|Title:||Build the FRaME: Using Feedback, Reflection, and Multimedia to Teach Evidence-Based Practices for Effective Classroom Management|
|Principal Investigator:||Kennedy, Michael||Awardee:||University of Virginia|
|Program:||Educators and School-Based Service Providers [Program Details]|
|Award Period:||4 years (07/01/2020 – 06/30/2024)||Award Amount:||$1,399,756|
|Type:||Development and Innovation||Award Number:||R324A200061|
Co-Principal Investigator: Nagro, Sarah; Hirsch, Shanna; Youngs, Peter
Purpose: Teachers nationwide report feeling underprepared to manage classrooms that include students with disabilities or students who demonstrate problematic behaviors that escalate to class wide disruption. Teacher candidates and novice teachers report significantly lower self-efficacy concerning their ability to affect student outcomes and behaviors compared with experienced teachers. The research team will address this need by developing a feasible and sustainable multimedia intervention that, when used by teachers during their preparation to become professionals, will result in positive engagement and academic achievement of K–12 students with disabilities.
Project Activities: The research team will iteratively develop and pilot test a multimedia multicomponent instructional approach (FRaME) for use in teacher preparation coursework to support teacher candidates' knowledge and implementation of evidence-based classroom management practices. Each year builds on the previous by incorporating quantitative and qualitative data from partner universities and content experts. In year 1 the research team will conduct a series of interviews, surveys, and focus groups to learn from experts in the field and instructors of classroom management courses to determine the key needs and provide preliminary comments on FRaME. In project years 2–3, researchers will conduct preliminary experimental field tests of the three components of the intervention with university partners around the country. In year 4, the research team will complete a rigorous pilot test of the multicomponent intervention on candidate implementation of classroom management practices, and the corresponding impact on student on-task behavior, and overall engagement. Observations will target impact on students with disabilities.
Products: This project will result in a fully developed instructional approach (FRaME) for use in teacher preparation programs and evidence of its promise to improve teacher candidates' knowledge and implementation of evidence-based classroom management practices. All elements will be available online via a project website. The project will also result in peer-reviewed publications and presentations as well as additional dissemination products that reach education stakeholders such as practitioners and policymakers.
Setting: The project will be implemented in introductory teacher preparation courses in special education and behavior management (years 2–3) and practicum placements within elementary schools (year 4) at teacher preparation programs across 35 collaborating universities.
Sample: In year 1, faculty member(s) who teach classroom management courses or similar courses at 20 participating universities will participate in individual interviews. In addition, project consultants who are experts in teacher preparation and behavior management will provide feedback on initial revisions to the multimedia instructional vignettes. Across years two and three, approximately 500–600 teacher candidates across 24 different universities will participate in usability and feasibility studies. Year 4 studies will occur with approximately 230 advanced teacher candidates during field placement experiences and their students (approximately 2,300 students).
Intervention: The three core elements of FRaME are: 1) multimedia vignettes called Content Acquisition Podcasts with Embedded Modeling Videos (CAP-TV) to promote declarative knowledge about key practices; 2) an innovative, multimedia-driven approach to self-reflection following teaching based on the Classroom Teaching (CT) Scan and a self-reflection matrix; and 3) data-driven coaching. Each brief instructional vignette (CAP-TV) includes direct, multimedia instruction introducing the key steps or aspects of a specific EBPs, followed by short video clips, recorded in real K–12 classrooms showing teachers implementing that EBP. Candidates will learn about five evidence-based classroom management practices from the CAP-TV vignettes, record a teaching video implementing these five practices, review the video evidence using a new observation tool called the Classroom Teaching Scan, reflect using a structured matrix that includes the practices, receive timely performance feedback, and revise instruction for the betterment of students.
Research Design & Methods: This project uses a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods to iteratively develop and pilot test the intervention. Year 1 includes qualitative interviews with teacher preparation faculty and feedback from the consultants for initial revisions to the intervention. In Years 2–3, the research team will use experimental, two-group, pretest-posttest-maintenance designs to examine whether teacher candidates gained more knowledge and ability to apply skills in classroom management practices after using FRaME. After revisions based on data collected in years 2–3, FRaME will be piloted with two randomized controlled trials (fall and spring) with elementary teacher candidate participants in their field placements randomly assigned to FRaME or traditional mentoring and professional development provided by their university. Impact on teacher performance and student engagement will be measured, respectively.
Key Measures: The primary outcome measures of interest includes teacher candidates' knowledge and implementation of practices with fidelity (Multi-Option Observation System for Experimental Studies, MOOSES), overall teaching quality (captured by Classroom Assessment Scoring System, CLASS), and self-efficacy for addressing challenging issues related to behavior. The Classroom Teaching (CT) Scan will also be used as an indicator of teacher performance. For K–12 students, the key measure is engagement during instructional time. Researchers will rate students with disabilities' on-task behavior during each phase of the study and seek to observe relationships between augmented use of EBPs for classroom management and increases in on-task behavior.
Data Analytic Strategy: Qualitative data analysis methods will be used in year 1 to identify themes and perceptions from interviews intended to inform preliminary development of FRaME. In years 2–4, mixed model ANOVAs will be used to identify statistical differences within and between groups across time (pretest, posttest, maintenance) for the knowledge measure and implementation of practices on microteaching or school-based lessons on video at the three time points (baseline, after intervention, and after coaching). Regression analyses will probe the extent to which performance on the knowledge measure predicts performance on the various measures of EBPs implementation captured by MOOSES. Researchers will use the CLASS measure to explore group differences at the three time points. Researchers will interpret ongoing qualitative and focus group information from instructors and participants to understand their perceptions of how FRaME is impacting learning and performance. Candidates will complete self-reflection materials for evaluation.
Cost Analysis: The cost analysis will be conducted using the ingredients approach. Ingredients will include technology and equipment, curricular materials, teacher and coach salaried work time, or "personnel time," personnel time of university partners, and personnel time of other school or district personnel who may be involved in implementation. Data will be collected through participant interviews and document review, including data collected for purposes of monitoring implementation fidelity. The cost analysis will produce an estimate of both the total annual cost of the package of interventions as well as the cost of each component, as well as overall cost and the cost per student. The final step in the cost analysis will be to determine, for each site, how costs are distributed among stakeholders such as individual schools, district central offices, and university partners.