Introduction to White Paper 3

Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on email
Email

Greetings friends! In this third White Paper, Realist(ic) Evaluation Tools for OST Programs: The Quality-Outcomes Design and Methods (Q-ODM) Toolbox, we extend from the neuroperson framework for socio-emotional skills to a focus on evaluation design and impact evidence. Focusing on the methods used to evaluate out-of-school time (OST) programs and to assess the impact on student skill growth is a critical issue, especially given the ambiguity about impacts from gold-standard evaluations of publicly funded afterschool programs. Are programs producing weak or no effects? Or, are gold-standard designs missing something?

We offer a sequence of evaluation questions that chart the course to realistic evidence about quality and outcomes (i.e., cause and effect, or “how” and how much”) – and is useful to managers, teachers, coaches, and evaluators. We’ve learned these questions over the past two decades by asking tens of thousands of afterschool, early childhood, and school day teachers about how data and results about their own work works best for them.

Getting the evaluation questions right calls for measurement and analytics tools that:

…reflect the assumption that children have mental skills that are causes of their behavior…. These mental skills are conceived of as several different aspects of mental functioning (i.e., schemas, beliefs, & awareness) that exist within every biologically-intact person, enable behavioral skills, and can be assessed, more or less accurately, using properly-aligned measures. When the parts and patterns of skill are reflected in theory and measures, the accuracy and meaningfulness of data about program quality and SEL skill – and all subsequent manipulations and uses of the data – are dramatically improved.

Our thinking is deeply anchored in pattern- and person-centered science. Check out a related blog here: Why are Q-ODM’s Pattern-Centered Methods (PCM) More Realistic and Useful?

Finally, we provide data visualization examples that complete an unbroken chain of encoded meaning, from the observation of students’ socio-emotional skills in an afterschool classroom, to the decoding of the data visualization by an end-user. We’re pleased to share these insights. Cheers!

P.S. For CEOs that need impact evidence: Why are gold-standard designs not as cost-effective as we might think? Elsewhere, we have argued that gold-standard designs for afterschool programs are misspecified models because they lack key moderator and mediator variables (e.g., instructional quality and socio-emotional skills). For example, the large impacts (often equity effects, as predicted by the neuroperson framework) that we typically find for students who start programs with lower socio-emotional skills but who receive high-quality instruction cannot be detected using most gold-standard designs. As a result, it is difficult (or impossible) to analogize from the results of gold-standard designs to the real actions taken by real people; thus, those designs are not very cost effective for improvement or for telling compelling stories about impact. Check out a related blog here: How the Q-ODM impact model is a more cost-effective form of the quasi-experimental design (QED).

Introduction to White Paper 2

Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on email
Email

Welcome back! In this second white paper, Measuring Socio-Emotional Skill, Impact, and Equity Outcomes, we extend from the White Paper 1 skill framework to discuss implications for accurate measurement.

We are pleased to share these hard-won lessons from two decades of trying to describe the actual outcomes of “broad developmentally-focused programs” – which means trying to figure out how to measure socio-emotional skill changes of both adults (i.e., quality practices) and children over short time periods. In the paper, we work through the logic of measurement in a way that we hope non-technical readers can follow with minimal suffering. There are no Greek symbols!

We’re passionate about this subject because the potential is real. Getting measurement right will make a big difference for the oft-ignored questions about how and how much skills change during relatively short periods, such as a semester or school year. To put the conclusion up front: Maximize measurement sensitivity in applied settings by using (a) adult ratings of child behavior that (b) reference periods of not more than two weeks past,  and (c) using a scale anchored by frequency of behavior – what we call optimal skill measures.

Another message is that regardless of measure choice, items should analogize to actual mental and behavioral skill states that occur in real time, using words that all raters understand in the same way. Without this power of analogy from the raters’ concept of the verb/predicate in the written item to an observed quality in the room, external-raters can’t make clear comparisons before checking the box. The same is true for self-raters observing thoughts and feelings happening inside their own mind/body.

The kicker is that as inaccurate data are aggregated, the extent of invalidity is compounded. What if the ambivalent impact findings repeatedly demonstrated by gold-standard evaluations in publicly-funded afterschool programs were caused by leaving out accurate information about socio-emotional skills? (This is, in fact, a key argument elaborated in White Papers 3 and 4.) Thanks for checking out our work!

P.S. for the psychometrically minded. Why are many SEL skill measurement constructs likely to be inaccurate, despite psychometric evidence of reliability and validity? First, many measures of SEL skill lump things together that they shouldn’t. For example, mixing self-report items about (beliefs about emotional control in general (efficacy), the felt level of charged energy in the body (motivation), and specific behaviors (taking initiative) that follow – creates scale scores that obscure distinct parts of skill that change on different timelines and with different causes.

Second, it turns out that most measures young people encounter in school day and OST settings are self-reports of beliefs about skills. Students are rarely trained in the meaning of the words in the items that they are responding to while coming from different histories and different “untrained” perspectives on emotion-related words. We just don’t know what the words mean to the self-reporter, particularly the relative intensities offered in multi-point Likert-type response scales.

Third, items that refer to the use of skills in general (i.e., a verb without clear predicating context or time period) are much less sensitive to specific skill changes that actually occur over short periods of time. We refer to these as measures of functional skill levels that change more slowly over time.

In the new year, we’re highlighting the third white paper, Realist(ic) Evaluation Tools for OST Programs: The Quality-Outcomes Design and Methods (Q-ODM) Toolbox. In this paper, Charles Smith and Steve Peck extend the ideas introduced in White Paper 1 (socio-emotional framework) and White Paper 2 (socio-emotional measures) to program evaluation and impact evidence.

Reflections on White Paper 1

Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on email
Email

In conjunction with the release of White Paper 1 this week – A Framework for Socio-Emotional Skills, Quality, and Equity – we want to mention a few of the highlights:

What are socio-emotional skills? In our view, a person’s socio-emotional skills are integrated sets of mental and behavioral parts and processes (i.e., schemas, beliefs, and awareness); these integrated systems are socio-emotional skills and produce both basic and advanced forms of agency.

Why are socio-emotional skills important? Socio-emotional skills have a compounding effect on many developmental outcomes that has been described as dynamic complementarity (Heckman, 2007); that is, socio-emotional skills beget other types of skills. Children and adults operating at high levels of SEL skill can more easily get on to the business of learning what the context has to offer. Settings that do not address SEL skills can become a further cause of educational inequity.

Why are organizations and policies struggling to implement socio-emotional skill reforms? A recent review found over 100 different frameworks describing SEL skills and supports (Berg et al., 2017). This cacophony of words and concepts undermines the shared understanding and language necessary for coordinated action, both within organizations doing the work and among evaluators producing the evidence.[i] Confusion about what constitutes SEL skill, and how “skill” may or may not differ from many other concepts – such as, competence, abilities, traits, attitudes, and mindsets – undermines scientific progress and slows policy processes that rely on at least approximate consensus around shared meanings and objects of measurement.

How can the QTurn socio-emotional skills framework help increase the effectiveness of reform? By defining, naming, and sorting out the key parts of integrated SEL skill sets, we can much more effectively measure and model both changes in socio-emotional skills and, ultimately, impacts on outcomes and equity. In White Paper 2, we extend from the socio-emotional skills framework described in White Paper 1 to corresponding guidance for measuring socio-emotional skills with increased precision, accuracy, and sensitivity.

We’ll be back with more soon…

 


[i] Given the extent of diversity across SEL frameworks, Jones et al. (2019) developed resources to help stakeholders understand the unique strengths of different frameworks as well as the alignment between core elements of these different frameworks. The general conclusions from this work are (a) there is currently no single consensus framework that is obviously more scientifically or practically valid than any or all of the others, and (b) the use of the same terms by different frameworks where presumably referring to different things (i.e., jingle fallacies), and the use of different terms by different frameworks where presumably referring to the same things (i.e., jangle fallacies), are abiding challenges faced by stakeholders charged with making funding, evaluation, training, performance, measurement, and analysis decisions. Our approach is designed to help solve these problems.

Introduction to QTurn White Papers

Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on email
Email

We, at QTurn, are pleased to share the first three, in a series of four, white papers. White Paper 1, Socio-Emotional Skills, Quality, and Equity (Peck & Smith, 2020), provides a translational framework for understanding our relatively unique view of the key parts of a socio-emotional skill set. In short, we develop a case for supplementing the traditional focus on student beliefs and behavior with a much more extensive focus on students’ emotional life and the attention skills necessary for becoming the primary authors of their own development.

You can download White Paper 1 from our website or ResearchGate. We’ve also published a blog describing what we think are some of the important points and implications of White Paper 1.

Although our work is anchored in the wide and deep range of developmental supports that are currently evident in the out-of-school time (OST) field, we view the “neuroperson” model described in White Paper 1 as applying to all adults and children in all settings. Quoting from the paper:

We introduce a theoretical framework designed to describe the integrated set of mental and behavioral parts and processes (i.e., schemas, beliefs, and awareness) that are socio-emotional skills and that produce both basic and advanced forms of agency. With improved definitions and understanding of SEL skills, and the causes of SEL skill growth, we hope to improve reasoning about programs and policies for socio-emotional supports in any setting where children spend time. Perhaps most importantly, we hope to inform policy decisions and advance applied developmental science by improving the accuracy and meaningfulness of basic data on children’s SEL skill growth. (p. 3)

The series of white papers will define what exactly we do and believe at QTurn. After the translational framework is explained in White Paper 1, White Paper 2 – Measuring Socio-Emotional Skill, Impact, and Equity Outcomes (Smith & Peck, 2020a) – provides guidance for selecting feasible and valid SEL skill measures. White Paper 3 –  Realist(ic) Evaluation Tools for OST Programs – integrates the SEL framework and measures with a pattern-centered approach to both CQI and impact evaluation. White Paper 4 – Citizen Science and Advocacy in OST (Smith & Peck, 2020b) – presents an alternative evidence-based approach to improving both the impact and equity of OST investments. Over the next few weeks, we’ll be releasing blogs related to White Papers 2 and 3.

We’ll also be updating our website as we go along and hope to be joined in the blogging by a couple of expert clients in Flint and London. That’s it for now. We look forward to sharing further information in the coming months and would love to receive any feedback you think might help further the cause of supporting OST staff and students.

Realist(ic) Evaluation Tools for OST Programs: The Quality-Outcomes Design and Methods (Q-ODM) Toolbox

Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on email
Email

Socio-emotional learning (SEL) skills are a partial but necessary cause of children’s developmental outcomes, and SEL skill growth is a key objective for nearly all out-of-school time (OST) programs. The Quality-Outcomes Design and Methods (Q-ODM) toolbox holds an integrated set of tools to measure and model children’s SEL skills, including how they change during, and in response to, OST programs (e.g., afterschool, school-age child care, workforce and career preparation, arts, sports). The Q-ODM toolbox helps organizational managers and evaluators to feasibly and cost-effectively adopt pattern-centered measures and models that produce actionable information for both continuous quality improvement (CQI) and impact evaluation.

The Q-ODM toolbox addresses practical questions about SEL skills and skill growth, such as: What is high-quality SEL support? How much SEL skill change does our program cause in each cycle? How much program quality does it take for stressed children to fully engage? Does our work create equity effects? The tools are divided into three groups: Design Tools, Analytic Tools, and Feedback Tools. These tools increase dramatically the value of CQI feedback for staff and the power of the analytic models used to evaluate program impact and equity effects for participating children. The Q-ODM toolbox was designed to empower internal and local evaluators to conduct rigorous and meaningful impact evaluations using existing resources (e.g., while they are implementing their current CQI systems). These tools will be particularly welcomed by evaluators currently struggling with positivist thinking and methods.

Citation: Peck, S. C., & Smith, C., (2020). Realist(ic) Evaluation Tools for OST Programs: The Quality-Outcomes Design and Methods (Q-ODM) Toolbox. [White Paper #3].

Measuring Socio-Emotional Skill, Impact, and Equity Outcomes

Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on email
Email

The positivist theory and methodology used by most researchers and evaluators is poorly suited for addressing the formative explanations that guide continuous quality improvement (CQI) processes and the nuanced impact models that pertain to questions about how and how much. QTurn’s Quality-Outcomes Design and Methods (Q-ODM) toolbox (Peck & Smith, 2020b) was created to address fundamental problems in the evaluation of out-of-school time (OST) programs (e.g., afterschool, child care, drop-in, mentoring, tutoring, etc.). In this white paper, we extend from a framework for individual socio-emotional (SEL) skills (Peck & Smith, 2020a) to address several issues in the applied measurement of individual SEL skills.

We present steps to (a) identify the real objects we seek to represent with measurement and models (i.e., the parts of an individual’s SEL skill set and the type and amount of skill change that is likely to occur during the program) and (b) produce SEL skill indicators and measures that are feasible and valid for both CQI and impact evaluation uses. With improved reasoning and evidence about the parts of SEL skill and individual skill change, we hope to help organizations produce local evidence and advocate both internally and externally for improved OST policies and increased investment.

Citation: Smith, C., & Peck, S. C. (2020). Measuring Socio-Emotional Skill, Impact, and Equity Outcomes [White Paper #2].

Socio-Emotional Skills, Quality, and Equity: The Multilevel Person-in-Context~neuroperson (MPCn) Framework

Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on email
Email

Evaluation evidence about the relations among children’s prior history, engagement in program settings, resulting SEL skill growth, and the ultimately desired transfer outcomes (e.g., agency to succeed in other settings) has been sporadic and fragmented. One reason for this may be that the positivist theory and methodology used by most researchers and evaluators is poorly suited to the formative explanations that guide continuous quality improvement (CQI) processes. As a result, we lack nuanced impact models that address questions about how and how much, or the information necessary for organizational decision-making. QTurn’s Quality-Outcomes Design and Methods (Q-ODM) toolbox (Peck & Smith, 2020) was created to address these fundamental problems in the evaluation of education settings, with a specific focus on out-of-school time (OST; afterschool, child care, drop-in, mentoring, tutoring, etc.) programs.

In this white paper, we introduce a theoretical framework designed to describe the integrated set of mental and behavioral parts and processes (i.e., schemas, beliefs, and awareness) that are socio-emotional skills and that produce both basic and advanced forms of agency. With improved definitions and understanding of SEL skills, and the causes of SEL skill growth, we hope to improve reasoning about programs and policies for socio-emotional supports in any setting where children spend time. Perhaps most importantly, we hope to inform policy decisions and advance applied developmental science by improving the accuracy and meaningfulness of basic data on children’s SEL skill growth.

Citation: Peck, S. C., & Smith, C., (2020). Socio-Emotional Skills, Quality, and Equity: The Multilevel Person-in-Context~neuroperson (MPCn) Framework. [White Paper #1].

SEMIS Coalition for Place-Based Ecological Stewardship: Growing a Movement, Getting Ready for Growth

Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on email
Email

The Southeastern Michigan Stewardship Coalition (SEMIS) is a high impact and low-cost school reform for adults and students to build their repertoire of ecological stewardship skills – SEL, STEM and civic – and experience agency from the practice of ecological stewardship in their place. This white paper was developed to (1) describe how SEMIS promotes social and emotional learning, (2) iterate content and language with SEMIS stakeholders, (3) and to make a compelling and scientifically grounded case for expansion of the work

Citation: Smith, C., (2019). SEMIS Coalition for Place-Based Ecological Stewardship: Growing a Movement, Getting Ready for Growth.