Engaging Practitioners in Program Evaluation PDF Download

Author: Sue Bainter
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 15

Get Book

Book Description
Background: Many early intervention teams are shifting their service delivery for children with disabilities from a child-focused model to one that focuses on strengthening the competence and confidence of the child's caregivers (parents, childcare providers, preschool teachers). The use of coaching strategies in a primary coach model of service delivery continues to evolve as a means of supporting young children who have disabilities in their natural home-community environments (where they and their families interact every day) (Shelden & Rush 2006). The early intervention team in this study felt their coaching strategies were making a difference; however, they had no systematic way to evaluate/document their efforts. Purpose: To engage early intervention practitioners in a program evaluation of their efforts toward implementation of intended coaching practices with caregivers of young children with disabilities. To examine the immediate effects of those coaching practices on caregivers' behaviors and gather evidence of practitioner-caregiver partnerships and desired caregiver competence and confidence. Setting: Home and preschool classrooms of subjects associated with a midsize public school district early intervention/special education program that provides home/community visits as a state-mandated service for children who have disabilities, ages birth to 5 years. Study Sample: Five early intervention practitioners including two speech therapists, three early childhood teachers and six caregivers. The data collection focused on six dyads and the interactions between the practitioner and the caregiver of a child who was enrolled in the public school early intervention/special education program. Intervention: Early Intervention practitioners meet weekly in the homes or classrooms of children's caregivers. Visits are jointly designed in terms of purpose, scheduling and frequency and practitioners aim to focus caregivers on the priority identified for their child/family. Coaching strategies are used to build a caregiver's ability to effectively involve their child in everyday learning opportunities and child/family interests to enhance the child's participation and development. All coaching interactions involve some amount of observation, reflection and joint planning, but also include discussion, demonstration, practice, problem solving, questions, and feedback. The practitioner and caregiver routinely assess the effectiveness of the coaching partnership and activities in light of their intentions and the child's progress (Hanft, Rush & Sheldon, 2004). Research Design: Descriptive; Other Quantitative; Control or Comparison Condition. Data Collection and Analysis: A meeting of all district-employed early intervention practitioners (n = 21) was used to solicit descriptions of perceived roles and program outcomes. Themes were identified and cross-referenced with principles of coaching generated from a statewide training that most of the practitioners had completed. The themes were then reframed by the evaluators using the literature on evidence-based practices in early intervention so as to develop a core of behavioral "success" indicators for both the practitioner and the caregiver. Six home/community visits/meetings were videotaped; each one involved the interactions between one practitioner and one caregiver. Follow-up telephone interviews were conducted with each practitioner and caregiver independently to determine each participant's satisfaction with the visit, their perception of their role, and the actions taken. The videotapes were watched independently by two evaluators using two-minute intervals to note (+/-) all behavioral indicators evidenced at least once in that time period for both the practitioner and the caregiver. Mean rate per minute calculations were used to compare behaviors of practitioners to caregivers and to compare behaviors of both in hobserved in community visits (2) which were both intervention planning meetings. Responses to post-visit Yes-No interview questions were noted as (+/-), with total number of positive responses divided by total number of questions asked to compute a percentage of positive responses per partner. A mean percentage was computed independently for the group of practitioners, and the group of caregivers observed across the six visits. Findings: Practitioners and caregivers were engaged, and perceived themselves to be engaged, during the visits with the most amount of practitioner and caregiver time in each dyad spent in collaboration/partnership building. The least amount of the practitioners' time was spent engaging caregivers in planned or spontaneous learning opportunities with the child or planning for next steps. Despite their eager engagement in developing a partnership with practitioners in each visit (sharing, asking questions), the caregivers' rates of active reflection behavior, problem-solving and generation of new ideas for their children's targets and learning opportunities were notably low as compared to the rate of practitioner behaviors aimed at promoting these caregiver behaviors (2 X more frequent). The practitioners engaged least in behaviors that encouraged caregiver engagement with the children during or after the visit; not surprising, the caregivers engaged in these actions very seldom during the visits. Practitioners and caregivers did not differ dramatically across the six dyads. Overall, practitioners promoted reflection more in home visits than in meetings and parent-caregivers were more likely than teacher-caregivers to practice new strategies or describe possible learning opportunities for the children. Conclusion: Because the EI team was engaged in the process of developing the behavioral "success" indicators used for coding the observed practitioner-caregiver interactions, the study provided meaningful information upon in light of their intentions. The results indicated that the five practitioners participating in this study were demonstrating efforts to engage the caregivers as partners, and encouraging them to reflect, problem-solve and identify child-learning opportunities. The caregivers involved show a willingness to partner in planning the focus for discussion or observation of their child, but demonstrated notably lower rates of action and participatory activities. Both the practitioners and caregivers perceived contributions to a partnership in their visits. Practitioners might benefit from greater focus/time spent on promoting caregiver-child interactions during or after the visits. However, it is not known from this study if these or current efforts are enough to effect change in the caregivers' behaviors or that of their child. References: Hanft, B., Rush, D. & Shelden, M. (2004). Coaching families and colleagues in early childhood. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes. Shelden, M. & Rush, D. (2006, June). Personal Development: Facilitators' Summer Institute, Nebraska Department of Education, Lincoln. Citation: Bainter, S. & Marvin, C. (2006). Engaging practitioners in program evaluation: A preliminary report of perceptions and observations of practitioner-caregiver partnerships in early intervention. University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Appended are: (1) Practitioner Follow-Up Survey and Caregiver Follow-Up Survey; (2) Raw data resulting from team meeting January 2005; and (3) Practitioner Behavioral Indicators (to be observed in the practitioner and Caregiver Behavioral Indicators (to be observed in the caregiver. (Contains 2 tables.).