INVESTIGATING AN ONLINE COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE: A PROPOSAL TO DEVELOP AN EVIDENCEBASE FOR KNOWLEDGE SYNTHESIS AND TRANSLATION Section 1: Shortterm and Intermediate Outcomes for NIDRRfunded Project
(Describe how the proposed activity relates to the intended shortterm or intermediate outcomes intended for the existing NIDRRfunded project).
Overview
The Beach Center on Disability, a Rehabilitation Research and Training Center (RRTC) on Policies Impacting Families of Children with Disabilities, proposes to expand our current knowledge utilization and dissemination activities using Communities of Practice (CoPs), by designing, implementing, and investigating a websupported CoP for one of our NIDRRfunded communities: A Community of Practice on Family Supports and Services in Early Childhood Programs. As we will explain in later sections, our original RRTC application committed us to developing a facetoface CoP and email for the purpose of knowledge synthesis and translation. The shortterm and intermediate outcomes for our NIDRRfunded work are: • Shortterm outcome. The CoP will be the primary vehicle for developing and operationalizing a Family Supports Framework which will guide target stakeholders
1
(families, practitioners, researchers, university professors) in designing policies and practices to meet the needs of families of young children with disabilities. • Intermediate Outcome. A minimum of one state will adopt the Family Supports Framework and develop policies to require family outcomes exceeding the current family outcomes in early intervention required by the Office of Special Education Programs (within the Department of Education); we also propose that a minimum of two local early intervention agencies will adopt the Family Supports Framework to provide supports to families and measure outcomes based on these supports. Support from the RUSH Award will enable four additional and complementary goals: • To design a stateofart websupported CoP which provides members with access to evidencebased knowledge synthesis of current research related to providing supports to families of young children with disabilities. • • To investigate the quality of implementation of a websupported CoP. To investigate the impact (knowledge gains and behavior change) of members of the websupported CoP. • To develop guidelines for NIDRR grantees and others to facilitate establ shing and i evaluating websupported CoPs.
Section 2. Clarity and Quality of Proposed Utilization Activity
2
(Describe the proposed activity in terms of its relation to the selected utilization model, specific goals to be achieved, likelihood of success, and quality of design). In this section, we describe the utilization activity by (a) briefly describing the literature related to CoPs, (b) relating CoPs to knowledge utilization models (b) providing background on the Beach Center’s current CoP, (c) outlining the tasks and describing the new websupported CoP, and (d) describing how we are designing the activity for quality and success. Literature Related to CoPs CoPs are groups of people who “share a concern, a set of problems, or a passion about a topic, and who deepen their knowledge and expertise . . .by interacting on an ongoing basis” (Wenger, McDermott, & Snyder (2002), p.4). CoPs have been suggested as one strategy to close the researchtopractice gap by modifying the direct, topdown relationship between those who produce knowledge and those who use it (Wesley & Buysse, 2006). CoPs include three elements that should be developed together for a community to be effective (Wenger, McDermott, & Synder, 2002). These elements are (a) the domain of knowledge, (b) the community of people, and (c) the shared knowledge and practice the members are developing. Additionally, the purposes and activities engaged in by CoPs have been described as taskbased, practicebased, and knowledgebased (Reil & Polin, 2004). Wesley and Buysse (2006) offer four challenges that CoPs ill have to address in order to w be successful. These include (a) connecting with and learning from existing communities; (b)
3
developing strategies to identify evidence from empirical science and practical professional wisdom; (c) creating effective structures that enable community building; and (d) using technology to extend communities beyond geographical limitations. This project specifically addresses hese t four challenges. Although websupported CoPs are fairly new, there has been some research conducted related to conversation characteristics such as social network analysis of scholarly networks (Koku & Wellman 2004) and computermediated discourse (Herring, 2004). Based on their analysis of a scholarly network using social network analysis methods and concepts, Koku and Wellman (2004) suggest that scholarly communities (knowledgebased communities) are not homogeneous and that the structure of the relationships between members of varying characteristics is related to the type and variety of technical and communication media that is used. Herring (2004) focused on the methodological approaches that could be used to address the issue of whether participation in on line environments constitutes “community” as differentiated from a group of people interacting online. She offers six criteria and associated methods to objectively assess online community behaviors: participation, shared history, solidarity and support, conflict and conflict resolution, group identity and selfawareness, and roles and governance. Dubé, Bourhis and Jacob (2005) studied 14 CoPs during the ini ial implementation on 14 t characteristics including demographics, organizational context, membership, and technological environment. Characteristics that seemed to contribu te to the success include: facilitating a managerial environment, including topics that were highly relevant to the daily concerns of its 4
members, and ensuring that a community is integrated into the structure and supported by an organization. A critical feature of CoP health is active leadership (McDermott,2004). McDermott indicates that leaders of successful facetoface communities spend 25 % of their work week providing active, engaging leadership. The tasks associated with that time commitment include logistics (10%), facilitating meetings (20%), networking with stakeholders of the community (30%) and networking among community members (40%). One might assume that daily leadership of websupported communities requires more time than facetoface communities. Experts caution designers of websupported communities to take social interactions into account as much as they consider usability (Barab, Kling, & Gray, 2004; Preece, 2002) and urge a attitude shift from “Designing Websupp orted Communities” to “Designing For Websupported Communities” (Barab, Kling, & Gray, 2004, p.5) so that one avoids the pitfall of imposing an external structure on the group instead of allowing meaningful structures and topics to emerge from group membership. Barab, MaKinster, and Schekler (2004) conducted research to examine the interaction of variables that contribute to a community where the value gained from participating clearly compensates for the time and effort needed. Their results indicate that designing for websupported communities requires balancing divergent aspects (e.g., intentional design/emergent design, local/global, homogeneity/diversity) from inside the group, rather than imposing an external system on the group.
5
Most of the research related to websupported CoPs relates to design elements, participation rates, and member interactions. The research we propose and describe below will fill a much needed void by focusing on the outcomes of participation in terms of knowledge acquisition and behavior changes. Wenger and his colleagues have identified five stages of development experienced by communities of practice. These include: potential, coalescing, maturing, stewardship, and transformation (Wenger,McDermott, & Snyder, 2002). We believe our CoP on Family Supports Framework in Early Childhood is both coalescing (we are recruiting more participation from groups represented beyond the Department of Education) and maturing (we have consensus on the Family Supports Framework. The websupported CoP will enable us to move into the stewardship phase of this CoP. CoPs and Knowledge Utilization Models CoPs may represent one or a combination of knowledge utilization models. As described in the literature, CoPs are most closely aligned with NIDDR’s Collaborative Support Model and Knowledge Synthesis Model (RUSH website), but indeed it may become a model in its own right. In a Collaborative Support Model, the “developers” of knowledge would partner with networks of “users” of knowledge to facilitate dissemination of research to target audiences and thereby gain credibility through their partnership with “user” networks. A CoP is an ideal place for “developers” and “users” to interact and participate together to enhance awareness, attitudes, and behaviors in both developers and users of knowledge.
6
A Knowledge Synthesis Model recognizes that knowledge is dynamic and is shaped by both those who develop it, as well as those who use it. In a CoP, new research findings by one member may be synthesized and incorporated into findings of other members, or members may work together to synthesize all members’ knowledge and produce written products for the field. A CoP that produces products could be considered both a knowledgebased community as well as a taskbased community. Background on Beach Center’s Current CoP on Family Supports in Early Childhood Our original NIDRR RRTC proposal specified that one of our key knowledge synthesis and translation strategies involved the use of CoPs, which we envisioned facilitating through face toface meetings and email. In this section we will briefly highlight six milestones that have characterized our work to date for one of those CoPs, a CoP on Family Supports in Early Childhood Programs. These milestones include: (a) initial planning, (b) first meeting, (c) collaborately writing a position paper, (d) developing success stories, (e) second meeting, and (f) planning third meeting. Initial planning. The Beach Center started approximately one year ago to develop a national CoP particularly committed to synthesizing existing knowledge and collaboratively generating new knowledge related to family supports and services and to translate this new knowledge into federal and state policy and into family supports and services in order to enhance positive outcomes. Our initial activities involved reviewing CoP literature; having conversations
7
with four stakeholder groups (families, practitioners, researchers, and university teachers) to share initial concerns about the current status of implementing family supports and services at the early childhood level. We gathered and reviewed related research which led to our conclusion that a CoP focusing on family supports and services at the early childhood level was, indeed, warranted. First meeting. The first meeting was convened in Lawrence, KS in January, 2006 involving 46 individuals representing the four stakeholder groups of researchers, family members, early childhood practitioners at the state and local level, and higher education faculty. The purpose was to determine if a major gap exists in policy and practice related to the provision of supports and services to families in early childhood programs. The 1½ day meeting resulted in agreement that major gaps exists and that participants would be interested in forming a CoP in order to enhance policy, practice, and research related to family supports and services. Appendix A includes the agenda and summary notes. Collaboratively writing position paper. Beach Center staff facilitated ongoing teleconferences and email exchanges with members in order to work together on a position paper addressing the nature of gaps related to family supports and services. That paper, coauthored by 20 CoP members (representing the four stakeholder groups), has been accepted in the Journal of Early Intervention which is the major research journal in the field of early childhood special education (Turnbull et al., in press).
8
The article synthesizes three types of analyses – empirical, conceptual, and statutory – related to the provision of supports and services to families of young children with disabilities (see Appendix B for a copy of this manuscript). The empirical analysis revealed that there has been a consistent reduction in the provis ion of services to families through IDEArelated programs over the last decade (Danaher & Armijo, 2005); and in a national longitudinal study, families were substantially more satisfied with the provision of child services as contrasted to family support services they received (Bailey, Scarborough, Hebbeler, Spiker, & Mallik, 2004). The conceptual analysis further underscored problems by explicating the fact that the nature of family supports and services are not adequately addressed in the Division of Early Childhood’s compendium of recommended practices which are the primary professional practices guiding the early childhood field (Trivette & Dunst, 2005). Furthermore, a statutory analysis revealed that the four key federal statutes regarding the provision of early childhood services and supports strongly focus on the need for practitioners and families to work together through partnerships, but they do not clearly specify the particular supports and services which families should be offered. Overall, the authors concluded that the field of arly childhood special education is focused primarily on implementing e familycentered practices focusing on how families and practitioners should interact; however, the field has not sufficiently addressed what supports and services should be offered to families to enhance the likelihood of positive outcomes for families themselves as well as for their children with disabilities.
9
Preparing success stories. The fourth milestone was accomplished during spring semester, 2006 when Ann Turnbull worked with a graduate seminar of 10 doctoral students to develop success stories based n familyprofessional partnerships that lead to the provision of o meaningful family support to families of young children in early childhood services. In this experience, students contacted early childhood program directors in their geographical area and asked them to identify the best example that their program has to offer of a familyprofessional partnership team that provided supports and services to a family in order to accomplish positive family outcomes. After going through several template iterations, we selected the template that is exemplified in Appendix C which includes a 35 page success story written from the perspectives of both a service provider and family, tips drawn from the experience aimed at both practitioners and families organized according to the Beach Center’s researchbased family quality of life domains, and links to relevant websites. Second meeting. A second CoP meeting was held in October, 2006 in conjunction with the meeting of the Division of Early Childhood in Little Rock, AR. The meeting was attended by 26 CoP members (including representatives from each of the four stakeholder groups). The purpose of the meeting was to reach consensus among the country’s seven top researchers in the field of early childhood services for young children with disabilities. The research from the Beach Center, as cited later in the proposal, was integral part of this discussion. The goal of the CoP meeting was reached which was an evidencebased consensus in creating seven researchers, including a Beach Center Family Support Framework (see Figure 1). Appendix D includes the 10
minutes of the meeting and a PowerPoint document illustrating the Family Support Framework that was developed. Since the meeting, the Framework has been sent to the larger CoP membership and feedback has been invited and provided. Planning third meeting. We are currently in the process of planning the third CoP meeting which will be in Washington in February 2007. It will be attended by federal agency staff, family leaders, and researchers from the following federal agencies: NIDRR, OSEP, MCH, SAMSHA, Head Start, and the Child Care Bureau. The goal of the meeting will be to adapt the Family Support Framework (see Figure 1) to the research base and policy requirements associated with each of the agencies and to plan an interagency coordinated effort to organize evidence based practice according to the Framework. Furthermore, practitioners, researchers, and families associated with each agency will be invited to join the new websupported CoP.
11
Figure 1 Family Support Framework: A Knowledge Synthesis Framework on Providing Supports to Families of Young Children with Disabilities
12
Cultural Competence Family Strengths/Needs Emotional WellBeing Material WellBeing Health Family Interaction Parenting DisabilityRelated Supports
Types of Resources Information Instrumental Emotional Selected through evidencebased decision making and provided via activities and routines that families value and that are
Sources of Resources Family members Friends Community resources Educational resources Onetoone peer support Parent groups/ organizations Community human services Early intervention program Disability specialists
Legislation, Policies, and Administrative Infrastructure
13
Goals and Description of Proposed Websupported CoP This proposal focuses on extending the facetoface and email exchanges of our current CoP described above to a comprehensive websupported CoP environment. Key tasks involved in developing and implementing the websupported CoP include the following: 1. Synthesize and organize the best available research in order to increase the likelihood that evidencebased practices will be used by practitioners, families, and university teachers. 2. Identify research gaps in order to influence future research agenda to focus on priority topics. 3. Demonstrate the utilization of evidencebase practice through the compilation of success stories illustrating the use of evidencebased practices as a way to contextualize the research and increase the likelihood of its implementation. 4. Create a websupported environment characterized by userfriendliness, connectivity, stateofart disability core concepts, and relevant information that will be meaningful for stakeholder groups – families, practitioners, researchers, and university faculty. In order to accomplish these tasks, a comprehensive and sophisticated software platform is required that lends itself to the development of a stateofart CoP. Through comprehensive literature and networking investigations, we have selected Tomoye (www.tomoye.com) as the webbased platform that is most conducive to enabling us to accomplish our CoP goals. We were strongly influenced in making this decision by a Department of Defense software evaluation in
14
consultation with Dr. Etienne Wenger, who is recognized as one of the leading international consultants on CoPs. This analysis reviewed 127 software applications. The Tomoye software was selected as the most functional and desirable software package based on a review of five domains (asynchronous tool features, posting features, administration, synchronous features, and content management) and 57 performance indicators. Tomoye software is currently used by the U.S. Army, United Nations, World Bank, International Development Research Center, Department of Labor, and many more organizations. Some of the Tomoye features include approval processes for new content along with member features such as awareness reports, email notifications of each member’s priority interests, emailing posts to nonmembers, knowledge rating tool, clicking on a member’s profile to be linked to all of the content the member has contributed, digital library, icons that alert readers to the popularity of each item, retiring content to an archive, and metrics that will contribute to our research study as discussed in a later section. The websupported CoP site supported by the Tomoye software application will be organized around the Family Support Framework (see Figure 1) that resulted from our second CoP meeting as described previously (see Appendix D). We will highlight the research base for each of the key elements in the Family Support Framework in the next section related to quality of research findings and research evidencebase. We anticipate that the websupported CoP will include five key components: 1. Research repository – We will post in this repository research linked to the elements of the Family Support Framework. At a minimum, we will link to 10 research syntheses/meta 15
analyses, 20 literature reviews, and 100 research highlights. The research highlights will be done in the format exemplified in Appendix E which provides an overview f research o for practitioners, families, and university teachers. The research syntheses, reviews, and highlights will also rate the quality of the evidencebase in the relevant studies, based on criteria for research quality. We will utilize a modified version of the rating system employed by the Cochrane Library and the Campbell Collaborative (modified to allow for evaluation of qualitative studies and made relevant for educationfocused research)and will be consistent with the recommendations developed by the NCDRR Research Standard and Quality Task Force. 2. Success stories – Using the success story template already described (see Appendix C), we will work with doctoral students in a graduate seminar on family supports and services at the University of Kansas and with faculty and doctoral students in a minimum of six universities throughout the country in early childhood graduate programs to organize the best available research for each of the elements of the framework. These success stories will be developed in a similar way to the success stories previously described that were developed at the Beach Center during spring semester. (See Appendix C for a sample story. The element that will be added will be a link to the key research that is associated with the practices.) We will also invite CoP members to post their own success stories using the template. Success stories will include related research (drawn from the website if CoP members do not have access to research journals), a success story, tips, and related 16
resources. Similar to the www.epicurious website (which involves “growing” recipes), this website will encourage CoP members to post comments on success stories in terms of how they use the information and how they adapted or calibrated it in some way to contextualize it to their unique situation. At a minimum, we will have 50 success stories by the end of the funding. 3. Panel discussions – Panels will be comprised of a researcher, practitioner, family member, and university professor. Topics will emerge from the success story discussions and will enable CoP members to interact asynchronizly with a panel of experts from each stakeholder group on key topics around which they have major difficulty in implementing research findings. The panel discussions will be summarized and archived. We anticipate sponsoring panel discussions on a bimonthly basis, alternating with the town hall meetings described below. 4. Town hall meetings – Based on polling to identify experts the four stakeholder groups from whom CoP members would most like to learn, we will organize town hall meetings in which these experts can be available to provide a synchronous presentation and to answer questions from meeting participants. At the end of the town hall meetings, CoP participating members will have an opportunity to vote to indicate their perspectives based on issues raised by the expert leaders. The expert presentation will be archived along with comments from participants and voting results. Town hall meetings will alternate with panel discussions on a bimonthly basis. 17
5.
Research agenda – Content summaries of the information in the four previous components will be synthesized and used to identify priority research questions. The agenda will include a list of ideas for dissertations and research studies with links to particular postings success stories that provide a rationale for each research priority. The research agenda will also have opportunities for early childhood programs, practitioners, and families to express their interest in participating in particular research studies and in assisting researchers in locating an appropriate sample, including random samples.
Designing For Success and Quality In this section we highlight some of the considerations that we are addressing which will contribute to the success and quality of the CoP and the research associated with CoP outcomes. Designing for success for CoP implementation. We have chosen the best software application available to enable us to facilitate and monitor the CoP. To accomplish this task, we are consulting with leading experts in the area of websupported CoP development and activities. See Section 6, Management Plan, for a description of the qualifications of these consultants. Designing for successful research. This section describes the research we will conduct to assess the implementation and impact of the websupported CoP. The overall design for this study will be a mixeddesign approach with multiple data sources and both qualitative and quantitative components. The design includes three primary
18
research questions focused on the output (implementation), shortterm outcomes (knowledge acquisition) and intermediate outcomes (behavior change) specified in our NIDRR logic model: Q. 1: Is the CoP successfully implemented in terms of structural characteristics, social and intellectual capital, content, and conversation characteristics? Q 2: Do CoP members in each stakeholder group identify specific gains in knowledge and application as a result of CoP participation? Q 3: Do CoP members in each stakeholder group exhibit changes in behavior as a result of CoP participation? Assessment of the quality of the websupported CoP is the focus of the implementation study (Research Question 1). Table 1 describes the features of the websupported CoP in terms of key components and characteristics, as well as indicators for successful/high quality implementation (Research Question 1). These key components are organized in four major domains of (a) structural characteristics, (b) social and intellectual capital, (c) content characteristics, and (d) interactional characteristics. For each of these domains, key features are identified with a brief explanation of how the websupported CoP will incorporate each feature, along identified indicators of successful implementation of that feature. For example, implementation of some aspects of the websupported CoP (e.g., clarity of purpose,
19
Table 1 Domains, Features, and Research Indicators of WebBased CoP STRUCTURE AND CHARACTERISTI CS Planning Design Component Statement of Purpose WebBased CoP Activity • The statement of purpose will inform the early childhood target audience on the intended outputs, outcomes, and impacts of the web based CoP, in addition to membership criteria, frequently asked questions, and five key components (research repository, success stories, town hall meetings, panel discussions, and research agenda). • A statement will describe the 7 stakeholder groups as being families of young children with disabilities or atrisk for disabilities, practitioners in early childhood programs (including all disciplines), researchers, and university faculty. • A statement will describe NIDRR’s goals as reflected in their longrange plan and the specific goals of the Beach Center’s RRTC on the Effects of Policy on Families. • A statement will describe the roles of the Leadership Committee, Facilitators, and 20 Research Indicator • More than 80% of respondents in a structured survey will be able to clearly identify website purposes based on their participation as a CoP member • Core Leadership Committee members clearly describe purposes of the website. • Representatives of each stakeholder group are consistent in their understanding of the stated purposes of the website. • Website membership profiles will indicate an even distribution of target audience participation.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
Description of RRTC and NIDRR
•
Core Leadership Committee members clearly identify and describe relevance of the website activities to NIDRR goals. More than 80% of respondents will correctly identify roles, activities, and contact information for members
Specification of Roles and Responsibilities
•
Technical Support Specialist. Functional and Technical Specifications • The functional and technical requirements or f participating in all online activities will be explained in detail, including security requirements. Personnel An explanation of the members and roles of the Core Leadership Committee will be included. The Core Leadership Committee will consist of two representatives of each of the four stakeholder groups: families, practitioners, researchers, and university faculty. The Leadership Committee will provide vision and overall planning. On a daily basis, the Facilitator will monitor discussion, connect people to share information, and organize knowledge. The Facilitator will network with the Leadership Committee for problemsolving and reflective supervision. A Technical Support Specialist will be available to the online CoP community on a continual basis. Furthermore, the CoP will receive consultation from national CoP experts and from the Tomiye technical support staff. •
of the Core Leadership Committee, Facilitators, and the Technical Support Specialist. More than 80% of respondents will rate the procedures for access, security, participation, and technical support as easy to understand and use.
Core Leadership Committee
•
• • •
More than 80% of respondents will correctly identify Core Leadership Committee members and their roles. Review of Core Leadership Committee will document even distribution across stakeholder groups. Interviews with Core Leadership Committee members will indicate consensus on vision and purpose of the website and their specific roles. More than 80% of respondents will indicate they have been connected with answers to their queries within 24 hours. More than 80% of respondents will rate the facilitator as highly helpful, relevant, and knowledgeable about connections for resources. More than 80% of respondents will report timely resolution of technical difficulties with the system. Online logs will report technical problems or delays for less than 5% of total traffic.
Facilitator
•
•
•
Technical Support
•
• •
21
Locating the Forum
•
Functional Requirements The Leadership Committee and Facilitator • Membership joining process will include a brief will network broadly through activities such questionnaire about the participant’s affiliations and as contributing articles to association source of referral (“Where did you hear about this newsletters and networking with at least five website?”) different federal agencies (OSEP, MCH, SAMSHA, Head Start, Child Care Bureau) to encourage their grantees and family leaders who work in partnership with them to be active members of the online CoP.
22
Joining the Forum
•
The joining process will involve posting a bio • identifying areas of expertise.
Tone in the Forum
•
Conversation Documentation
•
A welcome email will be sent to all new members which provides an overview f the o five major website components. A brief tutorial will be available in guiding users through each of the five key components and disability core concepts. Each asynchronized conversation thread will have a descriptive title, summary of conversations for the posts, dates/times, and authors for each post. The online meeting space will provide comprehensive search capability, notations for the most current content, direct links to resources, links of content within and across each of the five key components of the Family Support Framework, and identification of the content with the highest number of visitors. Online CoP members will be included in a directory (name, contact information, role, topic of expertise) and an enewsletter will feature members and their expertise. Additionally, a listing of posts, resources, and 23
• •
More than 80% of participants will complete all components of the membership joining questionnaire, including attachment of a bio and answering profile questions about affiliation and areas of expertise. More than 80% of survey satisfaction respondents will report receiving a welcome email. More than 80% of survey respondents will report utilizing the tutorial and will rate the tutorial as helpful or very helpful in guiding use of the website. Online logs will indicate at least weekly updates of summaries and descriptions of conversation threads. Audits of sample threads will be rated for coherence, relevance to description, and completeness of entries (included authors, dates, times, etc.) of the threads. Online logs will provide continuous updates of visitors and numbers of “hits” to various links. More than 80% of survey respondents will rate the search capability and notations as useful or very useful. Audits of web content will assess ease of access across key components and resources. More than 80% of survey respondents will report accessing information by participant name and will rate search capability as useful or very useful. Audits of web content will identify new member updates included in the online directory on a monthly
• •
Locating Content
•
• •
• •
Locating People
•
•
documents will be searchable by each basis. participant’s name, and people who are currently logged on to a forum will be available. SOCIAL AND INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL Participating Members Identifying Experts • • Connection Characteristics The postings will be by members of the four • Audits of web member directories will reveal an even stakeholder groups. distribution across stakeholder groups. An online matching capability will enable • Audits employing sample search parameters will yield CoP members to locate other CoP members matching members for 90% of test searches. with desired expertise by searching their • More than 80% of survey respondents will report biographical information, postings, and linked satisfactory matches with desired members based on documents. characteristics and expertise. The Facilitator will followup on participant • More than 80% of survey respondents will report questions and requests for information with timely, relevant, and useful links to relevant content relevant content and with connection to an and expertise. expert. Context Characteristics The Leadership Team and Facilitator will • Interview participants from each stakeholder group encourage and create opportunities for CoP will describe examples of shared narratives and members to share experiences with others and connection to others on the website. to experience a sense of connection that other • More than 80% of survey respondents will rate the people understand their situation. quality of connections as relevant or highly relevant to their own experiences. The CoP members from each stakeholder • More than 80% of respondents (across all stakeholder group will use language that is understandable groups) will identify the correct meaning of sample by CoP members from other stakeholder terms from the Family Support Framework
Facilitation of Connections
•
Shared Narratives
•
Shared Language
•
24
groups.
•
Audits of sample discussion threads including representatives from all stakeholder groups will indicate consistent use of language related to the discussion topic.
25
Contributing Members
•
Content Synthesis
•
Content Organization
•
Content Activity
•
CONTENT CHARACTERISTICS CoP members will participate in postings, • Audits of sample discussion threads, postings, queries, applications, and activities associated with and other activities will reveal even distribution of each of the five key components of the Family participation across all key components of the Family Support Framework as described in the Support Framework. proposal. Content within and across the five • Audits of sample content will reveal appropriate links components will be linked and there will be and content summaries for more than 90% of sampled summaries of comments when there are 10 or content. more postings for a success story, as well as summaries of each town hall meeting and each panel discussion. Additionally, research topics within the Family Support Framework will link to research syntheses/metaanalyses and/or literature reviews. The content for each of the five key • More than 80% of survey respondents will rate the components will be organized in a way that is content organization as relevant or highly relevant. easy to understand and that is relevant to • Interview respondents from each stakeholder group stakeholders’ priorities and needs. will describe examples of the relevance and ease of use of the organization of content from their perspective. On a weekly basis, there will be at least two • Online logs will indicate rates of posting of new new research syntheses/metaanalyses, material by content categories n a weekly and o literature reviews, and/or research highlights monthly basis. added to the research repository, two entries on the research agenda, and one new success
26
story. There will be either a town hall meeting or a panel discussion held on a monthly basis.
27
Conversation Activity
•
Conversation Relevance
•
CONVERSATION CHARACTERISTICS CoP members will post comments, • Online audits will identify types of comments, descriptions of applications, and of questions applications, and questions across stakeholder groups, to the content that is posted for each of the for each of the five key components of the Family five key components. Support Framework; participation will be evenly distributed across stakeholder groups for each key component. CoP members will post comments within each • Online audits of sample discussion threads will rate discussion thread that build meaningfully on comments for relevance and coherence to both the initial and previous posts and that tie immediate discussion topic and the major purposes or directly to their major points. key components.
28
responsiveness of the Facilitator, ease of access) will be assessed using a structured survey of participants with an 80% criterion of participants rating the indicator as useful or very useful, accessible or very accessible, etc. Regarding knowledge gains (Research Question 2) for each stakeholder group, we propose an approach to assess the relationship of reported knowledge gains to amount of engagement in the websupported CoP. In order to determine the degree to which knowledge about the content area might be attributed to participation in the CoP, we will distribute a structured survey questionnaire to a randomly selected sample of participants across each stakeholder group. Section One of the survey will assess knowledge of key concepts both within and across components of the Family Support Framework. Section Two of the survey will assess the participants’ engagement in the CoP using the metrics of: frequency (e.g., number of times logging on per month), intensity (e.g., dwell time, downloading, queries to expert panels, participation in Town Halls, posting of and responding to success stories), and range (number of different key components accessed). Using these metrics of engagement as a predictor variable and knowledge responses as the criterion, we will determine the degree to which engagement in the CoP is associated with knowledge of the key concepts of the Family Support Framework. We will conduct a separate regression analysis for each stakeholder group. Regarding behavior change (Research Question 3), we will use a mixeddesign approach, incorporating both qualitative and quantitative measures, for each stakeholder group. The specific behavior changes we hypothesize for participants and indicators of those changes are shown in 29
Table 2. For example, to determine whether university faculty are incorporating the Family Support Framework in their coursework, we will collect and content analyze course syllabi; to determine whether practitioners are incorporating components of the Family Support
30
Table 2 Hypothesized Behavior Changes of CoP Participants and Associated Indicators Stakeholder Group Researchers Hypothesized Changes • Researchers will incorporate expanded components from the Family Support Framework in study designs • Research syntheses and literature reviews conducted by participating researchers will incorporate components from across the Family Support framework Indicator(s) • CoP researchers will reference the Family Support Framework in new grant proposals • CoP researchers will submit research syntheses and articles to the websupported CoP • Interviews with research participants will reveal inclusion of components from the Family Support Framework as a result of participation in the CoP • Faculty will incorporate • At least 8 faculty will development of success contribute a minimum of two stories into their coursework success stories. assignments • Content analysis of course • Faculty will include syllabi from pre and post components of the Family CoP participation will reveal Support Framework and changes reflective of the CoP participation in the CoP as content. required components of course syllabi • Practitioners will • More than 80% of incorporate components of practitioners responding to a the Family Support structured survey will report Framework into family changing one or more assessments, individualized elements of their approach to plans and services delivered families as a result of to families in their participation in the CoP. programs. • Content analysis of sample • Family information and training for parents (e.g., 31
University Faculty
Practitioners and parent leaders
Family members
from Parent Training and Information Centers and from Community Parent Resource Centers) will identify specific key components of the Family Support Framework as information for families about identifying support needs and services. • Interviews with practitioners who have reported changes will demonstrate use of components of the Family Support Framework. • Family members who • More than 80% of family participate in the webbased member respondents to a CoP will describe greater structured survey will report confidence, competence, and increased confidence, hope as a result of competence, and hope. participation. • Interviews with two to four family member CoP participants will demonstrate utilization of information taken from the CoP in their family life.
training provided by parent leaders and/or practitioners will incorporate key components of the Family Support framework.
32
Framework into their approaches with families, we will use a structured survey combined with followup, openended interviews. The sampling, data collection, and analysis plan to collect and synthesize data from these multiple sources and draw conclusions about these indicators is provided in Section 5, Clarity and Appropriateness of Utilization Data Collection Plan.
Section 3: Quality of Research Findings to be Utilized in the CoP: Research Base on Family Supports and Services in Early Childhood Programs
(Describe the quality of the research findings intended for dissemination in terms of the scientific merit and likelihood of being adopted by target audiences). The research base in this topic area is extensive; however, an initial review of the Cochrane Library returned negative results. This is not surprising since the Cochrane Library has a strong medical orientation and the early childhood field is more focused on education and llied health a services. As noted in the Background section of this proposal, one of the first important steps for this CoP was to review the various conceptual frameworks from leading researchers across the country to produce a conceptual framework representing a synthesis of the current knowledge base on this topic. Referring to Figure 1, we provide brief examples from the literature illustrating the evidence base for each of the components of the Family Support Framework. Additionally, as we begin the process of collecting and linking to various research reports and syntheses, we will utilize a system to assess the quality of the research reported, based on the Cochrane Library
33
system, the Campbell Collaborative, and modifications for NIDRR grantees developed by the NCDRR Research Standards Task Force. Family Strengths/Needs In this framework, the types of family supports to be provided are organized in the domains of family quality of life, which is a product of Beach Center research over the last eight years. This research began with a grounded theory study involving qualitative research in three stages to identify what families consider important in a family quality of life (Poston et al., 2003). Based on this grounded theory, we conducted extensive subsequent national field testing to develop a psychometrically sound Beach Center Family Quality of Life Scale (FQOL Scale) (Hoffman et al., in press; Park et al., 2003; Summers et al., 2005). Using the FQOL Scale, we have demonstrated that families’ ratings of the adequacy of services they are receiving for themselves and their young children is predictive of their FQOL, and that FQOL is related to access to health care and satisfaction with child care (Summers et al., in press; Zuna, Epley, & Gotto, 2006). The Family Support Framework in Figure 1 incorporates the evidencebased domains of the FQOL Scale (with a slight modification to add health care): Emotional WellBeing, Family Interaction, Material WellBeing, Parenting, and DisabilityRelated Supports. In the Framework, these domains become the basis for considering the needs and strengths of families as a first step toward determining the types of supports to be provided to families. Activity Settings and Routines
34
Although the empirical evidence base is still emerging, recommended practice suggests that embedding interventions for children in the family’s daily routine increase opportunities for the intervention to occur and result in greater child gains (McWilliam, 2003). This approach, termed routinesbased intervention, involves assessing the family’s daily routine and providing activities and exercises to meet the child’s needs that gives the chil greater opportunity to get the d interventions without overtaxing the family (McWilliam, 2003). Further, interventions for children and supports for families need to be designed with the family’s preferred activity setting (e.g., child care setting, home, park or shopping mall) in mind, in order to enable the family and the child to participate full in the community (Dunst, Bruder, Trivette, & Hamby, 2006; Dunst, y Hamby, Trivette, Raab, & Bruder, 2000). The Family Support Framework in Figure 1 indicates that family preferences for settings and their routines should also be included in decisionmaking about services. Resources Related to Providing Supports to Families Research on homevisiting models of early intervention and early childhood services reveal that practitioners often provide supports to families that occur in the context of delivering services to the child (Brotherson et l., 2006). These include (a) informational, (b) instrumental/material, a and (c) emotional supports (Bailey & Powell, 2005; Guralnick, 1998, 2005; McWilliam et al., 2005). Informational supports include both providing specialized information about the child related to the disability, and helping the parent strengthen parenting sk ills, both of which have
35
been shown to enhance the effectiveness and sense of competency in parents. Instrumental/material supports include directly providing resources to the family (e.g., diapers) but more often take the form of providing referrals and when necessary helping the family access those services (e.g., by providing transportation or “walking through” the intake process with the family). Emotional supports include sensitivity, dealing with the emotional impact of the diagnosis, reducing stigma, and forming secure attachments. The Family Support Framework in Figure 1 suggests that almost all of the needs a family may identify in the FQOL domains require some combination of informational, instrumental, and emotional supports in order to meet those needs. Sources of Support Research and recommended practice in early intervention suggests that family support should be aimed not only at meeting the immediate needs of families but also at enhancing family strengths and capacities (Trivette & Dunst, 005). Dunst and colleagues have taken leadership in 2 this line of research to determine the best ways to mobilize families’ informal support networks to meet needs (Dempsey & Dunst, 2004 ; Dunst, 2002; Dunst, 2004). A second line of research about sources of support suggests that families benefit by receiving supports and information directly from parents who have children with similar disabilities, e.g., in ParenttoParent programs (Ainbinder et al., 1998; Ireys, Chernoff, DeVet, & Kim, 2001; Singer et al., 1999). Finally, both research and policy have identified effective interagency collaboration as a key element to
36
effective services for families (Bruder, 2005; Dunst & Bruder, 2006; Harbin, 2005). This means that early intervention programs shou ld not only consider what services they provide directly, but also should develop referral networks to connect families to a wide range of services and supports (e.g., mental health, housing, employment services). All of these lines of research led to the component of the Family Support Framework shown in Figure 1, identifying the sources of supports as an important consideration in making decisions about services to families. Pulling together these various lines of resear ch in the Family Support Framework in order to determine supports for families in early intervention and early childhood programs follows a process: • identifying what supports they need by thinking through various tasks in each of the family quality of life domains (e.g., a need to apply for disability benefits for a child, which is part of the Material WellBeing domain); • identifying the setting where those services will be provided (e.g., in the family home or at a community agency); • identifying the informational, emotional, and instrumental aspects of the need (e.g., overcoming emotions related to applying for financial help, needing transportation to the community agency, needing information about how to fill out complicated forms); and • identifying who will be providing the supports (e.g., family member provides transportation, ParenttoParent program offers emotional support, early intervention case manager assists the parent in filling out forms). 37
Scientific Merit of Research The scientific merit of these strands of research vary in the different components of the Family Support Framework. We have great confidence in the merit of the family quality of life domains, which have strong psychometric characteristics validated through testing of more than 1,000 families over the last eight years (see, e.g., Hoffman et al., 2006). Similarly, the work of Dunst and colleagues on the efficacy of informal supports has more than two decades of empirical support (Trivette & Dunst, 2005), and the impact of ParenttoParent support has been empirically tested in randomized control experimental studies. Other aspects of the Family Support Framework may be considered “promising practices,” (e.g., routinesbased interventions) with research currently underway to determine its impact. One of the purposes of our websupported CoP is to identify a research agenda to continue the work of validating the Framework. As previously described, one of the components of the webbased CoP will be the establishment of a research agenda to move “promising practices” to evidencebased practices. Likelihood of Research Being Adopted by Target Audiences In our description of our previous work to develop this CoP (see Background of Current CoP, Section 2), we described initial discussions reflecting concerns across the field of early intervention that family supports in these programs were becoming “lost” in the current policy and fiscal environment. These concerns were confirmed and strengthened throughout our empirical reviews of literature and subsequent meetings of the CoP. The Family Support represents a
38
consensus about family supports that builds on the strengths of a number of highly respected researchers, practitioners, family leaders, and university faculty. Appendix H includes seven support letters from individuals who have been participating in the facetoface CoP and who are committed to working in partnership on the webbased CoP. These letters include five from individuals who are both researchers and university faculty (Winton at the University of North Carolina, McWilliam and Snyder at Vanderbilt, Roberts at Utah State University, Fowler from University of Illinois) one statelevel practitioner (Sharp from the Iowa Department of Education), and four parents (DiVenere from Parent to Parent USA, Sharp from Iowa Department of Education, McWilliam from Vanderbilt, and Fowler from University of Illinois). These letters clearly document these seven individuals and the constituencies that the represent are eager to adopt the research from this effort.
Section 4: Anticipated Outcomes
(Describe the utilization outcomes anticipated to result from the proposed activity in terms of how the specific outcomes indicate change in practice, a policy or a program). In this section we provide information on two sets of outcomes: (a) outcomes related to the utilization of research on family supports, and (b) outcomes related to research on the web supported CoP. Outcomes – Early Childhood Content
39
In our discussion of Research Questions 2 and 3 in Section 2, Clarity and Quality of Proposed Utilization Activity, we identified hypothesized shortterm outco mes or knowledge gains (Research Question 2) and intermediate outcomes or behavior changes (Research Question 3). To summarize in this section, we anticipate the following shortterm and intermediate outcomes related to the provision of family supports in early childhood programs: • CoP members will demonstrate a greater understanding of the needs and resources for providing supports to families of young children with disabilities. • Members who are more engaged (i.e., frequency, intensity, and range of participation) in the CoP will show greater knowledge and awareness of the key components and content of the Family Support Framework and products (e.g., success stories) based upon it. • Researchers and university faculty engaged in research, teaching, and knowledge translation will utilize concepts and principles tha t reflect a greater synthesis across the key components of the Family Support Framework. • Practitioners and parent leaders who participate in the CoP will demonstrate application of the Family Support Framework in their approach to supports for families. • Parents who participate in the CoP will report application of one or more of the concepts of the Family Support Framework in their daily lives. Outcomes – CoP Research
40
The information gathered in the implementation study (Research Question 1) will form the basis for identifying outcomes related to the process and efficacy of implementing an webbased CoP. See Table 1 for the components of the CoP implementation and the indicators we are proposing to measure to assess successful implementation. As a major output of this project, we are proposing to develop a “how to” manual describing the process of establishing, maintaining, and documenting implementation of a websupported CoP. In addition, we are currently in discussions with Dr. Linda Polin, one of our potential consultants, who is a Professor of Education and Technology at Pepperdine University (see Appendix F for vita), Dr. Polin is interested in supervising her doctoral students to assist us in designing, implementing, and evaluating our web supported CoP. This will enable us to learn about effective technical assistance to organizations to set up a CoP involving diverse stakeholders and a comprehensive knowledge base such as ours. Based on these activities and outputs, we project several shortterm (knowledge gains) and intermediate (behavior changes) outcomes for the implementation of this online CoP: • The websupported CoP howto manual will be downloaded by a minimum of ten prospective users (by the time of the end of this project’s reporting period), who will provide information on their intended application of the information. • A minimum of two doctoral students will document their experiences as interns in assisting us to establish this websupported CoP and will describe the specific knowledge gains they will apply in future consultantships/technical assistance work with other organizations.
41
Section 5: CLARITY AND APPROPRIATENESS OF UTILIZATION AND DATA
COLLECTION PLAN (Describe the data collection plan in terms of staff responsibilities, collection mechanisms, data sources, data types, and time frame for collection). Staff Responsibilities Staff responsibilities are described in Section 6, Management of Activity. Collection Mechanisms, Data Sources and Types In our description of our websupported CoP Design and Research Indicators (see section 2), we presented a series of research indicators intended to answer our three research questions. A review of these indicators (see Tables 1 and 2) shows that these indicators represent multiple data sources and encompass both qualitative and quantitative research approaches. Table 3 identifies the relationships between these indicators and the various data sources we propose to address these research questions. Following is a brief description of the procedures for collecting data from each of the sources: Qualitative interviews. We will use two types of qualitative interviews: key informant interviews (of Core Leadership Committee) and participant interviews. The Core Leadership Committee will be interviewed on a quarterly basis throughout the granting period to follo w their perceptions about the implementation, knowledge synthesis and translation, and behavior changes. The participant interviews will also be conducted quarterly; each interview will encompass
42
different aspects of the CoP research questions – implementation, knowledge gains, and behavior changes. For each of these three interviews, we will select two representatives not Leadership ( Committee members) from each stakeholder group. Researchers, university faculty, practitioners, and parent leaders will be asked to send us any written documents they believe reflect knowledge gains or changes in their approaches to family supports. These will become part of the document analysis described below. Family members who are participating in the CoP will also be asked to describe any changes in their lives as a result of knowledge gained from the websupported CoP. Our Research Coordinator will be primarily responsible for this activity with the help of the Network Facilitator in recruiting participants. Online data monitoring and document audits. A feature of the Tomoye software is that it provides a detailed log of all participation on the site, including number of postings for each
43
Table 3 Data Sources and Collection Procedures Across Research Questions Online Data Monitoring / Document Audits Structured Surveys Focus Group / Qualitative Interviews
Structural Characteristics: Assess planning, personnel, and functional requirements
• • • • •
Social and Intellectual Capital: Assess connection (participant , s experts, facilitation of connections), and context (shared narratives, shared language)
•
•
Content Characteristics: Assess • contributors, synthesis, organization, and activity
Research Question 1: Implementation Membership profiles • Structured survey utilizing • Participation logs on a 3point Likert scaled rubric for respondents to website rate degree of Technical problem implementation of trouble tickets components • Logs of updates Sample discussion threads Review postings and • Structured survey to obtain • member directories to participant ratings of utility, identify distribution of relevance, quality of contributors by audience content and discussions Audit sample discussion threads for language and narrative online logs to document • Structured survey to obtain rates of posting new participant ratings of materials relevance and organization 44
Interviews of selected representatives from stakeholder groups to determine perceptions about implementation quality Core Leadership Committee narratives, staff journals Interviews to determine perceptions about meanings of content across stakeholder groups to determine shared narratives and language
Online Data Monitoring / Document Audits
Structured Surveys
Focus Group / Qualitative Interviews
of content
45
Knowledge gains associated with participation in the CoP by each stakeholder group
Researcher participation—use of • Family Support Framework in study designs and metaanalyses •
University faculty—use of Family Support Framework in course content
•
•
Research Question 2: Knowledge Gains Structured survey assessing specific knowledge about each of the key components of the Family Support Framework; survey to include respondent assessment of frequency, intensity, and range of participation in the CoP Research Question 3: Behavior Change Online audit of CoP and affiliated links to identify and analyze content of research syntheses Content analysis of research proposals to identify use of Family Support Framework Online audit to identify distribution and contribution of success stories by participating faculty Review of sample course syllabi from participating faculty
Openended interviews with representatives of stakeholder groups to determine perspectives about knowledge gained.
Interviews with participating researchers about future directions for research on family supports and services
Interviews with participating faculty about strategies for teaching family supports and services based on the Family Support Framework
46
Practitioners and parent leaders —use of Family Support Framework in work with families
•
Content analysis of Structured survey of participants to assess changes sample parent training in practices materials to identify components of the Family Support Framework
Interviews with practitioners and parent leaders about changes and strategies employed with families based on participation in the CoP
47
Family members—application of Family Support Framework and CoP content to family life
Structured survey of family participants to assess perceptions of the impact of their participation
Interviews with family members about utilization of components of the Family Support Framework
48
CoP member, amount of dwell time on each posting, most visited pages and topics, total site visits, and an analysis of all of these features according to multiple criteria such as stakeholder group and geographical location. We will collect and summarize these data on a monthly basis for use in addressing the specific indicators across our research questions. Our Network Facilitator will be primarily responsible for this task. Online audits are another content analysis tool. For example, we will randomly sample discussion threads on a monthly basis and content analyze them to identify participant makeup, relevance and coherence of discussions, etc. We will use standard qualitative methodology (e.g., constant comparative analysis) to develop categories of discussion threads (Anfara, et al., 2002). A minimum of two team members will conduct these audits using category definitions developed in the analysis to determine interrater reliability of the audits. Offline documents (e.g., parent training materials, course syllabi) will also be audited using the same procedures. Online audits will be conducted monthly; offline document analyses will be conducted in the last month of this grant period, to assess impact. Our Research Coordinator will be primarily responsible for this task. Structured surveys. After the websupported CoP has been in operation for six months, we will conduct structured surveys of the CoP membership (i.e., participants who have filed a membership profile and participated in at least one omponent of the CoP). Items on the c structured survey will correspond to the indicators we have identified in Tables 1 and 2. With respect to the implementation survey, respondents will have a 3point rubric to indicate the degree 49
to which they believe each of the design components of the website are implemented. Our PI and Research Coordinator will be primarily responsible for the final design of the surveys, and the Network Facilitator will be responsible for sending it electronically to participants. To determine the degree to which knowledge gains about the content area might be attributed to participation in the websupported CoP (Research Question 2), we will distribute a structured survey questionnaire to participants across each stakeholder group. Section One of the survey will assess knowledge of key concepts both within and across components of the Family Support Framework. Section Two of the survey will assess the participants’ engagement in the websupported CoP using selfreports concerning: frequency (e.g., estimated number of times logging on per month), intensity (e.g., reading, downloading, queries to expert panels, participation in Town Halls and discussion threads), and range (e.g., number of different key components accessed). Using these metrics of engagement as a predictor variable and knowledge responses as the criterion, we will determine the degree to which engagement in the websupported CoP is associated with knowledge of the key concepts of the Family Support Framework. We will conduct a separate regression analysis for each stakeholder group. Again, our PI and Research Coordinator will be primarily responsible for this activity, with the Network Facilitator participating to recruit and administer the surveys. Our Network Facilitator also will participate in the analyses of the data collected for this part of the study. Time Frame for Data Collection
50
Our timeline for planning, data collection, analysis and report development are described in Section 7, Timeframe for Activity.
Section 6: Management of Activity
(Describe the staff management structure of the proposed activity, including individual staff responsibilities and time commitments). Staff Responsibilities Dr. Ann Turnbull is the CoPrincipal Investigator of the NIDRR Research and Training Center on the Impact of Policies on Families. She has been instrumental in developing the Family Supports CoP, which is the focus of this project. She will provide leadership and oversight of the overall translation of this effort to an online community of practice, and as such will direct both NIDRR and RUSH Award staff in the design, implementation, and research associated with this project. George Gotto (25% EFT) will serve as the Research Coordinator for the project. He will assist the Beach Center CoPI and the Research CoDirector in the overall design and implementation of the evaluation of the CoP. Examples of tasks include coordinating of survey data collection from CoP participants, facilitating focus groups and conducti g the network n analysis. He will also assist in production of reports and other dissemination of the results of the evaluation.
51
Nina Zuna (50% EFT) will serve as the Network Facilitator for the CoP. She will participate in the CoP research and development of reports about the results. This includes monitoring online logs and data concerning utilization of the CoP by the various members, sampling participants for the structured surveys, assisting the Research Coordinator in selecting participants for the qualitative components of the research, and participating in analysis and development of reports. Ms. Zuna will also facilitate network connections, participate with the Leadership Committee to assure timely completion of tasks and uploading, assist in problem solving and monitoring discussion threads, and compiling discussion summaries. Ms. Zuna is currently a trainee on a Department of Education doctoral training grant, but if this project is funded she will be moved to a staff position. CoP Consultants. Consultants will assist with the startup activities related to designing and implementing the online CoP. We have two consultants tentatively in mind. Dr. Mike Preveau has extensive experience designing and implementing online CoPs for the Army and other organizations. He will assist with the selection and customizing of the software and the development of the website. Dr. Linda Polin is a Distinguished Professor of Educational Technology at Pepperdine University and a leading expert in CoPs. She will assist us in developing the implementation plan and facilitation process for the CoP. She will also supervise the two doctoral student interns who are part of her doctoral program; they will provide handson
52
consultation and troubleshooting for us during the startup phase nd throughout the duration of a this project. Leadership committee. The Family Support Framework that serves as the content basis for this CoP is the product of work from major leaders in the early childhood family research field (see Section 3, Quality of Research Findings). These individuals form the core of our Leadership Committee, which will be expended to include parent leaders and university faculty who have Doctoral Leadership grants. The Leadership Committee members will provide the research literature reviews and syntheses serving as some of the content for the CoP website. The university faculty will also supervise students who will generate the success stories using our template. We have budgeted funds to provide a small consultant fee to these individuals to assist them in costs associated with completing the evidencebased reviews. It is likely that some of the individuals who wrote support letters that are included in Appendix H will be invited to serve on the Leadership Committee. Additional NIDRRfunded staff. While not directly listed in the budget or budget justification for this project, several other current NIDRRfunded staff will participate in this project as an extension of their responsibilities. These include: Dr. Jean Ann Summers, Research CoDirector of the Beach Center’s Family Projects – Dr. Summers will supervise the Research Coordinator and Network Facilitator and will assist the PI in designing and implementing the data collection and research process. Because Dr. Summers is also directly focused on the Early Childhood Family Supports research projects in our NIDRR 53
Center, she will also participate in the knowledge synthesis process to assist the PI in maintaining quality control of the evidencebased content. MaryMargaret Simpson, Editor – Ms. Simpson is the Beach Center Editor and is responsible for maintaining quality and consistency in the written products we develop. She will particularly focus on assuring the success stories and other materials developed are jargonfree and readable by the entire range of our audience. David Stowe, IT Specialist – Mr. Stowe currently provides technical support for all Beach Center staff with respect to their computer needs. He is a part of our web design team and will participate with our consul ants in designing and setting up the webbased CoP. t See Appendix G for abbreviated vitae for these individuals. Management Plan Management team. The Management Team consi ts of Ann Turnbull, Jean Ann s Summers, George Gotto, and Nina Zuna. Additional Beach Center staff will participate as appropriate (as well as consultants). We will use the following procedures to ensure feedback and continuous improvement: • Ann Turnbull will facilitate teambased decisionmaking consistent with exemplary management principles (Senge, 1990). Minutes of the weekly staff meetings will serve as additional audit documents for use in the implementation research study. We will document
54
any changes and adjustments to the steps taken to implement the project through this mechanism. • The Management Team will use Microsoft Project 2003 as a databased project management system to create project plans based on tasks, ti elines, and budget. The Network Facilitator m will use this tool to maintain contacts and keep on schedule with the various members of the staff, consultants, and Leadership Committee. Qualifications / Capacity of Beach Center The Beach Center on Disability has the mission of making significant and sustainable differences in the quality of life of families and individuals affected by disability and of those who are closely involved with them, including their educators. The Beach Center has an 18year track record of successful results in managing projects and developing a strong knowledge foundation for this utilization activity. The Center is affiliated with the Department of Special Education and Schiefelbusch Institute for Life Span Studies. Ann and Rud Turnbull are the codirectors. There are approximately 50 staff members, including doctoral students. Doctoral students, especially those funded under our Department of Special Education Doctoral Leadership Grant (5 students), will also participate in this project and will gain valuable practical experience through assisting us in establishing and maintaining the CoP. The Institute for Life Span Studies (LSI) provides extremely efficient and responsive grants management support.
55
The Beach Center has approximately 25 fully accessible offices. Staff have 24hour, 7 dayaweek access to Windows PCs; these are maintained to the most uptodate level of memory, storage, and operating system. All computers have full Ethernet access to the Internet, and campuswide resources such as the KU library’s online catalog, ejournals, abstract databases (e.g., ERIC, PsychLit and MEDLINE), and the Law School’s library. Staff have available to them an assortment of software including Microsoft Office, SPSS for statistical analysis, N6 for qualitative analysis, and SNAP survey generation software that can distribute surveys in a variety of formats including scannable paper and internet surveys. The Center owns and maintains a database server capable of executing large and complex data queries. Additional resources include a digital still and video cameras which provide the capability for producing videos for presentations, classes, and websites. Digital recording and transcribing equipment and software are available for research and class projects. Laptops and two computer projectors enable presentations at conferences, workshops, and classes. Standard office equipment is available including largevolume copying machines, fax machines, a conferencecall speaker phone with multiple microphones, and a TTD. KU provides a longdistance telephone network ideal for teleconferencing. Center staff provide computer assistance and training, software assistance, and training as well as miscellaneous office assistance for word processing, spreadsheets, and other officerelated tasks. The Center employs a fulltime web developer/programmer/database administrator and has a Bobby AAA accessible website (www.beachcenter.org).
56
Section 7: Appropriate Time Frame for Activity
(Describe the schedule around which the proposed activity will be conducted, Include discussion of benchmark achievements within specific time parameters). Table 4 shows a timeline for completion of all activities of the project, over a projected 16 month time span (assuming a start date of January 2007).
57
Table 4 Timeline for Completion of Project Activities Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr ‘07 ‘07 ‘07 ‘07 ‘07 ‘07 ‘07 ‘07 ‘07 ‘07 ‘07 ‘07 ‘08 ‘08 ‘08 ‘08 X
Project Activities Organize Core Leadership Committee—conduct initial conference call, establish responsibilities Finalize selection of consultants and CoP software Customize software and design graphics, etc., for content Collect and upload research repository materials Collect and upload success stories Conduct panel discussions Conduct Town Hall meetings Develop research agenda from content summaries Collect web traffic data, prepare monthly reports Conduct audit/content analyses of discussion threads Collect and analyze offline
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 58 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
X X X
Project Activities documents Conduct and analyze structured surveys Conduct and analyze qualitative interviews of Core Leadership Committee members Conduct and analyze qualitative interviews of stakeholder group representatives Compile and produce draft of “how to” manual Develop and deliver project final report
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr ‘07 ‘07 ‘07 ‘07 ‘07 ‘07 ‘07 ‘07 ‘07 ‘07 ‘07 ‘07 ‘08 ‘08 ‘08 ‘08 X X X X X X X X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X
X X
59
Section 8: Target Audience Participation in Activity Development
(Describe how the intended members of the target systems have been incorporated or have offered support in the design of the proposed activity). In Section 2, we described our current activity in developing a CoP (using facetofact meetings and email) over the last year. The initial conversations, meetings, paper development, and consensus Family Support Framework were all completed with the full participation of representatives of all our target audiences. These included prominent researchers in the family support and early intervention field, leading professional development faculty in early childhood special education (including the community of PIs of OSEP Doctoral Leadership grants), leaders of parent advocacy organizations including Parent Training and Information Centers, The Arc of the U.S., Family Voices, and ParenttoParent USA, and state/national policy makers responsible for overseeing the implementation of early childhood and early intervention programs. All of these leaders will continue to be involved as the current CoP moves into this websupported environment. See Appendix H for letters of support from CoP members and Linda Polin, a recognized expert on CoPs, with whom we will be collaborating through the implementation and research on the websupported CoP. Appendix H includes seven support letters all demonstrating an intense involvement in the CoP to date and a strong interest in continuing this partnership.
Section 9: Contribution of Other NIDRR Utilization Activity
60
(Describe how the proposed activity could be applied to other NIDRR grant settings and is related to similar successful activities conducted by the application or other as described in the NIDRR Grantees’ Guide to RUSH awards, or in relation to other project with which you are familiar). A 2004 survey about knowledge translation and communities of practice was directed to 100 NIDRRfunded grantees NCDRR, 2005, www.ncddr.org/cop/copperception.htm ( l). In this survey, 51% of grantees reported an interest in participating in a CoP with researchers from other NIDRRfunded projects, 40% reported familiarity with the concept of CoPs, and 16% reported direct experience participating in a CoP. In a second survey conducted by NCDRR in August 2005, 19% of NIDRRfunded grantees indicated that CoPs would be a technical assistance topic of interest, and 22% identified CoPs as an effective strategy for NCDDR. These results suggest a modest but growing interest in CoPs and a promising growth in potential application of a web supported CoP by NCDDR itself as well as NIDRR grantees.
61
References Ainbinder, J. G., Blanchard, L. W., Singer, G. H.S., Sullivan, M. E., Powers, L. K., Marquis, J. G., & Santelli, B. (1998). A qualitative study of parent to parent support for parents of children with special needs. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 23(2), 99109. Anfara, Jr., V.A., Brown, K. M., & Mangione, T. L. (2002). Qualitative analysis on stage: Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher, 37(1), 2838. Bailey, Jr., D. B., & Powell, T. (2005). Assessing the information needs of families in early intervention. In M. J. Guralnick (Ed.), The developmental systems approach to early intervention (pp. 151183). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Bailey, D., Scarborough, A., Hebbeler, K., Spiker, D., & Mallik, S. (2004). Family outcomes at the end of early intervention. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International, National Early Intervention Longitudinal Study. Barab, S. A., Kling, R., & Gray, J. H. (2004). Introduction: Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling, & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 315). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Barab, S. A., MaKinster, J. G., & Schekler, R. (2004). Designing system dualities: Characterizing an online professional development community. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling, & J. H. Gray
62
(Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 5390). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bruder, M. B. (2005). Service coordination and integration in a developmental systems approach to early intervention. In M. J. Guralnick (Ed.), The developmental systems approach to early intervention (pp. 2958). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Brotherson, M. J., Summers, J. A., Bruns, D. A., & Sharp, L. (2006). Family centered practices with families. In P. Winton, J. McCollum & C. Cattlett (Eds.), Preparing effective professionals: Evidence and applications in early childhood and early intervention: Book manuscript submitted for publication. Danaher, J., & Armijo, C. (2005). Part C updates (7th ed.). Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina, FPB Child Development Institute, National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center. Dempsey, I., & Dunst, C. (2004). Helpgiving styles and parent empowerment in families with a young child with a disability. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 29(1), 4051. Dubé, L., Bourhis, A., & Jacob, R. (2005). The impact of structuring characteristics on the launching of virtual communities of practice. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18(2), 145166.
63
Dunst, C. J. (2002). Familycentered practices: Birth through high school. The Journal of Special Education, 36(3), 139147. Dunst, C. J. (2004). An integrated framework for practicing early childhood intervention and family support. Perspectives in Education, 22(2), 116. Dunst, C. J., & Bruder, M. B. (2006). Early intervention service coordination models and service coordinator practices. Journal of Early Intervention, 28(3), 155165. Dunst, C. J., Bruder, M. B., Trivette, C. M., & Hamby, D. W. (2006). Everyday activity settings, natural learning environments, and early intervention practices. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities (3)1, 310. Dunst, C. J., Hamby, D., Trivette, C. M., Raab, M., & Bruder, M. B. (2000). Everyday family and community life and children’s naturally occurring learning opportunities. Journal of Early Intervention, 23(3), 151164. Guralnick, M. J. (1998). The effectiveness of early intervention for vulnerable children: A developmental perspective. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 102, 319345. Guralnick, M. J. (2005). The developmental systems approach to early intervention. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Harbin, G. L. (2005). Designing an integrated point of access in the early intervention system. In M. J. Guralnick (Ed.), The developmental systems approach to early intervention (pp. 99 131). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
64
Herring,S. C. (2004). Computermediated discourse analysis: An approach to researching online behavior. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling, & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 338376). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hoffman, L., Marquis, J. G., Poston, D. J., Summers, J. A., & Turnbull, A. (2006). Assessing family outcomes: Psychometric evaluation of the family quality of life scale. Journal of Marriage and Family. Ireys, H. T., Chernoff, R., DeVet, K. A., Kim, Y. (2001). Maternal outcomes of a randomized controlled trial of a communitybased support program for families of children with chronic illnesses. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med, 155, 771777. Koku, E. F., & Wellman, B. (2004). Scholarly networks as learning communities: The case of TechNet. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling, & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 299337). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McDermott, R. (2004). How to avoid a midlife crisis in your CoPs: Uncovering six keys to sustaining communities. KM Review, 7(2), 1013). McWilliam, R. A. (2005). Assessing the resource needs of families in the context of early intervention. In M. J. Guralnick (Ed.), The developmental systems approach to early intervention (pp. 215233). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. NCDRR (2005). NIDRR grantee surveys on communities of practice. Retrieved November 30, 2006 from www.ncddr.org/cop/copperception.htm l.
65
Park, J., Hoffman, L., Marquis, J., Turnbull, A. P., Poston, D., Mannan, H., et al. (2003). Toward assessing family outcomes of service delivery: Validation of a family quality of life survey. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 47(4/5), 367384. Poston, D., Turnbull, A., Park, J., Mannan, H., Marquis, J., & Wang, M. (2003). Family quality of life: A qualitative inquiry. Mental Retardation, 41(5), 313328. Preece, J. (2000). Online communities: Designing usability, supporting sociability. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. Reil, M., & Polin, L. (2004). Online learning communities: Common grand and critical differences in designing technical environmen ts. In S. A. Barab, R. Kling, & J. H. Gray (Eds.), Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning (pp. 1650). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Senge, P. M. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization. New York: Doubleday. Singer, G. H.S., Marquis, J., Powers, L. K., Blanchard, L., DiVenere, N., Santelli, B., Ainbinder, J. G., & Sharp, M. (1999). A multisite evaluation of parent to parent programs for parents of children with disabilities. Journal of Early Intervention, 22(3), 217229. Summers, J. A., Marquis, J., Mannan, H., Turnbull, A. P., Fleming, K., Poston, D. J., Wang, M., & Kupzck, K. (in press). Relationship of perceived adequacy of services, familyprofessional
66
partnerships, and family quality of life in early childhood service programs. International Journal of Development, Disability, and Education. Summers, J. A., Poston, D. J., Turnbull, A. P., Marquis, J., Hoffman, L., Mannan, H., & Wang. M. (2005). Conceptualizing and measuring family quality of life. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 49(10), 777783. Trivette, C. M., & Dunst, C. J. (2005). DEC recommended practices: Childfocused practices. In S. Sandall, M. J. Hemmeter, B. J. Smith & M. E. McLean (Eds.), DEC recommended practices: A comprehensive guide for practical application (pp. 107126). Longmont, CO: Sopris West. Turnbull, A. P., Summers, J. A., Turnbull, R., Brotherson, M. J., Winton, P., Roberts, R., et al. (in press). Family supports and services: A bold vision. Journal of Early Intervention. Wenger, E., McDermott, R., & Snyder, W. M. (2002). Cultivating communities of practice: A guide to managing knowledge. Boston: Harvard Business School Press. Wesley, P. W., & Buysse, V. (2006). Building the evidence base through communities of practice. In V. Buysse & P. W. Wesley (Eds.), Evidencebased practice in early childhood field. Washington, DC: Zero to Three. Zuna, N., Epley, P., Summers, J. A., & Gotto, G. (2006, October). Access to health services and family quality of life. Poster session presented at the annual meeting of the Division of Early Childhood, Little Rock, AR.
67