Teacher attitudes toward pay for performance incentives for teachers

Teachers’ attitudes towards pay for performance incentives for teachers Dissertations involve primary research towards development of solutions to existing problems in the society. In this paper, I, in response to questions about my proposed research, establish the proposed research’s validity to contributing to the ongoing debate on teachers’ remuneration.
Outcome of my proposed research
There are two possible alternative results to my findings. With the aim of understanding teachers’ attitudes to pay methods, the research expects to establish consistent outcomes with previous research findings that teachers are inclined to general pay approach. Preference of overall pays approach is unlikely, though a possible alternative (Cohen, 2008).
Subsequent intent to answering the questions
Subsequent intention is to subjects’ responses to qualitative analysis in order to develop an in depth understanding of teachers’ perception on the two remuneration approaches. The developed knowledge will then be communicated to relevant stakeholders.
Manner of communicating research results and target audience
Research results will be communicated orally, and in writing. The compiled dissertation will be communicated orally during its initial presentation and subsequent written communication modes will include hand delivery of the dissertation’s hard copy and electronic communication of soft copies. The soft copy will be sent to each stakeholder’s mail address and a similar copy will be availed online.
The results will be communicated to the dissertation committee, the university’s faculty, policy makers in education sector and teachers, through their schools.
Proposed plan
Phenomenological design, through online surveys, is proposed for implementing the research. In the plan, the research will explore teachers’ experience with the remuneration approaches (Creswell, 2012).
Reference
Creswell, J. (2012). Qualiattive inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. New York, NY: SAGE.
Cohen, E. (2008). Invisible ink in collective bargaining: Why key issues are not addressed. Washington, D. C.: National Council on Teacher Quality Publishers, pp. 234-38.