The Relationship Between Two Types of Teacher Professional Development and Head Start Student Math Outcomes

The problem addressed in this study was that Head Start programs have not prepared Head Start students to achieve in mathematics, and teachers are often unprepared to teach early math, thereby spending little time on math instruction. The literature suggested that teacher professional development is linked to teacher changes in instruction and student achievement. However, research has primarily focused on early literacy rather than on early mathematics. Head Start teachers are required to maintain professional development plans and participate in professional development; however, the standards provide no guidance regarding the types of professional development that should be used. Teacher change theory suggests that when teachers are provided with high-quality professional development, changes in instructional practices lead to improved student outcomes. Once teachers experience and observe growth in student outcomes, teachers' beliefs change and instructional strategies are cemented into practice. This study explored the relationship of two types of professional development models on Head Start teachers' frequency of early math instruction and students' outcomes in mathematics. This study used a quantitative quasi-experimental pretest posttest design in order to examine the relationship between professional development interventions and change in instructional frequency and student achievement. Participants in the study included 208 Head Start students and their teachers. Teachers of the participants were randomly assigned to a coaching PD group, Data Review PD group, or the control group. Results indicated there was a statistically significant difference between groups as was determined by one-way ANOVA (F(2,205) = 6.613, p = .002). A Games-Howell post hoc test indicated there was a significant difference at the .05 level in student gain scores between the control group (no teacher PD) and the group with teacher data review as PD (1.9 +/- 2.8, p = 0), as well as between the control group and the teacher coaching group (2 +/- 2.3, p = 0). However, there were no significant differences found between the data review group and the coaching group (p = .956). ANOVA was completed using teacher gain scores as measured by OCM. There was no statistically significant difference between teacher PD groups as was determined by one-way ANOVA (F(2,18) = 1.8, p = .19).