systems and, ultimately, society as a whole.
Organizational Performance Goal
By June 2021, through collaboration with the Los Angeles community, LAATS will open
a school focused on the arts and technology. The initial goal for LAATS will be to serve 100
students in ninth grade for its inaugural year (2021-2022), and subsequently add up to another
100 students per year until the school reaches 400 students in grades 9-12th. To ensure the
attainment of this goal, stakeholders will hold meetings and develop the new charter school. The
curriculum will implement art and technology-based academic programs in high school subjects.
LAATS will have a foundation established and implemented using arts as project-based learning
while incorporating computer technology. The goal of LAATS is to connect students with
opportunities in the arts and technology industries. To attain the goal, stakeholders will need the
approval to allow the establishment of LAATS. Failure to do so may result in revocation of the
charter approval and, if applicable, termination of the contract.

7
Description of Stakeholder Groups
LAATS stakeholders will include board members, administrators, staff members,
teachers, parents, and students. The board members of LAATS will be five members, including
the founder, where each member significantly contributes some specific skill set to the board. A
stakeholder group is a group of individuals who directly contribute to and benefit from the
achievement of the organization’s goal. Each would be required to extend themselves, including
their time, to those in other areas or disciplines to exchange ideas and educate each other on facts
and issues relevant to their specific enterprise.
Stakeholder Groups’ Performance Goals
Included in Table 1 are the stakeholder goals as aligned with the overall organizational
performance goal and mission of the institution. The primary interest in this study will be board
members.
Table 1
Organizational mission, organizational goal and stakeholder performance goals
Organizational Mission
The mission is to provide an innovative program through art and technology which promotes
complex critical thinking, development of technical capabilities, and the sharpening of
problem-solving skills; all while cultivating an environment conducive to cooperative efforts,
and one which guides students to discover their talents through creativity and experience.
Organizational Global Goal
By June 2021, Los Angeles Arts and Technology High School (LAATS) will achieve its
establishment as a charter school with 100 students, increasing by 100 students per year until
the school reaches 400 students.
Stakeholder Performance Goals
By January 2021, Board members will successfully petition for LAATS as a newly authorized
charter.

8
Stakeholder Group for the Study
Although a complete analysis would involve all stakeholder groups, for practical
purposes, only one stakeholder group was selected as the focus for this study: The stakeholders
will be the board members of LAATS, tasked with the goal of establishing a charter school with
100 students by June 2021. The goal will be achieved by developing a petition that includes
creating educational plans, mission and vision statements, and student achievement goals, as well
as fiscal, governance, and operational policies and procedures. In addition to approving the
budget, engaging in fundraising, and adhering to local laws, the Board must address all
application elements required in the charter school law, including the provisions specifically for
conversions of existing public schools. The stakeholders are essential to the progress of the
success of LAATS since they are necessary to the founding and implementation of the school.
The organizational goal will be 100% met when LAATS begins with 100 students. Without the
support of the stakeholder group in attaining and maintaining their goals, the risk for LAATS
will result in the school not established. Therefore, the current performance gap is 100%.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project is to conduct a needs analysis in the areas of knowledge and
skills, motivation, and organizational resources necessary to reach the organizational
performance goal. The analysis will begin by generating a list of possible needs and will then
move to examine these systems to focus on actual or validated needs. While a complete needs
analysis would focus on all stakeholders, for practical purposes, the stakeholder to be focused on
in this analysis is all LAAST board members. As such, the research questions that guide this
study are as follows:

9
1. What are the stakeholder skills, knowledge, and motivations related to the LAATS
board members being able to achieve its establishment of a charter school?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture, context, and stakeholder
knowledge that either facilitates or restricts LAATS board members, achieving the
goal of establishing a charter school?
3. What are the recommended solutions that will allow the LAATS board members to
achieve the goal of establishing a charter school?
Methodological Framework
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis, a systematic, analytical method that helps to clarify
organizational goals and identify the gap between the actual performance level and the preferred
performance level within an organization, will be adapted for needs’ analysis. Assumed
knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs will be generated based on personal knowledge
and related literature. These needs will be validated by using surveys, focus groups and
interviews, literature review, and content analysis. Research-based solutions will be
recommended and evaluated in a comprehensive manner.
Definitions
Charter school: A school that receives government funding but operates independently of
the established state school system in which it is located, and having a curriculum and
educational philosophy different from the other schools in the education system.
The Arts: Arts refers to the theory and physical expression of creativity found in human
societies and cultures. Arts are generally recognized to include literature, performing arts, and
visual arts.

10
Digital Natives: Marc Prensky defines the term “digital native” and applies it to a new
group of students enrolling in educational establishments referring to the young generation as
“native speakers” of the digital language of computers, videos, video games, social media and
other sites on the internet.
Organization of the Study
Five chapters are used to organize this study. This chapter provided the reader with the
key concepts and terminology commonly found in a discussion about regional center
noncompliance. The organization’s mission, goals, and stakeholders, as well as the initial
concepts of gap analysis adapted to needs analysis were introduced. Chapter Two provides a
review of the current literature surrounding the scope of the study. The resources necessary for
the creation of the arts and technology-based academic programs, and what is involved in
bringing them to fruition will be addressed. Chapter Three details the assumed needs for this
study as well as the methodology for choosing the participants, data collection, and analysis. In
Chapter Four, the data and results will be assessed and analyzed. Chapter Five will provide
solutions, based on data and literature, for addressing the needs and closing the performance gap
as well as recommendations for an implementation and evaluation plan for the solutions.

11
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This study examines the role of environmental, organizational, and educational
governance backgrounds on the innovation required to meet the needs of students within certain
ethnic, racial, and economic boundaries, as well as the student’s socioeconomic status (SES) in
arts education in public schools. The purpose of the study is to identify the resources necessary
in the creation of academic programs for the arts, including technology-based learning, in
preparation for establishing organizations. In this chapter, the first literature review consists of
two sections: A review of current curriculum literature, and a review of innovation literature. The
first section describes the educational perspective of the current public-school curriculum and the
feasibility study in regard to its meeting the needs of students within Hispanic and low-SES
communities in public schools. The second section reviews three identified backgrounds of
innovation: environmental, organizational, and leadership. Next, the role of LAATS board
members will be reviewed, followed by an explanation of the lens used in this study for
examining knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) influences. The study will then
turn its attention to a discussion addressing the LAATS board members’ KMO influences and
complete the chapter by presenting the conceptual framework.
Influences on the Problem of Practice
Arts Education in the United States
As of June 2016, the U.S. Department of Education has begun a process to implement the
new Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). At the same time, all fifty state education agencies
started the administration of the new law. The Appropriations Committee advanced a bipartisan
bill setting the Fiscal Year 2017 funding levels for a number of federal agencies and programs,
including the Assistance for Arts Education (AAE) at the U.S. Department of Education.

12
However, arts education continues to be targeted as a peripheral subject in comprehensive
education, even though the federal government has clearly identified it as a core learning subject
that should be included in a comprehensive education (Sabol, 2013). With the ESSA in place,
arts education advocates need to work with state education leaders to ensure that the arts are part
of the state’s education policies.
Historical Perspectives in Arts Education
Arts education in the United States reflects the social values of American culture. Arts
education was a subject that had been practically disregarded two centuries ago until Benjamin
Franklin advocated for it in his 1792 book “Proposed Hints for an Academy” (United States
Bureau of Education, 2018). It was met with much resistance, but eventually, people came to
accept the idea, and Massachusetts was the first state to implement arts education into the
curriculum. The recognition of the modern dual objective of appreciation and practical
understanding of art quality as a basis for public school artwork is the most promising tendency
exhibited in arts education since its introduction into the school system in 1821 (Whitford, 1923).
In the middle of the 19th century, nearly all-American public schools included the Arts. Art
appreciation in America accelerated with the “Picture Study Movement” in the late 19th century.
At the end of the second decade of the 20th century, the central conditions for today’s arts
education had been established. American Pragmatic philosophy, which associates inquiry with
embodied responses to a changing world, provides a framework through which arts education
found a place in schooling (Eisner, 2011).
Since World War II, artist training has become the charge of colleges and universities,
and contemporary art has become an increasingly academic and intellectual field (Arnason &
Mansfield, 2012). The passing of the “National Defense Education Act” on September 2nd,

13
1958, would bring the first notable decline in arts education since its induction more than 40
years prior. Enrollment in art classes at the high-school elective level peaked in the late 1960s to
the early 1970s with that period’s emphasis on individuals expressing uniqueness (Gamson et al.,
2015). However, provisions for arts in education were limited at the discretion of individual
states in the 1970s. Local schools, school boards, and districts were the main actors in deciding
whether arts education was provided. Where arts education was offered, it consisted of exposure-
based experiences with cultural organizations outside of the school and was not integrated into
the classroom curriculum (Bowen & Kisida, 2019). At this time, arts were seen as nonessential to
the development of critical thinking, and there did not exist a standard curriculum for teaching
art in public schools. As such, there was a decline in the provision of arts education during the
1980s and 1990s, which was precipitated by the fiscal crisis (Bodilly, Augustine, & Zakaras,
2009).
Arts education today requires a great deal of correlation; the whole system of education is
kept in the hands of the public sector, for control, and to avoid any mishandling. Recently, the
U.S. Department of Education began awarding Arts Education Development and Dissemination
Grants Program (AAEDD) to support organizations with art expertise in their development of
artistic curricula that help students to understand better and retain academic information (Office
of the Federal Register, 2018). All history of arts education in the United States public schools
reveals such teaching and that policy in arts education would be an essential contribution to the
field is given. Art instruction of a very primary character was introduced into the public school
curriculum. Nonetheless, the movement met with much opposition and progress reversed for arts
education in the United States.

14
Current Activities of Arts Education in the Public Schools
Student access to arts education and the quality of such instruction in the nation’s public
schools continue to be of concern to policymakers, educators, and families. In 2010, the U.S.
Department of Education reported that forty percent of high schools did not require coursework
in the arts for graduation (Bryant, 2015; as cited in Hardiman, 2016). A national survey
conducted in 2011 found that half of all teachers reported that art and music classes were being
eliminated from their schools (Walker, 2014; as cited in Hardiman, 2016). Low-income and low-
performing public schools disproportionately represented this decline, and African American and
Latino students are less able to access the arts when compared to their White counterparts
(Rabkin & Hedberg, 2011). The current discourse surrounding the need for improvements in
education is a constructive endeavor; however, the current call for more rigorous academic
standards is insufficient to improve student performance without an attendant focus on
developing creativity and imagination (Smith, & Szymanski, 2013). In order to ensure academic
success and positive life outcomes, it is critical that students are provided access to quality
education, one that includes an arts-rich curriculum, especially for students in low-income
communities.
Results from longitudinal studies by the National Endowment for Art (NEA, 2012) found
a significant relationship between arts education and various measures of academic achievement,
especially for students in low-income households (Canestrari & Marlowe, 2019; Catterall,
Dumais, & Hampden-Thompson, 2012). These researchers established that teenagers and young
adults of low-SES who have a history of in-depth arts involvement show better academic
outcomes than do low-SES youth who have fewer arts involvement. Low-income students who
participated in arts-rich programs had better grades and higher rates of college enrollment and

15
graduation than those who had little or no engagement, according to a 2012 study by the NEA
(Catterall, Dumais, & Hampden-Thompson, 2012). Ultimately, as the whole of society stands to
benefit, ensuring all students, including minorities and those falling into other categories
indicative of socioeconomic challenges, have access to a quality, well-rounded education is a
challenge for all of society to meet.
Arts Integration as School Reform
In 2009, under the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, there was a requirement to submit
a school-wide reform plan with the long-term goal of improving students’ academic
performance, especially on standardized achievement tests in mathematics and language arts
(Lackey, 2016). Arts integration is the practice of using arts strategies to build skills and teach
classroom subjects across different disciplines. When implemented effectively and with rigor,
students receive both fine arts instruction and subject matter instruction in reading, math,
science, and other subjects within an integrated lesson plan (Wood, 2014). The possibilities for
learning other subjects through the arts are unlimited: Elementary English learners practice
English adverbs by following the directions of a dance instructor; algebra teachers help students
create digital designs that demonstrate their understanding of mathematical relationships; and
middle school students create and play musical instruments in the process of learning about
sound and waveforms (Dwyer et al., 2011). The various activities involved in integrating arts
across the curriculum help develop secure positive connections between teachers and students.
The value of arts integration has been discussed as a substantial innovation in the last two
decades, largely for the openness of school administrators in integrating the arts and increasing
the availability of arts opportunities to students. However, they also recognized the need for
further development of arts integration: More lucidity in the dimensions of quality, attention to

16
developing systematic approaches to implementation, and sharing of best practices (McCann,
2010). Besides, the nation’s governors, school boards, and even professional teacher unions have
begun to restate the structure and governance of schools, the content students should study, and
foremost, and how to prepare and support teachers for enhanced requirements (Obama White
House, 2016). This reform effort is qualitatively different from the school improvements in
recent decades. Reformers are calling now for the transformation of learning; that is,
fundamental change in what and how students learn (Glennan et al., 2004). The progress of the
changes envisioned will require commitment and participation from all sectors of American life.
Technology in Arts Education
Technology is prominent in all levels of teaching practice (Vannatta et al., 2001) and
functions as a catalyst for new developments in education. Although arts and technology might
be considered discordant, they are deeply intertwined, even etymologically. They share an
interactive and multidimensional relationship. From prehistoric times, art has been using
materials created by technology as its basic structural means of expression, while at the same
time technology has often been the subject and the reference point for art; artists depicted their
time’s technology, declaring their experimentation with new means, many decades before the
digital revolution (Athanasiadis et al., 2011). This relationship is more than prominent today, as
Information and Communications Technology (ICT) promotes the artistic character of
multimedia and transmedia applications, creating new types of art. For example, digital art,
computer animation, virtual art, Internet art, interactive art, sound art, video games, computer
robotics, 3D printing, cyborg art, and art as biotechnology, etc. The boundaries between art and
technological applications are more and more indistinguishable (Chesher, 2004; Grau, 2003).
The use of new technologies in art-teaching leads to the creation of new learning environments

17
that motivate the students in a positive way (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Ames, 1992); particularly,
the sociocultural context of teaching arts, which is rapidly shifting in America and worldwide.
This places arts education at the center of an ever-changing Postmodern world.
The Contextual Nature of Innovation
Many studies that report on how to innovate successfully assume that innovation is
normative in nature. Among the innumerable definitions of innovation, the following selections
may represent correspondence about the nature of innovation, although different stress emphases
of the object innovation. Amid the three identified precedents, organizational and leadership
precedents have a more significant influence on innovation than environmental precedents.
Moreover, the complexity of the object innovation will be considered by discussing different
definitions and characteristics from a technological, process, and social perspective. It is argued
that the outcome of innovation cannot be planned, and the management of innovation is a
process of mastering uncertainty. Precedents in the literature shall illustrate that these
characteristics are a phenomenon that can be found in work practice.
Environmental Precedents in Innovation
The environmental precedents affect innovation; such as the size and wealth of the
community, the social, access, information exchange, interpersonal communication networks,
technologies, market conditions, and political directives (Damanpour & Schneider, 2006). Most
studies of innovation presented thus far have discussed how the size and wealth of the
community, communication networks, technologies, and market conditions influence innovation.
On the other hand, the organizational psychologist Baitsch (n.d.) refers to innovation as a radical
change in various fields. As criteria of labeling a novelty innovation, he suggests social and
collective compliance of a “product” as being new. This retrospective approach consists of a

18
change of perspective: It is no longer the innovation generating system that decides about the
attribute “novelty” but the environment that is affected by the invention (Schulz, 2008). Further,
Damanpour and Schneider (2006) stated, organizations introduce innovations to adapt to
environmental change and achieve strategic intent for maintaining and improving performance.
Based on the preceding, environmental characteristics are critical factors in the ability of an
organization to be innovative. Subsequently, prosperity in both firms and countries depends on
the nature of the local environment in which the competition takes place.
Furthermore, Cooper (1999) discusses two sets of critical success factors for product
innovation projects: One deals with “doing the right projects” and the other with “doing projects
right.” Whereas the external environmental characteristics primarily capture the first set, the
second set is mainly influenced by internal organizational characteristics. The firm’s resource
base is not merely a function of its past investments but is also determined by the conditions of
resource supply and resource creation within its environment (Porter, 2008). The innovations
affect the social system of the organization and the relationship among people who interact to
accomplish a particular goal or task. It includes those rules, roles, procedures, and structures that
are related to communication and exchange among people, and between the environment and
people (Brockhoff et al., 2011). Accordingly, innovation is a means to respond to changes in an
enterprise’s internal or external environment or as a preemptive action taken to influence the
environment. Researchers of innovation suggest that environmental characteristics are critical to
the organization’s ability to be innovative.
Organizational Precedents in Innovation
Organizational size and complexity, organizational financial resources and internal
economic health, social system, and organizational structure are organizational precedents in

19
innovation (Damanpour & Schneider, 2008; Rogers,1995). According to Armbruster et al.
(2008), an essential feature of organizational innovation is that it focuses on new and more
efficient ways of managing the relationship between tasks and functions along the production
chain. Moreover, organizational innovation comprises the development and implementation of
new organizational structures and processes to offer customers more flexibility and efficiency.
Hence, organizational innovation is considered in this study in a more restricted manner dealing
specifically with the implementation of new or significant changes in the organization’s structure
and management methods.
The early contributors to organizational innovation see innovation as a necessity to adapt
to new developments within the environment of the business organization. Innovation is defined
to encompass a range of types, including new products or process technologies, new
organizational arrangements or administrative systems (Armbruster et al., 2008). Organizational
innovation is a new or significantly improved knowledge management system, implemented to
better use or exchange information, knowledge, and skills within the organization. The domain
of research on organizational innovation encompasses organizational activities and mechanisms
for the creation and application of new technological or non-technological ideas and practices
across their value chain. Perspectives focus on the generation of new commercialized,
technology-based products, and processes (Baldridge & Burnham, 1975, as cited in Damanpour,
2017). Innovation in organizations is conceived both as process and outcome. Studies of
innovation in organizations are multidimensional, multilevel, and context-dependent. They
investigate what external and internal conditions instigate innovation, how organizations manage
the innovation process, and in what ways innovation changes organizational conduct and
outcome.

20
Leadership Precedents in Innovation
Leadership, in terms of the power relationship that exists between leaders and followers,
and the characteristics of transformational leadership, influence an organization’s ability to be
innovative. Northouse (2010) defines leadership as “a process whereby an individual influences
a group of individuals to achieve a common goal” (p. 3). Transformational leadership is the
process whereby a person engages with others and creates a connection that raises the level of
motivation and morality in both the leader and the follower. Factors involved in transformational
leadership include idealized influence, inspirational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and
individualized consideration. Others view leadership as a transformational process that moves
followers to accomplish more than is usually expected of them (Northouse, 2010).
Leadership involves influence, as does management. Leadership entails working with
people, which management requires as well. According to Kotter as follows:
Leadership is, most fundamentally, about changes. What leaders do is create the systems
and organizations that managers need, and, eventually, elevate them up to a whole new
level or ... change in some basic ways to take advantage of new opportunities (Kotter,
1998, as cited in Ashby & Miles, 2002, p. 48).
Management is a set of processes that can keep a complicated system of people and
technology running smoothly. The most critical aspects of management include planning,
budgeting, organizing, staffing, controlling, and problem-solving (Kotter, 2012). Richards and
Engle (1986) argued that “leadership is about articulating visions, embodying values, and
creating an environment within which things can be accomplished” (p.206). The literature
suggests that both innovation characteristics and management characteristics influence the
adoption of innovation. Innovation can be considered new to an individual adopter, a group or

21
team, an organization, an industry, or the wider society. Strategic leaders or top managers
influence an organization’s ability to innovate by “establishing an organizational culture,
motivating and enabling managers and employees, and building capacity for change and
innovation” (Damanpour & Schneider, 2006, p. 220). The demands of leadership in
organizations have increased due to technological advances and global changes in the workplace.
Today’s leaders need to inspire and motivate subordinates, create synergistic team environments,
and foster positive job attitudes to respond to these changes (Gilley, McMillan, & Gilley, 2009).
Innovation leadership is a meta-construct, consolidating individual, and group levels. The leaders
have significant influences on the introduction and implementation of innovation in the
organization. Leadership thus is not a trait or behavior, and it is not simply a position; the
greatness of a leader is not measured by a position or individual actions themselves, but rather
the total of productive influences and goals achieved.
Clark and Estes’ (2008) Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
Framework
The Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework is a fundamental component in the
effort to identify and close performance gaps in an organization. The conceptual framework
serves to evaluate knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) influences among
stakeholders, which in turn identifies any obstacles that may prevent stakeholders and the
organization from accomplishing their individual goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Knowledge and
skills, as defined by Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) with the revised Bloom’s taxonomy, are
used to determine if stakeholders know how to achieve a performance goal. According to Clark
and Estes (2008), how people perceive themselves, and others, set the foundation for their
motivation. The best evidence highly suggests significant performance increases are possible

22
when motivational strategies are implemented. Lastly, organizational influences on stakeholder’s
performances reflect, with regards to an overarching organizational awareness, specifically as it
pertains to cultural models and cultural settings that exist within the organization (Schein, 2010).
Each of the components in the gap analysis will be applied as an analytical and evaluative
framework in examining the knowledge, motivation, and organizational factors needed by the
stakeholder group. All components are explored below in the context of KMO influences on the
LAATS’s ability to establish itself as a charter school. The first section will be a discussion of
presumed influences on the stakeholder performance goal in the context of knowledge and skills.
Next, assumed influences on the achievement of the stakeholder goal from the perspective of
motivation would be measured. Finally, Clark and Estes’ (2008) evaluation framework aids in
determining the effectiveness of the proposed interventions to interventions to be used. Each of
this presumed stakeholder KMO influences on performance will be examined through the
methodology in the next Chapter.
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
This review of current scholarly research focuses on three dimensions of what is needed
for the school of LAATS’s board members to achieve their stakeholder performance goal. This
stakeholder group’s performance goal is to successfully petition for LAATS as a newly
authorized charter by January 2021.
Knowledge and Skills
The first dimension is the knowledge influences required for LAATS’s board members to
achieve their goal. Organizations rely on learning schemes, teaching technology, and improving
efforts to prepare their workforce (Salas et al., 2006). Clark and Estes (2008) assert improving
the knowledge and skills of employees is vital to an organization’s success; knowledge and skills

23
are a key driver of organizational performance and a critical tool for organizational persistence,
competitiveness, and profitability (Omotayo, 2015). Productivity is essential in whether or not
employees possess the knowledge and skills to perform their jobs and achieve goals. Identifying
the extent of an employee’s knowledge and skills provides insight into how successful the
employee will be regarding job performance, including job responsibilities, problem-solving
skills, and accomplishing goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). Besides, knowledge and skill can be
distinguished from information alone by serving to facilitate a commitment to development.
Thus, board members must possess substantive knowledge or skills in areas complementary to
the needs of the board and share these skills to accomplish the school’s goals and priorities
(Janus, 2016).
Knowledge types. In order for LAATS to benefit its board members close performance
gaps related to their stakeholder goal, an assessment of the requisite knowledge influences to
achieve their goal, corresponding knowledge types, and methods to assess any gaps is essential.
There are four knowledge types needed for employees to solve their performance problems and
achieve their goals (Krathwohl, 2002; Rueda, 2011). The structure of the knowledge dimension
can be categorized into four types: Factual knowledge, conceptual knowledge, procedural
knowledge, and metacognitive knowledge (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Factual knowledge is
a dimension that refers to essential facts, terminology, details, or elements; board members must
be familiar with knowledge basic to writing a petition in order to understand the process and be
capable of addressing problems that may arise during the process. Conceptual knowledge is
knowledge of classifications, principles, generalizations, theories, models, or structures; board
members must be capable of discerning the pertinent concepts relative to writing a particular
petition. Procedural knowledge refers to methods of inquiry, very specific skill sets, procedures,

24
techniques, and particular methodologies; this type of knowledge will assist board members with
specific duties regarding recruitment, hiring, planning, and governing. Metacognitive knowledge
is the awareness of one’s consciousness and particular thought processes; board members must
possess strategic and reflective knowledge for problem-solving and mental tasks, to include
relative and provisional knowledge as well as knowledge of self (Pintrich, 2002).
Based on a review of the current research, three knowledge influences of LAATS’s board
members will be discussed in the next section, including a categorization of each influence into
one of the four knowledge types just reviewed. This categorization will aid in determining the
best methodology for identifying and assessing any knowledge gaps existing among LAATS’s
board members.
Designing charter petitions. The first knowledge influences required for LAATS’s
board members to achieve their performance goals are knowing how to establish a contract
describing key elements of the school and how to efficiently design charter petitions (Los
Angeles Unified Board of Education, 2012). When a public school operates independently,
outside of the local school district, yet receives official funding from the state of residence, it is
considered a charter school. Charter schools are expected to comply with and are held
accountable for meeting state and local standards; these schools are subjected to recurrent,
ongoing assessments in the form of performance reviews as a result (The Conference Board,
2018). The key documentation necessary for the creation of a charter school is the petition. The
petition includes educational programs, anticipated academic performance, mission and vision,
systems for evaluation, operational processes and policies, organization structures, governance,
and legal requirements. Additionally, most public school districts and State Education Boards
also require additional information such as start-up costs, three-year budget, legal pledges,

25
administrative services, facilities plan, the potential impact on the authorizer, and descriptions of
the founding team (California State Auditor, 2017).
Furthermore, the California Charter Schools Association (CCSA, n.d.) explains that each
State Education Code provides a wide range of requirements to be met by the petition, which
may vary from state to state, while authorizers often have their own criteria for petitions
involving prospects, rubrics, and policies; thus, further impacting the knowledge requirements
for board members and highlighting the importance of being able to understand the scope and
breadth of required information for each section. Consequently, LAATS’s board members need
knowledge of petition submission instructions, required language, and definitions. In addition,
board members need to know that the petition is educationally sound, reasonably comprehensive.
This knowledge influence is categorized as decorative knowledge (factual and conceptual
knowledge); board members having explicit knowledge to develop a petition within the required
guidelines efficiently is essential for success. The foci of this knowledge in context entail
specific language, structure, agreements to district policies, and additional sections and
information, including local context and expectations critical to a successful authorization
process.
Structural decisions and business operations. The second knowledge influence that
LAATS’s board members need to achieve their performance goal is knowing that all the
necessary criteria are measured (National Charter School Resource, 2017). The LAATS board
members need to produce a strategic plan on how they will prepare for and present the charter
petition (Cannata et al., 2014). A number of steps need to be conducted, such as: (1) Enrollment
of students and completing orientation activities; (2) development of the charter school
management board; (3) preparation of teaching and learning facilities; (4) establishment of

26
funding options, financial processes, and procedures; (5) hiring and onboarding of school staff;
(6) finalizing the school’s operational plan; (7) academic curriculum development and
modification; (8) meeting federal, state, and local compliance requirements; and (9)
implementation of the development plan for the charter school (California Department of
Education, 2018; Great Boards, 2018; U.S. Department of Education, 2014). Particularly,
financial problems are the reason two-thirds of charter schools close their doors; and of those,
half-close due to insufficient enrollment, demonstrating the importance of credibility among the
community and its relevance to remaining solvent (Cannata, Thomas, & Thombre, 2017). A
charter school cannot succeed academically or economically unless they have students; attending
to business operations along with the academic programs is critical to starting strong and
succeeding.
For LAATS board members to establish their school, they must reach out to the
community when recruiting students. Methods for supporting student enrollment include:
Visiting feeder schools, conducting family nights, attending community events, promoting in
local publications that focus on the target population, executing postal campaigns, engaging local
supporters, garnering political support and conducting school tours (New York City Charter
School Center, 2011). Therefore, LAATS’s board members need to know methods and strategies
for reaching their identified goals, specifically for recruiting, hiring, financing, planning, and
governing. This knowledge influence is categorized as procedural knowledge, as it centers on
how to do something; thus, board members need to know the steps necessary to develop a
petition for a charter school. The method to assess whether or not a procedural knowledge gap
exists will be through interviews (Clark & Estes, 2008) with LAATS’s board members. The

27
focus of the interviews will be to evaluate the board’s knowledge pertaining to charter
compliance.
Table 2 illustrates an overview of how three of the knowledge influences of LAATS’s
board members, corresponding knowledge types, and methods to assess any knowledge gaps
impact the stakeholder and organizational goals, and the mission of the organization.
Table 2
Knowledge Influences, Types, and Assessments for Knowledge Gap Analysis
Organizational Mission
The mission is to provide an innovative program through art and technology which promotes
complex critical thinking, development of technical capabilities, and the sharpening of
problem-solving skills; all while cultivating an environment conducive to cooperative efforts,
and one which guides students to discover their talents through creativity and experience.
Organizational Global Goal
By June 2021, Los Angeles Arts and Technology High School (LAATS) will achieve its
establishment as a charter school with 100 students, increasing by 100 students per year until
the school reaches 400 students.
Stakeholder Performance Goals
By January 2021, Board members will successfully petition for LAATS as a newly authorized
charter.
Knowledge Influence Knowledge
Type
Knowledge Influence Assessment
Board members need knowledge of
petition submission instructions,
required language and definitions.

Board members need to know that the
petition is educationally sound and
reasonably comprehensive.
Declarative
(Factual)

Declarative
(Conceptual)

Board members will be asked
about the petition review
process and expectations for
successful petitions.

Board members will be asked
to identify how the petition is
clearly tied to reliable research and
data.

28
Board members need to know the steps
necessary to develop a petition for a
charter school.
Procedural

Board members will be asked to
articulate their steps regarding the
development of a petition.

Motivation
Motivation is the second dimension required for LAATS’s board members to achieve
their stakeholder goal. Clark (2003) describes that motivation influences one’s decision to
actively choose to do a job task and to persist at that task over time until it is completed.
Contemporary theories of motivation focus more explicitly on the relation of beliefs, values, and
goals with action (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). According to Clark and Estes (2008), how people
perceive themselves, and others, lays the foundation for their motivation. The authors assert that
goal accomplishment requires three process areas involving motivation: Active choice, when one
actively works towards attaining their goal after a decision is made; persistence, when one
perseveres in the face of obstacles and continues working towards their goal; and effort when
one decides the amount of effort to put into working toward their goal and then acts. They also
caution that employee challenges in any of these three motivational process areas can hinder
performance.
Clark (2003) also showed that work motivation is the process of creating and maintaining
goal-directed performance. It stimulates our thinking, supplies our enthusiasm, and creates
positive and negative emotional responses in our work and life. Motivation creates a mental
effort to apply our knowledge and skills. It also controls the decision to continue with specific
business goals in the face of distractions and other prioritized media. Finally, motivation allows
us to invest more cognitive effort to improve the quality and quantity of performance (Bandura,
1997). For LAATS to evaluate any motivational challenges, understanding the motivation

29
influences related to board members achieving their stakeholder goal is essential. These
motivation influences will be explored next, with the respective affiliated motivational theories:
self-efficacy theory and goal orientation theory. The application of these motivational theories to
estimate the motivation levels of LAATS’s board members to achieve their stakeholder goal will
also be discussed. The type of motivation influence will determine the methodology to evaluate
any motivation gaps of LAATS’s board members.
Self-efficacy theory. According to Bandura (1982), self-efficacy is the belief one holds
regarding their ability or level of proficiency in specific situations. The first motivational
influence related to LATTS’s board members achieving their stakeholder goal is self-efficacy.
Self-efficacy can have a powerful influence on how people behave, including the motivation they
have to pursue their goals (Bandura, 1993). The strong influence of self-efficacy beliefs is based
on cognitive processes, revealed in research programs on complex learning and decision-making
(Wood & Bandura, 1989). A construct that falls under theories that “focus on expectancy”
(Eccles & Wigfield, 2002, p.110), self-efficacy refers to one’s beliefs and judgments about their
abilities to perform specific tasks (Bandura, 1997). Bandura (2000) also defines that self-efficacy
can be viewed as a collective when groups or teams share common beliefs and expectations
regarding their ability to achieve or complete the desired level of performance or task
accomplishment.
Additionally, Pajares and Rueda (2011) explain that the central premise of the self-
efficacy theory is that the higher the level of people’s self-efficacy in doing a task, the more
motivated they will be to do the task. In order to achieve their stakeholder goal, LAATS’s board
members need to be confident they are individually and collectively capable of taking steps to
develop a petition for a charter school. They must also learn and implement instructive and

30
motivational strategies for enhancing the performance of their stakeholder group. At periodic
intervals, their perceived self-efficacy, organizational aspirations, and quality of analytic
thinking are assessed. The level of organizational performance they achieve will also be
measured (Bandura, 1993). Based on the self- efficacy motivation influence, the methodology to
assess stakeholder motivation gap exists will be through interviews (Clark & Estes, 2008) of the
board members.
Goal orientation theory. Goal orientation is the second motivational influence pertinent
to LATTS’s board members achieving their stakeholder goal. Goal orientation theories focus on
the why and how of approach and engagement. Goal orientation dimensions have been
conceptualized as manifestations of Atkinson’s (1957) need for achievement and need to avoid
failure competence-relevant motives (Zusho, Pintrich, & Cortina, 2005). According to Elliot
(1999), goals are the drivers that create the framework for learners’ experiences and
interpretations in an achievement setting. Elliot and Dweck (1988) proposed distinguishes goals
into two primary categories, mastery goals and performance goals that individuals convey in
achievement circumstances. Studies have concluded that these goals unveil implications for the
tasks people choose, how they approach these tasks and respond to the outcomes, and what they
learn overall (Darling-Hammond et al., 2006). Subsequently, a trichotomous model of
achievement goals was developed by Elliot and Church (1997), which expanded the division
between performance-approach goals and performance-avoidance goals. Three achievement
goals were identified in this new model: (1) Mastery goals concentrating on improving
competence; (2) performance-approach goals focusing on showcasing competence; and (3)
performance-avoidance goals which concentrate on avoidance of showcasing low competence
and failures as compared to others (Elliot & Church, 1997).

31
Furthermore, the second requirement of the goal orientation theory, improving
performance tasks require (Butler, 1993) that board members need to be mastery goal-oriented in
writing a petition for a charter school. Combined with self-efficacy (collectively and
individually), goal orientation will influence the motivation of LAATS’s board members to
develop a successful charter petition and achieve and maintain compliance with enacted charter
school law. The result will be establishing credibility within the community; through assigning
tasks which will be delegated based on their skill sets and knowledge, LAATS board members’
motivation will be influenced to do more than the bare minimum and manifest these results, as
the presentation of new knowledge available for absorption will self-motivate them to master a
new skill. Based on the goal orientation motivation influence, the methodology to assess whether
a motivation gap exists will be through interviews (Clark & Estes, 2008) of the board members.
Table 3 illustrates an overview of how two of the motivation influences of LAATS’s
board members and the methods to assess any motivation gaps impact the stakeholder and
organizational goals, and the mission of the organization.
Table 3
Assumed Motivation Influence and Motivational Influence Assessments
Organizational Mission
The mission is to provide an innovative program through art and technology which promotes
complex critical thinking, development of technical capabilities, and the sharpening of
problem-solving skills; all while cultivating an environment conducive to cooperative efforts,
and one which guides students to discover their talents through creativity and experience.
Organizational Global Goal
By June 2021, Los Angeles Arts and Technology High School (LAATS) will achieve its
establishment as a charter school with 100 students, increasing by 100 students per year until
the school reaches 400 students.

32
Stakeholder Performance Goals
By January 2021, Board members will successfully petition for LAATS as a newly authorized
charter.
Assumed Motivation Influences Motivational Influence Assessment
Self-Efficacy – Board members need to be
confident they are individually and
collectively capable of taking the steps to
develop a petition for a charter school.
Board members will be asked how confident
they are in taking the steps to develop a
petition for a charter school.
Goal Orientation – Board members need to be
mastery goal-oriented in writing a petition for
a charter school.
Board members will be asked how they
recover from mistakes in their work.

Organizational Influences
Organizational influences are the third dimension required for LAATS’s board members
to achieve their stakeholder goal. Organizations are formalized entities with distinctive processes
and cultures defining the manner for performing work and the frames for shaping the beliefs and
attitudes of the organizational stakeholders (Bolman & Deal, 2013). Organizational factors such
as workplace policies and procedures, resources, leadership, and organizational culture can
prominently influence the achievement of organizational goals (Clark & Estes, 2008). LAATS’s
board members will also experience the interaction between organizational culture and the
appropriation of resources while developing the charter petitions. Ultimately, culture impacts all
core processes and operations and how the organization functions (Schein, 2010). The following
sections begin with organizational culture theory, including organizational culture influences and
organizational cultural models and settings, especially affecting the LAATS’s board in achieving
their goal.
Organizational culture theory. The concept of organizational culture is of recent
derivation that became widespread and an important focus in the study of organizational life.

33
Schein (2010) defined organizational culture as:
A pattern of shared basic assumptions learned by a group as it solved its problems of
external adaptation and internal integration, which has worked well enough to be
considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to
perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems (p. 18).
The Schein’s Model (1988) of organizational culture is a method that goals at explaining
the concept of culture and the way it affects organizations. Cultural categories on three levels are
artifacts, espoused values and beliefs, and basic underlying assumptions: (1) Artifacts are
difficult to measure, and deal with organizational attributes that can be detected, sensed and
perceived as an individual enters a new culture; (2) values are deals with the espoused goals,
ideals, norms, standards, and ethical principles and is generally the level is generally measured
through survey questionnaires; and (3) basic assumptions are dealt with phenomena that remain
inexplicable when insiders are asked about the values of the organizational culture (Schein,
2010). According to Schein, the essence of organizational culture can be found at this level. The
following sections will examine the literature relevant to the board members’ achievement of
their goal related to culture in LAATS establishing as a new charter school, especially, the
cultural models and settings related to the LAATS board members being able to achieve their
goal.
Organizational culture influences. Extrapolating from the cultural influences has on the
behavior of organizational members; much has been written about the impact of culture on an
organization’s effectiveness (Schein, 2010). According to Clark and Estes (2008), culture is
described as the goals, beliefs, emotions, processes, and core values learned as the people
develop over time within the work environment. To investigate deeper into understanding how

34
organizational influences affect the accomplishment of LAATS’ stakeholder goals requires an
additional level of investigation beyond the definition of culture discussed thus far. This higher-
level of culture and cultural process analysis is termed as cultural models and cultural settings
(Clark & Estes, 2008). Cultural models are considered implicit; they develop and evolve slowly
over time, remaining in the unconscious background to those who follow them, and illustrate
what is deemed to be standard and customary. Cultural settings are the stage in which we can
visibly observe the social context in which the implicit models are actively played out (Rudea,
2011). The interaction between cultural models and settings is dynamic and distinguished.
LAATS’ stakeholder goals reflect a specific feature of the organization under study; goal setting
is an accepted standard and a stated requirement as part of the organization’s cultural model. On
the other hand, it is the cultural setting, the social context where observation and the effect of
organizational influences impact the accomplishment of LAATS’ stakeholder goals.
Cultural model influences. This section reviews the literature related to select cultural
models present at LAATS that may be obstacles or assets to stakeholder goal achievement.
Vision, goals, and objectives. The first cultural models’ influence related to LAATS’s
board members needs to have a shared vision, goals, and objectives for the organization.
Particularly, organizational vision influences both leaders and stakeholders within an
organization. In the literature concerning leadership, the vision has an array of definitions, all of
which include a mental image, a future orientation, and aspects of direction or goal. According to
Manasse (1985), vision consists of “development, transmission, and implementation of an image
of a desirable future” (p. 150). Vision provides guidance to an organization by articulating its
objectives to reach. It serves as a signpost indicating the way for everyone who needs to
understand what the organization is and where it is meant to go (Nanus, 1992). By providing an

35
image, a vision not only illustrates an organization’s objective or goal but also offers the means
of accomplishing it. It guides the work of the organization.
Vision is an image of the future for which people are willing to work. Ultimately, charter
school boards are held accountable by the authorizer, the state, the federal government, and the
public to confirm the school is operating in agreement with its original purpose and
implementation in a responsible manner by law (U.S. Department of Education, 2004).
Moreover, organizational culture is a system of shared structural identity which produces and
shapes norms of behavior and centrality with procedures that bind an organization together
(Robbins, 1996). It is important that all board members are committed, engaged, and sufficiently
informed to govern effectively and participate fully (Great Boards, 2014). Therefore,
organizational culture refers to a system of shared factors characterizing the manners in which
LAATS board members act and generate the initial petition.
Values. The second cultural models’ influence related to LAATS’s board members needs
to share common values as they take steps to develop the charter school petition. Schwartz
(1999) defined values as “conceptions of the desirable that guide the way social actors (e.g.,
organizational leaders, policymakers, individual persons) select actions, evaluate people and
events, and explain their actions and evaluations” (p. 24). In this view, values are trans-
situational criteria or goals, ordered by importance as guiding principles in life (Schwartz, 1999).
In his theory, the concept goal is essential because it is the motivational goal, which
distinguishes value types. Additionally, organizational values have a significant influence on the
lives of employees as well as their organization’s performance and success (Schrodt, 2002).
They observe that, frequently, organizations succeed because their employees were able to
identify, consent, and act on their organizational values (Deal & Kennedy, 1982). In an

36
organization, individuals learn values through interaction with one another (Evan & Manion,
2006).
Denison (1990) argues that agreement on specific values among group members
influences the effectiveness of their organization. A shared system of values and beliefs widely
understood by members has a positive impact on their ability to reach consensus and carry out
coordinated actions (Denison, 1990). This perhaps explains why an organization’s culture affects
its effectiveness. As can be seen, organizational values are instrumental to the success of
organizations because they guide employee choices for behavior and provide meaning to their
actions. The success of LAATS can be attributed to the ability of their employees to identify,
consent, and act upon the organization’s values. They create a set of appropriate rules of
behavior for stakeholders, which serves as a social adhesive to hold the organization
simultaneously (Tsai, 2011), and keeps every LAATS board member pulling toward a common
goal and objectives. Therefore, LAATS board members need a defined set of values and
principles, along with demonstrated behaviors, attitudes, policies, and structures that enable
effective work across cultures. The following discussion will explain the two major elements of
organizational cultural policies and cultural processes and their influence in shaping the type of
culture settings that the LAATS might have.
Cultural setting influences. This section reviews the literature related to select cultural
settings present at LAATS that may be obstacles or assets to stakeholder goal achievement.
Policies and procedures. The cultural settings influence related to LAATS’s board
members needs to have policies and procedures in place to develop the charter school petition.
The board of directors of each charter operator shall be responsible for implementing the public
charter school program proposed in its charter application, complying with and carrying out the

37
provisions of the charter school contract and complying with all applicable federal and state laws
and policies governing the charter school (Charter Schools Division, 2013). According to Clark
and Estes (2008) that organizational policies and procedures must align with the goals and values
of the institution for change efforts to succeed. Policies refer to rules established by an
organization, while procedures serve as guides for individuals on how to complete a task.
Performance problems frequently occur when policies and procedures contradict the
organizational culture (Clark & Estes, 2008). Besides, policy implementation is assumed to be a
rational and technical process. Consequently, rational-empirical implementation strategies, those
who effort to justify the planned change to implementers in terms of rational arguments and to
demonstrate to them how they will gain in terms of improved performance and increased
efficiency (Chin & Benne, 1976) are employed. It is apparent that the perspective of the school
board members concerning policy implementation resembles the classical or technological
model, particularly with respect to the substantial investment of time and effort in developing the
policies, in the operation of rational-empirical implementation strategies, and in the hypothesis of
hierarchical structure (LaRocque, 1985).
Processes. The organizational process includes projects that establish the business goals
of the organization and development process, product and resource assets, which, when used,
will help achieve organizational goals. Davenport (1993) describes that the processes provide a
likely solution: “A process is thus a specific ordering of work activities across time and place,
with a beginning, an end, and clearly defined inputs and outputs: a structure for action” (p.5). In
the broadest sense, they can be defined as collections of tasks and activities that together and
only together transform inputs into outputs. Within organizations, these inputs and outputs can
be as varied as materials, information, and people (Garvin, 1998). These processes also provide a

38
convenient, intermediate level of analysis. Since they consist of diverse, intertwined tasks, they
open up the black box of the firm without exposing analysts to the “part-whole” problems
(Davenport, 1993). The process involves determining what work is necessary to achieve the goal,
allocating specific tasks identified in that determination to individuals, and organizing those
individuals and tasks into a decision-making framework. The proposed result would be an
organizational process guiding that organization; consisting of integrated components
functioning in the union to complete tasks and achieve goals, both effectively and efficiently
(Marshall, 1992). Thus, a well-implemented organizing process should result in a work
environment where all LAATS board members are aware of their responsibilities.
Table 4 illustrates an overview of the organizational influences of LAATS’s board
members, the organizational mission, organizational performance goal, and influence
assessments identified in the literature review.
Table 4
Organizational Influences and Organizational Influence Assessments
Organizational Mission
The mission is to provide an innovative program through art and technology which promotes
complex critical thinking, development of technical capabilities, and the sharpening of
problem-solving skills; all while cultivating an environment conducive to cooperative efforts,
and one which guides students to discover their talents through creativity and experience.
Organizational Global Goal
By June 2021, Los Angeles Arts and Technology High School (LAATS) will achieve its
establishment as a charter school with 100 students, increasing by 100 students per year until
the school reaches 400 students.
Stakeholder Performance Goals
By January 2021, Board members will successfully petition for LAATS as a newly authorized
charter.

39
Assumed Organizational Influences Organization Influence Assessment
Cultural Model Influence 1:
Board members need to have a shared vision,
goals, and objectives for the organization.
Interview to determine if the organization’s
share common values as they take the steps to
develop the charter school petition.
Cultural Model Influence 2:
Board members need to share common
values as they take the steps to develop the
charter school petition.
Interview to determine if the organization’s
share common values as they take the steps to
develop the charter school petition.
Cultural Setting Influence 1:
Board members need to have policies and
procedures in place to develop the charter
school petition.

Cultural Setting Influence 2: Board members
need to have processes in place to develop
the charter school petition.
Interview to identify individuals in the
organization that understand policies,
procedures, and processes that guide board
members towards achieving their goals.

Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation and
the Organizational Context
The purpose of the conceptual framework is to create a model of the most crucial ideas
and concepts that are being investigated, which will be key to replying to the relevant research
questions (Maxwell, 2013). Maxwell (2005) devotes the framework of “concepts, assumptions,
expectations, beliefs, and theories that supports and informs your research” (p.33). The
conceptual framework emerges from both personal discipline orientation and ideas supported by
selected theoretical and empirical literature that are connected to the research questions (Merriam
& Tisdell, 2016). Moreover, conceptual framework research design and theoretical framework
are stated briefly as: To help decipher the conceptual links and illuminate the meaning and
purpose of the framework (Maxwell, 2005). Another way of explaining this study is structured
and supported by the conceptual framework, which is a generated theory or concept that designs
what is being studied and researched (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Thus, the

40
conceptual framework presented here considers the previous body of research on board members
in context with the developing petitions and the conditions that lead to the achievement of the
stakeholder goal at the LAATS. Practically, the framework then places that previous research in
context with the establishment as a charter school that the achievement of the stakeholder goal at
the LAATS. As the previous study is considered in context, this assists the researcher in
identifying the methods that are most appropriate for the specific organizational needs at
LAATS. Consequently, conceptually and theoretically innovative approaches to investigating
and conducting research on sustainability using concept mapping will be developed in this study
(Green, Fettes, & Aarons, 2012).
While each of the assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences are
presented previously as individual components affecting board members’ employment in the
LAATS, these three components are associated. They do not operate in isolation from one
another. Knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs must be addressed simultaneously for
goal achievement to occur (Clark & Estes, 2008). In this section, the conceptual framework
presented here introduces the ways in which knowledge and motivation work within the LAATS
organizational context to achieve the goal of board members. Below is the explanation of the
symbols and their interaction depicted in Figure 1 of the conceptual framework.

41
Figure 1
Interaction of Stakeholder Knowledge and Motivation within Organizational Cultural Models
and settings

42
This figure outlines the relationship between the factors influencing board members and
their achievement in establishing a charter school, both with each other and within the broader
organizational context, and the performance of the stakeholder goals. The goal, depicted in the
round rectangle box in Figure 1, is for board members who will successfully petition LAATS as
a newly authorized charter by January 2021. A Venn diagram in Figure 1 contains the
stakeholder declarative factual and procedural knowledge influences as well as the self-efficacy
and goal orientation influences. The large circle indicates LAATS as the organization of the
study and the knowledge influences, which are explained before motivation influences are
introduced. The larger circle specifically represents LAATS as the organization of the study and
the culture and settings that encompass the models that exist. These cultural influences include
organizational culture around issues of identity, design, and innovative organization development
(Ashforth & Mael, 1996), and guidance and support system that impact board members’
performance (Cannata, Thomas, & Thombre, 2014).
Within the organization, there is the innovation that grounds the subject of this study, the
global goal of the establishment as a charter school, illustrated in the figure as a large circle. The
global goals are the knowledge and motivation influences that affect board members developing
petitions and enhancing their performance. The knowledge influences include declarative
knowledge in connection to developing petitions and procedural knowledge in connection to
structural decisions and business operations strategies. The motivation influences include
combining self-efficacy and goal orientation in connection to implement instructive and
motivational strategies for enhancing the performance in order to achieve and maintain
compliance. These influences must also interact with one another for the achievement of the goal
(Clark & Estes, 2008; Mayer, 2011). Interacting with each other and within the larger

43
organizational context, these influences are addressed simultaneously to best support growth
towards the stakeholder goal (Clark & Estes, 2008). When these components interact with one
another, they lead to the achievement of the stakeholder goal, indicated as a round rectangle box.
Therefore, this conceptual framework offers the tentative theory: If knowledge and motivation
within establishing a charter school, and issues of organizational culture are addressed
simultaneously, then the achievement of the stakeholder goal will be more expected.
Conclusion
This study sought to identify academic and professional literature relating to achieving
the goal of establishing a charter school that satisfies the stakeholder objective at the Los
Angeles Arts and Technology High School. This chapter has reviewed the literature related to
board members developing the charter school petition. The research suggests an outline for the
relationship between the factors influencing board members and their achievement in
establishing a charter school. The literature review also includes a gap analysis using Clark and
Estes’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) influences framework. Additionally,
this review process has informed the description of the assumed KMO influences specifically
related to the achievement of the stakeholder goal. The knowledge influences include declarative
knowledge about developing petitions and procedural knowledge related to structural decisions
and business operation strategies. The motivation influences include combining self-efficacy and
goal orientation to implement instructive and motivational strategies for enhancing that
performance. Finally, the organizational influences include organization culture around issues of
identity and environments, values, and competence that impact board members are developing
the charter school petition. Therefore, the study will identify in chapter three, the validation
process for these influences, and the methodology to assess whether the KMO gap exists.

44
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
Introduction to the Methodology
This study sought to examine the impediments, facilitators and potential best practices
associated with the Los Angeles Arts and Technology High School (LAATS) board members, in
their effort to successfully establishing a new charter school. The methodological approach to
this qualitative research study utilized the gap analysis proposed by Clark and Estes (2008).
Qualitative researchers considered dependability, credibility, transferability, and confirmability
as trustworthiness criteria for qualitative investigation (Schwandt, Lincoln, & Guba, 2007). This
analysis is a systematic, analytical method that clarifies organizational goals and identifies the
gaps between the actual performance level and the preferred performance level within an
organization. The assumed intrusive elements associated with the board members establishing a
new charter school were evaluated based on individual knowledge, motivation, and
organizational (KMO) influences, and related literature. This chapter begins with a description of
the participating stakeholders and goes on to further outline the research design, methodology,
data collection, instrumentation, and designate the data analysis.
As such, the research questions that guide this study are as follows:
1. What are the stakeholder skills, knowledge, and motivations related to the LAATS board
members being able to achieve its establishment of a charter school?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture, context, and stakeholder
knowledge that either facilitates or restricts LAATS board members achieving the goal of
establishing a charter school?
3. What are the recommended solutions that will allow the LAATS board members to
achieve the goal of establishing a charter school?

45
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholders for this study are five LAATS board members, including the founder.
This group is core to the achievement of the organizational performance goal and contributes to
its success. The LAATS board members are all dedicated to establishing the charter school. In
conjunction with this study’s objectives of identifying the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences affecting the board members’ ability to develop and establish a new
charter school, all five board members were recruited to participate in this study.
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
A qualitative approach is typically conducted through the use of in-depth interviews of
small samples of participants (Giorgi, 1997). Creswell (2014) estimates three to ten as a
representative number for a transcendental phenomenological study (Creswell, 2014). Through a
semi-structured interview process, meanings and understandings are created within the
interaction, which effectively becomes a co-production involving the construction or
reconstruction of knowledge (Mason, 2002 as cited in Edwards & Holland, 2013). Thus, this
study applied individual interviews as a means to inductive study, regarding the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences related to the implementation of the LAATS board
members achieving the goals associated with establishing the LAATS charter school. The
following are the criteria for the formation of individual interviews.
Criterion 1. The board members were interviewed to show credibility in their
contribution to the development of the LAATS. They were interviewed to find their skills in
developing the petition and achieving the goal of 100 students each year for four years to reach a
total of 400.

46
Interview Sampling Strategy and Rationale
The first sampling strategy is the nonprobability purposive sampling of participants for
this study. Nonprobability sampling should not be intending to meet the same type of results, nor
to be measured with the quality criteria of probabilistic sampling (Steinke, 2004). Purposeful
sampling is extensively used in qualitative research to identify and select information-rich cases
related to the phenomenon of interest (Patton, 2002; Palinkas et al., 2015). Representation of the
participants and setting at LAATS means the individuals are working in a manner conducive to
board members exchanging knowledge and processes to support the establishment of a charter
school. The interviews allowed the researcher to collect the data from the interviewee through
open-ended questions and investigation for more specifics and insight (Creswell, 2014; Johnson
& Christensen, 2014).
The interviewees available at LAATS will be recruited using the criteria detailed above.
They also were asked personally by the researcher to participate in the study and were given
detailed instructions. Interviews were designated and conducted to their purposeful nature to
produce the most valuable information from the LAATS participants in the study. Moreover,
interviews provided the LAATS board members with the opportunity to share perceptions from
previous academic and business plan development processes. The interviews also provided an
understanding of the organizational culture and context between the LAATS board members.
Consequently, the interviews were informal and one-on-one conversations where the researcher
used open-ended questions for all the participants and interviewed using an emergent design
methodology.
According to Creswell (2014), an emergent design does not rely on a well-defined initial
strategy, but rather evolves during data collection since the goal of qualitative research is to

47
collect pertinent information from participants relevant to the problem of practice (Creswell,
2014). Merriam and Tisdell (2016) suggest an emergent and flexible qualitative research design
as ideal since the design is responsive to changing conditions of the research study (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). Therefore, a baseline set of interview questions were used at the outset of each
interview, but the questions were modified or amended based on responses from participants.
The goal of each interview was to facilitate an in-depth discussion of interview questions and
identify additional information not previously conceived during the research design. These
participants provided the information and identified performance gaps related to the process of
developing the LAATS charter petition for the establishment of the charter school. Furthermore,
using these interviews provided evocative data about the experiences and knowledge of the
interviewees in LAATS relative to the research questions, which will benefit the organization.
The purposive sample size of interviewees was determined based on their convenient
accessibility and availability.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
Qualitative research is a set of information-gathering techniques or methodologies that
seek answers to essential research questions. The primary methods of data collection chosen for
this study were interviews, observations, and document reviews. The benefits of the qualitative
approach are that the information is richer and has a more in-depth insight into the phenomenon
under study (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). These methods provided the researcher with
qualitative understanding and insight into the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
influences that would help the LAATS board members achieve their goals associated with
establishing the LAATS charter school. A purposeful exploration of KMO influences and
processes were explored through triangulation by the perspective of interviews, documents, and

48
artifact reviews, and observations (McEwan & McEwan, 2003; Patton, 2002). This section
discussed the specific methods used to collect data, place interviews, observations, and gather
potentially relevant documents and artifacts reviews.
Interviews
Interview protocol. The interview protocol utilized knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences related to examining the necessary resources for establishing a charter
school focused on the fields of art and technology. The interview data collection method
employed to explore the KMO influences per Clark & Estes (2008) within the organization to
discover any gaps that might prevent the LAATS board members from achieving their goals
associated with establishing the LAATS charter school. The questions explored with participants
directly relate to the KMO requirements identified in the literature review and the constructed
conceptual framework. This research followed an innovation model where the qualitative
methodology is applied to the data collected to help determine influences (Creswell, 2014),
which can serve as valuable mechanisms for achieving the stated goals of the LAATS board.
Moreover, this qualitative research approach used a semi-structured open-ended
interview guide on the topic of establishing a new charter school. The guide provided the
interviewer with a consistent set of questions to be posed to each interviewee (Patton, 2002). The
semi-structured open-ended interview protocol allowed the interviewer opportunities to explore
and probe (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The semi-structured protocol also served as a foundation
upon which the interviews were built and allowed creativity and flexibility that ensured each
participant’s narrative was fully uncovered (Knox & Burkard, 2009). Namely, it had a durable
semi-standardization framework structure with room for deriving potential advantages from the
questions posed by the interviewer. This was achieved, as the answers were necessarily required

49
formulations in the respondent’s own words, which required not only a willingness to answer but
also the ability to articulate the response freely.
Interview procedures. Prior to conducting the study and collecting data, the Institutional
Review Board (IRB) process was completed between August and September 2019 for the
University of Southern California. When IRB was completed, and the study received approval to
proceed, data collection began (2019, USC HSPP). The primary interview format followed a
formal, qualitative approach that provided valuable information. The researcher qualitatively
explored 12 questions with each participant. These interviews were conducted once. Each span
was 45 minutes to over an hour, to gain in-depth insight into the perceptions of the participants.
Interview data were captured electronically through the Rev voice recorder app on the
researcher’s iPhone. This method allowed for the rapid production of transcripts following each
interview, which is highly prized by qualitative researchers (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The
researcher also took select notes as a reminder of the areas to revisit in the transcripts, and that
may require follow-up in the individual interview session. The interviews took place over the
course of a three-week period. This approach allowed each participant to construct meaningful
responses through open-ended conversations (Creswell, 2014). The data collection approaches
for these interviews involved direct interaction with individuals on a one-to-one basis. The
approach afforded the researcher understanding of specific ideas while leaving space for ideas
important to each participant to rise to the surface at the moment; ideas which they may not have
previously considered (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The goal of qualitative research is to understand, as intimately as is possible, the social
reality of individuals, groups, and cultures and the way the participants feel it or live it. Thus, the
researcher conducted the interviews at a neutral location located on the school campus or in

50
office spaces indicative of the participants’ natural settings (Creswell, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). Additionally, reliable strategies could be found in the means by which the researcher used
the Google Docs and the Zoom Video Communications to record interviews and the detailed
manner in which the discussions were transcribed. These methods can reveal behaviors unseen
by the reader, such as pauses and overlapping information (Creswell, 2013). The researcher also
maintained both audio recordings and electronic memos of thoughts, to avoid any potential bias
until the conclusion of the study.
Documents and Artifacts
Reviewing documents and using them as data could be the third method selected for this
study. However, there were no indicated single documents or artifacts that presented which
related to a petition. Documents located in the research environment are also a reliable source of
data for new processes and are used for qualitative research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Such
reviews provided concepts for understanding the operationalization and actualization of theory
and methods. These documents might have been public documents such as official reports,
audiovisual materials, and home pages (Creswell, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016), as well as
proprietary documents. Although purposive sampling of available documents that are part of
LAATS’s work processes might have provided the researcher with common terminology, there
was no information reviewed that could serve as evidence in the study.
The documents in the research environment contain information that the participants refer
to in their work (Creswell, 2014; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The review of the organization’s
petitions and other approved development documents will disclose missing information and
generate additional knowledge. Using the research questions and the conceptual framework for
this study, the following proprietary documents might have been provided by the participants: (1)

51
A new petition application for an independent charter school and budget approval documents,
could include authorized educational programs, governance and finance, governing board policy,
educational objectives, and learning outcomes (California Department of Education, 2018); and
(2) recently approved business plans associated with individual academic approval documents.
Unfortunately, although the researcher was led to believe that these documents would be
available when asked, the participants were not able to make them available for participants.
Alignment of KMO Influences and Data Collection Methods and Instruments
Table 5 shows each KMO influence and the method and measure of the influence. By
examining the rows, the alignment of the influences and methods is demonstrated.
Table 5
Data Collection Methods for Assumed Knowledge, Motivational, and Organizational Influences
Knowledge Influences
Assumed Knowledge
Influences
Knowledge
Influence Assessment
Interview
Questions
Documents

Declarative.
(Factual): Board
members need
knowledge of petition
submission
instructions, required
language and
definitions.
Board members will
be asked about the
petition review
process and
expectations for
successful petitions.

Tell me about your
knowledge of petition
submission instructions,
required language and
definitions?

Documents:
Planning meetings
minutes.

Applications.

Declarative.
(Conceptual): Board
members need to
know that the petition
is educationally
sound and reasonably
comprehensive.

Board members will
be asked to identify
how the petition is
clearly tied to reliable
research and data.

Describe for me how
you would define a
petition that is
educationally sound.

Describe for me how
you would define a
petition that is
reasonably
comprehensive.
Documents:
Planning meetings
minutes.

Applications.

52
Procedural: Board
members need to
know the steps you
would take to develop
petition for a charter
school.
Board members will
be asked to articulate
their steps regarding
the development of a
petition.
Walk me through the
steps you would take to
develop a petition for a
charter school.
Documents:
Planning meetings
minutes.

Applications.
Motivation Influences
Assumed Motivation
Influences
Motivational
Influence Assessment
Interview
Questions
Documents

Self-Efficacy: Board
members need to be
confident they are
individually and
collectively capable
of taking the steps to
develop a petition for
a charter school.
Board members will
be asked how
confident they are in
taking the steps to
develop a petition for
a charter school.

Main Q: How confident
are you in taking the
steps to develop a
petition for a charter
school right now.

Probing Q: Tell me how
confident you are in
doing the following
right now:

a. Research data about.

b. The community,
economy, and
number of nearby
schools.

c. Write the various
sections of a petition.

d. Apply the school
district and rules and
regulations.

f. Secure financing for
the school.
Documents:
Planning meetings
minutes.

Checklists.
Goal Orientation:
Board members need
to be mastery goal-
oriented in writing a
petition for a charter
school.
Board members will
be asked how they
recover from
mistakes in their
work.

Tell me how you
recover and learn from
mistakes along the way.
Documents:
Planning meetings
minutes.

Applications.

53
Organizational Influences
Assumed
Organizational
Influences
Organizational
Influence Assessment
Interview
Questions
Documents

Cultural Model
Influence 1:
Board members need
to have a shared
vision, goals and
objectives for the
organization.

Interview to
determine the
understanding of the
common vision,
goals and objectives
for the organization.

Describe your vision
goals and objectives for
the organization.
Documents:
Planning meetings
minutes.

Applications.

Document
Analysis: Collects
available
documents of
related business
procedures or
systems and
attempts to extract
relevant data.
Cultural Model
Influence 2:
Board members need
to share common
values as they take
the steps to develop
the charter school
petition.
Interview to
determine if the
organization’s share
common values as
they take the steps to
develop the charter
school petition.
Describe what you value
the most as you take the
steps to develop the
charter school petition.
Documents:
Planning meetings
minutes.

Applications.
Cultural Setting
Influence 1:
Board members need
to have policies and
procedures in place to
develop the charter
school petition.

Cultural Setting
Influence 2:
Board members need
to have processes in
place to develop the
charter school
petition.
Interview to identify
individuals in the
organization that
understand process
and policies that
guide board members
towards achieving
their goals.
Describe what you see
as a process in place to
file this petition.

Describe the policies
you see in your
organization that
supports your filing the
petition.
Documents:
Planning meetings
minutes.

Applications.

54
Data Analysis
Data analysis is the process of parsing data to derive meaning (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
In this study, several strategies and methods were used to analyze the data from individual
interviews. Data analysis began during the collection of data through individual interviews. After
each interview and at the conclusion of the individual interviews, the researcher wrote analytic
memos in which were document thoughts, concerns, and initial findings of the data in relation to
this study’s conceptual framework and research questions. The individual interviews were
analyzed, where the researcher reviews the recordings to assure their completeness. It has the
added benefit of supplying additional notes that the individual interviews group took while
reviewing the recordings. These transcripts were completed by a transcription service and further
reviewed. Once assured of their accuracy, to protect the participant’s identity, the recordings
were deleted. Likewise, in reviewing the transcripts definitely, the researcher was engaged in
member checking.
The coding strategies/methods were completed in multiple cycles: (1) Coding, (2)
cataloging, and (3) synthesizing and theorizing. The researcher first categorized codes and
generated themes based on the relationship between codes and looked for a priori codes as they
relate to the literature and conceptual framework. The second cycle coding strategy was the
development of open codes organized by axial coding. Axial coding is the disaggregation of core
themes during qualitative data analysis. Axial coding in grounded theory is the process of
relating codes, categories, and concepts to each other, via a combination of inductive and
deductive thinking (Corbin & Strauss, 2015). The codebook helped document any conflicting
codes or counterexamples, and therefore assist the researcher in assuring that the report findings
are completely and precisely documented and represented as an exploration into the research

55
questions. To document the entire analysis process, the researcher utilized an Excel workbook
and NVivo qualitative data analysis software, with sheets for each of the data sets related to
KMO influences for the qualitative data. The codebook served as a valuable method to account
for the typicality of the codes within and across the individual interviews.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
This section describes the phases the researcher took to minimize that inherent bias and
increase credibility and trustworthiness throughout all phases of the research. Merriam and
Tisdell (2016) assert sincerity, transparency of methods, and ethical rigor must apply to all
aspects of a study. Subsequently, the aforementioned principles guide the data collection,
interpretation, and representation aspects of this study. The principles used in the research design
supported the feasibility and founding of a trusting relationship with the participants during this
qualitative study. Credibility is defined as the confidence that can be placed in the findings of the
research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Credibility also establishes whether or not the research
findings represent credible information drawn from the participants’ original data and are an
accurate interpretation of the participants’ original views (Lincoln & Guba, 1985).
The research was designed with qualitative methods, including questions that are aligned
with the conceptual framework for this study. This researcher’s design worked to increase
credibility by prudently associating the methods with what is appropriate for the context,
including triangulation through multiple data collection methods of two or more methods of data
collection to confirm that context findings support the credibility of the study (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). To safe-conduct against such biases, the researcher utilized the techniques of
triangulation, member checks, researcher reflexivity, and detailed descriptions, each of which is
described consecutively in the discussion that follows. Triangulation is a common method used

56
by qualitative scholars to enhance the strength of their research (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016;
Maxell, 2013). As multiple sources of data converge and are found to validate one another, data
credibility is enhanced (Patton, 1990). The design is intended to increase the level of knowledge
about the subject and reinforce the researcher’s perspective surrounding various aspects;
particularly, when setting the methodological framework of research.
The analysis of the data by the researcher as the primary instrument of data collection
included the researcher’s biases (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The study contained an
acknowledgment of the researcher’s biases and notation of any participants who are determined
to have possibly not provided actual perspectives in the interviews. The researcher also
maintained electronic memos of thoughts which provided acknowledgment of potential biases. In
addition, credibility can be ensured by imploring feedback from interviewed participants on
preliminary or emerging findings (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The study contains an
acknowledgment of the researcher’s biases and notation of any participants who may not have
provided actual perspectives in the interviews. The researcher maintained electronic memos of
thoughts which provided acknowledgment of potential biases. The researcher checked with
participants to see if they want a review of findings reflecting on what occurred.
Additionally, the study included information pertaining to potential influence, and the
researcher had on the interview. Informing about how the researcher influenced the participants,
and how that influence affects the validity of the conclusions, will further support the credibility
of the study (Maxwell, 2013). The researcher stated when some data or documents are not
included, due to their not supporting the research questions. Ultimately, the reporting phase
included detailed descriptions that led to the findings. The researcher worked to include
descriptions, quotations, and detailed information into the reporting, all of which were drawn

57
from the context as they connected to the research questions. It is also enhanced by a thorough
description of source data and a fit between the data and the emerging analysis as well as by
“thick descriptions” (Geertz, 2017). These thick descriptions increased transparency of the
process and imparted greater credibility to the study. The reporting connected the discussion of
the findings and recommendations back to the literature. This referencing will ground the
reporting in previously conducted research and increase credibility in the recommendations
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The instruments of qualitative research, credibility, and
trustworthiness play important roles in ensuring that the reader trusts the study and the findings.
Ethics
An essential element of any research, to be valid and reliable, must be done ethically
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Under this proposition, a researcher’s responsibilities associated with
conducting research would be centered on a trusting relationship with participants, one that
included respect and ethical conduct by the researcher. The researcher’s sustained principle of
mind should hold that participants in the study should not be harmed, and that agreement to
being part of the study is a necessity (Glesne, 2011). As part of compliance to not harm, the
participants received an informed consent form at the beginning of the study. They understood
that they were volunteering to be part of a research project that could have a potential personal
impact and that they can secede from the study at any time without consequence (Glesne, 2011).
Setting up these ethical responsibilities at the onset was to facilitate building credibility with the
participants. Moreover, the participants were then able to confide in the researcher through open
and trusting conversations (Glesne, 2011; Rubin & Rubin, 2012).
As with any research requiring the protection of human subjects, the researcher submitted
the study to the University of Southern California’s Institutional Review Board (USC IRB) for

58
review and complied with the “do not harm” guidelines (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). The researcher
of this study had a responsibility to ensure that all participants were informed, participants. Thus,
the researcher informed participants of their protection through the University of Southern
California’s Human Subjects Protection Program (USC HSPP, 2013). Moreover, the researcher
secured IRB approval from the organization of the study and followed the same compliance in
the guidelines of no harm to the participants. Participants were signed and returned the consent
forms and were made aware that their participation was voluntary. The researcher also informed
the participants that they have the right to privacy regardless of any employment relationships
within the organization further uncovered during the study (Rose et al., 2009). The researcher
preserved confidentiality with participants in this study, given their role in an organization.
Before any interviews were conducted, confidentiality stated as: “not use any names of
participants in any part of this study.”
In relational ethics, the researcher was aware of their role in influencing the relationship
and ensured participants were not processed just as subjects used for a story (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). The participants in this study included board members, the founder at LAATS, who are at
assorted levels of responsibilities towards each other as well as to the organization. The
researcher is not in a leadership position with regard to the participants in this study. The
responses participants provided should tend to be dependable and not necessarily conceal
perceptions since there were no power relationships (Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Ultimately, securing permission for the study allowed the researcher access to participants
included in the study (Creswell, 2014). The researcher informed the study subjects that their
participation is voluntary, their privacy will be maintained, and their responses are confidential.
The researcher was also asked and confirmed the participants’ permission to record the one-on-

59
one conversations and inform them that they will have the opportunity to review the transcripts
for accuracy upon request. Accordingly, participants in the study advised that data gathered were
neither obtained through deceptive practices nor used in any way other than for purposes stated
(Rubin & Rubin, 2012).
Furthermore, any notes collected were to remain confidential to ensure privacy was
protected. The researcher informed the participants that the data gathered was to be stored and
secured in a password-protected data system to ensure complete confidentiality. The results of
the study must reflect the experiences of the participants, filtered as much as possible to remove
the researcher’s perceptions and biases (Bloomberg & Volpe, 2013). The researcher’s interest in
the findings of this study is to further the knowledge and motivation of LAATS board members
in establishing a charter school. The researcher took into account the biases that could emerge
during the interviews regarding the value of developing a charter school process. The value bias
may modify the flow of the interview and the responses to the questions, affecting the validity of
the data (McEwan & McEwan, 2003). Finally, the researcher was responsible and met their
ethical obligations once their research is published: If authors learn of errors that change the
interpretation of research findings, they are ethically obligated to promptly correct the errors in a
modification, withdrawal, erratum or by other means (Steneck, 2008).
Limitations and Delimitations
Every study aspect limitation, whether access or resources, some elements of the study
are always at the possibility of producing inaccurate or unrepresentative data (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). The purpose of this study is to examine the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences related to the implementation of the LAATS board members achieving
the goals. There are limitations and delimitations the researcher must be aware of at the initiation

60
of this study. They are the shortcomings, conditions or influences that cannot be controlled by
the researcher that place restrictions on researchers’ methodology and conclusions. Specifically,
researcher analysis, the nature of self-reporting, the instruments utilized by the researcher, the
sample, and time constraints (Baron, 2008).
Some limitations that subsist for this study:
● In this qualitative study, the findings could be subject to other interpretations.
● The study will be dependent on the truthfulness of the respondents.
● The results of the study are limited by the ability of the methodology to address
the problem and purpose.
● The purposive sampling procedure decreases the generalizability of findings.
This study will not be generalizable to all areas of educational organizations.
● The time available to complete the study condenses the ultimate validation of the
assumed influences, depending on the resulting stakeholder needs and
expectations.
A delimitation is sometimes called a “boundary condition,” which specifies a region
beyond which a theory or hypothesis is either changed or does not hold. Delimitations are those
characteristics selected by the researcher to define the boundaries of the study. For instance, the
scope may focus on specific variables, specific participants, specific sites, or be narrowed to one
type of research design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2017). Delimitations are the decisions the
researcher makes that may have implications for the study.
The delimitations that affect this study include:
● The key aims and objectives of the study.
● The method (s) of investigation.

61
● Initially, this study will confine itself to interviewing and observing the selected
stakeholder group of focus, the LAATS board members.
● This study will have been conducted prior to the innovation being introduced.
● The researcher makes conscious exclusionary and inclusionary decisions
regarding the sample and theoretical perspectives.

62
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
The purpose of this innovative study was to examine the impediments, facilitators and
potential best practices associated with Los Angeles Arts and Technology High School (LAATS)
board members successfully establishing a new charter school. This qualitative assessment will
explore knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) factors that facilitate, and impede
LAATS from achieving its global performance goal. The LAATS board members’ performance
goal is assured with a successful petition for LAATS as a newly authorized charter.
As such, the research questions that guide this study are as follows:
1. What are the stakeholder skills, knowledge, and motivations related to the LAATS board
members being able to achieve its establishment of a charter school?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture, context, and stakeholder
knowledge that either facilitates or restricts LAATS board members achieving the goal of
establishing a charter school?
3. What are the recommended solutions that will allow the LAATS board members to
achieve the goal of establishing a charter school?
The methodological approach to this qualitative research study will utilize the gap
analysis proposed by Clark and Estes (2008). Qualitative researchers consider dependability,
credibility, transferability, and confirmability as trustworthiness criteria for qualitative
investigation (Schwandt, Lincoln, & Guba, 2007). This analysis is a systematic, analytical
method that clarifies organizational goals and identifies the gaps between the actual performance
level and the preferred performance level within an organization. The assumed interfering
elements associated with the board members establishing a new charter school would be
evaluated based on personal knowledge, motivation, organizational influences, and related

63
literature (Maxwell, 2013). Since the LAATS board drives to develop a charter petition, creates
an organizational strategy, and implements recruitment and board composition, purposeful
exploration of KMO influences and processes will be explored through a triangulated analysis of
interviews, document review, content analysis, and observations. Additionally, purposeful
interviews of LAATS board members and charter school boards, collection of documents, and
observations in the research setting will afford maximum flexibility in exploring the identified
problem of practice, meaning and process, and emerging themes (Creswell, 2014; McEwan &
McEwan, 2003). Ultimately, interviews were conducted, observations and documents were
analyzed to explain the knowledge, motivation, and organization influences affecting the
LAAST’s ability to develop a charter petition. Results and findings extracted from the data are
organized in this chapter by the above-described knowledge, motivation, and organization
categories of assumed influences.
Participating Stakeholders
As mentioned in previous chapters, the stakeholders of focus for this study were the
board members of the LAATS, whose “applicant group” includes those actively participating in
the planning of the application to establish the proposed charter school. A stakeholder group is a
group of individuals who directly contribute to and benefit from the achievement of the
organization’s goal; those individuals (if any) who will become school employees. Given the
small size of the LAATS and given the study’s objective of exposing the KMO needs and assets
influencing the LAATS’s ability to develop a petition, all five members were recruited to
participate in this research. The participants include five board members with current or previous
teaching experience in arts, technology, special educations, administrative and other disciplines.
They ranged from ages 35 to 55, all females, and one Hispanic and four are White.

64
Determination of Assets and Needs
This study was informed by interviews. The independent interviewer engaged an
interview guide (see Appendix A) to present questions to each of the five members of the
LAATS focused on confirming knowledge, motivation, and organization needs and assets
influencing the team’s ability to develop a charter petition. The interviews provided a significant
convergence of perspectives between the LAATS board members on perceived needs and assets.
The criteria used to determine whether a particular influence was an asset or need was as
follows. If at least four participant statements indicated that a specific influence was present, then
it was determined to be an asset; otherwise, it was determined to be a need. Furthermore, if a
specific influence was found to be present in each of the documents analyzed for that specific
influence, it was determined to be an asset; otherwise, that specific influence was determined to
be a need.
Results and Findings for Knowledge Causes
The following are results and findings of this study presented by the knowledge
categories identified as essential influences for achieving the organizational goal of developing a
petition. Board members’ knowledge causes were assessed through individual interviews.
Results are presented in the following section for each assumed influence in the areas of factual
knowledge, conceptual knowledge, and procedural knowledge. Each assumed influence was
determined to be an asset or determined to be a need based on the findings.
Factual Knowledge
Influence 1. Board members need knowledge of petition submission instructions,
required language, and definitions.
Survey results. No survey was conducted for this influence.

65
Interview findings. The LAATS board members were asked about their knowledge of
petition submission instructions, required language, and definitions. The starting point for
developing a petition within the board members was to have factual knowledge of the petition.
Three of the five (60%) board members seem to agree on the definition of the petition as the
requirements of knowledge for a given skill. Still, the majority of board members seem to lack a
depth of knowledge for the submission instructions and the required language of a petition. The
threshold for this item is 80%. Board Member 2’s definition was that “this is referring to getting
a charter school started and the requirements.” Board Member 1 stated that “I have not looked
into the petition instructions,” suggesting that the board members have offered “guidelines” but
no action has been taken. Board Member 3 added, “I know the state issues specific guidelines in
which an organization has the ability to actually follow through with the specific requirement
that they require a language.”
On the other hand, Board Member 4 and Board Member 5 provided their definitions of
the petition outlining the critical information on the planned educational program and how the
school will encounter legal requirements. As Board Member 4 also shared:
I would say that it has to be academically sound to meet the standards that [the] state of
California is looking for. I think it’s also described in the application process – the
guidelines and how to complete a petition submission.
Observation. No observations were conducted for this influence.
Document analysis. No documents were examined for this influence.
Summary. The assumed influence is that LAATS board members need to be
knowledgeable about petition submission instructions, required language, and definitions, and
was determined to be a need through the analysis of the interviews. The petition is the central

66
document to establish a charter. The Charter Schools Division uses the content of the petition to
assess the possibility that the proposed school will provide an educationally sound program for
the target population within a fiscally sound, viable organization (Los Angeles Unified School
District Charter Schools Division, 2013). In these findings, majority board members offered their
current knowledge of the definition of the petition that they view as the requirements connected
to a knowledge area and to the central document to establish a charter. However, as a result,
three out of five (60%) board members shared in close to an accurate definition of a petition, two
board members appear to lack factual knowledge of the specific components and details of a
petition. Based on this, the LAATS board members need to engage more to promote knowledge
of how to put those components together effectively. This item must be above the 80% threshold
to be an asset. Therefore, this factual knowledge influence is determined to be a need.
Conceptual Knowledge
Influence 1. Board members need to know that the petition is educationally sound
and reasonably comprehensive.
Survey results. No survey was conducted for this influence.
Interview findings. The LAATS board members were asked to describe for me how you
would define a petition that is reasonably comprehensive. While two out of five (40%) of the
LAATS board members provided similar definitions of a petition that is “educationally sound
and reasonably comprehensive” as validating knowledge, three board members were unable to
define a petition within the organization. For instance, Board Member 1 shared that “the petition
will be written clearly so it’s easy to read, defined so whoever reads it knows exactly what the
mission will be or what our goal will be for the petition.” Board Member 2 added, defining a
petition to her was more about “current local requirements state standards” being assessed to

67
demonstrate definitions of a petition. Similarly, Board Member 3 stated that “a petition that it’s
educational sounds [like] it’s one that meets the state standards.” On the other hand, the Board
Member 5 indicated that “CSD utilizes the content of the petition to evaluate the possibility that
the proposed school will provide an educationally sound program for the target population within
a financially sound, potent organization.” Board Member 4 provided an additional comment:
A petition that is reasonably comprehensive it’s one that really offers what I consider
“wrap-around services” and would consist of when you [are] meeting the needs of the
students in terms of social, emotional needs, nutrition needs, physical needs, and
academic needs.
The board member, who could not clearly explain conceptual knowledge of defining a
petition as validating knowledge, provided exemplary responses. She did not have a recent
petition development experience she could describe. However, a response came from board
member 1, “the petition is going to be educationally based, so whatever we have in there, it’s
going to have to do with education.” Board Member 2 also added:
An educationally sound petition to me would include/refer to state standards that our
schools follow. I don’t know much about charter schools but the successes and failures of
other charter schools. We would want to follow in the successes and the type of petition
that they used.
According to Clark and Estes (2008), gap analysis brings out perceptions that can differ
even though individuals have the same work goal. The findings supported a gap in the
organization of examples of defining a petition development experience.
Observation. No observations were conducted for this influence.
Document analysis. No documents were analyzed for this influence.

68
Summary. The assumed influence is that the LAATS board members need to know that
the petition is educationally sound and reasonably comprehensive were found to be a need
through the analysis of the interviews. Two out of five (40%) board members were able to
accurately identify a petition that is “educationally sound and reasonably comprehensive” as
validating knowledge definitions of a petition. The threshold for this item is 80%. The board
members did not demonstrate sufficient understanding of defining a petition development for a
new charter. As a result, there is a gap in the petition educationally sound and reasonably
comprehensive that needs to be addressed. Therefore, this conceptual knowledge influence is
determined to be a need.
Procedural Knowledge
Influence 1. Board members need to know the steps you would take to develop a
petition for a charter school.
Survey results. No survey was conducted for this influence.
Interview findings. The LAATS board members were asked to walk me through the steps
you would take to develop a petition for a charter school. Rueda (2011) reminds us that knowing
how to do a specific task requires procedural knowledge. Although all five board members could
speak about the petition development process, the majority of board members were not able to
speak about plans to validate and recognize the skills. Board members did not connect their
procedural knowledge to produce a strategic plan for a new charter school to their prior petition
development experience and expertise. Only one out of five (20%) board members were able to
articulate specific steps associated with the petition to identify the key elements of high-quality
authorizing and used the list of those critical elements to guide their work in developing rational
procedures.

69
Board Member 3 and Board Member 5 spoke in general terms about the importance of
identification of the target audience as starting points for the business plan. Board Member 1
pointed to a lack of a strategic plan, “we need to figure out our goals and philosophies,
instruction and build our curriculum and then go from there.” Board Member 2 stated, “research
charter schools, the successful ones, and the failed ones, to see what they had in common and
what was different, focusing on some of the failures to see where the direction can go.” Finally,
an evocative response came from Board Member 4 as follows:
Focus on creating that vision and mission of the school and what you wish to accomplish.
I think the first steps that I will just consider and submit a petition unless you have that
you have to really follow the guidelines [requirements] of the state and how they have
their deadline to specific that you need to just talk to the first mission of the word.
This board member discusses some valuable points but still did not sufficiently address
the validation and identification of the member’s skills and experience.
Observation. No observations were conducted for this influence.
Document analysis. No documents were analyzed for this influence.
Summary. The assumed influence that LAATS board members need to know the steps
you would take to develop a petition for a charter school was found to be a need through the
analysis of the interviews. The data provided information on procedural knowledge from all five
LAATS board members related to processes used for the petition development for a new charter.
However, the majority (80%) of the board members could not state how the plans validated or
recognized skills and experience attained through a working team. Although the board members
candidly discussed their issues and concerns, they narrowly have used the list of those key
elements (identified in the Chapter Two literature review) to guide their work in developing

70
practical procedures. In other words, board members focused on current knowledge on how to
develop plans for the petition that include guidelines: Still, they did not address the validation
and identification of member’s skills and experience. To be an asset required this item to be
above the 80% threshold. The board members did not demonstrate that they related to the
specific steps in processing the petition development for a new charter. Therefore, this
procedural knowledge influence is determined to be a need.
Results and Findings for Motivation Causes
Board members’ motivation causes were assessed by utilizing individual interviews. This
study has assumed motivation influences derived from self-efficacy theory, and mastery goal
orientation theory affects the LAATS’s ability to design and develop the petition. In particular,
this study presumes that board member self-efficacy beliefs, in conjunction with the goal
orientation, board members attach to their mandate, will have a bearing on the team’s ability to
establish the charter. Results are presented in the following section for each assumed influence in
the areas of self-efficacy, and goal orientation. Each assumed influence was determined to be an
asset or determined to be a need based on the findings.
Self-Efficacy
Influence 1. Board members need to be confident they are individually and
collectively capable of taking the steps to develop a petition for a charter school.
Survey results. No survey was conducted for this influence.
Interview findings. The LAATS board members were asked how confident they are in
taking steps to develop a petition for a charter school right now. All five (100%) board members
described confidence in their individual ability to develop the petition successfully. As a group,
however, board members have presented less confidence in the group’s collective ability to do

71
such. Nevertheless, board members’ responses met the required 80% threshold and indicated that
there is a group correlation in regard to taking steps to develop a petition. For example, Board
Member 1 summarized the general sentiment expressed by all members with the statement: “I
am confident in developing the petition with enough research. I don’t see a problem, but I know
it will take a lot of time.” Board Member 2 added that “I am confident that I’m able to follow
steps if given the right direction and [am] comfortable asking for clarification or questions if I
don’t understand something.”
Furthermore, four out of five (80%) board members drew on their current or prior
experiences to substantiate their level of confidence. Board Member 3 and Board Member 5, for
instance, suggested the importance of their collaborative experience and connected it with key
elements of the petition development. Lastly, Board Member 4 expressed her confidence as
stemming from previous experience:
I’ve been doing it for the last 20 years of my career. I’m pretty confident, I mean I had
previous experience in creating schools from scratch when the all-girls school for high
school 9 through 12 focus was in business. It’s been successful [over] the last 15 years.
Then the other one was [...] 6 to 12 and it was a college board school and quite
successful.
Observation. No observations were conducted for this influence.
Document analysis. No documents were examined for this influence.
Summary. The assumed influence that LAATS board members need to be confident they
are individually and collectively capable of taking steps to develop a petition for a charter school
was determined to be an asset through the analysis of the interviews. All five (100%) members
referenced their relevant experience and capacity which they believed would benefit the charter

72
process. Analysis of interview data revealed that the majority (80%) of board members have
shown mutual capacity to develop a petition together and demonstrated high collective efficacy.
This finding suggests that by supporting board members in developing a strong belief that
motivating their team to achieve that common goal, each individual can effectively contribute as
a member of the group. Therefore, self-efficacy and collective efficacy motivation influences are
determined to be an asset.
Goal Orientation
Influence 1. Board members need to be mastery goal-oriented in writing a petition
for a charter school.
Survey results. No survey was conducted for this influence.
Interview findings. The LAATS board members were asked about how they recover and
learn from mistakes along the way and their ability to be mastery goal-oriented in writing a
petition for a charter school. All five (100%) board members’ responses met the required
threshold and indicated that there is no lack of goal orientation in regard to wanting to master the
writing of a petition for a charter school. Board Member 2 noted that “I’m not afraid of making
mistakes. I’m very thankful for them because they are learning lessons.” Board Member 1 took a
similar approach:
Mistakes are learning curves. If there is a mistake made, we will know next time how to
remedy problems in the future, so it’s just acquired knowledge. We don’t want to make
mistakes, but it may happen, we will learn from them.
In the statements above, both board members affirmed that mistakes are nuisances and
should be avoided, but at the same time they offer the opportunity to learn and improve. Finally,
Board Member 4 added that her approach is to recover and learn from mistakes along the way:

73
I think if you have the ability to really assess the situation and most importantly be able
to receive criticism, it really impacts making in terms of how [...] your program is going
to impact the students positively.
This board member believes that assessing the situation and processing criticism
constructively productively impacts the students.
Observation. No observations were conducted for this influence.
Document analysis. No documents were examined for this influence.
Summary. The assumed influence is that LAATS board members view wanting to be
mastery goal-oriented in writing a petition for a charter school was found to be an asset through
the analysis of the interviews. All of the board members actively demonstrate that they like the
idea of writing a petition even though it may be challenging, and the local school district may
deny them. To be an asset required this item to be above the 80% threshold. Based on the
foregoing, the board members did demonstrate that they view mastering the writing of a petition
as a learning opportunity and there is no need for improvement. Therefore, the goal orientation
motivation influence is determined to be an asset.
Results and Findings for Organization Causes
Organizational culture is the overarching idea that encompasses the general beliefs and
ways of thinking within the organization (Schein, 2010). As we place organizational culture in
dialogue with knowledge and motivation and address them simultaneously, change efforts are
more successful (Clark & Estes, 2008). This section reports the results of two cultural models
impacting the LAATS board members goal achievement and the findings related to cultural
settings. Board members’ motivation causes were assessed by utilizing individual interviews.
Board members’ organizational culture causes were assessed through individual interviews. The

74
results presented in the following section are for each assumed influence in the areas of cultural
models and cultural settings. Each assumed influence was determined to be an asset or
determined to be a need based on the findings.
Cultural Models
Influence 1. Board members need to have a shared vision, goals and objectives for
the organization.
Survey results. No survey was conducted for this influence.
Interview findings. The LAATS board members were asked to describe their shared
vision, mission, and goals for the organization. Interview data revealed that only one out of five
(20%) board members gave a response that the culture of collaboration would have a shared
vision, mission, and goals. Board members gave varied responses describing that the shared
vision, mission, and goals would have a positive impact on LAATS. For instance, Board
Member 5 acknowledged that “I think without leaders to carry the organization vision, efforts to
create a culture of collaboration are likely to suffer.” Additionally, they expressed self-righteous
certainty about their ability to create a vision. Board Member 1 suggested her belief stems from
her goal and passion for LAATS, stating that “we want to start a school geared towards arts and
technology. This is where society should be headed. To create more innovative people, that is
our goal.” Board Member 2 shared that “this organization can be a vital link between a student
transitioning into a young adult successfully.” Lastly, Board Member 4 mentioned that “you
need to be able to articulate that in application as well as in the vision and mission [...] and also
one that is a vision and a mission that really challenges every single individual in that school
community.” This result indicated that board members’ engagement at LAATS is more focused
on individuals’ perspective than mutual vision and connection with a common goal. Therefore,

75
the board members need to see themselves as part of a correlative experience where they work
together to facilitate work towards a common goal and shared vision.
Observation. No observations were conducted for this influence.
Document analysis. No documents were examined for this influence.
Summary. The assumed influence is that LAATS board members need to have a shared
vision, goals, and objectives for the organization that was determined to be a need through the
analysis of the interviews. All LAATS board members interviewed expressed that they conclude
it to be of utmost importance for the organization’s goals to center on creating an innovative
school. However, the data analysis suggested some critical gaps and segregations at the corporate
level. The data also indicated a disparity in board member connection to organizational vision
and the common goal at LAATS. Ultimately, the board members need to define the
organizational vision and goal together clearly, and each individual should effectively contribute
to goal achievement to close this organizational gap. Only 20% of board members were able to
accurately identify a petition that has a shared vision, goals, and objectives for the organization.
The threshold for this item is 80%; the board members did not demonstrate sufficient shared
vision, goals, and objectives. Therefore, this cultural model influence is determined to be a need.
Influence 2. Board members need to share common values as they take the steps to
develop the charter school petition.
Survey results. No survey was conducted for this influence.
Interview findings. The LAATS board members were asked what they value most as
they take steps to develop the charter school petition. All board members responded with various
concerns and consciously decided how to react to dissimilar directions regarding organizational
values. Two out of five (40%) board members suggested that there was a shared common value

76
as they took steps to develop the charter school petition by efficiency initiatives. Board Member
5, for example, stated that “we need to further define our goals by identifying a set of core values
and beliefs about learning.” Board Member 1 shared, “I value most the goals and philosophy that
we will have for the school and the curriculum we want to implement.” Board Member 4
claimed, “we need to look really at the talent and the tools and those resources that our students
and teachers will need to ensure that they’re learning how to solve problems.” Board Member 4
also added that there is “value in developing a school that really leads me; so, it’s not just
students but also the parents [in the] community and [the general] community itself [that’s] very
important. You need to be able to articulate that in [the] application as well as in the vision and
mission.” Finally, Board Member 2 described the amount of time she devoted to the petition as:
“I value the time I would dedicate to help write this petition and would make a commitment to
that time. I am interested in learning how to research and write on a professional level.” In
addition to the resources she was committing to, she would need to educate herself further to
ensure a sufficient capacity to implement in achieving her goals.
Observation. No observations were conducted for this influence.
Document analysis. No documents were examined for this influence.
Summary. The assumed influence is that the LAATS board members need to share
common values as they take steps to develop the charter school petition that was determined to
be a need through the analysis of the interviews. Organizational messaging, policies, and
procedures must align with the goals and values of the institution (Clark & Estes, 2008) as well
as actual practice for change efforts to succeed. The LAATS need to increase board members’
engagement, and the organization must share common values as they take steps to develop the
charter school petition. Furthermore, the communication must also reflect the values of the

77
institution (Clark & Estes, 2008) and do so within its policies and procedures (Schein, 2010).
While 40% of the board members perceive that there is a shared common value in the LAATS,
the threshold for this item is 80%; the board members did not demonstrate sufficient shared
common values. Therefore, the cultural model influence is determined to be a need.
Cultural Settings
Influence 1. Board members need to have policies and procedures in place to
develop the charter school petition.
Survey results. No survey was conducted for this influence.
Interview findings. The board members were asked to describe the policies and
procedures they see in their organization that supports their filing the petition. Two out of five
(40%) board members are confident regarding their organizational policies and procedures being
aligned to create a charter petition. The threshold is 80%; the board members did not
demonstrate that the policies and procedures in their organization support their filing the petition.
The majority of board members felt that their board was beginning to get support towards this
goal. They think that it is “a work in progress” and that “better guidance, directives, and resource
documents” are necessary from the board in order for this to be successful. Board Member 1 said
the following: “We will set goals, roles will be set to define what [is] expected and then hold
those accountable to achieving those goals so that the petition will continue to move forward.”
Board Member 2 also believes that there is progress but that the board has its limitations: “I’m
not familiar with any policies at this time, but I do believe in policies and following them, and if
they don’t work, [to] challenge them to see if the whole mindset can change.” The responses
resonate with the idea that there is a gap in the alignment of the policies and procedures on the
board in relation to the district’s goal of filing the petition.

78
Observation. No observations were conducted for this influence.
Document analysis. No documents were examined for this influence.
Summary. The assumed influence is that policies and procedures being in place to
develop the charter school petition for LAATS’s board members was found to be a need through
the analysis of the interviews. Although board members had formed to achieve the goal of
providing proper support during implementation, there was no evidence that this group is
currently active. As discussed in Chapter Two, the board of directors of each charter operator
should be responsible for implementing the public charter school program proposed in its charter
application, complying with all applicable federal and state laws and policies governing the
charter school (Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education, 2012). Consequently,
the board members at LAATS will help necessary district-level policymakers on their team to be
successful. Only 40% of the board members agree that their organizational policies and
procedures are aligned with the goal in place to develop a petition. Since the threshold is 80%,
the cultural settings influences that LAATS board members need to have policies in place to
develop the charter school petition is determined to be a need.
Influence 2. Board members need to have processes in place to develop the charter
school petition.
Survey results. No survey was conducted for this influence.
Interview findings. The LAATS board members were asked what they see as a process in
place to file this petition. The findings indicate the LAATS does not anticipate board members to
possess knowledge of petition development concepts, processes, or methods. Two out of five
(40%) board members gave an answer that indicated the culture would have a process in place to
file this petition. For instance, Board Member 2 described that as one of the many steps or needs

79
for an effective petition process, “I see the need for clear expectations to meet the requirements
of submitting a petition. I assume there are many steps involved, and as long as there is a clear
outline of what is needed, it should be easy to put together into one whole package at the end.”
Board Member 1 shared, “I know that there are processes in place with the Los Angeles Unified
School District [LAUSD] in the state, but I have not looked further into them.” Board Member 4
described it this way such as:
Process [...] It’s very easy to see that it’s cut and dried. So, the guidelines really give you
very specific target areas in which you have to meet. There is a little wiggle room but not
much, just because of the state standards. I guess where you have your ability to really
showcase, you know what you stand will be in your goals and mission. That’s something
that you should be able to articulate those aspects of a lot of what the state looks for is,
you know, academically how you are going to rate scores and [the] scores of that
particular school.
Furthermore, Board Member 3 recommended, “[The] LAUSD new independent charter
school petition review process involves several steps. So, we need to work more efficiently and
assign different parts of the task to board members who are most skilled at each [area] of the
given assignment.” Board Member 5 also emphasized that “most importantly, board members
working with separate parts of a goal leads to rapid task completion.”
Observation. No observations were conducted for this influence.
Document analysis. No documents were examined for this influence.
Summary. The assumed influence that board members need to have processes in place to
develop the charter school petition was found to be a need through the analysis of the interviews.
Two board members described a need for allocating those tasks to individuals and organizing

80
those individuals by proficiency in each area of the given assignment about a goal to develop the
petition. They also revealed a lack of complete tasks and organizational culture influence that
does affect performance. As described in Chapter Two literature review indicated that a well-
implemented organizing process should result in a work environment where all LAATS board
members are aware of their responsibilities. Only 40% of the board members perceive the
organizing process that they need in place to process and file this petition as efficient. The
threshold for this item is 80%; the board members did not demonstrate sufficient implementation
of processes. Therefore, the cultural setting influence is determined to be a need.
Summary of Validated Influences
Tables 6, 7, and 8 show the knowledge, motivation, and organization influences for this
study and their determination as an asset or a need.
Knowledge
Table 6
Knowledge Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data
Assumed Knowledge Influence
Asset or
Need?
Factual:
Board members need knowledge of petition submission instructions, required
language and definitions.
Need
Conceptual:
Board members need to know that the petition is educationally sound and
reasonably comprehensive.
Need
Procedural:
Board members need to know the steps necessary to develop a petition for a
charter school.
Need

81
Motivation
Table 7
Motivation Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data
Assumed Motivation Influence
Asset or
Need?
Self-Efficacy:
Board members need to be confident they are individually and collectively
capable of taking the steps to develop a petition for a charter school.
Asset
Goal Orientation:
Board members need to be mastery goal-oriented in writing a petition for a
charter school.
Asset

Organization
Table 8
Organization Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data
Assumed Organization Influence
Asset or
Need?
Cultural Model 1:
Board members need to have a shared vision, goals, and objectives for the
organization.
Need
Cultural Model 2:
Board members need to share common values as they take the steps to develop
the charter school petition.
Need
Cultural Setting 1:
Board members need to have policies and procedures in place to develop the
charter school petition.
Need
Cultural Setting 2:
Board members need to have processes in place to develop the charter school
petition.
Need

82
In Chapter Five, research-based recommendations that support the LAATS’s goal of
developing a successful petition for LAATS as a newly authorized charter is articulated. The
recommendations are organized around the knowledge, motivation, and organization needs and
assets identified in this chapter. After the recommendations are defined, a robust implementation
and evaluation plan is described leveraging the prescriptions of the New World Kirkpatrick
Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).

83
CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS
This study has explored the knowledge, motivation, and organization influences affecting
the Los Angeles Arts and Technology High School (LAATS) capacity to establish a new charter
school to assist board members who develop the charter petition. Previously, Chapter Four
summarized the knowledge, motivation, and organization (KMO) influences validated as needs
or assets through this study’s approach to data collection and analysis. This chapter prospects to
evidence-based recommendations to address these validated influences. Primarily, for each of the
assumed KMO influences, recommendations relevant to develop the charter petition context are
derived from principles that prevail in the research literature. Then, the recommendations
translated into a proposed implementation and evaluation program following the methodical and
rigorous approach of the New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). The
assets and needs revealed through the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework, in
conjunction with the implementation discipline inherent in the Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick
model (2016), reintegration in this chapter to increase the likelihood that the LAATS will meet
its goal of the establishment a new charter school.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to conduct a needs’ analysis in the areas of knowledge
and skills, motivation, and organizational resources necessary to reach the organizational
performance goal of establishing a new charter school. The analysis began by generating a list of
possible needs and will then move to examining these systematically to focus on actual or
validated needs. While a complete needs’ analysis would focus on all stakeholders, for practical
purposes the stakeholder to be focused on in this analysis is all LAAST board members. As such,
the research questions that guided this study were as follows:

84
1. What are the stakeholder skills, knowledge, and motivations related to the LAATS board
members being able to achieve its establishment of a charter school?
2. What is the interaction between organizational culture, context, and stakeholder
knowledge that either facilitates or restricts LAATS board members achieving the goal of
establishing a charter school?
3. What are the recommended solutions that will allow the LAATS board members to
achieve the goal of establishing a charter school?
This chapter addresses the third question by making research-based recommendations
and by presenting an implementation and evaluation plan pertaining to the recommendations.
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
Knowledge Recommendations
Introduction. An analysis of the data collected shows that there are declarative (factual
and conceptual) knowledge needs and procedural knowledge needs. Clark & Estes (2008) noted
that inadequate stakeholder knowledge could profoundly affect the achievement of stakeholder
performance and organizational goals. Data collection of the knowledge influences in Table 9,
represents the complete list of assumed knowledge influences. Their gaps are validated based on
the most frequently mentioned knowledge influences in achieving the stakeholders’ goal during
informal interviews and is supported by the literature review. To increase performance, gaps in
these areas of knowledge influence must be identified and addressed (Clark & Estes, 2008). The
uncovered knowledge influences, utilized Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analytic framework,
separated into two knowledge types: declarative and procedural. All of these knowledge types
are considered a priority due to their emphasis on the literature regarding developing the petition.
Table 9 lists the causes, validation gap, priority, principle, and recommendations. Table 9 also

85
includes a detailed discussion for each high priority cause and recommendation, and the
literature supporting the recommendation is provided based on theoretical principles.
Table 9
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Assumed Knowledge
Influence
Asset
or
Need
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Board members need
knowledge of petition
submission
instructions, required
language and
definitions.
(Declarative)

Need Y How individuals organize
knowledge influences how they
learn and apply what they know
(Schraw & McCrudden, 2006).

Creating schemata helps learners
to organize declarative
knowledge in a domain (Schraw,
Veldt, & Olafson, 2009).
Provide a concept of
mapping as a job aid to
analyze board members’
knowledge for a petition.

Provide that workshop for
petition submission
instructions and information
containing required language
and definitions to the
petition.
Board members need
to know that the
petition is
educationally sound
and reasonably
comprehensive.
(Declarative)
Need Y Information learned
meaningfully and connected
with prior knowledge is stored
more quickly and remembered
more accurately because it is
elaborated with prior learning
(Schraw & McCrudden, 2009).
Provide education that could
deliberately activate board
members’ prior knowledge to
help them forge robust
connections to new
knowledge in order to
support the petition.
Board members need
to know the steps
necessary to develop a
petition for a charter
school. (Procedural)

Need Y Acquiring skills for expertise
frequently begins with learning
declarative knowledge about
individual procedural steps
(Clark & Estes, 2008).

Modeling to-be-learned
strategies or behaviors improves
learning, and performance
(Denler, Wolters, & Benzon,
2009).

Learning is highly dependent on
“goal-directed practice” and
“targeted feedback” (Ambrose et
al., 2010).

Provide job aid in which
progress includes a checklist
the necessary steps to
develop a petition for a
charter school.

Provide continuous meetings,
the regular task to facilitate
the reinforcement of positive
learning to board members
for their development of a
charter petition.

Provide training includes the
opportunity to practice and
feedback on the procedures
required to direct a petition to
the appropriate development
process.

86
Increasing the board members’ declarative knowledge about design charter
petitions. The results of this study indicated that the board members need more in-depth
declarative knowledge about petition submission instructions, required language, and definitions.
As described in Chapter Two, board members must be capable of discerning the pertinent
concepts relating to writing a particular petition. A recommendation rooted in information
processing theory and sociocultural theory has been selected to close this declarative knowledge
gap. First, Schraw and McCrudden (2009) found that how individuals organize knowledge
influences how they learn and apply what they know. This would suggest that providing learners
with context mapping (exploratory research method) would help organize their knowledge. The
recommendation then is to create a concept of mapping as a job aid to analyze board members’
knowledge for a petition. Second, Schraw and his colleagues (2009) found that creating
schemata helps learners to organize declarative knowledge in a domain. This would suggest that
providing learners a workshop would help their declarative knowledge in a particular area in the
way information is held. The recommendation then is to provide that workshop for petition
submission instructions and information containing required language and definitions to the
petition.
The past decade has shown an undeniable rise in the involvement of users of context
mapping in the creative parts of the design process (Visser et al., 2005). The context mapping
method involves three stages: preparing, collecting and communicating (Esser, 2017; as cited in
Bakker & Mugge, 2017). It was noted in a case study by Visser et al. (2005) that experimental
groups (designers and researchers) use these techniques to gain more in-depth insight into the
needs and ideas of prospective users of new products. They also have noted the rapid growth in
interest for generative techniques as well as groups showing more willingness to explore those

87
techniques in collaborative projects. When providing context mapping for the knowledge that is
accurately and meaningfully organized, designers and researchers are better able to retrieve and
apply their knowledge effectively and efficiently (Khalil & Elkhider, 2016). The study supports
the recommendation to board members that providing context mapping exploratory research
methods for their petition is tied to reliable research and data.
Increasing the board members’ procedural knowledge about developing a petition.
The results of this study indicated that the board members lacked thorough procedural
knowledge about the need to know the steps necessary to develop a petition for a charter school.
Procedural knowledge is the ability to understand the steps and effective use of skills,
techniques, and methods (Krathwohl, 2002). In addition to the declarative knowledge detailed
above, the board members must know the steps necessary to develop a petition for a charter
school. Three principles of social cognitive or sociocultural theory inform three
recommendations to close these procedural knowledge gaps. First, acquiring skills for expertise
frequently begins with learning declarative knowledge about individual procedural steps (Clark
& Estes, 2008). It is recommended that board members who provide job aid in which progress
includes checklist the necessary steps to develop a petition for a charter school. Second,
modeling to-be-learned strategies or behaviors improves learning and performance (Denler,
Wolters, & Benzon, 2009).
It is recommended that board members provide continuous meetings, the regular task to
facilitate the reinforcement of positive learning to board members for their development of a
charter petition. Third, learning is highly dependent on “goal-directed practice” and “targeted
feedback” (Ambrose et al., 2010). It is, therefore, recommended that board members provide
training, including the opportunity to practice and feedback the procedures required to direct a

88
petition to the appropriate development process. As such, these would suggest providing job aid,
training, and modeling, including the opportunity to practice and feedback the procedures
required to direct a petition to the appropriate development process.
According to several researchers, feedback, training, and mentoring have proven crucial
for implementing action learning and developmental assignments as tools for developing
innovation skills. Shipton et al. (2008) found that 20-26% of the divergence in different measures
of innovation was attributed to an establishment’s training environment, which included
feedback and a formal mentoring program. A review of the relevant literature acknowledged that
idea development, revision, and refinement were among the crucial thought processes enhanced
by feedback (Mumford, et al., 2007). Ligon et al. (2011) stated that such feedback should be
provided by not only project facilitators but also trainers and mentors. Notably, the research
suggested the focus of feedback is critically important, and that the level at which feedback is
directed influences its effectiveness (Hattie, 1999). Consequently, these studies support the
recommendations to provide board members with the opportunity to practice action learning on
the procedures required to increase their level of competence in petition development to achieve
that goal.
Motivation Recommendations
Introduction. An analysis of the data collected shows that there are collective-efficacy
motivation needs and goal orientation motivation needs. Clark and Estes (2008) remind us that
choice, persistence, and mental effort are the three essential factors of motivation in work
performance. The choice is the determination to actively work towards a goal. Persistence is the
consistent work towards a goal despite potential obstacles. Mental effort is the purposeful
investment of effort and innovation dedicated to a new work goal (Clark & Estes, 2008). When

89
these motivation factors combine with knowledge, performance is enhanced (Clark & Estes,
2008). Table 10 below outlines the motivation influences grounded on the constructs of self-
efficacy and goal orientation that play a role in achieving the performance goal. Table 10 also
delineates the principles and recommendations based on theoretical principles.
Table 10
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Motivation
Influence
Asset or
Need
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Board members
need to be confident
they are individually
and collectively
capable of taking the
steps to develop a
petition for a charter
school. (Self-
Efficacy)
Asset N Feedback and modeling
increase self-efficacy
(Pajares, 2006).
Learning and motivation
are enhanced when
learners have positive
expectancies for success
(Pajares, 2006).
Provide targeted feedback on
progress in learning, role
modeling and self-confidence
building, for board members
through their positive
expectancies in order to
achieve progressive and
successful development of a
charter school petition.
Board members
need to be mastery
goal-oriented in
writing a petition for
a charter school.
(Goal Orientation)
Asset N Focusing on mastery,
individual improvement,
learning, and progress
promotes positive
motivation (Yough &
Anderman, 2006).

Designing learning tasks
that are novel, varied,
diverse, interesting, and
reasonably challenging
promotes mastery goal
orientation (Yough &
Anderman, 2006).
Provide use tasks, evaluation
structures that promote
mastery, learning, effort,
progress, and self-
improvement standards for
board members on their
development writing of a
petition.

Provide opportunities for the
board members to use
“desirable difficulties” as
learning strategies and tasks
that compel them to excel in
their mastery goal
orientation.

Maintaining a high level of self-efficacy among board members. The results of this
study found that board members indicated they perceived themselves as having the capability to
be sufficient to develop a petition. Analysis of interview data revealed that the majority of board

90
members in developing a strong belief that motivating their team to achieve that common goal,
each individual can effectively contribute as a member of the group. Still, as predicted by the
conceptual framework, the absence of strong procedural knowledge regarding the self-efficacy of
increased development resulted in the board constraining its focus on developing a petition for a
charter school. A recommendation rooted in two principles of self-efficacy theories has been
selected to close these motivation knowledge gaps. Pajares (2006) found that modeling and
feedback increase self-efficacy. Additionally, learning and motivation are enhanced when
learners have positive expectancies for success. From these principles, it could be inferred that
providing learners with a demonstration of what they need to do and then providing feedback
and positive expectancies on their performance would increase their self-efficacy. The
recommendation, then, is for the organization to provide targeted feedback on progress in
learning, role modeling, and self-confidence building, for board members by creating positive
expectancies in order to achieve progressive and successful development of a charter school
petition.
Clark and Estes (2008) suggested that when individuals have positive beliefs about their
ability to do something, they are motivated and more likely to pursue the goal and increase
performance. Observing models that substantiated applications of skills raise learners’ self-
efficacy for learning as well as achievement (Schunk & Hanson, 1989; Schunk, Hanson, & Cox,
1987). Shunk and his colleagues suggest that the modeling provided by those who have achieved
the target school characteristics should increase the learner’s self-efficacy. Through their
behavior and articulated ways of thinking, competent models convey knowledge and teach
observers practical skills and strategies for managing environmental requirements (Bandura,
1986). Pajares (2006) stated that coupled with frequent, credible, and targeted feedback on

91
progress in learning and better use of learning strategies, are associated with performance
increases in self-efficacy. The research has shown that students with a high level of self-efficacy
often succeed in chosen tasks and goals desired. In contrast, those with low self-efficacy levels
mostly have self-doubt and thus limit themselves in terms of goal realization (Lent et al., 1991).
Hence, self-efficacy beliefs influence people’s behaviors and actions and, with high-levels self-
efficacy, in most cases are likely to lead to success in tasks and goals (Bandura, 1977). From a
theoretical perspective, it would appear that when board members possess positive expectancies
with each other on progress and performance while working toward goals, their self-efficacy will
increase, and they will be motivated to continue developing the petition.
Maintaining a high level of mastery goal orientation of board members. The results
of this study indicated that all board members believe they are capable of assigning tasks and
acquiring new knowledge with mastery goal-oriented in writing a petition. A recommendation
rooted in two principles of mastery goal orientation theories has been selected to ensure this
competence remains an asset among board members. First, Yough and Anderman (2006) found
that focusing on mastery, individual improvement, learning, and progress promotes positive
motivation. The recommendation is for the organization to provide use tasks, evaluation
structures that promote mastery, learning, effort, progress, and self-improvement standards for
board members on their development writing of a petition. This would suggest that providing
learners with the key facilitating processes helps them become involved in the positive learning
effects for mastery goal orientation. Second, Yough and Anderman (2006) also found that
designing learning tasks that are novel, varied, diverse, engaging, and reasonably challenging
promotes mastery goal orientation. In other words, this would suggest the use of active learning
and different self-regulatory strategies is more effective than the self-directive process through

92
which learners transform their mental capabilities into task-related skills in diverse areas of
functioning (Zimmerman, 2002). Thus, the recommendation is for the organization to provide
opportunities for the board members to use “desirable difficulties” as learning strategies and
tasks that compel them to excel in their mastery goal orientation.
Empirical evidence suggests a mastery goal orientation is related to improved outcomes
when task complexity increases. Utman’s meta-analysis of 24 studies on goal orientation
indicated that for complex tasks, mastery goals lead to better performance (Kaplan & Maehr,
2007; Utman, 1997). Rawsthorne and Elliot’s (1999) meta-analysis of 30 studies also found that
when participants were provided with positive feedback, performance goal orientation had a
significant decline effect on free-choice persistence comparative to mastery goal orientation. The
collective findings suggest learner perceptions of a prevailing goal orientation are more likely to
motivate learner adoption of mastery approach (Anderman & Midgley, 1997; Roeser, Midgley,
& Urdan, 1996). Furthermore, goal orientation represents not only a distinctive individual trait
but also a collective cultural force, learned through discussion and disseminated as a singular
construct defining learning. The trajectory has to enable them to make informed choices about
strategies and methodologies to use in their petition with board members in implementing the
programmatic approach. In doing so, board members can better perform the need for subject
mastery and the benefits associated with learning strategies and assistance for completing on-
time petition submission.
Organization Recommendations
Introduction. An analysis of the data collected shows that there are two cultural settings
organization needs, and two culture models organization needs. Their gap validated based on the
most frequently mentioned organization influences to achieving the stakeholders’ goal during

93
informal interviews and supported by the literature review and the review of organization and
culture theory. Clark and Estes (2008) suggest that organization and stakeholder goals are often
not achieved due to a lack of resources, most often time and funds, and stakeholder goals that are
not aligned with the organization’s mission and goals. Table 11 provides recommendations
aligned with Clark and Estes’ (2008) framework to address validated organizational needs.
Gallimore and Goldenberg (2001) also propose two constructs about culture – cultural models or
the observable beliefs and values shared by individuals in groups, and cultural models, or the
settings and activities in which performance occurs. Thus, both cultural settings and cultural
models must align throughout the organization’s structure to achieve the mission and goals. As
such, as indicated in Table 11, some organizational influences have a gap validated and have a
high priority for achieving the stakeholders’ goal. Table 11 also shows the recommendations for
these influences based on theoretical principles.
Table 11
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Assumed
Organization
Influence
Asset or
Need
Priority
Yes, No
(Y, N)
Principle and Citation Context-Specific
Recommendation
Board members
need to have a
shared vision, goals,
and objectives for
the organization.
(Cultural Model)
Need Y Job satisfaction increases
when all organization
stakeholders agree on
culture, mission, goals,
and resources required to
achieve goals (Clark &
Estes, 2008).

Developing a shared
vision for the school and
setting goals as a staff or
team are ways that a
culture of cooperation is
modeled (Marzano, et al,
2005).
Conduct board meetings to
communicate vision,
mission, goals, and
individual and team
accomplishments.

Cultivate a culture of
participation with all board
members in achieving
organization goals by
encouraging feedback and
communication by all board
members.

94
Board members
need to share
common values as
they take the steps
to develop the
charter school
petition. (Cultural
Model)

Need Y To effectively align and
communicate their shared
visions, leaders must
continually explain and
reinforce the who, what,
where, why, and how of
organizational change
initiatives (Lencioni,
2004; Lipton, 1996).
Organizational changes
take root when beliefs and
values within the
organization are shared
among its members
(Schneider, Brief, &
Guzzo, 1996).
Disseminate consistent
information to the board to
assist in educating all board
members about the
importance of developing
petition and they must
equally translate each of
individual visions, beliefs,
and values into the strategy
that shares for the entire
group.

Board members
need to have
policies and
procedures in place
to develop the
charter school
petition. (Cultural
Setting)
Need Y Effective organizations
ensure that organizational
messages, rewards,
policies, and procedures
that govern the work of
the organization are
aligned with or are
supportive of
organizational goals and
values (Clark and Estes,
2008).
Engage the board in
collaborating around the
development of policies and
procedures in the context of
the organizational goals and
values in place to develop
the petition.

Board members
need to have
processes in place to
develop the charter
school petition.
(Cultural Setting)

Need Y Organizational
performance increases
when processes and
resources are aligned with
goals established
collaboratively (Clark &
Estes, 2008).

Organizational
performance increases
when individuals
communicate constantly
and candidly to others
about plans and processes
(Clark & Estes, 2008).

Conduct board meetings
with new and experienced
reviewers and with
leadership to establish goals
and time frames. Create a
monitoring process, with
regular check-in meetings to
review data and make
course corrections if needed
for the petition.

Consider broader
understanding,
communicate constantly and
candidly, and involve all
board members in petition
development plan and
process. Simultaneously,
use private list-serves’ and
other internal social media
to reinforce communication
outside of board meetings.

95
Collaborating with the development of policies and procedures in the context of the
organizational goals and values. The results of this study identified that policies and procedures
will need to be developed for the board prior to creating the petition. A recommendation rooted
in organizational theory has been selected to close this organizational gap. Clark and Estes
(2008) indicate that effective organizations ensure organizational messages, rewards, policies,
and procedures that govern the work of the organization are aligned with or are supportive of
organizational goals and values. This would suggest that all LAATS stakeholders must work
collaboratively to review current policies and procedures to see if they align with the
organization’s goals and values. The recommendation is to engage the board in collaborating
with the development of policies and procedures in the context of the organizational goals and
values to develop the petition. Additionally, the board would utilize the four accountability
lenses or dimensions found in Cooper, Fusrelli, and Randall’s four policy dimensions (2004) for
petition policies.
Clark and Estes (2008) posit that when misalignment among an organization’s work
processes, policies, procedures, and culture exists, gaps in goal attainment and high-performance
result. According to Cooper, Fusarelli, and Randall (2004), the adaptation of a complete four-
dimensional framework can enhance the understanding of educational policy. Therefore, by
applying the four dimensions of policy theory to policy planning and evaluation, the overall
educational effectiveness will progress including curriculum, instruction, and assessment.
Policies influencing the teaching and learning of students is a significant goal (Cooper, Fusarelli,
& Randall, 2004) for board members prior to creating the petition.
The organization needs to provide defined goals and objectives for petition
development. The results of this study indicated that a process is not in place for board members

96
to develop a charter school petition. A recommendation rooted in two principles of organization
theory has been selected to close this organizational gap. First, Clark and Estes (2008) indicate
that organizational performance increases when processes and resources are aligned with goals
established collaboratively. The authors also assert that organizational performance increases
when individuals communicate regularly and candidly to those involved in plans and processes
(Clark & Estes, 2008). This would suggest that organizational performance is enhanced if
participants have clear, current, and challenging goals. Hence, providing defined goals and
objectives for petition development should improve performance. To address this, boards should
consider including goals and objectives for developing the petition into boards’ strategic plans.
According to Clark and Estes (2008), cultural patterns can be changed by altering the
work environment. Boards have the opportunity to support development through the adoption of
these alterations in strategic plans and initiatives. Gulati et al. (2016) discussed that the mission
and vision of an organization are critical parts of its strategic plan and guide the organization’s
purpose and desired future state. Papulova (2014), in his research on the importance of vision
and mission development for enterprises in the Slovak Republic, revealed that only 24
companies out of 242 (9.92 %) studied had no vision in 2012. Beth (2014) also discovered
organizations that have a vision and mission that are clearly communicated, broadly understood,
and collectively shared perform better than organizations without them. The success of a
strategic plan depends on the sufficient formulation of mission and vision statements and broad
participation in their formulation (Özdem, 2011). Thus, it would appear providing clearly
defined goals and measuring progress, developing a clear vision and mission statements,
strategic plans, and collaboration with board members would improve the achievement of
developing a petition.

97
Communicate and align goals across the organization with greater clarity and
efficiency. The results of this study indicated most board members require shared vision, goals,
and objectives for the organization. A recommendation rooted in communication theory and
organizational theory has been selected to close this organizational gap. Clark and Estes (2008)
indicate that job satisfaction increases when all organization stakeholders agree on the culture,
mission, goals, and resources required to achieve goals. Additionally, Marzano et al. (2005)
assert that developing a shared vision for the school and setting goals as a staff or team are ways
that a culture of cooperation is modeled. This suggests that organizational effectiveness increases
when mutual goals are shared in an environment where effective relationships are nourished and
encouraged. An environment that encourages these types of relationships is one that supports a
professional atmosphere (Boud & Molloyn, 2013). Thus, the recommendation is for the
organization to conduct board meetings to communicate vision, mission, goals, and individual
and team accomplishments. Additionally, it would be beneficial to cultivate a culture of
participation in achieving organization goals by encouraging feedback and communication from
all board members.
A vision describes a future preferred state of an organization and the conforming
statement, communicated throughout, is a critical factor in the future success of the institution.
Researchers have examined exceptional or “visionary” leaders who have been responsible for the
prominent growth of their organizations (Bass, 1990; Bennis & Nanus, 1985). These studies
report that well-respected leaders were perceived to have the capacity to articulate visions or
missions to their followers, then sustain and empower them to work in and derive rewards from a
change in organizational function and growth. Visionary leadership (Zhu et al., 2005) creates
high levels of ensures cohesion of the team, commitment, trust, motivation, and improved

98
performance in new organizations. Additionally, in Chrispeels’s (1990) report of effective
schools, she states if a school staff has a shared vision, there is a commitment to change. The
collaborative efforts of members of an organization increase the opportunities of the vision’s
achievement. Communication of the vision is what empowers people to act (Taylor et al., 2013).
Therefore, encourage board members to act consistently with the new vision and help their
commitment to it in order to get their maximum work productivity and let them work confidently
for achieving the organizational goals (Nanus 1992).
The organization needs to provide values, goals, structures that intertwine board
members. The results of this study showed that board members need to share common values as
they take steps to develop a charter school petition. A recommendation rooted in principles of
communication theory and organizational change theory has been selected to close this
organizational gap. Lencioni (2004) and Lipton (1996) state that, to effectively align and
communicate their shared vision, leaders must continually explain and reinforce the who, what,
where, why, and how of organizational change initiatives. Additionally, Schneider, Brief, and
Guzzo, (1996) suggest that organizational changes take root when beliefs and values within the
organization are shared among its members. Thus, the recommendation is for the organization to
disseminate consistent information to the board to assist in educating all board members about
the importance of developing a petition and that they must equally translate each individual’s
visions, beliefs, and values into a strategy that speaks for the entire group.
Clark and Estes (2008) note that effective organizations ensure that organizational
messages, rewards, policies, and procedures that govern the work of the organization are aligned
with or are supportive of organizational goals and values. Enz (1986) and Posner, Kouzes, and
Schmidt (1985) explored the correlation between departments with perceived congruent values

99
within an organization and the ability to acquire the power within the organization. Departments
that can connect shared departmental goals with organizational goals have the ability to carry
more organizational power and are more inclined to be engaged in decision-making processes.
Enz (1986) hypothesized that top managers would ascribe more power to departments with
perceived value congruence. In her study (Values and Behaviors 16), she found that the greater
the perceived value congruence between top managers and department members higher the
perceived power within the organization by that department. Thus, the perceived value
congruence and connections among the components of organization and organization itself are
fundamental to its performance. Consequently, in order to maximize the efficiency of an
organization, there must be values, goals, structures that intertwine board members of the
organization to each other and to the organization to induce the members to take the initiative.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
Implementation and Evaluation Framework
The model that informed this implementation and evaluation plan is the New World
Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), based on the original Kirkpatrick Four-
Level Model of Evaluation (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2006). This model suggests that
evaluation plans start with the goals of the organization and work backward and that, by doing
so, the “leading indicators” that bridge recommended solutions to the organization’s goals are
both easier to identify and more closely aligned with organizational goals. Further, this “reverse
order” of the New World Kirkpatrick Model allows for a sequence of three other actions,
including: (1) The development of solution outcomes that focus on assessing work behaviors; (2)
the identification of indicators that learning occurred during implementation; and (3) the
emergence of indicators that organizational members are satisfied with implementation

100
strategies. Designing the implementation and evaluation plan in this manner forces connections
between the immediate solutions and the larger goal and solicits proximal “buy-in” to ensure
success (Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations
Organizational influences on stakeholder’s performances reflect, with regards to an
overarching organizational awareness, specifically as it pertains to cultural models and cultural
settings that exist within the organization (Schein, 2010). Each of the components in the gap
analysis will be applied as an analytical and evaluative framework in examining the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational factors needed by the stakeholder group. All components are
needed to achieve the organization’s goal of developing a successful petition by board members
as a newly authorized charter by June 2021. Proposed recommendations include the development
of job aids and training about the petition, and increased internal communication related to
establishing a charter school.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Outcomes, metrics, and methods. According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016).
Level 4 evaluation connects the training or educational program to the desired organizational
outcomes. The proposed Level 4 plan with defined outcomes, metrics, and methods can be found
in Table 12. The evaluation plan must include both external and internal outcomes. External
leading indicators relate to how external stakeholder groups will be affected by the critical
organizational behaviors changing. Internal leading indicators are focused on the organizational
structure and individual targets that define how stakeholders will contribute to the organizational
goal (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Table 12

101
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
1. Increased volume of new students
enrolling in the organization.
The number of new students
enrolled in the organization.
Request new student enrollment data
from marketing on an event basis.
2. Increased number of strategic
relationships with advocacy and
community organizations supported the
charter school.
The number of executed
arrangements with strategic
partners supporting a
charter school.
Request data for a number of executed
agreements on an event basis
regarding ongoing activities.
Internal Outcomes
3. Improved board members’
understanding of how to develop a
petition.
The number of board
members completes a
training course on the
petition.
Solicit data from board members that
completed training on the petition.
4. Board members’ awareness of help-
seeking, self-regulation, self-efficacy,
and goal orientation interaction and
influence on petition writing increases.
Results from board
members Awareness Survey
completed.
Analyze results from the board
member Awareness Survey to identify
board members displaying signs
indicative of disengagement.
5. Increased accuracy by new reviewers. The number of errors made
by new reviewers.
Aggregate data from the board chair
and reviewers (self-report and
supervisor confirmation collected via
evaluation).

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. Level 3 evaluation is typically the essential level of the evaluation as
it allows for interim modifications to ensure objectives are being met, and stakeholders are able
to apply what they learned (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Level 4 outcomes are driven by
Level 3 critical behaviors of the primary stakeholder group. The first critical behavior is that they
demonstrate a clear understanding of the required components and features of a charter school
petition that satisfies the statutory requirements. The second critical behavior is that
organizations will dedicate management resources for developing a petition. The third critical

102
behavior is that they must review the petition for completeness, correctly identify gaps, and
complete the review on or before the deadline. The specific metrics, methods, and timing for
each of these outcome behaviors appear in Table 13.
Table 13
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s) Method(s) Timing
1. Correctly direct a petition
into the appropriate review
process.
The number of
redirected
petitions.
1a. The chair of the board shall track
redirects via the petition tracking system
and complaints about a petition having
been misguided by new reviewers (i.e.,
charter advocacy organizations).
1a. Ongoing –
weekly.

1b. The chair of the board shall assign a
mentor to spot check application reviews
by new reviewers, looking for misdirected
petitions.
1b. Mentor
reports to the
board chair
monthly.
2. Identify “fatal flaws” in
the petitions.
The number of
major corrections
made by a
supervisor.
2a. The chair of the board shall track
errors via the petition tracking system,
looking for mistakes or feedback from
other reviewers about major flaws.
2a. Ongoing –
weekly.

2b. The chair of the board shall assign a
mentor to spot check petition reviews by
new reviewers, looking for fatal flaws.
2b. Mentor
report to the
board chair
monthly.
3. Review the petition for
completeness, correctly
identify gaps, and complete
the review on or before the
submission.
The number of
corrections made
by a supervisor.
3a. The chair of the board shall monitor
progress at all levels of the petition
tracking system, looking for errors or
feedback from other reviewers about
major and minor flaws and/or omissions.
3a. Ongoing –
weekly.

3b. The chair of the board shall assign a
mentor to spot check petitions, looking for
major and minor corrections and/or
omissions that will delay approval.
3b. Mentor
reports to the
board chair
monthly.

The number of
days required to
complete a
petition from start
to finish.
3c. The chair of the board shall monitor
the petition tracking system.
3c. Ongoing –
weekly.

103
Required drivers. Level 4 evaluation incorporates required drivers that reinforce,
encourage, reward, and monitor the application of the critical behaviors in the workplace
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). To achieve the stakeholder goal, board members must have
knowledge about the required components and features of a charter school petition that satisfies
the statutory requirements. To achieve the stakeholder goal, board members must have
knowledge about the critical components and features of a charter school petition. Further, public
acknowledgment of new collaboratives will encourage board members to continue to develop
their petition. Table 14 includes the recommended drivers to support critical behaviors board
members to help them reach the targeted stakeholder goal.
Table 14
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical
Behaviors
Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing

Provide job aid, including a checklist for petition contents and details of
effective educational programs.
Ongoing. 1, 2, 3
Provide training on critical components and features of a charter school
petition.
Ongoing. 1, 2, 3
Provide continuous meetings and regular tasks to facilitate the reinforcement
of positive learning.
Weekly. 1, 2, 3
Use private list-serves’ and other internal social media to reinforce
communication outside of board meetings.
Ongoing. 1, 2, 3
Board meeting to troubleshoot collaboratively and for additional training. Weekly. 1, 2, 3
Encouraging

104
Collaboration and peer modeling during board meetings. Weekly. 1, 2, 3
Feedback and coaching from the board chair. Ongoing. 1, 2, 3
Rewarding

Offer private praise and encouragement when effective help-seeking and self-
regulatory behaviors produce positive outcomes.
Ongoing. 1, 2, 3
Board members highly engaged in developing the petition should be
acknowledged at board meetings for their successful efforts and be asked to
give outlines to key stakeholders.
Monthly. 1, 2, 3
Monitoring

The chair of the board can create opportunities at check-in meetings to receive
updates or adjustments on progress towards a performance goal.
Monthly. 1, 2, 3
Develop dashboards that support the board for self-accountability. Monthly. 1, 2, 3

Organizational support. Organizational support is vital if any of the organization
recommendations are to be implemented. Having the requisite job aids, communication flow,
and board meetings in support of best practices will increase the likelihood that the board
members will successfully achieve the stated performance goal. The organization will benefit
from a project portfolio process that supports all stakeholders and the mission.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Following the completion of the recommended solutions through the
development of the petition, the stakeholders will be able to:
1. Recognize the regulations and policies that apply to the petition with 100% accuracy.
(Declarative)
2. List the critical components of petitions. (Declarative)
3. Recognize the details of the petition. (Declarative)

105
4. Correctly attribute the aspects of a petition that would qualify it for a charter school.
(Attributions)
5. Apply the procedures to detect “fatal flaws” in an application. (Procedural)
6. Create an appropriate timeline for different review processes. (Procedural)
7. Monitor their work to conform to regulatory guidelines. (Procedural)
8. Indicate confidence that they can review petition applications accurately and within the
prescribed time limits. (Self-Efficacy)
9. Value the accuracy and timeliness of the application review process. (Value)
10. Value the planning and monitoring of their work. (Value)
Program. The learning goals listed in the previous section will be achieved with a
training program that explores in-depth the legislative foundations of petition laws, regulations,
and policies. The learners, regulatory professionals, will study a broad range of topics pertaining
to the review and management of the petition development. The program is blended, consisting
of four e-learning modules and one face-to-face application workshop. The total time for
completion is 540 minutes (9 hours).
During the asynchronous e-learning modules, learners will be provided a job aid of key
terms and references to the text of rules and regulations about the petitions, as well as a chart of
different types of the petition processes. Another job aid will contain a decision flow chart for
routing and the petition to the appropriate program review. The job aids will be demonstrated on
video using authentic petitions and scenarios, and key terms will be defined with examples and
non-examples. The video will pause from time to time to enable the learners to check their
understanding. Following the demonstrations, the learners will be provided the opportunity to
practice using the job aids and receive feedback from the learning management system, peer

106
review, and review by the instructor. The demonstrations, practice, and feedback approach will
also be used to train strategic planning for time management.
During the synchronous in-person sessions, the focus will be on applying what learners
have learned asynchronously to authentic the petition in training groups, role-playing,
discussions, and peer modeling and teaching back to each other. More experienced reviewers
will also discuss the value and benefits of being accurate and on time in the review process. They
will model how to strategically plan their use of time to complete the petition review process
within the prescribed time.
Evaluation of the components of learning. Demonstrating declarative knowledge is
often necessary as a precursor to applying the knowledge to solve problems. Thus, it is important
to evaluate learning for both declarative and procedural knowledge being taught. It is also
important that learners value the training as a prerequisite to using their newly learned
knowledge and skills on the job. However, they must also be confident that they can succeed in
applying their knowledge and skills and be committed to using them on the job. As such, Table
15 lists the evaluation methods and timing for these components of learning.
Table 15
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative Knowledge “I know it.”
Knowledge checks using multiple choice. In the asynchronous portions of the course during and
after the online course.
Knowledge checks through discussions, “pair, think,
share,” and other individuals/group activities.
Periodically during the in-person workshop and
documented via observation notes.
Documented notes were taken by instructors and board
member facilitators.
During and after each asynchronous module/
lesson/unit session.

107
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
During the asynchronous portions of the course using
scenarios with multiple-choice items.
In the asynchronous portions of the course at the end
of each module/ lesson/unit.
Demonstration in groups and individually of using the
job aids to successfully perform the skills.
During the in-person workshops and feedback from
the board chair.
Quality of feedback from instructors and board members
during group sharing.
During each asynchronous module/ lesson/unit
session.
Pre-evaluation and post-assessment to measure
increased competence.
Prior to and following each training module.
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Instructor’s observation of participants’ statements and
actions demonstrating that they see the benefit of what
they are being asked to do on the job.
During the workshops and as part of the feedback
sessions.
Discussions of the value of what they are being asked to
do on the job.
During the workshops and as part of the feedback
sessions.
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment item. After the course.
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Discussions following practice and feedback. During planning meetings and workshops.
Survey items using scaled items. Following each module/lesson/unit in the
asynchronous portions of the course.
Retrospective pre- and post-test assessment item. After the course.
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Discussions following practice and feedback.

During each module/lesson/unit session.
Create an individual action plan.

During each module/lesson/unit session.
Retrospective pre- and post-training assessment item. After the course.

108
Level 1: Reaction
Level 1 measures participants’ engagement, relevance, and customer satisfaction
reactions from a program experience (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Table 16 outlines the
components to measure reactions to the program.
Table 16
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Data analytics captured through modules/lessons/units. Ongoing during the asynchronous portion of the
course.
Completion of online modules/lessons/units. Ongoing during the asynchronous portion of the
course.
Observation by instructors/facilitators. During the training.
Attendance. During the training.
Course evaluation. Two weeks after the last course.
Relevance
Brief pulse-check with participants via survey (online) and
discussion (ongoing).
After each asynchronous module/lesson/unit
session.
Course evaluation. After every module/lesson/unit and the workshop.
Customer Satisfaction
Brief pulse-check with participants via survey (online) and
discussion (ongoing).
After every module/lesson/unit and the workshop.
Course evaluation.

Two weeks after the last course.

109
Evaluation Tools
Evaluation of the program through participant feedback helps to “improve the program,
to maximize the transfer of learning to behavior and subsequent organizational results, and to
demonstrate the value of training to the organization” (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016, p. 5).
Multiple methods will inform the evaluation so that the facilitators of the training can acquire a
comprehensive understanding of participant experience and outcomes and understand the ways
to move the program best forward. The following sections summarize the evaluation tools used
during and immediately following the program implementation and delayed evaluation tools
based on the timeline Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) suggest.
Immediately following the program implementation. During the asynchronous portion
of the course, the learning analytics tool in the learning management system (LMS) will collect
data about the start, duration, and completion of modules by the participants. These data will
indicate the engagement with the course material. The LMS will also administer brief surveys
after each module. The surveys will request the participant to indicate the relevance of the
material to their job performance and their overall satisfaction with the content and delivery of
the online course.
Level 1 and Level 2 training evaluations are most effective conducted immediately after
training completion to capture the rapid reactions of training participants as well as the reflective
perceptions of the instructor as an internal measure of quality (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016).
At these levels, the evaluations are purposefully simple, easy to navigate, and strive to gather
foundational opinions concerning the components outlined for each level as part of the New
World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). See Appendix B and Appendix C
for a representative post-training survey. During the synchronous portion of the training, a trainer

110
will collect data from participants at the start, during the training sessions lessons, and after
completion. Additionally, for Level 1, during the in-person workshop, the instructor will conduct
periodic brief pulse-checks by asking the participants about the relevance of the content to their
work and the organization, delivery, and learning environment. For Level 2, facilitators will ask
participants to share a knowledge nugget obtained from the content. The participants will share
their understanding via scenarios derived from program materials. Participants will have
opportunities to discuss and reflect on what they know and understand from the course content.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. Approximately four weeks
after the implementation of the training, and then again at 12 weeks, leadership will administer a
survey containing open and scaled items. The Blended Evaluation approach will be utilized to
measure the satisfaction and relevance of the training from the participant’s perspective (Level
1). Also measured will be the Boards confidence and value of applying their training (Level 2),
their application of that training to the petition review process, and the support they receive from
the board chair and board members they are reviewing (Level 3). Finally, an assessment will be
made of the extent to which their performance of the petition application review process has
become timelier and more accurate (Level 4). See Appendix D for a Blended Evaluation Tool.
Data Analysis and Reporting
The Level 4 goal of a shared evaluation plan must include both external and internal
outcomes. Although the New World Kirkpatrick model starts with Level 4, for this innovation
study, Level 1 is the best level to begin the change and progress towards the goal. Relevance, a
component of Level 1, connections to addressing the organizational gaps uncovered in the
interviews. Table 17 below demonstrates a dashboard with an example of Level 1 reaction goals.
The organization will use a similar visual reporting system to monitor Levels 2 and 3.

111
Table 17
Evaluation of Organizational Changes and Development of the Petition Learning Modality

On a quarterly basis, the dashboard will be reported to the participating boards with
feedback requested on areas that need improvement to achieve the board members’ goal of
developing a petition. The collection of the metrics and sharing with the boards is part of a cycle
that includes planning, implementation, analysis, and adjustments. Figure 2 represents the
process of utilizing the measures as a monitoring and accountability tool for the program.

Evaluation of Organizational Changes & Development of the Petition Learning Modality

Evaluation Components
Participant
Factors
Online Training
Module
Workshop Module with
Facilitator
Evaluation to Assess Adoption
(within 4 weeks of conclusion)
Engagement % Completed % Attended Did their engagement in the modules
provide ability to understand the petition
and need of a new training modality?
Relevance Pulse check
embedded in
training
Pulse check embedded in
workshops for both
participants & facilitator
Were they able to see the relevance for
the organization to embrace the
requirements of a new learning modality?
Participant
Satisfaction
Pulse check
embedded in
training
Pulse check embedded in
workshops for both
participants & facilitator
Were they satisfied they understood the
new learning modality and how it could
affect the organization?

112
Figure 2
Training plan and evaluation cycle

Summary
The implementation and evaluation plan used the New World Kirkpatrick Model. The
model, designed to start with the organizational results or ultimate goals, guides the change
process through the four levels to achieve the stated goal or results. From the results of the
application to confidence in acquired knowledge, and finally, to engagement and relevance, the
model is flexible enough for all types of training needs (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). For
board members who participate in the training, it will be critical that they spread the obtained
knowledge and resources within their organizations using the “train the trainer” resources. To
evaluate if the training is meeting the determined program goals, this will be important to utilize

113
the data collected from the used New World Kirkpatrick Model to implement strategies for
continual improvement of the initiative. Learning is at the core of the model, which is also true
for the goal of creating the academic and business plans to develop a petition for establishing the
school. Through the implementation of the training and monitoring outlined in the New World
Kirkpatrick Model, the organization will achieve its goal.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Approach
Both qualitative and quantitative methods of user research play important roles in product
development. Each of these approaches has strengths and weaknesses, and each can benefit from
combining them with one another. Foundational to this evaluation study were the Clark and
Estes’s (2008) Gap Analysis Framework and the Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) New World
Model. The Gap Analysis approach provided a level of discipline throughout the study, from
conducting the literature review, designing the data gathering methodology, analyzing the
results, to identifying the gaps for improvement and change. In the context of this study, the Gap
Analysis approach was integral to assessing knowledge, motivation, and organization influences
affecting LAATS’s board members. Without the Clark and Estes (2008) framework, the
stakeholder goal could have been viewed as straight forward. However, through the examination
lens of knowledge, motivation, and organization influences, the problem at hand became clearly
understood, and with that, a heightened appreciation for the complexity of change. The strength
of the gap analysis model is the systematic approach to reveal root causes through a sequence of
data-driven analysis, the development of evidence to determine influence gaps, and ultimately
solutions. Conversely, a weakness in this approach may be a reluctance to implement changes
and solutions that are often referred to as “low hanging fruit” in deference to the completion of
the study.

114
Furthermore, the New World Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) provided an
excellent segue from a validated gap to recommendation development, implementation, and
evaluation. Similar to the Gap Analysis Framework, the New World Model is systematic and
disciplined in the steps to be completed and the levels of evaluation to be addressed. The strength
of this approach depends on the comprehensiveness of the model and the attention to detail in
implementation and evaluation. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) model compels its user to
think profoundly about desired firm-level outcomes and to build a program that works backward
from those outcomes to contemplate the behaviors, knowledge, and satisfaction relevant to
stakeholders for those outcomes to be realized. The model encourages its users to deliberate on
the reinforcing mechanisms along with the evaluation approaches necessary to support the
successful achievement of the desired outcomes. The result of this study is a comprehensive
action plan complied with the evidence-based recommendations that support the LAATS board
members’ goal of developing the charter petition. However, there is evidence of an inclination
towards limiting evaluation to the lower levels of the model (Steele et al., 2016). Nevertheless,
the model is an established and recognized approach that provides a structure and does not
require an inordinate amount of time to administer.
Limitations and Delimitations
As discussed in Chapter Three, there are several limitations and delimitations associated
with this study. The first limitation to clarify was that the measurement tools developed for this
study, namely the interview protocol, were explicitly designed for this study. While the
instrument was pilot tested with a comparable sample before administering them to the sample
population in the organization under investigation, neither instrument had been rigorously
fielding tested. Moreover, the administration of this data gathering instrument was used only

115
once in this study; thus, there were no longitudinal comparisons that could be claimed. The
second limitation to highlight was that all interviews involved self-reported data. There could
have been cases of selective memory, false attribution, and exaggeration of experiences or
outcomes that could contain this source of potential bias.
In addition to the limitations described above, this research study has a few delimitations.
The researcher may be creating a further delimitation in the study’s findings with the focus on
only one stakeholder group being the primary target of investigation in evaluating efforts to
develop the next generation of organization leaders. This study solely focuses on one
stakeholder: the board members. There may be other stakeholder groups that could provide
supplementary information and relevant experience; however, by design, they are viewed as
outside the scope of this current study. More additional layers of the “quality of things” (Berg,
2009) research designs that need to be applied would benefit more from the involvement of other
stakeholders, which would include administrators, staff members, teachers, parents, and students.
The data collected from these additional stakeholders would inform this study further and give
different lenses for evaluating the effectiveness of the charter petition being implemented.
Future Research
Future research can address the limitations identified in this study. It could also broaden
the range of the study to include input from key stakeholders such as students, teachers, and
administrators. Increasing the input from students would give beneficial evaluative information
regarding the appraisal of curriculum effectiveness from a student’s perspective. Moreover,
future research could examine teachers’ knowledge, motivation, and experience with
organizational processes throughout LAATS, uncovering any needs and key elements for
implementing a curriculum at every grade level and content area. Expanding the range of focus

116
upon teachers can reveal the impact of various demographics and levels of experience,
knowledge, motivation, and practice within organizational structures. Similarly, the
administrators’ knowledge, motivation, and practices within organizational structures should be
studied both before and after participating in the board members’ meetings. It will help to better
understand the impact of the training and provide additional information to identify and resolve
knowledge and motivation needs, along with improving organizational policies, procedures, and
processes. Considering how best to achieve this, attention must be paid to developing processes
and procedures which are known to the faculty, staff, parents, and the community which fit the
organization’s structure and purpose. Developing an organizational structure around compliance
tasks or requirements is an effective way to accomplish sustainable compliance.
There is a lack of existing research regarding the integration of ICT in the field of arts
education. Any future study should be designed and implemented with an aim at exploring the
students’ views on the use of technology in art teaching. Given the hypothesis that students
respond positively towards integrating ICT in arts education, and at the same time are familiar
with new technologies; the participants could be asked to answer questions on the influence of
technology on art, on the use of new media from artists, and the role of technology in the
creation of new art forms.
Conclusion
There is limited opportunity to demonstrate student learning in the arts. It is especially
true for students from lower-income and minority schools, where studies show that access to the
arts in schools is disproportionately absent (García, & Weiss, 2017). The purpose of this study is
to identify the resources necessary in the creation of academic programs for integrating the arts
and technology to meet students’ diverse learning needs for educating all students. In the pursuit

117
of its mission, this study is based on Los Angeles Arts and Technology High School (LAATS)’s
aspiration to examine the assets and needs of the Board to motivate, support, and prepare board
members to develop the petition. Fundamentally, this study focused on the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational (KMO) aspects that impact board members in their ability to
develop a petition in order to establish a new charter school successfully. Interview analysis
conclusively identified what KMOs were assets to the organization, and what KMOs were still
needed. Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analysis Framework was essential to developing a greater
and more precise understanding of three significant narratives about this distinctive organization.
First, the strengths that have benefitted the organization’s performance; second, the progress of
the organization and the challenges of leadership it will need to confront for continuous
improvement; and lastly, solving the gaps that are currently preventing the achievement of
desired goals.
Furthermore, training activities were developed, and recommendations focusing on each
determined need were discussed and established through using the New World Kirkpatrick
Model (2016). Evaluation activities were also developed to take place throughout a range of
performance outcomes. Subsequently, LAATS will engage in implementing and evaluating
recommendations. Interview data found that board members regard evaluating the success of a
petition based on meeting the requirements of key elements set forth in the petition as providing
value. As a result of this value being recognized, LAATS will be able to execute the discussed
recommendations and will benefit from the cycle of improvement practices modeled in this
study. Ultimately, successfully implementing the recommendations considered in this study is
but one facet contributing to the accomplishment of the organization’s goal. Thus, failure to
incorporate the recommendations presented in this study may lead to the inability to close

118
validated knowledge, motivation, and organizational gaps. It may also interfere with the
organization’s ability to become agile and responsive by optimizing effectiveness in achieving its
mission.
In addition, it is essential to note that the need for educational equity through diversity
within a curriculum is not only the LAATS effort. In order to ensure students’ academic success
and life outcomes, they must be provided access to quality education. Increased prosperity
among all of society’s members likely leads to a better state of affairs for the community as a
whole (OECD, 2012). Diversity within a curriculum is proven to be productive; differences
among those having access to a well-rounded education can prove key to increasing not only the
standards of the underprivileged but society in general. Finally, the research and findings in this
study contribute to this nationwide effort and can be used to inform future efforts by comparable
districts or organizations trying to achieve a similar goal.

119
References
Alix, A. (2012, April 3). Association of American educators. Association of American
Educators. https://www.aaeteachers.org/index.php/blog/700-report-art-education-
programs-on-the-decline
Ambrose, S., Bridges, M., DiPietro, M., Lovett, M., & Norman, M. (2010). How learning works:
Seven research-based principles for smart teaching. John Wiley & Sons.
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 84, 261-271. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.261
Anderman, E., & Midgley, C. (1997). Changes in achievement goal orientations, perceived
academic competence, and grades across the transition to middle-level schools.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 269–298. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1996
Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A
revision of bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman.
Armbruster, H., Bikfalvib, A., Kinkela, S. & Lay, G. (2008) Organizational innovation: The
challenge of measuring non-technical innovation in large-scale surveys, Technovation,
28(10), 644-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2008.03.003
Arnason, H., & Mansfield, E. (2013). History of modern art (6th ed.). Pearson College Division.
Ashby, M., & Miles, S. (2002). Leaders talk leadership: Top executives speak their minds (p.48).
Oxford University Press.
Athanasiadis, I., Persa, F., Ilias, A., & Efstathios, S. (2011). Teaching art using technology:
The views of high school students in Greece. Review of European Studies, 3(2).
https://doi.org/10.5539/res.v3n2p98
Bakker, C., & Mugge, R. (2017). Plate: Product lifetimes and the environment. IOS Press.

120
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 9(3), 75–78.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W. H. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning.
Educational Psychologist, 28(2), 117-148. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanisms in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2),
122–147. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.37.2.122
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84(2), 191-215. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.2.191
Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. (1982). Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest
through proximal self-motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(3),
586–598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.41.3.586
Bandura, A., & Wood, R. (1989). Impact of conceptions of ability on self-regulatory
mechanisms and complex decisions making. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 56 (3), 407–415. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.3.407
Bangery, A. (2004). The seven principles of good practice: A framework for evaluating
online teaching. Internet and Higher Education, 7(3), 217–232.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.06.003
Baron, M. (2008). Guidelines for writing research proposals and dissertations. Division of
Educational Administration: University of South Dakota, 1–52.
https://www.regent.edu/acad/schedu/pdfs/residency/su09/dissertation_guidelines.pdf
Bass, B. (1990) Handbook of leadership: Theory, research, and managerial applications
(3rd ed.). Free Press.

121
Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). Leaders: the strategies for taking charge. Harper Business.
Berg, B. (2009). Qualitative research for the social sciences (7th ed.). Allyn and Bacon.
Beth, D. (2014). The importance of vision, mission and values. CICA Publication.
Bloomberg, L., & Volpe, M. (2013). Completing your qualitative dissertation: A road map
from beginning to end (2nd ed.). SAGE Publishing.
Bodilly, S., Augustine, C., & Zakaras, L. (2009). Revitalizing arts education through
community-wide coordination. RAND Corporation.
Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2013). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership.
(5th ed.). Jossey Bass.
Boud, D., & Molloy, E (2013) What is the problem with feedback? In D. Boud & E. Molloy
(Eds.), Feedback in higher and professional education; Understanding it and doing it
well (pp. 1–10). Routledge.
Bowen, D., & Kisida, B. (2019). Investigating causal effects of arts education experiences:
experimental evidence. Houston’s Arts Access Initiative.
https://kinder.rice.edu/sites/g/files/bxs1676/f/documents/Investigating%20Causal%20Eff
ects%20of%20Arts%20Education%20Experiences%201_0.pdf
Brockhoff, K., Chakrabarti, A., & Hauschildt, J. (2011). The dynamics of innovation: Strategic
and managerial implications. Springer.
Butler, R. (1993). Effects of task and ego achievement goals on information seeking during task
engagement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(1), 18–31.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.1.18
Charter School Resource Library. (n.d.). Petition, budget & school design. California Charter
Schools Association. https://library.ccsa.org/starting/petition/

122
California Department of Education. (2018). Overview, approval, start-up, and closing.
https://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/ch/qandasec2mar04.asp
California Institute of the Arts. (n.d.). Art and technology. Cal Arts School of Art
https://art.calarts.edu/programs/art-and-technology
California State Auditor. (2017). Charter schools: Some school districts improperly authorized
and inadequately monitored out-of-district charter schools (Report No. 2016-141).
https://www.bsa.ca.gov/reports/2016-141/chapters.html
Canestrari, A., & Marlowe, B. (2019). The Wiley international handbook of educational
foundations. Wiley Blackwell.
Cannata, M., Thomas, G., & Thombre, Z. (2014). Starting strong: Best practices in starting a
charter school. Vanderbilt Peabody College.
https://my.vanderbilt.edu/marisacannata/files/2013/10/Starting_Strong_final.pdf
Catterall, S., Dumais, A., & Thompson, G. (2012). The arts and achievement in at-risk youth:
Findings from four longitudinal studies (Research Report No. 55). National Endowment
for the Arts. https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/Arts-At-Risk-Youth.pdf
Chesher, C. (2004). How to tell apart video games and new media art. In Interaction Systems,
Theory and Practice, Creativity and Cognition Conference (pp. 225-227). Studios Press.
Chin, R., & Benne, K. (1976). General strategies for effecting changes in human systems. In
W. Bennis, K. Benne, R. Chin, & K. Corey (Eds.), The planning of change (3rd ed., pp.
22–45). Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Chrispeels, J. (1990). Achieving and sustaining school effectiveness: A five-year study of change
in elementary schools. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association.

123
Clark, R. (2003) Fostering the work motivation of individuals and teams. Performance
Improvement, 42(3), 21–29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pfi.4930420305
Clark, R., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Cooper, B., Fusarelli, L., & Randall, E. (2004). Better policies, better schools: Theories and
applications. Allyn and Bacon.
Cooper, R. (1999). From Experience: The invisible success factors in product innovation.
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 16(2), 115–133.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0737-6782(98)00061-7.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for
developing grounded theory. SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches
(3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches
(2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J., & Plano Clark, V. (2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research.
(3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Damanpour, F. (2017). Organization theory, organizational behavior, technology and
innovation management, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Business and Management,
1-66. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190224851.013.19.
Damanpour, F., & Schneider, M. (2008). Characteristics of innovation and innovation adoption
in public organizations: Assessing the role of managers. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 19(3), 495–522. https://doi/ 10.1093/jopart/mun021

124
Damanpour, F., & Schneider, M. (2006). Phases of the adoption of innovation in organizations:
Effects of environment, organization and top managers. British Journal of Management,
17(3), 215–236. https://doi/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00498.x
Darling-Hammond, L., Ross, P., & Milliken, M. (2006). High school size, organization, and
content: What matters for student success? Brookings Papers on Education
Policy, 2006(1), 163-203. https://doi.org/10.1353/pep.2007.0001
Davenport, T. (1993). Process innovation; reengineering work through information technology
(p.15). Harvard Business School Press.
Davidson, B., Kahn, G., & Fitzsimons, I. (2016, June 10). Senate advances bill funding arts
education. Americans for the Arts. http://www.americansforthearts.org/news- room/
legislative-news/ senate-advances-bill-funding-arts-education
Deal, T., & Kennedy, A. (1982). Corporate cultures: The rites and rules of corporate life.
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc.
Deasy, R. (2002). Critical links: Learning in the arts and student achievement and social
development, Arts Education Partnership (AEP).
Denison, D. (1990). Corporate culture and organizational effectiveness. John Wiley & Sons.
Denler, H., Wolters, C., & Benzon, M. (2014, January 28). Social cognitive theory.
Education.com, Inc. http://www.education.com/reference/article/social-cognitive-theory/.
Dwyer, C., Knight Foundation, & President’s Committee on the Arts and the Humanities.
(2011). Reinvesting in arts education: Winning America’s future through creative
schools. President’s Committee on the Arts and the Humanities.
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED522818.pdf
Eccles, J., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Psychology, 53(1),

125
109-132. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
Edwards, R., & Holland, J. (2013) What is qualitative interviewing? (p.144). Bloomsbury
Academic.
Eisner, E. (2011). Handbook of research and policy in art education. Routledge.
Eisner, E., & Day, M. (2004). Handbook of research and policy in art education. National Art
Education Association.
Elliot, A. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational
Psychologist, 34(3), 169-189. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep3403_3
Elliot, A., & Church, M. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement
motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 218–232.
https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0022-3514.72.1.218
Elliott, E., & Dweck, C. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1), 5–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.
1.5
Engebretsen, K., Van Fleet, E., & Mazzocco, A. (2013). Arts education navigator: Facts and
figures. Americans for the Arts. https://www.miarted.org/pdf/AFTA-Arts-Education-
Navigator-Facts-Figures.pdf
Enz, C. (1986). Power and shared values in the corporate culture. UMI Research Press.
Evan, W., & Manion, M. (2006). Minding the machines: Preventing technological disasters.
Pearson Custom Publishing.
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist,
36(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5

126
Gamson, D., McDermott, K., & Reed, D. (2015). The elementary and secondary education act at
fifty: Aspirations, effects, and limitations. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of
the Social Sciences, 1(3), 1. https://doi.org/10.7758/rsf.2015.1.3.01
García, E., & Weiss, E. (2016). Making whole-child education the norm. Economic Policy
Institute. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED568889.pdf
Garvin, D. (1998, July 15). The processes of organization and management. MIT Sloan
Management Review. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/the-processes-of-organization-
and-management/
Geertz, C. (2017). The interpretation of cultures (3rd ed.). New York: Basic Books.
Gilley, A., McMillan, H., & Gilley, J. (2009). Organizational change and characteristics of
leadership effectiveness. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 16(1), 38–45.
https://doi/10.1177/1548051809334191
Giorgi, A. (1997). The theory, practice, and evaluation of the phenomenological method as a
qualitative research procedure. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 28(2), 235–
260. https://doi.org/10.1163/156916297X00103
Glennan, T., Bodilly, S., Galegher, J., & Kerr, K. (2004). Expanding the reach of education
reforms: Perspectives from leaders in the scale-up of educational interventions.
RAND Corporation.
Glesne, C. (2011). But is it ethical? Considering what’s “right”. In Becoming qualitative
researchers an introduction (4th ed., pp. 162–183). Pearson.
Grau, O. (2003). Virtual Art: From illusion to immersion. The MIT Press.
Great Boards. (2014). Job descriptions for charter school board officers. Charter Board
Partners. https://charterschoolcenter.ed.gov/sites/default/files/files/field_publication_

127
attachment/Job_Descriptions_Suite_%284%29-5.pdf
Green, A., Fettes, D., & Aarons, G. (2012). A Concept mapping approach to guide and
understand dissemination and implementation. Journal of Behavioral Health Services&
Research, 39(4), 362-373. https://doi/10.1007/s11414-012-9291-1
Gulati, R., Mikhail, O., Morgan, R., & Sittig, D. (2016). Vision statement quality and
organizational performance in U.S. hospitals. Journal of Healthcare Management, 61(5),
335-350. https://doi.org/10.1097/00115514-201609000-00007
Hardiman, M. (2016). Education and the arts: Educating every child in the spirit of inquiry
and joy. Creative Education, 7(14), 1913–1928. https://doi/10.4236/ce.2016.714194
Hattie, J. (1999, August 2). Influences on student learning. Inaugural Lecture: Professor of
Education University of Auckland. https://cdn.auckland.ac.nz/assets/education/about/
research/documents/influences-on-student-learning.pdf
Johnson, R., & Christensen, L. (2014). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches. (5th ed.). SAGE Publications.
Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. (2007). The contributions and prospects of goal orientation theory.
Educational Psychology Review, 19(2), 141–184.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10648-006-9012-5
Keiper, S., Sandene, B., Persky, H., & Kuang, M. (2009). The nation’s report card: Arts 2008-
Music & visual arts (NCES 2009–488). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute
of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Khalil, M., & Elkhider, I. (2016). Applying learning theories and instructional design models for
effective instruction. Advances in Physiology Education, 40(2), 147–156.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1152/advan.00138.2015

128
Kirkpatrick, J., & Kirkpatrick, W. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
ATD Press.
Klein, J., Grossenbacher-Mansuy, W., Häberli, R., Bill, A., Scholz, R., & Welti, M. (2012).
Transdisciplinary: Joint problem solving among science, technology, and society: An
effective way for managing complexity. Birkhäuser.
Knox, S., & Burkard, A. (2009). Qualitative research interviews. Psychotherapy Management
Research, 19(4-5), 566–575. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503300802702105
Kotter, J. (2012). Leading change. Harvard Business Review Press.
Kotter, J (1998). What leaders really do. Harvard Business Review. 37-60.
Krathwohl, D. (2002). A revision of bloom’s taxonomy: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(4), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2
Lackey, L. (2016). Arts integration and school reform. Arts Education Policy Review, 117(4),
183–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2016.1213124
LaRocque, L. (1986). Policy implementation in a school district: A multiperspective
approach. Canadian Journal of Education / Revue canadienne de l'éducation, 11(4),
486. https://doi.org/10.2307/1494585
Lencioni, P. (2004). The five dysfunctions of a team. Jossey-Bass.
Lent, R., Lopez, F., & Bieschke, K. (1991). Mathematics self-efficacy: Sources and relation to
science-based career choice. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 38(4), 424–430.
https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037/0022-0167.38.4.424
Levin, D., & Arafeh, S. (2002, August 14). The digital disconnect: The widening gap between
Internet-savvy students and their schools. USDLA Journal, 16(10).
https://www.learntechlib.org/p/95844/

129
Ligon, G., Wallace, J. & Osburn, H. (2011). Experiential development and mentoring processes
for leaders for innovation. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 13(3), 297–317.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. SAGE Publications.
Lipton, M. (1996). Demystifying the development of an organizational vision. Sloan Review,
37(4), 883-92.
Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education. (2012, February 7). Policy for charter
school authorizing Los Angeles unified school district. Los Angeles Unified School
District. https://achieve.lausd.net/cms/lib/CA01000043/Centricity/Domain/106/Policy
%20on%20Charter%20School%20Authorizing%20LAUSD-Revised-02-07-12.pdf
Los Angeles Unified School District Charter Schools Division. (2013, September 10). Los
Angeles unified school district administrative procedures for charter school authorizing.
Los Angeles Unified School District. https://achieve.lausd.net/cms/lib/CA01000043/
Centricity/Domain/106/Administrative%20Procedures%20-Charter%20Schools-
Revised%2009-10-13.pdf
Lynch, R. (2000). JVER v25n2 - High school career and technical education for the first decade
of the 21st century. Journal of Career and Technical Education, 25(2), 155–198.
https://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JVER/v25n2/lynch.html
Manasse, A. (1985). Vision and leadership: Paying attention to intention. Peabody Journal of
Education, 63(1), 150–173.
Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (2016). Designing qualitative research. SAGE Publications.
Marshall, P. (1992). Introduction to the management process: In managing people at work.
University of Guelph Press.
Marzano, R., Waters, J., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to

130
results. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Maxwell, J. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. (3rd ed.). SAGE
Publications.
Maxwell, J. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed., p.33). SAGE
Publications.
Mayer, R. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Pearson Education.
McCann, J. (2010). Thought leader forum on arts and education: Assuring equitable arts
learning in urban K-12 public schools. Grantmakers in the arts. https://www.giarts.org
sites/default/files/2010_thought-leader-forum-on-arts-education.pdf
McCrudden, M., Schraw, G., & Kambe, G. (2005). The effect of relevance instructions on
reading time and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(1), 88–102.
McEwan, E., & McEwan, P. (2003). Making sense of research. SAGE Publications.
McMurrer, J. (2007). NCLB years five: Choices, changes, and challenges: Curriculum and
instruction in the NCLB era. Center on Education Policy.
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation
(4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Molloy, E., & Boud, D. (2013). Changing conceptions of feedback. In D. Boud & E. Molloy
(Eds.), Feedback in higher and professional education (pp. 11–33). Routledge.
Mumford, M., Hunter, S., Eubanks, D., Bedell, K. & Murphy, S. (2007). Developing leaders for
creative efforts: A domain-based approach to leadership development, Human Resource
Management Review, 17(4), 402–417.
Nanus, B. (1992). Visionary leadership: Creating a compelling sense of direction for your
organization. Jossey-Bass.

131
National Charter School Resource Center. (2017). Measuring quality: A resource guide for
authorizers and alternative schools. U.S. Department of Education.
https://charterschoolcenter.ed.gov/publication/measuring-quality-resource-guide
authorizers-and-alternative-schools
National Charter School Resource Center. (n.d.). What is a charter school? U.S. Department
of Education. https://charterschoolcenter.ed.gov/what-charter-school
National Endowment for the Arts. (2009). 2008 Survey of public participation in the arts
(Research Report No. 49). https://www.arts.gov/sites/default/files/2008-SPPA.pdf
New York City Charter School Center. (2011, February). Start right week 7: Student
recruitment and lottery, project management. http://www.nyccharterschools.org/sites/
default/files/resources/Start_Right_Week_7_-_Student_Recruitment_and_Lottery.pdf
Northouse, P. (2010). Leadership theory and practice (5th ed., p.3). SAGE Publications.
Obama White House (2016). Education: Knowledge and skills for the jobs of the future: K-12
education. The White House President Barack Obama.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/issues /education/k-12
Office of the Federal Register. (2018). Applications for new awards; Assistance for arts
education program-arts in education national program. U.S. Department of Education.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2018/05/07/2018-09669/applications-for-
new-awards-assistance-for-arts-education-program-arts-in-education-national-program
Omotayo, F. (2015). Knowledge management as an important tool in organizational
management: A review of literature. Library Philosophy and Practice, 1–23.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). (2012). Equity and quality
in education: Supporting disadvantaged students and schools.

132
OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264130852-en
Özdem, G. (2011). An analysis of the mission and vision statements on the strategic plans of
higher education institutions. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 11(4), 1887–
1894.
Pajares, F. (2006). Self-efficacy during childhood and adolescence: Implications for teachers and
parents. In F. Pajares & T. Urdan (Eds.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents (pp. 339–
367). IAP – Information Age Publishing Inc.
Palinkas, L., Horwitz, S., Green, C., Wisdom, J., Duan, N., & Hoagwood, K. (2015). Purposeful
sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation
research. Administration and policy in mental health, 42(5), 533–44.
Papulova, Z. (2014). The significance of vision and mission development for enterprises in
Slovak republic. Journal of Economics, Business and Management, 2(1), 12–17.
Parsad, B., Spiegelman, M., Coopersmith J., & National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).
(2012). Arts education in public elementary and secondary schools, 1999-2000 and
2009-10 (NCES 2012–014). NCES, IES, U.S. Department of Education.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012014rev.pdf
Patton, M. (2002). Chapter 7: Qualitative interviewing. In Qualitative research & evaluation
methods (3rd ed.) (pp. 339–348). SAGE Publications.
Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Peterson, P. (2017). Charter school finance, governance, and law. Charter School Outcomes,
81-84. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315095806-5
Pintrich, P. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and assessing.
Theory into Practice, 41(4), 219–225. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_3

133
Pintrich, P., & Schunk, D. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications
(2nd ed.). Merrill-Prentice Hall.
Porter, M. (2008). On competition. Harvard Business School Publishing.
Posner, B., Kouzes, J., & Schmidt, W. (1985). Shared values make a difference: An empirical
test of corporate culture. Human Resource Management, 24(3), 293–309.
Prensky, M. (2005). Listen to the natives. Educational Leadership, 63(4), 8–13.
Prenksy, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1–6.
Rabkin, N., & Hedberg, E. (2011). Arts education in America: What the declines mean for arts
participation. Based on the 2008 survey of public participation in the arts. (Research
report No. 52). National Endowment for the Arts. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED516878
Rawsthorne, L., & Elliot, A. (1999). Achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A
meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(4), 326–344.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0304_3
Richards, D., & Engle, S. (1986). After the vision: Suggestions to corporate visionaries and
and vision champions. In J. Adams (Ed.), Transforming 468- 469 leadership (p. 206).
Miles River Press.
Roeser, R., Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. (1996). Perceptions of the school psychological
environment and early adolescents’ psychological and behavioral functioning in school:
The mediating role of goals and belonging. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(3),
408–422. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.88.3.408
Rogers, E. (1995). Diffusion of innovation. Free Press.
Rose, S., Aburto, M., Hagemann, J., & Shahnazarian, D. (2009). Informed consent in human
subjects research. University of South California. https://oprs.usc.edu/files/2017/04/

134
Informed-Consent-Booklet-4.4.13.pdf.
Rubin, H., & Rubin, I. (2012). Ethical responsibilities toward the conversational partner. In
Qualitative interviewing the art of hearing data (pp. 85–93). SAGE Publications.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. Teachers College Press.
Ruppert, S., Sikes, M., & Smyth, L. (2009). AEP Analysis of NAEP Arts Assessment Results (pp.
1–5, Rep.). http://www.aep-arts.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/NAEP Analysis.pdf
Sabol, F. (2013). Seismic shifts in the education landscape: What do they mean for arts
education and arts education policy? Arts Education Policy Review, 114(1), 33–45.
https://doi/10.1080/10632913.2013.744250
Salas, E., Wilson, K., Priest, H. & Guthrie, J. (2006), Design, delivery, and evaluation of training
systems, in G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics (3rd ed.,
pp. 472–512). John Wiley & Sons.
Schein, E. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed. p.18). Jossey-Bass.
Schneider, B., Brief, A., & Guzzo, R. (1996). Creating a climate and culture for sustainable
organizational change. Organizational Dynamics, 24(4), 7–19.
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2009). Information processing theory. In E. Anderman & L.
Anderman (Eds.), Psychology of classroom learning: An encyclopedia (pp. 493–497).
Thomson Gale.
Schraw, G., Veldt, M., & Olafson, L. (2009). Knowledge. Education.com.
http://www.education.com/reference/article/knowledge/
Schrodt, P (2002). The relationship between organizational identification and organizational
culture: Employee perceptions of culture and identification in a retail sales organization.
Communication Studies, 53(1), 189–202.

135
Schulz, K. (2008). The nature of innovation and implications on innovation management.
http://myy.haagahelia.fi/~tk/Insightful_Encounters/Material/Text/Full%20Papers/3.
Innovation/3.Innovation_Schulz.pdf
Schunk, D. (1991). Self-efficacy and academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26(3),
207-231. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep2603&4_2
Schunk, D., & Hanson, A. (1989). Self-modeling and children’s cognitive skill learning.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2), 155–163. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
0663.81.2.155
Schunk, D., Hanson, A., & Cox, P. (1987). Peer-model attributes and children’s achievement
behaviors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(1), 54–61.
Schwandt, T., Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (2007). Judging interpretations: But is it rigorous?
Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New Directions for
Evaluation 114, 11- 25. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.223
Schwartz, S. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 48(1), 23-47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-
0597.1999.tb00047.x
Shipton, H., Armstrong, C., West, M. & Dawson, J. (2008). The impact of leadership and
quality climate on hospital performance. International Journal for Quality in Health
Care, 20(6), 439–445. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzn037
Smith, V., & Szymanski, A. (2013). Critical thinking more than test scores. International
Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 8(2), 16–23.
Steele, L., Mulhearn, T., Medeiros, K., Watts, L., Connelly, S. & Mumford, M. (2016). How do
we know what works? A review and critique of current practices in ethics training

136
evaluation. Accountability in Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2016.1186547
Steinke, I. (2004). Quality criteria in qualitative research. A companion to qualitative research,
184-190. SAGE Publications.
Steneck, N. (2008) Fostering professionalism and integrity in research. University of St.
Thomas Law Journal 5(2), 522–41.
Taylor, M., McNicholas, C., Nicolay, C., Darzi, A., Bell, D., & Reed, J. (2014). Systematic
review of the application of the plan-do-study-act method to improve quality in health
care. BMJ Quality Safety, 23, 290-298. https://doi/10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002703
The Conference Board. (2018, February 13). Charting a path forward for charter schools.
Committee for Economic Development. http://www.ced.org/reports/a-path-forward-for-
charter-schools
Tsai, Y. (2011). Relationship between organizational culture, leadership behavior and job
satisfaction. BMC Health Services Research, 11(1). https://doi/10.1186/1472-6963-11-98
United States Bureau of Education. (2018). Circular of information No. 2–6, 1893:
Contributions to American Educational History No. 14–17. Forgotten Books.
USC HSPP. (2019, April). University of Southern California Human Subjects Protection
Program (USC HSPP): Policies and procedures. Office for the Protection of Research
Subjects (OPRS), USC Institutional Review Boards (IRB).
https://oprs.usc.edu/files/2019/04/USC-HSPP-Policies-and-Procedures-April-2019.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2019). Charter schools program grants for replication and
expansion of high-quality charter schools.
https://www2.ed.gov/programs/charter-rehqcs/index.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Hispanics and Arts Education.

137
https://sites.ed.gov/hispanic-initiative/files/2015/03/Hispanics-and-Arts-Education
Factsheet-Final-121814.pdf.
U.S. Department of Education. (2014). The application for grants under the Grants for
replication and expansion of high-quality charter Schools.
https://www2.ed.gov/programs/charter-rehqcs/2014/leadpsapp.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2014). 10 fact about K-12 education funding.
https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/index.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Creating strong district school choice program. U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Innovation and Improvement.
https://www2.ed.gov/admins/comm/choice/choiceprograms/report.pdf
Utman, C. (1997). Performance effects of motivational state: A meta-analysis. Personality
and Social Psychology Review, 1(2), 170–182.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0102_4
VandeWalle, D. (1997). Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation
instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57(6), 995–1015.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164497057006009
Vannatta, R., Beyerbach, B., & Walsh, C. (2001). From teaching technology to using technology
to enhance student learning: Preservice teachers’ changing perceptions of technology
infusion. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 105–127.
Visser, F., Stappers, P., Lugt, R., & Sanders, E. (2005). Context mapping: experiences from
practice. CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, 1(2),
119–149. https://doi/10.1080/15710880500135987
Whitford, W. (1923). Brief history of art education in the United States. The Elementary School

138
Journal, 24(2), 109–115. https://doi.org/10.1086/455475
Wood, M. (2014, February 23). Creative solutions to educational inequity: Arts education in the
US. Brooks College House. https://www.fandm.edu/uploads/files/7592556029114629
89-junto-1314-wood-original.pdf
Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of conceptions of ability on self-regulatory mechanism
and complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(3), 407–
415.
Yough, M., & Anderman, E. (2006). Goal orientation theory. Education.com, Inc.
https://www.education.com/reference/article/goal-orientation-theory/
Zhu, W., Chew, I., & Spangler, W. (2005), CEO transformational leadership and organizational
outcomes: The mediating role of human-capital-enhancing human resource management.
The Leadership Quarterly, 16(1), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2004.06.001
Zimmerman, B. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice,
41(2), 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4102_2
Zusho, A., Pintrich, P., & Cortina, K. (2005). Motives, goals, and adaptive patterns of
performance in Asian American and Anglo-American students. Learning and Individual
Differences, 15(2), 141–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2004.11.003.

139
Appendix A: Interview Protocol
I. Introduction
Thank you for your time today and for assisting me with my research in establishing a
charter school. I appreciate receiving your signed consent form that included the standards for
this study. I also want to thank you for agreeing to participate in the data collection component of
my dissertation and the time you have set aside to answer my questions. The interview should
take about an hour. Does that still work for you? I wanted to remind you that you can decide not
to answer any question you choose, and also, that you can withdraw from this interview at any
time without consequence. Before we get started, would you be comfortable with this session
being recorded? The recorder helps me focus on our conversation as opposed to entirely on
notetaking. If at any time you wish to turn off the recorder you can do so. The purpose of this is
so that I can get all the details but at the same time be able to carry on an attentive conversation
with you. Furthermore, I will be collecting a report which will contain all interviewee comments
without any reference to individuals. Upon request, I will provide you with a copy of the
transcript, should you wish to confirm that I captured your responses precisely. I assure you that
all your comments will be confidential, and your anonymity will be protected. Is there anything
that you would like to ask me before we begin? I will be asking you several questions during this
session, all of them focused on the establishment of a charter school. I look forward to hearing
your perspective. May I have your permission to record and get started? [Begin recording...
mention time and date]
II. Interview – Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
I’d like to start by exploring what you know about establishing a charter school like the
one you are developing.

140
1. What are your roles and responsibilities in your organization?
2. Tell me about your experience in establishing a new charter school.
3. Tell me about your knowledge of petition submission instructions, required language,
and definitions?
4. Explain how the petition is educationally sound, reasonably comprehensive, and likely
to be successfully implemented.
5. Walk me through some of the methods and strategies you use for recruiting, hiring,
financing planning, and governing?
6. What do you have to do to file a petition? Tell me how confident you are in doing the
following right now:
a. Research data about the community, economy, and a number of nearby schools.
b. Write the various sections of a petition.
c. Apply the rules and regulations.
7. Tell me how you demonstrated knowledge about writing a petition more than the bare
minimum.
8. Give me an example of an organizational procedure that you think has a structural
identity that produces and shapes the norms of behavior and centrality which bind an
organization together.
a. Give me an example of an obstacle.
9. How does your organization adapt both the external and internal environments?
10. How does your organization show their values which attribute to the ability of their
employees to identify, consent, and act?
11. Cultural competence requires that organizations: Have a defined set of values and

141
principles and demonstrate behaviors, attitudes, policies, and structures that enable them
to work effectively cross-culturally. What are the knowledge skills and attitudes of
cultural competency?
a. Is cultural competence a developmental process that evolves over an extended
period in your organization?
12. Is there anything else you would like to share about the establishment process of a
new charter school that we have not covered today?
III. Closing & Follow-up
Thank you very much for taking the time to interview today. Your responses have
provided abundant information for my research. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have
further discussions or concerns. Once again, thank you for your active participation and inputs.

142
Appendix B: Level 1 Survey
Course: Petition Overview
Rate the level to which you agree to the following statements.
5=strongly agree
4=agree
3=neutral
2=disagree
1=strongly disagree

Place an X in the box representing your opinion concerning the
statement.
1 2 3 4 5
The training held my interest. 𝤿 𝤿 𝤿 𝤿 𝤿
I found value in the training I received. 𝤿 𝤿 𝤿 𝤿 𝤿
The facilitator positively affected my learning experience. 𝤿 𝤿 𝤿 𝤿 𝤿
The training will help me complete the petition. 𝤿 𝤿 𝤿 𝤿 𝤿
I practiced how to apply the instruction in class. 𝤿 𝤿 𝤿 𝤿 𝤿
I understand the petition process. 𝤿 𝤿 𝤿 𝤿 𝤿
I am satisfied with my level of understanding. 𝤿 𝤿 𝤿 𝤿 𝤿
I am satisfied with Adobe Connect for training. 𝤿 𝤿 𝤿 𝤿 𝤿
What part of the training was most beneficial?

What are the three core tenets of receiving feedback?

List three key takeaways concerning the petition process.

Note. Survey administered electronically.

143
Appendix C: Level 2 Survey
Course: Petition Overview
Rate the level to which you agree to the following statements.
5=strongly agree
4=agree
3=neutral
2=disagree
1=strongly disagree

Place an X in the box representing your opinion concerning the
statement post-training.
1 2 3 4 5
I can describe a problem of practice. 𝤿 𝤿 𝤿 𝤿 𝤿
I can describe each petition content. 𝤿 𝤿 𝤿 𝤿 𝤿
I can locate and download the petition templates. 𝤿 𝤿 𝤿 𝤿 𝤿
I can search and download the guidelines. 𝤿 𝤿 𝤿 𝤿 𝤿
I believe that this training is worthwhile. 𝤿 𝤿 𝤿 𝤿 𝤿
I can independently investigate the ideas I have for a petition element. 𝤿 𝤿 𝤿 𝤿 𝤿
I can independently research the subject matter expertise of the petition. 𝤿 𝤿 𝤿 𝤿 𝤿
I will complete the petition before the deadline for submission. 𝤿 𝤿 𝤿 𝤿 𝤿
I am on or ahead of schedule for completing. 𝤿 𝤿 𝤿 𝤿 𝤿
What part of the training was most beneficial?

What are the three core tenets of receiving feedback?

List three key takeaways concerning the petition process.

Note. Survey administered electronically.

144
Appendix D: Blended Evaluation Tool
Survey Items (a four-point Likert-scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree)
Level 1: Reaction
Engagement
1. I was encouraged to participate with the instructor.
2. The course was interesting.
Relevance
3. I found the course helped me apply what I learned.
Customer Satisfaction
4. I will recommend the workshop to my peers.
Level 2: Learning
5. The training increased my understanding of the content of a charter petition.
6. The training increased my understanding of competency-based education.
7. The training helped me understand the importance of developing a charter petition.
8. I feel confident in applying what I learned on the job.
Level 3: Behavior
9. I have been able to use the process for developing business plans for a charter petition.
10. I have the resources needed to develop a charter petition.
11. I have the support to apply what I learned.
Level 4: Results
12. I am seeing progress on my programmatic goals after the workshop.
13. I feel more confident in creating academic and business plans for a charter petition.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This study utilizes Clark and Estes’ (2008) Gap Analysis Framework, Knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) influences, which systematically and analytically clarifies organizational goals to identify the current and preferred performance level within an organization. The purpose of this study was to identify the resources necessary in the creation of academic programs for the arts, including technology-based education, in preparation for establishing a charter school. All five board members from Los Angeles Arts and Technology High School (LAATS

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Sticks and stones: achieving educational equity for Black students through board advocacy: an innovation study

PDF

U.S. Navy SEALs resilience needs assessment: an innovation study

PDF

Mentoring as a capability development tool to increase gender balance on leadership teams: an innovation study

PDF

Improving the evaluation method of a military unit: a gap analysis

PDF

Creating the conditions for change readiness in higher education: an innovation study

PDF

The implementation of a multi-tiered system of support at Downtown Unified School District: an analysis of teacher needs

PDF

Gender diversity in optical communications and the role of professional societies: an evaluation study

PDF

Embedded academic support for high school student success: an innovation study

PDF

The interaction of teacher knowledge and motivation with organizational influences on the implementation of a hybrid reading intervention model taught in elementary grades

PDF

Enhancing socially responsible outcomes at a major North American zoo: an innovation study

PDF

Universal Wellness Network: a study of a promising practice

PDF

Role understanding as a pillar of employee engagement: an evaluation gap analysis

PDF

Aligned leadership attributes and organizational innovation: an evaluation study

PDF

A qualitative examination of the methods church leaders use to increase young adult attendance in Christian churches: an evaluation study

PDF

ReQLes technology's this is your life: an innovation study

PDF

Critical behaviors required for successful enterprise resource planning system implementation: an innovation study

PDF

Examining a lack of mentorship in the large state militia: an innovation study

PDF

Key factors for successful adoption of culturally relevant and impact driven grantmaking practices

PDF

Mitigating low employee engagement through improved performance management: an evaluation study

PDF

Implementation of the International Baccalaureate Middle Years Program in an urban secondary school: an improvement practice to address closing the achievement gap

Asset Metadata

Creator Arnold, Su Young Park (author)

Core Title A school for implementing arts and technology: an innovation study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Publication Date 08/05/2020

Defense Date 05/12/2020

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Arts,arts education,developing a petition,establishing a charter school,gap analysis framework,knowledge, motivation, and organizational (KMO) influences,LAATS board members,New World Kirkpatrick Model,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational performance,Technology

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Yates, Kenneth (committee chair), Donato, Adrian (committee member), Foulk, Susanne (committee member)

Creator Email suyounga@usc.edu,suyoungarnold@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-358932

Unique identifier UC11666007

Identifier etd-ArnoldSuYo-8782.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-358932 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-ArnoldSuYo-8782.pdf

Dmrecord 358932

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Arnold, Su Young Park

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA