Can a Brief Professional Development Improve Early Childhood Educators’ Responsivity and Interaction Quality in Child Care Centers? A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

IF 2.1 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Early Education and Development Pub Date : 2023-11-01 DOI:10.1080/10409289.2023.2274302
Ashley Brunsek, Michelle Rodrigues, Nina Sokolovic, Sahar Borairi, Zeenat Janmohamed, Jennifer M. Jenkins, Michal Perlman
{"title":"Can a Brief Professional Development Improve Early Childhood Educators’ Responsivity and Interaction Quality in Child Care Centers? A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial","authors":"Ashley Brunsek, Michelle Rodrigues, Nina Sokolovic, Sahar Borairi, Zeenat Janmohamed, Jennifer M. Jenkins, Michal Perlman","doi":"10.1080/10409289.2023.2274302","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACTHigh-quality early childhood education and care (ECEC) – particularly care defined by highly responsive interactions between educators and children – has the potential to have lasting positive impacts on children’s development. While there is variability in the level of quality among early education and care settings, professional development for early childhood educators has been shown to be an effective means to improve both ECEC quality and child outcomes. As many professional development programs are time and resource intensive, we sought out to test the efficacy of a brief (5 hr) professional development program that included a workshop, individual coaching, video feedback and text messaging. Research Findings: Results of a cluster randomized controlled trial with 93 educators indicated that the program improved educators’ responsivity three-months after intervention (d = 0.60, p = .035), but not classroom-wide levels of emotional support or instructional quality. Trend analysis revealed the greatest improvements occurred after the workshop and first coaching session and leveled off over time. Practice or Policy: Preliminary evidence suggests brief professional development programs may improve interaction quality with effect sizes comparable to those of longer programs. Well-powered studies using multiple arms or sequential randomization will help optimize the efficiency and effectiveness of professional development. AcknowledgmentsThis work was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada under Grant 890-2015-2031. It was conducted in partnership with George Brown College and the City of Toronto. Thank you to Sharon Pauker, Gabriella Nocita, Nellie Kamkar, Justine Biado, Alessandro Eid-Ricci, Shailja Jain and Samantha Burns for their support with the organization and implementation of this project. Finally, we are deeply grateful for the child care center directors and staff who participated in this study.Disclosure StatementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Data Availability StatementThe data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, MP, upon reasonable request.","PeriodicalId":11448,"journal":{"name":"Early Education and Development","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Early Education and Development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2023.2274302","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACTHigh-quality early childhood education and care (ECEC) – particularly care defined by highly responsive interactions between educators and children – has the potential to have lasting positive impacts on children’s development. While there is variability in the level of quality among early education and care settings, professional development for early childhood educators has been shown to be an effective means to improve both ECEC quality and child outcomes. As many professional development programs are time and resource intensive, we sought out to test the efficacy of a brief (5 hr) professional development program that included a workshop, individual coaching, video feedback and text messaging. Research Findings: Results of a cluster randomized controlled trial with 93 educators indicated that the program improved educators’ responsivity three-months after intervention (d = 0.60, p = .035), but not classroom-wide levels of emotional support or instructional quality. Trend analysis revealed the greatest improvements occurred after the workshop and first coaching session and leveled off over time. Practice or Policy: Preliminary evidence suggests brief professional development programs may improve interaction quality with effect sizes comparable to those of longer programs. Well-powered studies using multiple arms or sequential randomization will help optimize the efficiency and effectiveness of professional development. AcknowledgmentsThis work was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada under Grant 890-2015-2031. It was conducted in partnership with George Brown College and the City of Toronto. Thank you to Sharon Pauker, Gabriella Nocita, Nellie Kamkar, Justine Biado, Alessandro Eid-Ricci, Shailja Jain and Samantha Burns for their support with the organization and implementation of this project. Finally, we are deeply grateful for the child care center directors and staff who participated in this study.Disclosure StatementNo potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).Data Availability StatementThe data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, MP, upon reasonable request.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
简短的专业发展能提高幼儿中心幼儿教育者的反应能力和互动质量吗?一组随机对照试验
高质量的幼儿教育和护理(ECEC)——特别是由教育者和儿童之间高度响应的互动所定义的护理——有可能对儿童的发展产生持久的积极影响。虽然早期教育和保育环境的质量水平存在差异,但幼儿教育工作者的专业发展已被证明是提高幼儿教育质量和儿童成果的有效手段。由于许多职业发展项目都是时间和资源密集型的,我们试图测试一个简短(5小时)的职业发展项目的效果,该项目包括研讨会、个人指导、视频反馈和短信。研究发现:一项对93名教育工作者进行的随机对照试验结果表明,该计划在干预后三个月提高了教育工作者的反应性(d = 0.60, p = 0.035),但没有提高整个课堂的情感支持水平或教学质量。趋势分析显示,最大的改善发生在研讨会和第一次指导会议之后,并随着时间的推移趋于平稳。实践或政策:初步证据表明,简短的专业发展项目可以提高互动质量,其效应大小与较长的项目相当。使用多组或顺序随机化的有力研究将有助于优化专业发展的效率和效果。本研究由加拿大社会科学与人文研究理事会资助,项目编号890-2015-2031。它是与乔治布朗学院和多伦多市合作进行的。感谢Sharon Pauker、Gabriella Nocita、Nellie Kamkar、Justine Biado、Alessandro Eid-Ricci、Shailja Jain和Samantha Burns在组织和实施本项目过程中的支持。最后,我们非常感谢参与本次研究的幼儿中心主任和工作人员。披露声明作者未报告潜在的利益冲突。数据可用性声明支持本研究结果的数据可根据合理要求从通讯作者MP处获得。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
10.30%
发文量
78
期刊介绍: Early Education and Development (EE&D) is a professional journal for those involved in educational and preschool services and research related to children and their families: early education supervisors, school psychologists, daycare administrators, child development specialists, developmental and child clinical psychologists, and special education administrators. It is designed to emphasize the implications for practice of research and solid scientific information. The age range focused upon is preschool through the primary grades. EE&D is a connecting link between the research community in early education and child development and school district early education programs, daycare systems, and special needs preschool programs.
期刊最新文献
The Effect of Ecological Environment on Language-Minority Students’ Math and Reading Development: A Hierarchical Linear Analysis of a Longitudinal Study Validation of the Chinese Empathy Questionnaire for Pre-School Children Emotion Knowledge Relates to Cortisol for Children Attending Head Start Preschool Harsh Discipline and the Development of Children’s Externalizing Problems: Longitudinal Mediation of Intraindividual Reaction Time Variability The Roles of Student-Teacher Relationship Quality and Classroom Self-Regulatory Supports for Children’s Self-Regulatory Skills in Kindergarten and First Grade
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1