Search results

Showing 1 – 2 of 2 results.

Curated

Restricted

Kentucky Professional Development Framework Impact on Quality and Child Outcomes, 2006-2007 (ICPSR 26341)

Released/updated on: 2010-12-16

Geographic coverage: United States, Kentucky

Time period: 2006-01-01--2007-01-01

In 2000, the Kentucky General Assembly passed historic early childhood legislation (Kentucky's KIDS [Kentucky Invests in Developing Success] NOW Initiative) of which a component included the development of a seamless professional development system. The professional development system includes core content, articulation, credentials, scholarships and a training framework. This comprehensive professional development system, along with other initiative components in assuring maternal and child health, supporting families, enhancing early care and education, and establishing a support structure, have moved the field of early childhood care and education forward in the state and improved child and family outcomes.

This study was designed to build on the KIDS NOW Initiative by conducting research investigating the degree to which a statewide unified professional development system impacted the educational level of early care and education providers and subsequent classroom quality. It focused on three major predictors of professional development outcomes:

Individual teacher characteristics, including learning readiness, education (level and type), training experience, attitudes towards training, personality (conscientiousness, self-efficacy), job satisfaction (perceptions of support)
Characteristics of the program administrator, including administrator education and administrator support of professional development
Characteristics of the teacher's work setting, including program administration, and policies and procedures, and classroom setting (Child Care, Head Start, or Public Preschool)

The impact of these three predictors was measured on two major outcomes: (a) professional development outcomes, as measured by job status, learning and transfer of learning, and (b) organizational outcomes, as measured by program quality, child outcomes and staff retention.

The research questions guiding this research were focused on determining the degree to which (1) a unified professional development framework initiated at the state level results in positive child outcomes, and (2) the educational level of early care and education providers enhances the quality of classroom environments. Specifically:

What components of a professional development framework are more effective in encouraging and supporting individuals to remain in early care and education settings?
What components of a professional development framework are more effective in supporting early care and education professionals in enhancing classroom quality and child outcomes?
Are there specific factors that impact early care and education professionals' ability to participate in professional development activities at various levels?
Does the level and intensity of professional development experiences impact classroom quality and child outcomes?
What personnel factors have the highest impact on quality classroom environments and child outcomes?
What is the interaction between the personnel, professional development, and program variables on classroom quality and child outcomes?

Curated

Study of Instructional Improvement (SII) (ICPSR 26282)

Released/updated on: 2010-05-20

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2000-01-01--2004-01-01

To meet the growing need for high-quality research on whole-school approaches to instructional improvement, researchers at the University of Michigan School of Education, in cooperation with the Consortium for Policy Research in Education (CPRE), conducted a large-scale, mixed method, longitudinal Study of Instructional Improvement to investigate the design, implementation, and effects on student achievement of three of the most widely-adopted whole-school school reform programs in the United States: the Accelerated Schools (ASP), America's Choice (AC), and Success for All (SFA). Each of these school reform programs sought to make "comprehensive" changes in the instructional capacity of schools, and each was being implemented in schools in diverse social environments. Each program, however, also pursued a different design for instructional improvement, and each developed particular strategies for assisting schools in the change process. In order to better understand the process of whole-school reform, Study of Instructional Improvement (SII) developed a program of research to examine how these interventions operated and to investigate their impact on schools' instructional practice and student achievement in reading and mathematics. The research program had 3 components: a longitudinal survey of 115 schools (roughly 30 schools in each of the 3 interventions under study, plus 26 matched control schools), case studies of the 3 interventions under study, and detailed case studies of 9 schools implementing the interventions under study (plus 3 matched control schools). Across all components of the SII study, the research examined alternative designs for instructional improvement, alternative strategies for putting these designs into practice in local schools, and the extent to which alternative designs and support strategies promote substantial changes in instructional capacity and student achievement in reading and mathematics. The most comprehensive component of SII was a large-scale, longitudinal, multisurvey study of schools. The use of survey research methods was intended to track the course of schools' engagement in comprehensive approaches to instructional improvement and to investigate the conditions under which this led to substantive changes in instructional practices and student achievement in reading and mathematics. The study design called for each school to participate in the study for a period of three years, although some schools voluntarily provided a fourth year of teacher, leader, and school-level information (no additional student-level data). In addition, survey researchers conducted interviews, primarily a telephone protocol with a parent or guardian of each cohort student in order to gather information on students' family background and on students' home and community environments. Researchers also gathered data from school leaders and others about the policy environments in which the schools are located. Another component of the research program involved the development of detailed case studies of a small number schools participating in the study. The case studies gathered observational, interview, and documentary evidence to better understand how instructional change processes unfolded in different school settings. Case studies were conducted in 12 schools operating in differently configured state and district policy environments. In each environment, researchers selected schools participating in one of the interventions under study as well as a "matched" control school. Finally, case study data was used to chart key similarities and differences in the design and operations of the interventions under study, to analyze how different design features affect operating strategies, and to better understand the general problem of how intervention programs can work to devise and "bring to scale" a feasible scheme for improving instruction in local schools.