Whalen, S. P., Horsley, H. L., Parkinson, K. K., Vasquez, J., & Tozer, S. E. (2016). Chicago, IL: Center for Urban Educational Leadership. Retrieved from http://urbanedleadership.org/.
Reviewed: January 2017
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Bracken School Readiness Assessment |
Ounce Professional Development Initiative vs. Head Start |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
97.55 |
96.93 |
No |
-- | |
|
GOLD: Cognitive |
Ounce Professional Development Initiative vs. Head Start |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
587.77 |
597.29 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS): Emotional |
Ounce Professional Development Initiative vs. Head Start |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
6.00 |
5.35 |
No |
-- | |
|
CLASS: Facilitation of Learning |
Ounce Professional Development Initiative vs. Head Start |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
3.13 |
2.19 |
No |
-- | |
|
Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS): Classroom Organization |
Ounce Professional Development Initiative vs. Head Start |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
5.75 |
4.92 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
This study was conducted in early childhood education Head Start centers in Chicago. There were five centers in the intervention group and 40 centers in the matched comparison group. The teacher training began in the summer of 2012. The student cohorts participated in the program for either 1 or 2 years starting in the Fall of 2012.
Teachers and students in the sample were demographically diverse, though the diversity varied by center. In one center, the majority of students were Black predominantly low socioeconomic status. In two centers, Black, Hispanic, and White students were about equally represented. In the fourth center, the neighborhood was relatively affluent and about half of the students were White. Demographics for the students in the study sample were not reported.
The Ounce Professional Development Initiative (Ounce PDI) is a job-embedded professional development program which was implemented in early childhood education centers in this study. The program involves three core "contexts of learning:" learning labs, coaching, and reflective practice groups. These strategies are designed to support early childhood teachers improve instructional planning and teaching practice. The Ounce PDI initiative is implemented with teachers, center leaders, family support specialists, and coaches via the three learning contexts. Teachers, leaders, and coaches are engaged in parallel learning designed to improve knowledge and skills in the areas of organizational systems, instructional planning and implementation, professional development, and children's early achievement. The training labs promote knowledge development, coaching helps transfer knowledge into practice, and the reflective practice groups promote collaborative practice and planning.
The comparison centers in the study were all Head Start centers in the Chicago area. These centers presumably followed the typical Head Start practice and structure.
The intervention itself is designed to support implementation of the skills through the inclusion of teachers, leaders, and coaches in the training and the embedded coaching and reflective practice groups. Although an extensive fidelity study was described in the study, there was little specific information about how the implementation of the Ounce PDI was supported.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube