PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO CLASSROOM IMPLEMENTATION: AN INQUIRY INTO
EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATORS’ OBSTACLES TO INNOVATION
A Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of
California State University, Stanislaus
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Education
By
Danielle Julia Waite March 2011
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT TO CLASSROOM IMPLEMENTATION: AN INQUIRY INTO
EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATORS’ OBSTACLES TO INNOVATION
by
Danielle Julia Waite
Dr. Jim Riggs
Professor of Education
Dr. Juan Flores
Professor of Education
Dr. Deborah Turner
Psychologist/Early Childhood Consultant
Date
Date
Date Signed Certification of Approval Page is On
© 2011 Danielle Julia Waite ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Definition of Terms ... vii
List of Tables ... viii
Abstract ... ix
CHAPTER I. Introduction ... 1
Problem Statement ... 6
Limitations... 12
The Significance of the Study ... 13
II. Literature Review ... 16
Professional Status of Child Development Teachers ... 17
Teacher Educational Attainment ... 19
Teacher Internships ... 21
Effective Models of Professional Development ... 23
Dynamics in the Workplace ... 27
Summary ... 30
III. Methodology ... 32
Interviews ... 34
Analysis of Qualitative Data ... 36
Survey Development ... 37
Survey Administration ... 38
Analysis of Quantitative Data ... 39
Limitations... 39
IV. Research Results and Findings... 42
Overview of Data Collection ... 42
Qualitative Phase... 43
Quantitative Phase ... 46
Demographics ... 49
v
Teachers’ Perceived Barriers ... 57
Follow-up Discussions ... 58
Not A Good Fit ... 59
Time To Plan Or Discuss ... 61
Resistance to Change ... 62
The Return of Old Habits ... 63
Degree Levels and Perceived Barriers ... 65
Needing Follow-up Discussions Regarding the Training to Understand How to Make It Work in Your Specific Classroom ... 66
The Information Presented At the Training Would Not Work in My Classroom ... 66
Enough Time to Implement or Discuss Ideas With Co-Teachers ... 67
My Co-Teachers Don’t Like to Try Anything Different Or New ... 67
It Works For a While, but Then We Go Back to the Old Ways of Doing Things ... 67
Summary ... 67
V. Discussion, Recommendations and Future Research ... 69
Discussion of Findings ... 70
Commonly Perceived Barriers ... 70
Degree Achievement in Early Childhood Education ... 72
Types of Professional Development ... 74
Limitations... 74
Conclusions ... 76
Recommendations ... 77
Barriers to the Implementation of Innovation ... 77
Effective Professional Development ... 78
Conclusions... 78
Recommendations for Future Research ... 81
Issues Beyond This Study ... 83
Summary ... 83
Dissertation Summary ... 83
vi Appendices
A. California Child Development Matrix ... 96
B. Different ECE Teacher Unit/Degree Requirements by Funding Source .... 98
C. Consent Letter ... 99
D. Interview Questions... 101
E. Confidentiality Letter ... 103
F. Sample Notes ... 104
G. Sample Transcription ... 105
H. Sample Survey Worksheet ... 107
I. CAEYC Survey ... 109
J. Quantitative Consent Letter ... 111
K. Professional Development Activities and Their Effectiveness... 112
vii
DEFINITIONS OF TERMS
Child Development Field: The teaching profession and related subject areas which
concentrate on children ages birth through age four.
Child Development Teachers or Teachers: Individuals directly working with young
children ages birth through age four in center-based licensed care facilities.
Early Care and Education Professionals: see Child Development Teachers.
Early Childhood Education (ECE): see Child Development Field.
Early Childhood Educators or Teachers (ECE Teachers): see Child Development
Teachers.
Professional Development: Any type of formal relay of information between a
designated expert and early childhood educator in relation to the child development field practices. This includes, and is not limited to: workshops, in-service training, coaching, mentoring, coursework through an accredited institution, conferences and seminars.
viii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1. Data codes for high frequency themes from qualitative interviews ... 45
2. Survey phrases and their corresponding data codes ... 46
3. ECE professional position of survey participants ... 50
4. California Child Development Permit level of survey participants ... 51
5. Units/degree achievement of survey participants ... 52
6. Types of funding sources of survey participant programs ... 53
7. Years in the ECE field for survey participants have worked ... 54
8. Estimated hours of annual professional development/growth of survey participants ... 55
9. Ranking of professional development activities and effectiveness – highest to lowest in preference ... 56
10.Needing follow-up discussions regarding the training to understand how to make it work in your specific classroom ... 58
11.The information presented at the training would not work in my classroom .... 59
12.Enough time to implement or discuss ideas with co-teachers ... 61
13.My co-teachers don’t like to try anything different or new ... 62
14.It works for a while, but then we go back to the old ways of doing things ... 64
ix ABSTRACT
Early childhood educators are exposed to professional development activities, both at their places of employment and throughout the child development community. These educators seek professional development to meet the requirements of funding
sources, continue professional education requirements, or enhance personal
knowledge. The implementation of acquired knowledge, skills or techniques in the classroom and during interactions with children is the end goal of professional development for early childhood educators. The primary reason why there are requirements and mandates for teacher training is to increase the quality of learning experiences for all young children. This study explores the perceived barriers that educators have regarding the implementation of information presented at professional development activities in their working classrooms with young children.
1 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION
Professional development is a requirement for many early childhood programs in California. This is facilitated by attendance at either optional or mandated
professional development activities, which is the primary practice in the child development field for early childhood education (ECE) teachers and administrators. Raikes et al. (2006) concluded, “The current research indicates it is the accumulation of assets at the individual provider and program level that fosters a culture of quality for early childhood programs” (p. 132). In professional development activities, the ECE teachers are the students. The aim of this education is to nurture the teacher-students rich experience and foster ongoing learning and growth (Hytten, 2006). Teachers are introduced to a range of different types of training as part of their
professional development. Bales (2006) defines these training strategies in two ways: mandated and competence driven. Mandated training which is compliance driven and results in changed behavior, creates uniformity and builds capacity is considered skill enhancement. Competence driven training builds upon existing skills which provide long-term returns.
Ongoing training and education supports ECE teachers in a field that is continuously updating its theories of best practices as more research brings to light new information. The field also is driven by trends, legislation, the needs illustrated by the children in care, and funding source requirements. Some professional
them in their classroom management, which is not directly linked to student achievement, but indirectly affects it (Joyce & Showers, 1995). With the need for professional development driven by so many variables, a continuous stream of professional development activities is a part of most early childhood education teachers work environment. Programs must provide opportunities for training intended to be implemented into the classroom to improve quality. In order to be meaningful, the training must be implemented into the classroom (Smith & Rowley, 2005). The innovation in the classroom is realized when the program requirements are fulfilled and quality programs result from the newest theories about best practices.
Even with financial support available for ECE teachers to continue taking classes or participating in workshops, there has been limited impact in the classroom environments and limited use of innovative or improved practices with young children in center-based care. The dialogue among child development program administrators is that there is little evidence in the classrooms that ECE teachers are transferring content from professional development activities (Adger, Hoyle, & Dickinson, 2004).
Over the last decade, there has been an effort to change the image of early childhood educators from that of kind-hearted women who love children to the new model of well-prepared, educated, and equitably compensated professionals (Gable & Hansen, 2001). However, the professionals in the field of child development are largely considered to be inadequately educated given the growing perception of the importance of early education to the young children in center-based care throughout
California. Early and Winton (2001) point out that even with the understanding that competent and well-trained teachers are key for positive outcomes for young children, people are often shocked when confronted with the required education levels and the compensation of the early care work force.
Young children should be given high quality care during these critical years from birth to five. A child’s brain has reached 90% of its full potential by the age of three and this information reiterates the importance of early care and learning
environments (Fontaine, Torre, Grafwallner, & Underhill, 2006). Adger et al. (2004) state that “studies have shown significant relationships between the quality of
preschool classrooms and children’s pre-academic development” (p. 869). It is well accepted in the child development field, and becoming more recognized by the public, that the quality of this early care has a great impact on children throughout their school years, and can make a significant difference through adulthood
(Bowman, Donovan, & Burns, 2000). Kang and King-Brock (2009) share results and recommendations from the RAND Corporation on how the investment of money in preschool is returned in a lessened readiness gap, a reduction of remedial and support services, greater graduation rates, increased tax revenues and less crime.
…preschool programs targeted to children who need it most returns $7.14 for every dollar invested. The Economic Policy Institute determined that a targeted preschool program in California would begin to pay for itself within six years and continue to net substantial benefits by saving government spending on K-12 education, child welfare, and the criminal justice system, and by increasing tax revenues. (Merced Chamber of Commerce, 2009)
This importance in the investment of early care and education is supported by Evans (2006), and the author suggests why parents and the public should be vested:
There is a growing body of evidence that early childhood development is related to economic success (or failure) later in life and that the early years of life are the most malleable (and vulnerable) periods during the life span. Parents and public policy makers are well advised to take note of the fact that early childcare is also early education that can create developmental
trajectories that persist throughout life. (p. 309)
It is difficult to observe the mastery of early childhood education demonstrated by teachers because exemplary practices look playful, and most workers have not received degree-level professional preparation (Fromberg, 1997). ECE teachers plan curriculum and scaffold skills for children, while the majority of interactions between teachers and children is framed through play. Many of the ECE teachers currently employed lack degrees to help justify their work in the classroom as being more than play. Since degree or credential requirements in child
development are not required, not every educator has the desire to pursue a college degree in the field.
Since ECE teachers can be licensed and employed with minimum
requirements, there are those without the academic work necessary to obtain a degree. The minimum requirements for California are a prescribed set of courses totaling twelve units in the field of child development from an accredited college. A teacher specializing in infant and toddler education must have an additional three-unit course in either infant and toddler development or infant and toddler curriculum; a site director must earn an additional three units in early childhood education program
administration. These educational requirements apply to all licensed center-based programs in California. Publically funded centers have additional requirements, depending on the funding source. Centers with blended funding must use the highest requirements for their teachers and administrators. Centers which receive funding from the California Department of Education (CDE), Child Development Division (CDD), also known as Title 5 programs, have different teacher requirements to maintain (Appendix A). Twelve semester units or a Child Development Associate Credential (CDA) is required if the teacher is currently enrolled in classes. The CDA requires 120 clock hours of instruction in children’s health, safety and development (Saracho & Spodek, 2007). Regarding California State funded preschool programs, Jacobson (2009) says that this program “requires teachers to have specialized training in early childhood education, but it does not require a bachelor’s degree – generally regarded by preschool experts as a benchmark for teacher quality – or even an associate’s degree” (p. 9). Federally funded Head Start programs require that a minimum of one teacher in each classroom has an Associate’s Degree. Appendix B outlines the requirements of the ECE teacher status by funding source for the state of California.
Given the high turnover of staff and a work force that is very slowly
increasing its level of education, professional development is needed to help close the knowledge gap. A review of teacher degree and professional development studies by Tout, Zaslow, and Berry (2006) found that professional development had a greater impact on the classroom than degree achievement. The authors state that formal
between additional training and quality. Helterbran and Fennimore (2004) state that even though professional development sessions are typically designed to help teachers expand their skills, the sessions are often perceived as irrelevant by those teachers. Teachers have their own perceptions of what makes a training session relevant, and the authors put forward, in their conclusions, the claim that professional development opportunities will only be successful if such opportunities are not perceived as done to the teachers.
Problem Statement
There is anecdotal evidence that the field of early childhood education is seen by many administrators and ECE professionals as an area where money is being poorly spent on professional development activities, although the teachers in the field are undereducated and not producing high quality classrooms. With millions of dollars spent each year in California on professional development for the intended purpose of improving the quality of care for the youngest children in the state, innovations presented in professional development activities should be utilized in the classroom. Improvement in the quality of ECE teachers is a concern, and one of the ways improvement may be achieved is through professional development. The barriers that ECE teachers perceive in realizing quality early care and education need to be better understood in order to be overcome.
Professional development is required or considered a best practice throughout California. Are teachers actually implementing these innovations in the classrooms in order to increase the quality of early care for children? Both mandated and capacity
building oriented professional development activities are necessary, but those activities will only be effective and have an important impact on the early childhood education field if the information presented to the teachers in the professional
development activities are implemented at the classroom and student level. As noted by Guskey (2000), “Regardless of what form it takes, professional development in education is a systematic effort to bring about change…positive change and improvement” (p. 7).
Annually, California’s state-funded early childhood education programs are mandated to provide professional development opportunities for their teachers. Subsidized programs in California provide a written report to the CDE, CDD which must include a plan to continuously improve their program. This plan is required to include teacher professional development training (CA Department of Education, 2008). It is common practice for programs to offer training for their staff either by having a site-staff member conduct the training, having an outside consultant present a workshop on site, or by sending teachers to conferences and workshops.
Community Care Licensing (CCL) within the California Department of Social Services also requires all child care centers to have and implement a professional development plan (CA Department of Social Services, 2006). Title 5 programs are permitted to combine the two requirements into one set of professional growth activities.
The traditional method of a daylong workshop or an evening of training does not consistently raise the quality of teaching practices within the classroom (Zaslow,
Tout, Halle, Whittaker, & Lavelle, 2010). Helterbran and Fennimore (2004) suggest that there is a clear need to examine and reform traditional approaches to professional development. With no additional funding provided to meet the requirement of
providing professional development opportunities, programs struggle to find the funding for training. Program administrators want assurance that the limited resources invested in professional development will have a positive effect on their programs. Those administrators want the quality of early care and education to increase in each of their classrooms as a result of the professional development training. Not only do state funded programs want to provide care for children and meet minimum requirements, such programs also want to be known as high quality programs.
The California Department of Education funds a variety of quality initiatives for early childhood education throughout every county in California. The California Preschool Instructional Network (CPIN), Compensation and Retention Encourages Stability (CARES), Child Care Retention Program and California AB212 funding are a few of the state’s current training programs that are run at the county level of administration for early care and education providers. Statewide, the funding for these programs exceeded $20 million for the fiscal year 2008-09. At a stakeholders meeting on November 12, 2008 hosted by the CDE, CDD, there were multiple requests from participants for verification and evidence that these models were working to improve ECE practices. The participants did not just want numbers of attendees at the various training venues; participants wanted evidence that the
information presented was being effectively utilized in the classrooms with young children, which would indicate the effectiveness of the training program. Not a single agency attending the meeting was able to provide data on classroom quality
improvement resulting from training programs. The estimated funding for the 2009-2010 fiscal year for programs listed under CDE Early Learning Quality Improvement Activities listed in June 2010 (Children Now, 2010) was the following: professional development ($10.5 million), improving salaries and compensation ($18.3 million), English-language, literacy and numeracy development ($2.9 million), and
infant/toddler activities ($8.2 million). All four categories had substantial professional development funds designated for early-care teachers in California. Even though the categories were reduced due to challenges in the state budget, the sums illustrate the importance the Department of Education has placed on early-care educators’ professional development.
The purpose of this study is to identify the perceived barriers to classroom implementation of early childhood education professional development. The study begins by exploring participant ECE teachers’ views of these barriers in a qualitative research study. The findings from this first phase are explored with a larger sample population. What is taught during professional development for child development teachers needs to be effectively implemented in the classrooms in order for early childhood education to improve. Whether actual or perceived, the barriers prevent the educational experiences of the children being served from improving as a result of the professional development activity. By identifying these barriers, training programs
and individual agencies throughout California may be able to factor in strategies that strengthen the positive impact of professional development activities, and maximize the impact that these activities have on improving care and learning environment within ECE programs. In order to provide quality environments and support children’s early learning, it is necessary to consider professional training and its ability to enable teachers to do these tasks (Brownlee, Berthelsen, & Segaran, 2009).
The intent of this two-phase, exploratory sequential mixed methods approach is to identify what perceived barriers ECE teachers have towards classroom
implementation of professional development innovations. The first part of the study consists of twelve interviews of current early-care educators. There are three teachers representing each of the four most common types of programs in California: Early Head Start/Head Start, Title 5, mixed funded and privately funded. Findings from the qualitative phase of the study determined elements and questions in the survey that were used to determine ECE teachers’ attitudes toward different types of professional development trainings and to identify barriers facing ECE teachers in the
implementation of innovative strategies in their classroom practices. The survey was administered at the California Association for the Education of Young Children (CAEYC) conference in Long Beach, CA on April 8-10, 2010. Over 4,000 early-care and education professionals from throughout the state attended this conference. Conference attendees were asked to complete a survey for this study, understanding that the intent of the survey was to determine the most commonly perceived barriers to the implementation of professional development training in the ECE field in
California. Collecting the qualitative data to develop the survey was crucial because an appropriate survey instrument could not be identified that addressed barriers to implementation of professional development learning and improving the quality of experiences for the children within the ECE classroom environment.
It is anticipated that the results of this study will provide data that could be used to support important changes in the requirements for professional development, influence changes in instruction and training methodologies used in professional development, and affect what types of professional development are offered to ECE teachers. This could have implications for all early childhood education professional development programs within California, especially those that are funded by the CDE, CDD, and could lead to better use of resources allocated to professional development in order to improve the quality of educational and care experiences for the children in center-based care in California. Bowman et al. (2000) noted, “The professional development of teachers is related to the quality of early childhood programs, and program quality predicts developmental outcomes for children” (p.7). The innovation would be realized in the classroom and the children would benefit directly from the professional development activities.
The research question to be studied is as follows:
What are the perceived barriers that impede or prevent ECE teachers from implementing instructional and classroom management innovations and techniques presented at professional development activities and training into their classrooms?
Limitations
This study is limited to classroom practitioners and does not include those who serve primarily in administrative or training roles. The intent of this study is to determine the perceived barriers from the ECE teachers’ viewpoints as the
participants in the professional development, the ones to implement innovation and the parties that works directly with the children. Thus the different perspectives may affect the results.
While participants at a California state-wide conference were invited to participate in the survey, the interviews conducted for this study were limited to participants from the San Francisco Bay Area and from the California Central Valley. Both teachers from urban and rural programs were interviewed. The barriers that exist in the two regions studied may not fully represent all barriers that exist in other parts of California. However, by including teachers from both urban and rural areas, many common barriers that ECE educators face are identified, despite the numerous settings, geographic areas and types of programs.
The years of experience in the field of the participants were collected but not used in this study. Years of experience were not factored in this study because most early care and education teachers in California are either required or encouraged to participate in a form of professional development since the passing of Proposition 10 in 1998. The 50-cent tax on tobacco products has funded one state level and 58 county level “First 5” commissions (Jacobson, 2009). An allocation of these funds
ensured the furthering of education and professional growth by participating educators.
The Significance of the Study
The results of this study can be used by the California Department of
Education, Child Development Division to further support professional development within funded programs by showing what forms of professional development lead to fewer perceived barriers and implemented innovation. Using the findings from this study, the CDE, CDD can review existing programs and reallocate funds to support more productive methods of professional development. The findings illustrate methodologies that are effective and ineffective in training teachers in Title 5 funded programs and other types of early childhood education centers in California and throughout the United States. With this information, ECE program administrators may be able to use the study results to support changes in their training practices to help facilitate increased learning opportunities and quality of care for children served by their teachers.
This mixed design study discloses the perceived barriers that ECE teachers have in successfully implementing professional development activities in their classrooms. Interviews were conducted with ECE teachers drawn from classrooms using several different types of funding sources. Based on the findings of the interviews, a survey for a larger sample population was created. The survey was administered at the CAEYC conference 2010. Classroom practitioner surveys were
used for analyses to determine the most prevalent barriers ECE teachers face in the implementation of professional development innovations into their classrooms.
This dissertation is presented in five parts. Chapter I introduces the importance of professional development in the field of early care and education, states the problem to be explored as well as the purpose of the study, provides the theoretical framework for the study, and describes the significance of the barriers to the implementation of professional development in the ECE classrooms. Chapter II provides an overview of relevant literature associated with education and professional development. Literature addressing the barriers to implementation is further
supported by other studies related to the topic. Chapter III details the research design and methods of the study, including the sequence of research, measures to ensure confidentiality and anonymity, and the sample sizes and procedures to ensure that the resulting survey from the qualitative section is a valid tool. Chapter IV describes the findings derived from the data in the qualitative interview segment of the research and in the resulting survey. The survey was administered to the CAEYC sample participants and these results are shared. The qualitative interviews not only
determined the survey questions, but provided anecdotes that support the quantitative findings. Frequencies and other statistical analysis from the survey draw out the perceived barriers ECE teachers face in relation to professional development
implementation. Finally, Chapter V provides analysis of the findings as they pertain to the perceived barriers and provides recommendations for types of professional development activities for ECE teachers that will increase the impact in the
classrooms, as well as suggested areas of future research supporting ECE teachers in becoming more effective educators of young children and insuring that professional development funding be used to produce desired results.
16 CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW
Professional development is a requirement and expectation in education. There are many books and articles on activities and on types of professional development. The National Association for the Education of Young Children
(NAEYC) is recognized as one of the most comprehensive accreditation programs for early childhood education centers. Under the heading of Preparation, Knowledge, and Skills of Teaching Staff (National Association for the Education of Young Children [NAEYC], 2007), both formal education and professional development are addressed. There is a specific criterion that also includes the requirement for each teacher to have “an annual individualized professional development plan” (NAEYC, 2007, p. 55). However, there is little research and literature that addresses the most effective manner to deliver professional development to ECE teachers that will help insure classroom implementation. There is very little inquiry as to the barriers to implementation, although there is literature on the most effective models for professional development with adult learners.
The professional status of ECE teachers as perceived by the education community and the general public has changed in recent years. The importance of having professional, educated persons working with young children in center-based care has become a national discussion. Degree requirements are mandated at the federal level and supported by many national professional organizations. The
challenge comes when the pay or the status of the ECE teacher does not match the educational and experiential requirements, which include a college level degree. The perceived status of an ECE teacher now needs to move from caregiver to professional educator. In this chapter, the research published in these areas is reviewed:
professional status of child development teachers; teacher educational attainment; teacher internships; effective methods of professional development; and dynamics in the workplace.
Professional Status of Child Development Teachers
Early childhood education is a field that is struggling to claim its professional status. With the low entry level educational requirements, a daily routine that looks like simple play, and a consistently lower wage than other educational fields, it has been difficult for ECE teachers to claim professional status. With the increasing level of recognition as a professional status occupation, the demands for ECE teachers to have higher degrees are increasing. Eventually, corresponding higher pay will follow as more ECE teachers complete their degrees, which in turn will increase the cost for care (Evans & Robinson, 1992). There is a low requirement to enter the field of ECE and begin working with young children, as Fromberg (1997) indicates, because within the field there are no degree requirements as with lawyers, doctors or
elementary school teachers, and there is little incentive to pursue further education. Once the minimum requirement is met for the program funding source, professional development is all that is required to maintain permits and meet requirements.
Evans and Robinson (1992) point out that when ECE teachers do not have degrees and certificates to teach in all programs, those teachers are not perceived as providing an effective school environment for young children. Parents, communities, other educators, and legislative decision makers need to be actors in this change. Well-prepared teachers are perceived by stakeholders, educators and non-educators alike, as being a key factor in the success of programs to help young children achieve a great start in learning and life (National Association for the Education of Young Children [NAEYC], 2007, March).
The professional content that an ECE teacher needs to learn to be a teacher of quality is more than 12 units and some hours in the classroom watching children. Isenberg (2000) says that an effective ECE provider has to be knowledgeable and fluent in the professional content of the field, including child development and learning, diversity, inclusion, families, and ethics. In addition to pedagogy and theory, the ECE teacher needs to be able to put into practice with children and
families what he or she has learned. Each group of children brings a unique teaching experience for that ECE teacher. Whether the teacher is working alone with a group of four infants or working in a classroom with 36 preschoolers and a couple of co-teachers, being an ECE teacher is more than babysitting or child care. The role of the teacher is multifaceted as teachers are the designers, managers, developers,
counselors, and advisors (Isenberg, 2000). But as a profession the multifaceted role is not readily appreciated, and the early childhood education provider still has obstacles
to overcome to elevate her or his status amongst other educators and with the public sector.
Teacher Educational Attainment
Teachers in the early childhood education field do not have to have a degree to work with young children. Not only does this affect the professional status of the field, but it also puts into question the importance of degrees when working with infants, toddlers and preschoolers. There are a number of authors who conclude, based on their research that, in order to promote quality preschool experiences and ensure that professional development methods are used, a bachelor’s degree in early childhood education or a related field should be required for ECE teachers (Bogard, Traylor, & Takanishi, 2008; Bowman, Donovan, & Burns, 2000; Fromberg, 1997; Lowenstein, Ochshorn, Kagan, & Fuller, 2004; Saracho & Spodek, 2007). Bowman et al. (2000) state that there is a disjunction between the current level of preparation of ECE teachers and what is pedagogically optimal for a young child’s learning and development. The teachers are not educated adequately to teach. Bogard et al. (2008) stress that much of early care and education is based on scientific research, and that educated teachers are needed to understand and implement such
comprehensive strategies on a daily basis with young children.
Lowenstein et al. (2004) state that the variable characteristics of formal education (college units) and specialized training (workshops or conferences) have a positive effect on the richness and quality of the early learning environment. Based on a review of several studies, Tout et al. (2006), and Zaslow et al. (2010) concluded
that formal education alone, even that targeting child development or early childhood education, did not determine high quality ECE programs. Kagan, Kauerz, and
Tarrant (2008) echo this conclusion, saying that the research neither denies nor confirms that a BA is essential for either teacher effectiveness or quality. The relationship between teachers holding a bachelor’s degree in child development or a related field did not suffice to assure high quality in the classrooms. Early et al. (2006) suggest:
Although the research linking education to quality is not conclusive about the optimal level of teacher education for classrooms and children, the field seems to be converging in the idea that pre-k teachers should have a Bachelor’s degree and that all teachers should be encouraged to increase their education to that level. (p. 176)
A bachelor’s degree will make early childhood educators more respected and professional in the eyes of parents and the public, since that is what is required of elementary school teachers. However, that alone does not determine the effectiveness of the ECE teacher (Bogard et al., 2008).
Specialized training has a more direct impact on the quality of a teacher. This perspective is supported by Tout et al. (2006), who discuss the impact of specialized training on a population of low-educated home-care providers. However, Tout et al. stress that there is a lack of studies on the impact of specialized training for center-based teachers.
A program that provides teacher training does not always result in the implementation of that training. Bowman et al. (2000) illustrate the link between professional development of teachers and quality programs, which in turn predicts
developmental outcomes for the children attending the programs, which employ those teachers. The intrinsic high turnover of staff can accelerate the speed at which a more highly educated workforce can be installed. Isenberg (2000) gave figures of 26-41% annual turnover of non-public teachers and 5.6% for public programs (p. 36). This opens a window for professional development to be implemented as a method that can help close the gap between the teachers with more formal education in the field and those with less.
Teacher Internships
There are studies that show that there is a correlation between internships and professional development and the quality of teaching in the classroom. In the field of education, both have been looked at, and there are theories as to best practices and models for both teacher training internships and ongoing professional development models. A rich source of research also is found in the area of child development.
In California, at community colleges and four-year institutions, there is a lab-component or internship requirement for associate’s degrees and bachelor’s degrees in child development and early childhood education. These labs have units and grades attached to them and labs are under the supervision of a faculty member. But the type of experience that the ECE student has varies greatly. Some campuses have the student work in their on-site center as an aide, while other programs begin them as an aide and then students are advanced to head teacher the following semester. Some use the students to maintain adult-child ratios and other have them as extra help. Another model is to have an overstaffed lab class with unrealistic adult to child ratios.
Students can also work in a center under the guidance of mentor teachers. Each of these models is designed to introduce ECE students to the practical implementation of the theory and pedagogy that the students have been learning about in the classroom. Evans and Robinson (1992) and Isenberg (2000) conclude that student teachers need more time under the supervision of experienced teachers and less in the classroom listening to lectures, and that this supervised, relevant student teaching or internship is a critical component to teacher preparation (Bowman et al., 2000).
In addition to the lab experience, which introduces ECE students to some of the skills those students will need in the classroom working with young children and how to implement some of the theory into practice, there needs to be a direct link between what is being taught to the next generation of ECE teachers and what is being practiced in the field. There is a lost connection between theory and practice. “Many programs prepare students with research-based best practices which are rarely used in the field” (Isenberg, 2000, p. 36). This type of instruction does not
adequately prepare ECE students to be successful in programs and their work with children. The students may have a pedagogical theory of how children are supposed to behave, but this theory may have very little effect when students are trying to get 24 preschoolers to attend to a story at circle time. The lab experience or internship may help fill in these gaps for the student, but it depends on the model as well as how much students were allowed to do during this learning time.
Effective Models of Professional Development
Zepeda (2008) elaborates on professional development as a tool for change while considering that change can take time to fully be achieved and integrated by the teacher. The author illustrates, through the works of Hord, Rutherford,
Huling-Austin, and Hall (1987), the following six important characteristics of change: a process, accomplishment by individuals, a highly personal experience, incremental change, change as understood best in terms of one’s own practice, and change
focused on the individuals involved in implementation (pp. 37-39). The professional development activity needs to take these factors into account in order to be effective. The evaluation of the professional development is partially measured by whether or not teachers actually implement any context or resulting innovation into their classrooms with any sustaining practices.
Zepeda (2008) also discusses some of the barriers for teachers which make them resistant to change. The author cites the work of Basom and Crandall (1991) as identifying the following barriers to change in schools: interrupted sequence of leadership, change viewed as unmanageable, poor preparation, underrepresentation in the decision-making process, tradition, competing needs and visions, and insufficient resources. While most of that author’s examples are based on larger institutional challenges which may also affect many ECE teachers, this study looks at the personal perceived barriers that early care educators may harbor.
As outlined by Sparks and Loucks-Horsley (1990), there are five models of staff development for teachers: individually guided, observation and assessment,
involvement in a development improvement process, and trainings and inquiry. The individually guided model takes into consideration the population and their
developmental needs, professional needs and learning styles. Observation and assessment can be unfocused to look at all aspects of teaching or be focused on specific targets. The observation and assessment is completed by a peer or supervisor, or is a self-reflection exercise. Involvement in a development
improvement process involves developing or adapting curriculum or a program to solve problems. Training refers to a workshop type session that is led by an expert. Inquiry is the exploration of a topic of interest or need by the participant teachers. Most programs utilize training sessions as their method of professional development.
But research shows that this is not effective (Hyson, Tomlinson & Morris, 2009). The traditional method of a daylong workshop or an evening of training does not consistently raise the quality of teaching practices within the classroom.
According to Zaslow et al. (2010),
The appropriateness of the length of time spent in professional development activities depends on the goals of the activities themselves. A one-time workshop is not effective if the goal is to convey theory and practice to improve multiple aspects….” (p. xiii)
Helterbran and Fennimore (2004) suggest that there is a clear need to examine and reform traditional approaches to professional development (p. 267). One time (one-shot) in-service workshops do not provide teachers with the necessary time or scaffolding to learn because learning is gradual and incremental (Sweeney, 2003).
They are packaged in off-site courses or one-shot workshops that are alien to the purposes and contexts of teachers’ work (Sweeney, 2003).
Only if the training is relevant to the ECE teachers will those teachers be successful in implementation. “There is growing evidence that lecture, workshops and other traditional forms of information delivery and training are too removed from the classroom realities to have significance on instructional practices of teachers”
(Mitchell & LeMoine, 2005, p. 13). Successful training is necessary to keep open teachers’ attitudes towards professional development. As the study by Gable and Hansen (2001) shows, if the teachers have little faith in education and training, voluntary and mandatory professional development will fail. Involvement in decision making for professional development is essential because it results in increased morale, ownership, understanding about the direction and processes of change with a sense of shared responsibility for the implementation and success of what was learned (Zepeda, 2008). Teacher input is required to help determine the direction and focus of the professional development. Ingvarson (2005) suggests that there is the need for teachers to identify their needs and participate in deciding what is needed for professional development activities.
Coaching or mentoring has been found to be an effective model of professional development. Bellanca (2009) states that lecture or lecture and demonstration will produce only a 10% change in classroom teaching, whereas coaching, especially by peers, will produce a 90% change in classroom teaching. A combined methodology of modeling and demonstration, which provides a visual
example of high quality instruction, followed by practice and feedback, is the method that best instills understanding and independence (Sweeney, 2003). Individualized, ongoing relationship-based mentoring creates the greatest increase in quality. Mentoring does more than improve teacher effectiveness and quality. It also assists in retention, teacher development, and student learning achievement (Strong, 2009). If the professional development is being introduced either as a mandated or needed innovation, the format in which it is presented will greatly influence its effectiveness. The preschool teacher must be engaged in this professional
development before it can impact the classroom and students (Guskey, 2000). Wong, Britton, and Ganser (2005) discuss at length how, in order to improve the practice, there must be a commitment of each individual in the organization to this endeavor.
The teachers need to have the commitment to implementation or else there is little or no change in the classroom. To maximize the transfer of the professional development content into the classrooms, the following training components should be utilized: exploration of theory or model, demonstration or modeling of the skill, practice under simulated conditions and peer coaching (Joyce & Showers, 1995). These characteristics illustrate that the professional development is intentional, ongoing and systematic (Guskey, 2000). If the criteria for professional development, as presented by Guskey are met, then the innovations will have a greater success rate in being transferred into the classroom, and the professional development will be considered successful.
Dynamics in the Workplace
Workplace dynamics are the last factor that was discovered to have influence on the teachers’ perceived barriers to the implementation of professional development in their classrooms. Having attended a professional development session or training, what stops them from instituting change in the classroom? The classroom is the teachers’ workplace. Teachers have procedures, requirements, children, parents, co-teachers, administrators, paperwork, and other things that may inhibit
implementation.
How does the workplace have an effect on the professional development implementation and desired resulted success? Here are some workplace factors in the ECE field that may influence professional development implementation into working classrooms. First, how is the professional development presented to each individual ECE teacher? Then, do the teachers attend the activity because there is something lacking in their classroom – either a mandate or an innovation that has been determined beneficial for the children in the program? Friedman (2004) says that teachers are more apt to participate in and implement professional growth activities when they get to choose the topics and develop their own timelines for
implementation. With mandates and requirements, this rarely happens. There needs to be a drive within the ECE teacher to want to grow professionally to ensure
improvement, no matter what the reason for the professional growth activity (Zepeda, 2008).
This growth is not only undertaken to meet mandates, but also to provide the individual teachers with more information, techniques and skills to better meet the needs of the young children in their care. The ownership helps with integration and implementation. This point is explained by Bellanca (2009) in the following passage:
Individuals can then decide if they will use the new knowledge in their classes. They may adjust a specific unit or integrate some new acquired facts in a lesson. Or, they may simply store the knowledge away for another day, take their earned credits or points, and teach the original course syllabus without any change. Is new knowledge acquired? Yes. Transfer to the classroom? No. In the context of professional development for change, there is no change when teachers acquire new material, but elect not to transfer it into the courses they teach. (pp. 2-3)
Teachers attending the professional development activity are pivotal in the successful outcome of the professional development. Teachers can implement innovations in their classrooms and change, or choose not to change their practices or use new skills acquired. The teachers are the key to professional development success.
There are some ECE teachers that are resistant to innovation and change of any kind. Sweeney (2003) calls them resistant learners who reject new knowledge and skills. Zepeda (2008) breaks change down into three parts, bringing light to factors which make change difficult for most people. Loss of control, the multi-dimensional nature of change and the acceptance of new beliefs (Zepeda, 2008, p. 40) all can be threatening or challenging for individuals. The teachers may reject new knowledge and skills because these are imposed from the outside and are presented in a manner that is contradictory and overwhelming (Sweeney, 2003). The teachers complain that the training is all on theory and that the needed practical or clinical
aspects of teaching are neglected (Joyce & Showers, 1995). There is also the fear of being criticized by colleagues or of being seen as elevating themselves higher than their peers by implementing the innovations (Sweeney, 2003). Peer pressure can have a direct correlation on the attitudes of professional development experiences. There are even occasions when the strategies learned are implemented and affirmed, only to have the teachers revert to their previous practice within a short time
(Friedman, 2004).
Finally, within each type of program, there are differences in the educational and experiential levels of teachers working. There are new teachers and those who have been working for many years. Some have minimum requirements; others have associate’s degrees or higher. Depending on the program, the variety of ECE teachers’ educational and experiential levels can be quite diverse, as illustrated in Appendix B. This range of professional preparation and roles is greater in the child development field than it is in other areas of education (Isenberg, 2000). Early et al. (2006) believe that this is due to the requirement that all elementary teachers hold at least a bachelor’s degree, whereas in early care and education, the range of teachers’ education is so much greater. With the low entry level of qualification required to work in the ECE field and because of disproportionate training opportunities offered by programs and employers, some experienced teachers without degrees may have more professional development than newly degreed teachers (Fromberg, 1997).
This diversity of experience found in the workplace would also be found in the professional development session. Desimone, Smith, and Ueno (2006) state that
professional development does not address the content knowledge gaps that lesser educated teachers have, they serve teachers strong in subject area. This means that there is a wide range of teacher skills at any professional development activity and not all attending may be able to incorporate the information presented without support.
Early care and education is changing in California and across the country. Raikes et al. (2006) state that there is a new wave of studies that link workforce characteristics with observed quality within the centers. There is a trend to look at the quality of early care and specifically the teachers who are working with children ages 0-5 years old. With formal education requirements being from 12 units to a
baccalaureate degree for NAEYC accredited ECE programs in California, professional development has become the medium to improving the quality of programs for young children.
This study sought to discover barriers in relation to the transfer and
implementation of professional development activities to the ECE classroom. The lack of research regarding the barriers for ECE teachers has made this inquiry
essential. The mixed methodology for this research guided the researcher to identify barriers to the implementation of innovations learned through professional
development by current practitioners. Summary
Chapter II is a review of literature that targets five topics that relate to obstacles ECE teachers may have in implementing innovations from professional
development activities. The chapter begins with an overview of the professional status of child development teachers as perceived by parents, legislators and
educators. This overview is followed by degree attainment requirements and research in terms of ECE teachers and professional development. Teacher internships and effective types of professional development are also presented in Chapter II. The chapter ends with an overview of dynamics in the workplace and how these dynamics affect teacher implementation of professional development activities into the
32 CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY
This study is a two-phase, exploratory sequential mixed methods approach to determine what perceived barriers child development teachers have towards
classroom implementation of professional development activities. This method of sequential exploratory mixed methods, which employs both qualitative research methodology and quantitative methodology, has been identified as an effective way to generate information about the unknown phenomenon (perceived barriers) and then to confirm this through a larger sample size (Creswell, 2009; Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007; Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). Figure 1 below is adapted from Creswell and Plano Clark (2007) to illustrate the sequencing of the research.
Figure 1. Sequencing of sequential mixed methods exploratory research design.
• Qualitative phase -interviews Analysis of qualitative data • Develop survey
Pilot test survey
• Quantitative phase - survey administration
Analysis of quantitative data
The phases of the study occur in chronological order with one strand emerging from the other (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). “A researcher explores how individuals describe a topic by starting with interviews and then use analysis of the information to develop a survey instrument that is administered later to a sample from a population” (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007, p. 11). The results of the first phase lead to the formulation of design components for the next strand, and both strands are used in the final inferences of the overall study (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009).
Beginning through interviews with early childhood educators, the perceived barriers to classroom implementation of professional development activities were identified and explored, and the most common barriers were used as the basis of a survey which was distributed to a large number of educators at a state conference on Early Childhood Education. The results of the survey were compiled to determine the most common perceived barriers that early childhood educators have in implementing professional development activities in the classroom.
Professional development activities that early childhood educators participate in may take place at their workplace, may be outside activities funded by their
workplace, or may be activities that educators themselves chose to attend at their own expense. Participation may be for personal betterment or mandated by their place of employment. After many hours spent in professional development activities by the ECE teacher, what obstacle faces the teacher? What blocks the teachers’
implementation of the innovations learned into the classroom setting? Improvement of quality and the introduction of new mandates are the most prevalent reasons for
professional development activities. The educators do not always implement the knowledge to which they were introduced into their teaching routines or classrooms. Interviews
Throughout the interviews, the researcher asked early childhood teachers to share their perceptions regarding implementation barriers to professional
development activities. During the first part of this study, the researcher contacted representatives from different agencies and individual centers to determine funding source(s). From this exploration, the researcher sorted out a set of ECE teachers participating in one of the sample programs the researcher targeted. For this study, three educators from each of the four types of programs were interviewed. This technique is called stratified purposive sampling and allows the researcher to discover and describe characteristics that are similar across the subgroups of types of programs (Teddlie & Tashakkori, 2009). Since each program has slightly different professional development requirements, the researcher included federally funded, state funded, blended funded and private funded programs. A total of 12 individuals were interviewed for the qualitative phase of the study. From these interviews, a survey was developed to present to a larger sample.
The researcher contacted programs that were within the four types of funding sources and asked the administrator to identify teachers that were interested in participating in this study. The researcher contacted each of the indentified teachers individually to outline the study and the process of the recorded interview. If the teacher was still willing to participate, the researcher scheduled an interview time and
date. The interviews took place at the educators’ workplaces. It was anticipated that the entire interview process would take no more than a half hour of the participant’s time. The researcher presented the consent sheet for the interviewee to review and sign (Appendix C). Interviewees also were informed that they might stop the
interview at anytime. The researcher informed the interviewee that the interview was to be recorded electronically, that she would also be taking notes during the
interview, and that all identifiers, including but not limited to name and workplace, would be removed from the results of the study.
The interview questions began with background information before focusing on professional development. The questions regarding professional development were designed for the interviewees to share their experiences with professional
development activities, as well as their perception of barriers to the implementation of knowledge acquired in the classrooms and interactions with children. The interview introduction and questions are presented in Appendix D. At the conclusion of the interview, the researcher reviewed the interview notes with the participant and asked if he or she would like to clarify or expand on any of the responses.
The researcher had assistance from paid professionals and colleagues
throughout this process. One service, SpeakWrite (www.speak-write.com), a voice to document service, transcribed the recording; colleagues assisted during survey
collection of the larger sample; and a third colleague ran the analysis of the survey data per the researcher’s specifications. All parties were informed of the
and complied data) as outlined by the University Institutional Review Board (UIRB) and were asked to sign a statement that they understood the confidentiality
requirements for assisting with this study (Appendix E). During the interview and directly after, the researcher took notes to help refresh her memory regarding subject matter shared by the interviewed subject, as well as any thoughts or insights she believed might aid in this study. A sample of notes is presented as Appendix F. Analysis of Qualitative Data
After the completion of the interviews, the researcher downloaded the audio recordings of the interviews onto her computer and sent the audio to SpeakWrite from the recording device. The researcher deleted the recorded interview from the recorder once it was successfully imported to the computer and received by SpeakWrite for transcription. Once the researcher received the password-secured transcriptions, the transcriber service destroyed all electronic copies of interview recordings and transcriptions. The researcher kept both the recordings and transcriptions in a password-secured electronic storage for the duration of the research. The researcher will delete interview recordings and transcriptions one year after completion of the research study. Appendix G is a page of transcription as received from the
SpeakWrite service. All identifiers of the interviewee have been removed. All paper copies of the interview transcriptions will also be shredded and destroyed at the end of this research project.
The transcribed interviews were coded by the researcher, using
most commonly perceived barriers to implementing what is learned from professional development activities into the classroom were used in the survey formation. The results of the coding were also used in the final writing of the study, for the qualitative component of the results, and for discussion of the quantitative survey findings.
Survey Development
Before presenting this survey to the UIRB for review and before administering it to the large sample population, it was pilot tested by four
administrators, each representing one of the different types of programs from which the interviewees for the qualitative study were drawn. None of these administrators have direct supervisory or any administrative responsibility over any of the
participants in the interviews and were able to give additional assistance in the wording of the survey when they completed the sample survey worksheet (Appendix H). DeVellis (1991 as cited in Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007), recommends that the survey tool being developed have several final reviews prior to its distribution to the sample population. After composing the sample survey, the researcher checked to ensure that each question asked one specific query and that all questions were at an appropriate reading level for the intended population. The researcher had the
questions reviewed by an expert in survey design and administration to verify that the questions met the above criteria. Any questions from this pilot survey were modified if they were deemed inappropriate or ambiguous (Stringer, 2008). The intent of this pilot test was to determine if the questions were clear.
Survey Administration
The final survey (Appendix I) was distributed to the participants at the California Association for the Education of Young Children (CAEYC) conference in Long Beach on April 8-10, 2010. The conference attracts early childhood educators from all over California with an estimated attendance of around 4,000 participants.
The researcher had permission by the conference planning coordinator to have a table at the registration area to ask conference attendees to participate in this survey. Upon arrival at the conference, the researcher was informed that the survey was to be conducted within the Exhibition Hall with vendors attending the conference instead of in the registration area. The survey included demographic questions for
background information regarding the participant, although names of participants were not collected. The background information was used to remove administrators, trainers, faculty and other non-classroom staff from the sample, as the sample was limited to educators that work in the classroom with young children. Information regarding educational background, years of experience, type of Child Development Permit held, type of program worked in and region of California was collected for demographic purposes.
The surveys were available in the Exhibition Hall of the conference. The researcher and colleagues asked conference attendees to participate in the survey. Clipboards and pens were provided with the survey. At the top of each survey there was a statement regarding the confidentiality of information disclosed and the statement that the information was to be used only for this study. There was a full
disclosure statement regarding the study available to any individual who wanted to read it (Appendix J). Consent was given filling out the survey. The completed surveys were kept in a secure box at the location where the surveys were solicited. The surveys remained anonymous with only limited demographic information collected. During the duration of the conference, collected surveys were stored in a locked hotel room. The surveys were brought back from the conference in the researcher’s car and transported to the researcher’s residence, where they remaine secure.
Analysis of Quantitative Data
Upon return from the CAEYC conference, the box containing the surveys was sorted. All surveys completed by administrators, trainers, faculty and other non-classroom staff were removed from the sample and stored in the researcher’s home. The data collected on the surveys completed by classroom teachers were entered into the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, v. 16.0 (SPSS). These surveys will be destroyed one year after the completion of this study. Using the SPSS program, statistical analyses were run on data derived from the survey. The researcher tested frequencies to determine the most commonly indentified barriers to implementation of professional development activities, and a 3x5 Contingency analysis was run to determine if there was a difference in degree achievement and perceived barriers. Limitations
While participants at a California state-wide conference were invited to participate in the survey, the interviews conducted for this study were limited to
participants from the San Francisco Bay Area and from the California Central Valley. Both teachers from urban and rural programs were interviewed. The barriers that exist in the two regions studied may not fully represent all barriers that exist in other parts of California. However, by including teachers from both urban and rural areas, many common barriers that ECE educators face were identified, despite the numerous settings, geographic areas and types of programs.
This study is limited to classroom practitioners. Administrators, trainers and faculty members were not interviewed, nor were their surveys used as data. The surveys completed by aides, teachers and head teachers were used, since these
positions work directly with young children in programs. The intent of this study was to determine the perceived barriers from the ECE teacher viewpoint as the participant in the professional development, the one to implement innovation, and the party that works directly with the children. The perspectives of administrators and adult trainers may be substantially different from those of classroom practitioners.
Professional development is needed as a vehicle to improve the quality of early care and education. It can not only change the environments in which young children spend their days and the types of activities in which they engage, but it can raise the level of status of ECE teachers as professional educators. The barriers that ECE teachers face to implementing the rich variety of professional development activities they engage in annually needs to be identified and addressed. If ECE teachers are expected to use strategies and activities presented to them, these barriers that block innovations from happening and enriching the lives of young children need
to be recognized and addressed as real. Time and money can continue to be spent on professional development activities, but until the barriers are removed, there will continue to be limited improvement in the quality of early care and education. Once the perceived barriers are identified through this research, the barriers can be
addressed and ECE teachers will be more successful in fully implementing new ideas, activities, and strategies into their classrooms.
