Background
Methods
Design
Identifying references
Screening references
Data extraction and quality-assessment
Synthesis
Results
Included reports and quality
Study report and location | Intervention name, type and outcome addressed | Process evaluation design | Evaluation examined | Data collection methods | Evaluation participants and sample |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Australia/ Perth | Cyber Friendly Schools Student participation in policy decisions (Students sat on a decision-making group with staff) Bullying | Mixed methods | Feasibility Acceptability/ satisfaction Context | Students acting as cyberleaders were surveyed each year of the two-year intervention about their proposed activities and confidence in acting as a cyberleader. Cyberleaders also completed survey evaluations of the training activities at the end of the workshop and a brief telephone interview to measure their progress and any barriers to activity implementation at the end of each year. School project teams completed a baseline survey during the training workshop they attended and evaluations of training activities. Teaching staff completed baseline surveys prior to curriculum training and follow up surveys a year later. Project co-ordinators in each school were interviewed about their whole-school planning and activities at BL and at post tests in 2011 and 2012. | Students and school staff Cyberleaders completing surveys during training n = 87, n = 138 at post-test one, and n = 48 at post-test two. Teachers completing BL surveys n = 51. Teachers completing FU surveys at post-test 1 n = 78. Project co-ordinators completing interviews at BL n = 28. Project co-ordinator interviews at post-test 1: n = 25 and at post-test 2: n = 33. |
Bosma [27] USA/ Minnesota | DARE Plus Student participation in policy decisions (other approaches) Drug use and violence | Quantitative | Feasibility Fidelity/ quality | Data collected included number and types of activities, numbers and names of participants, issues addressed, and leadership roles of team members. Seven forms were used to collect quantitative data on: (a) adult one-on-ones, (b) youth one-on-ones, (c) presentations at community meetings to recruit support, (d) adult action team meetings, (e) youth action team meetings, (f) adult activities, and (g) youth extracurricular activities. | Students and community members Not stated |
Australia/ Perth | Friendly Schools, Friendly Families Student relationships with teachers but not student participation in decisions or delivery (other approaches) Bullying | Quantitative | Coverage /reach/ accessibility Acceptability/ satisfaction | Parent questionnaire covering knowledge about bullying; self-efficacy to talk to children about bullying; parents attitudes to bullying behaviour; frequency of parent-child communication about bullying; parents perception of their ability to help their children respond to bullying; parents perception that bullying is a-priority at the child’s school. Data collected at baseline and ten months and twenty-two month post-points. | Parents 3211 parents completed the questionnaire at baseline. (1,077 Grade 2 parents, 1094 Grade 4 parents and 1,040 Grade 6 parents). 2152 parents at post-test 1 (10 months) and 56% 1784 at post-test 2 (22 months). 45% (n D 1,444) of the original cohort of parents completed surveys at baseline, post-test 1 and post-test 2. |
Bond [24] Australia/ Victoria | Gatehouse Project Student relationships with teachers but not student participation in decisions or delivery (other approaches) Substance use, bullying | Mixed methods | Feasibility Acceptability/ satisfaction Mechanism Context | Field notes and records documenting meetings, the changes that occurred over time and the professional development provided to the school collected by the ‘critical friends’ from the Centre for Adolescent Health. Semi-structured interviews with ‘key informants’ (curriculum coordinators, student welfare, and administration) for each intervention school in the last year of implementation. At the end of each year, school background information was obtained on all schools via a structured interview with senior personnel. Audits related to school structures, policies, programs in place, strategies used to promote emotional well-being of students, and demographic information and could capture whole-school-level changes related to policies and programs. | School staff Not stated |
Knight [31] Uganda/ Luwero district | Good Schools Toolkit Student participation in policy decisions (Students sat on a decision-making group with staff) Violence | Quantitative | Fidelity/quality Coverage/ reach/ accessibility | Cross-sectional survey at endline to measure student and staff exposure to the toolkit. Data on delivery of intervention to schools was collected routinely by intervention programme officers. All interactions with the schools— including technical support visits, group trainings and telephone calls—were systematically documented by each program officer termly. School led implementation was measured using termly ‘action plans’ routinely completed by schools. Adoption of toolkit elements by schools were tracked by an independent ‘Study Process Monitor’. Head teachers were asked a standard set of questions about Toolkit structures in each school termly, a sub-set of which were verified by direct observation. | Students and school staff 1921 students and 286 staff completed endline surveys. |
UK/ south east England | Healthy School Ethos Student participation in policy decisions (Students sat on a decision-making group with staff) Substance use, violence | Mixed methods | Feasibility Coverage/ reach/ accessibility Acceptability/ satisfaction Context | Pre and post intervention survey of year-7 students conducted in private classrooms with support from two fieldworkers to examine reach. Semi-structured interviews with students and staff in intervention schools and intervention providers to examine feasibility, acceptability, awareness and contextual factors. Unstructured observations of various meetings to examine processes of participation and enable triangulation with interview accounts were also undertaken. Field notes written during observations and sometimes augmented later the same day from memory. | School staff, students and intervention providers Across all four schools, 721 (90.4 per cent) took part in the follow-up survey. Semi-structured interviews were carried out with: one head teacher per intervention school (n = 2); the external facilitator; the two trainers; and a sub-set of action team members. In one school three senior staff, one junior staff and one student involved in action groups took part (n = 5). In the other one senior staff, two junior staff and two students involved in action groups participated (n = 5). Interviews were also carried out with two other staff per school (one experienced one less experienced), four in total, who participated in the training as well as with three students in one school and five in the other who participated in other intervention activities and seventeen students in each school not participating in specific actions. |
Bonell [25]
Fletcher [30] UK/ south east England | Learning Together (Pilot) Student participation in policy decisions (Students sat on a decision-making group with staff) Bullying, aggression, substance use | Mixed methods | Feasibility | To examine fidelity of implementation of action groups documentary evidence was collected via intervention facilitator checklists, action group meeting minutes and school policies. To assess delivery of student needs assessment, response rates for the baseline survey were examined to ascertain if they were greater or lower than 80% of all year 8 students at the school. To examine reach of staff training and the uptake of restorative practices, evidence was collected from training provider and facilitator checklists. To examine the delivery of the student curriculum, evidence from intervention facilitators checklists was collected. Observations of training and action group meetings were carried out. Focus groups were carried out with students and school staff and semi-structured interviews with school leadership at each participating school. A subsample of action group members and all intervention providers were interviewed to explore their views on the intervention. Action group members at each intervention school were surveyed to examine their views on acceptability. Intervention reach was assessed via student survey. A teacher survey also included questions on implementation. | Students and school staff Students (n = 1114) and teachers (n = 336) took part in the follow follow-up survey. 34 action group members plus 16 other students and 4 staff took part in interviews. 112 students took part in focus groups. |
Bonell [36]
Warren [35]
Warren [37] UK/ south east England | Learning Together Student participation in policy decisions (Students sat on a decision-making group with staff) Bullying, aggression, substance use | Mixed methods | Feasibility Fidelity/ quality Coverage/ reach/ accessibility Acceptability/ satisfaction Mechanism Context | n all schools, diaries were completed by trainers; researchers observed training; and staff completed a satisfaction survey for training. Semi-structured telephone interviews were also carried out with trainers. Diaries were kept by facilitators of action groups and minutes were reviewed. A survey was carried out with AG members each year of the intervention. Researchers carried out observations of action groups; semi-structured telephone interviews with AG facilitators in years one and two of the intervention; and semi-structured interviews with AG members (two per year) were also completed. A survey was carried out with staff leading curriculum implementation annually and semi-structured interviews were conducted each year with staff delivering the curriculum. In all schools a survey was also carried out termly with staff implementing restorative practice and interviews were conducted with other school staff in years 1 and 3. In six case study schools, focus groups were conducted with staff each year of the intervention and with students who were directly involved in intervention activities as well as those who were less so. Semi-structured interviews were also carried out with students involved in restoratives practice. | Students and staff Not stated. |
Mitchell [33] USA/ Portland | Portland Peers Programme Student participation in policy decisions (Students sat on a decision-making group with staff) Substance use | Mixed methods | Feasibility Acceptability/ satisfaction | Biannual administration of the Portland Peer Helper Scale. Parent questionnaire. Initial assessment of student drug use. Interviews with project and school staff and students. Direct observation of a sample of program activities. Review of the student database of referrals for assessment. | Students, parents project and school staff Sample of research participants not described. The peer helper sample group was approximately 45% male and 55% female. The authors report that diverse ethnic groups were represented in the samples of this study p.13. |
Beets [23] USA/ Nevada and Hawaii | Positive Action Student participation in policy decisions (Students sat on a decision-making group with staff) Substance use, violence | Quantitative (Cross sectional survey) | Fidelity/ quality Context | Year-end repeat cross sectional self-administered staff survey carried out in ten elementary schools at years 2 and 3 of the multiyear evaluation. The survey assessed: teacher perceptions of support from their administrators and connectedness with their school; their belief in their responsibility to teach social and character development concepts; their attitude towards Positive Action; the amount of the Positive Action curriculum delivered; and their usage of program-specific materials in the classroom and school wide context. School climate was assessed via of two series of questions assessing perceived administrative support and school connectedness. | Teachers In total 171 teachers in the ten elementary schools completed year-end process evaluations in year two and 191 in year three. |
Malloy [32] USA/ Chicago | Positive Action Student participation in policy decisions (Students sat on a decision-making group with staff) Substance use, violence | Quantitative | Fidelity/ quality Context | Teacher unit implementation reports (UIRs) from first year of implementation (2004-5) administered as six time-points. Teacher work climate survey administered at baseline and after training. | Teachers Forty-six teachers who completed both the URIs (for one or more of the units) and the Teacher Work Climate Survey were included in the analysis. |
O’Hare, [34] UK /south east England | Positive Action Student participation in policy decisions (Students sat on a decision-making group with staff) Substance use, violence | Mixed methods | Feasibility Mechanism Context | Teachers completed an implementation survey at the end of each unit of the programme for lessons and the end of every week for classroom activities used and whole-school activity to assess dose. Head teachers completed a school climate survey. Students completed a satisfaction questionnaire measuring their engagement and pupil-teacher relationships. Qualitative data was collected through classroom observations to assess fidelity (quality). Pupil focus groups and teacher and head teacher interviews were conducted to explore implementation. | Students and staff Nineteen teachers completed the implementation survey. For survey (engagement and relationships measures), 473 students moving through years 4 and 5 across fifteen schools. Twenty-five students from five schools randomly selected from the 15 took part in focus groups. One teacher and one head teacher was interviewed from each of the five randomly selected schools. |
Anyon [22] USA | Responsive Classrooms Student Participation in Decision-making (other approaches) Violence | Mixed methods | Feasibility Fidelity/ quality Acceptability/ satisfaction Context | Observation by trained research staff of teacher implementation of RC rated on a three-point scale. Classroom practices frequency survey (CPFS) to capture teachers’ self-reported use of intervention strategies. Focus groups carried out with a range of school staff to examine factors that constrain or enable implementation. | School staff Sample included thirty school staff. Twenty-four teachers participated in classroom observations at two time-points, and 19 teachers completed the classroom practices survey. Fifteen participants completed a first round of focus groups in fall 2013, and 19 individuals participated in spring 2014. |
Study report | Were steps taken to minimise bias and error/increase rigour in sampling? | Were steps taken to minimise bias and error/increase rigour in data collection? | Were steps taken to minimise bias and error/increase rigour in data analysis? | Were the findings of the study grounded in/supported by data? | Was there good breadth and depth achieved in the findings? | Were the perspectives of young people privileged? | Overall reliability of findings based on the above (low, medium or high) | Overall usefulness of findings to this review low, medium or high |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
No None specified. Recruitment and sampling of participants for process evaluation not discussed. | No None clearly specified. Reference to use of a standardised protocol for project co-ordinator interviews. | No None specified. | No Discussion of findings is limited and does not flow clearly from methods as described. Full range of data is not discussed and there is a lack of clarity concerning where some findings are drawn from. Data tables or quotes from qualitative data are not provided to support findings. | No Surface level data on training satisfaction for cyeberleaders discussed, but full range of findings from different data sources and participants not presented. Touches on a broad range of potential implementation issues identified in student data, but these are covered in very limited depth. Qualitative data is not well reported or utilised. | No Presentation of student responses to surveys is limited and young people’s accounts from interviews are reduced to lists. | Low Limited information on methodological rigour is provided. Unclear how bias and error were controlled for in sampling, data collection and analysis. Limited data presented to support findings. | Low Some useful insights in relation to factors facilitating and impeding implementation of the intervention, but focus is mainly on cyberleader component and discussion of findings lacks depth. | |
Bosma [27] | No None described. | No None described. | No Methods of analysis are not described. | No Limited data provided to support findings. Data sources for many of the findings are not clear and limited data examples are used to support findings. | No Findings are largely limited to describing levels of participation and frequencies of events/activities implemented. No data on participant views is presented. | No Data on young people’s perspectives is not included. | Low Methods are poorly described and it is unclear from what data many of the findings and conclusions are drawn. | Low Findings on factors affecting implementation are limited. |
No Self-selected sample. | Yes | Yes Appropriate statistical tests used. | Yes Detailed data tables are provided to support findings. | No Limited data from parent questionnaire examining reach and dose only. | No | Medium Sampling open to self-selection, but otherwise well conducted study. | Low Limited information on factors influencing implementation of parent component. | |
Bond [24] | No Sampling methods for individual participants unclear. | No None stated. | No None stated. | No Quotes used in places but not all findings are supported with data or linked clearly to data sources. | Yes Multiple aspects of and perspectives on implementation explored in good depth using qualitative data. | No | Low Limited information on sampling of schools and participants provided and findings not always supported by data presented. Limited information to assess quality and robustness of methods and analysis provided. | Medium Provides useful information to understand how features of the intervention (and to a lesser extent) context may facilitate/support implementation. Range of data collection tools and multiple perspectives used to explore implementation, but not data from young people included. |
Knight [31] | Yes All students and staff invited to participate, with high student and staff response rates reported. All head teachers included in assessment of implementation. | Yes Standardised data collection tools used. All measures pilot tested before use. | Yes Triangulation (observation and teacher report) used in measurement of adoption. Appropriate statistical models and tests for reliability used. | Yes Data described in detail and full data tables provided to support conclusions. | No Range of measures, data collection methods and participants included to explore implementation, exposure/reach, but focus is on a limited set of questions on how level of implementation affected reach and outcomes, with some data provided on how reach varied by participants. In depth perspectives on implementation and factors shaping delivery or receipt are not explored. | No Student survey data on reach is included and forms part of the main analysis, but wider perspectives on implementation are not included. | High Standardised data collection tools used and triangulation with direct observation to verify findings on implementation. Survey measures piloted and were subjected to appropriate tests for reliability. Comprehensive data tables are provided to support conclusions. | Low Some useful data on how receipt (reach) varies by gender, year group and educational needs but main focus is on how level of implementation impacts reach and outcomes. Does not contribute useful information on how features of interventions, context or providers influence implementation. |
Yes Large subset of participants used for qualitative data collection, purposively selected to ensure diversity, capturing a range of roles and levels of involvement with the intervention. Student sample selected to broadly reflect student body. | Yes Questionnaire was piloted with similar age students in another school and conducted, privately in classrooms with fieldworkers. Interviews were conducted by researchers in private rooms using standardised interview guides. | Yes Interviews were recorded and transcribed in full. Two researchers coded the data (both inductively and deductively) and compared, contrasted their analysis and interpretation before coding a second time to arrive at a final set of themes. Unstructured observations of meetings were triangulated with interview accounts. | Yes Supported with appropriately detailed data tables and illustrative quotes from a range of participants. | Yes Range of aspects of implementation explored in detail via multiple participant perspectives and data sources, including in-depth qualitative data. | Yes Student accounts used to address relevant research questions. | High Steps taken to avoid bias and improve rigour in sampling, data collection and analysis. Data, including sample of appropriately illustrative quotes presented to support findings. | High Provides highly useful information drawing largely on in-depth qualitative data from a range of participants to illustrate key factors facilitating and impeding implementation. | |
Bonell [25]
Fletcher [30] | Yes. Schools purposively selected for diversity. For qualitative data collection individuals were selected purposively to represent diversity of students and staff. | Yes Student surveys completed individually in classroom settings monitored by researchers not teachers. Staff surveys completed anonymously and confidentially. Interviews/FGs conducted by researchers in private rooms using standardised and pre-piloted interview schedules. Standardised data collection tools (checklists) also used to monitor implementation. | Yes Detailed and layered qualitative analysis methods described, drawing on well recognised methodological approaches. Data thoroughly triangulated (verified) using range of data sources. Thorough approach to qualitative analysis including double researcher coding/analysis and regular discussion and refinement of coding and interpretation. Log book of decisions was used. | Yes Findings flow logically from methods and are supported by detailed data tables, descriptions of participant responses and a number and range of quotes from different participants. | Yes Perspectives from a range of participants on a number of different areas of implementation explored using both quantitative and qualitative data, providing good breadth and depth of enquiry. | Yes Student responses considered in detail and lengthy quotes used to support interpretations. | High Well conducted study with appropriate steps taken to increase rigour in sampling, data collection and analysis. Findings follow from methods and are well supported with detailed descriptions and data. | High Range of implementation factors related to delivery and receipt considered using robust methodological approach. Provides high quality, in-depth information from a range of participants on factors influencing implementation. |
Bonell [36]
Warren [35]
Warren [37] | Yes Either all relevant sample included in research activities or participants were purposively sampled for diversity. | Yes Surveys were anonymous, completed independently by students in classrooms with a researcher present and returned in envelopes sent to researchers. Interviews and FGs were conducted in private rooms with only researcher present. | Yes Multiple data sources used to triangulate data. Analysis of qualitative data carried out by two researchers using standardised coding framework and recognised methods of qualitative analysis drawn from grounded theory, such and constant comparison and examination of deviant cases. | Yes Findings are described in detail and follow logically from methods. Full data tables and appropriate, lengthy quotes from a number of participants are provided to support conclusions. | Yes Range of data collection methods and participants included across all schools providing very comprehensive picture of implementation. | Yes Survey data and qualitative data from young people is drawn upon and discussed in detail as part of the main findings. | High Well conducted study which includes broad range of measures, methods and diversity of participants, with data collected over a three-year intervention period creating a very comprehensive and reliable picture of implementation. | High Well conducted study using range of methods to capture diverse perspectives on breadth of implementation issues. |
Mitchell [33] | No Methods of sampling not described. | No None stated. Data collection methods are poorly described. | No None stated. Data analysis methods are not described. | No Unclear from what data sources findings have been derived. Data is not presented to support findings. | No Limited detail/depth to findings on implementation and qualitative data is poorly reported. | No Interviews were carried out with students, but these are reduced to case studies written by researchers. | Low Methods are poorly described so is difficult to assess rigour and quality of study. Discussion of findings is limited and sufficient data are not provided to support conclusions. | Low Findings on implementation are limited and it is difficult to assess the rigor and quality of the study. Small amount of useful data provided on intervention acceptability and features of intervention that impeded implementation of parent component. |
Beets [23] | No All staff invited to participate, but response rates were low in some schools and sample may be subject to self-selection bias. | Yes Surveys anonymised to promote more “truthful” answers (teachers only asked to identify year and grade level taught). Validated and pre-piloted scales used to measure key constructs. | Yes Appropriate statistical analysis and testing used accordingly. | Yes Data to support interpretations clearly presented in tables. | No Focus is on teacher survey data relating to few key concepts related to implementation. | No Study does not include student data. | Medium Appropriate steps taken to minimise bias data collection and analysis, but not sampling. Data to support findings is presented. | Low Very useful information on role of teacher beliefs and attitudes and perception of school climate in shaping implementation of curriculum and whole school materials, informed by appropriate theory. Although analysis is limited to quantitative data from teachers and small range of concepts and variables used. |
Malloy [32] | Yes All teachers invited to participate, with 73% response rate. Data collected for the teachers who did not take part showed they were not significantly different from those that did, suggesting the sample was representative. | Yes Existing predictor variable measures were used and piloted a refined using principle component factors analysis prior to their use. Standardised data collection tools and measures used for teacher reported implementation. | Yes Although UIRs were self-report and some of the implementation data were missing, weekly implementation data were triangulated with end of term summaries and with student reported levels of engagement with the program, which supported the validity of these data. Appropriate statistical tests used. | Yes Findings follow logically from methods and full data tables are used to support conclusions. | No Limited range of concepts related to implementation explored using staff survey data. | No Focus on teachers. | High Well conducted study with bias and error in sampling, data collection and analysis accounted for. Sufficient data to support findings is provided. | Low Provides useful and reliable data on association between teacher perceived organisational climate and implementation, but sample and breadth and depth of analysis is limited, with other implementation issues relating to intervention, context or population not explored. |
O’Hare, [34] | Yes All students and teachers in study invited to participate in survey (although response rates not reported. Unclear if sample was representative). Schools selected at random for qualitative work. Students for FGs selected at random from five selected schools. Unclear how teachers for interviews were selected. | Yes Survey measures were developed based on existing pre-tested scales. Observation, focus group and interview schedules were piloted in in each of the fifteen schools in an earlier phase and refined prior to implementation. | No Methods of data analysis not described. | No Full data tables are provided to support quantitative findings. Description and presentation of qualitative data is limited, however. | No Range of methods used to capture information on different aspects of implementation from different perspectives. Depth of data on participant perspectives limited though. | No Use of student data from FGs is limited. | Low Steps taken to reduce bias and error in sampling and data collection but methods of analysis not described and description and presentation of qualitative data is poor. | Low Although depth of data on implementation is limited, provides some useful data on student engagement and characteristics of interventions that might affect this (and consequently implementation and outcomes) as well as on feasibility for schools in terms of curriculum dose and challenges to implementing whole-school elements. |
Anyon [22] | Yes All staff members invited to participate. Potential for self-selection bias, but researchers claim sample was representative of total population. | Yes Different instruments used to triangulate data on implementation. Standardised protocol used for qualitative data collection and previously validated instruments used for quantitative data collection. | Yes Quantitative and qualitative data triangulated. Qualitative data analysis carried out by three independent coders. Appropriate statistical tests used for quantitative data. | Yes Data presented to support quantitative findings. A number of appropriate participant quotes used in text to support qualitative findings. | Yes Mixed methods used to capture both breadth (level of implementation across all classrooms) and depth (factors shaping this). Comprehensive data collection on implementation and factors shaping this. Range of teaching staff included to capture different perspectives, but lacks data on student perspectives. | No No student data reported in study. | High Steps taken to minimise bias in all areas. | Medium Good quality, detailed information on implementation factors provided, but no student data reported. |
Synthesis of evidence on factors affecting implementation
Process Construct from General Theory of Implementation | Influence construct from General Theory of Implementation refined to encompass school factors | Influence Sub-construct (where relevant) |
---|---|---|
Sense-making | Intervention capability to be made sense of – good materials and support | |
School capacity to make sense of an intervention – rooted in existing priorities and capacities | ||
Cognitive participation | Intervention capability for local tailoring and adding value | Particularly for whole-school components where these could jeopardise other work |
Intervention capability for using data to build commitment | But can undermine as well as build commitment | |
Intervention capability in terms of student participation | ||
Staff potential for commitment based on perceived need | ||
Staff potential for commitment based on existing strategies and values | Cherry-picking components most aligning with potential | |
Collective action | Intervention capability as workable | |
Planning groups as a key element of intervention capability | Planning groups and participative decisions as a potential source of deviation | |
Synergy between intervention components as a key element of intervention capability | ||
School capacity to support collective action | Time resources | |
Leadership resources | ||
Staff/school relational and culture resources | ||
Reflexive monitoring | Intervention capability for reflexive monitoring | |
Collective reflexive monitoring to refine implementation | ||
Reflexive monitoring reinforcing implementation |
Sense-making
“The one thing schools need is a model, of how it’s going to work in the school, in a real-life school, so that they can almost touch it, taste it, feel it, and then start implementing it in their own schools”. (p.39)
Cognitive participation
”The assessment phase of the organizing process is critical to its long-term success. It is invaluable to take the required time to get to know the community before attempting to launch an action team.” (p.17)
”Reluctance to change whole-school policy may be exacerbated by circumstances such as an upcoming [government] inspection: ’It was hard to make a whole-school change to sanction and reward policy, so whole-school activity was harder to implement. [The government inspectorate] was coming and it would have been too big a change.’” (p.34)
“I remember when [facilitator] came to present to [senior leadership team] and said how terrible our data was… it was like a tumbleweed moment; it was so funny. I mean... it wasn’t funny in a good way, but... but it was a realistic... realisation for everyone if you know what I mean... Because we all knew it was like that, but we didn’t realise how much the children didn’t actually like us.” (p. 990)
“head teachers and their [management teams] consistently reported that it was important to address aggressive behaviours in order to recruit and retain ‘the best’ parents and students. [Managers] also suggested that this project was prioritised as it was seen as likely to impress the national school inspectorate… due to its focus on student voice and behaviour.” (p.328)
“In contrast, some middle school staff members’ beliefs about the value of punitive responses to problem behavior were incompatible with the core tenets of the intervention, which emphasized inclusion and opportunities to learn: ’When you steal, there are real consequences; there’s jail or fines…’ These staff members believed that zero-tolerance policies, which use punishment as an extrinsic motivator for behavior change, were more effective than RC approaches.” (p.84)
Collective action
”[P]articipants reported that a key RC strategy, Logical Consequences, in which a response to student misbehavior is tied to the specific incident and creates an opportunity for learning, was too unwieldy to implement in a way that students could anticipate and incorporate: ’I totally agree with the theory behind logical consequences where you want the consequences that match the behavior and that’s, like, respectful to the child and respectful to the teacher. But it’s hard because it’s different every time… It’s not a system where they know, like, oh, if I do this I know what’s going to happen.’” (p.85)
“It is clear from our work that these elements - the adolescent health team, the school social climate profile, and the critical friend - do not work in isolation. The profile provides local data that are essential for identifying risk and protective factors relevant to the particular school community. The adolescent health team ensures that the responses to the profile are owned and implemented by the whole-school community. The critical friend provides expertise, impetus, motivation, and links to external resources.” (p. 380)
“Many teachers reported not being able to find sufficient time in their teaching curriculum to complete the eight learning activities.” (p. 104)
”A school leader noted that ‘It’s not one new thing; it’s always five new things that we’re working on. I think the attention span is tested.’” (p.84)
”In another school, despite there being no senior leaders on the group, the lead had worked for a long time at the school and was well respected and liked by both students and staff. Thus, it was possible to galvanise action without the formal involvement of senior leaders in some cases.” (p.989)
“Stronger affiliation among teachers likely led to more opportunities to share ideas about PA materials and observe other teachers as they carried out PA activities outside of the classroom. This may have influenced teachers’ use of these supplementary program components, with higher levels of use by teachers who had perceptions of high engagement and support among teachers in their schools.” (p.1091)
“School staff observed that [Responsive Classrooms], a schoolwide intervention, ran counter to the school’s culture of individuality. For example, one teacher noted: ’One… characteristic of [the school is]… there’s a lot of autonomy in terms of how teachers run their classrooms… it’s a little bit of territorial, like… I know what I’m doing and I have my way of doing it so I don’t need to participate necessarily in a whole-school anything.’” (p.84)
Reflexive monitoring
”This common purpose gave permission for teachers to try new strategies such as substantially restructuring student and teacher teams. For example, in one school, teachers worked together to reorganize classes into small groups of four or five learners and teachers into teaching teams to promote a collaborative and an academic environment.” (p.375)
“The support that [critical friend] provided in the staff room, in staff meetings, has been invaluable. We wouldn’t be where we are now, because I’d never recognized the value of having a person who is not a practicing teacher in the school at the moment… the way that you’ve been able to involve yourself in the discussion and the activities that are going on and come through with some very well-made points at crucial times, but in small groups and large groups.” (p. 377)
”Most interviewees suggested that external facilitation was not necessary in the final year, but a few suggested this was a significant loss: ’The absence of [facilitator] has been incredibly significant because she… was able to tie it in all the time to the agenda. And was a touchstone I suppose really for that. And then… so that… I think that was a loss’. (Senior leadership team member…)” (p.991)
“not only has the work of the adolescent health team facilitated reviews of organizational structure, but it has also contributed to a substantial shift in the perceptions of what is the core business of schools. [As one staff member reported:] ’But just really reinforcing the ideas of the positiveness and feeling secure at school, and certainly encouraging staff, that irrespective of what subject they teach, they can have an influence. And it’s a bit like planting a seed…’. There was also evidence of changing professional identity - teachers shifted their position from being a teacher of a subject or program to placing the young person and learning at the center of practice.” (p.379)