teacher-child interactions, time use in the day, and ... · teacher-child interactions, time use in...

Teacher-Child Interactions, Time Use in the Day,

and Effective Curriculum

In 2012, the Early Childhood Center initiated a study to investigate how early education

programs in Indiana were doing. We were interested in learning:

1. How well our classrooms performed in relation to other states,

2. How well our practices aligned with current research evidence documenting effective

early education, and

3. How well different programs in our state compared to one another.

These articles highlight three of the major findings of our research.

Conn-Powers, M. (2013). Teacher-Child Interactions That Make a Difference.

Cross, A. F. (2013). Which Curriculum Should We Use? How Should We Choose?

Dixon, S. D. (2013). How Children Spend Their Time In Preschool: Implications For

Our Practice.

Let’s cut to the chase. Our data suggest that teaching practices

in Indiana’s early care and education programs, on average, are not likely to bring about signifi cant educational outcomes for children at risk for school failure. And our state is not alone. Pianta, Barnett, Burchinal, and Thornburg (2009) found that the “nonsystem that is preschool in the United States narrows the achievement gap by perhaps only 5% rather than the 30% to 50% that research suggests might be possible… if we had high-quality programs (p. 50).”

We recently completed our study, Assessing Indiana’s Early Education Classrooms (Conn-Powers, Cross, & Dixon, 2013), in which we observed and evaluated the quality of teachers’ interactions with children. In this brief, we explore our results and suggest strategies for improvement that will help programs better align their practices with evidence-based teaching strategies.

Indiana's University Center for Excellencein Developmental Disabilities

Research, Education, and Service

TEACHER-CHILD INTERACTIONS THAT MAKE A DIFFERENCE

EARLY CHILDHOOD CENTER

Michael Conn-Powers

Other Briefs in this Series...

• Assessing Indiana’s Early Education Classroom - Final Report

• How Children Spend Their Time in Preschool: Implications for Our Practice

• Which Curriculum Should We Use? How Do We Choose?

Early Childhood Center studyWe know that high-quality early

education represents one of the best investments that society can make for promoting successful educational outcomes for all children and particularly for children who are at risk (Heckman & Masterov, 2007). Early education, if it is done well, can signifi cantly erase or minimize the achievement gaps that exist for many of our children (Barnett, 2011; Camilli, Vargas, Ryan, & Barnett, 2010; Pianta, Barnett, Burchinal, & Thornburg, 2009). The evidence is so overwhelming that 39 states have elected to provide publicly funded prekindergarten for their preschoolers (Barnett, Carolan, Fitzgerald, & Squires, 2011). The most recent report published by the National Institute for Early Education Research, The State of Preschool 2011, estimates that these states provided prekindergarten services to 28% of all 4 year-olds in this country (Barnett et al., 2011). Unfortunately, Indiana is not one of those states. In the absence of funding and state leadership, Indiana preschoolers have to rely on a patchwork system of services that falls short of the capacity to serve children who need these services most (Indiana Education Roundtable, 2012; Spradlin, Conn-Powers, & Wodicka, 2013).

In 2012, we initiated a study to investigate how early education programs in Indiana were doing.

We were interested in learning how well our classrooms performed in relation to other states, how well our practices aligned with current research evidence documenting eơ ective early education, and how well diơ erent programs in our state compared with one another. We sent out invitations to all Head Start programs, licensed child care centers, and public school preschools in the state. We observed and recorded on video 81 classrooms that were geographically and socioeconomically representative: of these classrooms, 28 were in licensed child care centers, 27 were Head Start classrooms, and 26 were public school classrooms. We recorded only in-class, morning activities and analyzed each observation using two tools: the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) (Pianta, LaParo, & Hamre, 2008); and the Emerging Academic Snapshot (EAS) (Ritchie, Howes, Kraft-Sayre, & Weiser, 2002).

The CLASS focuses on three broad domains of eơ ective teacher-child interactions that characterize children’s classroom experiences: Emotional Support, Organizational Support, and Instructional Support. Emotional Support captures how teachers help children develop positive relationships, enjoyment in learning, comfort in the classroom, and appropriate levels of independence.

Classroom Organization focuses on how well teachers manage the classroom to maximize learning and keep children engaged. The Instructional Support domain examines how teachers promote children’s thinking and problem solving, use feedback to deepen understanding, and help children develop more complex language skills.

The second tool, the EAS, measures the types and frequency of activities and instruction to which children are exposed. The types of activities recorded include common preschool activities such as free choice time, whole group time, basic routines, small group instruction, individual work time, and meal/snack times. It also measures children’s exposure to various curricular areas including aesthetics (art, music, dance), literacy/language, math, science, and social studies. Some teacher actions (instruction) are also included.

What we observed

Figure 1 provides a summary of the average CLASS scores by domain and includes data from our study and from a study of Tulsa, Oklahoma, prekindergarten classrooms (Phillips, Gormley, & Lowenstein, 2009). Indiana programs do as well if not better on two of the three composite measures of the CLASS: Emotional Support (M=5.89) and Classroom Organization (M=5.36). For the Emotional Support domain, Indiana classrooms performed signifi cantly better than Tulsa classrooms. Where we do not do as well is the quality of our Instructional Support interactions. In that domain, our average scores drop from the middle-high levels to the low levels (M=2.47). Tulsa classrooms scored signifi cantly higher than Indiana classrooms in this CLASS domain. High-quality Instructional Support interactions include eliciting, scaơ olding, and expanding on children’s critical thinking and advanced language skills. Critical thinking skills, such as children answering why and how questions, enable them to explain their reasoning, generate or create ideas and products, and make connections between what they learn at school with what they are learning and doing at home.

The types of interactions that support critical thinking skills require teachers to engage in elaborate conversations with children that go deeper than merely reciting rote facts. Burchinal and her colleagues (2008; 2010) have found that only classrooms with higher levels of Instructional Support interactions (a minimum of 3.0) produce signifi cant gains in academic achievement.

5.89

5.36

2.47

5.234.96

3.21

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Emotional Support(composite)

Classroom organization(composite)

Instructional support(composite)

Indiana

Tulsa

Figure 1. CLASS scores by study

So what does a typical lesson look like and how does it compare with classrooms that score in the mid to high levels of the Instructional Support domain? Let’s take circle/whole group time as an example. During this time the teachers we observed covered several topics and skill areas including calendar, weather, attendance, book reading, and possibly a song or two. In our example, we will focus on weather and the underlying science concepts teachers typically address.

During circle time, the teacher may begin by asking the question, “What’s the weather like today?” and ask a child who is the weather helper to go to the window to observe what it is like outside. Then the child may report that it is sunny (or cloudy), indicate if it is raining (or snowing), and then, when prompted, note if it is cold (or warm) outside.

The teacher may also show pictures representing possible weather scenarios for the child to choose from and place on the weather chart or calendar. The teacher provides support (hints, models, encouragement), if needed, to help the child(ren) arrive at the correct answers.

Then, in less than one minute, the teacher is fi nished with covering weather and moves on to the next topic.

Tapping critical thinking skills

In this lesson, the teacher is helping children learn basic vocabulary skills to describe current weather conditions.

Learning new vocabulary (sunny, cloudy, temperature) is an important fi rst step in building children’s knowledge of science concepts. The problem is ending the lesson there and limiting learning to the rote acquisition of these initial skills. Classrooms that implement high levels of instructional support strategies, which support greater academic achievement among children in later years, ( I would leave the previous phrase in) help children transfer and apply these emerging concepts in ways that tap important critical thinking skills. These critical thinking skills include the capacity to compare and contrast objects or events, note similarities and diơ erences, and even discern trends and patterns. They include the ability to apply this new knowledge in creative ways to brainstorm and produce new ideas and products, such as stories or art projects. They enable children to make connections between what they learn at circle time with what they are learning and doing during other times of the preschool day or at home.

Such connections help children generalize and apply their knowledge in functional ways (i.e., deeper conceptual understanding), such as recognizing what to wear before going outside or discerning how changes in the weather are associated with changes in the seasons and how that aơ ects the types of activities they engage in.

Let’s look at another classroom and how that teacher expands on the topic of weather to build critical thinking skills. This teacher has been helping her class chart the weather from month to month, noting the number of days it was cold (or warm), the amount and types of precipitation, the types of clothes the children were wearing when they went out to play, and the types of activities they could do. This week the weather forecast is predicting warmer days and the arrival of spring. The teacher’s goal for the week is for children to compare and contrast changes in the weather, connect these changes with the concept of seasons, discuss implications (e.g., changes in what they will wear to go outside, what types of activities they can do), and make predictions concerning future changes in the weather—all critical thinking skills.

At circle time, after the weather helper has reported on the day’s weather conditions, the teacher says, “I noticed that many of you were not wearing boots and winter coats and hats and mittens when you came to school today,” and then pauses to allow children to share what they wore and their own observations. Then the teacher holds up the weather chart the class has been keeping and asks, “Last month we had to wear those clothes and even the month before that. Why are we wearing diơ erent clothes to go outside today?” The teacher then pauses for children to analyze the information put before them and formulate their response. Some children make guesses—some wrong and some almost right—and the teacher nods and acknowledges everyone’s guess or hypothesis.

One child states that it is what her mommy gave her to wear today and the teacher replies, “Why do you think your mom gave you this light jacket instead of a very warm winter coat?” to encourage children to think a little harder. Another child may say that those clothes are too hot, and the teacher points to the chart showing January data and says, “Those clothes weren’t too hot in January. Why are they too hot in April?” The teacher takes her time, asking questions and pointing to relevant clues to support children’s analyses.

In this lesson, getting the right answer is less important than encouraging children to use higher order thinking skills to compare and contrast outdoor clothing and determine the reasons for the changes. The teacher reinforces children’s attempts in order to encourage their engagement and persistence and poses additional questions that ask children to explain their thinking. If the children are struggling to explain why they are wearing diơ erent outdoor clothes, the teacher may provide additional information—for example, by pointing to the weather graph and asking them what the temperatures were like in previous months—to scaơ old children’s eơ orts. As children begin to fi gure it out (e.g., “It’s warmer outside. We don’t need winter clothes.”), the teacher can point to the weather chart and state that the weather is changing to acknowledge and expand on the children’s thinking: “Look at the temperatures. Are they going up or are they going down?” Moreover, as children share that they are going up, the teacher acknowledges and asks, “When the temperatures go up, does that mean it’s colder or warmer outside?” The teacher may also ask if there are changes in the type of “precipitation” to reinforce her children’s deeper understanding of weather and the changes associated with seasons.

What makes this lesson diơ erent?

First, the teacher has established clear goals of what she wants her children to learn and do.

Plus, these goals focus on more advanced skills—skills that involve a greater conceptual understanding and application of the weather concepts. She has spent time preparing her materials (weather graph/chart) and determining the types of questions and feedback she will give to elicit and support children’s responses. She begins the lesson with an Advance Organizer (“I noticed that many of you were not wearing boots…today.”) to focus the children’s attention to the topic of her lesson. She follows those opening statements up with a question to launch her lesson and elicit the target skills: “Why are we wearing diơ erent clothes to go outside?”

From that point on, the teacher’s interactions with her students resemble a long discussion or conversation. Children respond to the initial question with their guesses and the teacher responds in a way that supports and scaơ olds their attempts. The children, in turn, respond with their next round of hypotheses shaped by their increased understanding. The teacher follows this by oơ ering feedback that reinforces and expands on their responses. This back-and-forth exchange—repeating and extending children’s responses as they get closer to answering the opening question—supports children’s thinking. As children answer the question, the teacher may ask them to explain their thinking. The teacher may also bring in other experiences the class has had to help strengthen children’s connections with the weather concepts. For example, she might ask about outside activities they do during the weekend, helping them connect to any changes in activities that are due to the changes in seasons and weather. She may also follow the discussion at circle time with a math center activity where the children create graphs charting changes in the weather. Alternatively, an art activity to illustrate diơ erent activities associated with diơ erent seasons might be planned for later in the day. Finally, because this interaction takes the shape of an instructional conversation, the teacher focuses on expanding children’s oral language skills, occasionally introducing and explaining new, advanced vocabulary (e.g., precipitation).

TEACHER-CHILD INTERACTIONS THAT MAKE A DIFFERENCE Author: Michael Conn-Powers

© 2013 Indiana Institute on Disability and Community, Indiana University (www.iidc.indiana.edu)

This document was developed and disseminated by the Early Childhood Center (ECC). Its mission is to advance early education practices that welcome, include, and bring about successful school readiness practices for all children.

The Early Childhood Center is one of seven centers located at the Indiana Institute on Disability and Community at Indiana University, Bloomington. The work of the Indiana Institute encompasses the entire life span, from birth through older adulthood.

This document was produced with support from Indiana University, Bloomington. The information presented herein does not necessarily refl ect the position or policy of Indiana University, and no oƥ cial endorsement should be inferred.

These conversations can continue oơ and on throughout the day.

IMPLICATIONS

Research suggests that unless early education classrooms improve the quality of teachers’ instructional interactions with children, many children, particularly children who are at risk, will not make necessary gains. Teachers can improve their interactions and teaching practices by increasing their engagement with children throughout the day. This way, they expand their instructional goals to go beyond the rote acquisition of common skills and concepts. Lessons that target critical thinking skills, such as problem solving, classifi cation, brainstorming, and applying recently learned concepts across new contexts are an important fi rst step. With clear goals in mind, teachers introduce the lesson by asking questions that elicit sophisticated challenges for children to address.

Finally, rather than move to a quick correct answer, the teacher engages in a lengthy conversation, providing information and support when needed, words of encouragement to foster persistence, and follow-up questions that ask children to explain their thinking (Pianta, LaParo, & Hamre, 2008).

REFERENCES

Barnett, W. S. (2011). Preschool education as an educational reform: Issues of eơ ectiveness and access (September 26, 2011). Retrieved from the National Academies at http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/equity_and_excellence_commission_workshop_barnett_paper.pdf

Barnett, W. S., Carolan, M. E., Fitzgerald, J., & Squires, J. H. (2011). The state of preschool 2011: State preschool yearbook. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research.

Burchinal, M., Howes, C., Pianta, R., Bryant, D., Early, D., Cliơ ord, R., & Barbarin, O. (2008). Predicting child outcomes at the end of kindergarten from the quality of pre-kindergarten teacher-child inter-actions and instruction. Applied Developmental Science, 12(3), 140-153.

Burchinal, M., Vandergrift, N., Pianta, R., & Mashburn, A. (2010). Threshold analysis of association between child care quality and child outcomes for low-income children in pre-kindergar-ten programs. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25(2), 166-176.

Camilli, G., Vargas, S., Ryan, S., & Bar-nett, W. S. (2010). Meta-analysis of the eơ ects of early education interventions on cognitive and social development. Teachers College Record, 112(3), 579-620.

Conn-Powers, M., Cross, A. F., & Dixon, S.D. (2013). Assessing Indiana’s early education classrooms: Final report. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, Indiana Institute on Disability and Community.

Heckman, J. J. & Masterov, D. V. (2007). The productivity argument for investing in young children. Review of Agricultural Economics 29(3), 446–493.

Phillips, D. A., Gormley, W. T., & Lowen-stein, A. E. (2009). Inside the pre-kin-dergarten door: Classroom climate and instructional time allocation in Tulsa’s pre-K programs. Early Childhood Re-search Quarterly. 24, 213-228.

Pianta, R. C., Barnett, W. S., Burchinal, M., & Thornburg, K. R. (2009). The eơ ects of preschool education: What we know, how public policy is or is not aligned with the evidence base, and what we need to know. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 10(2), 49-88. doi:10.1177/1529100610381908

Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K. M., & Hamre, B. K. (2008). Classroom assessment scoring system (CLASS) manual, pre-k. Baltimore, MD: Brookes

Ritchie, S., Howes, C., Kraft-Sayre, M., &Weiser, B. (2002). Emerging academics snapshot. Los Angeles: University of California.

Spradlin, T. E., Conn-Powers, M., & Wod-icka, C. Y. (2013, Winter). Education poli-cy brief: Is Indiana ready for state-funded pre-k programs? Revisited. Retrieved from http://ceep.indiana.edu/projects/PDF/PB_V11N2_2z013_EPB.pdf



HOW CHILDREN SPEND THEIR TIME IN PRESCHOOL: IMPLICATIONS FOR OUR PRACTICE


OTHER BIREFS IN THIS SERIES…


• Which Curriculum Should We Use? How Do We Choose?

• Teacher-Child Interactions that Make a Diff erence

Susan D. Dixon

Children are growing up in a world that demands greater skills

and knowledge upon entry into kindergarten, and therefore, a greater degree of accountability from their prekindergarten teachers. One of the main factors of the prekindergarten experience that is responsible for children’s academic competence as they enter into formal schooling is the way they spend their time. As we strive to provide the best balance of activities for our children, how should we organize our classroom day?

Our study, Assessing Indiana’s Early Education Programs, addresses this question. This brief examines our fi ndings, discusses what they mean in relation to the work of other researchers, and provides practical implications for early educators interested in providing the best possible early education to his or her children. More information about this study, including other briefs in this series, can be found on the Early Childhood Center website.

OUR STUDY

We know that high quality early education represents one of

the best investments that society can make for promoting successful educational outcomes for all children and particularly for children who are at risk (Heckman & Masterov, 2007). Early education, if it is done well, can signifi cantly erase or minimize the achievement gaps that exist for many of our children (Barnett, 2011; Camilli, Vargas, Ryan, & Barnett, 2010; Pianta, Barnett, Burchinal, & Thornburg, 2009). The evidence is so overwhelming that 39 states have elected to provide publicly funded prekindergarten for their preschoolers (Barnett, Carolan, Fitzgerald, & Squires, 2011). The most recent report published by the National Institute for Early Education Research, The State of Preschool 2011, estimates that these states provided prekindergarten services to 28% of all 4 year-olds in this country. Unfortunately, Indiana is not one of those states. In the absence of funding and state leadership, Indiana preschoolers have to rely on a patchwork system of services that falls short of the capacity to serve children who need these services most (Indiana Education Roundtable, 2012; Spradlin, Conn-Powers, & Wodicka, 2013).


We were interested in learning how well our classrooms performed in relation to other states, how well our practices aligned with current research evidence documenting eff ective early education, and how well diff erent programs in our state compared with one another. We sent out invitations to all Head Start programs, licensed child care centers, and public school preschools in the state. We observed and recorded on video 81 classrooms that were geographically and socioeconomically representative: of these classrooms, 28 were in licensed child care centers, 27 were Head Start classrooms, and 26 were public school classrooms. We recorded only in-class, morning activities and analyzed each observation using two tools: the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) (Pianta, LaParo, & Hamre, 2008); and the Emerging Academic Snapshot (EAS) (Ritchie, Howes, Kraft-Sayre, & Weiser, 2002).

The CLASS focuses on three broad domains of eff ective teacher-child interactions that characterize children’s classroom experiences: Emotional Support, Organizational Support, and Instructional Support. Emotional Support captures how teachers help children develop positive relationships, enjoyment in learning, comfort in the classroom, and appropriate levels of independence. Classroom Organization focuses on how well teachers manage the classroom to maximize learning and keep children engaged.

Chien and her colleagues further found that while there is learning potential in all classroom activities, certain groups of children—particularly those who are at risk or living in poverty—experience greater language and math benefi ts when they spend more time in direct instruction such as whole group, small group, or individual instruction, as opposed to free choice activities.All classroom activities, including free play and routines such as waiting in line or snack/meal times, can be enhanced by quality teacher interactions (Hamre & Pianta, 2007). In fact, La Paro and her colleagues (La Paro et al., 2009) state that regardless of grouping or instructional format, it is important to focus on the quality of children’s interactions with teachers. You can read more about this in Conn-Powers (in press). This brief discusses ways to reallocate time during the day to provide children with the types of learning opportunities that, research indicates, produce the greatest educational impact.

WHAT DID OUR RESEARCH FIND?

The following chart from the Early Childhood Center research study (see Figure 1) shows on average:

• 35% in free choice activities • 28% in whole group learning • 12% in routine activities • 10% in small groups, and • 10% in individual instruction

The Instructional Support domain examines how teachers promote children’s thinking and problem solving, use feedback to deepen understanding, and help children develop more complex language skills.


WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?

With the increased level of emphasis placed on academics in kindergarten (Conn-Powers, Cross, & Dixon, 2011), recent research has concentrated on the types of learning experiences that aff ect prekindergarten children’s academic skills (Camilli et al., 2010; Chien et al., 2010; Early et al., 2010). These studies generally address fi ve types of activities in a preschool day: free choice, routines (toileting transitions, meals, etc.), whole group, small group, and individual work. Each of these classroom activities demand a diff erent degree of adult direction and interaction and provide children with varied amounts of instructional time. Research is identifying eff ective teaching practices that require us to be intentional and more direct in our interactions with children. This work has implications for the types of learning opportunities we plan and include in our daily schedule.

The research literature clearly indicates that the activities benefi tting children the most are those accompanied by teacher interactions that enhance their learning potential (Pianta et al., 2009; Camilli et al., 2010; Chien et al., 2010; Fuligni et al., 2012).

Figure 1. How children in indiana preschools spend their time

IMPLICATIONS

Our research suggests three key implications for organizing the classroom day. First, it is important to recognize that children may spend a disproportionate amount of time in free play. We can examine the potential for reallocating a portion of the most frequently occurring activity, free play time, to concentrate instruction for specifi c children who need greater support in some academic tasks. Research suggests that many children, particularly those who are at risk for school failure, need more focused, intentional instructional time, particularly on language, literacy, and math skills. Chien et al. (2010) found that children, on average, did not learn as well in classrooms that included a high proportion of free choice time and child-directed activities.

Free choice time is, however, a perfect opportunity for the teacher to carve out some focused instructional time either with individual children or with small groups of students who need additional support in specifi c skill areas.

During small group instruction teachers can pull together a group of children with similar academic and instructional needs to help them learn and master skills at their ability level and pace.

35%

28%

12%

10%

10%

Free ChoiceWhole GroupBasicsSmall Group

Individual

Free choice time is not an “either-or” proposition. We propose in this brief that prekindergarten teachers consider re-examining how they spend some of their free choice time—not that they eliminate it. Free choice time provides excellent opportunities to expose children to a variety of interesting and engaging activities that promote creativity, collaboration, and problem solving. The key is to maintain a high level of teacher involvement that entails rich conversations and other interactions that help children expand and integrate their ideas and action. This the fi nal important implication from our study and review of the literature: that teachers make use of all classroom time by engaging in high quality conversation and instructional interactions with children during all activities and routines (see Conn-Powers, 2013). This brief proposes that a portion of the 35% of preschool time that is spent in play could be well utilized for increased focus on specifi c skill areas for children who require increased direct attention in smaller groupings or individualized instruction.

In summary, our research shows that children who spend more time in classrooms that balance teacher-directed activities such as group and individual instruction with free choice have greater opportunities to engage in academic activities and teacher interactions that support academic growth. Children who are at risk for academic failure demonstrate greater growth in language, literacy, and math skills when engaged in more teacher-directed learning activities.

Small group time allows teachers to gather children for explicit instruction on a targeted skill or concept. Groups can vary in size but are typically no larger than fi ve children. They can also vary in frequency (how many times a week does the group need to meet), time (how long does each group need to be) and composition (not every child needs the same amount of additional support). This means that several diff erent small groups targeting diff erent topics for diff erent children can be held over the course of the free choice time period. The organization of a group should be intentionally planned based on the learning goals and styles of the children.

When the diversity of needs is intentionally limited, the teacher can more eff ectively scaff old learning to meet the needs of the group. Because active teacher involvement is a key element of small groups, they can be the most eff ective time to reinforce concepts or skills that may have been diffi cult for some children when introduced during whole group. In depth conversations about a book or topic are more likely. Each child in a small group can have a chance to talk, supporting active engagement in learning and facilitation of oral language skills. Help discriminating one sound from another is easier. Using manipulatives to understand a math concept is possible. There are many learning opportunities, and therefore signifi cant benefi ts, that can result from using the small group instructional setting that are not possible in other classroom activities.

During individual work time, a teacher may further focus on a single child’s needs. It is a time for a teacher to provide individualized instruction for a child who needs additional support or encourage a child to work toward independence by applying and practicing what is introduced during whole class instructional times. These are also times during which teachers can monitor student progress.

In whole group time, all the children are involved in the same activity at the same time in a teacher-directed activity.

It is a time for teachers to introduce new ideas and concepts but not—because of the numbers involved—for much individualization to take place. There is potential for rearranging some whole group time to allow increased attention to more diffi cult content areas with small groups or individual children. Another implication of our research is that reallocating some whole group time allows teachers the fl exibility to create diff erent groupings for children to participate in a small group or individual instruction as needs are identifi ed.

Whole group time is an important classroom activity in preparing children for kindergarten. Our earlier work found that kindergarten teachers rely on whole group instruction at the beginning of the school year. It is essential that children develop the skills to participate in and learn during this type of activity.

Kindergarteners spend less than 5% of their time in free choice, child-directed activities compared with the 35% seen in prekindergarten programs (Conn-Powers, Cross, & Dixon, 2011). It is therefore a logical step for prekindergarten teachers to start to shift some of their child-directed free play into more teacher-directed activities to better prepare children for the routines and expectations of kindergarten.

Figure 2. Proportion of time spent in classroom activities by grade

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Kindergarten

Pre-kindergarten

La Paro, K. M., Hamre, B., LoCasale-Crouch, J., Pianta, R. C., Bryant, D. M., Early, D. M., . . . Burchinal, M. (2009). Quality in kindergarten classrooms: observational evidence for the need to increase children’s learning opportunities in early education classrooms. Early Education and Development, 20(4), 657-692.

Pianta, R. C., Barnett, W. S., Burchinal, M., & Thornburg, K. R. (2009). The eff ects of preschool education: What we know, how public policy is or is not aligned with the evidence base, and what we need to know. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 10(2), 49-88. http://psi.sagepub.com/content/10/2/49.full.pdf+html doi:10.1177/1529100610381908

Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K. M., & Hamre, B. K. (2008). Classroom Assessment Scoring system. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

Ritchie, S., Howes, C., Kraft-Sayre, M. E., & Weiser, B. (2001). Emerging Academic Snapshot. Unpublished instrument, University of California, Los Angeles.

HOW CHILDREN SPEND THEIR TIME IN PRESCHOOL: IMPLICATIONS FOR OUR PRACTICE Author: Susan D. Dixon




This document was produced with support from Indiana University, Bloomington. The information presented herein does not necessarily refl ect the position or policy of Indiana University, and no offi cial endorsement should be inferred.

REFERENCES

Barnett, W. S., Carolan, M. E., Fitzgerald, J., & Squires, J. H. (2011). The state of preschool 2011: State preschool yearbook. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research.

Camilli, G., Vargas, S., Ryan, S., & Barnett, W. S. (2010). Meta-analysis of the eff ects of early education interventions on cognitive and social development. Teachers College Record, 112(3), 579-620. http://www.tcrecord.org/library/search.asp?kw=Barnett&type=simple

Chien, N. C., Howes, C., Burchinal, M., Pianta, R. C., Ritchie, S., Bryant, D. M., . . . Barbarin, O. A. (2010). Children’s Class-room Engagement and School Read-iness Gains in Prekindergarten. Child Development, 81, 1534-1549.

Conn-Powers, M. (2013). Teacher interactions that make a diff erence. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Institute on Disability and Community, Indiana University.

Conn-Powers, M., Cross, A. F., & Dixon, S. (2011). The First Days of Kindergarten and What They Mean for Preschool Teachers. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Institute on Disability and Community, Indiana University.

Conn-Powers, M., Cross, A. F., & Dixon, S. D. (2013). Assessing Indiana’s early education classrooms. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Institute on Disability and Community, Indiana University.

Early, D. M., Iruka, I. U., Ritchie, S., Barbarin, O. A., Winn, D.-M. C., Crawford, G. M., . . . Pianta, R. C. (2010). How do pre-kindergarteners spend their time? Gender, ethnicity, and income as predictors of experiences in pre-kindergarten classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 25(2), 177-193.

Fuligni, A. S., Howes, C., Huang, Y., Hong, S. S., & Lara-Cinisomo, S. (2012). Activity settings and daily routines in preschool classrooms: Diverse experiences in early learning settings for low-income children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(2), 198-209.

Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2007). Learning opportunities in preschool and early elementary classrooms. In R. C. Pianta, M. J. Cox & K. L. Snow (Eds.), School readiness and the transition to kindergarten in the era of accountability. (pp. 49-83). Baltimore, MD: Paul H Brookes Publishing.

Teachers face confl icting information about choosing a curriculum. Friends

may make recommendations — “This one is good.” Organizational history may come into play — “This is the one we’ve used before.” Publishers may promote their own products. Some curricula come with attractive features including materials, activities, and books. So, how should a teacher choose?

We recently completed our study, Assessing Indiana’s Early Education Classrooms, in which we asked teachers to identify the curricula they used (Conn-Powers, Cross, & Dixon, 2013). In this brief, we explore the results related to curriculum and off er a set of steps that will guide teachers through the confl icting information to select an eff ective curriculum.



WHICH CURRICULUM SHOULD WE USE? HOW DO WE CHOOSE?


Alice Frazeur Cross

OTHER BRIEFS IN THIS SERIES…


• How Children Spend Their Time in Preschool: Implications for Our Practice

• Teacher-Child Interactions that Make a Diff erence

OUR STUDY

We know that high quality early education represents one of the

best investments that society can make for promoting successful educational outcomes for all children and particularly for children who are at risk (Heckman & Masterov, 2007). Early education, if it is done well, can signifi cantly erase or minimize the achievement gaps that exist for many of our children (Barnett, 2011; Camilli, Vargas, Ryan, & Barnett, 2010; Pianta, Barnett, Burchinal, & Thornburg, 2009). The evidence is so overwhelming that 39 states have elected to provide public-funded prekindergarten for their preschoolers (Barnett, Carolan, Fitzgerald, & Squires, 2011). The most recent report published by the National Institute for Early Education Research, The State of Preschool 2011, estimates that these states provided prekindergarten services to 28% of all 4 year-olds in this country (Barnett et al., 2011). Unfortunately, Indiana is not one of those states. In the absence of funding and state leadership, Indiana preschoolers have to rely on a patchwork system of services that falls short of the capacity to serve children who need these services most (Indiana Education Roundtable, 2012; Spradlin, Conn-Powers, & Wodicka, 2013).


We were interested in learning how well our classrooms performed in relation to other states, how well our practices aligned with current research evidence documenting eff ective early education, and how well diff erent programs in our state compared with one another. We sent out invitations to all Head Start programs, licensed child care centers, and public school preschools in the state. We observed and recorded on video 81 classrooms that were geographically and socioeconomically representative: of these classrooms, 28 were in licensed child care centers, 27 were Head Start classrooms, and 26 were public school classrooms. We recorded only in-class, morning activities and analyzed each observation using two tools: the Classroom Assessment Scoring System (CLASS) (Pianta, LaParo, & Hamre, 2008); and the Emerging Academic Snapshot (EAS) (Ritchie, Howes, Kraft-Sayre, & Weiser, 2002).

The CLASS focuses on three broad domains of eff ective teacher-child interactions that characterize children’s classroom experiences: Emotional Support, Classroom Organization, and Instructional Support. Emotional Support captures how teachers help children develop positive relationships, enjoyment in learning, comfort in the classroom, and appropriate levels of independence. Classroom Organization focuses on how well teachers manage the classroom to maximize learning and keep children engaged.

The Instructional Support domain examines how teachers promote children’s thinking and problem solving, use feedback to deepen understanding, and help children develop more complex language skills.


CHOOSING AN EFFECTIVE CURRICULUM

Just as our study talks about the patchwork system of services for children that falls short (Spradlin et al., 2013), so are the curricula used in early education often a patchwork of products that fall short in bringing about the learning our Indiana children need for school success. The fi ndings of our study and the research literature on eff ective curriculum confi rm this point.

A curriculum “demonstrates eff ectiveness if the research has shown that it caused an impact in outcomes” (USDOE, 2013). Not all curricula are eff ective, and some may even have a negative impact on children’s learning.

In this brief we will off er three steps that you can use to determine whether your curriculum is eff ective. The steps are to:

1. Verify that the curriculum is a written document with specifi c goals, learning experiences, methods of instruction, and materials for implementation.

2. Use the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) to learn whether studies of the curriculum meet the guidelines for being evidence-based.

3. Use the WWC to learn if the curriculum has been shown to be eff ective.

The next section reviews the three steps, which must be used together.

1. Verify that the curriculum is a written document with specifi c goals, learning experiences, methods of instruction, and materials for implementation.

The fi rst thing to do is to make sure that what is chosen is indeed a curriculum. A curriculum is a written document made up of several elements that together guide the teacher’s instruction. The National Center on Quality Teaching and Learning (NCQTL, 2012, June) identifi es these elements: (a) goals for children’s development and learning; (b) experiences through which children will achieve the goals; (c) roles for staff . . . to help children to achieve these goals; and (d) materials needed to support the implementation of a curriculum.

In our study (Conn-Power et al., 2013) we asked teachers to identify the curriculum they used. They provided the names of commercial, comprehensive curricula (ones that cover all content areas) and commercial, content-specifi c curricula, such as those addressing only phonics or mathematics.

They also mentioned curricula that programs had developed in-house. Figure 1 shows teachers’ responses. Research has shown that children have better outcomes when teachers use a curriculum rather than none (Chambers, Cheung, & Slavin, 2006).

In our study, 18 of 80 teachers (22.5%)gave responses that we have identifi ed as “no curriculum.” (One teacher did not name a curriculum.) Among this group were 10 teachers who indicated that they did not use a commercial curriculum, as well as fi ve who said that they use the Foundations to the Indiana Academic Standards for Young Children from Birth to Age 5 document as a curriculum. But the Foundations is not a curriculum (Indiana Department of Education and Family and Social Services Administration, 2012).

2. Use the WWC to learn whether studies of the curriculum meet the guidelines for being evidence-based.

We searched the WWC for each of the curricula identifi ed by teachers (U.S. Department of Education (USDOE), Institute of Education Sciences, What Works Clearinghouse, 2013). Our review found that 43 of the 80 teachers (53.8%)used curricula that have been studied (Conn-Power et al., 2013). But the other 19 teachers (23.8%) were using curricula that have not been studied to determine their eff ectiveness, curricula with studies that were not well done, and a curriculum with studies older than the 20-year cut-off point.

22.5%

23.8%

51.3%

2.5%

No curriculum

Curriculum, no evidence

Curriculum with evidence,but no impact

Curriculum with evidence ofimpact

n= 80

Figure 1. Teachers’ use of curricula.

We searched the WWC using the topic area early childhood education (ECE) to determine which curricula were eff ective in which areas.

The ECE topic area is focused on school readiness skills in cognition (which includes mathematics), language and literacy, and social-emotional development. (For this brief, we excluded any curriculum that was specifi c to children with disabilities and English language learners. We also excluded those that were not curricula, but eff ective programs and practices, such as DaisyQuest or Interactive Shared Book Reading.)

The following table presents all of the early childhood curricula with evidence of eff ectiveness in one or more outcome areas (USDOE, 2013). There were no eff ective curricula supporting social-emotional development, social studies, aesthetics development, or motor skills.

This step is critical to determining the veracity of claims curriculum authors make about their products. (The evidence might show that a curriculum is or is not eff ective.) A proper review of curriculum can be a complex and time-consuming task that involves searching for studies in peer-reviewed journals. The What Works Clearinghouse, an initiative of the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences, makes this undertaking easier by reviewing the quality of research on curricula, programs, and practices. The WWC then reports on the evidence of eff ectiveness so that administrators, teachers, and others can make evidence-based decisions. The WWC is accessed through its website: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/default.aspx .

3. Use the WWC to learn if the curriculum has been shown to be eff ective.

Only 2 of the 80 teachers (2.5%) in our study used a curriculum that had evidence of a benefi cial eff ect on children’s outcomes; 41 teachers (51.3%)used curricula that had no benefi cial impact on children’s learning (Conn-Power et al., 2013). This troubling fi nding suggests that the majority of Indiana’s early education teachers are using curricula that are unlikely to bring about benefi cial outcomes for children. The fi ndings further suggest that children are not receiving the instruction that produces learning gains. This situation is consistent with national trends. The Advisory Committee on Head Start Research and Evaluation “has serious concerns about whether many curricular materials and teaching methodologies currently used in most Head Start programs are those that are most eff ective in promoting school readiness outcomes” (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), 2012, p. 17).

IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHERS

The fi rst implication is that teachers will have to engage in decision making about which curriculum to use based on eff ectiveness in specifi c outcome areas. Curricula are not eff ective across all outcome areas.

Mathematics achievement

Print knowledge

Oral language

Phonological processing

Building Blocks for Math (SRA Real Math)

✓

Pre-K Mathematics

✓Doors to Discovery™

✓ ✓HeadSprout® Early Reading

✓ ✓Literacy Express

✓ ✓ ✓

All Curricula Shown by WWC to be Eff ective in Specifi c Outcome Areas

Table 1

A comprehensive curriculum is one that covers multiple outcome areas and can be determined by comparison of the curriculum to the Foundations.

The solution for teachers might be to use both an eff ective content-specifi c curriculum with a comprehensive curriculum. The Advisory Committee on Head Start Research and Evaluation cites “a growing research literature [that] suggests that content-specifi c curricula that are tightly integrated with ongoing assessment and professional development systems are more eff ective in promoting specifi c outcomes than a more general curricular framework used alone” (USHHS, 2012, p. 17).

Each program administrator and teacher can use the evidence presented by the WWC to begin reviewing their current curriculum and considering the next steps to add a content-specifi c or comprehensive curriculum.

The second implication of our study related to curriculum is that teachers will need to make decisions about using a comprehensive curriculum that may not be eff ective or a content-specifi c curriculum that is. Head Start guidelines call for choosing a curriculum that is comprehensive (National Center on Quality Teaching and Learning, 2012, June).

These steps will help teachers use the WWC to identify a curriculum that is both eff ective and a fi t for their programs:

1. Gain familiarity with the WWC website at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/default. aspx .2. Go to Publications and Reviews to learn about all of the products they have published.


3. Choose early childhood education in the “Select a Topic” box to read about all of the curricula.4. Learn the terminology to read the intervention reports.5. Go the News and Events tab to sign up for alerts of new products.

We strongly encourage the use of a curriculum with demonstrated eff ectiveness and hope that our study fi ndings aid the choice of content-specifi c curriculum. We found that 44% of children’s time during the day is spent on literacy instruction and activities. Teachers and administrators might decide that because of the amount of time spent on literacy, a language and literacy curriculum would be benefi cial for maximizing learning. Teachers and administrators might alternatively choose a mathematics curriculum to boost learning in that area.

REFERENCES

Barnett, W. S. (2011). Preschool education as an educational reform: Issues of eff ectiveness and access (September 26, 2011). Retrieved from the National Academies at http://www7.nationalacademies.org/bota/equity_and_excellence_commission_workshop_barnett_paper.pdf

Barnett, W.S., Carolan, M.E., Fitzgerald, J., & Squires, J.H. (2011). The state of preschool 2011: State preschool yearbook. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research.

Camilli, G., Vargas, S., Ryan, S., & Barnett, W. S. (2010). Meta-analysis of the eff ects of early education interventions on cognitive and social development. Teachers College Record, 112(3), 579-620.

Conn-Powers, M., Cross, A. F., & Dixon, S.D. (2013). Assessing Indiana’s early education classrooms: Final report. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University, Indiana Institute on Disability and Community.

Chambers, B., Cheung, A., & Slavin, R.E. (2006). Eff ective preschool programs for children at risk of school failure: A best-evidence synthesis. In B. Spodek (ed.). Handbook of research on the education of young children. (pp. 347–360). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Heckman, J. J. & Masterov, D. V. (2007). The productivity argument for investing in young children. Review of Agricultural Economics 29(3), 446–493.

Indiana Department of Education and Family and Social Services Administration, Division of Family Resources, Bureau of Child Care. (2012, February). Foundations to the Indiana academic standards for young children (Rev. ed.). Retrieved from http://doe.in.gov/achievement/curriculum/early-childhood-education

National Center on Quality Teaching and Learning. (2012, June). Choosing a preschool curriculum Version 1.1. Retrieved from http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/tta-system/teaching/docs/preschool-curriculum.pdf

Pianta, R. C., Barnett, W. S., Burchinal, M., & Thornburg, K. R. (2009). The eff ects of preschool education: What we know, how public policy is or is not aligned with the evidence base, and what we need to know. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 10(2), 49-88. doi:10.1177/1529100610381908

Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K. M., & Hamre, B. K. (2008). Classroom assessment scoring system (CLASS) manual, pre-k. Baltimore, MD: Brookes

Ritchie, S., Howes, C., Kraft-Sayre, M., &Weiser, B. (2002). Emerging academics snapshot. Los Angeles: University of California.

Spradlin, T. E., Conn-Powers, M., & Wodicka, C. Y. (2013, Winter). Education policy brief: Is Indiana ready for state-funded pre-k programs? Revisited. Retrieved from http://ceep.indiana.edu/projects/PDF/PB_V11N2_2013_EPB.pdf

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families. (2012, August). Head Start Impact Study. Final Report. Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/fi les/opre/eval_fi nal.pdf

U.S. Department of Education (USDOE), Institute of Education Sciences, What Works Clearinghouse. (2013, March). Find What Works Topics: Early Childhood Education and Literacy Grade Level PK. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/fi ndwhatworks.aspx.


This document was produced with support from Indiana University, Bloomington. The information presented herein does not necessarily refl ect the position or policy of Indiana University, and no offi cial endorsement should be inferred.

WHICH CURRICULUM SHOULD WE USE? HOW DO WE CHOOSE?

Author: Alice Frazeur Cross, Ed.D.


teacher-child interactions, time use in the day, and ... · teacher-child interactions, time use in...

Documents