External

Research

Project:

Chi-Square

Statistics

KENTUCKY PROFESSIONAL

DEVELOPMENT

FRAMEWORK IMPACT ON

QUALITY AND CHILD

OUTCOMES, 2006-2007

Larry D. Weas, Ed. D. Program

Instructional Technology

ETR 521 –Educational Statistics

INTRODUCTION

Research Question

Is there a relationship between classroom

settings and to what extent have educators

implemented what they have learned from

training in their classroom?

SCOPE OF STUDY

This study was designed to build on the KIDS (Kentucky Invest in

Developing Success) NOW Initiative by conducting research investigating

the degree to which a statewide unified professional development

system impacted the educational level of early care and education

providers and subsequent classroom quality. It focused on three major

predictors of professional development outcomes:

1. Individual teacher characteristics: training experience, attitudes

towards training, personality

2. Characteristics of the program administrator: administrator

education and administrator support of professional

development

3. Characteristics of the teacher’s work setting: including program

administration, and policies and procedures, and classroom

setting (Child Care, Head Start, or Public Preschool)

Introduction & Literature Review

• Based on quantitative and qualitative surveys in which

employers and their employees were consulted, shows

that the environment provided by the company contributes

more decisively than employees' previous training and

career paths to the capability of the latter to attend

vocational training and develop professionally at work

(Lambert, Vero & Zimmermann, 2012).

• Regardless of the effects of demographic variables such

as gender, age, year of study or fields of study, the

prospective teachers' interest in teaching can be identified

through three distinctly different profiles: high, medium

and low interest in teaching (Eren, 2012).

• The need for professional associations to develop learning

environments which enable the effective continuing career

development of professionals and sets out the essential

elements for this learning environment--for example, work-

integrated learning, contextualized constructivism and self-

directed learning (Murphy & Calway, 2008).

• Coleman (2012) found that a growing number of

institutions are being more deliberate about bringing in

fundraisers who fit the culture of the development

department and about assessing skills and providing

training that fill specific needs.

• Agricultural education teachers perceive a need for

professional development in Career Development Events

(CDEs) preparation, but they did not identify the individual

CDEs where training was needed (Harris, 2008).

• According to the NGA Center for Best Practices

(2010), the knowledge, skills, and practices of early

childhood care providers and teachers are critical factors

in their delivery of high-quality developmental and

educational experiences to young children.

However, studies have found that the majority of

professionals that make up the current early childhood

workforce are not adequately prepared.

• Kentucky Initiative for Social Skill and Emotional

Development which provides annual training and

technical assistance to build early childhood programs'

capacity to deliver practices known to promote social and

emotional competency (McLaren, Hall & Fox, 2009).

• The link between program quality and professional

development of early care and education professionals

has prompted many states to increase professional

development activities and supports. Using research

about indicators of high-quality programs, the state of

Kentucky established a system to improve the

professional development of teachers of young children

Rous, Grove & Townley, 2007).

METHODS

Procedures

• Descriptive Statistics

• Cross Classification Table

Assessment

• Chi-Square Test Statistics of

Independence

• Cramer’s V Measure of Effect

Size

Data

• Data Source

• Kentucky Professional

Development Framework Impact

on Quality and Child

Outcomes, 2006-2007

• Study: N = 198

• Variables of Interest (Categorical)

• What extent implementing what

was learned in training into the

classroom (scale based on “5”

optional responses)

• Classroom setting (Child

Care, Head Start, or Public

Preschool)

DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

NOTE: There are 3.4% of the cases missing form the study of 205 (small percentage).

Chi-Square Test Statistic

24.42

CROSS CLASSIFICATION

Categorical Variables Table(with all observed (fo) and expected (fe) frequencies)

Variables of Interest

(Categorical)

CLUSTERED BAR CHART

There are generally more

educators that “very much”

implemented what they

learned from their training

in the classroom, but there

is a big difference between

those who have indicated

“not at all” or “not much”

against those whom have

“somewhat” or “added to”

what they learned in the

classroom.

HYPOTHESIS RESULTS

(Chi-Square Test Statistic)

Step 1: H0: There is NO relationship (independence)

between classroom setting and implementing

what was learned from the training in the

classroom

H1: A relationship exist between the classroom

setting and implementing what was learned from

the training in the classroom

Step 2: df = (R – 1) (C – 1)

df = (3 – 1) (5 – 1) = (2)(4) = 8

Chi-square (Χ2crit) critical value

HYPOTHESIS RESULTS

(Chi-Square Test Statistic)

cells all

2

cells all

22

frequency expected

frequency expected -frequency observed

e

eo

f

ff

24.42Test Statistic:

Step 3: (SPSS)

HYPOTHESIS RESULTS

(Chi-Square Test Statistic)

Fail to Reject the (Ho) Hypothesis: there is NO significant relationship

between classroom setting and implementing what was learned from

training in the classroom.

Step 4: Make a Decision?

Since the observed frequencies (fo) have

very little difference from the expected

frequencies (fe), then we can say that the

variables are independent (i.e., they are

not related in the case with three

different classroom settings

The chi-square test statistic value is

less extreme than the Chi-square

(Χ2crit) critical value.

MEASURE OF EFFECT SIZE

Cramer’s V Symmetric Measures (SPSS)

General Guidelines for Interpreting V V > .25: Very strong relationship

.15 < V < .25: Strong relationship

.11 < V < .15: Moderate relationship

.06 < V < .10: weak relationship

.01 < V < .05: No or negligible relationship

The study can be

interpreted as a

weak relationship of

the two variables.

DISCUSSION

Summary

Two categorical variables had NO relationship

but contribute to the major outcomes:

1. Professional development

outcomes, as measured by job

status, learning and transfer of

learning, and,

2. Organizational outcomes, as measured

by program quality, child outcomes and

staff retention.The research question guiding this Chi-square

statistic test contributed to determining the

degree to which:

1. A unified professional development

framework initiated at the state level

results in positive child outcomes, and,

2. The educational level of early care and

education providers enhances the

quality of classroom environments.

Description of Variables

Two categorical variables used in Chi-square

test statistics were not ALL inclusive to this

major study. Based on previous research and

expert knowledge of early care and education

systems in Kentucky, system, program,

teacher and child level variables were used.

The two categorical variables used for the Chi-

square test also identified that the level and

intensity of participation in components of the

Professional Development Framework in

Kentucky by teachers and the support of

administrators for this participation have an

impact on teacher retention, program quality

and child outcomes.

References

Lambert, M., Vero, J. & Zimmermann, B. (2012).

Vocational training and professional

development: A capability. International

Journal of Training and

Development, 16(3), 164-182

Eren, A. (2012). Prospective teachers' interest in

teaching, professional plans about teaching

and career choice satisfaction: A relevant

framework? Australian Journal of Education,

56(3), 303-318.Murphy, G. A. & Calway, B. A. (2008). Professional

development for professionals: Beyond

sufficiency learning. Australian Journal of

Adult Learning, 48(3) 424-444.

Coleman, T, (2012). Path to the profession

CURRENTS Review, 38(7), 44-50.

Harris, C. R. (2008). Career development event

participation and professional development

needs of Kansas Agricultural Education

Teachers. Journal of Agricultural

Education, 49(2), 130-138.

Building an Early Childhood Professional (2010).

Development System. Issue Brief Center for

Best Practices.

Karoly, L. (2012). A golden opportunity: Advancing

California's early care and education

workforce professional development system.

Monograph, RAND Corporation.

Anctil, T. M., Smith, C. K. Schenck, P. & Dahir, C.

(2012). Professional School Counselors'

Career Development Practices and

Continuing Education Needs. Career

Development Quarterly, 60(2), 109-121.

McLaren, E. M., Hall, P. J., Fox, P. (2009).

Kentucky's early childhood professional

development initiative to promote social-

emotional competence. NHSA

Dialog, 12(2), 170-183.

Rous, B., Grove, J. & Townley, K. (2007).

Kentucky's statewide early childhood

professional development system.

Dimensions of Early Childhood, 35(1), 29-37.

PRESENTATION AT NIU

MAY 2, 2012