Predictors of Engagement in Training As a Pathway to Understanding Implementation of the Responsive Classroom Approach

Introduction: Understanding implementation drivers is needed to improve all steps of translation research from initial field trials to efforts to scale-up. Researchers have suggested individualized coaching as one way that implementation of interventions may be improved. Individualizing coaching, however, can only be utilized after coaches can know which types of teachers are most likely to need which types of additional support. In other words, if coaches could gather information about teachers before they began training, coaches could tailor that training to support the needs of each teacher and the likelihood that they will implement the intervention with fidelity (Peterson & Baker, 2011). The first step toward this aim is to increase understanding of the characteristics of teachers measured before training begins, that will ultimately relate to fidelity of implementation. The present study investigates the relation between initial teacher factors including alignment with the intervention, efficacy, and demographic characteristics, and their implementation of a SEL intervention, the Responsive Classroom® Approach, two years later (Northeast Foundation for Children (NEFC), 2003).  

Methods:  We analyzed 133 fourth and fifth grade teachers from the treatment group of a randomized-controlled trial of the Responsive Classroom Approach. Prior to training in the intervention we measured teacher-rated and observed initial alignment to the intervention practices, teachers’ reported efficacy and orientation to innovation, and teacher demographic characteristics. During training coaches rated teachers’ engagement in training, and two years after training researchers observed teachers multiple times to assess fidelity of implementation.

Results:  Using structural equation modeling, baseline characteristics (alignment, efficacy, orientation to innovation, and demographics) were not directly related to observed implementation levels two years later. However, coaches ratings of teachers’ engagement in the initial training mediated the relation between two relations: (1) higher initial alignment to the intervention practices and higher observed implementation, and (2) lower orientation to innovation and higher observed implementation.

 

Conclusions: Findings will be discussed in terms of observing teachers’ initial alignment to practices and orientation to innovation to create a plan to improve fidelity of implementation.