1 of 1

Introduction & Purpose

Phase 1- QUAN

Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy and Change Agency in Gifted Coordinators:

A Mixed Methods Study.

Celeste D.C. Sodergren, Baylor University

For a Full List of References 🡪

Phase 1 Question & Hypotheses

Q1: What role does ESE have in innovative action for gifted coordinators?

H1. ESE will be positively correlated with innovative depth.

H2. ESE will be positively correlated with experience as a GT Leader

​

​

Participants

  • N = 97 Participants, 49 from 11 states completed the survey
  • District types: 16 Town, 12 Suburban, 11 City, 10 Rural
  • Race/Ethnicity: 83% White, non-Hispanic, 10% Other, Hispanic, 3% White, Hispanic, 4% other identifiers
  • Gender: 88% Female, 12% Male (other options not selected)
  • Highest degree earned: 72% Masters, 23.5% Doctorate, 4% Bachelor

​

Instruments

  • DeNoble et. al. (1999) Entrepreneurial Self-Efficacy Scale
  • Röhl et. al. (2022) Innovation Scale

​

Phase 1 Results

  • There was a small significant positive relationship between total ESE and average innovative depth (b = 1.996, t(44) = 2.413, p = .02)
  • There is a significant positive relationship between years of school leadership experience and total ESE (b = .602, t(37) = 3.646, p < .001, R2 = .337).

​

​

​

Phase 2 - Qual

Phase 2 Questions

Q2: How do district gifted coordinators view their change agency?

Q3.a. How can researchers better target their efforts to understand the innovative capacity of district leaders of gifted and talented programs?

Q3.b. How does the use of the integration of the data between phase 1 and phase 2 create a better understanding of the research questions?

​

Gifted education leaders are called to lead radical transformations in their districts in the effort to overcome long-standing racial and socio-economic disparities in identification and services (Ezzani et al., 2021; Floyd, 2022; Guilbault et. al., 2022). Such changes are only possible if the gifted coordinator believes themselves to be capable of leading change, and persists through difficulties (Guilbault et al., 2020). The purpose of this study is to gather more information about what kinds of innovations gifted education coordinators are implementing, to understand how they believe they can effect change and implement innovations within their organizations, and the impact those beliefs have on their patterns of practice. I posit the guiding research question: What makes a gifted coordinator successful at implementing innovative changes in a school district?

Interested in learning more about Celeste Sodergren? Find her CV and contact information here as well!

​

Participants

  • N = 11 of 13 selected completed interviews representing 6 states
  • District types: 3 Town, 3 Suburban, 3 City, 2 Rural
  • Race/Ethnicity: 10 White, non-Hispanic, 1 White, Hispanic,
  • Gender: 6 Female, 4 Male (other options not selected)
  • Highest degree earned: 7 Masters, 3 Doctorate, 1 Bachelor

​

​

​

​

Phase 1 Integration & Purposive Sampling for Phase 2

​

Participants plotted according to high or low ESE and radicalness of innovation depth. Three outermost participants in each quadrant selected, plus the midpoint participant. Those who had not opted in were replaced with the next outermost options.

​

Quadrant A is high ESE, shallow innovation.

Quadrant B is high ESE, deep innovation

Quadrant C is low ESE, shallow innovation

Quadrant D is low ESE, deep innovation

​

​

Phase 2 Preliminary Progress

  • Interview data collected, transcribed and cleaned
  • A priori coding using the Guilbault (2022) framework & DeNoble (1999) ESE types
  • Still in progress, bringing in a second coder to improve coding fidelity

​

Explanatory Sequential Mixed Methods Design Diagram