Simple Interactions: Piloting a Strengths-Based and Interaction-Based Professional Development Intervention for Out-of-School Time Programs
Adult–child relational interactions constitute an essential component of out-of-school-time programs, and training staff to effectively interact with children is key to improving program quality. Efficient staff training, that meets the limited time availability of out-of-school time staff, is particularly needed.
This pilot study introduces Simple Interactions (SI), an innovative, strengths-based, and interaction-based professional development approach. Rather than attempting to teach generic competencies or targeting weakness areas for improvement, SI is designed to help program staff build from their strengths.
In two cohorts over the course of 10 months, ten afterschool programs (N = 70 staff) participated in a pilot of SI. Program staff watched short video clips of themselves working with children and used the intuitive, 1-page SI Tool to guide discussion of adult–child interactions; specifically, connection (affective intune-ness), reciprocity (balanced roles of engagement), participation (involving all children), and progression (incremental challenge).
Results suggest that participants valued the professional development process, the strengths-based approach, and the use of self-video despite initial apprehension, and reported perceived improvements in their professional learning communities. Pre-post videos of Cohort 2 staff (n = 20), coded blind to time point (pre or post), indicate significant and substantive improvements in staff–child connection, reciprocity, and participation.
These results support the use of this simple, practical, and potentially effective model of supporting quality improvement for and by local staff.
KeywordsOut-of-school time programs Afterschool Professional development Intervention Mixed-methods
- Amobi, F. A., & Irwin, L. (2009). Implementing on-campus microteaching to elicit preservice teachers’ reflection on teaching actions: Fresh perspective on an established practice. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 9(1), 27–34.Google Scholar
- Benson, P. (2008). Sparks: How parents can ignite the hidden strengths of teenagers. San Francisco, CA: Jossy-Bass.Google Scholar
- Bouffard, S. M., & Little, P. M. (2004). Promoting quality through professional development: A framework for evaluation. Issues and opportunities in out-of-school time evaluation, 1(8), 1–12.Google Scholar
- Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Browne, D. (2015). Growing together, learning together: What cities have discovered about building afterschool systems. New York: The Wallace Foundation.Google Scholar
- Bushe, G. R. (2011). Appreciative inquiry: Theory and critique. In D. Boje, B. Burnes, & J. Hassard (Eds.), The Routledge companion to organizational change (pp. 87–103). Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Cooperrider, D. L., & Whitney, D. (2005). Appreciative inquiry: A positive revolution in change. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers Inc.Google Scholar
- Cresswell, J. W., Plano-Clark, V. L., Gutmann, M. L., & Hanson, W. E. (2003). Advanced mixed methods research designs. In A. Tashakkori & C. Teddlie (Eds.), Handbook of mixed methods in social and behavioral research (pp. 209–240). New York: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Eccles, J., & Gootman, J. A. (2002). Community programs to promote youth development. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
- Friedman, S. R., de Jong, W. M., Rockwell, R., Rossi, D., & Touze, G. (2006). Two kinds of positive deviance approaches to HIV prevention by IDUs: “Molecular” (small group) and formal organizational prevention models. Washington DC: National Institute on Drug Abuse.Google Scholar
- Halpern, R. (2003). Making play work: The promise of after-school programs for low income children. New York: Teacher’s College Press.Google Scholar
- Hammond, S. (2013). The thin book of appreciative inquiry (3rd ed.). Bend, OR: Thin Book Publishing.Google Scholar
- Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Hill, S., Matloff-Nieves, S., & Townsend, L. O. (2009). Putting our questions at the center: Afterschool Matters practitioner fellowships. Afterschool Matters, 8(1), 46–50.Google Scholar
- Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1998). Evaluating training programs: The four levels. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler.Google Scholar
- Knowles, M. J. (1973). The adult learner: A neglected species. Houston, TX: Gulf Publishing Company.Google Scholar
- Lerner, R. M. (2009). The positive youth development perspective: Theoretical and empirical bases of a strengths-based approach to adolescent development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Li, J. (2014). Simple interactions tool. The Fred Rogers Center. Retrieved from http://www.simpleinteractions.org/the-si-tool.html.
- National Scientific Council on the Developing Child. (2004). Young children develop in an environment of relationships. Working Paper No. 1. Retrieved from http://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/reports_and_working_papers.
- Portney, L. G., & Watkins, M. P. (2000). Foundations of clinical research: Applications to practice. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.Google Scholar
- Quinn, J. (2012). Advancing youth work: Opportunities and challenges. In D. Fusco (Ed.), Advancing youth work: Current trends, critical questions (pp. 207–215). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Saldana, J. (2009). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Los Angelos, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- Smith, C., Akiva, T., Lo, Y.-J., Sugar, S., Frank, K. A., Peck, S. C., et al. (2012). Continuous quality improvement in afterschool settings: Impact findings from the Youth Program Quality Intervention study. Washington, DC: The Forum for Youth Investment.Google Scholar
- Sternin, M., Sternin, J., & Marsh, D. R. (1997). Sustained childhood malnutrition alleviation through a positive deviance approach in rural Vietnam: Preliminary findings. In O. Wollinka, E. Keeley, B. Burkhalter, & N. Bashir (Eds.), The hearth nutrition model: Applications in Haiti, Vietnam, and Bangladesh. Arlington, VA: BASICS.Google Scholar
- Stigler, J. W., & Hiebert, J. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
- Van Vonderen, A., Duker, P., & Didden, R. (2010). Instruction and video feedback to improve staff’s trainer behaviour and response prompting during one-to-one training with young children with severe intellectual disability. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 31(6), 1481–1490.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. In M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds. and trans.) Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
- Walker, J., & Walker, K. (2012). Establishing expertise in an emerging field. In D. Fusco (Ed.), Advancing youth work: Current trends, critical questions (pp. 39–51). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- What Works Clearinghouse. (2014). WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook (Version 3.0). Washington, DC: What Works Clearinghouse, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education. Available from: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/referenceresources/wwc_procedures_v3_0_standards_handbook.pdf.
- Yohalem, N., Wilson-Ahlstrom, A., Fischer, S., & Shinn, M. (2009). Measuring youth program quality: A guide to assessment tools (2nd ed.). Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://forumfyi.org/files/MeasuringYouthProgramQuality_2ndEd.pdf.