Irish Teachers’ Views On Programme Implementation: Findings From A Participatory Study.

Author(s):

Christina Murphy(presenting / submitting)Saoirse Nic Gabhainn

Conference:

ECER 2016

Network:

03. Curriculum Innovation

Format:

Paper (Copy for Joint Session)

Session Information

03 SES 02 B JS, Enacting the HE Curriculum - Teachers' Experiences and Challenges

Joint Paper Session NW 03 and NW 08

Time:

2016-08-23

15:15-16:45

Room:

OB-H2.32

Chair:

Contribution

This paper describes a participatory study conducted with Irish teachers. The aim was to explore conceptualisations of school-based programme implementation.

Research questions

How do teachers’ conceptualise school-based programme implementation?
How do the teachers conceptualisations compare to conceptual frameworks found in the school-based programme implementation literature?

Theoretical framework

Programme implementation

The evaluation of programmes in natural settings is necessary so that the main features and conditions which promote high quality implementation are recognised. To do this, information is required about specific programme elements, how they are delivered and the features of the setting in which the programme is delivered (Barry & Jenkins, 2007). There is a particular need to explore context (Butler et al., 2010; Greenberg, Domitrovich, Graczyk, & Zins, 2005) and to assist in identifying the barriers and facilitators of implementation.

School-based programme implementation

School-based programmes are as unique as school structures, policies, and organisational infrastructures allows for greater consistency over time in addition to addressing a larger group of programme participants (Dariotis, Bumbarger, Duncan, & Greenberg, 2008). Although they can be ideal settings, schools are complex and face settings-based implementation challenges (Butler, et al., 2010; Firth et al., 2008).

Previous research has identified key factors in school-based implementation. Some relate to teachers: teacher training (Han & Weiss, 2005); teacher characteristics, such as voluntariness (Nic Gabhainn, O'Higgins, & Barry, 2010), knowledge (Cholevas & Loucaides, 2012) confidence (Larsen, Samdal, & Tjomsland, 2012), and self-efficacy (Sy & Glanz, 2008). Others relate to the school environment, such as curriculum overload (Patton, Bond, Butler, & Glover, 2003) and support from school leadership and peers (Langley, Nadeem, Kataoka, Stein, & Jaycox, 2010), particularly from the school principal (Kam, Greenberg, & Walls, 2003).

In the case of school-based programmes, it is often teachers who are the main implementers. However, it is unclear how teachers conceptualise implementation. This leads to number of questions: What do teachers think about implementation?; What do teachers need to implement a programme?; What context are they operating within?; Are there comparable elements that cross contextual barriers that could detail core elements of school systems and school-based implementation?

Conceptual frameworks of school-based implementation

Exploring school-based programme implementation can be assisted through the use of conceptual models or frameworks. Meyers et al. (2012) provided a synthesis of the implementation literature. They reviewed implementation frameworks and selected those that described the “main actions and strategies believed to constitute an effective implementation process related to using innovations in new settings” (Meyers, Durlak, & Wandersman, 2012p. 465). In total, 25 frameworks were identified, with three specifically relating to school based interventions:

1. The Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) (2011) framework details a ten-step implementation plan, six sustainability factors, and places effective leadership at the core of implementing school-wide social and emotional learning (SEL).

2. The Hall and Hord (2006) Concerns-Based Adoption Model (CBAM) is a conceptual framework that details, explains, and predicts possible teacher concerns and behaviours during the school change progression.

3. The Greenberg et al. (2005) model describes the various factors that affect school-based SEL programme implementation under the broad headings of planned intervention and planned implementation support, actual intervention and actual implementation support, and contextual factors.

Method

A participatory method, adapted method from Nic Gabhainn and Sixsmith (2005), was used to explore Irish teachers’ views on implementation. This experiential activity involved teachers conceptualising and creating their own schemas of school-based implementation. Study design and sample A cross-sectional, single group design was employed. Due to the nature of the research question, a purposive sampling technique was adopted. Teachers were recruited by a gatekeeper employed in a teacher education centre (an in-service/continuing professional development centre for teachers). Nine teachers participated in this study. Procedure Stage 1 - Brainstorming activity Participants were first asked: ‘what would you need to implement a new programme in the school?’ Each participant was asked to brainstorm individually and write each idea on a single index card. Stage 2 - Category Creation Next the cards were collected, combined and shuffled. Participants were divided into two sub-groups and asked to divide the cards into categories, and to label the category descriptively on a separate index card. At this stage participants were free to add extra dimensions (categories) if they so wished. Stage 3- Schema Development The categories created by each of the two sub-groups swopped. Participants were invited to create a schema with the category descriptors. The researcher explained that the schema could be in any shape or form. Participants were asked to insert arrows if they felt a relationship existed between any of the categories in their schema. It was explained that the arrows could be unidirectional or bidirectional and there was no limit on the number of arrows. Stage 4- Feedback Participants were asked for feedback on the schema and the overall research process and if they had anything else to add. Analytical framework As this research study was participatory, the data was both generated and analysed by the teachers who took part (as evidenced in the schemas created by participants from the data they generated). However, for this paper, the schemas developed by teachers were subsequently analysed by the researchers in a two-stage process. Initially, the schemas were analysed using basic content analysis to look for commonalities and differences between the schemas. The schemas were then compared to the conceptual models of school-based implementation (CASEL, 2011; Greenberg, 2005; Hall and Hord, 2006).

Expected Outcomes

Two schemas were developed by the teachers. The overall concept of support was stressed in both schemas. Time, training and resources were highly repetitive components and feature throughout both schemas. In schema A, an ‘incentives and perception’ category was developed and formed the base from which all other elements emanated. The ‘Department directive’ category formed the core of schema B and contained more components than any other category. It is interesting to note that students did not feature in either schema. As described earlier, a coding scheme developed from existing implementation models was used to analyse the schemas. Similar to the models, the schemas created by the teachers emphasised leadership and support (including leaders of various types and multilevel leadership); and quality and availability of resources and equipment. The importance of the pre-planning (readiness) and planning stages and training and continuing professional development (both pre and in-service training) was also stressed. The role of the programme implementer (incorporating implementer feelings and perceptions willingness, readiness and capacity to deliver a programme) and specific programme features, including curriculum and design, were also referred to throughout the schemas but to a lesser degree. Teachers mainly focused on the planning process and how the programme would be implemented. The schemas created by teachers reinforce arguments within the literature that that even the most successful programmes will fail without a suitable support system. Conceptual models of school-based implementation highlight the importance of leadership and motivation throughout the process of programme implementation.

References

Barry, M., & Jenkins, R. (2007). Implementing Mental Health Promotion. Edinburgh, London: Churchill Livingstone, Elsevier. Butler, H., Bowes, G., Drew, S., Glover, S., et al. (2010). Harnessing Complexity: Taking Advantage of Context and Relationships in Dissemination of School-Based Interventions. Health Promotion Practice, 11(2), 259-267. Cholevas, N., & Loucaides, C. (2012). Factors that facilitate and barriers towards the implementation of health educational programmes in primary education schools of the prefecture of Achaia, Greece. Health Education Journal, 71(3), 365-375. Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning, National Center for Mental Health Promotion and Youth Violence Prevention. (2011). Leading an SEL school: Steps to implement social and emotional learning for all students. 5/20/11. Greenberg, M., Domitrovich, C., Graczyk, P., & Zins, J. (2005). The study of implementation in school-based prevention research: Implications for theory, research and practice. Rockville: MD: Center for Mental Health Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. (2006). Implementing change: Patterns, principles and potholes Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Han, S., & Weiss, B. (2005). Sustainability of Teacher Implementation of School-Based Mental Health Programs. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33(6), 665-679. Kam, C., Greenberg, M., & Walls, C. (2003). Examining the role of implementation quality in school-based prevention using the PATHS curriculum. Prevention Science, 4(1), 55-63. Langley, A., Nadeem, E., Kataoka, S., Stein, B., & Jaycox, L. (2010). Evidence-based mental health programs in schools: Barriers and facilitators of successful implementation. School mental health, 2(3), 105-113. Larsen, T., Samdal, O., & Tjomsland, H. (2012). Physical activity in schools: A qualitative case study of 8 Norwegian schools’ experiences with the implementation of a national policy. Health Education, 113(1), 4-4. Meyers, D., Durlak, J., & Wandersman, A. (2012). The Quality Implementation Framework: A synthesis of critical steps in the implementation process. American Journal of Community Psychology, 1-19. Nic Gabhainn, S., O'Higgins, S., & Barry, M. (2010). The implementation of social, personal and health education in Irish schools. Health Education, 110(6), 452-470. Nic Gabhainn, S., & Sixsmith, J. (2006). Children Photographing Well-being: Facilitating Participation in Research. Children & Society, 20(4), 249-259. Patton, G., Bond, L., Butler, H., & Glover, S. (2003). Changing schools, changing health? design and implementation of the Gatehouse Project. Journal of Adolescent Health, 33(4), 231-239. Sy, A., & Glanz, K. (2008). Factors Influencing Teachers' Implementation of an Innovative Tobacco Prevention Curriculum for Multiethnic Youth: Project Splash. Journal of School Health, 78(5), 264-273.

Author Information

Christina Murphy (presenting / submitting)

NUI Galway, Ireland

Saoirse Nic Gabhainn