10409280802506166

This article was downloaded by: [University of Malaya]On: 23 July 2015, At: 05:44Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG

Early Education andDevelopmentPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/heed20

Factors That Influence theImplementation of a NewPreschool Curriculum:Implications for ProfessionalDevelopmentJoan Lieber a , Gretchen Butera b , Marci Hanson c ,Susan Palmer d , Eva Horn d , Carol Czaja e , KarenDiamond e , Gretchen Goodman-Jansen d , JaneseDaniels f , Sarika Gupta g & Samuel Odom ha Department of Special Education , University ofMarylandb Indiana Universityc San Francisco State Universityd University of Kansase Purdue Universityf Towson Universityg University of Marylandh University of North CarolinaPublished online: 02 Jun 2009.

To cite this article: Joan Lieber , Gretchen Butera , Marci Hanson , SusanPalmer , Eva Horn , Carol Czaja , Karen Diamond , Gretchen Goodman-Jansen , Janese Daniels , Sarika Gupta & Samuel Odom (2009) Factors ThatInfluence the Implementation of a New Preschool Curriculum: Implications forProfessional Development, Early Education and Development, 20:3, 456-481, DOI:10.1080/10409280802506166

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10409280802506166

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the Content) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Mala

ya] a

t 05:4

4 23 J

uly 20

15

IMPLEMENTATION FACTORSLIEBER ET AL.

Factors That Influence theImplementation of a New Preschool

Curriculum: Implicationsfor Professional Development

Joan LieberDepartment of Special Education

University of MarylandGretchen ButeraIndiana University

Marci HansonSan Francisco State University

Susan Palmer and Eva HornUniversity of Kansas

Carol Czaja and Karen DiamondPurdue University

Gretchen Goodman-JansenUniversity of Kansas

Janese DanielsTowson University

Sarika GuptaUniversity of Maryland

Samuel OdomUniversity of North Carolina

EARLY EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT, 20(3), 456481Copyright 2009 Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1040-9289 print / 1556-6935 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10409280802506166

Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Joan Lieber, Department of SpecialEducation, University of Maryland, 1308 Benjamin Building, College Park, MD 20742. E-mail:[email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Mala

ya] a

t 05:4

4 23 J

uly 20

15

Research Findings: There is growing evidence that specific, teacher-led instructionand innovative instructional activities can lead to higher levels of achievement in lit-eracy and in mathematics for young children at risk. There is limited research evi-dence, however, identifying professional development interventions that are effectivein changing early childhood teachers instructional practices. Practice or Policy: Thepurpose of this article is to examine the factors associated with early childhood teach-ers ability or inability to implement a new preschool curriculum, Childrens SchoolSuccess, and to understand if those factors are amenable to change through profes-sional development activities.

The passage of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2002, and the associated early edu-cation reform Good Start, Grow Smart reflects a societal emphasis on the impor-tance of educational success for all children, beginning in preschool. This empha-sis reflects concerns that children who are at risk because of poverty, homelanguage, or disability enter kindergarten substantially behind their advantagedpeers. Data from the large-scale Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergar-ten Class of 19981999 (ECLS-K; Denton & West, 2002; West, Denton, &Reaney, 2000) demonstrate that the skills and knowledge children bring to kinder-garten, such as knowledge of letter names and numbers, provide important advan-tages for academic achievement. Children who come from families living in pov-erty, children of color, and children who are learning English enter kindergartenwith fewer of these academic skills than their more advantaged peers (Denton &West, 2002). Factors such as poverty and home language are associated not onlywith achievement gaps at kindergarten entry but with gaps in achievement that per-sist into high school (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1997).

Enrollment in a high-quality early education program promotes childrens de-velopment and learning of important academic and social skills associated withschool readiness (Campbell, Pungello, Miller-Johnson, Burchinal, & Ramey,2001; Howes et al., in press; Tout, Zaslow, & Berry, 2006). Analyses of data fromthe NICHD Study of Early Child Care provide substantial evidence that both theamount and quality of childrens early education or child care experiences are re-lated to cognitive and academic outcomes when children enter kindergarten(NICHD ECCRN & Duncan, 2003). Data from a number of studies suggest thatthe quality of the early education setting may be especially important for childrenwho are at risk for poor school outcomes (Campbell et al., 2002; Reynolds, Tem-ple, Robertson, & Mann, 2002).

Recent research provides evidence for direct links between the content of teach-ers instruction and what young children learn in preschool. For example, childrenlearned more vocabulary when their teacher included instruction on specific vo-cabulary words during group book reading (Biemiller & Boote, 2006; Wasik,Bond, & Hindman, 2006). Yet the goal of instructing children in specific academicor social skills has not been central to the mission of early education in the United

IMPLEMENTATION FACTORS 457

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Mala

ya] a

t 05:4

4 23 J

uly 20

15

States (Powell, Diamond, Bojczyk, & Gerde, in press). National program accredi-tation criteria and widely used research tools for assessing program quality havegiven little attention to instruction (Dickinson, 2002), and early childhood teacherpreparation programs have been criticized for providing too little attention to spe-cific, developmentally appropriate approaches to teaching important academiccontent (Bowman, Donovan, & Burns, 2001). These patterns occur in the contextof a teacher workforce where fewer than one half of early childhood teachers holda baccalaureate degree (Saluja, Early, & Clifford, 2002), and preschool childrenwho are at risk are more likely to be taught by teachers with the least amount of ed-ucation (LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007).

There is substantial variability in requirements for education and professionalpreparation of early childhood teachers. There have been recommendations to in-crease educational requirements to a bachelors degree for early childhood teach-ers (Bowman et al., 2001). State-supported pre-kindergarten programs (Barnett,Hustedt, Robin, & Schulman, 2005), as well as federally funded Head Startprograms (GovTrack, 2007) have moved toward implementing more stringent ed-ucation requirements. Despite these initiatives, the evidence linking a teachers ed-ucation with the overall classroom climate and approaches to instruction is equivo-cal at best. In a review of recent research, Tout and her colleagues (2006)concluded that although higher levels of teacher education were generally linkedto higher classroom quality, there was insufficient evidence to identify minimallyadequate levels of educational preparation for early childhood teachers. More re-cently, Early and her colleagues (2007) found little evidence for an association be-tween teachers education and either overall classroom quality or [4-year old]childrens academic gains (p. 573) in a study using data from seven different largestudies. Other studies have provided evidence that the quality of instruction instate-funded pre-kindergarten programs is often no more than minimally adequateto promote childrens learning and that adequate instruction can be provided byteachers with less than a 4-year degree (LoCasale-Crouch et al., 2007). The lack ofsignificant relations among teacher education, classroom quality, and child out-come variables highlights the inadequacy of conceptualizing teacher quality as afunction of teacher education, at least for early childhood programs; comprehen-sive professional development could provide the knowledge, skills and supportsfor teachers (Early et al., 2007, p. 577) to provide high-quality early educationeven without a 4-year college degree.

Early childhood curriculum, particularly one that is both developmentally ap-propriate and includes attention to teaching young children important academiccompetencies, along with ongoing support for teachers through professional de-velopment, are promising approaches for influencing the quality of instruction andteacherchild interactions in early childhood programs. Curriculum is an obviousstarting point for ensuring educational success for all children, and there have beencalls for curricula that are substantively connected to major content domains

458 LIEBER ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Mala

ya] a

t 05:4

4 23 J

uly 20

15

(Bowman et al., 2001). The related domain of teaching practices is a similarlypromising target of efforts to improve childrens outcomes (Early et al., 2007).

Adequate training and support for teachers are especially important given re-cent evidence that teachers instruction and supportive interactional style are im-portant factors that promote childrens active involvement in learning (Hamre &Pianta, 2005; Phillips, Mekos, Scarr, McCartney, & Abbott-Shim, 2000). There isgrowing evidence that specific, teacher-led instruction (Powell & Diamond, 2007;Wasik et al., 2006; Whitehurst et al., 1994) and innovative instructional activities(Ginsburg et al., 2006; Lonigan & Whitehurst, 1998) can lead to higher levels ofachievement in literacy and in mathematics for young children at risk.

There is little research evidence identifying professional development interven-tions that are effective in changing early childhood teachers instructional practicesand associated outcomes for children. Effective pedagogy is complex and chal-lenging (Ginsburg et al., 2006; Maxwell, Field, & Clifford, 2006), as are interven-tions designed to affect both teachers instruction and childrens learning. Profes-sional development interventions often use a combination of group-focused (e.g.,workshops, access to materials and resources) and individualized (e.g., coaching,mentoring) supports for teachers. Group-focused interventions, such as in-serviceworkshops, have been shown to be an effective format for providing teachers withspecific information related to use of a specific curriculum and instructional ap-proaches in mathematics (Ginsburg et al., 2006) and language and literacy (Justice,Mashburn, Hamre, & Pianta, 2008), although they are less effective in help-ing teachers transfer learning to classroom practices (Wolfe & Snyder, 1997).Modeling specific teaching practices has been found to be effective in promotingteachers use of instructional strategies to support childrens vocabulary and lan-guage development during large-group book reading (Wasik & Bond, 2001; Wasiket al., 2006).

In their recent study, Justice and her colleagues (2008) examined the effective-ness of workshops and Web-based support for promoting teachers use of an evi-dence-based language and literacy curriculum, including effective instructionalstrategies, in state-funded preschools in a single state. Although attendance atworkshops was positively associated with the quality of teachers instruction, theoverall quality of language and literacy instruction remained relatively low, evenafter workshop training. It is interesting that even though teachers exhibited highlevels of fidelity to the language and literacy curriculum on which they receivedtraining, instructional quality in language and literacy was largely if not com-pletely dissociated from fidelity of implementation. In their study of teachers re-sponse to in-service workshops related to early childhood mathematics, Ginsburgand his colleagues (2006) found that although many early childhood teacherslearned the workshop content and improved their instruction substantially, othersstruggled throughout the year to develop even the most basic pedagogy (p. 193).These findings are reminiscent of a report from Neuman (1999), who found that


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Mala

ya] a

t 05:4

4 23 J

uly 20

15

staff in some child care centers never opened boxes of childrens books received aspart of an early literacy intervention for low-income children.

In a review of their professional development language and literacy interven-tion with early childhood teachers, Dickinson and Brady (2006) argued that it isnecessary to provide extensive, individualized, on-site support for teachers if thegoal is to effect major changes in teachers instructional practices. Yet they foundthat some teachers struggled much more than others to understand the conceptsand implement the practices that were the intervention targets. Individualizedcoaching or mentoring with classroom teachers has been proposed as a promisingapproach to professional development (Bowman et al., 2001; Powell & Diamond,2007). By providing teachers with the opportunity to implement new approachesto instruction, along with immediate feedback on their use of specific teachingpractices, coaching or mentoring may be beneficial in effecting changes in targetedinstructional practices for teachers.

Despite what is known about training and coaching, variations exist in the effec-tiveness of professional development interventions for changing teaching prac-tices, even among teachers from similar backgrounds participating in the samein-service intervention. It is critical that we address the question of why profes-sional development interventions lead some teachers to adopt more effective in-structional practices, whereas other teachers, who receive the same amount andtype of supports, seem to change very little. In-service, professional developmenthas become an important tool for improving teaching practices, to the extent thatthe recent reauthorization of Head Start requires all teachers to attend a minimumof 15 clock hours of professional development training. Understanding the ways inwhich a professional development intervention that included workshops and indi-vidualized mentoring led some teachers to change their instructional practices,while others changed little, if at all, is the focus of this article.

METHOD

The Childrens School Success (CSS) project is a 5-year (20032008) multisiteexperimental study investigating the effectiveness of a preschool curriculumfunded by the National Institute on Child Health and Human Development, theU.S. Department of Education, and the U.S. Department of Health and HumanServices (Grant HD046091-01; principal investigators: Odom, Butera, Diamond,Hanson, Horn, Lieber, & Palmer). The goal of the CSS project is to improve the ed-ucational outcomes for young children who are at risk for school failure (Odom etal., 2003). To accomplish this goal, we developed a curriculum for preschool-agechildren based on research about childrens early learning and activities that pro-mote the skills children need to be successful during the early elementary years.Focusing on social competence and early academic content, the CSS curriculum

460 LIEBER ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Mala

ya] a

t 05:4

4 23 J

uly 20

15

provided teachers with a model for promoting early learning. More specifically,the curricular goals in the socialemotional domain targeted skills in emotional lit-eracy, empathy and perspective taking, friendship skills, anger management, inter-personal problem solving, and how to be successful in school. A strong focus wasplaced on the prevention of challenging behavior and prosocial problem-solvingstrategies. In the science domain, concepts related to measurement and mapping,properties of matter, color and light, and neighborhood habitats were taught. Inmath, curricular goals focused on teaching beginning numbers and operations, ge-ometry and spatial sense, measurement, pattern/algebraic thinking, and displayingand analyzing data. Language and early literacy domains included the facilitationof oral language, phonological awareness, and letter/print knowledge. In addition,a component of the curriculum emphasized individualization of the curriculum toaccommodate all learners. This involved assisting teachers in individualizing theirlessons through analyzing class schedules, adapting or modifying curricular mate-rials and activities, and specifically embedding learning goals into classroom ac-tivities and routines.

Participants and SettingsCSS classrooms were located in five distinct geographic sites representing a vari-ety of different regions and populations across the United States: East and WestCoast sites, two sites in the Midwest, and one in the rural eastern part of the coun-try. Once programs at each geographic site agreed to participate in the research,participants were those teachers who either volunteered to implement the CSS cur-riculum or who were chosen by their agencies to participate. Between 2004 and2007, teachers in 45 classrooms (i.e., three classrooms per year per site over a3-year period) implemented CSS. Thirty-three teachers are the focus of this study,using the four-phase approach explained below. The 33 target classrooms includedHead Start (27 classes), and pre-kindergarten programs that were funded by thestate or were community-based (6 classes). Each of the classrooms provided ser-vices to children who were at risk for school failure due to poverty, lack of Englishfluency, or identified disability. Teachers in these classrooms had a range of experi-ence and preparation, including Child Development Associate credentials (8teachers), associates degrees (7 teachers), bachelors degrees (12 teachers), andmasters degrees (6 teachers) in a variety of disciplines. Teachers had taught inthese settings from 1 year to 25 years (M = 10.12 years, SD = 6.80). Table 1 pres-ents descriptive data on teachers characterized as high and low implementers.Class sizes ranged from 11 to 23 students (M = 17.39, SD = 2.97). An average of2.3 (SD = 2.08) students per classroom received special education services (range= 07), and an average of 3.03 children per classroom were English languagelearners (SD = 5.53; range = 020).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Mala

ya] a

t 05:4

4 23 J

uly 20

15

Training in CSSBefore teachers implemented the CSS curriculum, they attended a two-day trainingworkshop conducted by the principal investigators and site supervisors at each site.Classroom assistants and administrative staff also attended. During those two days,we provided a general overview of the project, in-depth training on the CSS curricu-lum, classroom management strategies, and some information on child develop-ment. We used a combination of lecture, discussion, and video examples. Teachersand assistants had the opportunity to develop lesson plans for the first few weeks,and to practice using the puppets that are used in the social skills portion of CSS. Wealso distributed early childhood education resource books, and pertinent articles de-signed for teachers. During the workshop we engaged the teaching staff in discus-sions about their teaching philosophy and previous teaching experiences. An addi-tional day of training was provided later in the school year.

Each of the five sites had a designated site supervisor who visited classrooms atleast weekly to provide coaching, technical assistance, and help with CSS imple-mentation. Site supervisors also modeled lessons and provided feedback to theclassroom staff. For the purposes of this study, we characterized the site supervi-sors as participant observers because they were in classrooms frequently, coachingthe teachers and participating in activities. Observational data provided by partici-pant observers permits a greater understanding of a program or intervention thansimple interviews (Patton, 1990). Having a means of obtaining data close to the ac-tivity, as the site supervisors were able to do, strengthens the qualitative paradigmby minimizing the distance between the sources of data and the researchers (Guba& Lincoln, 1988).

462 LIEBER ET AL.

TABLE 1Description of High and Low Implementers

Degree ofImplementation

Setting TrainingYears of

Experience

Fidelity ofImplementation

Metrica

HeadStart Pre-K CDA AA BA MA M SD Range M SD Range

High (n = 22) 16 6 6 5 7 4 11.27 7.68 125 3.91 0.40 3.164.70

Low (n = 11) 11 0 2 2 5 2 7.82 3.95 111 1.33 0.58 0.281.89

Note. CDA = Child Development Associate; AA = associates degree; BA = bachelors degree; MA =masters degree.

aThe percentage of curriculum completed multiplied by the mean item score on the fidelity of implementa-tion measure.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Mala

ya] a

t 05:4

4 23 J

uly 20

15

CSS ImplementationIn conjunction with the assessment of CSS on child outcomes, we also collecteddata to evaluate the teachers fidelity of implementation of the CSS curriculum. Asa part of the fidelity of implementation, we undertook this grounded theory quali-tative study (Strauss & Corbin, 1990) supplemented by cross-site analysis (Miles& Huberman, 1994) during each classrooms intervention year. In each succeedingyear of the longitudinal study, analysis of case studies for the implementation-yearclassrooms was completed in the manner described below, determining if the pre-vious years themes were of continuing relevance and adding new themes toclearly capture the nature of each years work in classrooms.

Four Phases of AnalysisFor this qualitative study, our research questions were as follows: (a) What fac-

tors are associated with teachers implementation of CSS with a high degree of fi-delity? and (b) What factors are associated with teachers limited implementationof CSS? Our analysis of these questions proceeded through a four-phase process.

Phase 1: Case studies. Case studies were the primary source for data anal-ysis. Data sources for writing case studies included the following: (a) field notestaken during the intervention training and throughout the intervention year; (b)interviews conducted with teachers, classroom assistants, and program adminis-trators concerning implementation of the curriculum and the perceived effects ofusing CSS; (c) documented communication between project personnel and class-room staff, such as e-mail or other written notes; (d) survey information providedby the teachers and classroom staff regarding formal training and previous experi-ence in the classroom; (e) a questionnaire that each teacher completed about therace and ethnicity, gender, and disability or language learning status of the childrenin his or her classroom; (f) an estimate of the percentage of each of the curriculumelements that teachers completed for the year; and (g) fidelity of implementationobservations. The CSS curriculum is divided into two types of lessons (i.e., aca-demic and social skills) delivered on alternating days. The site supervisor com-pleted fidelity of implementation measures for these two types of lessons at sevenequally spaced intervals throughout the intervention year. The academic portion ofthe fidelity measure included ratings of amount and quality of implementation ofscience and math (16 items) and literacy (20 items). The social portion includedamount and quality of 62 items.

In Phase 1, the researchers and site supervisors collaboratively wrote case stud-ies about each classroom after reviewing all interviews, field notes, and additionaldocumentation. Each of the case studies from the five sites was posted to a secureWeb cache for review by every other site. Thus, content was reviewed multiple


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Mala

ya] a

t 05:4

4 23 J

uly 20

15

times, with revisions discussed and made through conference calls or direct com-munication among the research group as a whole.

Phase 2: Generation of themes. Following the first year of CSS interven-tion, the principal investigator and site supervisor at each site used the case studiesfrom the three classrooms to generate initial themes related to the quality of teach-ers implementation of CSS. Study personnel read the case studies multiple timesand noted relevant themes via notes and highlighting of text. These initial thematicelements were shared across all five sites through group conference calls to gener-ate study-wide themes that held relevance for all five sites. During these calls, wediscussed each sites themes, listed them in tabular format, and reached consensusabout themes that were most pertinent across all sites (Miles & Huberman, 1994).Following the discussions, we returned to the raw data to code the consensusthemes for each classroom at our sites, again using paper and pencil rather than asoftware program, since site personnel were very familiar with the texts of the casestudies. Research staff at each site reviewed their data individually to determine ifit confirmed or contradicted those themes. We refined the initial themes duringconference calls during which notes were taken, posted, and reviewed by all partic-ipants to ensure authenticity. Research staff at each site then proposed additionalthemes that emerged from the second review of the cases.

Phase 3: Cross-site analysis. In Phase 3, we conducted a cross-site analy-sis of themes using theme matrices developed at each site. In the matrix, we identi-fied the themes and provided a narrative description of how each of the teachersfrom each of the classrooms mapped onto those themes. In order to organize themultiple classrooms and sites, we established a tabular format for the data orga-nized into thematic chunks both to do a cross-comparison between and among theclassrooms and sites and to characterize each theme for each teacher as either apositive or negative representation of that theme (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Eachclassrooms matrix was examined by the research site personnel. Teachers werecharacterized as high implementers, medium implementers, or low implementersof CSS based on year-long classroom observations by site supervisors, fidelity oftreatment scores, amount of curriculum implemented, and effectiveness and devel-opmental appropriateness of implementation. When all the qualitative data werereviewed, site personnel individually determined the level of each teachers imple-mentation, and any disagreements were handled by discussion until consensus wasreached.

Themes evolved into clusters related to teacher, curriculum, classroom, and ad-ministration and were grouped in this way. Because we were interested in factorsthat were associated with teachers success in implementing CSS, we limited ouranalysis to teachers who were high (n = 22) or low (n = 11) implementers of thecurriculum to answer our research questions.

464 LIEBER ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Mala

ya] a

t 05:4

4 23 J

uly 20

15

Using a strategy for evaluating narrative information from Miles and Huberman(1994), we rated the strength and type of influence of each theme for high and lowimplementers across the sites. Specifically, through review of our data and discus-sion among the research staff, we rated each theme in terms of whether it was posi-tively or negatively associated with implementation, had no influence, or did notapply in a classroom.

Phase 4: Across the years. During subsequent years we reviewed theYear 1 themes to determine if they still applied and to ascertain if additional themesemerged. Year 2 classrooms were organized on a matrix as in Year 1, listing thenew themes and theme content for each class. Teachers were again characterizedas low, medium, or high implementers through examination of the matrix. Onlylow and high implementers were included in subsequent analysis, in the samemanner as for Year 1. The Year 2 themes were then used to reanalyze Year 1 data toensure that the themes were meaningful and valid to use with the entire data set. Atotal of 17 themes were generated across two years, and, following discussionacross sites, we determined that 8 of the themes were the most robust and descrip-tive, since these applied to the cumulative data from both years of analysis. We car-ried out a similar process for Year 3 data, yielding the final listing of 9 themes andcategories, as shown in Table 2.

Validity of Generating Data and Subsequent ThemesInternal validity within qualitative studies is strengthened through the use of in-

tensive observations such as those made by our site supervisors and used to createthe case studies (Creswell, 1994). Convergence among our data sources, cross-siteanalysis, and consistent member checks with the site supervisors to review themesled to the trustworthiness of our data. Furthermore, because the site supervisorswere in the classrooms at least weekly, they had prolonged engagement in the sites,which is an indication of qualitative rigor (McWilliam, 2000).

To provide a check on our judgment of teachers as high or low implementers viacase study descriptions, we compared these qualitative ratings with a fidelity met-ric computed quantitatively for the larger CSS project. The metric used (a) a meanitem score of the seven ratings of the quality of implementation for the sci-ence/math, literacy, and social components of the curriculum; and (b) the percent-age of the curriculum that each teacher completed. The percentage of curriculumcompleted was multiplied by the mean item score on the fidelity measure to pro-vide a cumulative fidelity metric. As a triangulation check, we used this mean fi-delity metric to review how the teachers/classrooms were ranked on a high-to-lowimplementation continuum. The means, standard deviations, and ranges for thehigh and low implementers are shown in Table 1. This quantitative continuum andour qualitative judgment of teachers as high and low implementers was consistent


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Mala

ya] a

t 05:4

4 23 J

uly 20

15

466

TABL

E2

Prim

ary/

Seco

ndar

yTh

emes

Influ

encin

gH

igh

and

Low

Impl

emen

ters

Acro

ssAl

lYears

and

AllS

ites

Deg

ree

of

Impl

emen

tatio

n

Teach

erTh

emes

Curr

icul

umand

Inst

ruct

ion

Them

esBe

yond

the

Teach

erTh

emes

Teach

erCh

aract

eris

tics

Part

ners

hip

inCS

SD

evel

opm

ent

Inte

gratio

nand

Expa

nsio

nof

CSS

Conc

epts

Prev

ious

Curr

icul

umand

Inst

ruct

iona

lAp

proach

Clas

sroom

Man

agem

ent

Adul

tRe

latio

nshi

psAd

min

istra

tive

Issu

esEx

tern

alEv

ents

Coac

hing

Hig

ha14

414

34

30

02

0(n=

22)

32%

9%32

%7%

9%7%

0%0%

5%Lo

wb

90

70

32

01

0(n

=11

)41

%0%

32%

0%14

%9%

0%5%

0%

Note

.CS

S=

Child

ren

sSc

hool

Succ

ess.

a For

each

high

impl

emen

ter,

rese

arch

staf

fsel

ecte

dth

etw

oth

emes

that

had

ast

rong

and

posit

ive

impa

cton

teac

hers

im

plem

enta

tion

ofC

SS,r

esulti

ngin

a

sele

ctio

nof4

4th

emes

(22te

ache

rs

2th

emes

/teac

her).

b For

each

low

impl

emen

ter,

rese

arch

staf

fsel

ecte

dthe

two

them

esth

atha

dast

rong

andn

egat

ive

impa

cton

CSS

impl

emen

tatio

n,re

sulti

ngin

ase

lect

iono

f22

them

es(11

teac

hers

2

them

es/te

ache

r).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Mala

ya] a

t 05:4

4 23 J

uly 20

15

in all cases, providing an additional check on implementation ratings made previ-ously using case study methodology.

RESULTS

The results are organized based on the themes identified through our analysis. Weidentified nine themes that we grouped into three categories: (a) teacher, (b) curric-ulum and instruction, and (c) beyond the teacher. The nine themes and their defini-tions are presented in the Appendix. One of the themes, receptivity to coaching,tied directly to the professional development approach we used. Other themes, al-though not directly impacted by our professional development activities, inter-acted with those efforts for both high and low implementers.

Although we identified nine themes, not all had an equivalent impact on teach-ers implementation of the CSS curriculum. Therefore, at each site research staffidentified two themes that were most associated with CSS implementation for thatteacher. For the high implementers, those themes had a strong and positive impacton the teachers implementation of the curriculum; for the low implementers, thosethemes had a strong and negative impact on CSS implementation. Because therewere 22 high implementers and we identified 2 themes for each teacher, there were44 possibilities (i.e., 22 teachers 2 themes/teacher); for low implementers therewere 22 possibilities (i.e., 11 teachers 2 themes/teacher). As shown in Table 2,for the 22 high implementers, seven themes were most strongly associated with theteachers implementation. Those themes were teacher characteristics, partnershipin CSS implementation, integration and expansion of CSS concepts, previous cur-riculum and instructional approach, classroom management, adult relationships,and coaching. For the 11 low implementers, the most strongly associated themeswere similar and included teacher characteristics, integration and expansion ofCSS concepts, classroom management, adult relationships, and external events. Inthe following sections, examples from field notes are used to illustrate themes forboth high and low implementers.

Teacher Themes

The personal characteristics that teachers brought to their roles as teachers ap-peared to exert an impact on their implementation of the curriculum. These charac-teristics ranged from their beliefs about how children learn to their decisions aboutcooperating with the curriculum protocol. The teacher themes that we identifiedhad the potential to be affected by professional development activities, particularlyfor those teachers who saw themselves as partners in the development of the CSScurriculum.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Mala

ya] a

t 05:4

4 23 J

uly 20

15

Teacher CharacteristicsHigh implementers. Teacher characteristics had a strong positive influence

on CSS implementation for a majority of the high implementers. In fact, for 14 ofthe 22 teachers, their personal attributes and motivation contributed greatly to suc-cessful implementation. Vanessa, for example, relished change and was excited totry the CSS activities. In contrast, Alicia was not positive about CSS initially be-cause she believed it did not allow her sufficient flexibility. By December, how-ever, she began making more positive comments about the curriculum. She said,When I first saw Properties of Matter I thought, Never could my kids get this.But its been really amazing and its a great example of how initial impressions canbe so wrong.

Low implementers. The theme of teacher characteristics had a major yetnegative influence on low implementers CSS implementation. In fact, 9 of the 11teachers had characteristics that appeared to exert a strong and negative influenceon their implementation of CSS. For example, Terri was raised in a counter-cul-ture situation and disdained prescribed activities. She did not embrace being toldhow to teach or being instructed on teaching methods. She was volunteered forparticipation in the project by her administrative unit; although she agreed to par-ticipate, she made it clear she would rather not. She thought the CSS curriculumwas too directive. She also felt that it was too demanding for the children and didnot allow enough creativity. One day while discussing the curriculum she threwback her head and cynically stated, I used to be a teacher; now Im a researcher.

Taliyah also had characteristics that contributed to low CSS implementation.She was often away from her classroom. She left frequently to socialize with otheradults, to smoke a cigarette, or to take a bathroom break that would last up to15 min.

Partnership in CSS DevelopmentHigh implementers. There were four teachers for whom this theme was

positively associated with their implementation of CSS. They were interested bothin the research aspects of the project and in giving feedback to staff about their ex-periences with the curriculum. Kory was a true research partner in the CSS project.She ensured that all the required paperwork for the study was filled out correctlyand returned to the CSS staff, and she made it easy for the CSS staff to come intoher classroom and collect the required data for the study. Kory mentioned severaltimes that she might apply to graduate school and really appreciated this opportu-nity to participate in the study. She said, The only reason I stayed through thisyear was due to the CSS study and the ongoing classroom support I received, aswell as feeling that this research is important. Sandy was also a strong researchpartner. She said, It is important to me that my work in the classroom is valued,

468 LIEBER ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Mala

ya] a

t 05:4

4 23 J

uly 20

15

and I can contribute to evidence for the effectiveness of the CSS curriculum.Sandy showed her interest in CSS through her frequent feedback and suggestionson lessons.

Renaldo was another high implementer whose implementation of CSS was as-sociated with his role as a partner. He often stated that he was happy to be involvedin CSS. He appreciated the weekly assistance in planning activities. Even thoughhis participation put extra demands on his time, he said he was grateful to be able toparticipate, and he related that it was the only time someone has observed me andgiven me positive feedback for my teaching.

Low implementers. No low implementers had this theme as a primary orsecondary influence on their implementation of CSS.

Curriculum and Instruction ThemesThese themes related to the teachers expansion of the concepts that were providedin the curriculum and the integration of those concepts throughout the day. Theyalso related to teachers organization and management of the classroom. In addi-tion, themes related to teachers experience with a curriculum approach that hadstrong academic, as well as social, components. Professional development activi-ties had the potential to affect these themes because they were influenced by teach-ers understanding of the curriculum. We stressed teachers curricular understand-ing throughout the professional development activities.

Integration and Expansion of CSS ConceptsHigh implementers. For 14 of the 22 high implementers, we identified inte-

gration and expansion of CSS concepts as one of the two themes that appearedmost strongly associated with CSS implementation. Those teachers expanded onthe academic and social skills concepts that underlay the curriculum. Furthermore,they integrated those concepts throughout the day, not just during CSS lessons.One teacher, Alicia, did not just implement the lessons; she wove the targeted con-cepts into teaching interactions throughout the day. In January the rule in Aliciasclassroom was that it needed to be at least 40 degrees for the children to play out-side. Alicia helped the children use the thermometer from a previous lesson to re-cord the temperature and determine if that number was more or less than 40 de-grees. The class then used that information to make a decision about outside play.Alicia integrated phonemic awareness into a transition activity, saying, If yourname starts with ____, line up. She also integrated a math concept when she said,I can pick four friends for this activity. Ive already picked two, how many morecan I pick? Other teachers used vocabulary from CSS throughout the day. For in-stance, during a small-group time when children were exploring the effects of air


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Mala

ya] a

t 05:4

4 23 J

uly 20

15

on paper airplanes (a science concept), Barbara had the children launch their air-planes, a term learned in the large-group science lesson.

Other examples of lesson integration throughout the day included the follow-ing. During a large-group lesson on measurement and graphing, Katherine askedthe children to predict which color apple they though would taste best. In prepara-tion, she had written the childrens names on Post-It notes so they could easily reg-ister their vote on a chart. She followed up on their predictions by having themtaste each type of apple, deciding which one they liked best, and determining iftheir prediction was correct. Furthermore, she told the children they were usinggraphs to help them organize information.

Low implementers. For 7 of the 11 low implementers, integration and ex-pansion of CSS concepts was strongly and negatively associated with CSS imple-mentation. Those teachers implemented CSS as a series of non-linked activities.For example, as Diane completed the magic bottle activity in a small-group ac-tivity during the unit on properties of matter, she said, Heres some glitter andsome sparkles. Put them in the bottle and pour in the water. Then lets see whathappens. There was very little language interaction and no questions to spur dis-cussion with the children about whether the glitter sank or floated, even thoughfloating and sinking were the concepts introduced during the large-group sciencelesson.

Previous Curriculum and Instructional ApproachHigh implementers. For three of the high implementers, the similarity be-

tween CSS and their previous curriculum as well as the similarity between thestructured nature of CSS and their comfort with structure were associated withtheir implementation of CSS. For Katherine, using CSS was not a major change. Infact, Katherine was concerned that CSS was not going far enough with some of thecontent areas since learning sight words was not explicitly taught.

Low implementers. This theme was not associated with implementation ofthe CSS curriculum for the low implementers.

Classroom ManagementHigh implementers. For four high implementers, there was an association

between their strong classroom management skills and CSS implementation.Selena implemented CSS very systematically. According to the researcher whowas in the classroom, just as she was thinking, OK, now praise the child forwatching the teacher, Selena did this as if reading the researchers mind. Selenaalso kept her cool when the children acted out and appropriately used conse-

470 LIEBER ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Mala

ya] a

t 05:4

4 23 J

uly 20

15

quences such as praising and ignoring. Through the teachers management style,the children were clearly aware of the rules and goals for the activities.

Low implementers. There were three low implementers who had difficultywith classroom management, and that difficulty affected implementation of theCSS curriculum. Katrina, for example, struggled constantly against the chaos inthe classroom, and she often reinforced inappropriate behavior. She was ill pre-pared, often leaving the large-group activity to gather materials or refer back to thelesson plan. The site supervisor believed that this pattern created a cycle of misbe-havior, leading to interruptions in teaching, which led to more misbehavior. Addi-tionally, when she did teach the lesson, it went on too long, and most children werenot engaged by the lessons end. Katrina gave directions to children but made noattempts to follow through. When the site supervisor and Head Start educationalcoordinator discussed the importance of establishing classroom routines, Katrinatold them that she did not want to be seen as an authority figure but as someone onthe same level as the children. Katrinas approach to classroom management wasevident in the following example:

After the children returned from a walk, Katrina tried to teach a lesson. She becamefrustrated with the children and told them, Its time to take a nap and go to a happyplace. The children spent the next ten minutes lying on the floor and doing nothing.

Beyond the Teacher ThemesThe themes we characterized as beyond the teacher included adult relationshipsin the classroom and other extenuating circumstances related to the program.These issues were generally outside the teachers control. One of the themes, re-ceptivity to coaching, related directly to the ongoing professional developmentthat the teachers received.

Adult RelationshipsHigh implementers. For 3 of the 22 high implementers, the relationships

that they had with either a classroom assistant or a coteacher had a strong and posi-tive impact on implementation of CSS. In one classroom, Martha, the head teacher,was well organized and was most comfortable when she could keep a tight sched-ule in her classroom. At times Martha rather rigidly embedded concepts into activ-ities. Her rigidity was balanced by Carla, her assistant teacher, whose approach toCSS was more intuitive. Furthermore, when Carla was playing the part of Wally (apuppet used to teach social skills and concepts), she often used Wally to ask a ques-tion or used examples from childrens behavior in the classroom to support thelearning objective during the large-group activity.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Mala

ya] a

t 05:4

4 23 J

uly 20

15

Madison had a positive relationship with her co-teacher, Karen, and eachbrought different skills to CSS implementation. Madison was flexible in her ap-proach and Karen exhibited strong skills in organization and structure. Karen sup-ported the scheduling of activities, and Madison brought CSS to life with her out-going and playful personality.

In another classroom, Shirley and her assistant teacher Charisse both showeddeep commitment to their classroom, the children, and the curriculum. For exam-ple, they spent a long weekend setting up the classroom for the childrens first day.Likewise, they interacted positively in the classroom and led large-group activitiestogether. They collectively used positive reinforcement and positive managementstrategies to redirect and re-engage the children. As a team, they also both usedelaboration and descriptive commenting as they worked with children during freeplay. Shirley was appreciative of Charisse as an individual and as a professionalcolleague.

In the classrooms where the adult relationships worked well, the adults func-tioned as partners. They planned together, discussed the curriculum activities, andshared the tasks that kept the classroom well organized and effective. In thoseclassrooms all adults did the teaching, and they planned together to determine whowould take the lead in each activity based on strengths and preferences.

Low implementers. For two of the low implementers, relationships with theother adults in their classroom negatively affected implementation of CSS. In con-trast to the collaboration evident for the high implementers, the relationships in thelow implementation classrooms were a constant source of friction for the teachers.In one classroom there were four adults: a Head Start teacher (Sandra), an earlychildhood special education teacher (Melissa), and two assistants. Melissa had 12years of teaching experience and initially assumed leadership in implementingCSS. However, as the year progressed she failed to participate in planning and didnot read the lesson in advance. She objected to taking a lead teaching role in theclassroom just because Sandra was new. Because Sandra was in her first year inHead Start, she was initially unsure about her role in the classroom and she de-ferred to Melissa, who exploited Sandras lack of assertiveness. Sandra becamemore and more frustrated with Melissa, whom she thought was burned out.Finally, Sandra was the only teacher who implemented CSS activities. Althoughthere were four adults in the classroom, little team work was evident.

In Angels classroom the friction came from sharing a classroom with her col-league, Mallika, who used the classroom in the morning and functioned as theHead Start supervisor for several other classrooms in the afternoon. This arrange-ment produced sparks. Angel complained that Mallika was not organized anddid not do what was needed to make the classroom inviting and appropriate for thechildren. She blamed Mallika for the clutter in the room. An observer entering theroom found childrens artwork and classroom rules posted on Angels side of

472 LIEBER ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Mala

ya] a

t 05:4

4 23 J

uly 20

15

the classroom, and disorganization and little evidence of childrens projects onMallikas side. There was an underlying and simmering dissatisfaction in the rela-tionship between the two teachers that appeared to sap their energy and underminetheir ability to implement CSS.

Administrative IssuesThe relationship of the administration to the classroom did not have a major im-

pact on CSS implementation for either the high or the low implementers.

External EventsThere were no high implementers who were strongly affected by external

events. For one low implementer, external events occurring inside and outside theclassroom (e.g., multiple and inconsistent visitors and volunteers, frequent ab-sences of the assistant) had a strong negative influence on that teachers implemen-tation of CSS.

Receptivity to CoachingHigh implementers. CSS provided implementation teachers with the sup-

port of a coach who participated in their training, helped them in weekly planning,and visited them in their classrooms at least once a week, offering them sugges-tions and resources to assist them in using the CSS curriculum. Coaching was themajor professional development activity that the implementation teachers re-ceived. For 2 of the 22 high implementers, their receptivity to coaching wasstrongly and positive associated with implementation of CSS.

Both Elizabeth and Gail began the year eager to benefit from the coaching pro-vided. Throughout the year they took the suggestions and advice of their coachvery seriously and made conscious and consistent efforts to use the suggestions of-fered. They also actively sought her advice.

One of the most powerful ways coaching supported CSS implementation inElizabeths and Gails classrooms occurred during the planning sessions. Eliza-beth explained that the planning sessions kept me aware of two weeks ahead.Those sessions provided another important benefit. The site supervisor asked theteachers what went especially well that week and what was problematic, validatingthe teachers knowledge and giving them the opportunity to share ideas. Gail ap-preciated the site supervisors style and said, I learned so much from her. Gailsaid that the site supervisor would do a thumbs up. She doesnt make you feelbad. Both Elizabeth and Gail noted that the site supervisor took note of their at-tempts to implement CSS and praised them for their efforts. Elizabeth said that sheloved the site supervisors attention and the praise. We never get enough of that. Ithelps! Similarly, when Gail told the site supervisor early in the year how poorly


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Mala

ya] a

t 05:4

4 23 J

uly 20

15

she thought she had been teaching, the site supervisor turned it around and toldGail how impressed I was with how she introduced the unit and had all the materi-als ready. It appeared to be, however, the quality of the site supervisors personalrelationship with the teachers that contributed to her success in coaching them. Theteachers liked the site supervisor, and she liked them in return. The teachers appre-ciated her efforts on their behalf, and they often confided in her about life eventsthat sometimes interfered with their teaching. Overall, the sympathetic ear that thesite supervisor provided along with her gentle guidance seemed to support theseteachers success in implementing CSS.

Low implementers. There were no low implementers who were stronglyaffected by their receptivity to coaching.

DISCUSSION

The findings from our study of the implementation of the CSS curriculum supportthe findings of earlier research (Early et al., 2007; Ginsburg et al., 2006; Maxwellet al., 2006; Tout et al., 2006). Supporting change in the teaching practices of thosewho teach young children at risk for school difficulties is a challenging undertak-ing.

In this study a wide range of teachers, models, and classrooms was represented.Teachers varied in educational background from those with associates degreesand a few units in early childhood education to those with masters degrees. Like-wise, their levels of prior teaching experience ranged from essentially new teach-ers to those with decades of experience working in early childhood education set-tings such as Head Start. Like the research conducted by Early and her colleagues(2007), we did not find that teachersdegrees or length of teaching experience nec-essarily predicted whether they would be strong curriculum implementers or not.

Instead, we are impressed with the influence that individual teacher characteris-tics appeared to have on the degree to which they were strong implementers ofCSS. The teachers who were classified as high implementers typically indicatedthat they were eager to learn new strategies and that they were likely to seek addi-tional training opportunities. These teachers were pleased to have the individual-ized attention of a coach, and they were eager to have a role in a research projectaimed at facilitating childrens development. This group could be generally char-acterized as motivated, responsible and organized, and open to new learningopportunities.

For the low implementers, however, despite our best efforts to provide informa-tion and motivate teachers to implement the curriculum, they did not do so. In mostcases, teachers remained friendly to project staff and were eager to interact withthe project coaches even when they minimally implemented the activities. Some

474 LIEBER ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Mala

ya] a

t 05:4

4 23 J

uly 20

15

teachers appeared to have little motivation to prepare lessons in advance. For oth-ers, the CSS approach was antithetical to the ways in which they had been trainedor to their own personal philosophies of child learning and development. Althoughour research did not directly attempt to modify these personal dispositions, wefound them relatively resistant to change for this group of individuals. Given thecentral role teachers play in improving educational outcomes for young children atrisk for school difficulties, our findings highlight challenges for those who viewprofessional development as the only or most crucial factor in the process. Perhapsfor these teachers, adding a component to the training and coaching such as Com-munities of Practice might have been useful (Wesley & Buysse, 2001).

On the other hand, our study identified factors that were consistently associatedwith high implementation of CSS, and it is encouraging that these may be moreamenable to change through professional development. For example, the theme ofintegration and expansion of CSS concepts described whether the teacher under-stood the CSS curriculum as it was written, could use that as a starting point to helpchildren understand the underlying concepts, and was able to integrate those con-cepts and strategies throughout the school day. Teachers who were identified asstrong in this area often expanded the lessons and used additional strategies and ex-amples to ensure that children learned curricular concepts. It may be that theseteachers understood the conceptual framework better than others, perhaps becausethe training was a better fit with their own approach to teaching. Of course wehave no way of knowing how CSS training influenced these teachers; however,these data suggest that this professional development was important. TeachersAlicia and Barbara, for example, showed clear evidence that they understood thegoals of the curriculum thoroughly when they embedded curriculum contentacross various daily activities, seizing the opportunity to engage children in activi-ties to help them understand the meaning of activities (in Alicias case) or words(in Barbaras). Thus, although teacher education per se may be unrelated to thequality of instruction, a teachers ability to conceptualize the relationships betweencurriculum content and childrens learning is important and appears likely to beenhanced by high-quality professional development.

Given the breadth of CSS curricular goals, it is evident that this curriculum wasnot simple to implement but rather required extensive training and support forteachers as they prepared and conducted lessons and activities. Throughout the im-plementation process, teachers were strongly encouraged to adapt materials andstrategies to their own circumstances, as long as those strategies honored the pri-mary goals and concepts of the CSS curriculum. Thus, implementing the curricu-lum demanded active teacher engagement and preparation as they read ahead,gathered and organized materials, and became familiar with objectives and lessonplans. For this reason, goals, materials, and activities were more highly prescribedthan may be found in many early childhood curricula, and this may in turn haveinfluenced teachers sense of autonomy. Under such circumstances, teachers will-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Mala

ya] a

t 05:4

4 23 J

uly 20

15

ingness and interest in participating as a CSS partner in the research project ap-peared likely to counteract the possible negative effects of loss of teacher auton-omy associated with CSS implementation. High implementers relished the amountof interaction they had to reflect on and discuss their teaching with others throughthe CSS project. To a large degree the extent to which teachers perceived that theyhad exercised choice in participating in CSS and that their own expertise and pref-erences were acknowledged appeared to influence the degree to which they viewedthemselves as partners in the implementation process. This may have implicationsfor the role of teachers in designing professional development.

Several themes that were quite evident in low implementation classrooms butalso appeared to be related to high implementation are also important to note, par-ticularly classroom management skills and adult relationships. Positive evidenceof strengths in these areas appeared to facilitate implementation, whereas weak-nesses in these domains exercised a negative impact on implementation. In low im-plementation classes, chaotic situations were often witnessed, with children dash-ing around the rooms, sometimes engaging in negative interactions with oneanother, and not necessarily engaged with materials or activities in a positive man-ner. This was in sharp contrast to the high implementation classrooms, in whichchildren had clear expectations for their behavior and for their use of materials.Those classes were more calm and orderly, and children were able to regulate theirbehavior better and engage in prosocial interactions. Adult-to-adult relationships,such as the relationship between the head teacher and assistant teacher, also ap-peared to exert a major influence in some cases, both favorably and negatively.Teachers respect for one another and collaborative relationships were associatedwith high implementation. The opposite experience was associated with low im-plementation. Under such circumstances, the lack of a collegial environment forboth the children and adults in the classroom made it difficult for teachers to ad-dress issues of safety, and they struggled to maintain their composure at times,making change in curriculum unlikely. These findings resonate with those of oth-ers and suggest that we have much to learn about how to provide teachers with ade-quate training and support so that they are able to promote childrens active in-volvement in learning (Hamre & Pianta, 2005; Phillips et al., 2000).

Finally, our study supports the findings of other researchers regarding the prom-ise of coaching or mentoring as a professional development strategy (Bowman etal., 2001; Powell & Diamond, 2007). In a number of instances the coaching pro-cess appeared to be a primary influence for high implementation either directly orindirectly. When this occurred, teachers indicated that they appreciated the rela-tionship with their coach and valued the coachs tips for planning, preparation, andimplementation. It was apparent that some of the systems in which teachersworked were so large or so distant from central offices that many teachers receivedlittle one-to-one feedback about their teaching from their regular supervisors.Therefore, those teachers experienced the CSS site supervisors (coaches) as sup-

476 LIEBER ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Mala

ya] a

t 05:4

4 23 J

uly 20

15

ports to help them improve their teaching and meet instructional goals. In ourstudy, the site supervisors who served as coaches no doubt varied in how they inter-acted with the individual teachers, and we encouraged them to do so to respond tothe individual needs of various teachers. However, in many cases, the personal sup-portive relationship coaches assumed with teachers appeared to contribute sub-stantially to teachers willingness to attempt change. In many ways this teachercoach relationship seems reflective of the very role we asked teachers to assumewith children. We believe it will be critical for future research to help us to under-stand how the relationship between teachers and coaches functions as support dur-ing professional development.

In conclusion, despite intensive training and individualized weekly support,high quality of implementation was elusive in many CSS classrooms. Some teach-ers readily embraced the curriculum and associated strategies and made fruitful at-tempts to implement all aspects. On the other hand, other teachers appeared to beminimally engaged and made substantially fewer efforts to deliver this curricularapproach. To be sure, curricular implementation proved to be far more challengingthan we had anticipated. Thus, we endeavored to understand those factors or char-acteristics of teachers, classrooms, and/or organizations that facilitated or servedas barriers to the implementation of this curriculum.

All in all, a complex array of factors determined our success in implementingthis curriculum. These factors appeared to be mostly related to teacher variablesrather than to geographic or program model/organization differences. As is thecase with most early childhood education teachers, teachers were working in rela-tively low-paying situations, some had challenging relationships with their fellowteachers and assistants, many had additional responsibilities (such as supervisionin the case of head teachers), and they may or may not have received the institu-tional support that they desired in terms of feedback and support or physical mate-rials. Despite challenges in their work situations, many teachers reveled in the op-portunity to learn new information, and they appreciated the additional supportthat was offered through this research project. These high implementers embracedthe process and made a commitment to implementing the curriculum to the best oftheir abilities. However, not surprisingly, behavior change was difficult. For thoseteachers who were observed to be low implementers, even extensive support didnot overcome their reservations, expectations, or motivation. These teachers, as doall learners, brought to a new learning situation their own backgrounds, experi-ence, knowledge, and biases. Our experience was that it was extremely challeng-ing to modify teacher expectations, values and beliefs, work style, and motivation.

Our work demonstrates that one cannot assume that a few days of in-servicetraining or necessarily even individualized weekly feedback and support will bewell received or that it will exert an impact on teacher behavior. As other research-ers have noted, identifying professional development interventions associated witheffective changes in teachers instructional practices is difficult but much needed


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Mala

ya] a

t 05:4

4 23 J

uly 20

15

(e.g., Dickinson & Brady, 2006; Justice et al., 2008). It is our hope that this studysheds light on the complex set of factors that influence teachers abilities and moti-vation to implement effective curricula for young children. Our intent also is tohighlight the need for a fuller discussion of strategies to motivate and supportteachers, particularly given the wide range of backgrounds and types of work situa-tions found in early childhood education.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was supported by National Institutes on Child Health and HumanDevelopment, the U.S. Department of Education, and the U.S. Department ofHealth and Human Services (#HD046091-01). We would like to thank additionalresearch staff members who participated in this research: Mariella Ceja, Shana Co-hen, and Ruth Schneider.

REFERENCES

Barnett, W. S., Hustedt, J. T., Robin, K. B., & Schulman, K. L. (2005). The state of preschool: 2005state preschool yearbook. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research.

Biemiller, A., & Boote, C. (2006). An effective method for building meaning vocabulary in primarygrades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 4462.

Bowman, B. T., Donovan, M. S., & Burns, M. S. (2001). Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Campbell, F. A., Pungello, E. P., Miller-Johnson, S., Burchinal, M., & Ramey, C. T. (2001). The devel-opment of cognitive and academic abilities: Growth curves from an early childhood educational ex-periment. Developmental Psychology, 37, 231242.

Creswell, J. W. (1994). Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Newbury Park, CA:Sage.

Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading ex-perience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33, 934945.

Denton, K., & West, J. (2002). Childrens reading and mathematics achievement in kindergarten andfirst grade. Education Statistics Quarterly, 4(1), 1926.

Dickinson, D. K. (2002). Shifting images of developmentally appropriate practices as seen through dif-ferent lenses. Educational Researcher, 31, 2632.

Dickinson, D. K., & Brady, J. P. (2006). Toward effective support for language and literacy through pro-fessional development. In M. Zaslow & I. Martinez-Beck (Eds.), Critical issues in early childhoodprofessional development (pp. 141170). Baltimore: Brookes.

Early, D. M., Maxwell, K. L., Burchinal, M., Alva, S., Bender, R. H., Bryant, D., et al. (2007). Teacherseducation, classroom quality, and young childrens academic skills: Results from seven studies ofpreschool programs. Child Development, 78, 558580.

Ginsburg, H. P., Kaplan, R. G., Cannon, J., Cordero, M. I., Eisenband, J. G., Galanter, M., et al. (2006).Helping early childhood educators to teach mathematics. In M. Zaslow & I. Martinez-Beck (Eds.),Critical issues in early childhood professional development (pp. 171202). Baltimore: Brookes.

478 LIEBER ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Mala

ya] a

t 05:4

4 23 J

uly 20

15

GovTrack.us. (2007). H.R. 1429110th Congress. Head Start for School Readiness Act. Retrieved No-vember 16, 2007 from www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1429&tab=summary

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. (1988). Do inquiry paradigms imply inquiry methodologies? In D. M.Fetterman (Ed.), Qualitative approached to evaluation in education (pp. 89115). New York:Praeger.

Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2005). Can instructional and emotional support in the first-grade class-room make a difference for children at risk of school failure? Child Development, 76, 949967.

Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Pianta, R., Bryant, D., Early, D., Clifford, R., et al. (2008). Ready to learn?Childrens pre-academic achievement in pre-kindergarten programs. Early Childhood ResearchQuarterly, 23, 2750.

Justice, L. M., Mashburn, A., Hamre, B., & Pianta, R. (2008). Quality of language and literacy in-struction in preschool classrooms serving at-risk pupils. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23,5168.

LoCasale-Crouch, J., Konold, T., Pianta, R., Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Bryant, D., et al. (2007). Ob-served classroom quality profiles in state-funded pre-kindergarten programs and associations withteacher, program, and classroom characteristics. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22, 317.

Lonigan, C. J., & Whitehurst, G. J. (1998). Relative efficacy of parent and teacher involvement in ashared-reading intervention for preschool children from low-income backgrounds. Early ChildhoodResearch Quarterly, 13, 263290.

Maxwell, K. D., Field, C. C., & Clifford, R. M. (2006). Defining and measuring professional develop-ment in early childhood research. In M. Zaslow & I. Martinez-Beck (Eds.), Critical issues in earlychildhood professional development (pp. 2148). Baltimore: Brookes.

McWilliam, R. A. (2000). Reporting qualitative studies. Journal of Early Intervention, 23, 7780.Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA:

Sage.National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network &

Duncan, G. J. (2003). Modeling the impacts of child care quality on childrens preschool cognitivedevelopment. Child Development, 74, 14541475.

Neuman, S. B. (1999). Books make a difference: A study of access to literacy. Reading Research Quar-terly, 34, 286311.

Odom, S. L., Butera, G., Diamond, K., Hanson, M., Horn, E., Lieber, J., Palmer, S. (2003). Childrensschool success: An experimental study of a school readiness curriculum. Bloomington, IN: IndianaUniversity.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA:Sage.

Phillips, D., Mekos, D., Scarr, S., McCartney, K., & Abbott-Shim, M. (2000). Within and beyond theclassroom door: Assessing quality in child care centers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15,475496.

Powell, D. R., & Diamond, K. E. (2007, March). Improving at-risk preschool childrens language andliteracy outcomes through teacher interventions. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Soci-ety for Research in Child Development, Boston, MA.

Powell, D. R., Diamond, K. E., Bojczyk, K., & Gerde, H. (2008). Head Start teachers perspectives onearly literacy. Journal of Literacy Research, 40, 422460.

Reynolds, A. J., Temple, J. A., Robertson, D. L., & Mann, E. A. (2002). Age 21 cost-benefit analysis ofthe Title I Chicago child-parent centers. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 267303.

Saluja, G., Early, D. M., & Clifford, R. M. (2002). Demographic characteristics of early childhoodteachers and structural elements of early care and education in the United States. Early ChildhoodResearch and Practice, 4(1). Retrieved September 24, 2007 from http://uiuc.edu/v4n1/saluja.html

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and tech-niques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Mala

ya] a

t 05:4

4 23 J

uly 20

15

Tout, K., Zaslow, M., & Berry, D. (2006). Quality and qualifications: Links between professional devel-opment and quality in early care and education settings. In M. Zaslow & I. Martinez-Beck (Eds.),Critical issues in early childhood professional development (pp. 77110). Baltimore: Brookes.

Wasik, B. A., & Bond, M. A. (2001). Beyond the pages of a book: Interactive book reading and lan-guage development in preschool. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 243250.

Wasik, B. A., Bond, M. A., & Hindman, A. (2006). The effects of a language and literacy interventionon Head Start children and teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 6374.

Wesley, P. W., & Buysse, V. (2001). Communities of practice: Expanding professional roles to promotereflection and shared inquiry. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 21(2), 114123.

West, J., Denton, K., & Reaney, L. (2000). The kindergarten year: Findings from the Early ChildhoodLongitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-99. Washington, DC: National Center for EducationStatistics.

Whitehurst, G. J., Arnold, D. S., Epstein, J. N., Angell, A. L., Smith, M., & Fischel, J. E. (1994). A pic-ture book reading intervention in day care and home for children from low-income families. Devel-opmental Psychology, 30, 679689.

Wolfe, B. L., & Snyder, P. (1997). Follow-up strategies: Ensuring that instruction makes a difference. InP. J. Winton, J. A. McCollum, & C. Cattlet (Eds.), Reforming personnel preparation in early inter-vention: Issues, models, and practical strategies (pp. 173190). Baltimore: Brookes.

APPENDIXTHEME DEFINITIONS

TEACHER THEMES

Teacher CharacteristicsPersonal attributes the teacher brought to Chil-drens School Success (CSS) implementation. This theme encompasses issues re-lated to the teachers enthusiasm (or lack of it) and willingness to implement CSS.

Partnership in CSS DevelopmentThe key issue here relates to interest inbeing a research partner. These issues include the following: Because this is a re-search study, each participant needed to be a voluntary participant. Given that, howwilling/excited was the teacher about participating in CSS from a research per-spective? Did the teacher provide feedback to the site supervisor about CSS?

CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION THEMES

Previous Curriculum and Instructional ApproachThis theme encom-passes the curriculum that the teacher used before using CSS and how structuredthe teacher was in presenting instruction before CSS. It includes teachers percep-tions of what was done in the past. These issues include the following: How similarwas the curriculum that the teachers used previous to CSS? CSS provides a lot ofstructure with regard to lesson implementation. There is a daily large-group lessonduring which teachers teach either a science lesson or a Dina lesson. There are alsosmall-group lessons each day. Those lessons may be science or Dina or math. CSS

480 LIEBER ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Mala

ya] a

t 05:4

4 23 J

uly 20

15

also includes a book-reading activity, a letter knowledge activity, and a phonemicawareness activity each day. How structured was the teacher in the past?

Classroom ManagementThis theme encompasses both managing individ-ual children and managing classroom routines. These issues include the following:How adept was the teacher engaging the children in learning? Was the teacherskillful in managing childrens behavior? Did the teacher have materials preparedin advance? Was the teacher generally prepared so that children did not spend timewaiting for the next activity? Did the teacher have a good strategy for transitionsbetween activities?

Integration and Expansion of CSS ConceptsDid the teacher demonstratean understanding of the concepts underlying a particular lesson? Did the teacherextend lessons throughout the day? Did the teacher integrate CSS throughout theday so was there evidence of CSS during activities like meal time, center time, out-side time?

BEYOND THE TEACHER THEMES

Adult RelationshipsHow did the adults work together in the classroom? Didthose relationships have an effect on CSS implementation?

Administrative Issues/Interface of Administration With ClassroomThistheme encompasses issues surrounding program administration and administra-tors relationship with the teacher. These issues include the following: Did the ad-ministration make requirements that affected teachers ability to implement CSS?Did attitudes of middle-level administrators toward CSS (e.g., lack of buy in) af-fect implementation? How did the teacher feel about the administration? Did posi-tive or negative feelings about the administration affect teachers implementationof CSS?

External EventsThis theme encompasses events that happen in the class-room or in the lives of the teachers that affect CSS implementation. They could beclassroom events or life events. These issues include the following: Were thereevents that occurred to the staff members in the classroom or in the program thatimpacted CSS implementation? Did teachers have additional responsibilities orroles other than being classroom teachers that affected their ability to implementCSS? Were there events that happened to teachers outside the classroom and wereunrelated to the program that affected teachers ability to implement CSS?

Receptivity to CoachingEach teacher was provided with a coach who waspart of the CSS research team. The role of the coach was to meet with the teacheron a weekly basis to train the teacher in CSS, help with lesson planning, help orga-nize materials, and provide feedback on CSS lessons. How receptive was theteacher to the coaching? Did the teacher work with the coach as a partner in imple-menting CSS?


Dow

nloa

ded

by [U

nivers

ity of

Mala

ya] a

t 05:4

4 23 J

uly 20

15

10409280802506166

Documents