At-scale, state-sponsored language and literacy professional development: Impacts on early childhood classroom practices and children’s outcomes.

Abstract

Professional development (PD) is a potentially important mechanism for enhancing classroom practices and children's learning. In this large-scale randomized controlled trial, we examined the effectiveness of language and literacy PD, with and without coaching, offered at scale to early childhood educators (n ϭ 546) across 1 state. Relative to the comparison condition, PD with coaching showed a small impact on the quantity of phonological awareness instruction, and PD with and without coaching impacted the quality of phonological awareness and writing instruction. PD did not impact children's (n ϭ 1,953, M age ϭ 4.53) emergent literacy skills, as measured by the research team, or kindergarten readiness, as measured by the state's kindergarten readiness assessment which exclusively focused on language and literacy skills. Although we can only speculate as to why this at-scale, state-sponsored PD did not realize intended impacts, these findings, as coupled with those from the literature, raise critical questions concerning current understandings of PD and the ability to achieve desired effects when implemented at scale. Educational Impact and Implications StatementIn the field of education, professional development is intended to improve classroom instruction and children's learning. However, we have a limited understanding as to its effects, especially when used at scale with large numbers of educators. In this study, we examined the language and literacy professional development offered to early childhood educators by one state. We found that the professional development affected only a few aspects of classroom literacy instruction and did not affect young children's literacy learning. These results suggest that, in order to be effective, at-scale professional development may require greater attention to design and implementation and highlight the need for pilot work regarding effects of professional development prior to large-scale investments.

Early childhood educators' knowledge about language and literacy: Associations with practice and children's learning

“…Possibly, our findings are specific to print concept learning due to our selected classroom practice measure. At least two of the subscales utilized included practices relevant to supporting print concept knowledge (i.e., Book Reading and Print and Letter Knowledge), and educators exhibited limited scores on the Early Writing and Phonological Awareness subscales (which corresponds to current evidence concerning minimal phonological awareness and writing opportunities in early childhood classrooms; Cunningham et al, ; Gerde, Bingham, & Pendergast, ; Pelatti, Piasta, Justice, & O'Connell, ; Piasta et al, ). Thus, alignment between our practice and child outcome measures may have been greatest for print concept knowledge, and use of a different measure of practice better aligned with other outcomes might have yielded additional findings.…”

“…Participation was open to all early childhood educators who registered for the state professional development, directly taught preschool‐aged children, agreed to complete research study activities, and provided informed consent. Notably, the original evaluation project showed no impacts of the professional development on measures of educators' knowledge, no impacts on any child outcomes, and no impacts on the overall quantity or quality of classroom practices (Piasta et al, ; Piasta et al, ).…”

What Happens During Language and Literacy Coaching? Coaches’ Reports of Their Interactions With Educators

“…It is important to note that these findings suggest an explanation for the mixed evidence around coaching, as coaches seemed to move beyond the specifications of the PD in their interactions with educators. Indeed, findings regarding the efficacy of the PD indicate no effects of coaching on educator outcomes (Piasta, Justice, et al, 2017;. This work calls for continued nuanced research that goes beyond fixed-item coaching logs in order to better understand how coaching content and processes may mediate the success of coaching-focused PD.…”

“…In general, there were few differences between the full sample of educators receiving coaching and the analytic sample; differences are noted in the text. (More information regarding the full sample is available in Piasta, Justice, et al, 2017.). Educators all reported working with children ages 3 to 5.…”

“…The latter three were conversation-based strategies for engaging with educators about PD content and practice. The coaching cycle then repeated, and coaches completed logs documenting coaching activities (see Piasta, Justice, et al, 2017). No feedback on how to use the coaching logs was provided to the coaches.…”