“…We employ data from the first year of the International Rescue Committee's (IRC's) Learning to Read in a Healing Classroom (LRHC) intervention—the only large-scale cluster randomized trial of a universal school-based socioemotional learning program in a CAC to date—in the DRC, in order to provide initial evidence for a dynamic, multilevel theory of change in which proximal changes in the quality of school and classroom ecologies lead to distal changes in multiple domains of children's learning and development, including academic skills (literacy and numeracy) and socioemotional functioning (mental health problems and victimization; see Figure 1). Specifically, building on our prior work quantifying the impact of 1 year of exposure to LRHC on teacher motivation (Wolf, Aber, & Torrente, 2016), school and classroom social and pedagogical interactions between students and teachers (Torrente et al, 2015), student socioemotional outcomes (Torrente et al, 2015), and student academic outcomes (Aber et al, 2016), we employ multilevel structural equation modeling techniques to examine whether LRHC caused changes in school and classroom processes that are associated with students’ academic and socioemotional outcomes after 1 year of implementation. Figure 1. Hypothesized Learning to Read in a Healing Classroom evaluation theory of change.…”
Improving children's learning and development in conflict-affected countries is critically important for breaking the intergenerational transmission of violence and poverty. Yet there is currently a stunning lack of rigorous evidence as to whether and how programs to improve learning and development in conflict-affected countries actually work to bolster children's academic learning and socioemotional development. This study tests a theory of change derived from the fields of developmental psychopathology and social ecology about how a school-based universal socioemotional learning program, the International Rescue Committee's Learning to Read in a Healing Classroom (LRHC), impacts children's learning and development. The study was implemented in three conflict-affected provinces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and employed a cluster-randomized waitlist control design to estimate impact. Using multilevel structural equation modeling techniques, we found support for the central pathways in the LRHC theory of change. Specifically, we found that LRHC differentially impacted dimensions of the quality of the school and classroom environment at the end of the first year of the intervention, and that in turn these dimensions of quality were differentially associated with child academic and socioemotional outcomes. Future implications and directions are discussed.
“…We employ data from the first year of the International Rescue Committee's (IRC's) Learning to Read in a Healing Classroom (LRHC) intervention—the only large-scale cluster randomized trial of a universal school-based socioemotional learning program in a CAC to date—in the DRC, in order to provide initial evidence for a dynamic, multilevel theory of change in which proximal changes in the quality of school and classroom ecologies lead to distal changes in multiple domains of children's learning and development, including academic skills (literacy and numeracy) and socioemotional functioning (mental health problems and victimization; see Figure 1). Specifically, building on our prior work quantifying the impact of 1 year of exposure to LRHC on teacher motivation (Wolf, Aber, & Torrente, 2016), school and classroom social and pedagogical interactions between students and teachers (Torrente et al, 2015), student socioemotional outcomes (Torrente et al, 2015), and student academic outcomes (Aber et al, 2016), we employ multilevel structural equation modeling techniques to examine whether LRHC caused changes in school and classroom processes that are associated with students’ academic and socioemotional outcomes after 1 year of implementation. Figure 1. Hypothesized Learning to Read in a Healing Classroom evaluation theory of change.…”
Improving children's learning and development in conflict-affected countries is critically important for breaking the intergenerational transmission of violence and poverty. Yet there is currently a stunning lack of rigorous evidence as to whether and how programs to improve learning and development in conflict-affected countries actually work to bolster children's academic learning and socioemotional development. This study tests a theory of change derived from the fields of developmental psychopathology and social ecology about how a school-based universal socioemotional learning program, the International Rescue Committee's Learning to Read in a Healing Classroom (LRHC), impacts children's learning and development. The study was implemented in three conflict-affected provinces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and employed a cluster-randomized waitlist control design to estimate impact. Using multilevel structural equation modeling techniques, we found support for the central pathways in the LRHC theory of change. Specifically, we found that LRHC differentially impacted dimensions of the quality of the school and classroom environment at the end of the first year of the intervention, and that in turn these dimensions of quality were differentially associated with child academic and socioemotional outcomes. Future implications and directions are discussed.
“…However, no significant benefits were found in the impact evaluation, although in the in-depth interviews, some teachers did report that using positive strategies was less stressful than using harsh punishment and that they were calmer, less stressed and more relaxed after the training. Few studies have included measures of teacher wellbeing in evaluations of teacher-training interventions in LMIC and the results are mixed [47,48,49].…”
This study investigated the effect of a school-based violence prevention programme implemented in Grade 1 classrooms in Jamaican primary schools. Fourteen primary schools were randomly assigned to receive training in classroom behaviour management (n = 7 schools, 27 teachers/classrooms) or to a control group (n = 7 schools, 28 teachers/classrooms). Four children from each class were randomly selected to participate in the evaluation (n = 220 children). Teachers were trained through a combination of workshop and in-class support sessions, and received a mean of 11.5 h of training (range = 3–20) over 8 months. The primary outcomes were observations of (1) teachers’ use of violence against children and (2) class-wide child aggression. Teachers in intervention schools used significantly less violence against children (effect size (ES) = −0.73); benefits to class-wide child aggression were not significant (ES = −0.20). Intervention teachers also provided a more emotionally supportive classroom environment (ES = 1.22). No benefits were found to class-wide prosocial behaviour, teacher wellbeing, or child mental health. The intervention benefited children’s early learning skills, especially oral language and self-regulation skills (ES = 0.25), although no benefits were found to achievement in maths calculation, reading and spelling. A relatively brief teacher-training programme reduced violence against children by teachers and increased the quality of the classroom environment.
“…In conflict and post conflict contexts, the focus has been on measuring the effectiveness of mental health and psychosocial interventions essentially tested in the classroom [102]. Many studies in conflict and post-conflict countries–in Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Indonesia, Nepal or Sri Lanka—did not find a significant effect of these interventions in reducing symptoms of depression and anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorders [14, 19, 103, 104].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Building “girl friendly” schools [52, 109], supporting low performing children with adapted remedial instruction interventions [86, 110, 111] have been shown to increase standardized test scores, but no study has measured the impact of interventions that specifically promote quality education in LICs, particularly in conflict contexts [112]. Existing school interventions have shown mixed results in terms of improving child mental wellbeing in conflicts settings [14, 20, 104]. Lack of studies is even more alarming in the field of disability and inclusive education.…”
Recent study shows that 617 million children and adolescents–or six out of 10 globally- are not acquiring minimum levels in literacy and mathematics, indicating the magnitude of the learning acquisition problem. For children with disabilities in context of conflict, the situation is arguably even worse: the literature shows that they face difficulties to access the education system due to multiple barriers, and when they do access, they are not learning. Our paper examines if an active education policy promoting inclusion since 2005 in Afghanistan, a protracted crisis context, has been effective. Using two cross sectional household surveys carried out eight years apart (2005–2013), our study shows that access to school and literacy did not improve between 2005 and 2013 for children and youth with disabilities. Both access and literacy outcomes were worse for girls with disabilities, those with a mental, learning or associated disability and those living in household where the head was uneducated. Finally, odds of being mentally distressed significantly declined between 2005 and 2013 indicating that schools might play a protective role for children with disabilities in Afghanistan. Our findings suggest that a multilevel multi-pronged adaptation of the existing system to improve the learning experience and promote children’s resilience, particularly for children with disabilities, in conflict context such as Afghanistan, is required.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
