NotesFAQContact Us
Collection
Advanced
Search Tips
Back to results
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Direct linkDirect link
ERIC Number: EJ1050631
Record Type: Journal
Publication Date: 2015
Pages: 13
Abstractor: As Provided
ISBN: N/A
ISSN: ISSN-0266-7363
EISSN: N/A
An Evaluation of the Preschool PATHS Curriculum on the Development of Preschool Children
Hughes, Cerian; Cline, Tony
Educational Psychology in Practice, v31 n1 p73-85 2015
This study evaluated the efficacy of preschool Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS), an early years curriculum designed to improve children's social and emotional competence, and reduce problem behaviour. Fifty-seven children aged three to four years took part in the study over one academic year. The control group (Group 1) received no preschool PATHS curriculum, Group 2 received an adapted version, and Group 3 received the full preschool PATHS curriculum. Relevant vocabulary and perspective-taking skills were assessed before and after the intervention alongside behavioural questionnaires completed by preschool staff and parents. Staff views were investigated. Group 3 significantly improved on some measures, but Groups 1 and 2 showed no significant improvements. Children who received the full version of the preschool PATHS curriculum exhibited less problem behaviour, showed better emotional knowledge, better attentional skills, and better prosocial behaviour. The contribution of the local Educational Psychology Service to the initiative is discussed.
Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Publication Type: Journal Articles; Reports - Research
Education Level: Preschool Education; Early Childhood Education
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A
Identifiers - Location: United Kingdom
Identifiers - Assessments and Surveys: Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire
Grant or Contract Numbers: N/A
What Works Clearinghouse Reviewed: Does Not Meet Evidence Standards