Suchergebnisse

Educators, policy makers, and funders increasingly argue that structured afterschool activities can provide youth with valuable supports for development. Studies assessing the impact of particular programs and strategies, however, are rare. This study presents a method of assessment that enables evaluation of varied youth programs in accordance with a youth development agenda. The data include a sample of 6th-through 10th-grade African American students (N = 125) as well as samples of students who participated in three other after-school programs. The analysis of survey data indicates that only some after-school programs provide more opportunities and supports for youth development than students receive during the school day but that almost all provide significantly more attractive affective contexts than students experience during the school day. This difference is particularly great for African American male youth. The study also compares community- and school-based afterschool programs and identifies possible directions for future research.

There have been multiple calls (Adler, Ball, Krainer, Lin, & Novotna, 2005; Conference Board of the Mathematical Sciences, 2012; Kilpatrick, Swafford, & Findell, 2001) and extensive evidence (Hiebert, 2003; Lemke et al., 2004; National Math Panel, 2008; OECD, 2010) regarding the need to change K-12 mathematics education from procedural and memorization-driven to more conceptual and application-based. Professional development is viewed as an important mechanism to influence these changes in instructional practices (Fennema et al., 1996; Franke, Carpenter, Levi, & Fennema, 2001; Swafford, Jones, & Thornton, 1997) and student outcomes (Jacobs, Franke, Carpenter, Levi, & Battey, 2007). However, professional development is a broadly used term that encompasses a wide array of mechanisms designed to impact practice and student achievement. Our specific focus is on large scale professional development involving hundreds or thousands of teachers across multiple instructors and settings. Districts, regional centers, and governmental agencies often provide this type of large-scale professional development. However, the processes and logistics are rarely described in the research literature. Borko (2004) provides a framework for conceptualizing research on scaling professional development. Phase I involves implementing a professional development program at a central site and examining its influence on teachers (e.g., Jacobs et al., 2007; Laura, McMeeking, Orsi, & Cobb, 2012). Phase II examines the integrity with which a professional development program is implemented across multiple instructors and settings, and analyzing differences in participant outcomes across instructors and settings (e.g., Bell, Wilson, Higgins, & McCoach, 2010; Borko, Koellner, & Jacobs, 2014). Phase III compares multiple, well-defined professional development programs based on resource requirements, implementation, and participation effects (e.g., Heller, Daehler, Wong, Shinohara, & Miratrix, 2012). While phase I research is relatively common in the research literature, there have been few phase II and III studies (Borko et al., 2014; Wayne, Yoon, Zhu, Cronen, & Garet, 2008). Thus, there is a need to engage in phase II research to better understand mechanisms for scaling professional development effectively.