The Early Learning Opportunities (ELO) Act - Child & Family Studies

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Evaluation of the Early Learning Opportunities Act Question 2 Does the Home Visiting Model Enhance Child and Family Outcomes? Outcomes for children and their families who participated in the parent training component (i.e., Non-Compliant Child parent training curriculum) were examined. Parent ratings of their child’s behavior using the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL) were explored for answers to this question. Given the short time that elapsed between initiation and completion of this parent training component (less than the six month test-retest reliability recommendation), only raw scores were inspected for changes over time. In short, higher scores indicate deviations from typical behavior. Consequently, decreased raw scores after participation indicate positive changes in parent’s ratings of their child’s social-emotional status. As can be seen in Figure 2, positive changes were noted in all participating children following completion of the parent training behavior component. Figure 2 Children’s Challenging Behavior Before and After Participation 100 90 80 70 Raw Score 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Before Participation After Participation Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, University of South Florida – page 17
Evaluation of the Early Learning Opportunities Act Question 3 Does the Classroom-Teaching Component Increase Knowledge and Skills of Child Care Providers? Data from two sources were examined to answer this question. First, a survey of teachers’ knowledge of research based teaching strategies for early literacy instruction was analyzed. Next, classroom environment and teacher-student interactions were examined. Outcomes from these two avenues of evaluation are presented. Teacher Skills A pre and posttest survey of teacher’s knowledge about early literacy skill acquisition and instructional strategies were evaluated against a mastery criterion. Mastery of the targeted course content would be reflected by an accuracy rate of 80% on the post test administration of the Early Literacy Instruction Knowledge survey (15 out of 19 possible points). Data from the Spring Cohort I of ELO participants were examined. Inspection of the pre and posttest scores indicated none of the teachers obtained this level of mastery learning on the pretest while 50% of the teachers demonstrated this level of knowledge on the posttest (see Table 10). A repeated measures Analysis of Variance was conducted to explore this difference. Results provided documentation that teachers’ posttest scores (M = 13.67) were higher than pretest scores (M = 11.33), Wilks’ Lambda, F(1, 17) = 26.87, p < .0001. Figure 3 offers a visual of the relationship between pre and posttest scores over time. Table 10 Mean Scores for Teachers’ Literacy Knowledge Pre and Posttest Survey N Pretest Posttest HUR With Coaching 8 11.36 13.70 HUR Without Coaching 10 10.78 13.63 All Spring Cohort Teachers 18 11.33 13.67 Figure 3 Changes in Teachers’ Skills as Measured by Early Literacy Knowledge Survey Meeting 80% Criterion Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, University of South Florida – page 18
Page 1 and 2: July 2005 Early Learning Opportunit
Page 3 and 4: This publication was produced by th
Page 5 and 6: Evaluation of the Early Learning Op
Page 23: Evaluation of the Early Learning Op
Page 39 and 40: Table 17 (Continued) Dates, topics,
Page 51 and 52: Appendix A (Continued): BAILSS Eval

The Early Learning Opportunities (ELO) Act - Child & Family Studies

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?