top of page

Comparative Analysis of Cycle 1 and Cycle 2

​​Our university's Office of Spiritual Formation (OSF) established Small Group Chapels (SGCs) to foster Christ-centered communities and cultivate devoted followers of Jesus. However, a concerning trend emerged: despite having capable student leaders, SGCs were straying from their intended purpose. This research project addressed this challenge by motivating and empowering SGC leaders to implement the OSF's vision and mission effectively.

To understand the student leaders' perspectives and challenges, I employed the Expectancy Theory of Motivation (ETM) as the theoretical framework in Cycle 1. This framework explores factors influencing motivation, such as expectations of success and the value placed on achieving goals.

​

In Cycle 2, I implemented the Impact Cycle, a coaching model focused on continuous improvement. I believed that by combining the ETM's focus on motivation with the Impact Cycle's emphasis on development, I could create a dynamic approach to enhance leadership effectiveness within SGCs in implementing the vision and mission of OSF.

The core research question driving this project was: How can the integration of the ETM and the Impact Cycle improve the motivation and effectiveness of SGC leaders in implementing the OSF's vision and mission?

 

Cycle 1: Establishing Baseline and Motivating Leaders Through Vision Alignment

 

Cycle 1 focused on establishing a baseline understanding of the SFO's vision and mission among student leaders. The training module utilized Vroom's Expectancy Theory (1964), which emphasizes the connection between effort, performance, and desired outcomes to drive motivation.

 

The results were positive. Leaders demonstrated a significantly improved grasp of the SFO's vision and mission after the training. This aligned with the Expectancy Theory, as leaders expressed increased motivation and excitement about their roles. Previously, many leaders needed more clarity on SGCs, the SFO's vision, and how their actions contributed to these goals. However, following the training, 98% reported feeling more encouraged and having a clearer understanding of their responsibilities.

​

​

Despite these gains, Cycle 1 also revealed areas for improvement. Focused group discussions highlighted that some leaders still lacked clarity on their specific roles within their SGCs, particularly in adapting activities to align with the SFO's vision while addressing unique challenges faced by their individual groups. This disconnect between understanding the vision and translating it into action suggested a need for a more comprehensive approach that could provide tailored support.

 

Hence, this discount of dealing with unique challenges that imposed a misalignment of the SGC actions and the OSF vision identified in Cycle 1 pointed towards the need for a more individualized support system. This led to the development of Cycle 2, which focused on instructional coaching to address the specific needs of each SGC leader and their unique group challenges.

 

Cycle 2: Leveraging the Impact Cycle through Instructional Coaching

​

Building on Cycle 1's findings, Cycle 2 employed the Impact Cycle framework for instructional coaching. This approach aligns with the Expectancy Theory of Motivation's (ETM) concept of "instrumentality" – the belief that effort leads to desired outcomes (Vroom, 1964). Through one-on-one coaching sessions, leaders had opportunities to:

​

  • Observe effective practices: Data from previous observations showcased successful leadership strategies, helping leaders identify potential approaches that align with the SFO's vision and mission.

  • Set Collaborative Goals: The Impact Cycle's "Identify" stage emphasized clarifying goals and expectations. This addressed the previously identified gap in role clarity by establishing a shared understanding of success within each SGC.

  • Develop Action Plans: The "Learn and improve" stage focused on identifying strategies, crafting checklists for execution, and boosting motivation and focus. This aligns with Knight's (2022) emphasis on continuous improvement as a key motivator for leaders.

​

The data highlights the effectiveness of Cycle 2's personalized approach:

​

  • Pre-observation interviews were crucial for uncovering individual challenges. Quotes from Student Leader A (SL-A) exemplified their desire for increased participation, while Student Leader B (SL-B) pointed out a lack of clear goals. This allowed for tailored interventions to address each SGC's specific needs.

  • Instructional coaching sessions: Feedback from SL-B emphasizes the impact of coaching. They highlighted how coaching helped them not only set clear goals but also understand the influence of seemingly minor actions on their mission. This newfound awareness empowered leaders to make informed decisions that foster a stronger SGC community.

Cycle 2 demonstrates the value of instructional coaching in providing SGC leaders with the tools and support they need to achieve success based on the SFO's vision.

 

Similarities and Differences in Data Collection and Instrumentation

​

Both cycles mainly utilized qualitative data collection methods. In both Cycles, surveys, focused groups, and pre-observation with SGC leaders established baseline information about their understanding of the SFO's vision, leadership practices, and motivation levels. Post-observation discussions in Cycle 2 allowed self-reflection on their strategies and activities and the coaching experience and its impact. Throughout the Cycles, field notes documented observations, feedback provided, and leaders' responses. Both cycles relied on the same interview protocols, observation checklists, and survey instruments, ensuring consistency in data collection.

 

The primary difference between the cycles lies in the delivery methods of the coaching intervention. Cycle 1 adopted a more individualistic approach whereby each leader had to go through the training module on their own and then write a reflection, but it also allowed collaboration in a focused group, and reflections on padlets. On the other hand, during Cycle 2, each SGC leader received one-on-one coaching sessions focused on their specific needs and goals. While this allowed for tailored support, it limited the opportunity for leaders to learn from each other's experiences. However, each leader needed a one-on-one since they all had unique needs.

 

Reflecting on the Effectiveness of Answering Research Questions

​

The data collected in Cycle 1 demonstrated an increase in the student leaders' motivation by helping them understand the importance of their efforts and their contribution toward the overall mission and vision of the Spiritual Formation office. Nevertheless, Cycle 2 demonstrated a more significant impact on leaders' motivation and effectiveness than Cycle 1. Post-observation discussions revealed a heightened sense of ownership and engagement among leaders, aligning with the "synergistic effects" of ETM and the IC postulated by the research literature (e.g., Thomas, 2021). Student leaders' feedback on the coaching experience and the Impact Cycle also indicated a more noticeable improvement in perceived leadership effectiveness within the SGCs. This suggests that the one-on-one environment fostered by Instructional coaching through the structured guidance of the IC, proved to be a more potent approach in motivating leaders and enhancing their leadership skills.

However, limitations inherent to ETM acknowledged in the literature review (e.g., difficulty addressing intrinsic motivation) remain relevant considerations. Additionally, time constraints for student leaders to fully implement the IC strategies were evident. In the end, the research successfully answered my research questions.

 

Conclusion 

​

Hence, comparatively analyzing Cycle 1 and Cycle 2 data highlights the importance of tailoring interventions to address the specific needs and contexts of leaders. While both cycles utilized similar data collection methods, the shift from a group to an individualistic approach in Cycle 2, informed by research on motivation and leadership development, yielded a more significant impact.

The integration of the ETM framework and the IC provided a structured approach to the project, fostering goal clarity, one-on-one conversations, personal reflection, and continuous improvement, and hence increased motivation and empowerment. This aligns with the research suggesting that people are motivated to act if they believe and understand that their efforts with produce the desired results, and that a combination of clear goals, feedback, and structured coaching meaningful conversations may enhance leader motivation and effectiveness (e.g., Bandura, 1997; Knight,2022; Vroom 1962).

 

References

 

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. Worth Publishers.

Bachmann, P. (2023). How do you align your vision with action? Forbes Coaches Council. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbescoachescouncil/2023/03/13/how-do-you-align-your-vision-with-action/?sh=5dc7cd011412

 Knight, J. (2018). Better conversations: Coaching ourselves and each other to be more credible, caring, and connected. Corwin Press.

Knight, J. (2018). The impact cycle: What instructional coaches should do to foster powerful improvements in teaching. Corwin Press.

Knight, J., Ryschon Knight, J., & Carlson, C. (2018). The reflection guide to the impact cycle: What instructional coaches should do to foster powerful improvements in teaching. Corwin Press.

Knight, J. (2021). The definitive guide to instructional coaching: Seven factors for success. ASCD.

 Knight, J., & Sweeney, D. (2020). The better conversations video series. Corwin Press.

Knight, J., Hoffman, A., Harris, M., & Thomas, S. (2020). The instructional playbook: The missing link for translating research into practice. ASCD.

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. Wiley.

 Vroom, V. H. (2016). Expectancy theory: The effects of expectations on performance. Wiley.

bottom of page