Prekindergarten Program Process Evaluation Report, 1990-91.

Autor/inn/en	Claus, Richard N.; Quimper, Barry E.
Institution	Saginaw Public Schools, MI. Dept. of Evaluation Services.
Titel	Prekindergarten Program Process Evaluation Report, 1990-91.
Quelle	(1991), (30 Seiten) PDF als Volltext kostenfreie Datei Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Monographie
Schlagwörter	Check Lists; Classroom Observation Techniques; Cognitive Development; Compensatory Education; High Risk Students; Language Skills; Parent Participation; Play; Preschool Children; Preschool Education; Program Effectiveness; Program Evaluation; Program Improvement; Psychomotor Skills; School Readiness + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Checkliste; Kognitive Entwicklung; Kompensatorischer Unterricht; Problemschüler; Language skill; Sprachkompetenz; Elternmitwirkung; Spiel; Pre-school age; Preschool age; Child; Children; Pre-school education; Preschool education; Vorschulalter; Kind; Kinder; Vorschulkind; Vorschulkinder; Vorschulerziehung; Vorschule; Programme evaluation; Programmevaluation; Psychomotorische Aktivität; Readiness for school; School ability; Schulreife
Abstract	During the first half of the 1990-91 school year, 446 children were served by the Chapter 1 Prekindergarten Program of the Saginaw, Michigan school district. A process evaluation was conducted to monitor the program and assess whether it was being implemented as planned. This year, the process evaluation consisted of half-day classroom observations of the classes of each of 5 new kindergarten teachers in 13 buildings. An activity checklist and observation instrument focused primarily on the implementation of the cognitive, psychomotor, and parent participation and education activities of the program, and secondarily on object labeling and language enhancement techniques in the classroom. Observations revealed that: (1) except for grouping and regrouping, and activities related to properties of objects, activities to meet daily objectives were taking place in all classrooms; (2) a record of parent participation was maintained in all classrooms; (3) labels were posted on objects throughout the classrooms in an effort to assist in word recognition; (4) teachers used language enhancement techniques, but with wide variation in frequency; and (5) a wide variation of methods for scheduling free play was observed. The program is operating as planned, but some areas could be improved. Recommendations for addressing these areas are suggested. Appendices provide a list of participants, a sample activity observation checklist, and a table displaying frequency of teachers' use of language enhancement techniques. (BC)
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC