Home
Resource
Understanding implementation of restorative practices in low income, urban high schools
PDF
PDF format is widely accepted and good for printing.
Plug-in required
PDF-1(726.94 kb)
Citation & Export
View Usage Statistics
Staff View

Citation & Export
Hide

Simple citation

Korth, Joshua Lawrence. Understanding implementation of restorative practices in low income, urban high schools. Retrieved from https://doi.org/doi:10.7282/T3RN3B0R

Export

Click here for information about Citation Management Tools at Rutgers.

Statistics
Hide

Description

TitleUnderstanding implementation of restorative practices in low income, urban high schools
NameKorth, Joshua Lawrence (author); Gregory, Anne (chair); Rutgers University; Graduate School of Applied and Professional Psychology
Date Created2016
Other Date2016-05 (degree)
SubjectSchool Psychology, Restorative justice, School discipline, Education, Urban
Extent1 online resource (viii, 88 p. : ill.)
DescriptionWhereas much research has led to widespread knowledge about the harmful effects of school disciplinary practices (e.g., suspensions, expulsions), there have been fewer studies about programs that promote alternative forms of school discipline. The current dissertation examined one such program, Restorative Practices (RP), in its early stages of implementation from the perspectives of teachers. RP uses collaborative problem solving and encourages relationship building between students and teachers. Key components of RP include community-building circles in classrooms and restorative conferences that bring together all those involved in a discipline incident to identify ways to repair the harm. Despite school districts investing substantial resources in upfront training days, little is known about the teacher perceptions and factors associated with high or low RP use implemented in the classroom. The dissertation was comprised of two studies. Study 1 included interviews and surveys with 51 teachers in two public high schools. Results showed that teachers varied in their fidelity of RP implementation. Further, multiple regression analyses found days of RP training and positive experiences with RP were predictive of a teacher’s total number of RP circles and conferences run. In addition, teachers’ RP self-efficacy was predictive of their adherence to implementing the core components of RP. Study 2 examined a cohort of teachers over two school years that continued to use RP (N = 23). Results showed that a group of teachers (n = 7) were classified as high RP users in both school years. These results held when accounting for minimal RP administrative support, which suggest that that the teachers were “resilient implementers.” Implications for future practice are that positive experiences with RP, teachers’ beliefs in their own ability to use RP, and upfront training days may be factors that increase teachers' implementation of RP with high fidelity—although future research will need to corroborate these findings. Moreover, as the evidence and promise for RP continues to grow, more research is necessary to determine why teachers choose to adopt or not to adopt this innovation.
NotePsy.D.
NoteIncludes bibliographical references
Noteby Joshua Lawrence Korth
Genretheses, ETD doctoral
Persistent URLhttps://doi.org/doi:10.7282/T3RN3B0R
Languageeng
CollectionGraduate School of Applied and Professional Psychology Electronic Theses and Dissertations
Organization NameRutgers, The State University of New Jersey
RightsThe author owns the copyright to this work.
Version 8.5.5
Rutgers University Libraries - Copyright ©2024