Progress 09/01/13 to 08/31/18
Outputs
Target Audience:Department of Defense Child Development Program managers, trainers, and direct care (classroom) staff reviewed and implemented draft curriculum activity plans in classrooms serving children from birth to five years of age. Air Force managers and trainers participated in in-person training on how to use curriculum resources. Changes/Problems:
Nothing Reported
What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?The project staff developed and delivered a face-to-face training for Air Force Child Development Program managers and trainers from all air force installations. Also, theproject PI (D. Powell) conducted trainings for Air Force flight chiefs (installation-based administrators responsible for Chiled Development Programs). PRoject staff provided training for pilot site trainers and direct care staff regarding uses of the curriculum as part of the pilot phase. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?The User Guides include information on the scope of the pilot work. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?
Nothing Reported
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Review of literature: More than 230 research reports plus an additional 115 background readings were reviewed to answer two questions: (1) What early childhood skills are linked to later positive outcomes, particulary indicators of school readiness? (2) What early childhood classroom practices significantly support the development of early childhood skills linked to later positive outcomes for children? The review found uneven amounts of attention to different ages and content areas in early childhood. More is known about how to promote positive outcomes in the preschool-age years than in years spanning birth to 36 months. The research information was used to identify foundation skills promoted in the curriculum. The foundation skills, in turn, informed the development ofthe content and methods of the curriculum's activities. There three key chracteristics of the curriculum: intentional, meaningful, and plentiful. Develop a high-quality curriculum: The project developed a curriculum now known as the Early Learning Matters (ELM) Curriculum. At the heart of the curriculum are detailed activity plans for children's learning experiences. There are 1,000 activity plans covering 50 weeks for preschool-age children (4 plans per day, 5 days a week) and 375 activity plans for infants and toddlers for 50 weeks, each of which offers three options that vary by level of challenge. Each written plan identifies a desired goal for children's learning and development, and specifies learning experiences designed to achieve the desired goal(s). The plans also offer scaffolding tips for providing extra support or enrichment in implementing the activity plus recommendations for a related center activity and adaptation for family child care home. Many plans also include an optional book reading. Most plans offer a model of high-quality implementation ofthe plan. The plans are developmentally sequenced according to established patterns of learning and development, particularly children's progress from simple to more advanced skill development. Collectively the plans offer a comprehensive approach to supporting early learning, with 14 foundation skills promoted in five domains for infants and toddlers and 27 foundation skills promoted in eight domains for preschool-age children. Drafts of the activity plans underwent extensive pilot testing in military installations selected by the Department of Defense, and revisions were made on the basis of feedback from classroom staff and trainers. Also, internationally-recognized experts in early childhood reviewed and provided in-depth feedback on the curriculum's scope and sequence plus randomly-selected activity plans. In addition to the activity plans, the project developed supplemental ways for classrooms to support children's learning in the targeted areas plus guides for observing individual children's progress and developing individualized learning experiences based on the observations. The curriculum also developed and offers assessments of children's progress in language/literacy and mathematics, two of the strongest predictors of school and life success. All resources are informed by developmentally appropriate practice standards issued by the National Association for the Education of Young Children. Develop training materials: Two User Guides (one for staff serving infants/toddlers, one for staff serving preschoolers) were developed to support curriculum use. The Guides include benchmarks for curriculum use plus accessible descriptions of each area supported by the curriculum. Six online lessons that supplement the User Guides also were developed (3 for direct care staff, 3 for trainers). Checklists were developed for observing classroom staff implement a curriculum activity, intended to guide quality improvements in curriculum use. Adult teaching techniques were incorporated into guidance on use of the checklists. A prototype of face-to-face group training of managers and trainers were developed and implemented with Air Force, which is adopting the curriculum systemwide in late 2018.
Publications
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2018
Citation:
Powell, D. R. et al. (2018). ELM Curriculum User Guide: 3-5 Years. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University, Department of Human Development and Family Studies.
Powell, D. R. (2018). ELM Curriculum User Guide: Birth-36 Months. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University, Department of Human Development and Family Studies.
|
Progress 09/01/16 to 08/31/17
Outputs
Target Audience:Department of Defense Child Development Program managers, trainers, and direct care (classroom) staff reviewed and implemented draft curriculum activity plans in classrooms serving children from birth to five years of age. Changes/Problems:
Nothing Reported
What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?The Project PI (D. Powell) conducted two separate trainings on the curriculum for Air Force Child Development Center trainers and for flight chiefs (installation-based administrators responsible for Child Development Program) and center directors. Project staff provided training for pilot site trainers and direct care staff regarding the structure and uses of activity plans plus pilot implementation procedures. This latter training occurred in four different installations. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?
Nothing Reported
What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?(1) Revisions of all curriulum activity plan drafts will be conducted during the next reporting period. (2) Revisions of the curriculum's User Guides (two) will be carried out in response to pilot implementation feedback. (3) The following training tools will be revised: classroom observation checklist, child observation guides, and parenting tips. (4) Two online trainings regarding curriculum use will be developed: one for trainers and one for direct care staff. (5) The content of a 1.5 day face-to-face training for center directors and trainers will be developed and implemented.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
DoD child development centers located in eight military installations in the continental U.S. implemented draft curriculum activity plans across a span of 44 weeks and provided extensive feedback on the aspects of a plan that went well and recommendations for changes or improvements. This occurred under the second major goal of the project. Feedback was secured through weekly telephone contact with key staff and regular site visits. The feedback includes implications for the third goal, which is a focus of the last project period. Curriculum activity plans were developed for a 14-week summer period and for the 52-week period covered by infant-toddler activities (continuing). A draft of a preschool-level classroom observation checklist was developed for use by trainers in assisting classroom staff with high-quality curriculum implementation.Drafts of preschool-levelchild observationguideswere developedto assist classroom staff in assessing children's progresswith the curriculum's foundation skills. Draft sets of guidance on developing a daily classroom schedule and on how to use curriculum activity planswere developed and reviewed by DoD.
Publications
|
Progress 09/01/15 to 08/31/16
Outputs
Target Audience:Department of Defense Child Development Program managers, trainers, and classroom staff(Service level) provided feedback on drafts of two different curriculum resources plus daily plans for curriculum activities. Changes/Problems:
Nothing Reported
What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?
Nothing Reported
How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?
Nothing Reported
What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?(1) Complete pilot imlementation of preschool-level curriculum lessons and activities in military child development programs.(2) Revise the preschool-level curriculum on the basis of implementation experiences andsuggestions of staff in pilot sites.(3) Implement pilot implementation of the curriculum for infants and toddlers in military child development programs. (4) Develop detailed guides for conducting curriculum-based observations of preschool-age children, including securing feedback on a draft plan. (5) Complete the development of the preschool-level curriculum for the 16-week (summer) period of reinforcing and extending knowledge and skills promoted during the 36-week (academic year) period. (6) Develop family engagement resources for families of preschool-age children and infants and toddlers. (7) Develop training resources for the curriculum for infants and toddlers, and classroom observation checklists for the preschool curriculum. (8) Develop with DoD a plan for curriculum deployment in 2018.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Plans were developed, approved by DoD, and implemented by the Purdue project for pilot implementation of the preschool-age curriculum in 6 DoD Child Development Program centers located on 4 military installations. Daily lessons and center activities are being implemented in 6 of the curriculum's 8 developmental domains (self-regulation, social-emotional, social studies, language/literacy, mathematics, science). Pilot implementation involves 36 weeks of curriculum plans beginningin August and September 2016. Trainers and classroom staff are providing regular feedback to the project on experiences with the resources and recommendations for revisions. A preliminary pilot of draft lessons and center activities in the science domain was completed in December 2015 at a civilian early childhood program. Feedback was used to revise science curriculum resources now being piloted in military child development centers (see above). A draft resource aimed at promoting family engagement in young children's learning was developed for parents of infants and toddlers. Feedbck on the structure and proposed content of the resource was secured from 76 individuals in attendance at a DoD-related training for training and curriculum specialists in July 2016. A written report of the feedback was submitted to DoD. Drafts of daily plans for the preschool curriculum's 8 developmental domains were completed for a continuous 36-week (academic year) period. Drafts of daily plans for 5 different special topics areas (moving, transportation, economy, dinosaurs, author study) werecompleted for the curriculum's 16-week (summer) period. All plans underwent critical review by nationally-recognized content experts and revisions were made in response to expert reviews. Training modules (tentatively labeled as curriculum implementation guides) were developed to describe the curriculum's goals, framework, and processes (2 guides) and each of the 6 domains being used in the preschool pilot implementation (see above). Drafts of the modules are being used in the preschool pilot implementation sites.\ Progress assessments were developed for foundation skills in language/literacy, mathematics, and science. The assessments include criteria for determining children's ability levels, examples of portfolio descriptions for facilitating communications with families, and suggestions for follow-up learning strategies that are tailored to individual children's skill levels. Plans for the structure and content of the curriculum for infants and toddlers were developed and approved by DoD. Goals (desired outcomes) for children were developed for each of the five developmental domains promoted in the curriculum for intants and toddlers. A preliminary scope and sequence was developed. Curriculum resources for infants and toddlers were developed for the first 4 weeks of the curriculum. Plans for pilot implementation of the infant-toddler curriculum were developed and approved by DoD. A flyer announcing the forthcoming availability of the curriculum (spring 2018) was developed and approved by DoD and is being distributed by DoD at worldwide regional trainings of curriculum and training specialists. Some icons intended to represent different domains of the curriculum were revised or replaced, based on stakeholder feedback on the draft resource for families of infants and toddlers.
Publications
|
Progress 09/01/14 to 08/31/15
Outputs
Target Audience:Department of Defense Child Development Program Managers (Service-level) provided feedback on the structure (template) of describing curriculum lessons and activities for the staff manual, weekly summary of child outcomes, and plans for the content and organization of curriculum training resources. Changes/Problems:
Nothing Reported
What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?
Nothing Reported
How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?A report of feedback on plans for the curriculum training resources was prepared, submitted to, and accepted by DoD and NIFA. This internal report is listedin "Other Products." What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?The following activities are planned for the next report period. (1) Existing drafts of preschool-level curriculum lessons and activities will be revised based on content expert review, and drafts of new preschool-level lessons and activities will be developed in all eight content domains. (2) Training modules for each of the eight preschool domains will be prepared. (3) Drafts of informal assessment procedures will be developed for preschool-level domains. (4) A scope and sequence of lessons and activities for infants and toddlers will be developed, and drafts of lessons and activities for caregivers of infants and toddlers will be developed. A template for lessons and activities also will be designed. (5) Plans for pilot implementation of curriculum lessons and activities will be developed in consultation with DoD.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
Drafts of two project were reviewed and accepted by DoD and NIFA. The reports are summaries of (a) a review of research literature (62 pages) and (b) telephone consultations with subject matter experts (19 pages). The literature review summary represents 234 articles reporting original research on content-specific curricula and classroom practices plus 115 background readings. The summary of consultations represents information from 51 subject matter experts. Templates for the curriculum's lessons/activities (part of the manual for caregivers) and summary of lessons/activities for a week (What Children Will Learn this Week) were developed, reviewed by DoD program managers, and finalized. The templates include icons for each of the curriculum's eight content domains at the preschool level. In addition, a logic model for the curriculum project was developed and subsequently revised at the request of DoD. The project also developed a chart of the curriculum's foundation skills aligned with illustrative state early learning standards. A detailed plan for the project's curriculum training resources (to be used by staff trainers and staff who implement the curriculum) was developed. Stakeholder feedback on the curriculum training resources plan was secured through individual telephone discussions with 33 professionals with expertise in child care staff training (17 from DoD, 16 from non-DoD agencies). The 17 DoD participants represented 4 trainers from each of Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, and Navy, and 1 from DLA. The non-DoD participants represented a range of institutional auspices, including Cooperative Extension Service, the Child Care and Youth Program Training and Technical Assistance project based at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, and Child Care Aware (formerly known as child care resource and referral agencies). Project consultant Sue Bredekamp also reviewed and provided critical feedback on the training resources plan. A brief report summarizing the feedback was prepared for NIFA and DoD. Also, drafts of separate resources for group and individual training formats were developed for the curriculum's ten core practices. Stakeholder communications also were facilitated when the PI (D. Powell) met with groups of trainers and managers from each of the Services (four separate meetings) during a June 2015 training event held at The Ohio State University, sponsored by the Virtual Lab School. At each meeting, an update was provided on the status of curriculum development and responses were offered to questions about the curriculum and related resources for trainers and families. During the current project period, staff visits were made to the Child Development Centers at the Wright Patterson Air Force Base and the Quantico Marine Corps Base. The visits included focused meetings with managers and trainers, and classroom observations. In addition, the project's PI (D. Powell) and Co-PI (S. MacDermid Wadsworth) conducted a briefing with Service program managers and met with headquarters staff for Air Force and Army in San Antonio. Drafts of curriculum lessons and activities were developed for 36 weeks of mathematics, science, and social studies. Drafts of curriculum lessons and activities also were developed for six weeks of social-emotional and self-regulation domains. Reviews of all drafts were conducted by content experts and revisions were made. Photographs for display to children and other classroom materials needed for the implementation of curriculum lessons also were secured or developed for lesson drafts generated to date. A draft of curriculum-based assessment procedures for each of six units in the science domain was developed. Plans were finalized for preliminary implementation of 36 weeks of science content (180 lessons and activities) beginning in early September 2015 in an early childhood program located in a small community near Purdue University. The intent of this preliminary pilot effort is to determine the appropriateness of the pre-kindergarten science content. A draft training module for the first unit of the science content was developed for this effort. Content for a family engagement resource and for a weekly summary of curriculum content was prepared for available lesson drafts.
Publications
- Type:
Other
Status:
Other
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Powell, D. R. et al. (2014, November). Foundations of early readiness: Review of research literature. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Curriculum Development Project for Early Care and Education. Technical report summary submitted to the National Institute of Food and Agriculture and the Department of Defense.
- Type:
Other
Status:
Other
Year Published:
2014
Citation:
Flittner, A. E., MacDermid Wadsworth, S., Topp, D. B., & Powell, D. R. (2014, November). Foundations of early readiness: Summary of content expert interviews. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University Curriculum Development Project for Early Care and Education.
|
Progress 09/01/13 to 08/31/14
Outputs
Target Audience: The project's consultations with subject matter experts reached the following audiences: leaders in military child care, leaders in civilian child care that serves children in military families, and experts in the field of early care and education. Changes/Problems: DoD instituted the following two changes to the project's work scope: (a) The curriculum and related resources will be disseminated through the Virtual Laboratory School, a DoD-funded initiative at The Ohio State University, and not through the Alliance for Better Child Care and eXtension systems as originally planned; and (b) the program managers at the Service level, who meet monthly with DoD officials, will function as the project's advisory group. The federal government shutdown on October 1, 2013 delayed the project's kick-off meeting with NIFA and DoD officials (scheduled for October 1, 2013) until November 18, 2013. This in turn led to some delays in the identification of subject matter experts for the consultation work. No other major problems were encountered in executing the project's plan for the period covered by this annual report. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?
Nothing Reported
How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?
Nothing Reported
What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals? (1) The draft reports of the literature review and consultations with subject matter experts will be revised upon receipt of NIFA and DoD reviews. Additionally, the literature review will undergo a critical review by an early childhood research expert jointly identified by Purdue and DoD. (2) A scope and sequence of curriculum content will be developed for a 12-month program year. (3) Curriculum writing will begin in each of the eight content areas identified in the literature review. (4) Templates will be developed for curriculum lessons/activities and for summarizing lesson plans for a week. (5) Meetings with military child care stakeholders at Service administration and installation levels will be held to ensure curriculum content and training resources aligned with interests and needs.(6) Training resources will be prepared and delivery options will be generated. (7) Webinars will be held with DoD and non-DoD trainers to secure feedback on the format and content of traiing resources.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
The project made considerable progress in conducting (a) a comprehensive review of scholarly literature on effective practices in early care and education and (b) telephone consultations with subject matter experts, including leadersin military child care. Through a search of six pertinent data bases in education and social sciences, the project identified and screened approximately 330 articles reporting original research on effective practices in early care and education. About 70% of the screened articles were identified as methodologically rigorous and focused on populations and program practice variables targeted by the project. A draft report summarizing the research literature (38 pages) was prepared for NIFA and DoD review. The draft report is based on 234 articles reporting original research on content-specific curricula and practices plus 115 background readings. The report identifies eight foundation skill areas that are predictive of children's later school success, and describes key features of content-specific curricula and staff practices that promote each foundation skill area. The project conducted telephone consultations (interviews) with 51 subject matter experts in early care and education, including leaders in military child care. The experts represented one of four categories: (a) administrators with high-level responsibilities for military child development programming, (b)professionals who are close to daily early childhood operations (e.g., director of the child development program for a Service), (c) administrators of allied programs(e.g., Childcare and Youth Training Technical Assistance Project at the University of Nebraska), and (d) early childhood experts. A draft summary of key themes (19 pages) was prepared for NIFA and DoD review.
Publications
|
|