support for the improvement of practices through intensive coaching (sipic): literacy coaching for...
DESCRIPTION
Support for the Improvement of Practices through Intensive Coaching (SIPIC): Literacy Coaching for Reading Achievement . Misty Sailors The University of Texas at San Antonio Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness March 4 – 6, 2010 Washington, DC. [email protected]. Purpose . - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
1
Support for the Improvement of Practices through Intensive Coaching (SIPIC): Literacy Coaching for Reading Achievement
Misty SailorsThe University of Texas at San Antonio
Society for Research on Educational EffectivenessMarch 4 – 6, 2010Washington, DC
2
Purpose The current study is an attempt to document, measure, and describe the role of one model of coaching in improving the instructional reading practices of classroom teachers and in raising the reading achievement of their students.
“New is not always right.” (Wilson & Berne, 1999, p. 5)
Problem Discrepancy in reading achievement on NAEP (Lee, Grigg, &
Donahue, 2007) Strategic reading is important in reading achievement (for example,
Paris, Waskik, & Turner, 1991; Pressley, Borkowski, & Schneider, 1987; Pressley, 2000)
Students can learn to be strategic readers (Brown, Pressley, Van Meter & Schuder, 1996; Duffy et al., 1986, 1987; Pressley & Wharton-McDonald, 1997)
Teachers are not teaching comprehension (Pressley, 2002; Pressley, Wharton-McDonald, Mistretta-Hampston & Echevarria, 1998; Sailors & Henderson, 2008)
Teachers CAN learn how to do this! (Brown et al., 1996; Duffy, 1993a; 1993b; Duffy et al., 1986; Duffy et al., 1987; Pressley et al., 1997)
3
4
Traditional “one-shot” professional development is not helpful to improving practices (Wayne, Yoon, Zhu, Cronen, & Garet, 2008)
Coaching is the current approach (for example, Dole, 2005) to supporting teachers
Little or contradictory empirical evidence of effectiveness (Lovette et al., 2008; Van Keer & Verhaeghe, 2005; Sailors, 2008)
Furthermore…
Findings thus far… Positive impact on craft (Zwart, Wubbels,
Blohuis & Bergen, 2008) and domain knowledge (Brady et al., 2009)
Teacher efficacy (Cantrell & Hughes, 2008) Improved practices in special education
(Gersten, Morvant & Brengelman, 1995); writing instruction (Frey & Kelly, 2002) and preservice teacher education (Scantlebury, Gallo-Fox & Wassell, 2008)
5
6
Research questions1. Does an intensive model of coaching lead to an
increased use of intentional comprehension instruction on the part of teachers?
2. Does the increased use of intentional comprehension instruction by teachers lead to increased reading achievement of students from low-income backgrounds?
3. Are there aspects of improvement in instructional comprehension practices positively associated with increased student achievement, and which aspects of the model can be attributed to the coaching model?
7
Methods Participants
Teachers Regular education (N=44) Grades 2-8 Regular education (37%); departmentalized reading (21%);
social studies (20%); ELA (13%); and science (9%) 3 districts (combined 11 elementary and middle schools) Average years of teaching 9.9 (SD = 7.53)
Students N=527 Low-income, minority families
Assigned to group at the school level to prevent experimental treatment diffusion
Content of PD Intentional instruction
Opportunities to engage in cognitive reading strategies (Dole et al., 2008, p. 348) (Taylor, Pearson, Clark & Walpole, 2000)
Engagements in discussions of the subroutines involved in these strategies (Anderson, 1992; Brown et al., 1992; Duffy, 2003)
Metacognition of teachers AND students “Cannot be routinized” (NICHD, 2000, p. 4-125)
8
Delivery of content of PDWorkshop only Workshop PLUS coaching
Highly qualified external coaches (IRA, 2004, 2006)
Variety of interactions (demos, co-teaching, feedback, conferences)
Based on individualized principles Plus resources
9
WORKSHOP:•2 days
•Focused on “making inferences” •Features of effective PD (Garet et al., 2001; Guskey, 2000)
Fidelity of implementation Similarities and degree to which coaches were implementing most
critical components of intervention (Mowray, Holter, Teague & Bybee, 2003) Observations of coaches Monitoring of coaching logs Monitoring of weekly coaching meetings
Visits (average 329 minutes) across period Interactions
62% classroom based; 38% conferences Demonstration lessons (50%); co-teaching (25%); and feedback
(25%) Cognitive reading strategies (98%); fix-up (2%)
10
Data Collection Methods and Procedures Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic
Evaluation (GRADE) (AGS, 2001) Comprehension Instruction Observation
Protocol System (CIOPS) (Sailors, 2006 Electronic category observation instrument (Martin, 1977) Observational note-taking and quantitative coding (Herbert &
Attridge, 1975) Narrative account of context, materials used, strategy content, and
instructional scaffolding Units to coded based on the work of Duke (1999; 2000), Duffy
(1987, 1992, 2004), and Taylor and colleagues (Taylor et al., 1999)
11
12
13Interrater reliability = .80 (Cohen’s kappa)
14
Data Collection Timeline
September April/May
Workshops
Teacher pre- observations
Student pre-assessments
Teacher post- observations
Student post-assessments
15
Data Analysis Composite variables
Provided opportunities to engage in cognitive reading strategies (“comp”)
Intentional instructional explanations of cognitive reading strategies (“intent_instruct”)
Student achievement– HLM (Raudenbush et al., 2004) Teacher data: Conducted between groups (treatment vs.
control) chi-square analyses of change scores (posttest-pretest) based on frequency counts of observational data within classrooms
16
Findings: (1) Does an intensive model of coaching lead to an increased use of intentional comprehension instruction on the part of teachers?
17
Findings: (2) Does the increased use of intentional comprehension instruction by teachers lead to increased reading achievement of students from low-income backgrounds?
XX
18
19
Findings: (3) Are there aspects of improvement in instructional comprehension practices positively associated with increased student achievement, and which aspects of the model can be attributed to the coaching model?
Impact by aspect: Demonstration
Impact by aspect: Co-teaching
Impact by aspect: Guided reflection
Impact by aspect: Guided conversations
Statistical significance
Effect size
Statistical significance
Effect size
Statistical significance
Effect size
Statistical significance
Effect size
No CC=.77 No CC=.81 No CC=.82 No CC=.84
20
Discussions Coaching can support the implementation of cognitive
strategy reading instruction Teachers teach what they learn in professional
development workshops (Desimone et al., 2002) When teachers TEACH comprehension, students are better
readers (comprehension) (Beating the Odds research) No one component explained changes– more research
needed
Limitations Small sample size No traditional control group External coaches Volunteers