{"title":"早期教育课堂的质量:定义、差距和体系","authors":"R. Pianta, J. Downer, B. Hamre","doi":"10.1353/FOC.2016.0015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Summary:Parents, professionals, and policymakers agree that quality is crucial for early education. But precise, consistent, and valid definitions of quality have been elusive. In this article, Robert Pianta, Jason Downer, and Bridget Hamre tackle the questions of how to define quality, how to measure it, and how to ensure that more children experience it.Definitions of quality in early education, the authors write, generally include four aspects. The first is a program’s structural elements, such as length of the school day or teachers’ qualifications. The second encompasses general features of the classroom environment, ranging from playground equipment to activities involving staff, children, or parents. Third are the dimensions of teacher-student interactions that children experience directly. Finally, aggregate indices—such as quality rating and improvement systems—combine measurements across types of program elements.Pianta, Downer, and Hamre find very little evidence that programs’ structural features influence children’s development. Instead, they zero in on teacher-student interactions—characterized by teachers’ sensitivity to individual needs, support for positive behavior, and stimulation of language and cognitive development—as a key indicator of classroom quality that appears to benefit all children from prekindergarten through third grade.Teachers’ interactions with children can be significantly and systematically improved through targeted and sustained professional development. Yet efforts to improve the quality of such interactions at scale and to ensure that quality remains consistent from prekindergarten through third grade have so far been ineffectual. If we accept the evidence that direct experiences within classrooms are the best indicators of program quality, the authors argue, then the next wave of science and policy must refine and advance the definition, measurement, production, and consistency of these experiences in early education.","PeriodicalId":51448,"journal":{"name":"Future of Children","volume":"26 1","pages":"119 - 137"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/FOC.2016.0015","citationCount":"127","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quality in Early Education Classrooms: Definitions, Gaps, and Systems\",\"authors\":\"R. Pianta, J. Downer, B. Hamre\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/FOC.2016.0015\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Summary:Parents, professionals, and policymakers agree that quality is crucial for early education. But precise, consistent, and valid definitions of quality have been elusive. In this article, Robert Pianta, Jason Downer, and Bridget Hamre tackle the questions of how to define quality, how to measure it, and how to ensure that more children experience it.Definitions of quality in early education, the authors write, generally include four aspects. The first is a program’s structural elements, such as length of the school day or teachers’ qualifications. The second encompasses general features of the classroom environment, ranging from playground equipment to activities involving staff, children, or parents. Third are the dimensions of teacher-student interactions that children experience directly. Finally, aggregate indices—such as quality rating and improvement systems—combine measurements across types of program elements.Pianta, Downer, and Hamre find very little evidence that programs’ structural features influence children’s development. Instead, they zero in on teacher-student interactions—characterized by teachers’ sensitivity to individual needs, support for positive behavior, and stimulation of language and cognitive development—as a key indicator of classroom quality that appears to benefit all children from prekindergarten through third grade.Teachers’ interactions with children can be significantly and systematically improved through targeted and sustained professional development. Yet efforts to improve the quality of such interactions at scale and to ensure that quality remains consistent from prekindergarten through third grade have so far been ineffectual. If we accept the evidence that direct experiences within classrooms are the best indicators of program quality, the authors argue, then the next wave of science and policy must refine and advance the definition, measurement, production, and consistency of these experiences in early education.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51448,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Future of Children\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"119 - 137\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-09-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/FOC.2016.0015\",\"citationCount\":\"127\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Future of Children\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/FOC.2016.0015\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"法学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Future of Children","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/FOC.2016.0015","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 127
摘要
摘要:家长、专业人士和政策制定者一致认为,质量对早期教育至关重要。但是精确、一致和有效的质量定义一直是难以捉摸的。在这篇文章中,Robert Pianta, Jason Downer和Bridget Hamre探讨了如何定义质量,如何衡量质量,以及如何确保更多的孩子体验到质量。作者写道,早期教育质量的定义通常包括四个方面。首先是课程的结构要素,比如上课时间的长短或教师的资格。第二个包括教室环境的一般特征,从操场设备到涉及员工、儿童或家长的活动。三是儿童直接体验到的师生互动维度。最后,综合指数——如质量评级和改进系统——结合了不同类型的项目元素的测量。Pianta, Downer和Hamre发现很少有证据表明项目的结构特征会影响儿童的发展。相反,他们把注意力集中在师生互动上,师生互动的特点是教师对个人需求的敏感性,对积极行为的支持,以及对语言和认知发展的刺激,这是课堂质量的一个关键指标,似乎有益于从学前班到三年级的所有孩子。通过有针对性和持续的专业发展,教师与儿童的互动可以得到显著和系统的改善。然而,到目前为止,为大规模提高这种互动的质量,并确保从学前班到三年级的质量保持一致所做的努力都是无效的。作者认为,如果我们接受课堂上的直接体验是项目质量的最佳指标这一证据,那么下一波科学和政策必须完善和推进早期教育中这些体验的定义、测量、生产和一致性。
Quality in Early Education Classrooms: Definitions, Gaps, and Systems
Summary:Parents, professionals, and policymakers agree that quality is crucial for early education. But precise, consistent, and valid definitions of quality have been elusive. In this article, Robert Pianta, Jason Downer, and Bridget Hamre tackle the questions of how to define quality, how to measure it, and how to ensure that more children experience it.Definitions of quality in early education, the authors write, generally include four aspects. The first is a program’s structural elements, such as length of the school day or teachers’ qualifications. The second encompasses general features of the classroom environment, ranging from playground equipment to activities involving staff, children, or parents. Third are the dimensions of teacher-student interactions that children experience directly. Finally, aggregate indices—such as quality rating and improvement systems—combine measurements across types of program elements.Pianta, Downer, and Hamre find very little evidence that programs’ structural features influence children’s development. Instead, they zero in on teacher-student interactions—characterized by teachers’ sensitivity to individual needs, support for positive behavior, and stimulation of language and cognitive development—as a key indicator of classroom quality that appears to benefit all children from prekindergarten through third grade.Teachers’ interactions with children can be significantly and systematically improved through targeted and sustained professional development. Yet efforts to improve the quality of such interactions at scale and to ensure that quality remains consistent from prekindergarten through third grade have so far been ineffectual. If we accept the evidence that direct experiences within classrooms are the best indicators of program quality, the authors argue, then the next wave of science and policy must refine and advance the definition, measurement, production, and consistency of these experiences in early education.
期刊介绍:
The Future of Children is a collaboration of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University and the Brookings Institution. The mission of The Future of Children is to translate the best social science research about children and youth into information that is useful to policymakers, practitioners, grant-makers, advocates, the media, and students of public policy. The project publishes two journals and policy briefs each year, and provides various short summaries of our work. Topics range widely -- from income policy to family issues to education and health – with children’s policy as the unifying element. The senior editorial team is diverse, representing two institutions and multiple disciplines.