Jurnal Internasional Pendidikan SEL

The Role of Teachers’ Psychological Experiences and

Perceptions of Curriculum Supports on the

Implementation of a Social and Emotional Learning

Curriculum

Carolyn R. Ransford

Center for Research in Educational Policy, University of Memphis

Mark T. Greenberg, Celene E. Domitrovich, Meg Small, and Linda Jacobson

Prevention Research Center, Pennsylvania State University

Abstract.The present study examined how teachers’ psychological experiences of
burnout and efficacy as well as perceptions of curriculum supports (e.g., coach-ing) were associated with their implementation dosage and quality of Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies, a social-emotional curriculum. Results revealed that teachers’ psychological experiences and perceptions of curriculum supports
were associated with implementation. Teacher burnout was negatively associated
and efficacy was positively associated with implementation dosage. Teachers who
perceived their school administration as more supportive reported higher imple-mentation quality, and positive perceptions of training and coaching were asso-ciated with higher levels of implementation dosage and quality. Teachers who reported the highest levels of burnout and the most negative perceptions of curriculum supports reported the lowest levels of implementation dosage and quality. The findings suggest that both individual and organizational factors are related to self-reported implementation and may be important to address in order to maximize the effectiveness of school-based curricula.
The role of teachers has changed and expanded over the past few decades. As a
result, teachers’ rates of stress and burnout are believed to have increased, particularly in ur-ban schools, and in turn may be influencing teachers’ effectiveness (Jennings & Green-berg, 2009). When asked to implement new curricula, it is likely that teachers who have these psychological experiences in the work-place, and who perceive low levels of support for the innovation, will be the most vulnerable
to poor implementation quality. Guided by an
This project was supported by the Safe Schools Healthy Students grant awarded to the Harrisburg City
School District. The authors thank the administration, faculty, and staff of the Harrisburg City School
District as well as Jennifer Glenn, Alison Rosen, Howard Rosen, and Prevention Research Center staff,
who contributed to the data collection effort. The authors also thank Michael Cleveland, who provided
helpful feedback and support for the manuscript.
Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Carolyn Ransford, Center for Research in
Educational Policy, 325 Browning Hall, Memphis, TN, 38152; E-mail: cransfrd@memphis.edu
Copyright 2009 by the National Association of School Psychologists, ISSN 0279-6015
School Psychology Review,
2009, Volume 38, No. 4, pp. 510–532
ecological systems framework (Bronfenbren-ner, 1986) and recent conceptualization of in-dividual and organizational factors that influ-ence school-based implementation efforts (Greenberg, Domitrovich, Graczyk, & Zins, 2004), the present study examined how teach-ers’ psychological experiences of burnout and efficacy as well as their perceptions of curric-ulum supports (e.g., school administration,
training, and coaching) were associated with teachers’ self-reported implementation of an
evidence-based, social-emotional curriculum.
The Changing Roles and Conditions for American Teachers Teachers’ roles have evolved with new
demands that result, in part, from federal leg-islation. Most recently, the No Child Left Be-hind (NCLB) Act (2001) has placed additional pressures and accountability on teachers and schools. For instance, teachers must ensure that all students make adequate progress in core academic areas. Under NCLB, districts
that fail to make adequate yearly progress for multiple consecutive years become subject to increasingly serious consequences and inter-ventions (No Child Left Behind Act, 2001).
Although many occupations require their em-ployees to demonstrate ongoing competence in their roles and adapt to new job require-ments, the recent changes for teachers are without precedent. Given the fact that stu-dents’ performance is determined by a variety of factors that lie outside of teachers’ control,
the pressure regarding student performance can cause a high degree of stress (Huberman, 2005). Even prior to NCLB, heightened ex-pectations, broader demands, and the imple-mentation of multiple reforms had already led to significant job intensification in teachers’ work lives (Hargreaves, 1994).
In the current economy, teachers are pressed to do more work with fewer resources, and many face persistent and chronic overload Vandenberghe & Huberman, 1999). In the most recent report of the nationally represen-tative School and Staffing Survey (2003–2004), public school teachers reported
that they were contracted to work 37.7 hr per week, but when they were asked to also take into account time spent on school-related work outside of the school day, teachers reported actually working an average of 52.8 hr per week (Strizek, Pittsonberger, Riordan, Lyter, & Orlofsky, 2006). This sustained job inten-sification may lead to feelings of burnout, af-fect teachers’ ability to deliver instruction with quality, and ultimately affect students’ learn-ing and achievement (Dorman, 2003; Har-greaves, 1994; Lasky, 2005; Woods, 1999).
Despite the fact that increasing job de-mands may lead to burnout, teachers are being
asked to deliver social-emotional curricula and other preventive interventions in school set-tings as part of comprehensive strategies to reduce barriers to learning (Adelman & Tay-lor, 2003; Strein, Hoagwood, & Cohn, 2003).
This is a result of the expanding amount of evidence for universal, classroom-based pre-ventive interventions (Greenberg, Domitrov-ich, & Bumbarger, 2001) and of the empirical link between social-emotional learning and ac-ademic performance (Payton et al., 2008). Al-though these curricula may add to teachers’
workload, they are an essential part of com-prehensive approaches to student learning, and
there is research to suggest that some teachers feel positively about this type of expanded
role. In a recent qualitative study, one sample reported that teachers felt they had an ethical,
moral, and professional obligation to go be-yond an exclusive focus on academic out-comes and promote students’ social and emo-tional development (Lasky, 2005).
In addition, research from the field of prevention suggests that “at-risk” students benefit from school-based, preventive inter-ventions (Graczyk, Weissberg, Payton, Elias, Greenberg, & Zins, 2000). However, when
these types of evidence-based models are im-plemented in disorganized schools, they are often implemented poorly and fail to produce positive program outcomes (Gottfredson, Jones, & Gore, 2002; Tolan, Gorman-Smith, & Henry, 2004). These schools tend to have a higher proportion of teachers who report dif-ficulties in managing their classroom, low ex-pectations for instructional time, and higher
Teachers’ Experiences
rates of teacher absences (Gottfredson et al., 2002).
In any setting, fidelity, which refers to the degree to which program implementers deliver the program as intended by the devel-opers, is critical to achieve positive program outcomes (Durlak & DuPre, 2008; Dusenbury, Brannigan, Falco, & Hansen, 2003). Two common measures of program fidelity are dos-age (e.g., number of lessons delivered) and quality (e.g., adherence to program objectives, program delivery; Dane & Schneider, 1998). Observational methods are commonly used to assess program fidelity and are often considered the gold standard because they are less prone to self-report bias. However, this
method typically involves observing only a random subsample of those who are imple-menting or only a portion of the overall time that the intervention is delivered. It is unclear from the existing implementation research what the standard number of observations should be, or what implications the timing or length of observations has on the reliability of the measure (Domitrovich et al., 2008). Given the cost and time that would be required to observe all instances of a program’s imple-mentation, using observations to assess pro-gram fidelity is not as practical as having the intervention implementer provide this source of data, and there is also precedence in the literature for the use of self-report to collect this type of data (Biggs, Vernberg, Twemlow, Fonagy, & Dill, 2008; Lane, Bocian, MacMil-lan, & Gresham, 2004). Given that many schools are underresourced and must rely on less expensive and less labor-intensive moni-toring tools, implementation research that uses teacher self-report data are important for in-forming the field about other options for as-sessing program implementation.Factors Associated With Implementation Quality of School Based Interventions
In an effort to maximize implementation quality of evidence-based programs in schools, researchers have developed models of school-based implementation that identify the factors that may facilitate or undermine the implementation process (Greenberg et al., 2001; Han & Weiss, 2005; Ozer, 2006). Based
on the research, both individual and organiza-tional factors are typically included (Rohr-bach, Grana, Sussman, & Valente, 2006). At the individual level, many studies examine the
role of teacher professional characteristics, but several studies in the prevention literature
have also shown that personality characteris-tics and psychological experiences play a role
in how teachers implement interventions in the classroom (Hamre & Pianta, 2004; Lochman
et al., 2008). At the building level, organiza-tional factors are also important to consider (Ozer, 2006). This may include curriculum supports that are a permanent part of the set-ting, such as the quality of the leadership in
the building, and those that are unique to the
intervention. The current study included both
types of factors measured from the perspective
of individual teachers.
Psychological Experiences
Burnout.One individual factor that has
not received adequate attention in the research
on school-based curriculum implementation is
burnout. Professional burnout is a psycholog-ical response that results from repeated expo-sure to stressors in the workplace environ-ment, as opposed to responses triggered by
acute stressors (Boles, Dean, Ricks, Short, &
Wang, 2000; Kokkinos, 2006; Pines &
Keinan, 2005). In the teaching profession,
burnout may contribute to and result from both
poor classroom climate and school disorgani-zation. The most common definition ofburn-out in the research includes three dimensions:
emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and
reduced personal accomplishment (Maslach &
Jackson, 1981). Emotional exhaustion has
been described as a feeling of fatigue when
emotional resources are depleted, and teachers
may be unable to physically and emotionally
provide for students (Maslach, Jackson, & Le-iter, 1996). Depersonalization has been re-ferred to as feelings of indifference or negative
attitudes towards others in the workplace, such
as having a cynical attitude towards students,
parents, and staff. Reduced personal accom-School Psychology Review, 2009, Volume 38, No. 4
512
plishment has been described as reduced work
productivity and an inability to cope, such as
when teachers no longer feel they are contrib-uting to students’ growth (Maslach, Jackson,
& Leiter, 1996). High levels of teacher burn-out have been associated with experiencing
job stressors and perceiving high demands and
low control in their job (Betoret, 2009; Santa-virta, Solovieva, & Theorell, 2007), as well as
low job performance, frequent absences, and
turnover (Burke, Greenglass, & Schwarzer,
1996; Leithwood, Menzies, Jantzi, & Le-ithwood, 1999).
Efficacy.A second individual factor
that has been found to contribute to school-based curriculum implementation is teacher
efficacy.Teacher efficacyhas been defined as
“teachers’ belief or conviction that they can
influence how well students learn, even those
who may be difficult or unmotivated” (Guskey
& Passaro, 1994, p. 4). In addition, the con-struct includes teachers’ judgments about their
own capacity to manage student behavior.
Low levels of teachers’ instructional and
classroom management efficacy were associ-ated with poor job performance (Betoret,
2009), and efficacy beliefs have a strong in-fluence on behavior (Tschannen-Moran, Hoy,
& Hoy, 1998; Tschannen-Moran & Hoy,
2001). Teachers with a stronger sense of effi-cacy set more challenging goals for them-selves and their students, take responsibility
for student outcomes (Ross, 1995), and are
more likely to adopt innovations (Fuchs,
Fuchs, & Bishop, 1992). Teacher efficacy has
been linked to more successful implementa-tion of prevention curricula (McCormick,
Steckler, & McLeroy, 1995; Rohrbach, Gra-ham, & Hansen, 1993).
Curriculum Supports
Administrative support.Implementa-tion of a new model or program in a school is
most likely to be successful when administra-tors at the building level provide strong sup-port and leadership for the innovation (Be-rends, Bodilly, & Kirby, 2002; Farrell, Meyer,
Kung, & Sullivan, 2001; Rohrbach et al.,
1993, 2006). Administrative support can take
many forms, but often includes verbal com-mitment, accountability, monitoring, and the
dedication of resources from principals and
building-level administrators. In one study,
when principals were made aware of their
importance in supporting implementation
through encouragement and monitoring of
teachers, the quality of program implementa-tion improved (Rohrbach et al., 1993). In an-other study that involved a community repli-cation of the Promoting Alternative Thinking
Strategies (PATHS; Greenberg & Kusche´,
1994) curriculum, there was no main effect of
the intervention, but administrative support in-teracted with implementation quality in the
intervention classrooms. Teachers who imple-mented the curriculum with quality in build-ings with supportive administration rated stu-dents as less aggressive and more socially
competent compared to teachers who imple-mented the curriculum well but with low lev-els of administrative support (Kam, Green-berg, & Walls, 2003).
Training and coaching.Studies of
preventive interventions comparing teachers
who received in-service training to those with-out training demonstrate that training is an
important element for effective implementa-tion (Perry, Murray, & Griffin, 1990; Ross,
Leupker, Nelson, Saavedra, & Hubbard,
1991). Despite the effectiveness of this pro-fessional development approach, the variation
in implementation that is common in commu-nity settings suggests that additional support
may be warranted. Indeed, prevention scien-tists have noted the need for more research in
this area (Fagan & Mihalic, 2003; Fixsen,
Naoom, Blase, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005;
Gager & Elias, 1997; Gottfredson & Gottfred-son, 2002). Coaching is a common strategy to
improve professional development and quality
of instruction in educational settings, and the
approach is gaining attention as a way to im-prove the implementation quality of evidence-based programs in schools. Joyce and Showers
(2002) found that when teachers were given
demonstrations, feedback, and practice on new
skills in the context of coaching, 95% used
them in the classroom. Very few studies have
Teachers’ Experiences
513
tested the differential effect of different pro-fessional development models or how teach-ers’ experiences of these sources of support
relate to their implementation dosage or qual-ity (Dusenbury et al., 2007).
The Current Study
Although research has shown both indi-vidual and organizational factors have the po-tential to influence the fidelity with which
school-based curricula are implemented in
classrooms (Kam et al., 2003; Lochman et al.,
2008; Rohrbach et al., 2006), few studies have
measured work-related psychological experi-ences, such as burnout, and how they influence
the implementation of curricula in schools—in
particular, how multiple factors interact with
one another (Domitrovich et al., 2008). For
example, teachers who are suffering from
burnout or experiencing low levels of efficacy
may not be able to benefit from program train-ing or support, whether it is working construc-tively in a coaching relationship or experienc-ing the support of their principal, and this
could negatively affect the quality of their
implementation. In addition, few studies have
examined individual or organizational factors
as they relate to different indicators of fidelity,
such as curriculum implementation dosage
and quality.
The current study examined how teach-ers’ psychological experiences and percep-tions of curriculum supports were associated
with their self-reported implementation dos-age and quality of PATHS (Greenberg &
Kusche´, 1994), a universal, social-emotional
intervention designed for use in kindergarten
through Grade 5. The PATHS curriculum has
been shown to improve both behavior and
cognitive function in a series of randomized
trials and is designated as one of the nation’s
Blueprints for Violence Prevention (Green-berg & Kusche´, 2002).
The study examined two research ques-tions. The first was whether teachers’ psycho-logical experiences (i.e., experience of burn-out and sense of efficacy) and perceived sup-ports for the curriculum were directly
associated with their self-reported levels of
implementation dosage and quality. We hy-pothesized that high levels of teacher burnout
would be negatively associated with self-re-ported implementation dosage and quality,
and high levels of teachers’ efficacy would be
positively associated with dosage and quality.
Teachers’ positive perceptions of curriculum
supports, including administrative support for
the intervention, higher levels of preparation
as a result of curriculum training, and higher
perceptions of coaching as useful, were ex-pected to be positively associated with both
implementation dosage and quality.
The second research question was
whether teachers’ psychological experiences
moderated the relationship between their per-ceptions of curriculum supports and self-re-ported levels of implementation dosage and
quality. We hypothesized that self-reported
implementation dosage and quality would be
the lowest for teachers who reported high lev-els of burnout and perceived low levels of
curriculum supports. In addition, when teach-ers reported low efficacy, self-reported imple-mentation dosage and quality were expected to
be the lowest for teachers who also perceived
their curriculum supports to be low.
Method
Sample and Setting
The study took place in a school district
that serves primarily disadvantaged students
(e.g., 90% are eligible for free and reduced-cost lunch) located in a midsized, urban set-ting in Pennsylvania. At the time of the study,
the same superintendent had been with the
district for several years. However, in the past,
there had been frequent turnover both at the
building and district administrative levels, and
according to the results of the district’s annual
staff survey, some buildings experienced dis-organization and negative climate. As part of
the reforms associated with the new adminis-tration and a large, federal violence prevention
grant, the district made PATHS a formal part
of the curriculum in all of its 11 elementary
buildings. This process evolved over the 3
years prior to when the current study was
conducted, and teachers were asked to imple-School Psychology Review, 2009, Volume 38, No. 4
514
ment PATHS while also under significant
pressure to improve student achievement. The
majority of students were performing below
grade level, and many buildings were not
meeting the criteria necessary for adequate
yearly progress as measured by the NCLB Act
(2001).
All 156 kindergarten through fifth grade
teachers in the district were eligible to partic-ipate in the study. The sample included 133
teachers. The majority of the teachers were
female (91.7%) and their average age was 40
years old (M 40.73, SD 12.04). The
average length of time that teachers had
worked in the school district was 14.7 years
(SD 11.77) with similar lengths of time
reported for time spent in the teaching profes-sion (M 15.00,SD 11.43). Table 1 pro-vides additional demographic information on
the participants.
Measures
Teacher demographics.The opening
section of the teacher survey asked teachers to
complete a series of demographic questions,
including their background characteristics
(e.g., age, gender, ethnicity) and professional
characteristics (e.g., grade teaching, years in
district, years trained in PATHS, years in
teaching overall). These demographic vari-ables were used to describe the sample, and
they were used in substantive analyses as con-trol variables when they were significantly
associated with the outcome variables.
Teacher burnout.Teachers completed
the educator-specific version of the Maslach
Burnout Inventory (Maslach, Jackson, &
Schwab, 1996), a 22-item measure assessing
teachers’ experience of three dimensions of
burnout (e.g., emotional exhaustion, deperson-alization, personal achievement). They were
asked to rate how frequently, over the past
year, each item (e.g., “I feel used up at the end
of the workday”) applied to them. Each item
was measured on the Maslach Burnout scale
of frequency, which is a 7-point scale ranging
from 1 (never),2(a few times per year), 3
(monthly),4(a few times per month),5(every
week),6(a few times per week), to 7 (every
Table 1
Demographics of Participants
Variable Category N %
Gender (N 109) Female 100 91.7
Male 9 8.3
Ethnicity (N 109) White 94 86.2
Black/African American 10 9.2
Asian 2 1.8
Multiracial/Other 3 2.8
Grade level (N 110) K 18 16.4
1 20 18.2
2 17 15.4
3 19 17.3
4 9 8.2
5 16 14.6
Multigrade class 11 10.0
Year trained in PATHS (N 119) 1 year 24 25.2
1–3 years 65 43.2
3 years 30 31.6
Note:Sample sizes varied because of missing data.
Teachers’ Experiences
515
day). In the present study, all of the items were
summed into a total score and then averaged to
achieve the most reliable score representing
this psychological construct ( .86). Al-though the three-factor structure has often
been used in research on burnout, recent stud-ies have suggested a higher order factor may
also be an acceptable interpretation for burn-out as measured by the Maslach Burnout In-ventory (Worley, Vassar, Wheeler, & Barnes,
2008).
Teacher efficacy.Teachers completed
a 15-item measure of teacher efficacy, which
assessed how effective teachers felt they were
as a teacher and in the classroom with students
(Gibson & Dembo, 1984; Emmer & Hickman,
1991). Teachers were asked to agree or dis-agree with a given statement (e.g., “If students
stop working in class, I can usually find a way
to get them back on track”), and were asked
how they felt at that present time. Each item
was measured on the scale standardized by
Gibson and Dembo (1984), which was a
6-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly dis-agree),2(moderately disagree),3(disagree
slightly more than agree),4(agree slightly
more than disagree),5(moderately agree),
to6(strongly agree). In the present study, the
alpha for this measure was .64. Although this
alpha is lower than the generally accepted
cutoff of .70 for adequate internal consistency,
a cutoff of .60 has also been considered ac-ceptable in exploratory research (Nunnally,
1978; Garson, 2009).
Curriculum support: Administrative
support for PATHS.Teachers were asked to
indicate the degree of support for PATHS
provided by the administration in their build-ing (Kam et al., 2003). The term building
administration was used because in some
cases the assistant principal or other member
of the school leadership team provided over-sight for PATHS in addition to the principal.
Teachers were provided with four descriptions
of administrative support that ranged from 1
(not at all supportive),2(not very support-ive), 3 (supportive), to 4 (very supportive).
Detailed descriptions of the scale items were
the following: 1 (Does not make PATHS a
priority. There is limited discussion of PATHS
with staff and the curriculum is not mentioned
during observations);2(Occasional support
for PATHS in faculty and staff discussions, but
does not see success of PATHS and social-emotional learning as central to the school’s
mission);3(Principal is supportive of teach-ers’ efforts, speaks positively about PATHS
with staff, problem-solves obstacles to imple-mentation, uses PATHS material and observes
PATHS lessons); and 4 (Is a “cheerleader” for
the program, supports staff effectively to use
PATHS and sees it as central to school
mission).
Curriculum support: Training.
Teachers were asked to rate the effectiveness
of the PATHS training they received. This
item (i.e., “How well did the PATHS training
prepare you to use the curriculum?”) was mea-sured on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not at
all),2(a little),3(somewhat),4(quite a bit),
to5(extremely).
Curriculum support: Coaching.
Teachers were also asked 1 item to rate the
quality of the coaching support provided by
the PATHS coordinator over the past school
year (2004 –2005). This item (i.e., “Overall,
how useful was the consultation time with
your PATHS coordinator?”) was measured on
a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all),2(a
little), 3 (somewhat), 4 (quite a bit), to 5
(extremely).
Implementation dosage of PATHS.
Teachers were asked 2 items relating to im-plementation dosage at the present time. Each
item was used in analyses separately. For 1
item, teachers were asked, “How often, on
average, do you actually use the PATHS cur-riculum lessons and generalization techniques
in your classroom?” These lessons and tech-niques were key components to the curricu-lum. For the second item, teachers were asked,
“How often, on average, do you use the sup-plemental activities that are designed to inte-grate PATHS with academics?” These supple-mental activities were more optional compo-nents to the curriculum. Both of these items
School Psychology Review, 2009, Volume 38, No. 4
516
were measured on a 5-point scale including
the time frames of 1 (not at all),2(rarely, only
when problems arise),3(occasionally, every
few months),4(regularly, 1–2 lessons per
week), or 5 (frequently, weekly lessons with
frequent generalization techniques).
Implementation quality of PATHS.
Teachers were asked 2 items related to imple-mentation quality at the present time. Each
item was used in analyses separately. For 1
item, teachers were asked, “How well do you
feel you are implementing the lessons in the
PATHS manual?” For the second item, teach-ers were asked, “How well do you feel you are
generalizing PATHS concepts throughout the
day?” Both of these items were measured on a
5-point scale including ratings of 1 (not at
all),2(not very well),3(somewhat),4(fairly
well), and 5 (very well).
Curriculum Model and Implementation
The PATHS curriculum provides stu-dents with instruction in the areas of emotional
awareness and understanding, self-control, so-cial skills with peers, and social problem-solv-ing skills in order to promote their social and
emotional competence. It has been used by
teachers in over 1,000 elementary schools in
the United States and in about 500 schools
internationally (e.g., Netherlands, Australia,
United Kingdom, Germany, Mexico). PATHS
has been evaluated in a number of randomized
trials in urban and rural school districts with
ethnically diverse students in Grades 1– 4
(Greenberg & Kusche ´, 2002). The findings
across these studies are very similar. Students
who received PATHS exhibited fewer exter-nalizing (e.g., aggression, emotional dysregu-lation) and internalizing symptoms (e.g., de-pression, anxiety) compared to students in
classrooms without PATHS (Conduct Prob-lems Prevention Research Group, 1999;
Greenberg, Kusche´, Cook, & Quamma, 1995;
Riggs, Greenberg, Kusche´, & Pentz, 2006).
The curriculum also improved the children’s
social competence, including the ability to
regulate emotions, plan for the future, and
tolerate frustration (Conduct Problems Pre-vention Research Group, 1999; Greenberg et
al., 1995; Riggs et al., 2006).
Each grade-level curriculum consists of
a set of structured lessons and generalization
strategies that are designed to (a) improve
students’ social-emotional and thinking skills
and (b) facilitate a positive classroom environ-ment. Teachers are expected to implement two
to three lessons weekly and integrate the con-cepts into their academic lessons. A main goal
of the PATHS curriculum is to generalize the
concepts throughout the school day and school
environment. Schools are encouraged to do so
by placing PATHS posters in public places
(e.g., hallways and cafeteria) and educating all
building staff on the PATHS model and how
to incorporate it into their work (Greenberg &
Kusche´, 1994; Greenberg et al., 1995). Teach-ers are also encouraged to use supplemental
activities that come with the curriculum to
extend the concepts beyond lessons.
The professional development model
used by the district included 2 days of initial
training for teachers and principals prior to
implementation. Ongoing, proactive coaching
support was provided by coaches, typically
former teachers who had prior experience with
PATHS. Teachers received weekly coaching
support the first year they delivered the cur-riculum, biweekly support if they were be-tween 1 and 3 years of being trained, and
monthly support if they had been using the
program for more than 3 years. Table 1 shows
the percentage of teachers in each of these
support levels.
Design and Procedure
Data were collected through a Web-based survey conducted in October of 2005.
Principals were notified of the data collection
through a letter from the superintendent’s of-fice describing the purpose of the study and
the district’s support of the research. A fol-low-up letter inviting staff to participate in the
survey was also placed in each teacher’s
school mailbox. The survey was posted on the
Internet for 1 week. Teachers were asked to
log onto the Internet and provide their in-formed consent before continuing to complete
Teachers’ Experiences
517
the 20-min survey. Teachers who participated
in the survey were given an identification
number by an independent third-party survey
research center, so that their data could be
provided to the research team confidentially.
The survey research center had access to both
teachers’ names and identification numbers in
order to send a $10 reimbursement check to
them for their participation. Teachers were
informed at the beginning of the survey that
their participation was voluntary and that their
responses would be kept confidential and only
reported in aggregate form to the district (i.e.,
principals would not see responses). They
were also told that they could stop taking the
survey at any time. Teachers who completed
partial surveys were included in the overall
sample and response rate. The overall re-sponse rate for these schools was 133 out of
156 total teachers, close to 85% of the overall
sample. This high response rate may have
resulted, in part, from district- and school-level administration encouraging teachers to
participate and providing a 2-hr block for
teachers to complete the survey during a dis-trict professional development day when they
did not have classes.
Because teachers’ participation was
anonymous, no demographic information was
available either directly or from the school
district regarding teachers who chose not to
participate. This restricted our ability to deter-mine whether teachers who responded to the
survey were different from the rest of the
teachers in the district. However, the high
response rate increases the likelihood that our
sample was representative of the total
population.
Analysis Plan
Preliminary descriptive analyses were
conducted to examine the normality of the
data using measures of central tendency as
well as frequencies and correlations. Substan-tive analyses then employed a series of regres-sion models. Although directionality cannot
be determined in the present study, we used a
linear regression approach to avoid decreasing
statistical power and squared correlations that
can occur when splitting continuous variables
into groups (Whisman & McClelland, 2005).
Separate models were estimated for each im-plementation outcome, and within each out-come, for each independent variable to ad-dress issues of multicollinearity. The first set
of models examined the direct relationships
between the independent variables of teacher
burnout, teacher efficacy, and perceptions of
curriculum support and the dependent vari-ables of teacher ratings of implementation
dosage and quality.
To test the moderation hypotheses, a
second series of regression models were esti-mated that included both main effects and an
interaction term: crossing administrative sup-port, coaching, or training support with burn-out or efficacy. Using such an interaction term
in regression models is a recommended statis-tical method for detecting and interpreting
moderation effects (Cohen, Cohen, West, &
Aiken, 2003). When the coefficient for an
interaction term was significant, we used a
commonly accepted additional test of signifi-cance, change inR
2
, as statistically different
from zero (Whisman & McClelland, 2005).
Results
Descriptive Analyses
Psychological experiences.The mea-sures of central tendency generally revealed
that the teachers in this study, on average, felt
effective in the classroom. The sample mean
for teacher efficacy (M 4.42,SD 0.58)
was slightly higher than the scale midpoint for
this measures (i.e., 3.5). Teachers also, on
average, reported experiencing burnout
monthly (i.e., 3.0). The sample mean for
teacher burnout (M 2.68,SD 0.80) was
slightly lower than the scale midpoint
(i.e., 4.0).
Curriculum supports.With a mean
close to the scale midpoint of 2.5 (M 2.62,
SD 0.87), teachers perceived that their
building administration was somewhat sup-portive of the PATHS curriculum and teach-ers’ efforts to implement the curriculum. The
sample mean for teachers’ perception of the
School Psychology Review, 2009, Volume 38, No. 4
518
extent to which their training prepared them to
use PATHS was 3.73 (SD 0.87), and the
sample mean for their perception of the extent
to which PATHS coaching was useful
was 3.46 (SD 1.19). Both were slightly
higher than the scale midpoint for these mea-sures (i.e., 3.0), which indicated that teachers
felt that their training and coaching was “quite
a bit” helpful in their utilization of the PATHS
curriculum.
Implementation dosage and quality.
Teachers’ self-report of implementation dos-age and quality differed slightly in their aver-age levels. Concerning implementation dos-age, teachers reported implementing the les-sons, on average, close to 1–2 times per week
(i.e., regularly; M 3.63,SD 0.94) and
implemented the supplemental activities, on
average, close to a few times per month (i.e.,
occasionally;M 3.06,SD 1.02). Teach-ers’ implementation quality was measured
with two separate items: 1 relating to how well
they were implementing lessons and 1 relating
to how well they were generalizing concepts.
Teachers felt they were implementing lessons
and generalizing concepts, on average, “fairly
well” (M 3.53 and 3.72, SD 0.99
and 0.97, respectively), which were slightly
higher than the scales’ midpoints (i.e., 3
somewhat).
Correlations.To identify areas of mul-ticollinearity and potential control variables,
we conducted correlation analyses between
the demographic, independent, and dependent
variables. Table 2 shows the correlations
among key demographic variables (e.g., age,
grade level, year trained in the PATHS curric-ulum), independent variables (e.g., burnout,
efficacy, support), and dependent variables
(e.g., implementation ratings). Many of these
Table 2
Correlations Among Key Variables,N 110
123 45678 910111213
1. Age 1.00 .02 .89** .84** .17 .02 .07 .19* .24* .21* .21* .11 .13
2. Grade 1.00 .01 .02 .06 .04 .19* .09 .03 .35** .13 .27** .28**
3. Years in teaching 1.00 .94** .16 .03 .03 .05 .16 .15 .15 .08 .12
4. Years in district 1.00 .12 .04 .04 .09 .15 .17 .17 .06 .11
5. Burnout 1.00 .34** .15 .28** .15 .13 .23* .23* .18
6. Teacher efficacy 1.00 .04 .20* .08 .12 .20* .18 .25*
7. Administrative
support 1.00 .34** .41** .12 .06 .23* .24*
8. Curriculum
support: Training 1.00 .54** .27* .09 .27* .14
9. Curriculum
support:
Coaching 1.00 .29** .35* .33** .29**
10. Average number
of lessons 1.00 0.50** .51** .52**
11. Average number
of supplemental
activities 1.00 .49** .47**
12. How well . . .
implementing
lessons 1.00 .73**
13. How well . . .
implementing
generalizing
concepts 1.00
*p .05.
**p .01.
Teachers’ Experiences
519
associations were as would be expected (e.g.,
age and years in teaching;r .89, p .01)
but were not the focus of the current study.
Teacher age was significantly and positively
associated with several key variables. Age was
positively associated with perceptions of
coaching curriculum support (r .24, p
.05), curriculum training (r .19, p .05),
and both average lessons and average supple-mental activities implemented (both items:
r .21, p .05). Thus, older teachers were
more like to report more positive coaching
support, training, and greater overall imple-mentation than were younger teachers.
Grade level was positively associated
with perceptions of administrative support (r
.19, p .05), suggesting that teachers in
upper grade levels reported higher levels of
administrative support. Grade level was also
negatively associated with 3 of the 4 imple-mentation items: average lessons implemented
(r .35, p .01), how well teachers were
implementing lessons (r .27, p .01),
and how well teachers were generalizing con-cepts (r .28, p .01). In other words,
teachers in upper grades reported lower levels
of implementation dosage and quality. Given
the above findings, teachers’ age and grade
level were included as control variables in all
analyses.
Substantive Analyses With
Implementation Dosage: Lessons and
Supplemental Activities
Psychological experiences. Regres-sion models predicting implementation dosage
outcomes are displayed in Table 3. Contrary to
the hypotheses, neither teacher burnout nor
teacher efficacy affected the number of curric-ulum lessons delivered. However, results in-dicated a significant negative association be-tween teacher burnout and number of supple-mental activities taught (R
2
.15, p .05)
and a positive association between teacher ef-ficacy and number of supplemental activities
(R
2
.09, p .05). After accounting for
teachers’ age and grade level, teachers who
reported higher levels of burnout reported im-plementing fewer supplemental activities, and
teachers with higher efficacy implemented
supplemental activities more often. Tests of
significant interaction terms did not indicate
any moderator effects of psychological expe-riences on either factor related to implemen-tation dosage. Therefore, nonsignificant inter-actions were not included in the results tables.
Curriculum supports.Contrary to hy-potheses, teachers’ perceptions of administra-tive support were not significantly related to
their report of lesson or supplemental activity
dosage. In support of our hypotheses, results
indicated that teachers’ perceptions of the
quality of curriculum training significantly
predicted how many lessons they implemented
(R
2
.20, p .05), such that teachers who
felt better prepared reported completing more
lessons. However, there was no significant
association found between curriculum training
and supplemental activities. A positive rela-tionship was found with teachers’ perceptions
of PATHS coaching and both implementation
dosage items; teachers who reported PATHS
coaching as more useful also reported imple-menting more lessons (R
2
.20, p .01) and
more supplemental activities (R
2
.16, p
.01). Tests of significant interaction terms did
not indicate any moderator effects of curricu-lum dosage on either factor related to imple-mentation dosage.
Substantive Analyses With
Implementation Quality: Lessons and
Generalization of Concepts
Psychological experiences. Regres-sion models predicting implementation quality
outcomes are displayed in Table 4. Contrary to
our hypotheses, teacher burnout and teacher
efficacy were not related to either aspect of
teachers’ perceived implementation quality.
Further, neither burnout nor efficacy moder-ated the effects of administrative or curricu-lum supports on implementation quality, as no
significant interactions were found. Therefore,
nonsignificant interactions were not included
in the results tables.
Curriculum supports. As hypothe-sized, administrative support significantly pre-School Psychology Review, 2009, Volume 38, No. 4
520
dicted how well teachers felt they were imple-menting the curriculum and generalizing con-cepts (R
2
.13, p .05, and R
2
.15, p
.01, respectively). That is, higher levels of
administrative support were associated with
higher levels of implementation quality.
Results also supported the hypotheses
regarding curriculum training and coaching.
Table 3
Regression Models for Implementation Dosage
Variable
Model 1: Average Number of
Lessons Taught
Model 2: Average Number of
Supplemental Activities Taught
BSEB BSEB
Age .02 .01 .24 .02 .01 .25*
Grade .11 .03 .30 .03 .04 .07
Teacher burnout .07 .11 .06 .27 .12 .23*
R
2
.06 .15
Fvalue for model
(N 110) 5.93 4.69
Age .01 .01 .23 .02 .01 .22*
Grade .12 .03 .37 .05 .04 .11
Teacher efficacy .27 .15 .17 .33 .17 .19*
R
2
.19 .09
Fvalue for model
(N 108) 7.75 3.38
Age .02 .01 .22 .02 .01 .22
Grade .11 .12 .33 .03 .04 .09
Administrative
support .12 .10 .12 .03 .12 .03
R
2
.16 .06
Fvalue for model
(N 110) 6.07 1.91
Age .00 .01 .06 .02 .01 .23*
Grade .08 .03 .29** .03 .04 .06
Curriculum
training .41 .09 .20* .05 .11 .04
R
2
.20 .06
Fvalue for model
(N 101) 8.08 2.23
Age .01 .01 .12 .01 .01 .13
Grade .12 .03 .32** .05 .04 .13
Curriculum
coaching .00 .08 .26** .28 .09 .32**
R
2
.20 .16
Fvalue for model
(N 96) 7.67 5.68
*p .05.
**p .01.
Teachers’ Experiences
521
Perceived quality of curriculum training was
positively related to how well teachers felt
they were implementing lessons (R
2
.12,
p .05); however, no significant effects were
found with curriculum training and how well
teachers felt they were generalizing concepts.
Perceived quality of ongoing coaching was
positively related to both lesson implementa-tion and generalization of concepts (R
2
.16,
p .01, and R
2
.14, p .01, respectively).
Tests of significant interaction terms did not
indicate any moderator effects of curriculum
supports on either factor related to implemen-tation quality.
Post Hoc Analyses
Contrary to our hypotheses regarding
moderation, our analyses did not reveal any
significant interactions or moderation effects.
Table 4
Regression Models for Implementation Quality
Variable
Model 1: How Well
Teachers Felt They
Implemented Lessons
Model 2: How Well Teachers
Felt They Were
Generalizing Concepts
BSEB BSEB
Age .01 .01 .15 .01 .01 .12
Grade .10 .04 .25 .10 .04 .27*
Teacher burnout .25 .12 .21 .18 .11 .15
R
2
.13 .12
Fvalue for model (N 104) 4.81 4.43
Age .01 .01 .13 .01 .01 .11
Grade .10 .04 .27 .11 .04 .28*
Teacher efficacy .26 .16 .16 .29 .18 .18
R
2
.11 .12
Fvalue for model (N 102) 4.12 4.59
Age .01 .01 .12 .01 .01 .12
Grade .11 .04 .29** .11 .03 .31**
Administrative support .25 .11 .23* .29 .10 .27**
R
2
.13 .15
Fvalue for model (N 110) 4.64 5.87
Age .01 .01 .13 .01 .01 .15
Grade .07 .04 .19* .10 .04 .25*
Curriculum training .21 .10 .21* .09 .10 .09
R
2
.12 .10
Fvalue for model (N 101) 4.28 3.76
Age .01 .01 .03 .01 .01 .03
Grade .10 .03 .24* .10 .04 .25*
Curriculum coaching .25 .08 .32** .21 .08 .27**
R
2
.16 .14
Fvalue for model (N 96) 5.96 4.97
*p .05.
**p .01.
School Psychology Review, 2009, Volume 38, No. 4
522
That is, no significant interaction models were
found, as indicated by a change in R
2
, when
compared to a model without the interaction
term. Rather, the results indicated significant
direct associations among teachers’ psycho-logical experiences, curriculum supports, and
implementation dosage and quality.
However, as we believed that such in-teraction effects may only occur at the highest
or lowest levels of factors, such as experienc-ing weekly burnout or having a very unsup-portive administration, a second set of analy-ses were conducted. These post hoc analyses
used a “four-corners” analytical approach,
which suggests that “jointly extreme observa-tions are crucial for detecting effects” (Mc-Clelland & Judd, 1993, pp. 382–383). Apply-ing the four-corners approach, we conceptual-ized “high-risk” factors as (a) high levels of
burnout, (b) low levels of efficacy, and (c) low
levels of curriculum support. We examined
how various combinations of these risk factors
would increase the probability of low levels of
implementation dosage and quality. We de-fined the “high” and “low” levels of these
factors as or 1 standard deviation from
the mean. We compared the highest risk group
(i.e., those with a combination of two “high-risk” factors) to the pooled lower risk groups.
For example, those individuals who reported
high levels of burnout (i.e., at or above 1
standard deviation) and low levels of admin-istrative support (i.e., at or below 1 standard
deviation) were considered to be in the highest
risk group for that particular analysis. All
other combinations were combined into the
low-risk group.
We then employed a series of analyses
of covariance comparing the two levels of
risk. Age and grade level were included as
covariates, and dependent variables included
teachers’ reports on individual items of imple-mentation dosage (e.g., lessons and supple-mental activities) and quality (e.g., delivery of
lessons and generalizing concepts). Because
of unequal cell sizes, we examined Type III
sums of squares, and significant between-group findings were followed up using Tukey
tests at p .05 to compare group means.
We first present the results for imple-mentation dosage and quality to examine how
burnout may be moderated by administrative
and curriculum supports. Similar findings are
then reported related to teachers’ efficacy. Ta-ble 5 displays all means and standard devia-tions by group; however, only significant find-ings are discussed in the text.
Moderating Effects of Burnout on
Administrative Support, Training, and
Coaching for Implementation dosage. A
significant between-group effect emerged for
teachers’ risk group when combining the risk
factors of administrative support and teacher
burnout,F(1, 97) 3.77,p .05. Teachers
with high burnout and low administrative sup-port reported implementing significantly fewer
supplemental activities than did teachers in the
low-risk group (M 2.67 and 3.14, respec-tively). No significant effect was found with
average lessons implemented (see Table 5).
A significant between-group effect also
emerged for teachers’ risk group when com-bining the risk factors of curriculum training
and teacher burnout,F(1, 97) 7.32,p .01.
Teachers with high burnout and low perceived
curriculum support reported implementing
significantly fewer PATHS lessons (M
3.04) than did other teachers (M 3.73). A
similar effect was found for the risk group
combining factors of curriculum coaching and
teacher burnout, F(1, 96) 5.83,p .05.
Teachers with high burnout and low perceived
coaching support implemented fewer PATHS
lessons than did other teachers (M 3.03
and 3.68, respectively). No significant effects
were found with training or coaching and sup-plemental activities (see Table 5).
Moderating Effects of Burnout on
Administrative Support, Training, and
Coaching for Implementation quality.A
significant between-group effect emerged for
teachers’ risk group when combining teacher
risk factors of teacher burnout and administra-tive support,F(1, 97) 4.08,p .05. Teach-ers with high burnout and low administrative
support reported feeling less well about their
implementation of PATHS lessons (M 3.10)
Teachers’ Experiences
523
than did other teachers (M 3.61). No sig-nificant effect was found for generalizing con-cepts (see Table 5).
Two significant between-group effects
also emerged for teachers’ risk group when
combining the risk factors of burnout and cur-riculum training on two factors of implemen-tation quality, F(1, 98) 10.31,p .01, and
F(1, 97) 4.75,p .05, respectively. Teach-ers reporting high burnout and low training
support reported both lower quality implemen-tation of lessons and generalization of con-cepts (M 2.76 and 3.18, respectively) than
did other teachers (M 3.62 and 3.77,
respectively).
Congruent with our hypotheses, two sig-nificant between-group effects emerged as
well for teachers’ risk group combining risk
factors of teacher burnout and curriculum
coaching,F(1, 93) 12.19,p .01, and F(1,
92) 8.72,p .01, respectively. Teachers
with high burnout and low training support
Table 5
Adjusted Means
a
(With Standard Errors) for Implementation Dosage and
Quality as a Function of Risk Group
Risk Groups:
Psychological Experience
Curriculum Support
Implementation Dosage Implementation Quality
Average
Lessons
Average
Supplementals
How well
...
Lessons
How well . . .
Generalizing
Concepts
Burnout Administrative
Support
High-risk group 3.35 (0.09) 2.67 (0.11)* 3.10 (0.20)** 3.48 (0.20)
Low-risk group
b
3.68 (0.18) 3.14 (0.21) 3.61 (0.10) 3.75 (0.10)
Burnout Curriculum
Training
High-risk group 3.04 (0.24)** 2.77 (0.29) 2.76 (0.26)** 3.18 (0.25)*
Low-risk group
b
3.73 (0.09) 3.11 (0.10) 3.62 (0.09) 3.77 (0.09)
Burnout Curriculum
Coaching
High-risk group 3.03 (0.25)* 2.58 (0.29) 2.65 (0.26)** 2.98 (0.25)**
Low-risk group
b
3.68 (0.09) 3.14 (0.11) 3.61 (0.10) 3.79 (0.10)
Efficacy Administrative
Support
High-risk group 3.58 (0.32) 2.70 (0.38) 2.90 (0.35) 3.04 (0.34)*
Low-risk group
b
3.61 (0.08) 3.06 (0.10) 3.55 (0.10) 3.75 (0.10)
Efficacy Curriculum
Coaching
High-risk group 3.78 (0.51) 3.06 (0.59) 3.43 (0.54) 3.42 (0.53)
Low-risk group
b
3.59 (0.09) 3.38 (0.10) 3.49 (0.10) 3.70 (0.10)
Efficacy Curriculum
Support
High-risk group 3.56 (0.42) 3.06 (0.49) 3.05 (0.46) 3.30 (0.45)
Low-risk group
b
3.65 (0.08) 3.21 (0.10) 3.54 (0.09) 3.72 (0.09)
a
Means are adjusted for age and grade level.
b
Low-risk group reflects all other combinations of risk factors across all teachers.
*Significance between high and low risk group atp .05.
**Significance between high and low risk group atp .01.
School Psychology Review, 2009, Volume 38, No. 4
524
reported lower quality lesson implementation
and less concept generalization (M 2.65
and 2.98, respectively) than did other teachers
(M 3.61 and 3.79, respectively).
Moderating Effects of Efficacy on
Administrative Support, Training, and
Coaching for Implementation Quality.In
partial support of our hypotheses, only one
significant between-group effect emerged be-tween teachers’ efficacy and other factors; the
combination of risk factors efficacy and ad-ministrative support showed a between-group
effect,F(1, 96) 4.08,p .05. Teachers with
the lowest efficacy and low administrative re-ported less generalization of PATHS concepts
(M 3.04) than did other teachers
(M 3.75). No other significant effects of
implementation dosage or quality were found
with efficacy and curriculum training or
coaching (see Table 5).
Discussion
The purpose of the current study was to
examine how teachers’ perceptions of both
their work-related psychological experiences
and supports were associated with their imple-mentation of an evidence-based, social-emo-tional curriculum. In this study, two dimen-sions of implementation were examined: dos-age and quality. Within each of these, teachers
were asked to rate their implementation of
different components of the curriculum that
varied in terms of the degree to which they
were considered central to the curriculum
model. Similar to most educational curricula,
PATHS is composed of lessons that contain
the core content of the intervention. To
achieve skill development in students, teach-ers are asked to conduct the lessons but also to
extend the process of learning by generalizing
the concepts, and whenever possible, conduct-ing supplemental activities.
The findings indicated that both sets of
factors were relevant but related to different
aspects of teacher self-reported implementa-tion. Teachers’ psychological experiences
were only related to their self-reported dosage
of the PATHS supplemental activities. Teach-ers who experienced higher levels of burnout
were less likely to deliver these additional
curriculum components, whereas those who
reported higher levels of efficacy were more
likely to deliver them. This finding parallels
previous research on the negative effect of
burnout on worker productivity (Freuden-berger, 1974; Cherniss, 1980; Maslach &
Jackson, 1981, 1984; Perlman & Hartman,
1982). Supplemental activities are a sug-gested, not required, component of PATHS,
and as such provide a logical indicator of
productivity. If teachers are burned out, they
may be less likely to have the psychological
energy needed to go beyond the bare mini-mum required of them, and in this case, to
implement supplemental activities. They also
may have less of a desire to try new activities
perceived as an extra benefit to students. In
contrast, teachers with higher levels of effi-cacy may be more willing to take on additional
work for their students in the form of such
activities. The findings regarding teacher psy-chological experiences suggest that different
kinds of tasks included within interventions
may be associated with higher and lower lev-els of productivity and should be more specif-ically examined by researchers.
Regarding administrative support, we
found that when teachers perceived adminis-trators supported curriculum implementation,
they reported implementing curriculum les-sons with greater quality and with more ex-tensive generalization. However, administra-tive support was not related to implementation
dosage. These findings were consistent with
previous implementation research on the role
of school principals and administrators (Be-rends et al., 2002; Rohrbach et al., 1993). In a
previous study of the PATHS curriculum, it
was the combination of administrative support
and teachers’ implementation quality that was
associated with positive program outcomes
(Kam et al., 2003). Administrative support for
a curriculum signals its importance and prior-ity to teachers. Teachers who perceive high
levels of support from the leaders in their
school may feel more conscientious about how
they implement a curriculum or anticipate that
it is a permanent innovation. This may in turn
lead to higher quality implementation.
Teachers’ Experiences
525
In addition to administrative support for
PATHS, the current study examined two as-pects of PATHS-specific professional devel-opment support (i.e., training and coaching)
that have been shown to relate to implemen-tation in the research literature. In general, the
results supported the hypothesis that positive
perceptions of training and coaching would be
associated with both implementation dosage
and implementation quality. Teachers who
perceived the PATHS training as preparing
them to implement the curriculum reported
that they completed more PATHS lessons and
that they delivered the lessons with quality.
Perceptions of training were unrelated to the
quality of generalization or the use of supple-mental activities. When teachers perceived the
curriculum coaching as useful, they were also
more likely to report conducting both higher
numbers of lessons and supplemental activi-ties, and feeling more positively about how
well they were implementing lessons and gen-eralizing. Previous descriptive research on
coaching has found that program deliverers,
such as teachers, were more likely to imple-ment the programs with greater fidelity if they
received ongoing coaching during implemen-tation (Fagan & Mihalic, 2003; Gager & Elias,
1997; Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 2002).
The findings that regard training and
coaching may reflect the timing and focus of
each of these professional development activ-ities. PATHS trainings for this district were
always delivered in the late summer prior to
the first time that teachers were implementing
the program in their classrooms. Their main
goal was to prepare teachers to use the pro-gram effectively. This included providing an
overview of the theoretical model and ratio-nale for the program, the core content, and
how the program facilitates student acquisition
of social-emotional skills. Although generali-zation and the use of extension activities is
covered in the trainings, it is difficult for
teachers to fully appreciate the importance of
these elements at the time of the training be-cause they must first become oriented to the
core of the program (i.e., the lessons) and
work through the practicalities associated with
integrating it with their ongoing instruction.
Teachers tend to have a much easier time
implementing lessons because the format is
familiar to them. The generalization of the
curriculum concepts and supplemental activi-ties takes more time to master, as they call for
interactive problem solving, class meetings, or
integration of the curriculum with reading and
language arts curricula.
Unlike training, coaching extends across
the academic year. This allows the coach to
individualize support and to emphasize differ-ent elements of the program over time. Once
teachers master the basic program delivery,
coaches can provide feedback and support on
how to foster student skill development by
taking advantage of teachable moments that
arise in the classroom. It is likely that teachers
who perceive coaching as helpful use this sup-port more than other teachers. This could lead
to more extensive implementation of the pro-gram components in the form of generaliza-tions and the use of supplemental activities.
Future research should focus more attention
on evaluating what aspects (e.g., amount,
form, quality) of training and coaching sup-port produce the highest quality implementa-tion and the strongest student outcomes. This
could be achieved by incorporating actual
measures of coaching contacts, collecting
coaches’ ratings of the support process, or
experimentally assigning teachers to receive
different types or intensity of support.
Within elementary schools, there are
clear differences in emphases and demands in
the primary versus intermediate grades. Addi-tional exploratory analyses found that teachers
in higher grade levels reported lower levels of
implementing lessons and generalizing con-cepts, as well as higher levels of administra-tive support. It is likely that teachers in the
upper grade levels, especially in lower per-forming urban districts, have more pressures
to focus on academic lessons and improve
student achievement, as standardized testing
most frequently occurs in grades 3 and above.
When assessments are completed with kinder-garten through Grade 2, most often they are
completed as “practice” for later standardized
testing and the results are not held to the same
benchmarks as those in upper grades. Al-School Psychology Review, 2009, Volume 38, No. 4
526
though teachers in the upper grades reported
more positive administrative support for im-plementation, they reported having less time
for delivering lessons and perceived that they
implemented with less quality. Therefore, it
may be important to develop coaching support
that is more specific to the needs of upper
grade-level teachers.
In addition to examining direct relation-ships between teachers’ perceptions of individ-ual and organizational factors and ratings of their
own implementation, the current study explored
whether certain combinations of these factors
interacted in unique ways to affect implementa-tion dosage or quality. A series of variables that
combined teachers’ perceptions of their psycho-logical experiences and curriculum support were
created and tested individually as interaction
terms in regression models with the complete
sample. Using this linear approach, no modera-tion was found. This was not surprising given
the relatively low levels of burnout and high
levels of efficacy in the sample. To refine the test
of this hypothesis, a subgroup approach was
taken to isolate groups of teachers who were
considered the most at risk because their psycho-logical experiences reflected higher levels of dis-tress (i.e., high burnout, low efficacy) and their
perceptions of administrative and curriculum
supports were low relative to the sample aver-age. The findings suggested that high burnout
was especially detrimental to implementation
quality. On 8 of the 12 analyses, teachers who
reported high levels of burnout and low levels of
support reported the lowest levels of implemen-tation dosage or quality compared to teachers
with the other possible combinations of factors.
Interestingly, this was not the case for
high-risk groups made with the combination
of low efficacy and the three support variables.
Only 1 of the 12 analyses comparing imple-mentation outcomes of these two groups was
significant; therefore, it was considered spuri-ous. The PATHS curriculum was designed
with teacher input so the structure is similar to
other instructional materials used by teachers,
and it does not require a high level of technical
expertise to be implemented well. As such, it
is unlikely to present a significant challenge to
teachers or to be vulnerable to variation in
teachers’ efficacy, especially when it has been
used for many years within a district. It may
also be that a lack of efficacy is not as harmful
as the emotional burden of burnout. In this
sample, the correlation between these vari-ables was only .34, which suggests that
these are relatively independent constructs.
Measures of both burnout and efficacy should
be included in future research to further un-derstand their effect on behavior in the work-place and potential interventions to maximize
teacher wellness and productivity.
Study Limitations
One of the primary limitations of this
study was that the research was based entirely
on self-report measures. As the constructs of
burnout, efficacy, administrative supports, and
curriculum supports are all affected by self-perceptions, it is appropriate to measure these
constructs via this method. However, our mea-sures of implementation were also collected
through teacher self-report, rather than by an
observer, and previous research has found low
levels of correspondence between teacher self-report and observed levels of implementation
(Noell et al., 2005; Wickstrom, Jones, LaFleur,
& Witt, 1998). To provide some validation for
the use of self-report in the current study, we
examined the relationship between similar teach-ers’ self-reports of PATHS implementation and
independent observations of PATHS implemen-tation quality collected 1 year prior, using data
available for a subsample of the teachers. Sig-nificant positive correlations were found be-tween teachers’ self-reported implementation
and observers’ independent ratings of these same
teachers’ implementation of the PATHS pro-gram for both dosage (r .22, p .01) and
quality (r .23, p .01). Although these cor-relations are modest, they nonetheless indicate a
statistically significant level of agreement be-tween observer reports and teacher self-reports
of implementation. As discussed previously, it is
important not to assume that observer ratings are
always the gold standard and that modest levels
of correspondence between observers and teach-ers invalidate self-report data. Reports of how
many lessons teachers deliver may also be accu-Teachers’ Experiences
527
rately assessed by teacher report, as a coach or
other observer is not present each time a lesson
is delivered. The most effective way to establish
the validity of any source of implementation data
is to include student outcomes and examine as-sociations between these and the implementation
ratings. Given the broad dissemination of evi-dence-based interventions that is underway in
schools and the importance of monitoring imple-mentation to ensure program outcomes, future
studies should include (a) multiple methods of
gathering implementation data, (b) monitor im-plementation repeatedly over time, and (c) as-sess student outcomes to identify the most reli-able, valid, and cost-effective methods for use in
school-based research.
A second limitation of this study was its
cross-sectional methodology. It is impossible to
determine the direction of effects or causality
without longitudinal research. Therefore, the
findings are reported as significant associations
among various factors relating to curriculum im-plementation as opposed to factors that cause
variation in implementation outcomes.
There was one unique aspect surround-ing the curriculum implementation of the cur-rent study that may have affected teachers’
experiences and reduced the ability to gener-alize the findings to other samples. The team
that conducted the research has been in a long-term partnership with the school district where
the study took place. Despite the high levels of
poverty in the district and that many schools
were designated as underperforming based on
NCLB criteria, these schools have a history of
using the PATHS curriculum that began
over 8 years ago. The high response rate by
teachers and their perceptions of the curricu-lum may have been affected in some way by
this unique collaboration.
Conclusions
As schools expand the use of evidence-based programs to reduce learning barriers and
promote student mental health, implementa-tion research becomes more important for un-derstanding the conditions necessary to maxi-mize intervention effectiveness. Although the
findings of the current study need to be repli-cated and conducted with various types of
measures, they suggest that teachers’ psycho-logical experiences and their perceptions of
their workplace can be sources of stress that
have the potential to undermine teaching ef-fectiveness. Schools might consider expand-ing the role of support personnel to identify
teachers who are experiencing significant
workplace stress and consider providing inter-ventions for teachers that reduce burnout and
promote wellness.
The findings also indicated that teach-ers’ perceptions of administrative support
were related to how they rated their own qual-ity of curriculum implementation. When im-plementing social-emotional or other preven-tive interventions, it is important for members
of the administration to be aware of the role
they play in creating a supportive implemen-tation environment. They should attend train-ings that are conducted and become familiar
with the intervention model so that they un-derstand what is being asked of teachers. Fur-ther, administrators should engage in collabo-rative problem solving with teachers to ensure
the intervention’s success. Future research
should consider the development of additional
intervention components that provide explicit
strategies to enhance the role of administrators
in supporting teachers during the implementa-tion process.
In addition to administrative support,
teachers implementing school-based interven-tions appear to benefit from curriculum sup-ports. These supports take various forms and
may be delivered through existing profes-sional development structures or ones created
for specific interventions. Regardless of their
form, it is important that both the individuals
delivering the support and those who plan and
fund the professional development of teachers
also are aware of their importance for the
successful implementation of an intervention.
With this knowledge, schools may be more
inclined to allocate resources toward these
supports, even when they are limited, and de-velop creative ways to sustain professional
development. Some examples of self-sustain-ing support systems are master teachers who
serve as mentors to new teachers implement-School Psychology Review, 2009, Volume 38, No. 4
528
ing the program for the first time, or small
teams of teachers within school buildings who
monitor implementation quality, represent the
needs of their colleagues, and develop strate-gies to ensure program success. Districts
might even consider setting aside some of the
time allocated to professional development to
conduct an internal conference that highlights
the creativity and success of teachers using
interventions. All of these strategies have the
potential to address implementation chal-lenges and maximize the effectiveness of cur-ricula, which is the shared goal of researchers,
practitioners, and teachers working in schools
to improve student outcomes.
References
Adelman, H. S., & Taylor, L. (2003). On sustainability of
project innovations as systemic change. Journal of
Educational and Psychological Consultation, 14,
1–25.
Berends, M., Bodilly, S. J., & Kirby, S. N. (2002).Facing
the challenges of whole-school reform: New American
schools after a decade. Santa Monica, CA: RAND
Education.
Betoret, F. D. (2009). Self-efficacy, school resources, job
stressors, and burnout among Spanish primary and
secondary school teachers: A structural equation ap-proach.Educational Psychology, 23,45– 68.
Biggs, B. K., Vernberg, E. M., Twemlow, S. W., Fonagy,
P., & Dill, E. J. (2008). Teacher adherence and its
relation to teacher attitudes and student outcomes in an
elementary school-based violence prevention program.
School Psychology Review, 37,533–549.
Boles, J. S., Dean, D. H., Ricks, J. M., Short, J. C., &
Wang, G. (2000). The dimensionality of the Maslach
Burnout Inventory across small business owners and
educators.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56,12–34.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a
context for human development: Research perspec-tives. Developmental Psychology, 22,723–742.
Burke, R., Greenglass, E., & Schwarzer, R. (1996). Pre-dicting teacher burnout over time: Effects of work
stress, social support, and self-doubts on burnout and
its consequences. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping: An In-ternational Journal, 9, 261–275.
Cherniss, C. (1980).Staff burnout: Job stress in the hu-man services.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003).
Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for
the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.
Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (1999).
Initial impact of the Fast Track prevention trial for
conduct problems: II. Classroom effects. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67,648 – 657.
Dane, A. V., & Schneider, B. H. (1998). Program integrity
in primary and early secondary prevention: Are imple-mentation effects out of control?Clinical Psychology
Review, 18,23– 45.
Domitrovich, C. E., Bradshaw, C. P., Poduska, J., Hoag-wood, K. E., Buckley, J., Olin, S. S., et al. (2008).
Maximizing the implementation quality of evidence-based preventive interventions in schools: A concep-tual framework. Advances in School Mental Health
Promotion: Training and Practice, Research and Pol-icy, 1, 6 –28.
Dorman, J. (2003). Relationship between school and
classroom environment and teacher burnout: A LIS-REL analysis.Social Psychology of Education, 6,107–
127.
Durlak, J. A., & DuPre, E. P. (2008). Implementation
matters: A review of research on the influence of
implementation on program outcomes and the factors
affecting implementation.American Journal of Com-munity Psychology, 41,327–350.
Dusenbury, L., Brannigan, R., Falco, M., & Hansen,
W. B. (2003). A review of research on fidelity of
implementation: Implications for drug abuse preven-tion in school settings.Health Education Research, 18,
237–256.
Dusenbury, L., Hansen, W. B., Jackson-Newsom, J.,
Ringwalt, C. L., Pankratz, M. M., & Giles, S. (2007,
May).Coaching to implementation quality.Paper pre-sented at the annual meeting of the Society for Preven-tion Research, Washington, DC.
Emmer, E. T., & Hickman, J. (1991). Teacher efficacy in
classroom management and discipline. Educational
and Psychological Measurement, 51,755–765.
Fagan, A. A., & Mihalic, S. F. (2003). Strategies for
enhancing the adoption of school-based prevention
programs: Lessons learned from the Blueprints for
Violence Prevention replications of the Life Skills
Training program.Journal of Community Psychology,
31,235–253.
Farrell, A. D., Meyer, A. L., Kung, E. M., & Sullivan,
T. N. (2001). Development and evaluation of school-based violence prevention programs.Journal of Clin-ical Child Psychology, 30, 207–220.
Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman,
R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005).Implementation research:
A synthesis of the literature(FMHI Publication #231).
Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la
Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National
Implementation Research Network.
Freudenberger, H. J. (1974). Staff burnout.Journal of
Social Issues, 30,159 –165.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Bishop, N. B. (1992). Instruc-tional adaptation for students at risk. Journal of Edu-cational Research, 86,70 – 84.
Gager, P. J., & Elias, M. J. (1997). Implementing preven-tion programs in high-risk environments. American
Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 67,363–373.
Garson, G. D. (2009, January). Reliability analysis.Stat-notes: Topics in Multivariate Analysis. Retrieved
April 23, 2009, from http://www2.chass.ncsu.edu/garson/
pa765/statnote.htm
Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A
construct validation.Journal of Educational Psychol-ogy, 76,569 –582.
Gottfredson, D. C., & Gottfredson, G. D. (2002). Quality
of school-based prevention programs: Results from a
national survey.Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 39,3–35.
Gottfredson, G. D., Jones, T. M., & Gore, T. W. (2002).
Implementation and evaluation of a cognitive-behav-Teachers’ Experiences
529
ioral intervention to prevent problem behavior in a
disorganized school.Prevention Science, 3,43–56.
Graczyk, P. A., Weissberg, R. P., Payton, J. W., Elias,
M. J., Greenberg, M. T., & Zins, J. E. (2000). Criteria
for evaluating the quality of school-based social and
emotional learning programs. In R. Bar-On & J. D.
Parker (Eds.),The handbook of emotional intelligence:
theory, development, assessment, and application at
home, school, and in the workplace(pp. 391– 410). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Greenberg, M. T., Domitrovich, C. E., & Bumbarger, B.
(2001). The prevention of mental disorders in school-aged children: Current state of the field. Prevention
and Treatment, 4,1– 62.
Greenberg, M. T., Domitrovich, C. E., Graczyk, P. A., &
Zins, J. E. (2004).The study of implementation in
school-based preventative interventions: Theory, re-search, and practice. Washington, DC: U.S. Depart-ment of Health and Human Services Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for
Mental Health Services.
Greenberg, M. T., & Kusche´, C. A. (1994). Promoting
Alternative THinking Strategies.Deerfield, MA: Chan-ning-Bete.
Greenberg, M. T., & Kusche´, C. A. (2002). Promoting
Alternative THinking Strategies: Blueprint for Vio-lence Prevention (Book 10; 2nd ed.). Boulder, CO:
University of Colorado, Institute of Behavioral Sci-ences, Center for the Study and Prevention of Vio-lence.
Greenberg, M. T., Kusche´, C. A., Cook, E. T., & Qua-mma, J. P. (1995). Promoting emotional competence in
school-aged children: The effects of the PATHS cur-riculum. Development and Psychopathology, 7,117–
136.
Guskey, T. R., & Passaro, P. D. (1994). Teacher efficacy:
A study of construct dimensions.American Educa-tional Research Journal, 31, 627– 643.
Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2004). Self-reported de-pression in nonfamilial caregivers: prevalence and as-sociations with caregiver behavior in child-care set-tings. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19,297–
318.
Han, S. S., & Weiss, B. (2005). Sustainability of teacher
implementation of school-based mental health pro-grams. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33,
665– 679.
Hargreaves, A. (1994).Changing teachers, changing
times: Teachers’ work and culture in the postmodern
age.Toronto: OISE Press.
Huberman, M. (2005). Teacher burnout in black and
white.New Educator, 1,153–175.
Jennings, P. A., & Greenberg, M. T. (2009). The prosocial
classroom: Teacher social and emotional competence
in relation to student and classroom outcomes. Review
of Educational Research, 79,491–525.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement
through staff development (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA:
Association for Supervision and Curriculum Develop-ment.
Kam, C. M., Greenberg, M. T., & Walls, C. (2003).
Examining the role of implementation quality in
school-based prevention using the PATHS curriculum.
Prevention Science, 4,55– 63.
Kokkinos, C. M. (2006). Factor structure and psychomet-ric properties of the Maslach Burnout Inventory—
Educators Survey among elementary and secondary
school teachers in Cyprus.Stress and Health: Journal
of the International Society for the Investigation of
Stress, 22,25–33.
Lane, K. L., Bocian, K. M., MacMillan, D. L., & Gre-sham, F. M. (2004). Treatment integrity: An essential-but often forgotten-component of school-based inter-ventions.Preventing School Failure, 48,36 – 43.
Lasky, S. (2005). A sociocultural approach to understand-ing teacher identity, agency, and professional vulnera-bility in a context of secondary school reform.Teach-ing and Teacher Education, 21, 899 –916.
Leithwood, K. A., Menzies, T., Jantzi, D., & Leithwood,
J. (1999). Teacher burnout: A critical challenge for
leaders of restructuring schools. In R. Vandenberghe &
M. Huberman (Eds.),Understanding and preventing
teacher burnout: A sourcebook of international re-search and practice(pp. 1–13). New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Lochman, J., Powell, N., Boxmeyer, C., Qu, L., Wells, K.,
Windle, M., et al. (2008, May).The effect of school
and counselor characteristics on implementation of a
preventive intervention.Paper presented at the 16th
annual meeting of the Society for Prevention Research,
San Francisco, CA.
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1981). The measurement
of experienced burnout.Journal of Occupational Be-havior, 2,99 –113.
Maslach, C., & Jackson, S. E. (1984). Burnout in organi-zational settings. In S. Oskamp (Ed.),Applied social
psychology annual: Vol. 5. Applications in organiza-tional settings(pp. 133–153). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Schwab, R. E. (1996).
Maslach Burnout Inventory—Educators Survey (MBI-ES). In C. Maslach, S. E. Jackson, & M. P. Leiter
(Eds.),MBI manual(3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consult-ing Psychologists Press.
Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. P. (1996).
Maslach Burnout Inventory manual(3rd ed.). Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical
difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator ef-fects.Psychological Bulletin, 114,376 –390.
McCormick, L. K., Steckler, A., & McLeroy, K. R.
(1995). Diffusion of innovation in schools: A study of
adoption and implementation of school-based tobacco
prevention curricula.American Journal of Health Pro-motion, 9,210 –219.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6301et
seq.(GPO Access, 2006).
Noell, G. H., Witt, J. C., Slider, N. J., Connell, J. E., Gatti,
S. L., Williams, K. L., et al. (2005). Treatment imple-mentation following behavioral consultation in
schools: A comparison of three follow-up strategies.
School Psychology Review, 34,87–106.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978).Psychometric theory(2nd ed.).
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ozer, E. J. (2006). Contextual effects in school-based
violence prevention programs: A conceptual frame-work and empirical review.The Journal of Primary
Prevention, 27,315–340.
Payton, J., Weissberg, R. P., Durlak, J. A., Dymnicki,
A. B., Taylor, R. D., Schellinger, K. B., et al. (2008).
The positive impact of social and emotional learning
for kindergarten to eighth-grade students: Findings
School Psychology Review, 2009, Volume 38, No. 4
530
from three scientific reviews. Chicago: Collaborative
for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning.
Perlman, B., & Hartman, E. A. (1982). Burnout: Summary
and future research.Human Relations, 35,283–305.
Perry, C. L., Murray, D. M., & Griffin, G. (1990). Eval-uating the stateside dissemination of smoking preven-tion curricula: Factors in teacher compliance. Journal
of School Health, 60,501–504.
Pines, A. M., & Keinan, G. (2005). Stress and burnout:
The significant difference.Personality and Individual
Differences, 39,625– 635.
Riggs, N. R., Greenberg, M. T., Kusche´, C. A., Pentz,
M. A. (2006). The mediational role of neurocognition
in the behavioral outcomes of a social-emotional pre-vention program in elementary school students: Effects
of the PATHS curriculum.Prevention Science, 7,91–
102.
Rohrbach, L. A., Graham, J. W., & Hansen, W. B. (1993).
Diffusion of a school-based substance abuse preven-tion program: Predictors of program implementation.
Preventive Medicine, 22,237–260.
Rohrbach, L. A., Grana, R., Sussman, S., & Valente,
T. W. (2006). Type II translation: Transporting pre-vention interventions from research to real-world set-tings.Evaluation and the Health Professions, 29,302–
333.
Ross, J. A. (1995). Strategies for enhancing teachers’
beliefs in their effectiveness: Research on a school
improvement hypothesis. Teachers College Record,
97,227–251.
Ross, J. G., Leupker, R. V., Nelson, G. D., Saavedra, P.,
& Hubbard, B. M. (1991). Teenage health teaching
modules: Impact of teacher training on implementation
and student outcomes.Journal of School Health, 61,
31–18.
Santavirta, N., Solovieva, S., & Theorell, T. (2007). The
association between job strain and emotional exhaus-tion in a cohort of 1,028 Finnish teachers. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 77,213–228.
Strein, W., Hoagwood, K., & Cohn, A. (2003). School
psychology: a public health perspective: II. Prevention,
populations, and systems change.Journal of School
Psychology, 41,23–38.
Strizek, G. A., Pittsonberger, J. L., Riordan, K. E., Lyter,
D. M., & Orlofsky, G. F. (2006).Characteristics of
schools, districts, teachers, principals, and school li-braries in the United States: 2003–04 Schools and
Staffing Survey (Report No. NCES 2006 –313 Re-vised). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
Office. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.
ED 495419)
Tolan, P. H., Gorman-Smith, D., & Henry, D. (2004).
Supporting families in a high-risk setting: Proximal
effects of the SAFEChildren Prevention Program.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 72,
855– 869.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. (1998).
Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure.Review of
Educational Research, 68,202–248.
Tschannen-Moran, M., & Hoy, W. (2001). Teacher effi-cacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 17,783– 805.
Vandenberghe, R., & Huberman, M. (1999).Understand-ing and preventing teacher burnout: A sourcebook of
international research and practice. New York: Cam-bridge University Press.
Whisman, M. A., & McClelland, G. H. (2005). Designing,
testing, and interpreting interactions and moderator
effects in family research.Journal of Family Psychol-ogy, 19,111–120.
Wickstrom, K. F., Jones, K. M., LaFleur, L. H., & Witt,
J. C. (1998). An analysis of treatment integrity in
school-based behavioral consultation.School Psychol-ogy Quarterly, 13,141–154.
Woods, P. (1999). Intensification and stress in teaching. In
R. Vandenberghe & M. Huberman (Eds.),Understand-ing and preventing teacher burnout: A sourcebook of
international research and practice (pp. 115–138).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Worley, J. A., Vassar, M., Wheeler, D. L., & Barnes, L. B.
(2008). Factor structure of score from the Maslach
Burnout Inventory.Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 68,1–27.
Teachers’ Experiences
531
Carolyn Ransford is a research associate with the Center for Research in Educational
Policy at The University of Memphis. Her research interests include an examination of
various factors that contribute to the implementation of school-based programs, both
academic and nonacademic, particularly for at-risk students. She is currently working on
research projects developing assessments, training observers, using mixed-methods de-sign, and formative and summative reports designed to help districts and schools use data
to improve instruction and evaluate progress. She received her PhD from the Pennsylvania
State University.
Mark Greenberg holds the Bennett Chair of Prevention Science in Penn State’s College
of Health and Human Development. He is the director of the Prevention Research Center.
Celene Domitrovich is the assistant director of the Prevention Research Center and a
faculty member in the Human Development and Family Studies department at Pennsyl-vania State University. She is the author of the Preschool PATHS curriculum and several
federal reports regarding the implementation of evidence- and school-based interventions.
Her research interests are on the intersection of social-emotional and academic learning
and the use of social-emotional curricula to prevent mental health disorders in young
children.
Meg Small is a research faculty member within the Prevention Research Center at
Pennsylvania State University. She investigates the factors that allow organizations to
successfully adopt and sustain evidence-based interventions, and she develops and tests
methods that allow organizations to use data when making programmatic decisions.
Linda Jacobson holds her master’s degree in agricultural economics and has been working
as a data analyst with the Prevention Research Center at Pennsylvania State University
for 5 years.
Date Received: December 3, 2008
Date Accepted: August 24, 2009
Action Editors: Lisa Sanetti and Thomas Kratochwill

Si Bolang kelompok 4 jalan-jalan at Nol Kilometer aauuuuuu

https://youtu.be/1IqPIsH0tXI

Video Kelompok 4 PAI B 2013

https://youtu.be/1IqPIsH0tXI

Alamat Jurnal UMY

Jurnal UMY 
Library.umy.ac.id

JURNAL ILMIAH INTERNASIONAL
www.proquest.com/pqdweb
http://search.ebscohost.com/
www.infotrac.galegroup.com/deafult

JURNAL ILMIAH NASIONAL
http://garuda.dikti.go.id
http://katalog.pdii.lipi.go.id/opac
http://www.doaj.org  (Directory of Open Access Journal)
http://scholar.google.co.id/
http://www.arsip.lipi.go.id  (Mirror Scientific Data in Lipi)
http://libra.msra.cn/  (Libra Academic Search)
http://www.jstor.org  (American Institute of Physics)
http://www.journals.aps.org  (American Physical Society)
http://wikicfp.com/cfp
http://www.eldoxea.com  (Web Khusus Pencari E- Learning Document)
http://luk.staff.ugm.ac.id/riset  (Kumpulan Tesis Desertasi dan Jurnal Online)
http://en.academic.ru  (Academic Dictionaries and Encyclopedias)
http://www.nap.edu/about.html  (The National Academies Press)

UK Media Pembelajaran PAI

BAB II Strategi- strategi Pengajaran ( Memadukan Teknologi dan Media )

Ø  Seputar Media Pendidikan

Kata Media berasal dari bahasa Latin dan merupakan bentuk jamak dari kata medium yang secara harfiah yang berarti perantara atau pengantar. Medoe adalah perantara atau pengantar pesan dari pengirim ke penerima pesan. Media adalah bentuk- bentuk komunikasi baik tercetak maupun audiovisual serta peralatannya. Media hendaknya dapat dimanipulasi, dapat dilihat, didengar, dan dibaca. Kalau dilihat dalam perkembangannya, pada mulanya media hanya dianggap sebagai alat bantu mengajar bagi guru  (teaching aids). Alat bantu yang yang dipakai adalah alat bantu visual, misalnya gambar, model, objek dan alat- alat lain yang dapat memberikan pengalaman kongkret, motivasi belajar serta mempertinggi daya serap dan retensi belajar siswa. Namun saying, karena terlalu memusatkan perhatian pada alat bantu visual yang dipakainya orang kurang memperhatikan desain, pengembangan pembelajaran (instruction), produksi dan evaluasinya. ( Sadiman, Arief S. 2012. Media Pendidikan. Depok : Raja Grafindo Persada )

Ciri- ciri Media Pendidikan antara lain :

a.      Ciri Fiksatif (Fixative Property)

Ciri ini menggambarkan kemampuan media merekam, menyimpan, melestarikan, dan merekonstruksi suatu peristiwa atau objek. Suatu peristiwa atau objek dapat diurut dan disusun kembali dengan media seperti fotografi, video tape, audio tape, disket computer, dan film.

b.      Ciri Manipulatif (Manipulative Property)

Transformasi suatu kejadian atau objek dimungkinkan karena media memiliki ciri manipulative. Kejadian yang memakan waktu berhari- hari dapat disajikan kepada siswa dalam waktu dua atau tiga menit dengan teknik pengambilan gambar time- lapse recording. Kemampuan media dari cirri manipulatif memerlukan perhatian sungguh- sungguh karena apabila terjadi kesalahan dalam pengaturan kembali urutan kejadian atau pemotongan bagian- bagian yang salah, maka akan terjadi pula kesalahan penafsiran yang tentu saja akan membingungkan dan bahkan menyesatkan sehingga dapat mengubah sikap mereka kea rah yang tidak diinginkan.

c.       Ciri Distributif (Distributive Property)

Ciri distributif  dari media memungkinkan suatu objek atau kejadian ditransportasikan melalui orang, dan secara bersamaan kejadian tersebut disajikan kepada sejumlah besar siswa dengan stimulus pengalaman yang relative sama mengenai kejadian itu. Dewasa ini, distribusi media tidak hanya terbatas pada satu kelas atau beberapa kelas pada sekolah- sekolah didalam suatu wilayah tertentu, tetapi juga media itu misalnya rekaman video, audio, disket computer dapat disebar ke seluruh penjuru tempat yang diinginkan kapan saja. (Arsyad, Azhar. 2014. Media Pembelajaran. Yogyakarta : Gava Media )

 Ø  Proses Belajar Mengajar Sebagai Proses Komunikasi

Proses belajar mengajar pada hakikatnya adalah proses komunikasi, yaitu proses penyampaian pesan dari sumber pesan melalui saluran atau media tertentu ke penerima pesan. Pesan, sumber pesan, saluran atau media dan penerima pesan adalah komponen- komponen proses komunikasi. Pesan yang akan dikomunikasikan adalah isi ajaran atau didikan yang ada dalam kurikulum. Sumber pesannya bisa guru, siswa orang lain ataupun penulis buku dan produser media. Salurannya adalah media pendidikan dan penerima pesannya adalah siswa atau juga guru.

 Ø  Kegunaan Media Pendidikan dalam Proses Belajar Mengajar

Secara umum media pendidikan mempunyai kegunaan- kegunaan antara lain :

1.      Memperjelas penyajian pesan agar tidak terlalu bersifat verbalistis (dalam bentuk kata- kata tertulis atau lisan belaka).

2.      Mengatasi keterbatasan ruang, waktu dan daya indera.

3.      Penggunaan media pendidikan secara tepat dan bervariasi dapat mengatasi sikap pasif anak didik.

4.      Dengan sifat yang unik pada tiap siswa ditambah lagi dengan lingkungan dan pengalaman yang berbeda, sedangkan kurikulum dan materi pendidikan ditentukan sama untuk setiap siswa, maka guru banyak mengalami kesulitan bilamana semuanya itu harus diatasi sendiri. ( Sadiman, Arief S. 2012. Media Pendidikan. Depok : Raja Grafindo Persada )

 Ø  Pengenalan Media Presentasi Dalam Pembelajaran

Apakah Media Presentasi itu? Sebenarnya, hamper semua jenis media pada dasarnya dibuat untuk disajikan atau dipresentasikan kepada sasaran. Yang membedakan antara media presentasi dengan media pada umumnya adalah bahwa pada media presentasi pesan/ materi yang akan disampaikan dikemas dalam sebuah program komputer dan disajikan melalui perangkat alat saji (proyektor). Pesan/ materi yang dikemas bisa berupa teks, gambar, animasi dan video yang dikombinasi dalam satu kesatuan yang utuh.

Prinsip- Prinsip  Pengembangan Media Presentasi Untuk Pembelajaran :

1.      Harus dikembangkan sesuai dengan prosedur pengembangan instruksional, karena akan digunakan untuk keperluan pembelajaran.

2.      Harus diingat bahwa media presentasi berfungsi sebagai alat bantu mengajar, bukan merupakan media pembelajaran yang akan dipelajari secara mandiri oleh sasaran.

3.      Prinsip kebenaran materi dan kemenarikan sajian. ( Daryanto. 2013. Media Pembelajaran. Yogyakarta : Gava Media )

Kentungan dan Keterbatasan Presentasi

No.	Keuntungan	Keterbatasan
1.	Menyajikan (hanya) sekali	Sulit bagi beberapa siswa
2.	Strategi Mencatat	Berpotensi Membosankan
3.	Sumber Informasi	Kesulitan Mencatat
4.	Presentasi Siswa	Kesesuaian Umur

 Ø  Diskusi

Sebagai salah satu strategi, diskusi adalah pertukaran gagasan dan opini diantara para siswa atau guru. Strategi ini bisa digunakan dalam tahap pengajaran dan pembelajaran apapun, dan dalam kelompok kecil atau besar. Pekerjaan pokok dalam mempersiapkan kelompok diskusi adalah memastikan bahwa tiap anggota kelompok berpatisipasi. Salah satu cara yang bagus untuk membuat membuat setiap anggota tim berpartisipasi adalah dengan membuat supaya tiap orang menuliskan sebuah opini atau gagasan sebelum mulai diskusi. (Smaldino, Sharon E dkk. 2014. Instructional Technology & Media For Learning. Jakarta : Prenadamedia Group)

Keuntungan dan Keterbatasan Diskusi

No.	Keuntungan	Keterbatasan
1.	Menarik	Berpotensi melibatkan partisipasi terbatas
2.	Menantang	Terkadang tidak menantang
3.	Inklusif	Tingkat kesulitan
4.	Kesempatan bagi gagasan baru	Kesesuaian usia

 Ø  Belajar Kooperatif

Belajar Kooperatif merupakan strategi pengelompokan dimana para siswa bekerja sama untuk saling mendapatkan keuntungan dari potensi belajar anggota lainnya. Pembelajaran kooperatif bukanlah gagasan baru dalam dunia pendidikan, tetapi sebelum masa belakangan ini, metode ini hanya digunakan oleh beberapa guru untuk tujuan- tujuan tertentu, seperti tugas- tugas atau laporan- laporan tertentu. Adapun belajar kooperatif ini membutuhkan hal- hal seperti berikut :

1.      Para anggota yang memandang peran mereka sebagai bagian dari keseluruhan tim.

2.      Keterlibatan interaktif diantara anggota kelompok.

3.      Akuntabilitas individual dan kelompok.

4.      Anggota yang memiliki ketrampilan antarpersonal dan kepemimpinan.

5.      Kemampuan memahami belajar personal dan fungsi kelompok.

( Slavin, Robert E. 2014. Cooperative Learning. Bandung : Nusa Media )

Keuntungan dan Keterbatasan Belajar Kooperatif

No.	Keuntungan	Keterbatasan
1.	Manfaat belajar	Keterbatasan ukuran
2.	Formal atau informal	Berpotensi berlebihan digunakan
3.	Kesempatan belajar	Keterbatasan anggota kelompok

 Ø  Situasi dan Konteks Belajar

a.      Pengajaran Tatap Muka di Kelas

Kita semua paling akrab dengan situasi belajar yang satu ini. Sebagian besar dari kita telah merasakan berada diruang kelas bersama guru sementara kita terlibat dalam aktivitas belajar. Pengajaran tatap muka tetap menjadi jenis situasi pengajaran paling sering ditemui dalam kelas. Pengajaran tatap muka diistilahkan dengan situasi dalam waktu bersamaan.

Tujuan dari pengajaran tatap muka (instruksi langsung) adalah untuk membantu siswa belajar materi akademi dasar seperti membaca, matematika, dan seterusnya, dalam cara yang paling efisien dan langsung. Karakteristik kunci cara pengajaran ini adalah pemusatan dan dominasi dari guru, orientasi tugas, harapan positif, kerjasama siswa, dan akuntabilitas, afek non- negative, dan struktur yang terbangun.

Berpusat pada guru berarti bahwa guru mendesakkan arahan dan kontrol yang kuat mengenai hal yang harus dipelajari serta caranya. Mereka tampak menguasai. Namun pengajaran langsung ini tidak terlepas dari kekurangan didalamnya yaitu antara lain bahwa cara ini membatasi otonomi siswa. Selain itu instruksi langsung ini tidak dapat meningkatkan prestasi kreativitas, pemikiran abstrak, dan pemecahan masalah atau kemampuan kognitif tingkat tinggi. Beberapa pihak  merasa cara ini tidak setara dengan pilihan alternative instruksi lainnya ketika tujuannya untuk meningkatkan kerjasama, sikap terhadap sekolah, dan kehadiran di sekolah. ( Cruickshank, Donald R. 2014. Perilaku Mengajar. Jakarta : Salemba Humanika )

b.      Belajar Jarak Jauh

Sesungguhnya belajar jarak jauh telah “hadir” dalam waktu yang cukup lama, yang dimulai sekitar seratus tahun yang lalu dengan studi korespondensi menggunakan surat, namun inovasi lebih terbaru dalam media dan teknologi telah menjadikannya lebih nyaman dan lebih dinamis. Sistem belajar jarak jauh diselenggarakan dengan maksud untuk memberikan kesempatan kepada mereka yang karena alasan- alasan tertentu untuk dapat mengikuti pendidikan formal biasa yang kondisional. Atau dapat juga dikatakan bahwa belajar jarak jauh ini bertujuan untuk memperluas kesempatan memperoleh pendidikan diluar kelas atau kampus. Dalam sistem ini bukanlah siswa yang harus mendatangi pusat- pusat pendidikan melainkan pendidikan itu atau bahan- bahan pembelajarannya yang dibawa ke tempat siswa berada.

Komponen- komponen yang terdapat dalam pembelajaran jarak jauh ini antara lain : a) Komponen Siswa, b) Bahan Pembelajaran, c) Pembimbing, Tutor, dan/ atau Fasilitator, d) Tempat Belajar. Adapaun Evaluasi dari belajar jarak jauh ini yaitu bahwa siswa belajar tanpa diawasi orang lain. Karena itu ia sendiri harus dapat menetukan apakah ia telah menguasai materi pelajaran yang telah dipelajarinya atau belum.  Bahkan kadang- kadang kemajuan siswa tidak dievaluasi secara formal. Masing- masing siswa dapat mengevaluasi dirinya sendiri. ( Miarso, Yusufhadi dkk. 1986. Teknologi Komunikasi Pendidikan. Jakarta : Rajawali )

Ø  Pengajaran Berdasarkan Pengalaman

Pengajaran berdasarkan pengalaman melengkapi siswa dengan suatu alternative pengalaman belajar dengan menggunakan pendekatan kelas, pengarahan guru misalnya metode ceramah. Strategi pengajaran ini menyediakan kesempatan kepada siswa untuk melakukan kegiatan- kegiatan belajar secara aktif dengan personalisasi.

Adapun tujuan pendidikan yang mendasari strategi ini adalah :

a.       Untuk menambah rasa percaya diri dan kemampuan pelajar melalui partisipasi belajar aktif (berlawanan dengan partisipasi pasif).

b.      Untuk menciptakan interaksi sosial yang positif guna memperbaiki hubungan sosial dalam kelas.

Pelaksanaan Teknik Pengajaran Berdasarkan Pengalaman

a.       Guru merumuskan secara seksama suatu rencana pengalaman belajar yang bersifat terbuka (open minded) mengenai hasil yang potensial/ memiliki seperangkat hasil- hasil alternative tertentu.

b.      Guru memberikan rangsangan dan motivasi pengenalan terhadap pengalaman.

c.       Siswa dapat bekerja secara individual/ bekerja dalam kelompok- kelompok kecil/ keseluruhan kelompok didalam belajar berdasarkan pengalaman.

d.      Para siswa ditempatkan didalam situasi- situasi nyata pemecahan masalah, bukan dalam situasi pengganti.

e.       Siswa aktif berpartisipasi didalam pengalaman yang tersedia, membuat keputusan sendiri, dan menerima konsekuensi berdasarkan keputusan tersebut.

Pertemuan Pembahasan terdiri dari 4 bagian, yaitu review, analisis, distilasi, dan integrasi. Dengan cara melaksanakan pertemuan, pembahasan tersebut mendefinisikan apa yang terjadi, dan pembagian temuan merupakan karakteristik yang membedakannya dengan strategi pembelajaran “belajar pengalaman” (experiental learning). Belajar pengalaman terutama terpusat pada pemberian kepada siswa pengalaman- pengalaman belajar yang bersifat terbuka dan siswa membimbing diri sendiri. ( Hamalik, Oemar. 2005. Proses Belajar Mengajar. Jakarta : Bumi Aksara )