Satellite-Based Distance Courses for In-Service Training: The Case of HeadsUp! Reading

The professional development of early childhood professionals is increasingly a topic of interest for those requiring training for child care workers and for those funding the training. This attention is prompted by research evidence on the relationship between formal training of teachers and care providers and the quality of early childhood environments (see Donohue, 2003; Howes, 1983; Ruopp et al., 1979). A pressing need in the field today is to improve early childhood professionals’ knowledge and one of the areas that is critical to addressing this need is providing consistent, quality training to in-service early childhood personnel.

In their study of the professional development practices of child care workers, Powell and Stremmel (1989) found that higher levels of both formal training and experience in the early education field were associated with high involvement in conventional forms of professional development. Thus, there is a general belief that professional development will cause greater gains in knowledge for less-educated teachers than for more-educated teachers.

Kaufman, Watkins, and Guerra (2001) pointed out that the value and usefulness to learners of distance-based-instruction courses has rarely been the focus in the evolution of this technology. The number of original research studies dedicated to explaining or predicting phenomena related to distance education is small (Merisotis & Phipps, 1999). Merisotis and Phipps’ review of existing original research on the effectiveness of distance education suggested that these types of courses compare favorably with classroom-based instruction. Research data suggest that students and faculty report high satisfaction and have similar grades or test scores in either structure.

The results of student outcomes studies are mixed. Miller, McKenna, and Ramsey (1993) informed that while students in traditional live classes mastered 92% of items on their final exam, students at remote sites mastered only 86% of the items. Ritchie and Newby (1989) found students in a distance education class experienced less involvement, were less able to ask questions, and reported less overall enjoyment than did students in traditional classes. However, in their evaluation of the satisfaction of students taking special education coursework through interactive television (ITV), King, Gamble, and Fischer (1994) established that, in general, students had positive opinions concerning ITV. Also, Walker and Hackman (1991) noted the amount of information received was found to be the single greatest contributor to students’ perceived learning and satisfaction in ITV coursework. They also established that instructor non-verbal immediacy behaviors such as gestures, postures, or vocal variety and the clarity of audio and video transmission also contributed significantly to positive student satisfaction. McCleary and Egan (1989) explained that while no significant differences were found among three interactive courses regarding level of difficulty and amount of material covered, a comparison with traditional courses found students rating ITV significantly higher than the traditional course in learner receptivity by the end of the third course in a training sequence. This increase in ratings was attributed to the experience of the instructor and students but also to design changes (such as course packets, a class format with outline, study guide and exam preparation questions; a course facilitator at remote sites; and quick provision of feedback to students on course assignments) seen as critical to the success of instruction using two-way interactive television.

While learner satisfaction certainly is not the sole criterion for determining effectiveness, it can lead to lower student attrition rates, a greater number of referrals from enrolled students, higher levels of student motivation, and better learning than if satisfaction is minimal (Biner, Dean, & Mellinger, 1994). McCleary and Egan (1989) noted that as instructors refined the courses and became more experienced with ITV delivery, student satisfaction increased.

It should be pointed out that most of the distance learning research is on college students rather than the non-traditional, in-service teacher/learner. Additionally, this report is on a course that was broadcast to multiple sites versus the typical one site for most college level courses.

By and large, success has occurred in providing adult learners with opportunities to participate in courses at times and locations that are more convenient than those offered by conventional education (Kaufman & Watkins, 2000). Distance learning, by means of a satellite-based medium, offered this convenience to HU!R participants. Many of the respondents to the evaluation stated they found the satellite broadcast convenient.

The focus of the research study discussed here is the efficacy of in-service training via a distance education course. The goal of the course was the enhancement of early literacy outcomes for children through the improvement of teachers’ knowledge of early literacy development and their skills in teaching early literacy to children under the age of six. The content of the HU!R course focused on literacy development for early childhood professionals. The course was made available to hundreds of early childhood professionals in a state in the Midwest free of charge.

The statewide facilitators numbered approximately 100 at 52 sites during 2 years (2001-2003) of broadcast. During each of the 24 (Year 1) and 13 (Year 2) HU!R sessions, the facilitators, who received prior training paid for by the funding agencies, were instructed to engage in the following activities: assist students in successfully taking part in exercises, inform the students of learning options including the HU!R Internet site, and provide additional reading materials. In addition, facilitators monitored attendance, disseminated and collected sign-in sheets, and distributed and collected participant evaluations that were later sent to the state’s Child Care Resource and Referral State Office.

A typical class night lasted 2.5 hours. The broadcast began 15 minutes after students were scheduled to arrive for the class and ended 15 minutes before the students were scheduled to be dismissed. The facilitators used the first 15 minutes to get the group convened, share feedback, and prepare for the broadcast. The last 15 minutes were intended for final discussion and wrap-up. During the session, students had the opportunity to call-in with questions to the broadcast instructors.

The second broadcast year of HU!R was shortened from 8 to 4 months, based on feedback from first-year participants who found the material, which was designed to be indepth, redundant. Based on this response, the material presented in the second year of HU!R was condensed for presentation to a four-month course, though the content remained essentially the same. The objectives for each class session (e.g., promote children’s oral language development, engage children in literacy-enhanced play) were identified on the course syllabus. Sometime after each class session, participants were expected to access online information, resources, and assignments at the HU!R Web site. The course designers did not determine if or how each facilitator used the assigned readings and/or Web-based assignments. Well-known experts in the field participated as lead and guest faculty, discussing a literacy-based topic each session. The HU!R students were provided, free of charge, copies of the four suggested textbooks for the course.

The basic questions of interest to those funding the satellite-based course in the state were: Will program participants have increased knowledge regarding supporting young children’s literacy development by the end of the course? What variables influence any increases in literacy knowledge gained from the course? Placed in a larger context, the researchers explored, can distance education prove to be a mechanism that can be used to increase in-service early childhood teachers and other personnel’s learning?

A total of 525 (in Year 1) and 342 (in Year 2) early childhood professionals across 52 state sites began the course. Each individual was eligible to participate in the research. At the end of the course, we determined that approximately half of the original students (n = 245 in Year 1 and n = 162 in Year 2) remained in the course.

In the first year of the evaluation 62 course attendees (intervention group) and 23 non-HU!R professionals (comparison group) participated in the evaluation of the HU!R course. The participants in the comparison group were persons who were sent information about the HU!R course but chose not to attend, or enrolled in the course but did not attend more than the first two classes. These participants were also in the same programs/early childhood positions as the evaluation participants. Similarly, 122 HU!R students (intervention) and 37 comparison participants began the evaluation in the second year of broadcast. By the end of Year 2 of the evaluation, usable data were collected for 54 HU!R and 11 comparison participants. All program evaluation participants received three children’s books, appropriate for the age of children with whom they worked, as compensation for time spent completing the research tasks.

Of the 62 Year 1 HU!R participants, all but one were female, and aged 26 to 65; 92% were white, and 84% were employed full-time as child care providers or in other positions within the early childhood field. The 23 comparison participants were similarly distributed along these demographic dimensions. HU!R and comparison participants in Year 2 of the evaluation displayed comparable characteristics as those in Year 1. Demographic characteristics of the sample are presented in Table 1. An attrition analysis revealed that study participants, Year 1 and Year 2, both in the intervention and comparison groups, who dropped out of the studies were no different on any demographic variable than those who remained in the studies.

The participants in classes across the state were contacted via the course facilitators during the first and second class sessions. The researchers met with the HU!R course facilitators during their first training session to explain the project. Facilitators were asked to inform the students of the evaluation research project (each facilitator was sent a letter via e-mail that explained the nature of the project) and to invite participation. The facilitators gave cover letters and the data packets with consent forms to those who agreed to participate in the project. The cover letter explained the project and gave all instructions for returning the completed forms to the facilitator. The facilitators returned the completed data forms to the researchers at the specified times.

The Comparison participants were identified from the list of centers and schools sent information by the course.

The participants completed a consent form, a demographic survey form, Literacy Rich Environment (checked from a list literacy materials in the environment), Classroom Feedback Form (example items [respondent checks almost all the time, time, none of the time]: 1. Books are organized in a reading center, 2) Many different displays on walls at children’s eye level), and Neuman and Seunghee’s (2001) Language and Literacy Early Childhood: Knowledge Measure (two forms-pre-test and post-test) that elicited information on their knowledge of children’s literacy development, (example items [respondent checks appropriate response]: A good definition of literacy: (a) getting ready for reading, (b) beginning stages of reading and writing, (c) nonstandard reading and writing, d. phonological development; Hosea speaks Spanish in his home. He is learning English in preschool. What are some ways his teacher can help him develop literacy skills? (1) Wait until he speaks English well before introducing literacy skills. (2) Talk to his parents about how he needs to speak English at home. (3) Read aloud with him in a small group. (4) Speak louder so that he can understand better.).

Quantitative Analyses Results. The initial correlation analysis between the program evaluation participants’ HU!R attendance, age, years of education, hours of training attained in the past 12 months, pretest performance (the Literacy and Language Early Childhood: Knowledge Measure and Classroom Feedback Form), and posttest scores were found not to be statistically significant. However, there was a moderate association found between participant age and years of early childhood experience, r(89) = .44. Because of this result, new correlation analysis was performed.

The additional correlation analysis (controlling for participant age, where applicable), means, and standard deviations for all measures are shown in Tables 2 and 3. Only education was related positively, to Literacy and Language Early Childhood: Knowledge Measure pretest scores, r(89) = .40, p = .0001, while HU!R attendance and education were both positively related to Literacy and Language Early Childhood: Knowledge Measure posttest scores, r(89) = .44, p = .0001. Because teacher practices, as measured by the Classroom Feedback Form, were unrelated to participant attendance at HU!R sessions as well as to identified predictor variables, subsequent analyses focused on examining the effects of these variables on the Literacy and Language Early Childhood: Knowledge Measure alone, hereinafter referred to as the posttest measure.

A hierarchical regression was performed, with Language and Literacy in Early Childhood: Knowledge Measure posttest scores as the outcome variable. Years of experience in the early childhood education field required a control for participant age (in years), which was entered in the first step. Participants’ pretest scores were also entered in the first step as a control. Years of early childhood experience was entered in Step 2, hours of training in the past 12 months was entered in Step 3, education was entered in Step 4, and attendance was entered in Step 5.

Given that attendance at HeadsUp! Reading course sessions was expected to predict post-test scores, several additional identified variables were tested for their influence on the outcome variable. Hierarchical regression analysis was used to evaluate research questions 1 and 2, which addressed the influence of participants’ attendance at HU!R sessions and the explanatory value of additional variables in the prediction of participants’ scores on the Language and Literacy in Early Childhood: Knowledge Measure. Meanwhile, moderate correlations were established between posttest scores and HU!R training attendance, level of education, and pretest scores.

The results shown in Table 4 revealed that evaluation participants’ attendance added to the prediction of pre- and posttest scores beyond the influence of education level. Experience in the early childhood field as well as hours of professional development/training in the last 12 months, though expected to add to the prediction of Language and Literacy in Early Childhood: Knowledge Measure scores, did not influence participants’ understanding of emergent literacy.

To test for differential effects of education on emergent literacy knowledge, repeated measures ANCOVA was utilized. The Language and Literacy in Early Childhood: Knowledge Measure was used as the repeated measure, and the dummy coded high/low education variable was the primary variable of interest. Experience, training, and attendance were included as covariates. This analysis showed that the gains made in participants’ scores on the Language and Literacy in Early Childhood: Knowledge Measure were greater among those participants with less education (p<.005).

Qualitative Analyses. To further our understanding of the impact of the Heads Up! Reading program, all participants in the HU!R evaluation who attended the course completed an open-ended questionnaire. Additionally, the state Child Care Resource and Referral (R&R) Network conducted training evaluations. We reviewed the data from both instruments. The majority of the comments on the evaluation forms centered on the benefits that respondents’ identified as a result of attending the course: “The class was informative. I enjoyed it once a week and at a place that was convenient…. It gave me the opportunity to have new activities weekly and enhanced my curriculum.”; “I truly enjoyed the literacy class – it was informative. It was truly eye awakening to learn about children and their early stages of written language. I also learned to take a simple story and build a lesson plan for the week around the book.”; “(The) information provided was informative and easy to implement in the classroom.”; “(I have) lived 52 years and the (course) is the first time I was able to understand the code (alphabet) and all the ways to teach the code without worksheets, tracing, and dots.”; “Class was helpful with infants and toddlers.”; “The segment on phonological and phonemic awareness was new information for me and very helpful.”

The comments that reflected the respondents’ disfavor with the course included: “ More in-depth discussion with the video clips, less repetition, less host conversation.”; “Please condense, less repetition , more examples.”; I needed more information dealing with two year olds.”; The activity sheets were repetition.”; “Show more activities for the classroom.”

Some comments focused on the class environment: “Too many tables, they need to be arranged differently”; “Not enough chairs”; “It’s too cold.”

None of the written comments discussed the distance format of the course. However, there was an item on the Resource and Referral evaluation form that asked what version the respondent viewed, live or tape, and the majority of the participants identified live. Another item focused on the preferred method for viewing the class, and the majority of the respondents chose the live version versus the taped.

The questionnaires from the researchers presented five items. The HU!R participants received the questionnaires with the same five items across several literacy topics and time points. The items included identifying the ways in which the new learning would help in doing their work and how this information would be implemented in their present program. The responses to the new learning item covered a variety of feelings and thoughts. A subset of responses to how the information will help their work is provided along with the literacy topic to which they were responding.

Using Narrative Play to Build Story Comprehension. “It enhance(s) my abilities, build(s) my self-esteem”; “When children are telling me a story narrative, I will give my undivided attention, not hurry them along”;

Providing Varied Writing Opportunities. “will help with assessing/analyzing classroom observations and work samples”; “communicating with parents”; “I will be able to support children better by understanding where they are on a writing continuum”; “makes me more aware of how I can help children move from one level to the next level…”; “more focused on writing in all areas”; “I will know what to expect and be able to plan activities accordingly.”

Learning the Code. “help transitions move smoother”; “gives me understanding and knowledge about how those concepts are learned and understood. If I understand how they understand, then I can help them.”

The data suggest that this satellite-based distance education course was a means by which in-service teacher/student participants in the research portion of the evaluation were deemed to have improved their understanding of literacy and language development for young children. The qualitative analyses pointed out that some of the early care and education professionals were satisfied with the quality of the instruction and their abilities to participate in the satellite-based course. Overall, based on the results, we conclude that this satellite-based course was effective for the HU!R participants. Satellite-based distance education courses can serve as a mechanism for providing the much needed accessible, less expensive, and consistent training for early childhood professionals, particularly those in rural areas.

This study focused on Heads Up! Reading, an in-service, satellite-based ITV distance course featuring two-way audio and one-way video. While there is no available empirical data on satellite-based ITV distance in-service training courses, the available data on ITV and distance online courses offer some “food for thought” that we can relate to an in-service training course. Because the typical early childhood in-service teacher who participated in the HU!R course did not have a degree beyond high school, yearly child development and early childhood education training is required by the state that funded the HU!R courses. Based on the qualitative data and a review of the existing research on distance courses, here are some suggestions for further developing satellite-based ITV courses for inservice teachers and related professionals. In addition to the HU!R academic goal for participants, there is need to address participant attrition and early professional motivation for participation in distance trainings.

Based on previous research, studies reported that some students in ITV courses in general have positive opinions of the courses (King et al., 1994; Walker et al., 1991; McCleary et al., 1989). The experience of the course instructor who teaches distance courses plays a part in the quality of the course (Bender, Wood, & Vredevoogd, 2004). Reviewing the available distance learning research suggested course features that are helpful to the distance learner include course packets, a class format with outline, class teaching style that is learner-centered, a course study guide, quick provision of feedback (e-mail), ability to download assignments, participation in online discussions, clear course Web sites, access to computers, support personnel to deal with computer problems, and mentoring support.

The HU!R-ITV distance course’s structure has limitations as well as positive features. The distance portion of the course was not credit bearing; therefore, no grade was given. However, the course could be used to fulfill state-required training hours. Instituting the features presented in the previous paragraph within an ITV distance course can be achieved fairly easily, though additional expense would be incurred. The role of the facilitator would necessitate change. In HU!R, the course instructors were well-known figures in the field of early literacy. An exchange between them and program participants was helpful; however, the number of course participants could not allow for greater interactive participation beyond the way it was structured. Facilitators in the many HU!R sites could assume a large portion of the instructor role, much the same way laboratory teaching assistants do with large college-based survey courses. This move would necessitate that the requisite teaching skills of the facilitators in the ITV satellite-based course be higher than those expected for many of the original on-site facilitators. The facilitator would need experience and training in teaching distance courses and to have a portion of time available to work online responding to the participants (answering e-mail, holding online discussions, and reviewing submitted assignments) who access the Web-based portion of the course as their time allowed.

It was noted that the attrition rate for HU!R course participants was very high. The literature review raised an important point—the potential needs of the adult learner. Keeping the student engaged to experience success is one potential student need. Stein and Glazer (2003) studied the adult learner in distance education universities. Their discussion of the demographic characteristics of adult learners in such university programs examined showed similar trends found amongst the adult learners in the HU!R course. The students in their research study were in graduate distance programs, but they, like the HU!R in-service learners, had course work tempered with requirements of family and job. Midlife, academic, and social integration are critical elements. Stein and Glazer (2003) suggested a mentoring relationship for the adult learners as a way of building support for their learning. This relationship was viewed as lessening the likelihood of attrition. They found that adult learners desired responsiveness to learner inquiries, reassurance to learners that they can complete the course, and respect for adult life situations. Mentoring is perceived to be more feasible when the distance course is a small manageable group. With large groups, such mentoring is likely more practical when it occurs through a professional development/ career lattice mechanism.

Lastly, research suggested that the teaching style used by the instructor of an ITV distance course is linked to academic achievement and student satisfaction (see Dillon & Gunawardena, 1995, Liaros, 2000). The learner-versus the teacher-centered teaching approach is what is offered as the better approach for distance teaching. ITV course facilitators should receive learner-centered training to ensure the proper environment is provided for the distance learner.

Providing quality training that is consistent, affordable, and available to persons located in a wide variety of locations is a concern for early childhood education trainers and program funders. The results of the evaluation of Heads UP! Reading suggest that this type of instruction delivery can be modeled to be an effective teaching method for early care and education personnel. The satellite technology of two-way audio and one-way video or two-way audio and two-way video interactive television has some promise in providing in-service training. Development of a model must address, at a minimum, the issues we presented here.

Policymakers focused on professional development/training for workers in care and education programs for children below the age of six can consider the usefulness of distance education in improving the knowledge base of the multitude of workers in the field of early childhood across the nation who need access to basic knowledge in child development and early childhood education. We can only surmise the economic impact of this mode of instruction as far less expensive than face-to-face classrooms. To begin thinking about this, such a system may not be effective for all inservice learners, but there is evidence that suggests that it might be good for the majority.

The State Departments of Health and Senior Services and Elementary and Secondary Education, and the Head Start-State Collaboration Office funded this research. The researchers wish to thank the HeadsUp! Reading Advisory Council and the course facilitators for their invaluable help.