Practice-Based Coaching:
Supporting Implementation of the
Pyramid Model
Rob Corso, PhD
Introductions
•
•
•
•
•
Name
Number of years in early childhood
Number of years coaching
Your one BIG question about coaching
Favorite hobby – life outside of coaching!
Objectives for
Practice-Based Coach Training
• Identify the key components of PBC
• Describe the characteristics of collaborative
partnerships.
• Create shared goals and prepare an action plan
for achieving them.
• Conduct a focused observation based on an
action plan.
• Prepare prompts for reflection, as well as
constructive and supportive feedback, based on
set goals, an action plan and focused
observation.
1
Coaching Impact
Joyce and Showers, 2002
OUTCOMES
% of Participants who Demonstrate Knowledge,
Demonstrate New Skills in a Training Setting,
and Use New Skills in the Classroom
TRAINING
COMPONENTS
Knowledge
Skill
Demonstration
Use in the
Classroom
Theory and
Discussion
10%
5%
0%
..+Demonstration
in Training
30%
20%
0%
…+ Practice &
Feedback in
Training
60%
60%
5%
…+ Coaching in
Classroom
95%
95%
95%
This meeting is for you!
Ask questions
Share your experiences
Consider supports and challenges
2
All coaching is, is
taking a person where
he can’t take himself.
Bill McCartney
We could accomplish
many more things if we
did not think of them
as impossible.
Vince Lombardi
Probably my best quality
as a coach is that I ask a
lot of questions and let
the person come up with
the answers.
Phil Dixon
3
A good coach will
make people see what
they can be rather than
what they are.
Ara Parseghian
With partners at your
table….draw a pictures
of the “Perfect Coach”
Drawn by NCQTL Leadership Academy Participants, Oakdale, CA, April
18, 2013
4
Drawn by NCQTL Leadership Academy Participants, Oakdale, CA, April
18, 2013
Effects of Quality coaching
• All coaches use
research-based
strategies to support
adult learning and
professional
development
Quality
Teaching
• All teachers and
staff use effective
curricula and
research-based
teaching practices
• All children learn
important skills and
are ready for
kindergarten
Quality
Coaching
Quality
Learning
Coaching Practices
Strengths
and
Needs Assessment
5
Practice-Based Coaching is…
• Based on
collaborative
partnerships.
• Guided by goals
and a plan for
refinement and
action.
• Assessed through
focused
observation.
• Supportive of
teacher growth and
development
through reflection
and feedback.
6
Objectives for Establishing
Collaborative Partnerships
• Identify the characteristics of a
collaborative partnership.
• Describe strategies for building and
fostering collaborative partnerships.
Components of Practice Based Coaching
It all begins
here
Characteristics of A collaborative
Partnership
• Shared understanding about the goals of
coaching
• Shared focus on Professional Development
• Posture of support
• Rapport and trust
• Choice
• Ongoing communication and support
• Celebrations
7
What is Culture?is
• Shared understanding of talk, routines,
roles, relationships, responsibilities, and
ways of using particular artifacts.
• A dynamic process that influences every
aspect of how we perceive and interact with
others; includes beliefs, language(s),
and behaviors valued in a community.
Frank, C., 2011. Ethnographic Interviewing for Teacher Preparation and Staff Development
Multiple Interpretations
Culture and Coaching
• Practice cultural sensitivity
- Examine own cultural beliefs and biases
- Use clear communication strategies
• Build trusting relationships
- Observe, listen, reflect, and respond
• Address diversity issues
- Learn about culture
8
Role Play
•
Example of what NOT to do
•
Example of how to establish a collaborative
partnership
Now You Try it!
Read each of the scenarios and discuss with
your group:
1. How would you begin building the collaborative
coaching partnership with this teacher?
2. How would you foster the partnership across the
year?
3. If you were delivering coaching via distance, how
would you build/foster the partnership?
What does it look like? (Video)
9
Ideas for Building a Strong
Foundation
1. Get to know the teacher
2. Connect to other PD experiences.
3. Establish yourself as a resource.
4. Jump in and help.
5. Let teachers know they are appreciated recognize their effort and their strengths.
Objectives for
Shared Goals and Action Planning
• Review and utilize tools for identifying,
clarifying and verifying goals that help
guide practice-based coaching.
• Describe and create a well-written, clearly
stated goal.
• Describe and develop an action plan for
achieving a goal(s).
10
Information Might Be
Gathered about
1. How often a teaching practice is used
(frequency)
2. How well a teaching practice is implemented
(quality)
3. How confident a teacher is when using a
teaching practice (self-efficacy)
4. What a teacher believes about how a
practice impacts children’s learning (teacher
beliefs)
Why are shared goals important?
• Give teacher and coach a common starting
point
• Create shared expectations
• Identify teaching practices that are the focus
of coaching
11
What is the focus of our goals?
• Teaching practice(s)
• Teacher’s confidence and
competence
What is Goal Setting?
• Process for improvement
• Taken from needs assessment
• Facilitates coaching
How should goals be written?
S = Specific
M = Measurable
A = Action-oriented
R = Realistic
T = Time bound
12
Let’s Compare
I will use a visual
schedule to remind
children of daily
activities.
I will use the visual
schedule to remind
children of daily activities
during morning circle,
before centers, after lunch,
and before we go outside.
I will promote peer
interactions during snack,
I will promote peer
lunch, art, and center time
interactions during daily
by grouping children who
routines.
are more outgoing with
with Jason, Chandra and
Keith.
PBC: A Guide to Goal Setting
• Learn more about the practice and
try it out?
• Do it more often?
• Do it better?
• Do it differently?
Examples of Goals
I will learn how to make a visual schedule for specific
classroom activities and routines and will help children use
these types of schedules to complete activities and tasks.
Learn more
and try it out
I will use a visual schedule to remind children of daily activities
during morning circle, before centers, after lunch, and before
we go outside.
Do it more
often
I will go over the daily schedule at the beginning of the day
and briefly review the schedule periodically to show the
Do it better
children what we are about to do and what we will do next so
children will know what to expect.
I will make a visual schedule that can be changed as needed
so that activities can be removed or turned over when they
are finished. (My current visual schedule has pictures and
words but is fixed.)
Do it differently
13
Let’s try writing a goal!
Teaching Practice: Teacher uses clear, descriptive positive feedback so
children know exactly what is expected and what they are doing well.
•
Example Goal: I will identify behaviors that I would like to see occur during
center time and will write down descriptive praise statements to use when I
see these behaviors occur.
•
Example Goal: During center time activities, I will provide immediate,
descriptive positive feedback to children when I see them sharing with their
friends.
•
Example Goal: During transitions, I will provide descriptive positive
feedback to children who are following the instructions for transitions.
•
Example Goal: I will provide descriptive praise to Vana and
Lucy when I see them interacting with others appropriately.
Goals
Action Plan
• After goals are set, an action plan is
developed to support the achievement of
goals throughout the coaching process
What is in an Action Plan?
• Goal(s)
• Action steps
• Goal achievement statement
• Timeframe
• Supports or resources
14
Action Plan Review Activity
• What kind of planning form do you
currently use with teachers?
• How might you adapt this form to best
meet your needs based on how you
anticipate planning with teachers?
Let’s See how this Works
for Tanya and Sandra
1. Read the case example
2. Review the completed needs assessment
3. Work with a partner to
– Decide which practice you think Tanya and
Sandra should target
– Write a goal for that practice to guide
coaching
– Write an action plan for your goal
15
OBJECTIVES FOR
FOCUSED OBSERVATION
• Explain the purpose(s) of focused
observation.
• Identify what makes an observation
focused.
• Conduct a focused observation.
MAKING OBSERVATIONS
WHAT MAKES AN OBSERVATION
“FOCUSED”?
• Always includes:
• Gathering information guided by current action
plan goal
• Recording information, being mindful about
what you are seeing – take notes, reflect, begin
to plan feedback
16
Recording Observations
• Ways to gather and record
• Content to gather and record
• Purpose of gathering and recording
How could you make these
statements more objective?
1. The snowmen are so cute!
2. She is relying on too many worksheets.
3. This is too hard for the kids.
NOTES
What you observe
• Positive feedback was
given 5 times when
children were engaged in
the 1st center-time
transition
What to share
• It helps to have a
reminder. What could
you do to help you
remember to provide
positive feedback during
each transition?
• No positive feedback was
given during the other 2
center-time transitions.
17
TRY WATCHING WITH
FOCUS…
What happens if…
1. Something else “pops” up during the
observation?
2. Teacher talks to coach off topic through
the observation?
3. What other challenges might coaches
face during an observation?
18
Objectives for
Reflection and Feedback
• Practice asking open-ended
Questions for teacher reflection.
• Identify and describe the two (2)
types of feedback in coaching.
• Practice giving supportive and
constructive feedback.
Feedback STARTER Phrases
• You really got it when you _____
• I noticed that you did ____, that really worked
well for keeping the children engaged.
• It was great to see ____.
• I saw you do ______, it was a perfect
example of ______________.
Feedback is…
• Planned
• Constructive
• Focused
• Intentional
• Supportive
• Specific
19
Types of feedback
• Supportive Feedback
• Constructive Feedback
Supportive Feedback
Teacher talk!
It felt like coaching was more “We’re
going to enhance the great jobs that
you’re already doing,” instead of “We’re
going to fix you because you’re not
good.”
20
Constructive Feedback
Data-based Feedback
– Provides feedback that is objective and
anchored in the teacher’s practice
– Provides a measure of growth
– Opens the door for a range of conversations
Example: Data-based Feedback
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
21
Data-based Feedback
Email Feedback
• Positive statement about observation
• Supportive feedback for teacher’s
implementation based on
observation
• Suggestions for improving
implementation
• Provide ideas and resources
• Close with encouraging statement
Practice-Based Coaching
22
Components of Practice Based
Coaching
It all begins
here
Coaching Session
• Engage in a
problem-solving
discussion
• Update action plan
progress
• Engage in a
reflective
conversation
• Share a video
demonstration
• Review goals
• Provide materials or
resources
23
CP Handout 2 Collaborative Partnership Scenarios
1. Tanya is a beginning teacher. This is her first year in the classroom after
receiving a BA in Child Development from an online college. She is from the
community and knows many of the children who will be in her class. She is very
nervous about helping the children reach their goals. Tanya is also hesitant about
participating in coaching and having someone come into her classroom and
observe her teaching during her first year. However, her center manager told her
that she and the other new teachers are required to participate as part of their
professional development plan for the year.
2. Joseph is in his third year of teaching. Joseph sees his primary role as a teacher
as supporting children’s social and emotional development by creating a safe
and organized place for children to explore their environment. He is excited to
have a coach come to his classroom to support behavior management as he
currently has multiple students with challenging behaviors. However, his director
has chosen to use the Practice-Based Coaching resources to support teacher
implementation of best practices for supporting children’s literacy development.
3. Lexi is in her eighteenth year of teaching and has seen many initiatives come
and go, so is reluctant to accept a new one. She is not interested in having a
coach because she feels confident in her ability to help the children in her class
develop. However, her most recent child assessment scores indicated that her
class overall was performing below the average.
4. Kenya doesn’t understand or trust the coaching process because her coach is
also her supervisor. She fears her supervisor/coach will focus on what she’s
doing wrong and that her career is threatened. Her ITERES scores were well
below the national average.
5. Greg is very defensive. He is on board with coaching and welcomes supportive
feedback, but doesn’t accept constructive feedback well. He struggles with
classroom management and has many children with challenging behaviors.
SGAP - Handout 4a
Supporting Tanya to Use Effective Teaching Practices to Support Children’s School Readiness Outcomes This year, Tanya, a child care provider, is taking part in a professional development initiative to support the use of teaching practices that help teachers create engaging interactions and classroom environments that will support all children’s learning. The professional development initiative includes a series of trainings about teaching practices that support children’s learning and practice‐based coaching in the classroom. Tanya and her coach, Sandra, filled out a needs assessment to decide which practices Tanya might want to focus on first. To get started, they selected a teaching practice Tanya identified as being one she was not doing often but she wanted to use regularly. They wrote a goal and developed an action plan to help guide both of them in improving this practice. Sandra spent two weeks coaching Tanya on this goal. As part of the coaching process, Sandra came to Tanya’s classroom to observe an activity in which Tanya and Sandra planned for opportunities to work on the teaching practice. Sandra also collected data on how many times Tanya used this teaching practice. After an observation session, Tanya and Sandra would meet to reflect about how it went and Sandra would provide feedback about what Tanya and her team might also want to try or do differently. After the third debrief meeting, Tanya felt that she had achieved her goal and Sandra agreed. To figure out what to focus on next, Tanya and Sandra reviewed the needs assessment document from three weeks ago. There were several teaching practices that Tanya had indicated she wanted to work on and were top priorities. Work with a partner and let’s help Tanya and Sandra with their next action plan. 1. Review the current action plan and needs assessment information, including Tanya’s notes about her priority practices. 2. Decide which practice you think they should target. 3. Write a goal for that practice to guide coaching. 4. Write an action plan for your goal. Include action steps and resources that might be needed to support the action steps. 1
SGAP - Handout 4b
Teacher Name: _____ Tanya Robinson ______ Date: __ September_ 201X__ Instructions: Each of the questions below relate to effective teaching practices for supporting children’s learning. Read each question and consider how often you do this teaching practice using the 1 to 5 rankings. Once you have completed the rankings, consider if you would like to do this teaching practice more. Identify the top 5 teaching practices you would like more support and help to use in the classroom. Use the notes section to write your initial ideas about what might help you use this practice. How Often Do You Use this Practice? Teaching Practice Never Seldom Some‐
times Usually Always Change Priority needed? (Top 5) Notes Engaging Interactions & Environments: Well‐Organized Classrooms 1. Do you prepare for teaching and instructional activities in advance and have materials ready and accessible? 1 2 3 4 5 Yes No 2. Do you use classroom rules to help clarify expectations (what children should do) for specific activities? 1 2 3 4 5 Yes No 3 3. Do you plan the classroom schedule to provide a balanced set of activities and routines? 1 2 3 4 5 Yes No 4 Coaching to Support School Readiness – April 2012 – Draft Version 1.0 I created classroom
rules with the children
at the beginning of the
year and have them
posted but I could refer
to the rules more often It has been easier to do
our large group and
work activities first and
then play outside in the
afternoon but the
children seem to get
really fidgety by the end
of circle and during
small groups 1
SGAP - Handout 4b
How Often Do You Use this Practice? Teaching Practice Never 4. Do you provide a visual schedule and use it to help children understand what is currently happening in class and what will happen throughout the day? Seldom Some‐
times Usually Always Change Priority needed? (Top 5) Notes 1 2 3 4 5 Yes No Engaging Interactions & Environments: Social and Emotional Support 5. Are your interactions with children responsive and supportive? 1 2 3 4 5 Yes No 6. Do you identify children’s interests and use them to guide interactions and activities with children? 1 2 3 4 5 Yes No 7. Are you moving around the classroom to interact and engage with children in play and learning activities, including daily routines? 1 2 3 Coaching to Support School Readiness – April 2012 – Draft Version 1.0 4 5 Yes No 2 I usually assign my team
to specific children to
work with so I might not
interact with each child
in a day
2
SGAP - Handout 4b
8. Do you use strategies that promote peer interactions including sharing, cooperation, and play? 1 2 3 4 5 Yes No 1 I’m not sure how to
promote peer
interaction. When I
have tried it usually
ends up with children
demanding my
attention. I need more
information about the
strategies I might use
Engaging Interactions & Environments: Instructional Interactions and Materials 9. Do you arrange classroom activities and materials so that children can practice and learn new skills (e.g., offer limited work materials so children need to share, put high interest materials out of reach so children need to ask, “forget” a key idea so children can “remind” them)? 10. Are you offering children opportunities to make “choices” within activities? 11. Are you providing opportunities for children to actively engage, respond, talk, and make meaningful contributions during activities? 12. Do you use descriptive feedback so children know exactly what is expected and what they are doing well? 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 Coaching to Support School Readiness – April 2012 – Draft Version 1.0 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 I usually assign children
to the centers &
activities or let them
know which materials to
use Yes No Yes No 5 Yes No Yes No 3
SGAP - Handout 4b
13. Do you vary the level of support children receive during classroom activities and tasks based on their individual abilities?
14. Are you modeling more complex language, problem‐solving skills, and exploration and reasoning skills to expand children’s experiences? 1 2 3 4 5 Yes No *
1 2 3 4 5 I need to learn more
about this practice
before focusing on it
Yes No Research‐Based Curricula and Teaching Practices 15. Do you use intentional and systematic instructional procedures to support children’s learning during ongoing activities, routines, and transitions? 16. Do you plan high quality appropriate learning targets for children and use them to guide teaching throughout the day? 17. Do you observe and record children’s skills and progress during naturally occurring activities (i.e., activity‐
focused assessment) and use this information to inform planning, teaching, and decision‐making? 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 Yes No *
I need to learn more
about this practice
before focusing on it
Yes No Yes No Coaching to Support School Readiness – April 2012 – Draft Version 1.0 4
SGAP - Handout 4c
Teaching Practice Action Plan
The goal I will work on in my classroom:
I will change the way I structure my centers so that children interact with more team members
during activities.
Steps to achieve this goal--
Resources needed:
By When:
1. Learn about another way to structure my centers
1-2 hour after school,
websites, training materials
Monday
(9.10)
2. Meet with team members to discuss new center
structure
Use regular planning time on
Wednesday
Wednesday
(9.12)
3. Try it out for a week while video taping or take
notes about interactions, review video
Video camera, coach to set
it up, clipboard for each
member to take notes
Wednesday
(9.19)
4. Decide if the new way encouraged more interactions
and make changes as needed
Discuss with coach and team
Friday
(9.21)
Review
Date:__9/24___
 I know I achieved this goal because:
My team and I have implemented a structure for centers that
allows each of us to interact with all of the children
during center time.
Practice‐Based Self‐Coaching Field Test – August 2012 – Draft Version 2.0  I am making
progress toward
this goal and will
keep implementing
my action plan
 I need to make
changes to my
plan to achieve this
goal by revising the
goal or changing
the action steps
FO‐Handout 2_Sample B Focused Observation Log Coach: Teacher: Brenda Tina Date: Time spent preparing: Time spent in observation: 01‐15‐14 2 hours 2 hours Time for reflection and feedback: Time spent in follow up: 1 hour 1 hour Focus: Identify the goal/step of the action plan on which you will focus. For example: Goal: I will ask more open‐ended questions. What I want to share: What I observed: Number of open‐ended questions tally Share Variety of questions with examples: Number of questions asked through the observation tally: Examples of open‐ended questions: Child conversation extended through the use of open‐ended how and why questions. Length of each interaction Child’s response is longer or adds complexity. Previously met goals observed during this observation. Focused Observation Log Follow up needed: Examples of a variety of open‐ended questions FO‐Handout 2_Sample B SGAP - Handout 3b
Teaching Practice Action Plan The goal I will work on in my classroom: Steps to achieve this goal: Resources needed: Timeline: 1. 2. 3. 4. Review Date:__________  I know I achieved this goal because:  I am making progress toward this goal and will keep implementing my action plan  I need to change my plan to achieve this goal by revising the goal or changing the action steps Coaching to Support School Readiness – August 2012 – Draft Version 2.0 Adapted from: Snyder, P., Hemmeter, M. L., Sandall, S., McLean, M., Rakap, S., Emery, A. K., McLaughlin, T., & Embedded Instruction for Early Learning Project. (2009). Coaching preschool teachers to use embedded instruction practices [Manual and Coaching Protocols]. Unpublished guide. College of Education, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. LWW/IYC
IYC200098
May 18, 2012
14:58
Infants & Young Children
Vol. 25, No. 3, pp. 188–212
C 2012 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Copyright !
Characterizing Key Features
of the Early Childhood
Professional Development
Literature
Patricia Snyder, PhD; Mary Louise Hemmeter, PhD;
Kathleen Artman Meeker, PhD; Kiersten Kinder, PhD;
Cathleen Pasia, MEd; Tara McLaughlin, PhD
Professional development (PD) has been defined as facilitated teaching and learning experiences
designed to enhance practitioners’ knowledge, skills, and dispositions as well as their capacity to
provide high-quality early learning experiences for young children. The purpose of this study was
to use a framework from the National Professional Development Center on Inclusion (2008) to
characterize key components of early childhood PD by conducting a descriptive systematic review
of empirical literature. Two hundred fifty-six studies were identified that met specified inclusion
criteria: (a) described a type of PD, (b) involved early childhood practitioners who were working
with children birth through the age of 5 years, and (c) reported empirical evidence about PD
outcomes for either early childhood practitioners or children. Findings revealed that studies typically included information about PD recipients, the topic or content focus of the PD, and the type
of facilitated teaching and learning experiences provided. Seventy-four percent of the reviewed
studies included systematic follow-up as a component of the facilitated teaching and learning
experiences but limited information was provided about dose and fidelity of implementation of
the follow-up. The review provides a descriptive characterization of the who, what, and how
of early childhood PD. These data complement an emerging experimental intervention literature
focused on second-generation PD research questions. We discuss the need to reach consensus
about reporting key components of PD interventions to facilitate interpretations of relationships
among PD interventions, improvements in practice, and desired child outcomes. Key words:
early childhood professional development, follow-up support, training
A
Author Affiliations: Center for Excellence in Early
Childhood Studies and School of Special Education,
School Psychology, and Early Childhood Studies,
University of Florida (Drs Snyder and McLaughlin,
and Ms Pasia); Department of Special Education,
Peabody College, Vanderbilt University (Drs
Hemmeter and Kinder); and Schoenbaum Family
Center, Ohio State University (Dr Meeker).
Work reported in this manuscript was supported, in
part, by grants from the Institute of Education Sciences
to the University of Florida (R324A070008) and Vanderbilt University (R324A070212). No endorsement by
the supporting agency should be inferred.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Correspondence: Patricia Snyder, PhD, Center for Excellence in Early Childhood Studies and School of Spe-
S HIGH-QUALITY early childhood education and care has emerged as a
national priority, significant attention has
been given to the role of professional
development (PD) for ensuring that practitioners have the knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed to support the development
and learning of all young children. The National Scientific Council on the Developing
Child (2007) commented about the pressing
cial Education, School Psychology, and Early Childhood
Studies, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611
(patriciasnyde@coe.ufl.edu).
DOI: 10.1097/IYC.0b013e31825a1ebf
188
Copyright © 2012 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
LWW/IYC
IYC200098
May 18, 2012
14:58
Characterizing EC Professional Development
need for a high-quality early childhood workforce and acknowledged the inextricable relationship between early childhoo professional
development (EC PD) and quality early childhood services when they stated,
The essence of quality in early childhood services
is embodied in the expertise and skills of the staff
and in their capacity to build positive relationships
with young children. The striking shortage of welltrained personnel in the field today indicates that
substantial investments in training, recruiting, compensating, and retaining a high-quality workforce
must be a top priority. (p. 13)
Bruder, Mongro-Wilson, Stayton, and Dietrich (2009) noted that a major challenge to
the field of early childhood intervention is
ensuring the provision of ongoing workforce
development opportunities so that interdisciplinary practitioners involved in providing
services and supports to young children with
disabilities and their families will be confident
and competent to do so. Given many children
with disabilities receive services in nonspecialized settings, Bruder et al. asserted that PD
for early childhood intervention practitioners
should not be duplicative or exist in isolation
from PD designed for early childhood education and care practitioners.
Recent policy briefs and other publications have recommended that PD investments
should target integrated and cross-sector systems of PD (National Association for the Education of Young Children, 2008; Ochshorn,
2011; Winton, McCollum, & Catlett, 2008; Zaslow & Martinez-Beck, 2006), and the type
and intensity of PD experiences should align
with the desired outcomes for PD (e.g., acquisition of knowledge, application of skills in
practice contexts, values clarification). When
the desired PD outcome is focused on developing or enhancing the skills of early childhood practitioners (e.g., intentional teaching
or implementation of evidence-based instructional practices), experiential forms of PD
have been recommended, including the provision of systematic follow-up implementation supports (Bruder et al., 2009; Diamond &
Powell, 2011; Snyder & Wolfe, 2008; Snyder,
Denney, Pasia, Rakap & Crowe, 2011). Sys-
189
tematic follow-up implementation supports
refers to PD that extends over time and includes practice, support, and feedback in
applied contexts (e.g., coaching, mentoring,
consultation, communities of practice, peer
support groups).
As decisions are being made about crosssector PD investments, examining the empirical literature and characterizing the key
features of EC PD, particularly the types
of follow-up implementation supports being provided, might be useful to guide PD
research and practice (Winton, 2010). Understanding more about PD has become increasingly important because implementation science is receiving increased attention in early childhood. Implementation science emphasizes the importance of followup support and relationships among PD approaches, improved practitioner implementation of evidence-based practices, and child
outcomes (Child Trends, 2010). A descriptive characterization of the extant literature
would highlight strengths and limitations of
the existing EC PD literature and offer baseline
data useful for helping to advance “a scientific endeavor of early childhood professional
development” (Sheridan, Edwards, Marvin, &
Knoche, 2009, p. 378).
Several historical and contextual factors
support the need to conduct a systematic
review to descriptively characterize the empirical EC PD literature. First, despite the acknowledged importance of and “critical need”
for EC PD, until very recently, a consensus
had not been reached on a definition for EC
PD (Maxwell, Feild, & Clifford, 2006; Winton,
2006). Second, few cohesive definitions exist
for specific forms of PD such as workshops,
staff development, courses, coaching, consultation, or mentoring. Third, EC PD efforts have
varied in focus, intensity, and other functional
characteristics and these efforts have not been
summarized succinctly in the extant literature
(Maxwell et al., 2006; Winton, McCollum, &
Catlett, 1997, 2008). Finally, although several
experiential forms of PD have been described
as those holding most promise for supporting application of knowledge, skills, or dispositions in practice contexts (e.g., coaching,
Copyright © 2012 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
LWW/IYC
IYC200098
190
May 18, 2012
14:58
INFANTS & YOUNG CHILDREN/JULY–SEPTEMBER 2012
communities of practice), descriptive information is needed about whether and how
these practices have been implemented systematically and reported in the EC PD research literature.
Sheridan et al. (2009) suggested as efforts
to establish a scientific endeavor of EC PD
proceed, it will be important to move beyond
characterizing evidence solely on the basis of
the form of PD (e.g., inservice, staff development) and to examine systematically key components or “active ingredients.” The focus
should be on active ingredients hypothesized
to be associated with desired PD outcomes.
For example, if the outcome of interest is fluent application of intentional teaching skills
by early childhood practitioners in classroom
settings, then PD processes that lead to fluency are important to identify and “unpack” as
active ingredients. Zaslow (2009) noted that
if practice with individualized feedback mediates change in practice, then we need to understand more about how these active ingredients were implemented, with whom, and
under what circumstances. Descriptive characterizations of the active ingredients of EC
PD interventions as described in the extant
empirical literature to date appear to be warranted.
Efforts to unpack the forms and processes
of PD associated with various practitioner
and child outcomes under specified circumstances will require significant changes to the
ways in which PD research is designed and reported (Zaslow, 2009). Thus, descriptive characterizations of what type of EC PD has been
provided to whom and under what circumstances is relevant for informing efforts to unpack systematically the active ingredients of
EC PD. In addition, findings from a descriptive systematic review of the EC PD literature
could suggest strategies for improving reporting practices about EC PD.
FRAMEWORK AND PURPOSE OF THE
STUDY
We used a definition and the key components of PD promulgated by the National Pro-
fessional Development Center on Inclusion
(National Professional Development Center
on Inclusion, [NPDCI], 2008) to frame the current study. NPDCI (2008) defined PD as
.. . facilitated teaching and learning experiences
that are transactional and designed to support
the acquisition of professional knowledge, skills,
and dispositions as well as the application of this
knowledge in practice. The key components of
professional development include: (a) the characteristics and contexts of the learners (i.e., the
“who” of professional development, including the
characteristics and contexts of the learners and
the children and families they serve); (b) content (i.e., the “what” of professional development;
what professionals should know and be able to
do; generally defined by professional competencies, standards, and credentials); and (c) the organization and facilitation of learning experiences
(i.e., the “how” of professional development; the
approaches, models, or methods used to support
self-directed, experientially-oriented learning that
is highly relevant to practice). (p. 3)
Using this framework for the study, we conducted a systematic descriptive review of the
empirical literature related to EC PD. The aim
of the review was to characterize key features
of PD, not to describe or evaluate PD effectiveness. We were interested in describing
what EC PD was provided to whom and under
what circumstances. Four purposes guided
the study. First, identify the number of empirical studies focused on PD in early childhood
and early childhood special education (birth
through the age of 5 years). Second, describe
characteristics of participants, the content focus of the PD, and the type of PD provided
(i.e., the “who,” “what,” and “how” using the
NPDCI framework). Third, examine the who,
what, and how for subsets of studies focused
on instructional practices and five forms of
systematic follow-up that have demonstrated
promise for supporting practitioners’ implementation of empirically supported practices.
In this study, we were particularly interested
in the subsets of studies focused on instructional practices and systematic follow-up because converging empirical evidence suggests
systematic follow-up implementation support
Copyright © 2012 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
LWW/IYC
IYC200098
May 18, 2012
14:58
Characterizing EC Professional Development
is likely needed to achieve changes in teachers’ practices and, in turn, desired child development and learning outcomes (e.g., Buysse,
Castro, & Peisner-Feinberg, 2010; Diamond &
Powell, 2011; Hemmeter, Snyder, Fox, & Algina, 2011; Landry, Swank, Smith, Assel, &
Gunnewig, 2006; Neuman & Cunningham,
2009; Pianta, Mashburn, Downer, Hamre, &
Justice, 2008; Powell, Diamond, Burchinal, &
Koehler, 2010; Snyder, Hemmeter, McLaughlin, Algina, Sandall, & McLean, 2011).
METHODS
Developing working categories and
definitions for who, what, and how
of PD
The research team developed working coding categories related to the who, what, and
how of PD as well as the type of research
design used in the study. With respect to the
“who” of PD, we developed coding categories
to characterize the setting in which practitioners worked and the types of children with
whom they interacted. For the “what” of PD,
we developed categories that were used to
characterize the content focus of the PD (e.g.,
social-emotional, pre-academic, literacy) and
to identify whether the focus of the PD was
on instructional practices. For the “how” of
PD, given previously identified challenges related to characterizing various forms of EC
PD, our initial activity was to develop categories and working definitions for various
facilitated teaching and learning experiences
(i.e., types of PD) that might be reflected in
the empirical literature. In addition, we were
interested in developing categories and working definitions for various forms of follow-up,
particularly follow-up strategies identified as
promising practices for supporting implementation of knowledge and skills in early learning contexts (e.g., coaching, communities of
practice, consultation).
Seminal early childhood and school-focused
PD texts (e.g., Guskey, 1986, 2000; Guskey &
Sparks, 1996; Joyce & Showers, 2002; Winton et al., 1997; Zaslow & Martinez-Beck,
2006), existing literature reviews (e.g., Ack-
191
land, 1991; Crow & Snyder, 1998; Scheeler,
Ruhl, & McAfee, 2004), syntheses/position
statements (e.g., National Association for the
Education of Young Children, 1993; NPDCI,
2008), and research reports (e.g., Garet,
Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001;
Gersten, Chard, & Baker, 2000) were reviewed to help inform development of the
working categories and associated definitions
for the “how” of PD.
The research team worked collaboratively
to develop and revise these working categories and definitions. An iterative process
was used to refine the working categories and
definitions of the “how” of PD reported in the
present paper. Nine categories and definitions
for forms of facilitated teaching and learning
experiences are shown in Table 1 and categories and definitions for forms of follow-up
are shown in Table 2.
After initial development of all working categories and definitions by two of the authors,
the other members of the research team reviewed them and provided feedback. We then
applied the working categories to representative articles located through the initial search
(see description of search procedures later in
the text). Working categories and definitions
were adjusted to provide further clarification.
We returned to the results of the initial search
to verify that the initial coding of the articles
fit the revised definitions. In addition, we presented a poster at a professional conference
and gathered input from researchers and EC
PD experts about our categories and working definitions (Snyder, Hemmeter, Artman,
Kinder, & Pasia, 2008).
Procedures used to identify the early
childhood PD literature
After the categories and associated definitions for the who, what, and how of PD were
developed, we conducted a systematic search
of the empirical literature. Relevant articles
were identified through a two-step search procedure. First, an electronic search was conducted using the databases of Educational Resources Information Center, PsycInfo, Education Full-Text, and the Social Sciences Citation
Index. Search terms included all combinations
Copyright © 2012 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
LWW/IYC
IYC200098
192
May 18, 2012
14:58
INFANTS & YOUNG CHILDREN/JULY–SEPTEMBER 2012
Table 1. Professional Development Categories and Associated Definitions
PD Category
Staff development
Inservice training
Preservice training
In situ consultation/
coaching
Induction/mentoring
Web training
Materials only
Shared inquiry
Other
Definition
Training provided on-site to an individual or group who work together
at a targeted center, program, facility, or agency. This takes the form
of an on-site workshop or series of on-site workshops. A needs
assessment or follow-up component might be included.
Training provided to an individual or group in a structured setting
outside their regular work setting. This takes the form of an off-site
workshop, series of off-site workshops, or off-site training institutes.
A needs assessment component or follow-up component might be
included.
Training provided to teachers, interns, student teachers, practicum
students, or paraprofessionals who are enrolled in preservice
coursework for academic credit in a structured setting. This includes
preservice internship, practicum, or student teaching, provided
participants receive academic credit.
PD takes place in practice contexts (i.e., in the classroom, in the home
for early intervention providers). Learners receive “on-the-job”
experiences, consultation, coaching, or feedback but no formal
instruction or training occurs outside the practice context.
Participants might receive continuing education credit for the
experiences, but they are not enrolled in formal preservice academic
coursework.
PD conducted on-site for novice professionals or paraprofessionals who
have less than 3 years experience. PD is conducted by a teacher or
another professional working in the same program.
Course or workshop accessed via the Internet. The course or workshop
might include interaction (electronic, by phone, or face-to-face)
between trainer and trainee.
Manuals, CDs, or other materials (textbooks, self-guided modules) are
provided to participant. No organized formal training or follow-up is
provided.
Emphasis is on collaborative inquiry and reflection about learning.
Learners work in groups to identify PD needs and develop learning
plans to meet these needs. Might include identification or assessment
of learning outcomes. Typically, there is limited involvement by
“experts” or individuals who are not regular group members.
PD not meeting any of these definitions.
Note. PD = professional development.
of the following sets of terms: (a) professional
development, teacher training, performance
feedback, inservice, peer coaching, coaching, and consultation; and (b) young children,
early childhood, preschool, and infants. Second, we conducted an ancestral hand search
of the reference lists of all articles identified by the electronic search that met inclusion criteria. Four searches using these procedures were conducted. One search was
conducted in mid-2006, the second in early
2009, the third in May 2010, and the last
in February 2011. The present review represents the PD literature in early childhood
that met established search criteria indexed in
these databases and published through February 2011.
Using the search procedures and terms described earlier, 1,816 nonduplicative articles
were located. The titles and abstracts for each
Copyright © 2012 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
LWW/IYC
IYC200098
May 18, 2012
14:58
Characterizing EC Professional Development
193
Table 2. Follow-Up Categories and Associated Definitions
Follow-Up Category
Definition
Coaching/performance
feedback
Coaching is a broad term used to describe implementation support that
is delivered to learners, which is sustained and focused. It involves
helping participants to implement newly acquired skills, strategies, or
models on-the-job. It has four major functions: (a) to provide support,
(b) to offer technical or performance feedback, (c) to analyze
application, and (d) to adapt the results. Coaching can be guided by
experts or fellow learners (peers). As an implementation support
activity, coaching or performance feedback can occur alone or after
other PD activities occur.
Targeted support provided to practitioners by a consultant that focuses
on a specific child/family, children/families, or classroom or program
management or implementation issue. Consultation is distinguished
from coaching when authors explicitly use the term “consultation” to
describe PD and the four major functions of coaching listed earlier
are not explicitly described.
Mentoring is use of an experienced peer or trusted advisor who
provides support and feedback to a learner on an ongoing basis.
Typically, mentoring occurs in the learner’s practice context,
although mentoring can also occur outside the practice context (e.g.,
mentor and mentee meet weekly at a local coffee house).
Peer support groups are designed to help participants work through the
various stages of implementation, to develop collegiality, to provide
assistance with problems, to develop common language and
understandings, and to learn from members’ experiences. A collegial
or peer support group is a group of colleagues that meets periodically
to help and support each other to make desired changes. Peer
support groups should be small (5–12 members). Peer support
groups should first and foremost be located in places where (a)
members volunteer to be present, (b) topics for discussion are
generated by group members, (c) the group works together to
establish norms for behavior within the support group meeting (e.g.,
confidentiality, equal participation time, honest feedback), and (d)
the primary goal of improving each other’s competence in teaching
strategies or practices is emphasized. If the peer support group is
conducted electronically, this should be noted when coding. As a
follow-up activity, these groups would be formed after other PD
activities occur.
Communities of practice or inquiry groups are specialized peer support
groups that typically share a specific focus on a practice or set of
practices. These groups share a common interest in a subject or
inquiry problem. They collaborate over an extended period to share
ideas, develop hypotheses, find solutions, and build innovations. It
refers as well to the stable group that is formed from such regular
interactions. As a follow-up activity, these communities of practice or
inquiry groups would be formed after other PD occurs.
PD-related assignments to do “back home.” These assignments typically
are to be completed after another PD event has occurred (e.g., staff
development workshop, inservice training session).
(continues)
Consultation (not further
described)
Mentoringa
Peer support group
Communities of
practice/shared
inquiry
Assignments
Copyright © 2012 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
LWW/IYC
IYC200098
194
May 18, 2012
14:58
INFANTS & YOUNG CHILDREN/JULY–SEPTEMBER 2012
Table 2. Follow-Up Categories and Associated Definitions (Continued)
Follow-Up Category
Job aids
Back-home plan
Handouts
Refresher session
Follow-up visit (not
described)
Follow-up phone call
or e-mail
Follow-up
letter/packet
Individualized
learning contract
Discussion
board/chat room
Not reported
Definition
Job aids include planning sheets, forms, flowcharts, checklists, and
“how-to” or “reminder” posters that can be used in the workplace to
reinforce PD content/practices. The job aids are generated by the PD
instructor(s)/facilitator(s) and are given to learners during the PD event
for use after the PD event “on the job.”
Action plans developed by the learner (perhaps in consultation with a
trainer or coach), which list one to three goals with action steps to be
accomplished following PD. Back-home plans can be derived from an
ongoing “to do” list that is part of PD.
Blank copies of forms or handouts provided by instructor(s)/facilitator(s)
during PD for use during PD event or to refer to “back home.”
Participants reconvene with the PD instructor(s) to review and extend
their understandings and practices; these sessions can be conducted onor off-site. These sessions are distinguished from coaching and peer
support groups because they are focused on a group of learners and the
sessions are conducted by the PD instructor(s).
A live, in-person contact is made to the PD recipient after the PD event, but
no descriptions of this visit are provided.
A personal contact(s) is made after a PD event by the instructor. This form
of follow-up is distinguished from performance feedback delivered via
phone or e-mail because it is short-term and episodic (e.g., the PD
instructor sends a follow-up e-mail once to inservice training
participants).
A letter and/or follow-up materials (e.g., related articles, resources) are sent
by the PD instructor(s) to the learner after the PD session(s).
Formal “contracts” between PD instructor(s) and learners that specify what
the learner is expected to learn or do. These contracts typically are
developed after a targeted PD activity.
PD instructor(s) establishes web-based opportunities for learners to access
a discussion board or chat room to provide a follow-up forum. A key
feature is that the PD instructor establishes and manages the discussion
board and chat room.
No follow-up strategies were described.
Note. Follow-up strategies adapted from Snyder and Wolfe (2008). PD = professional development.
a The definition of mentoring shown in this table differs from the definition shown in Table 1 because it focuses on
ongoing mentoring following an initial induction/mentoring period.
article were read to identify whether the articles met the following inclusion criteria: (a)
involved a form of facilitated teaching and
learning (PD) that was reflected either by one
of the nine categories shown in Table 1 or
the definition associated with a category, (b)
involved early childhood practitioners who
were working with children birth through the
age of 5 years, and (c) reported empirical evidence about the outcomes of the PD for ei-
ther the early childhood practitioners or for
children. Of the 1,807 articles, 578 met these
prescreening criteria based on the title and
abstract, and full texts of the articles were located for further coding.
Applying who, what, and how codes
A three-step coding process was used in
this study. In step 1, we confirmed inclusion criteria by reading the full text of 578
Copyright © 2012 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
LWW/IYC
IYC200098
May 18, 2012
14:58
Characterizing EC Professional Development
articles that met prescreening criteria. Given
the focus on EC PD for practitioners working
with children birth through the age 5 years,
articles that included kindergarten teachers
or kindergarten students as part of a larger
school-aged sample (e.g., K-5 or K-12) were
excluded. Studies that included kindergarten
teachers and other early childhood practitioners were retained. Studies that did not include empirical data related to practitioner or
child outcomes or that were not published
in peer-reviewed journals (e.g., unpublished
manuscripts, dissertations, theses) were also
excluded. Three hundred twenty-two of the
578 articles initially identified as meeting inclusion criteria based on prescreening were
excluded after reading the full text. Two hundred fifty-five articles met the inclusion criteria. One of the 255 articles reported two
studies, so the number of studies coded was
256.
In step 2, we applied who, what, and
how codes to the 256 studies. For who, we
coded information about the setting in which
the PD participant worked and whether any
children associated with the PD participant
were reported to have disabilities or were
at risk for disabilities or delays. For what,
we coded the content area or focus of the
PD. Content area or focus was coded using at least one of nine categories: preacademic, social-emotional (including behavior), motor/adaptive, communication, classroom environment and quality, inclusion,
family-centered practices, preservice coursework content, or other. In addition to these
nine content categories, we coded whether
instructional practices (e.g., incidental teaching, scaffolding, time delay) were included
as PD content and whether the PD included
strategies (e.g., role playing, modeling) to
help learners practice or implement content.
With respect to the how of PD, we characterized the type of PD provided to participants using one or more of the categories
shown in Table 1. Although studies might
have included a specific label to characterize the type of PD, we coded type of PD
195
based on our categories and definitions. For
example, if a study referred to the PD as
staff development, but the description of the
PD provided in the study was consistent
with our definition for inservice training, we
coded the type of PD provided as inservice
training.
As part of step 2, the 256 studies were
examined to determine whether a form of
follow-up shown in Table 2 was provided to
participants as part of their facilitated teaching and learning experiences. This step of coding provided additional detail related to the
how of PD. Follow-up categories were not
mutually exclusive and studies were coded for
each form of follow-up provided. The number
of studies reporting at least one of the followup forms shown in Table 2 was 215 (84%).
During step 3, a subset of the studies
identified during step 2 was analyzed further. This subset was composed of studies
that reported providing systematic followup related to at least one of the following five categories shown in Table 2: (a)
coaching/performance feedback, (b) consultation, (c) mentoring, (d) peer support
group, and (e) communities of practice/
shared inquiry. This subset of studies was
of interest because they included facilitated
teaching and learning experiences that are
“experientially oriented and highly relevant
to practice” (NPDCI, 2008, p. 3). When consultation or coaching was coded as the primary PD intervention in step 2, these studies
were coded in step 3 as part of characterizing
the who, what, and how of systematic followup. One hundred fifty-nine (74%) of the 215
studies used at least one of the five systematic
follow-up strategies. For this subset of studies,
we used additional coding categories to characterize the study research design, identify
whether practitioner or child outcomes were
evaluated, and describe the systematic followup (i.e., who were the recipients of follow-up,
who were the follow-up agents, what were
the formats for follow-up, and how follow-up
was provided and its implementation monitored, including dose).
Copyright © 2012 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
LWW/IYC
IYC200098
196
May 18, 2012
14:58
INFANTS & YOUNG CHILDREN/JULY–SEPTEMBER 2012
Coding procedures and interrater
agreement
The responsibility for coding studies was
shared among the authors and a trained graduate assistant. Five coders were trained to use
investigator-developed coding forms during
the three-step coding process and to record
data for each study reviewed.
To ensure accuracy and consistency of coding, 25% of the 578 articles that met prescreening and 33% of the 256 studies that
were included in the review were randomly
selected to be coded independently by a second person. Item-level agreement was calculated for each coding category. The total number of agreements per category were divided
by the number of agreements plus disagreements and multiplied by 100. The research
team established consensus on disagreements
through discussion and review of article content along with a review of coding categories
and definitions. Decisions made during the
consensus process were entered into the coding database. Findings reported in this article
are based on consensus codes. For one coding category used in step 3 (i.e., duration of
follow-up), interrater agreement was less than
80%. Two coders working together for all 159
studies repeated coding for this category.
Before consensus coding, percent agreement for meets study inclusion criteria was
92%. For step 2, percent agreement for who,
what, and how coding categories was 96%
for information about setting; 87% for children with whom participants worked; 94%
for content area/focus of PD, including instructional practices as PD content; 84% for
whether the PD intervention included strategies to help learners practice or implement
PD content; 91% for type of PD; and 94% for
follow-up categories. For step 3 coding categories, percent agreement was 92% for the
recipient of follow-up, 89% for the role of the
individual who provided follow-up (followup agent), 90% for the qualifications of the
follow-up agent; 88% for type of follow-up
strategies used, 84% for follow-up format, 44%
for duration of follow-up, 92% for frequency
of follow-up, and 92% for length of followup session. Percent agreement for whether
a protocol was used to guide the provision
of follow-up was 90% and 97% for whether
fidelity measures were used. For research design categories, percent agreement was 97%.
With respect to practitioner and child outcome coding categories, percent agreement
was 85% and 90%, respectively.
DATA ANALYSES
Data from the coding forms were entered
into a spreadsheet. Double-data entry procedures were used, including having two individuals separately enter data from each coding form into appropriate cells of two separate spreadsheets. A procedure available in
the spreadsheet program was used to check
accuracy of data entry by comparing the value
of the entry in each cell in the first spreadsheet to the value of the entry in each cell
in the second spreadsheet. Using this procedure, differences in cell values across the two
spreadsheets are highlighted. For the present
data set, differences were minimal (number
of errors/total number of cells = 0.1%). Discrepancies in cell values were checked and a
revised entry was made on the basis of coding
form data. Data from the spreadsheet program
were imported into PASW Statistics 19.0 (IBM
Corporation, Armonk, NY) for subsequent
analyses.
Descriptive statistics were generated for
each coding category to characterize the EC
PD literature according to who, what, and
how components of the NPDCI framework.
In addition, we conducted comparative descriptive analyses for several subsets of studies: (a) characteristics of all studies included
in the review (n = 256) versus the subset of studies that included one of the five
implementation follow-up forms (n = 159);
(b) characteristics of all studies included in
the review (n = 256) versus the subset of
studies in which instructional practices were
identified as a content focus for the PD
(n = 63); and (c) characteristics of PD studies
that included one of the five implementation
Copyright © 2012 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
LWW/IYC
IYC200098
May 18, 2012
14:58
Characterizing EC Professional Development
follow-up forms (n = 159) versus the subset
of these studies that included one of the five
implementation follow-up forms and included
an instructional practices content focus for
the PD (n = 47). Differences of 5% or more
for each coding category across the subsets of
studies were identified. Given the descriptive
focus of the review, we did not conduct inferential analyses to evaluate whether reported
differences were statistically significant.
RESULTS
Results are initially described for the 256
studies coded during step 2 and are generally
organized under the NPDCI framework headings of who, what, and how. Next, we present
comparative findings for the 256 studies and
the subset of studies from this group that included instructional practices as a content focus for the PD. These findings are followed by
the presentation of results for the 159 studies
that were coded as part of step 3 and comparative analyses conducted using subsets of these
studies. It is important to note that only three
of the coding categories were mutually exclusive: characteristics of children, type of PD,
and duration of follow-up. Thus, percentages
reported might sum to greater than 100%. Percentages for the descriptive analyses we conducted were calculated using the total number of studies reviewed during either step 2
(n = 256) or step 3 (n = 159) or the subset
of studies reviewed (e.g., 63 studies that had
an instructional strategies content focus), as
applicable.
Who, what, and how of PD
With respect to the who of PD, the
most frequently reported settings in which
early childhood practitioners worked were
preschool/early childhood education (36.7%),
Head Start (34.0%), and childcare (32.0%). In
10.2% of the 256 studies, the setting in which
PD participants worked was reported to be
an early childhood special education setting
or other special education setting. Fewer PD
197
participants in the reviewed studies were reported to work in family childcare (5.5%) and
Early Head Start programs (2.3%).
In addition, we coded which young children PD participants were reported to interact
with or teach. As shown in Table 3, in 77.3%
of the 256 studies, PD participants were reported to interact either with young children
with disabilities or children at risk for disabilities or delays. In 1.2% of the studies, authors
explicitly stated that PD participants did not
work with children with disabilities. In 21.5%
of the studies, information was not provided
about whether children with whom PD participants interacted or taught were either children with disabilities or children at risk for
disabilities and delays.
To characterize the what of PD, we coded
the content focus of the PD. As shown in
Table 3, social-emotional topics (teacher–
child interactions, challenging behavior, social skills, or emotional behaviors) were
the most frequently reported content area
(27.3% of the studies). The second most frequently reported category was pre-academic
(25.4%), followed by instructional practices
(24.6%).
A primary emphasis during this coding step
was to use the coding categories and associated definitions we developed to characterize
the type or how of PD. As shown in Table 3,
the most frequently occurring category of PD
was inservice training (33.6%), followed by
staff development (28.1%). We defined inservice training as PD provided outside of a
participant’s regular work setting that might
include individuals from other programs or
agencies. This was distinguished from staff
development, which we defined as the provision of PD on-site, to an individual or a group
who works together in a center, program, or
agency. Of note, 15.6% of the studies we reviewed reported that in situ consultation or
coaching was the primary form of PD intervention. This code was applied to 40 of the
256 reviewed studies because no inservice or
staff development preceded the consultation
or coaching.
Copyright © 2012 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
LWW/IYC
IYC200098
198
May 18, 2012
14:58
INFANTS & YOUNG CHILDREN/JULY–SEPTEMBER 2012
Table 3. Percentage of Studies Reporting Who, What, and How of PD: All Studies and
Instructional Practices Subset
Category
Setting
Preschool/early childhood education
Head Start
Childcare
Early childhood special education
Other setting
Early intervention
Family care
Kindergarten
Early Head Start
Setting not reported
Children with whom participants worked
Children with disabilities
Children at risk
Not reported
No children with disabilities
Content of professional development
Social-emotional
Pre-academic
Instructional practices
Other content focus
Communication
Family-centered practices
Course work
Classroom environment and quality
Inclusion
Motor or adaptive
Type of professional development
Inservice
Staff development
Preservice
In situ consultation/coaching
Web training
Induction/mentoring
Materials only
Shared inquiry
Other type of PD
All Studies
(N = 256)
Instructional
Practices Studies
(n = 63)
36.7
34.0
32.0
10.2
8.2
7.8
5.5
3.5
2.3
0.4
44.4a
27.0a
36.5
7.9
0.0a
6.3
4.8
3.2
0.0
0.0
44.1
33.2
21.5
1.2
71.4a
17.5a
6.3a
4.8a
27.3
25.4
24.6
18.8
10.2
9.4
8.6
7.8
3.5
2.7
68.0
33.6
28.1
19.9
15.6
4.3
2.0
2.0
1.6
1.6
15.9a
7.9a
100.0a
11.1a
7.9
6.3
0.0a
6.3
6.3
0.0
96.8a
27.0a
44.4a
7.9a
22.2a
0.0
1.6
0.0
0.0
1.6
Note. PD = professional development.
a Differences in percentages across study sets for coding category ≥5%.
Comparative analyses for studies
focused on instructional practices
We compared the characteristics of studies in which instructional practices were the
PD content focus (n = 63) to the larger
group of 256 studies. As shown in Table
3, PD participants were reported to work
with children with disabilities in 74.1% of the
Copyright © 2012 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
LWW/IYC
IYC200098
May 18, 2012
14:58
Characterizing EC Professional Development
instructional practices studies compared with
44.1% in the larger group of studies. In addition, 44.4% of the instructional practices
studies involved staff development (practitioners working in the same center, program,
or agency), which differed from the larger
group of studies (28.1% of studies). Although
only 68% of the 256 studies included a description of the strategies used as part of the PD
intervention to help learners practice or implement PD content, 96.8% of the studies focused on instructional practices reported this
information.
Characterizing the type of follow-up
provided
One or more of the follow-up forms shown
in Table 2 were reported in 215 of the 256
studies (84%). As shown in Table 4, the most
frequent form of follow-up was coaching with
performance feedback (51.6%). Other common forms of follow-up reported in the reviewed studies were job aids (20.7%) and
learning assignments (14.5%).
In 159 studies, at least one of the five systematic forms of follow-up was reported to
be used. These included 132 studies that involved coaching with performance feedback,
11 studies that involved mentoring, 14 studies
that involved consultation, four studies that involved peer support groups, and four studies
that included communities of practice/shared
inquiry. Coding categories for forms of followup were not mutually exclusive, so numbers
reported do not sum to 159 because several
studies used more than one of form of systematic follow-up (e.g., coaching and peer support groups).
Comparative analyses for studies
focused on instructional practices
We compared the 63 studies in which PD
content focused on instructional practices to
the larger set of 256 studies with respect to
forms of follow-up. Some type of follow-up
after PD was reported more frequently in the
instructional practices studies (90.5%) compared with the larger set of studies (84%). As
shown in Table 4, 65.1% of the instructional
199
practices studies reported that coaching was
used, compared with 51.6% in the larger set
of studies. Handouts were reported to be used
more frequently in studies when the content
of PD included a focus on instructional practices (17.5%) compared with the larger set of
studies (6.6%).
Characterizing the who, what, and how
of systematic follow-up support
As noted previously, we applied additional
coding categories to those studies that included one or more of the five types of systematic follow-up support. We coded who
provided and received systematic follow-up,
the content focus of this follow-up, and how
this follow-up was provided, including dose
and monitoring of implementation. In addition, we coded the type of research design
and whether practitioner or child outcomes
were evaluated. Percentages reported in text
and tables were calculated using the 159 studies reviewed.
As shown in Table 5, all but three studies included sufficient information about who was
responsible for providing follow-up. Research
staff was reported to be the most frequent
providers of follow-up (49.1%), followed by
consultants (28.3%) and supervisors (12.6%).
Colleagues and peers were reported to be
providers of follow-up in 11.9% of the studies and practitioners were reported to provide follow-up to themselves in 8.2% of the
studies. With respect to the qualifications and
training of those providing follow-up, more
than half of the studies (57.9%) included information on the providers’ qualifications.
In 38.4% of the studies, follow-up providers
were reported to have had teaching experience, whereas in only 17.6% of the studies,
follow-up providers were reported to have
training in coaching and consultation. The education level of providers was reported infrequently, but, in 42.2% of the reviewed studies,
providers were reported to have a bachelor’s,
master’s, or doctoral degree.
Lead teachers generally were reported to
be the most frequent recipients of systematic follow-up in the reviewed studies (71.1%).
Copyright © 2012 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
LWW/IYC
IYC200098
200
May 18, 2012
14:58
INFANTS & YOUNG CHILDREN/JULY–SEPTEMBER 2012
Table 4. Percentage of Studies Reporting Follow-Up Categories: All Studies and Instructional
Practices Subset
Category
Systematic follow-up forms
Coaching/performance feedback
Behavioral consultation
Mentoring
Peer support group
Communities of practice/shared inquiry
Other follow-up forms
Job aids
No forms of follow-up reported
Assignments
Refresher sessions
Back-home plan
Handouts
Follow-up visit not otherwise described
Follow-up letter/packet of information
Individualized learning contract
Discussion board/chat room
Follow-up phone call or e-mail
All Studies
(N = 256)
Instructional
Practices Studies
(n = 63)
51.6
5.5
4.3
1.6
1.6
65.1a
3.2
3.2
1.6
1.6
20.7
16.0
14.5
9.8
7.8
6.6
5.9
2.3
1.6
1.6
1.6
19.0
9.5a
14.3
9.5
6.3
17.5a
1.6
0.0
3.2
1.6
0.0
Note. a Differences in percentages across study sets for coding category ≥5%.
Findings related to recipient of the follow-up
for all 256 studies related to type of setting
in which PD participants worked (Table 3)
were similar to the findings for the 159 studies
that included systematic follow-up (Table 5).
For example, preschool/early childhood education was reported to be the setting for
39% of the studies that included systematic
follow-up, compared with 36.7% of all studies
reviewed.
With respect to the what of PD, the percentages associated with each content focus
category for studies that included systematic
follow-up are shown in Table 6. These percentages are similar to those shown in Table
3 for the 256 studies. Social-emotional and
pre-academic content was reported to be the
focus of systematic follow-up in 33.3% and
31.4% of the studies, respectively.
With respect to the how of systematic
follow-up, Table 7 shows coding categories
and data reported in the 159 reviewed studies.
A description of the type of follow-up strat-
egy used by follow-up providers was reported
in the majority of studies (n = 143). Some
form of follow-up observation was reported
to occur in 59.1% of the studies. Verbal performance feedback was reported as a followup strategy in 57.9%, modeling in 35.2%, and
problem-solving discussion in 32.7% of the
studies, respectively.
One hundred nineteen of 159 studies
(74.8%) included a description of the format of the follow-up. Immediate face-to-face
follow-up was reported to occur in 45.9% of
the studies whereas follow-up was reported
to be provided face-to-face but not contiguous
with an observation in 26.4% of the studies.
Using a script or structured protocol to
guide the provision of systematic follow-up
was reported in only 42 of the 159 (26.4%)
studies. This included using a coaching manual (10.7%), a script (8.8%), rubric (2.5%),
or other follow-up implementation protocol
such as a checklist (5.0%). Measurement of fidelity of implementation of the follow-up was
Copyright © 2012 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
LWW/IYC
IYC200098
May 18, 2012
14:58
Characterizing EC Professional Development
201
Table 5. Percentage of Systematic Follow-Up Studies Reporting Who of Professional
Development: All Studies and Instructional Practices Subset
Category
Follow-up agent
Research staff
Consultant
Supervisor
Colleague/peer
Self
Agent not reported
Other
Qualifications of follow-up agent
Qualifications not reported
Teaching experience
Master’s degree
Training in coaching/consultation
Bachelor’s degree
Higher than master’s degree
Less than bachelor’s degree
Follow-up recipient
Lead teacher
Paraprofessional
Preservice teacher or intern
Teams
Other recipient
Home childcare provider
Settings in which recipients worked
Preschool/early childhood education
Head Start
Childcare
Early childhood special education
Other setting
Early intervention
Family care
Early Head Start
Kindergarten
Setting not reported
All Studies
(N = 159)
Instructional
Practices Studies
(n = 47)
49.1
28.3
12.6
11.9
8.2
1.9
0.6
55.3a
23.4
12.8
17.0a
12.8
0.0
0.0
42.1
38.4
20.8
17.6
14.5
6.9
2.5
51.1a
36.2
17.0
8.5a
17.0
6.4
4.3
71.1
14.5
11.9
10.1
6.9
5.7
70.2
31.9a
10.6
8.5
8.5
2.1
39.0
37.1
30.8
10.7
6.3
6.3
4.4
3.1
3.1
0.6
44.7a
29.8a
34.0
6.4
0.0a
4.3
2.1
0.0
4.3
0.0
Note. a Differences in percentages across study sets for coding category ≥5%.
reported in only 30 of 159 studies. Fidelity
was reported to be measured primarily by
using checklists (8.2%) or by using other
measures such as obtaining teacher signatures to document the provision of follow-up
(9.4%).
With respect to dose of systematic followup, Table 8 shows the coding categories used
to characterize the duration of follow-up,
the frequency of follow-up contact, and the
length of follow-up. Ninety-four (59.1%) studies provided information about the follow-up
duration (see Table 8). A relationship lasting
1 year (7–12 months) was reported in 16.4%
of the studies, whereas a relationship lasting
one semester was reported in 13.2% of the
Copyright © 2012 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
LWW/IYC
IYC200098
202
May 18, 2012
14:58
INFANTS & YOUNG CHILDREN/JULY–SEPTEMBER 2012
Table 6. Percentage of Systematic Follow-Up Studies Reporting “What” of PD: All Studies and
Instructional Practices Subset
Category
Content
Social-emotional
Academic
Instructional practices
Communication
Other content focus
Family-centered practices
Classroom environment and quality
Course work
Inclusion
Motor or adaptive
PD intervention included strategies to help
learners practice or implement content
All Studies
(N = 159)
Instructional
Practices Studies
(n = 47)
33.3
31.4
29.6
15.1
12.6
11.3
9.4
5.7
3.1
1.9
81.1
19.1a
10.6a
100.0a
10.6
10.6
8.5
8.5
0.0a
6.4
0.0
97.9a
Note. PD = professional development.
a Differences in percentages across study sets for coding category ≥5%.
studies. Frequency of systematic follow-up
was reported in 107 of 159 studies. Weekly
follow-up occurred most frequently (30.8%).
Only 73 of 159 studies reviewed included information on the typical length of follow-up
sessions. Sessions lasting longer than 30 min
were reported in about one quarter (28.9%)
of the studies.
Table 9 shows the research designs used
in the 159 studies that included a systematic follow-up component and whether PD
outcomes were evaluated for practitioners or
children. Single-subject experimental design
was the most frequently occurring category
(25.8% of studies), whereas a type of group
experimental design was used in 86.1% of
the studies. The primary PD outcome evaluated in the studies was practitioner outcomes
(80.5%), whereas only half of the studies
(50.3%) evaluated child outcomes. In 37.1%
of the studies, both practitioner and child outcomes were evaluated.
Comparative analyses for studies
focused on instructional practices
We conducted comparative analyses for
the 159 studies similar to those conducted
with the 256 studies. A primary comparison of interest was between the 159 studies and a subset of these studies in which
the PD content focused on instructional practices (n = 47). We were interested in this
comparison because coding of the 256 studies showed some type of follow-up was
reported more frequently in studies with
a content focus on instructional practices.
Tables 5–9 show the comparisons across the
159 and 47 studies. Most data shown in
these tables are relatively comparable, with
a few exceptions. The qualifications of the
follow-up provider were reported in fewer
instructional practices studies (48.9%) than
in the 159 follow-up studies (57.9%). Training in coaching/consultation for the followup provider was reported in only 8.5% of
the instructional practices studies compared
with 17.6% in all 159 studies (Table 5).
Table 7 shows comparative data for how
implementation follow-up was delivered. In
the 47 instructional practices studies, performance feedback including verbal (70.2%),
written (23.4%), and graphical (14.9%) feedback was used more often than in the 159
studies.
Copyright © 2012 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
LWW/IYC
IYC200098
May 18, 2012
14:58
Characterizing EC Professional Development
203
Table 7. Percentage of Systematic Follow-Up Studies Reporting “How” of Professional
Development: All Studies and Instructional Practices Subset
Category
Type of strategy used during follow-up
Observing
Performance feedback (verbal)
Modeling
Problem-solving discussion
Performance feedback (written)
Reflective conversation
Goal setting planning
Other type of feedback provided
Not reported
Performance feedback (graphical)
Side-by-side verbal support
Role play
Graphing
Side-by-side gestural support
Format
Immediate face-to-face
Delayed live
Not reported
Delayed web-based
Delayed self-reflective/journaling
Immediate self-reflective/journaling
Immediate web-based
Follow-up protocol
Not reported
Coaching manual
Script
Other
Rubric
Fidelity of follow-up strategies
Not reported
Other
Checklist
Observational measure
Rating scale
All Studies
(N = 159)
Instructional
Practices Studies
(n = 47)
59.1
57.9
35.2
32.7
22.0
21.4
21.4
17.6
10.1
6.9
6.3
3.8
1.3
0.0
63.8
70.2a
31.9
34.0
23.4
19.1
21.3
17.0
4.3a
14.9a
8.5
6.4
2.1
0.0
45.9
26.4
25.2
8.2
5.7
2.5
0.0
51.1a
40.4a
10.6a
4.3
4.3
6.4
0.0
73.6
10.7
8.8
5.0
2.5
63.8a
10.6
17.0a
6.4
4.3
81.1
9.4
8.2
6.3
0.0
76.6
6.4
14.9a
6.4
0.0
Note. a Differences in percentages across study sets for coding category ≥5%.
With respect to the dose of systematic follow-up (Table 8), slightly fewer
instructional practices studies (48.9%) provided information about the duration of
follow-up than the 159 studies (59.1%). Daily
follow-up was the most frequency occurring
category (36.2%) in the instructional prac-
tices studies (36.2%) versus weekly in the 159
studies (30.8%). Feedback sessions were more
likely to last for less than 15 min in the instructional practices studies versus the 159 studies
(25.5% versus 9.4%, respectively). When we
compared the 47 studies with an instructional
content focus to all 159 studies (Table 9)
Copyright © 2012 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
LWW/IYC
IYC200098
204
May 18, 2012
14:58
INFANTS & YOUNG CHILDREN/JULY–SEPTEMBER 2012
Table 8. Percentage of Systematic Follow-Up Studies Reporting Dose of Professional
Development: All Studies and Instructional Practices Subset
Category
Duration of relationship for follow-up
Not reported
1 year
1 semester
More than 1 school year
1 quarter
1 month
1 week
<1 day
Frequency of follow-up contact
Not reported
Weekly
Monthly
Daily
Infrequently
Length of follow-up session
Not reported
>30 min
15–30 min
<15 min
All Studies
(N = 159)
Instructional
Practices Studies
(n = 47)
40.9
16.4
13.2
11.9
9.4
8.2
1.3
0.0
51.1a
8.5a
10.6
6.4a
8.5
12.8
2.1
0.0
32.7
30.8
20.8
17.6
3.1
34.0
29.8
8.5a
36.2a
2.1
54.1
28.9
10.1
9.4
46.8a
21.3a
10.6
25.5a
Note. a Differences in percentages across study sets for coding category ≥5%.
Table 9. Percentage of Systematic Follow-Up Studies Reporting Research Design and
Outcomes: All Studies and Instructional Practices Subset
Category
Research design
Single-subject experimental
Preexperimental
Experimental
Quasi-experimental
Qualitative
Nonexperimental
Model demonstration
Case study
Outcomes measured
Practitioner
Child
Both practitioner and child
All Studies
(N = 159)
Instructional
Practices Studies
(n = 47)
25.8
25.2
23.3
11.9
11.9
3.8
3.1
1.9
55.3a
25.5
8.5a
4.3a
6.4a
4.3
2.1
0.0
80.5
50.3
37.1
91.5a
57.4a
53.2a
Note. a Differences in percentages across study sets for coding category ≥5%.
Copyright © 2012 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
LWW/IYC
IYC200098
May 18, 2012
14:58
Characterizing EC Professional Development
with respect to type of research design and
outcomes evaluated, we found 55.3% of the
instructional practices studies used a singlesubject experimental design compared with
25.8% for the 159 studies, 91.5% of the 47
studies examined practitioner outcomes versus 80.5% for the 159 studies, and 57.4% of
the 47 studies examined child outcomes compared with 50.3% for the 159 studies.
DISCUSSION
The primary purpose of this systematic review was to contribute to the growing science of EC PD by using the NPDCI framework
to characterize descriptively the who, what,
and how of a relatively large body of EC PD
literature. We used systematic search procedures and defined coding categories. The descriptive characterizations in this study provide data useful for advancing understandings about which EC practitioners are receiving what types of EC PD and under what
circumstances. The secondary purpose was
to compare characteristics of studies that involved an explicit PD content focus on instructional practices to the larger body of EC
PD literature. The final purpose was to analyze the elements reported for five systematic
forms of follow-up that demonstrate promise
for supporting practitioners’ implementation
of empirically supported practices (Snyder,
Denney, et al., 2011).
“Who” of early childhood professional
development
Practitioners involved in PD in the reviewed studies most often were those working in center-based childcare, preschool, or
Head Start settings. Recent estimates suggest that the majority of paid educators in
early childhood care and education are working in center-based programs (51%), family
child care (12%), and friends, family, and
neighbors (FFN) paid childcare (38%; Institute of Medicine and National Research Council, 2012; Rhodes & Hudson, 2012). Few studies in the present review included practitioners working in FFN settings or with infants
205
and toddlers in center-based programs. This
finding was not unexpected and is consistent
with published reports that suggest FFN practitioners and those who work with infants and
toddlers often have fewer opportunities for
and access to systematic and sustained PD
(Ochshorn, 2011). In addition, this finding
supports the assertion that limited empirical
findings are available about PD processes or
outcomes for these groups of EC practitioners
(Koh & Neuman, 2009).
An unexpected finding in the present review was that about 44% of the studies involved PD participants who reportedly interacted with young children with disabilities.
Given only 10% of the studies identified the
work setting of PD participants as an early
childhood special education classroom, this
finding likely reflects that practitioners were
interacting with young children with disabilities in inclusive settings. The finding that 77%
of the reviewed studies involved practitioners who were reported to work with either
young children with disabilities or those at
risk for disabilities and delays offers important information about the diversity of children involved in contemporary early learning programs and the differentiated teaching
and instructional supports children are likely
to need. This finding has important implications for the design and delivery of EC PD
with respect to the knowledge, skills, and dispositions needed by early childhood practitioners so that they can implement empirically supported practices with fidelity (Bruder
et al., 2009; Snyder, Denney, et al., 2011). The
NPDCI (2008) framework emphasizes that it
is important to characterize not only who the
PD learner is but also with whom the learner
interacts in practice settings.
Characterizing the who of PD with respect to facilitators and follow-up agents (e.g.,
coaches, consultants) in the 159 studies in
which systematic follow-up was provided was
more challenging, given the information reported in the reviewed studies. For example,
we were able to determine that research staff
and consultants were those most often providing systematic implementation follow-up, but
Copyright © 2012 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
LWW/IYC
IYC200098
206
May 18, 2012
14:58
INFANTS & YOUNG CHILDREN/JULY–SEPTEMBER 2012
in only 58% of the studies were the qualifications of these individuals reported. In only
17.6% of the studies were follow-up agents
reported to have training in coaching or
consultation. The relevance of these issues
for second-generation research in EC PD is
highlighted in two recent studies that examined impacts of PD and found variations
across coaches in relation to practitioner
implementation of practices (Brown, Knoche,
Edwards, & Sheridan, 2009; Downer,
LoCasale-Crouch, Hamre, & Pianta, 2009). In
future EC PD studies, characterizing the who
of PD with respect to facilitators is likely as important as characterizing learners. A growing
body of evidence suggests that both withinperson (practitioners and PD facilitator) and
between-person (relational) variables are potential sources of variance related to implementation and impacts of PD (Sheridan et al.,
2009).
“What” of early childhood professional
development
Social-emotional, instructional practices,
and pre-academic topics were typically the
content focus of PD in the reviewed studies. An emphasis on communication, inclusion, motor, or adaptive content was less often reported. In the majority of the studies
reviewed, authors provided sufficient information about the content focus of the PD
(e.g., descriptions of early literacy curriculum
or early literacy practice) but limited information was provided about how this content
was conveyed to learners as part of the PD
intervention.
For each reviewed study, we coded
whether descriptions of the PD intervention
included information about adult learning
strategies used to help convey the content
focus (e.g., role play, demonstration, video
examples, modeling). In approximately one
third of the studies, we found that either these
strategies were not part of the intervention or
there was insufficient information provided
about strategies used to deliver the PD content. Although this issue relates to the how of
PD, it also is inextricably linked to the content
focus for the PD. Different PD strategies and
activities might be differentially relevant and
effective if the PD content focus is one early
literacy practice versus a comprehensive early
literacy curriculum. Explicating the strategies
and activities used to convey PD content is important to advance further the EC PD knowledge base. As noted by Zaslow (2009), there
is a “need to go beyond a description of the
formats [type of PD] of early childhood professional development to an understanding of
the processes involved in professional development: the specific strategies and activities
professional development entails” (p. 527).
“How” of early childhood professional
development
In the present review, we were particularly
interested in characterizing forms of followup provided as part of the how of PD and
examining features associated with five systematic forms of follow-up. Almost all studies
reviewed provided some form of follow-up as
part of the PD and about 60% of the studies reported the PD included at least one of the five
forms of systematic follow-up. Coaching was
the most frequently used systematic follow-up
strategy.
An important caveat related to findings
from the present review about systematic
follow-up forms is that we used the definitions shown in Table 2 to code the reviewed
studies. In the studies reviewed, researchers
sometimes referred to a systematic follow-up
strategy as mentoring but the description of
the strategy met our definition for coaching.
Alternatively, researchers might have labeled
the follow-up strategy “coaching” but it met
our definition for consultation. Several EC PD
experts have noted a pressing need for clarification and consistent use of terms when
referring to these forms of follow-up (Sheridan et al., 2009; US Department of Education,
2010; Winton, 2010; Zaslow, 2009). On the
basis of the findings from the present review,
we concur that there is a need for clarification and consistency in terminology. More
important, however, is a need to report information about the “active ingredients” of
Copyright © 2012 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
LWW/IYC
IYC200098
May 18, 2012
14:58
Characterizing EC Professional Development
these systematic forms of follow-up. Our ability to characterize the elements or active
ingredients of these forms of follow-up was
somewhat limited, based on information reported in the reviewed articles. Nevertheless,
we describe major findings later related to
active ingredients, based on seven elements
we coded to characterize the who, what, and
how reported in the 159 reviewed studies involving systematic follow-up.
With respect to the who, research staff or
consultants were most often the individuals
who provided systematic follow-up. With respect to the what and how, strategies used
to deliver follow-up often involved observation of practice implementation, either live or
by video, and the provision of verbal performance feedback. Although only reported in
119 of 159 studies, feedback most often was
delivered immediately after the observation,
in a face-to-face format.
Given that coaching was the most common form of systematic follow-up provided
across the 159 studies, findings related to
what and how generally are consistent with
active ingredients that would be expected
to part of coaching (e.g., observation, feedback). However, five elements related to dose,
dose form, and fidelity of implementation
(i.e., duration of follow-up relationship, frequency and length of feedback sessions, use of
feedback protocol, and measures of feedback
fidelity) were frequently coded as “not reported.” For example, as shown in Table 7, fidelity of implementation was reported in one
fifth of the 159 studies and only in one quarter
of the studies was a systematic protocol reported to be available to guide the provision
of follow-up by the follow-up agent. The use
of systematic protocols that define the followup activities (i.e., dose form) and the extent
to which follow-up is implemented with adherence to the protocol (i.e., fidelity of implementation) would allow for further investigation of the relationship between followup strategies and changes in teacher behavior
(Duessen, Coskie, Robinson, & Autio, 2007;
Snyder, Denney, et al., 2011).
207
Related to dose, we examined duration of
the follow-up relationship and frequency as
well as length of feedback sessions. “Not reported” was frequently coded. The absence
of this information impedes the ability to calculate and examine cumulative intervention
intensity (cf. Warren, Fey, & Yoder, 2007). Differences in intervention intensity might be associated with differential outcomes of PD. For
example, a few studies in the literature show
that short, focused feedback interventions can
have positive effects on discrete classroom
practices (e.g., Hemmeter, Snyder, Kinder, &
Artman, 2011; Hendrickson, Gardner, Kaiser,
& Riley, 1993; Noell et al., 2005; Stormont,
Smith, & Lewis, 2007), whereas implementing
multicomponent interventions with fidelity
requires sustained and systematic follow-up
supports (Fox, Hemmeter, Snyder, Binder, &
Clarke, 2011). Examining the role of intervention intensity requires sufficient information
about dose. Moreover, PD intervention intensity has important implications regarding the
personnel and monetary resources required
to provide PD. Taken together, documenting
dose, dose form, and fidelity of PD implementation especially when systematic follow-up
is provided will facilitate the “unpacking” and
examination of both structural and process
ingredients of EC PD (Sheridan et al., 2009;
Snyder, Denney, et al., 2011; Zaslow, 2009).
Research designs and outcomes in
systematic follow-up studies
Previous reviews have evaluated the
strength of the evidence related to relationships between teacher PD and student
achievement for school-age children (e.g.,
Yoon, Duncan, Lee, Scarloss, & Shapley,
2007). Yoon et al. noted that studies must
present high-quality empirical evidence supporting the hypothesized relationships among
PD, teacher learning and practice, and desired student or child outcomes to substantiate the empirical link between PD and desired outcomes. Although the evaluation of
the strength of the empirical evidence related
to PD outcomes was beyond the scope of the
Copyright © 2012 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
LWW/IYC
IYC200098
208
May 18, 2012
14:58
INFANTS & YOUNG CHILDREN/JULY–SEPTEMBER 2012
present review, we coded descriptive information about the types of research designs
used in EC PD and the extent to which teacher
or child outcomes were reported.
One finding of the present review was that
nearly half the studies involved examining a
PD intervention using group or single-subject
experimental designs. About 36% of the studies used quasi-experimental or preexperimental designs. Twenty-seven randomized group
experimental design studies were conducted
between 2006 and February 2011 and each
of these studies involved a form of systematic
follow-up as defined in the present review.
The trend toward rigorous evaluations of PD
interventions and the active ingredients of
these interventions will help address secondgeneration research questions in EC PD related to what PD interventions demonstrate
the most promise for supporting which practitioners’ use of empirically supported practices and under what circumstances (Snyder,
Hemmeter, & McLaughlin, 2011).
The majority of studies reported practitioner or learner outcomes but only 37% of the
published studies included both practitioner
and child outcomes, which would make it
difficult to evaluate relationships among the
PD intervention, changes in practitioners’
knowledge or skills, and child developmental and learning outcomes. Future research in
EC PD should be directed toward specifying
and empirically examining theories of change
that include both desired proximal (practitioner) and distal (child or family) outcomes
(Sheridan et al., 2009; Snyder, Denney, et al.,
2011; Zaslow, 2009).
Professional development focused on
instructional practices
We comparatively examined the subset of
articles where the content focus of PD was
instructional practices to the larger body of
studies. Studies focused on instructional practices were similar to the larger body of studies
with a few notable exceptions.
First, instructional practices was reported
as a content focus in almost 25% of the 256
studies reviewed, but only 7.9% of these 63
studies involved preservice training. Given
recent recommendations for transforming
teacher education through an emphasis on
clinical or instructional practices (National
Council for Accreditation on Teacher Education, 2010) and choosing PD content that
focuses on instructional practices (Lambert,
Sibley, & Lawrence, 2010) rather than general content knowledge, this finding might be
used as a baseline against which to compare
future empirical studies focused on the content focus of preservice PD.
Second, a larger proportion of studies focused on instructional practices included a
systematic follow-up component (74.6% for
instructional practices studies compared with
62.1% for all studies). These studies more often had consultation or coaching as the initial form of PD and used (a) strategies to
help learners implement practices (e.g., modeling), (b) handouts, and (c) verbal performance feedback. The instructional practices
studies with a follow-up component were
more likely to occur on a daily basis with immediate face-to-face feedback but with fewer
minutes of feedback. These procedural decisions made by researchers a priori might suggest that researchers select different types of
PD and components of the PD intervention
to maximize the likelihood of implementation
of the instructional practice. In future studies, additional specificity should be provided
about the structural and process ingredients
of the PD intervention (regardless of content
focus) to unpack systematically which strategies work for whom and under what circumstances.
Delimitations and limitations
Related to delimitations, we were interested in PD targeted to teachers or practitioners of young children birth through the
age of 5 years. Studies in which early childhood practitioners received PD along with
professionals working with children in first
grade and above were not included. The characteristics of the PD that these latter early
Copyright © 2012 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
LWW/IYC
IYC200098
May 18, 2012
14:58
Characterizing EC Professional Development
childhood practitioners received might differ
from the studies summarized in the present
review. The purpose of the present review
was to characterize descriptively the EC PD
literature not to evaluate the rigor of the studies or evaluate relationships between the PD
provided and practitioner or child outcomes.
We chose to focus initially on these descriptive characterizations given we were not able
to locate published data related to the who,
what, and how of EC PD.
With respect to limitations, studies included in the present review were identified
through the specified search procedures. Although systematic search procedures were
used, including electronic and ancestral procedures, it is possible that some EC PD studies
were not located, given challenges inherent
in using search terms that are not reflected
in terms used to index in various electronic
databases. We addressed this limitation by using several different search terms related to
PD and early childhood.
Implications for improved reporting
practices
The present review used a defined body
of empirical literature to provide a descriptive characterization of the who, what, and
how of EC PD. We developed and validated
coding categories and definitions associated
with who, what, and how that might be useful for others to characterize features of EC
PD. Descriptive characterizations should complement the growing body of evidence from
rigorous experimental investigations to help
advance the evolving science of EC PD.
On the basis of the findings from the
present review, we offer several suggestions
for improving reporting practices in empirical EC PD research. First, researchers should
identify and define clearly the form of PD. Perhaps more important than consistently naming the form of the PD, researchers should
describe the key components of PD such that
those components can be compared with PD
components used in other studies. Second,
beyond specifying the form (e.g., staff de-
209
velopment, inservice) and components (e.g.,
workshops, coaching) of PD, it is necessary
to specify clearly the active ingredients of the
facilitated teaching and learning experiences
implemented in the study. This expands information about the how of PD (e.g., provision
of workshops and coaching) to detailed information about structural and process variables
associated with facilitated teaching and learning experiences (Garet et al., 2001; Zaslow,
2009). To examine what works in relation to
desired outcomes of EC PD, it is essential to
unpack and report on the structural and process features of the PD intervention. Third, reporting additional information about learners
and the contexts in which they implement the
content or instructional practices that were
the focus of PD would provide opportunities to examine descriptively and empirically
what appears to work and for whom. Fourth,
as more intensive forms of PD are used to
support practitioners’ implementation of curricula or multicomponent interventions, improvements in reporting practices are needed
with respect to the who, what, and how of
the systematic implementation supports. This
includes information about dose, dose form,
and fidelity.
High-quality PD has the potential to impact practitioners’ knowledge and instructional practices, which, in turn, are linked to
child developmental and learning outcomes.
The processes or mechanisms of change associated with these relationships are multifaceted. To explore these mechanisms, both
teacher and child outcome data are needed
along with data associated with setting, practitioner, or child variables hypothesized to mediate or moderate these relationships. Findings from this study suggest that an important
first step might be to improve reporting practices related to the who, what, and how of
the facilitated teaching and learning experiences that are systematically manipulated in
EC PD research. Improvements in reporting
practices along with more rigorous EC PD research should help advance the science of EC
PD.
Copyright © 2012 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
LWW/IYC
IYC200098
210
May 18, 2012
14:58
INFANTS & YOUNG CHILDREN/JULY–SEPTEMBER 2012
REFERENCES1
Ackland, R. (1991). A review of the peer coaching
literature. Journal of Staff Development, 12(1),
22–27.
Brown, J. R., Knoche, L. L., Edwards, C. P., & Sheridan,
S. M. (2009). Professional development to support
parent engagement: A case study of early childhood
practitioners. Early Education and Development,
20, 482–506.
Bruder, M. B., Mogro-Wilson, C., Stayton, V. D., & Dietrich, S. L. (2009). The national status of in-service professional development systems for early intervention
and early childhood special education practitioners.
Infants and Young Children, 22, 13–20.
Buysse, V., Castro, D. C., & Peisner-Feinberg, E. (2010).
Effects of a professional development program on
classroom practices and outcomes for Latino dual
language learners. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25, 194–206.
Child Trends. (2010, September). Working meeting on
the application of implementation science to early
care and education research: Meeting summary.
Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from www.
researchconnections.org/files/childcare/pdf/Meeting
Summary.pdf
Crow, R. E., & Snyder, P. (1998). Organizational behavior
management in early intervention: Status and implications for research and development. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 18(2/3), 131–
156.
Diamond, K. E., & Powell, D. R. (2011). An iterative approach to the development of a professional development intervention for Head Start teachers. Journal
of Early Intervention, 33, 75–93.
Downer, J. T., Locasale-Crouch, J., Hamre, B., & Pianta,
R. (2009). Teacher characteristics associated with responsiveness and exposure to consultation and online professional development resources. Early Education and Development, 20, 431–455.
Duessen, T., Coskie, T., Robinson, L., & Autio, E.
(2007). “Coach” can mean many things: Five categories of literacy coaching in Reading First (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2007-No. 005). Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, Institute
of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional
Educational Laboratory Northwest. Retrieved from
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
Fox, L., Hemmeter, M. L., Snyder, P., Binder, D. P., &
Clarke, S. (2011). Coaching early childhood special
educators to implement a comprehensive model for
promoting young children’s social competence. Top-
1 Complete
ics in Early Childhood Special Education, 31, 178–
192. doi: 10.1177/0271121411404440
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F.,
& Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample
of teachers. American Education Research Journal,
38, 915–945.
Gersten, R., Chard, D., & Baker, S. (2000). Factors enhancing sustained use of research-based instructional
practices. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(5),
445–457.
Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process
of teacher change. Educational Researcher, 15(5),
5–12.
Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Guskey, T. R., & Sparks, D. (1996). Exploring the relationship between staff development and improvements
in student learning. Journal of Staff Development,
17, 34–38.
Hemmeter, M. L., Snyder, P., Fox, L., & Algina, J. (2011).
Efficacy of a classroom wide model for promoting social-emotional development and preventing
challenging behavior. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Hemmeter, M. L., Snyder, P., Kinder, K., & Artman, K.
(2011). Impact of performance feedback on teachers’ use of descriptive praise. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26, 96–109.
Hendrickson, J. M., Gardner, N., Kaiser, A., & Riley, A.
(1993). Evaluation of a social interaction coaching
program in an integrated day-care setting. Journal of
Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 213–225.
Institute of Medicine and National Research Council.
(2012). The early childhood care and education
workforce: Challenges and opportunities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Designing training and
peer coaching: Our needs for learning. Alexandria,
VA: ASCD.
Koh, S., & Neuman, S. B. (2009). Impact of professional
development in family child care: A practice-based
approach. Early Education and Development, 20,
537–562.
Lambert, R. G., Sibley, A., & Lawrence, R. (2010). Choosing content. In S. B. Neuman & M. L. Kamil (Eds.),
Preparing teachers for the early childhood classroom: Proven models and key principles. Baltimore,
MD: Brookes.
Landry, S. H., Swank, P. R., Smith, K. E., Assel, M. A.,
& Gunnewig, S. B. (2006). Enhancing early literacy
skills for preschool children: Bringing a professional
development model to scale. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 39, 306–324.
list of studies is available with first author.
Copyright © 2012 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
LWW/IYC
IYC200098
May 18, 2012
14:58
Characterizing EC Professional Development
Maxwell, K. L., Feild, C. C., & Clifford, R. M. (2006).
Defining and measuring professional development in
early childhood research. In M. Zaslow & I. MartinezBeck (Eds.), Critical issues in early childhood professional development (pp. 21–48). Baltimore, MD:
Brookes.
National Association for the Education of Young
Children. (1993). A conceptual framework for
early childhood professional development: A position statement. Retrieved from www.naeyc.
org/positionstatements
National Association for the Education of Young Children.
(2008). A policy blueprint for state early childhood
professional development systems. Retrieved from
http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/policy/ecwsi
/Workforce_Designs.pdf
National Council for Accreditation on Teacher Education.
(2010). Transforming teacher education through
clinical practice: A national strategy to prepare effective teachers. Washington, DC: Author.
National Professional Development Center on Inclusion. (2008). What do we mean by professional
development in the early childhood field? Chapel
Hill, NC: University of North Carolina, FPG
Child Development Institute. Retrieved from
http://npdci.fpg.unc.edu/resources/articles/NPDCIProfessionalDevelopment-03-04-08.pdf
National Scientific Council on the Developing Child.
(2007). The science of early childhood development.
Retrieved from http://www.developingchild.net
Neuman, S., & Cunningham, L. (2009). The impact of
professional development and coaching on early language and literacy instructional practices. American
Educational Research Journal, 46, 532–566.
Noell, G. H., Witt, J. C., Slider, N. J., Connell, J. E., Gatti, S.
L., Williams, K. L., . . . Resetar, J. L. (2005). Treatment
implementation following behavioral consultation in
schools: A comparison of three follow-up strategies.
School Psychology Review, 34, 87–106.
Ochshorn, S. (2011). Forging a new framework for professional development: A report on “The science of
professional development in early childhood education: A national summit.” Washington, DC: Zero
to Three.
Pianta, R. C., Mashburn, A. J., Downer, J. T., Hamre, B. K.,
& Justice, L. (2008). Effects of web-mediated professional development resources on teacher-child interactions in pre-kindergarten classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23, 431–451.
Powell, D. R., Diamond, K. E., Burchinal, M. R., &
Koehler, M. J. (2010). Effects of an early literacy
professional development intervention on Head Start
teachers and children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 299–312. doi: 10.1037/a0017763
Rhodes, H., & Huston, A. (2012). Building the workforce
our youngest children deserve. Social Policy Report,
26, 3–26.
211
Scheeler, M. C., Ruhl, K. L., & McAfee, J. K. (2004). Providing performance feedback to teachers: A review.
Teacher Education and Special Education, 27, 396–
407. doi: 10.1177/088840640402700407
Sheridan, S. M., Edwards, C. P., Marvin, C. A., & Knoche,
L. K. (2009). Professional development in early childhood programs: Process issues and research needs.
Early Education and Development, 20, 377–401.
Snyder, P., Hemmeter, M. L., Artman, K., Kinder, K.,
& Pasia, C. (2008). A framework for categorizing
early childhood professional development. Poster
presented at the biennial Conference on Research
Innovations in Early Intervention, San Diego, CA.
Snyder, P., Hemmeter, M. L., McLaughlin, T., Algina, J.,
Sandall, S., & McLean, M. (2011, April). Impact of
professional development on preschool teachers’
use of embedded-instruction practices. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Snyder, P., & Wolfe, B. (2008). The big three process
components of effective professional development:
Needs assessment, evaluation, and follow-up. In P. J.
Winton, J. A. McCollum, & C. Catlett (Eds.), Practical approaches to early childhood professional development: Evidence, strategies, and resources (pp.
13–51). Washington, DC: Zero to Three Press.
Snyder, P. A., Denney, M. K., Pasia, C., Rakap, S., &
Crowe, C. (2011). Professional development in early
childhood intervention. In C. J. Groark (Series Ed.)
& L. Kaczmarek (Vol. Ed.), Early childhood intervention: Shaping the future for children with disabilities and their families: Vol. 3. Emerging issues,
(pp.169–204). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO-Praeger.
Snyder, P. A., Hemmeter, M. L., & McLaughlin, T. (2011).
Professional development in early childhood intervention: Where we stand on the 25th anniversary
of P.L. 99-457. Journal of Early Intervention, 33,
357–370.
Stormont, M. A., Smith, S. C., & Lewis, T. J. (2007).
Teacher implementation of precorrection and praise
statements in Head Start classrooms as a component
of a program-wide system of positive behavior support. Journal of Behavioral Education, 16, 280–
290.
United States Department of Education, Office of
Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development,
Policy and Program Studies Service. (2010). Toward the identification of features of effective
professional development for early childhood
educators: Literature review. Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/
reports.html#professional-development
Warren, S. F., Fey, M. E., & Yoder, P. J. (2007). Differential treatment intensity research: A missing link
to creating optimally effective communication interventions. Mental Retardation and Developmental
Disabilities Research Reviews, 13, 70–77.
Copyright © 2012 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
LWW/IYC
IYC200098
212
May 18, 2012
14:58
INFANTS & YOUNG CHILDREN/JULY–SEPTEMBER 2012
Winton, P. J. (2006). The evidence-based practice movement and its effect on knowledge utilization. In V.
Buysse & P. W. Wesley (Eds.), Evidence-based practices and the early childhood profession. Washington, DC: Zero to Three Press.
Winton, P. J. (2010). Professional development and quality initiatives: Two essential components of an early
childhood system. In P. W. Wesley & V. Buysse
(Eds.), The quest for quality: Promising innovations for early childhood programs, (pp.113–129).
Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Winton, P. J., McCollum, J. A., & Catlett, C. (1997). Reforming personnel preparation in early intervention: Issues, models, and practical strategies. Baltimore, MD: Brooks.
Winton, P. J., McCollum, J. A., & Catlett, C.
(2008). Practical approaches to early childhood
professional development: Evidence, strategies,
and resources. Washington, DC: Zero to Three
Press.
Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W., Scarloss, B., &
Shapley, K. L. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on
how teacher professional development affects student achievement. (Issues and Answers Report, REL2007-No. 033). Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Educational Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory
Southwest.
Zaslow, M. J. (2009). Strengthening the conceptualization
of early childhood professional development initiatives and evaluations. Early Education and Development, 20, 527–536.
Zaslow, M. J., & Martinez-Beck, I. (2006). Critical issues
in early childhood professional development. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Copyright © 2012 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.
FO Handout 2
Teacher:
Date:
Coach:
Time spent preparing:
Time for reflection and feedback:
Time spent in observation:
Time spent in follow up:
Focus:
What I observed:
What I want to share:
FO Handout 2
Coaching Components and Reflection Sheet
Coaching Components
Yes
Reflection
1. I encouraged the teacher to consider her actions
by asking reflective questions.
Feedback
2. I reviewed the current action plan goal.
3. I shared data on the relevant action plan goal.
4. I provided supportive feedback on teacher’s
use of strategies related to the relevant action
plan goal.
5. Feedback was positive and highlighted
teacher’s strengths.
6. I provided constructive feedback which were
non-judgmental and included suggestions for
improvement related to the relevant action plan
goals.
Planned Actions
7. I directed teacher to examples or materials that
might help the teacher address the relevant
action plan goal.
Scheduling
8. Together, the teacher and I determined
days/times to conduct next observations.
9. Together, the teacher and I determined
days/times to conduct next coaching session.
Checking In
10. I asked the teacher if he or she had any
questions or concerns.
11. I answered any questions.
Notes
No
N/A
Notes
FO Handout 2
FO ‐ Handout 1 Coaching Strategies
This document provides coaches with a description of the strategies that might be used when
providing live coaching support to individual teachers. A critical function of the coach is to
provide support to teachers as they examine and reflect on current practices, develop new skills
and competencies with feedback, and problem-solve challenging situations.
Observation Strategies
A basic strategy for coaches is to observe the teacher and take notes about the teacher’s
implementation of action plan goals or instructional practices. The strategies listed below might
also be used by the coach during an observation.
Side-by-Side Verbal or Gestural Support:
The coach delivers verbal prompts or cues to remind teacher to use specific strategies or
uses non-verbal visual or gestural support to prompt/remind teacher to use a strategy. This
action can also be used to acknowledge the appropriate use of a strategy.
Examples:



The teacher is beginning to use a 5-minute countdown glove for transitions. Coach says
to teacher, “Let Caleb pull off one of the minute cards from the glove.”
The coach nods her head to confirm with the teacher the successful use of open-ended
questions during small group time.
The coach might tap a watch to indicate that 20 minutes have passed since the start of
literacy groups.
Problem Solving Discussion:
Verbal interaction between the coach and teacher designed to lead the teacher through a
systematic process involving exchanges and questions in order to: 1) identify the problem;
2) brainstorm and generate options; 3) decide on a possible solution; and 4) implement and
evaluate the solution. In an observation, one or multiple steps of the problem solving
process might occur.
Examples:




Identify the Problem - The teacher and coach might have a brief discussion as children
transition to small groups, “Do you think Sam knew where he was supposed to go?”
Generate Options -The coach asks the teacher “Do you think the white board would
work for his schedule or should he have something more personal?”
Deciding on Solutions -The coach can ask questions for clarification, “Do you think Sam
would respond to a first-then board?”
Implementing and Evaluating -The teacher introduces a new mini-schedule into the
daily routine for Sam. While the teacher is implementing use of the schedule; the coach
observes and takes data on Sam’s behavior.
FO ‐ Handout 1 Videotaping:
The coach videotapes an activity or teacher interaction for later review and discussion with
the practitioner.
Modeling:
After the teacher and coach have jointly agreed to use this strategy, the coach might
demonstrate how to implement specific strategies or instructional practices.
Examples:

The coach demonstrates how to use an individualized direction or visual schedule by
working with a child during a classroom activity, routine or transition.

The coach demonstrates how to ask questions of varying difficulty during story
time.
The coach demonstrates how to extend children’s’ play schemes during choice
time.


The teacher and coach notice a group of children having a difficult time at the computer.
The coach makes eye contact with the teacher to get confirmation that she can go
ahead and model and then prompts the children to use materials to problem solve (e.g.,
“why don’t we see if the solution kit might help”).
Other Help in the Classroom:
The coach assists with classroom activities in classroom activities not directly related to
the implementation of Action Plan Goals. Coaches might assist the teacher in an effort to
strengthen the coach-teacher relationship. This is a strategy that should be used
infrequently and only for the purpose of relationship-building or providing needed assistance
in an emergency.
Examples:


The coach might help serve snack
The coach might facilitate the play of a group of children while the teacher responds to a
child in distress
Debriefing Strategies
The debriefing session offers a time for the coach to guide teacher reflection, provide
information, discuss the observation, engage in problem solving discussion, and other
actions that will support the teacher with implementation. The strategies below are often
used by coaches during debriefing meetings.
Problem Solving Discussion:
Verbal interaction between the coach and teacher designed to lead the teacher through a
systematic process in order to: 1) identify the problem; 2) brainstorm and generate options;
3) decide on a possible solution; and 4) implement and evaluate the solution. During
debriefing, one or multiple steps of the problem solving process might occur.
FO ‐ Handout 1 Examples:

Identify the Problem - During the observation, the coach notices a target child who has
difficulty deciding on something to do during choice time and wanders the room
throughout the time. At the debriefing, the coach and teacher talk about the situation
and the coach says, “Let’s think about some ways to assist Erika to make choices.”



Generate Options - Together they brainstorm a few different ideas; the teacher selects
one to try
Deciding on Solutions - The coach adds a new goal and/or additional resources to the
Action Plan
Implementing and Evaluating - The teacher selects a strategy to implement. The coach
makes a note to observe the use of the strategy during the next scheduled observation.
Reflective Conversation:
An active discussion between the coach and teacher with a goal of encouraging the teacher
to think about his/her actions, the situation, the strategies she used, the responses of the
children, and/or comfort level regarding implementation of Action Plan Goals. No corrective
or directive statements are used. Instead the coach offers a question to encourage
reflection. Reflective conversations typically focus on perceptions, feelings, interpretations,
or use of strategies.
Examples:



“Let’s talk about what happened with Bobby this morning. Why do you think this might
have happened today?
“So I saw you use the new schedule. How was it? Was it comfortable for you?”
“Why do you think Stacy didn’t stick with Circle today? What do you think is going on?”
Video Review:
The teacher and coach review a video segment from the teacher’s classroom and then
engage in one of the coaching strategies such as: problem solving discussion; reflective
conversation; or graphing.
Role Play:
A simulated situation that happens between the coach and teacher that aims to help the
teacher to learn or practice new techniques during debriefing. In a role-playing situation,
both individuals take on a defined role and practice the use of a strategy or a response to a
situation. The teacher might take on the role of the child while the coach demonstrates a
strategy, or the coach might take on the role of the child while the teacher practices a
strategy.
Examples:


The teacher and coach might practice a hypothetical conversation with a parent during a
role play before the teacher meets with the parent.
The coach could use role play to practice the use of Tucker the Turtle or problem solving
strategies with the teacher.
FO ‐ Handout 1 Live Demonstration:
In a live demonstration, the coach enacts the teacher’s role and provides an example of how
to use specific strategies.
Video Demonstration:
The coach shares a short video clip that shows implementation of strategies that are related
to the teacher’s action plan goals.
Helping with Environmental Arrangements:
Coach assists teacher with creating and/or adapting the environment to support participation
from all children. This might include preparing or developing materials, making changes in
the classroom, or rearranging the physical space.
Examples:


The coach might take pictures of the housekeeping area to help create center labels.
The coach helps create/arrange a visual schedule.
Graphing:
The coach assists the teacher to display, analyze, or interpret data. Assistance might
include creating a graph with the data, interpreting the results of the graph, or teaching the
practitioner how to interpret the graph.
Example:

During debriefing, the coach helps the teacher create a graph based on behavior
incidence data that the teacher collected. The coach might explain to the teacher how to
interpret the graph.
Providing Materials:
Coach offers additional items that might help the teacher learn more about specific
strategies and other recommended practices, or the coach might provide materials that
might improve implementation of specific strategies.
Example:



The coach brings an article to read related to the target teaching strategy.
The coach helps the teacher access an appropriate NCQTL 15-minute inservice video related to his/her goal.
The coach prepares job aids or visual reminders of ways to facilitate
children’s’ play.
Introduction – Handout 1
Coach Name: _________________________ Date: ________________ Coaching Practices Strengths and Needs Assessment Instructions: Use this tool to assess your coaching skills and identify areas of strength and areas of opportunity in your work with teachers. Read each coaching practice and answer the questions on the following page. Coaching Practices 1. My teachers and I share an understanding of the goals of coaching. 2. I foster an environment in which teachers will feel comfortable trying new things, reflecting on their teaching, and receiving feedback. 3. I individualize my coaching practices/strategies to each teacher to reflect their unique strengths, needs, and desired outcomes for coaching. 4. I work with teachers to identify and assess their strengths and areas for learning and growth based on multiple sources of data on their teaching practices before planning for coaching. 5. I work with teachers to develop and maintain a strength‐based effective coaching plan that includes goals based on the strengths and needs identified through the assessment. 6. I support teachers in prioritizing goals for improvement/refinement of teaching practices and prioritizing actions taken to reach goals. 1
Introduction – Handout 1
7. I write goals with teachers that are observable, measureable, and can be completed within a specified amount of time. 8. I develop action plans with teachers that provide step‐by‐step procedures for meeting the teacher’s goal. 9. During observations of teachers, I focus on specific teaching practices which are predetermined during a meeting with the teacher. 10. During observations of teachers, I gather data on the teacher’s use of practices or child behaviors related to teacher use of practices. 11. I feel comfortable using support strategies (e.g., modeling practices, providing cues, role playing) to help teachers use teaching practices. 12. I support teachers’ ongoing reflection to determine progress on goals and implementation of teaching practices. 13. I provide supportive feedback to teachers about their practice implementation. 14. I provide constructive feedback to teachers about their practice implementation that supports refining or implementing practice better. 15. Maintain professionalism by being on time, organized and prepared for each coaching session. 16. Model openness to learning and taking risks. 17. Engage in continual self‐reflection of my professional practices and how my practices influence the teachers’ performance and outcomes. 2 Introduction – Handout 1
18. I seek out knowledge of the cultures and populations within the communities I am working and integrate this into my practice. 19. I am aware that certain behaviors and types of communication among unfamiliar cultures can lead to misinterpretation and misunderstanding. 20. I ask questions that provide information and stimulate thinking in support of the teacher’s learning and goals. 21. I communicate effectively during coaching sessions and use language that has the greatest positive impact on the teacher.  Clear and articulate in communicating coaching objectives, providing feedback and making recommendations  Use reframing to offer the teacher another perspective Of the coaching practices listed above:  Which practice are you most confident using? What makes you feel confident about using this practice?  Which practice is most difficult to use with the teachers you support? Why is this practice difficult? 3 Introduction – Handout 1
 Which practice do you think would benefit your teachers the most? How often are you using this practice now?  Think of an overwhelmed or resistant teacher you have worked with. Which practice might help you in this situation?  Which coaching practice(s) would you like support with? 4
FOCUSED OBSERVATION NOTES Teacher: Date: Observation focus: What I observed: Follow up needed: Coach: Time spent in observation: Time spent in meeting: What I want to share: SGAP - Handout 2
Practice‐Based Coaching: A Guide to Goal Setting In practice‐based coaching, goal setting is a reflective process. Goal setting refers to a process in which a teacher and coach select a teaching practice(s) and identify which aspect of the practice(s) will be the focus for coaching. Starting with a clearly stated goal can help teachers and coaches understand the specific behaviors to focus on and guide the coaching process. These goals are specific, observable, and achievable. Time frames are included in the Action Plan. Different Types of Goals Based on Teachers’ Knowledge and Skill with Teaching Practice(s) Learn more and try it out Do it more often Do it better Do it differently You want to learn more about You use this practice You know about this practice You use this practice but the practice or different ways sometimes but would like to but you think you could do it want to try out a different to use the practice and then do more within or across better or use it more efficiently way of using it try using it in the classroom. classroom activities Let’s look at a few example goals for the teaching practice about visual schedules: Teacher(s) provides a visual schedule and use it to help children understand what is currently happening in class and what will happen throughout the day. Example Goals: I will identify two sources and read about how to make a visual schedule for specific classroom activities and routines and will help children use these schedules to complete center activities and tasks. Learn more and try it out I will use the visual schedule to remind children of daily activities during morning circle, before centers, after lunch, and before we go outside. Do it more often I will go over the daily schedule at the beginning of the day and briefly review the schedule to show the children what we are about to do and what we will do next so children will know what to expect. Do it better My visual schedule has pictures and words but it is fixed. I will make a visual schedule that can be changed as needed so that activities can be removed or turned over when they are finished. Do it differently Practice‐Based Coaching– May 2012 – Draft Version 1.0 1 Let’s look at a few example goals for the teaching practice about scaffolding: Teacher(s) varies the level of support children receive during classroom activities and tasks based on their individual abilities (i.e., scaffolds learning)? Example Goals: I will identify and read three sources to learn about strategies for individualizing instruction and support for children during whole class activities and try out these strategies during storybook reading. Learn more and try it out I will use post‐it note reminders to vary the types of questions I ask when we are reading a storybook as a class. Do it more often I will plan activities and prepare materials so that children have tasks that they can complete with less adult physical assistance during small group activities. Do it better I will try to use more natural supports and peer supports to help children participate in activities instead of scheduling adult support during more difficult activities. Do it differently Let’s look at a few example goals for the teaching practice about children’s active engagement: Teacher(s) structures activities so that children are actively engaged, ensuring that children always have something productive to do (e.g., providing an alternative activity for children who complete a task early). Example Goals: I will identify three sources and read about ways to keep children engaged throughout the day and try Learn more and try it four strategies during small group time and circle time. out I will plan extension activities for small group time so that children are engaged for the entire time for each day for two weeks. Do it more often I will plan and implement choice time activities so that there are multiple choices that meet children’s interests and ability levels every day for two weeks. Do it better I will divide the group into two small groups for story time and have both adults in the classroom lead a group using my lesson plan that includes questions and ideas for engagement. Do it differently Practice‐Based Self‐Coaching Field Test – May 2012 – Draft Version 1.0 2 Let’s look at a few example goals for the teaching practice about interacting with children in play and learning activities: Teacher(s) uses zoning practices or moves around the classroom to interact and engage with children in play and learning activities, including daily routines to support active engagement of all children in activities. Example Goals: Learn more and try it I will read about zoning practices and try them out during choice time and transitions. out I will monitor to make sure that all adults are engaging with the children for each activity by checking at 15‐minute intervals. Do it more often I will use a planning board to make sure all adults are assigned to an area of the classroom during choice time and transitions and we will discuss ways to engage children during those times. Do it better I will discuss with Nathan’s aide how she can extend her activities beyond support for Nathan to engage other children. Do it differently Let’s look at a few example goals for the teaching practice about planning activities: Teacher(s) plans activities where children can predict (e.g., what will happen next), observe (e.g., compare similarities and differences), and experiment (e.g., try out different ideas). Example Goals: I will identify and read three sources that tell me about activities that help children predict, observe, Learn more and try it and experiment and I will plan and implement one activity for each process. out For a two‐week period, I will plan and implement small group activities in which children predict, observe, or experiment – two of each type of activity. Do it more often I will plan and implement five science and/or construction activities that allow children to experiment. Do it better During story time, I will select appropriate books that lend themselves to the processes of predicting, observing, and experimenting and then ask children questions that invite them to predict or observe using details from the story every day for two weeks. Practice‐Based Self‐Coaching Field Test – May 2012 – Draft Version 1.0 Do it differently 3 Let’s look at a few example goals for the teacher practice about peer interactions: Teacher(s) uses strategies that promote peer interactions. Example Goals: I will identify and read three sources to learn about activities to promote peer interactions and I will plan and implement two strategies in the classroom. Learn more and try it out I will make sure that my classroom contains at least 7 social toys or activities for use during choice time. Do it more often I will create 8 buddy bins that each contain a social play activity and will divide the children into small groups of two or three to play with the bins for 15 minutes twice a week. Do it better I will use a buddy system in which children are paired with a partner for the first 15 minutes of choice time for a week. Practice‐Based Self‐Coaching Field Test – May 2012 – Draft Version 1.0 Do it differently 4 FO Handout 3 How could you make these statements more
objective?
1. The snowmen are so cute!
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
2. She is relying on too many worksheets.
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
3. This is too hard for the kids.
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
______________________________________________
CSEFEL/Practiice‐Baseed Coach
hing Virgin
nia Train
ning April 28‐29, 20144 Day 1 9:00‐9:30 Introd
duction 9:30 – 10::30 Overviiew of Pyramid Coaching M
Model 10:30 – 10
0:45 Break 10:45 – 12
2:00 Practicce Based Coacching /Collaborative Partnnerships 12:00 ‐ 1:00 Lunch 1:00 – 2:3
30 Shared
d Goals and A
Action Plannin
ng 2:30 – 2:4
45 Break 2:45 – 4:0
00 Focuse
ed Observatio
on Day 2 8:30‐8:45 Welco
ome Back and Overview of Day 2 8:45‐9:45 Reflection and Feed
dback 9:45 – 10::00 Breakk 10:0 – 11::15 Review
w of the TPITTOS 11:15 – 11
1:30 Closingg and Next Stteps 6/03/10
The Pyramid Infant Toddler Observation Scale (TPITOS) (2009)
Center on the Social and Emotional Foundations for Early Learning
Technical Assistance Center on Social Emotional Interventions
This instrument focuses on the direct observation of adult
behaviors/environmental arrangements specific to supporting the
social emotional development of infants and toddlers. There are two
types of items on this tool: Red Flags and Environmental Design/Key Adult Behaviors.
The Red Flags are scored either a yes or a no. The other items are scored using the
following 4-point scale:
Exemplary (4)**
a. Observed consistently across the observation time
b. Observed consistently across children in the classroom
c. Practice is of high quality throughout the observation
Emerging (3)
d. Practice is observed more often then not during the observation
e. Practice is observed across multiple children
f. Quality of the practice is acceptable and developmentally
appropriate
Needs Improvement (2)
g. Practice is observed infrequently or inconsistently across the
observation time
h. Practice is observed in some but few children
i. Quality of the practice is minimal or inconsistent
Not observed (1)
j. Practice is rarely observed
k. Practice is used in a way that is developmentally inappropriate
Not Applicable (N/A)
 Use N/A when it is truly not possible to use the 4-point rating
scale either due to the setting (center v. home) or due to
developmental irrelevance such as with an item about toddlers
when observation is limited to infants.
Observation Structure
The TPITOS observation consists of three main elements:
(1) Observing for Red Flags
(2) Observing specific routines and conducting engagement sweeps
 Observed routines for sweeps include: Free Play, Feeding/Mealtime,
and Structured Group Activity
 At the beginning of Free Play, Feeding/Mealtime, and Structured
Group Activities, an engagement sweep is conducted in which the
total number of children in the activity (e.g., Feeding/Mealtime), and
the number of children who are actively engaged in that activity are
recorded
(3) Observing specific routines and rating behavioral and environmental items
for each routine.
 All items are rated for each routine: (1) Free Play, (2)
Feeding/Mealtime, (3) Physical Care Routine, and (4) Structured
Group Activity.
1
6/03/10


For ease of rating during each routine, items are grouped together in
the left hand column according aspects of behavior/environment
within any given routine (i.e., General Environment and Interaction,
Play Dimensions, Quality of Routines, and Transitions relevant to each
routine).
When assigning a, rating consider all instances of the routine observed.
For example, if you observed several Physical Care Routines, base your
rating on the multiple routines observed.
Center Application
The purpose of the TPITOS in centers is to provide a classroom snapshot of adult
behaviors/environmental arrangements specific to supporting the social emotional
development of infants and toddlers. Observational data may be used to support
professional development in the following ways: (1) identifying and making explicit
the specific competencies that promote social-emotional development; (2)
providing team and individual teacher feedback to reinforce teacher strengths; (3)
guiding individual and team targeted goal-setting to strengthen teacher
competencies; and (4) monitoring growth relevant to professional development
competencies.
To complete this measure, the observer should observe for at least two hours in
centers and should arrive prior to children’s arrival if possible. Observation time
should include arrival, snack or meal time, and activities when adults are interacting
with children around toys, games etc. At least 3 children should be present during
center observations. The TPITOS should be completed initially while focusing on the
whole classroom with an eye toward children’s general experience with all
caregivers in the classroom. For the purposes of professional development, the user
might also want to collect information on individual caregivers. In this case, the user
could use a different form for each adult or could use different colored pens to rate
multiple adults on one form.
Home Application
The purpose of the TPITOS in homes is to provide a snapshot of primary caregiver
behaviors/environmental arrangements specific to supporting the social emotional
development of all infants and toddlers at home. Observational data from the
TPITOS may be used by home visitors to identify parenting strengths as well as
parenting aspects that may be in need of strengthening. Such data can be used by
home visitors to engage in focused reflective processes with parents to celebrate
strengths, identify areas in need of strengthening, and focus on specific goals for
strengthening caregiver behaviors and environmental arrangements for supporting
social-emotional development in the home.
These applications of the TPITOS with families require that a strong home visiting
program already be in place. For example, home visitors should be trained in
recommended practices and have supervised experience in engaging families in
reflective processes to support parenting goals relevant to promoting infant/toddler
social-emotional development. For newer home visiting programs or programs
without such professional development experience, it is advisable to first implement
a mechanism for examining the extent of implementation of evidence-based and
2
6/03/10
recommended home visiting practices and a professional development mechanism
for strengthening such implementation prior to applying the TPITOS in homes.
The primary authors of this tool are Mary Louise Hemmeter, Judy Carta, Amy Hunter, Phil Strain,
and Kathleen Baggett. While these individuals are responsible for the conceptualization and
development of this tool, they would like to acknowledge others who provided input and
feedback on earlier drafts including Lise Fox, Sarah Merrill, Janice Im, Linda Eggbeer, Donna
Britt, Valeri Lane, and Lindsey Allard.
Please do not disseminate or copy without written permission from Mary Louise Hemmeter
(ml.hemmeter@vanderbilt.edu). Copyright © 2009. All rights reserved.
3
6/03/10
OBSERVATION DESCRIPTION
Center
Home
Observed Teacher’s Name:_____________________
Parent’s Name:_______________________
Program Name:_________________________________
Child’s Name:________________________
Date of Observation:________________ Start Time of Observation:________
Number of Adults Present: ______
Number of Children Present: _______
End Time of Observation:_______________
Age Range of Children Present _______
Complete the following grid to indicate what activities were observed and for how long:
Activity
Observed
Not Observed
Length of Time Observed
Arrival
Diapering
Play
Feeding
Transitions
Group Time
One on one therapy (OT, SLP, PT)
Napping
Departure
Please describe any unusual circumstances or interruptions that may have affected the observation:
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
4
6/03/10
RED FLAGS
Circle Yes or No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
7. Infants and young toddlers are expected to be on a similar schedule for activities such as feeding
diapering to other children in the program instead of responding to individual children as needed.**.
Yes
No
8. Adults are more likely to tell children what not to do rather than what to do.
Yes
No
9. When problem behaviors occur, adults uses punitive practices (e.g., ignoring the child, using timeout; asking the parent to take the child home; ridiculing the child; speaking in a harsh tone; yelling;
pointing out the child’s behavior to other adults or children)
Yes
No
10. Adults use flat affect when talking with infants and toddlers.
Yes
No
11. Adults do not refer to children by name.
Yes
No
12. Adults speak harshly to children
Yes
No
13. There is no evidence of regular communication with families about the individual needs of their
children** .
14. There is no evidence of materials or activities that were designed to honor the different
cultural/linguistic background of individual children and families in the program**
Yes
No
Yes
No
1. The environment is setup such that children are isolated from each other for long periods of time*
2. Environment is arranged in a way that prevents children from engaging with materials, toys
and/or activities.
3. Children spend large amounts of time disengaged without assistance from caregivers to become
engaged **
4. Adults do not speak to and/or engage children.
5. Children who are distressed are left unattended
6. Routines are not predictable for toddlers.
**This item can be scored based on observation (O), interview (I) or both (B). Note in the column to the right what
you used to score this item by circling the appropriate letter. See technical guide for interview questions.
5
6/03/10
Free Play
Engagement Sweeps
Feeding
Structured
Mealtime
Group
Activity
At the onset of each activity listed in the row to the right:
Scan the classroom to see how many children are in the activity

Count the number of children in the activity and list the number
under ‘Total Count’
Spend 5 seconds on each child in the activity
Total
Total
Total
Count
Count
Count
Count the number of children Engaged in the activity and list the number
______
______
______
under ‘Engage Count’. If children are participating through their attention,
Engage
Engage
Engage
movement or manipulation of materials, they are “engaged.” If they are
Count
Count
Count
passively waiting or just doing nothing, they are “unengaged.
_______
_______
_______
Structured
Routine
Mealtime
(e.g., circle time, story time, game, organized pretend play, etc.)
Feeding/
Free Play
Note: Structured Group Activity involves at least 3 children in a structured activity
Phys. Care
General Environment & Interaction
15. Adults provide children with opportunities to make choices (e.g.
1
1
1
1
“this book or this book” or “you can sit and listen to a story or play
2
2
2
2
with the toys.”
3
3
3
3
NOTE:
4
4
4
4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
16. Interactions between adults (e.g., between classroom staff,
families, administrators) provide appropriate models of social
interaction (e.g., supportive, respectful, using emotion words).
NOTE:
17. Adults immediately respond to children in distress to assess child
status and provide support in a manner appropriate to the situation
(e.g. a child fussing while beginning to nap is not picked up, but
offered a back rub).
NOTE:
18. Adults show physical affection toward children and smile at
them.
NOTE:
19. Adults use gestures, words, facial expressions, and physical
positioning to respond to children’s cues that they are ready to
engage (e.g., child looking at an object, child looking at another
child, child looking at the caregiver, reaching for an object) in order
to maintain and extend the child’s interest and engagement.
NOTE:
6
Group Activity
Rate each item under General Environment/Interaction,
KEY: 4 = Exemplary Practice; 3 = Emerging Practice; 2 = Needs Improvement; 1 = Not Observed.
For any item followed by **, there are clarification notes in the technical manual.
20. Adults acknowledge and appropriately respond to children’s verbal
1
1
1
1
and non-verbal cues
2
2
2
2
Note:
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
21. Adults talk often to individual children.
Note:
22. Adults respond to children’s communication attempts and extend
conversations (e.g., scaffolding language and experiences).
Note:
23. Adults verbally comment on children who are engaging in pro-social
behaviors (e.g., smiling at another child, taking turns, giving a toy to
another child)
Note:
24. Adults make positive and varied attempts to engage children who are
not engaged.
Note:
25. Adults follow the child’s lead when engaged in interaction (e.g., adults
talk about what the child is doing, interact with the child around a toy or
play activity the child has selected; allow the child to direct the play and
its pace).
Note:
7
Group Activity
Routine
Phys. Care
Mealtime
Free Play
Feeding/
General Environment & Interaction
Structured
6/03/10
KEY: 4 = Exemplary Practice; 3 = Emerging Practice; 2 = Needs Improvement; 1 = Not Observed.
For any item followed by **, there are clarification notes in the technical manual.
26. Adults encourage children to appropriately express their feelings (e.g.,
adults validate children’s feelings and experiences, adults use a variety of
feeling words to describe their own and children’s experiences).
Note:
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
27. Adults comment on children’s feelings/thought perspectives to
encourage children’s expression of thoughts, feelings, and needs (e.g.,
caregiver uses ‘talk aloud’ strategy to communicate child’s
feelings/thoughts and model appropriate social actions/requests—
“You’re so hungry, let’s tell Annie. Annie, I’m hungry, I need some cereal,
could you pour me some cereal”).
Note:
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
28. Adults redirect children engaging in challenging behavior**
Note:
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
29. Children seem happy and content and are engaged in exploring their
environment.
Note:
8
Activity
Group
Routine
Phys. Care
Mealtime
Free Play
Feeding/
General Environment & Interaction
Structured
6/03/10
KEY: 4 = Exemplary Practice; 3 = Emerging Practice; 2 = Needs Improvement; 1 = Not Observed.
For any item followed by **, there are clarification notes in the technical manual.
30. A variety of developmentally appropriate toys and materials are
available- (all of following must be present to score a 4) **
a. Variety
b. Developmentally appropriate
c. Duplicates of highly preferred toys are available
d. Toys that can be used by multiple children at the same time are
available
NOTE:
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
31. Adults guide children in their play with peers as appropriate to the
child’s developmental level by describing child interest (e.g., “He wants to
look at the book with you”) and guiding simple interactions (“Push the car
to her.”)
NOTE:
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
QUALITY OF ROUTINE
32. Adults individualize their care based on each child’s needs (e.g.
infants eat on their own schedule, diapers are changed as needed rather
then on a fixed schedule, infants are soothed in different ways, not all
toddlers sit in circle time).
NOTE:
33. Adults use feeding, mealtimes and other caregiving routines (e.g.,
diapering) as opportunities to interact socially with infants and toddlers.
NOTE:
34. Adults promote interactions between toddlers in the context of
activities and routines.
NOTE:
35. Adults embed social emotional teaching (e.g., talk about feelings in
books, look at pictures of different emotional expression, adult’s label their
own emotions) into routines throughout the day.
NOTE:
9
Group Activity
Phys. Care
Routine
Mealtime
Free Play
Feeding/
PLAY DIMENSIONS
Structured
6/03/10
KEY: 4=Exemplary Practice; 3=Emerging Practice; 2=Needs Improvement; 1=Not Observed.
For any item followed by **, there are clarification notes in the technical manual.
36. Classroom staff greets children and adults who enter the room.
NOTE:
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
37.Transitions are short and individualized, and wait time is kept at a
1
1
1
1
minimum.
NOTE:
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
38. Adults use verbal, object, gestural and/or visual cues to prepare
1
1
1
1
children for upcoming transitions.
NOTE:
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
10
Activity
Phys. Care
Routine
Mealtime
Free Play
Feeding/
TRANSITIONS
Structured Group
6/03/10