The purpose of this study was to investigate the use of consensus processes within the context of designing a large scale public educational system involving large groups of planning partners and subject-matter experts. Initially, this study examined the use of a consensus-building model developed by the Schoolyear 2000 initiative in several individual and joint design team meetings. Questions investigated included: (1) To what degree was the consensus-building model being observed in design team meetings? (2) What were the strengths in using this model to arrive at group consensus on design criteria? (3) What were the weaknesses in using this model to arrive at group consensus on design criteria? (4) How practical was it to use this model for all team meetings to arrive at consensus on design criteria? and (5) Did group composition (e.g., size of groups, number of males and females) affect group decisions with or without the use of this model? / Proponents of large scale educational restructuring and planning call for the use of systems theory and principles of instructional systems design. Although both constructs call for the use of subject-matter experts and planning partners, systems theory and instructional systems design do not address the use and coordination of these key players, especially when large groups are involved. / The participants for this study consisted of five design teams with membership composed of classroom educators, school administrators, district administrators, Department of Education members, business and industry representatives, and community college and university educators. Design team sizes ranged from 43 to 87 members. / A mail-out survey, telephone follow-up interviews, written and videotaped observations of individual and joint design team meetings, and collection of artifacts were used and analyzed as data sources. / Results indicated the consensus-building model was not strictly adhered to and a modified consensus process was substituted by design team facilitators. Observed strengths, weaknesses, and practicality of the modified consensus process are discussed as well as group composition, additional observations, conclusions and recommendations. / Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 56-11, Section: A, page: 4224. / Major Professor: Marcy P. Driscoll. / Thesis (Ph.D.)--The Florida State University, 1995.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:fsu.edu/oai:fsu.digital.flvc.org:fsu_77582 |
| Contributors | Jakubowski, Eric D., Florida State University |
| Source Sets | Florida State University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Text |
| Format | 247 p. |
| Rights | On campus use only. |
| Relation | Dissertation Abstracts International |
Page generated in 0.0018 seconds