Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1 s2.0 S0885200696900307 Main
1 s2.0 S0885200696900307 Main
1 s2.0 S0885200696900307 Main
John fantuzzo
University of Pennsylvania
Stephanie Childs
School District of Philadelphia
Howard Stevenson
Kathleen Coyle Coolahan
Marika Ginsburg
Kristen Gay
University of Pennsylvania
Darlena Debnam
Carolyn Watson
School District of Philadelphia
This research was part of a 5-year Head Start Teaching Center demonstration grant from
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth, and
Families, Head Start Bureau .
We express our appreciation to Rosemary Mazzatenta, The Director of Prekindergarten
Head Start for the School District of Philadelphia, and David Silbermann, Assistant Director,
for their support and leadership during this project. Also, special acknowledgement goes to
members of the Steering Committee and the Curriculum Task Force that spent many hours
developing and reviewing facets of the training curriculum. These outstanding Head Start pro
fessionals and parent volunteers include Denota Watson, Alice Johnson, Janet Schultz, Linda
Stultz, Phillys Ditlow, Patti Blue -Williams, Janet Colaianni, Bunny Verbit, Susan Allen, Sam
Mosca, Cedric Brown, and Judy Bolton . We also thank the Head Start professionals and eval
uators of the other 13 teaching center projects who offered very helpful suggestions at
grantees meetings in Washington, DC.
Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to John Fantuzzo, University
of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education, 3700 Walnut Street , Phil adelphia, PA
19104-6216.
79
80 Fantuzzo et al.
Since 1968 Head Start and other early childhood intervention programs
have constituted the nation's leading response to childhood poverty. Embrac
ing life-span and ecological perspectives of development, Head Start has
delivered a comprehensive array of developmentally appropriate educa
tional, psychological, health, and social services to children and families in
need (Zigler & Meunchow, 1992). The challenge to provide quality services
has grown, however, as economic and social conditions in the United States
have worsened for young children and families. With one out of every four
children under the age of 6 years now Jiving in poverty and increased birth
rates for minority populations, there is a disproportionate number of poor
minority children Jiving in our most stressful urban centers (Children's
Defense Fund, 1994). These demographic and socioeconomic changes have
placed a tremendous burden on Head Start programs to keep up with the
growing needs of a very diverse, low-income population (Takanishi &
DeLeon, 1994).
Vigorous public policy debate about Head Start's efficacy in the face of
these changes has highlighted Head Start's achievements as well as its short
comings. Out of this debate has emerged consensus that if Head Start is to
meet the challenge of serving a growing population of families with diverse
needs, program quality must improve (U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, 1993; Kassebaum, 1994). Committed to improving the
quality of Head Start, Congress passed the Head Start Quality Improvement
Act in 1994, and the President formed the Advisory Committee on Head
Start Quality and Expansion.
According to expert national advisers, improving the quality of Head
Start hinges on intensifying efforts in two key areas: staff training and parent
involvement (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1993). In
service staff training has been shown to contribute to program quality and
can serve as a means for preparing teachers to function within diverse class
room environments (Epstein, 1993; Zigler & Styfco, 1994). Greater parent
Collaborative Training 8
participation in Head Start can help to make the program more compatible
with the values and needs of the families and communities served (U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, 1993). Moreover, expert
advisers have stressed that efforts to improve the quality of Head Start must
be guided by theory-based, scientific research that empirically tests the
efficacy of promising skills training methods (Zigler & Styfco, 1994).
Central to most theories of adult learning is an emphasis on the impor
tance of self-direction, active participation in learning activities, and feed
back and reflection on one's own learning (Merriam, 1987). Social learning
theory provides an excellent conceptual framework to inform the design of
skills training for adults, based on these adult learning principles (Bandura,
1977). According to social learning theory, the learning process involves a
sequence of observing a competent model, performing the observed behav
ior, and reinforcing practice of the newly learned behaviors with guided
feedback and social support.
Research supporting this theory has revealed factors that enhance both
the acquisition and performance of new skills by the learner (Kanfer &
Goldstein, 1991). Characteristics of models or exemplars, the learner, and
the learning setting all affect the learner's aquisition of new information.
Research shows that learners are more likely to imitate an exemplar whom
they perceive to be similar to themselves, in terms of gender, age, race, and
values. Observation of a similar exemplar reassures learners that the skill
being instructed is within their reach. In addition, learning is more likely to
take place when the exemplar is viewed as highly competent. However, the
exemplar's status should not be at a level that would be viewed as unrealistic
or unobtainable by the learner and thereby discourage learning. Additionally,
the exemplar should be an individual who is perceived as warm and nurtur
ing by the learner, maintains the learner's attention, and reduces the learner's
anxiety. Research has demonstrated that the learner characteristics that
most influence a learner's ability to process and retain new information
relate to the learner's level of comfort and certainty in learning situations.
Uncertain and dissatisfying experiences increase the learner's anxiety, which
in turn interferes with learning. Therefore, a learning environment should
be established that is familiar and predictable to the learner.
Regarding the performance of new skills by the learner, research indicates
that new behaviors are best adopted by learners when they are given an
opportunity to practice and receive feedback on their performance (Kanfer
& Goldstein, 1991). In addition to practice and feedback, motivational strat
egies such as social support and praise from an exemplar serve to enhance
the learner's performance of newly acquired skills. Moreover, studies reveal
that these skills are best transferred to the daily setting when opportunities
for learning in the natural environment occur. In summary, research in
social learning shows that being exposed to competent exemplars and hav
ing opportunities for practice, feedback, and social reinforcement in the
82 Fantuzzo et al.
' This research was part of an independent evaluation of the Philadelphia Head Start
Teaching Center that we conducted from the University of Pennsylvania.
84 Fantuzzo et al.
METHODS
General Procedures
The procedures for this training evaluation study involved three steps. First,
a program-wide needs assessment was conducted to identify the training
objectives for the teaching staff and parent volunteers. Teaching staff and
Collaborative Training 8
Table 1. Percentage of Time Allocated for Training Activities
for Collaborative and Workshop Training
parent needs assessments were administered to all 308 teaching staff and a
large representative group of 445 Head Start parents, who reported an
average of at least 80 volunteer hr over the course of the year. Of the teach
ing staff, 86% and of the parents, 64% who received questionnaires returned
completed questionnaires. Across both groups of respondents, promoting
developmentally appropriate adult-child interactions to enhance child self
esteem and generating a more substantive role for parents in the classroom
were identified as the two highest priority targets for training. Adult-child
interactions and parent involvement in the classroom were endorsed as the
highest training priorities by 75% and 68% of respondents, respectively.
Subsequent to identifying high-priority training needs, participating
classroom teams of teaching staff and parent volunteers were randomly
assigned to training conditions. During training, treatment integrity data
were obtained to measure adherence to the planned training agenda for each
condition. Finally, questionnaire and observational data were collected
after training was completed to evaluate the relative effectiveness of the
training approaches.
Training Interventions
Both training approaches were given the same resource allocations for train
ing and used the same needs assessment information to inform training
objectives. CT and WT training conditions involved approximately 20 hr of
training spread over a 3- to 4-month period. These allocations were in accord
with the existing standards for the larger Head Start program. Using com
parable resources provided a control for staff time and program expendi
tures across training groups and kept the development of training
innovations within the practicality of the existing fiscal resources for
training. The integ rity of the training was determined by assessing to what
degree the trainers implemented the training as planned according to the
training approach. In a sample of 36% of the training sessions, integrity
checks revealed that the training was carried out as planned 82% of the time.
Table 1 presents an overview of the three training programs: (a)
collaborative training, (b) teacher workshop training, and (c) parent
workshop training, including categories of training activity and time
allocated for each activity.
86 Fantuzzo et al.
Data Collection
Two sets of data were used to evaluate these training approaches: a series of
teacher and parent questionnaires and coded videotaped observations of
classroom group learning activities. Written informed consent was obtained
from participants prior to any data collection. Parent and teacher question
naires were administered to participants in each training group after all
training sessions were completed. Parents were asked to complete the Active
Involvement in Training Scale, the Training Satisfaction Scale, the Parent
Role in the Classroom Scale, and the Parent Satisfaction with Volunteer
Experience Scale. Teaching staff members were asked to complete the
Active Involvement in Training Scale, the Training Satisfaction Scale, and
the Teacher-Parent Collaboration Scale. Data collection of the classroom
observations involved obtaining a videotape of each classroom during a
group learning activity. Classroom activities were videotaped and coded if
they met the criterion of being group learning activities that normally invol
ved parent volunteers and provided frequent opportunities for adult-child
interactions. These activities were recorded for the purpose of obtaining
direct observations of adult-child interactions related to teacher-parent
identified training priorities. Videotaping was conducted after the conclusion
of training sessions in both conditions. To mitigate the reactivity of posttest
video recording, video equipment was unobtrusively set up in the classroom
and remained in place for a couple of classroom modules before it was used.
Measures
Active Involvement in Training Scale. This measure of participants'
active involvement in training was adapted from the Empowered Parent
Education Scale (Canning, 1994). The original measure, containing 15 dich
otomous items, was designed to tap perceptions of the nature and degree of
participants' involvement in parent education workshops. Items for the
Empowered Parent Education Scale were developed with a team of Head
Start parent leaders. For the purpose of evaluating the training approaches
in the study reported here, two versions of the Active Involvement in Train
ing Scales were developed, one for teaching staff and one for parent volun
teers. Both scales contained the same items; however, training sessions were
described as either "parent" or "teacher" training sessions to reflect the
different respondents.
88 Fantuzzo et al.
based on the Interaction Scale of the Assessment Profile for Early Child
hood Programs (Abbott-Shimm & Sibley, 1987). There were 4 global cate
gories of adult-child interaction: (1) positive initiations to children, (2)
positive responses to child initiations, (3) positive participation in group
activities, and (4) negative verbalizations. The positive initiation category
was comprised of praise, physical gestures, instruction, and verbal exchange
subcategories. Praise was operationally defined as occurrences of adult
praise, verbal or physical prompts, or encouragement to continue a desired
activity. Physical gestures included adult-initiated hugs, pats, or holds.
Instruction was defined as an initial behavioral request directed toward the
group or individual students to engage in a desired activity. A verbal
exchange was coded when an adult initiated conversation with a child, and
the child responded verbally. The second global category, positive responses
to child initiations, was defined as adult responses to children's statements
with a verbal response or physical gesture. Positive participation in group
activity was coded for any adult who participated in the children's activities
such as circle time or small group activities. Negative verbalizations were
coded when adults yelled, scolded, criticized, threatened, or spoke
sarcastically to a child or children. 2
A 20-min sample of the activity was coded for each classroom. Two inde
pendent raters, who were blind to the classrooms' training assignments,
were used to code videotapes of the classroom activities. Codes were assigned
to all adults in the classroom, that is, teachers and parent volunteers. Teach ing
staff and parent volunteer rates for each observational code were calcu lated by
tallying the number of occurrences for each code during the 20- min time
frame. Using a sample of 170/o of the videotapes, interrater reliability was
calculated for rate of agreement for each category and subcategory and ranged
from 940/o to 1000/o, with an average of 980/o agreement per category.
Data Analysis
The relative efficacy of CT and WT training interventions was assessed
using a posttest-only control group design (Campbell & Stanley, 1963). This
design strategy was to compare the effectiveness of the existing workshop
approach (WT) with the CT approach designed for the Head Start Teaching
Center Demonstration Project. Pretest questionnaires on training and a
pretest set of videotaped classroom observations were not included because
of their potential reactive effects. Therefore, 24 representative Head Start
classrooms were randomly assigned to CT or WT training conditions. Train
ing resources and training time were controlled across conditions and class
room observational data, and questionnaires were collected posttraining.
Three sets of analyses were conducted to evaluate training effects. The first
' The complete detailed coding procedure can be obtained by contacting the first author.
Collaborative Training 9
set focused on parent and teacher reports of their level of involvement in
training and their satisfaction with the training experience. The second set
consisted of reports of parent and teacher classroom activity. The final set
involved the adult-child classroom interactions. A one-way analysis of
variance (ANOVA) statistical procedure was used to determine group dif
ferences on teacher and parent questionnaires. The Bonferroni correction
was used for each individual ANOVA (O! = .0125 per dependent variable) to
reduce the likelihood of making a Type I error. ANOVAs were computed on
the major observational categories of adult-child interactions, and a multiple
analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used to evaluate group differences on
subcategories of adult initiations. To avoid any violations of the ANOVA
independence assumption, the classroom served as the unit of analysis.
Because teams of two teachers and two parents participated in training
together, an average of the teacher dyad and parent dyad was computed for
the separate teacher and parent questionnaire analyses. Additionally, class
room interactions were summed separately for teachers and parents in the
classroom.
RESULTS
Reports on Training
Table 2 provides a summary of posttraining means, standard deviations,
and F ratios on reports of level of involvement in training and satisfaction
with training for parents and teachers in the two training conditions.
Teachers in the CT group reported significantly higher levels of active
involvement in training than the teachers in the WT. Parents in the CT group
also reported levels of active involvement that exceeded the levels reported
by the parents in the WT group. Comparison between the two groups with
respect to satis faction with training indicated that both parents and teachers
in the CT group reported significantly greater levels of satisfaction with
training than the participants in the WT group.
Collaborative Workshop
Scales Training Training F Ratio
• Teacher analyses were based on 24 and 23 dyads for satisfaction and involvement,
respectively.
b Parent analyses were based on 20 dyads; data from two classrooms in each group were
incomplete.
• p< .0125.
Collaborative Workshop
Scales Training Training FRatio
Teacher-parent collaboration
M 62.36 57.18 12.40*
SD 3.91 2.92
Parent involvement in classroom
M 28.06 24.85 8.5I•
SD 1.17 2.65
Parent role in the classroom
M 28.72 29.25 0.18
SD 2.77 2.60
92
Collaborative Training 9
Table 4. Comparison Between CT and WT Training on Average Number
of Adult-Child Interactions
Collaborative Workshop
Observational Categories Training• Training F Ratio
• Analyses were conducted with 20 classrooms (10 per group). Data from two classrooms
per group were not available because of undetected technical problems with video recording
and unexpected teacher medical leaves.
• p< .0125.
Praise
Teacher
M 6.60 3.10 I0.67**
SD 2.59 2.18
Parent
M 0.30 1.30 1.50
SD 0.67 2.50
Total
M 6.90 4.40 5.66*
SD 2.76 1.84
Physical Gestures
Teacher
M 6.80 1.40 2.61
SD 10.35 2.17
Parent
M I.JO 0.30 1.13
SD 2.28 0.67
Total
M 7.90 1.70 3.53
SD 10.16 2.36
Instruction
Teacher
M 10.90 8.80 0.59
SD 5.32 6.78
Parent
M 0.50 1.60 1.02
SD 0.71 3.37
Total
M 11.40 I0.40 0.19
SD 5.13 5.10
Verbal Exchanges
Teacher
M 14.70 10.40 1.53
SD 7.72 7.82
Parent
M 0.20 0.60 0.80
SD 0.63 1.26
Total
M 14.90 11.00 1.38
SD 7.81 7.00
a Analyses were conducted with 20 classrooms (IO per group). Data from two classrooms
per group were not available because of undetected technical problems with video recording
and unexpected teacher medical leaves.
*p<.05. ** p< .01.
94
Collaborative Training 9
praise, physical gestures, instruction, and verbal exchange subcategories
revealed that the total number of occurrences of adults praising children
was significantly greater for the CT group than the WT group. This again
was because of a significantly higher level of teacher praise. There were no
significant differences between the relatively low levels of parent praise in
both groups. Furthermore, there were no significant group differences
found in the amount of adult-child, physical gestures, instruction, or verbal
exchange for teacher, parent, or total comparisons.
DISCUSSION
Head Start, in order to meet the growing challenges it faces, must discover
effective and cost-efficient ways to enhance the skills of Head Start teachers
and to more substantially involve parents in classroom learning experiences.
Toward this end, the study presented here represents initial steps in the
evaluation of a collaborative training model (CT) that involved having
parents and teachers co-participate in experiential training based on social
learning theory. Controlling for cost and time parameters, this collabora tive
training approach was compared with a more traditional workshop approach
that was in place in a large urban Head Start Program at the time of the
study (WT). Based on a comprehensive assessment of the training needs of
Head Start teachers and parent volunteers, the objectives for train ing were to
improve the quality of adult-child classroom interactions and to increase
teacher-parent collaboration. The relative effectiveness of CT versus the
existing WT training was addressed by 3 primary evaluation questions: (1)
Do CT participants report more active involvement in train ing and greater
satisfaction with training than WT participants? (2) In the classroom, do CT
training experiences result in more teacher-parent collab oration, parent
affirmation, and clearer and more congruent roles for parents than WT
experiences? and (3) Do CT trainees evidence higher levels of
developmentally appropriate adult-child classroom interactions than WT
trainees?
Evaluation findings for Head Start teachers showed that, compared with
teachers who received the traditional training, teachers in the CT group
were more actively involved in their training and more satisfied with it. The
active CT training components (i.e., observation of exemplars, guided prac
tice, and immediate feedback, coupled with receiving training with parents)
fostered more active participation and resulted in a more enjoyable learning
experience than was found with a more traditional workshop format. More
over, this training process was associated with positive classroom outcomes.
Posttraining, teachers in the CT group reported higher levels of teacher
parent classroom collaboration than teachers in the WT group. Observa
tional data indicated that CT training had a greater positive impact on
9 Fantuzzo et
REFERENCES
Abbott-Shim, M., & Sibley, A. (1987). Assessment profile for early childhood programs.
Atlanta, GA: Quality Assist.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Becher, R. (I 984). Parent involvement: A review of research and principles of successful prac
tice. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.
Campbell, D.T., & Stanley, J.C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for
research. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Canning, S.S. (1994). Empowered parent education: An empirical investigation of empower
ment concepts. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Phila
delphia.
Children's Defense Fund. (1994). The state of America's children. Washington, DC.
Epstein, A.S. (1993). Training for quality: Improving early childhood programs through
sys tematic inservice training. (Monographs of the High/Scope Educational
Foundation No. 9). Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press.
Gresham, F.M., Gansle, K.A., & Noell, G.H. (1993). Treatment integrity in applied behavior
analysis with children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 257-263.
Henderson, A.T., & Berla, N. (1994). A new generation of evidence: The family is critical to
student achievement. Washington, DC: National Committee for Citizens in Education.
Jorde-Bloom, P., & Sheerer, M. (1992). The effect ofleadership training on child care pro gram
quality. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7, 579-594.
Jorde-Bloom, P., Sheerer, M., & Britz, J. (1991). Blueprint for action: Achieving center-based
change through staff development. Lake Forest, IL: New Horizons.
Kanfer, F., & Goldstein, A. (1991). Helping people change. New York: Pergamon.
Kassebaum, N.L. (1994). Head Start: Only the best for America's children. American Psychol
ogist, 49, 123-126.
Levine, J.A. (1982). The prospects and dilemmas of child care information and referral. In
E.F. Zigler & E.W. Gordon (Eds.), Day care: Scientific and social policy issues
{pp. 378-401). Boston: Auburn House.
Merriam, S.B. (1987). Adult learning and theory building: A review. Adult Education Quarterly,
37, 187-198.
Powell, D.R. (1989). Families and early childhood programs (Research Monographs of the
National Association for the Education of Young Children, Vol. 3). Washington, DC:
National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Takanishi, R., & DeLeon, P.H. (1994). A Head Start for the 21st century. American Psychol
ogist, 49, 120-122.
U.S. Department of Education. (1994). Strong families, strong schools: Building community
partnerships for learning. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth, and
Families (1992a). Head Start Teaching Centers, Federal Register, 57, 24861-24862.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Collaborative Training 9
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth, and
Families (I 992b). Head Start program performance standards (DHHS Publication No.
ACF 92-31131). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children, Youth, and
Families (1993). Creating a 21st century Head Start: Final report of the advisory com
mittee on Head Start quality and expansion. Washington, DC: Administration on Chil
dren, Youth, and Families.
Zigler, E., & Meunchow, S. (1992). Head Start: The inside story of America's most successful
educational experiment. New York: Basic.
Zigler, E., & Styfco, S.J. (1994). Head Start: Criticisms in a constructive context. American
Psychologist, 49, 127-132.