VIEWS: 0 PAGES: 83 POSTED ON: 2/12/2012
+ Everything We Know Now About Coaching That We Wish We Knew When We Started Sharon Walpole University of Delaware Michael C. McKenna University of Virginia + What do you expect your CRCT data to say this year? How about your end-of-year DIBELS data? Why do you expect these results? + Goals Today Tomorrow 1. Share the results of our 1. Provide you a chance survey to share resources 2. Review recent research you’ve made to support on coaching teachers 3. Use video and 2. Consider strategies for checklists to practice coaching reluctant coaching teachers Back in School • Continue to support teachers to maximize student achievement this year • Evaluate your own success and plan for next year – whatever your role + A professional support system Theory Feedback Demonstration Practice Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. + A training cycle Work with Architects directly Work with Work with teachers at specialists to school review and plan + Survey Questions 1. How successful were we in providing you with what you needed to support teachers? 2. What modifications could we make for next year? Serve continuing schools Serve schools not continuing Serve schools outside of Reading First Lecture portion of Architect training Lesson Demonstrations by Architects Video Examples Chapters to Read Follow-up Planning Day Specialists’ Support Specialists’ Support: Most Effective Specialist Support: Least Effective Future Architect Services: Theory Future Architect Services: Demonstration Future Architect Services: Leadership Most Important Future Architect Services + What did we learn? We can only serve one audience at a time; we need to design separate sessions for teachers that have less emphasis on theory. Weshould reformat our work so that it can be accomplished in shorter chunks of time. You want more lessons and more video. + Discuss these ideas with your colleagues. To what extent do these responses represent your experiences? Do you have any questions? Next we will turn to what others are learning about coaching. + Garet, M.S., et al., 2008 The Impact of Two Professional Development Interventions on Early Reading Instruction and Achievement http://ies.ed.gov/ncee. + Treatments PD Only PD Plus District-only Coaching Scripted PD, sold Scripted PD plus Regular district as a package in-class PD offerings from Sopris coaching, with West, in the coaches trained summer and in by CORE the school year 2nd grade teachers from 30 different high- poverty schools assigned to each treatment + + + BothPD treatments increased teacher knowledge compared with regular district PD. + Both PD treatments Results increased teachers’ use of explicit instruction. + − Neither treatment was associated with higher student achievement compared with regular district PD. − PD plus Coaching did not Results increase teacher use of explicit instruction, high- quality independent activities, or differentiation compared with PD alone. + Why do you think that the study’s findings were so disappointing? + When the results of the program turn out to be disappointing, we quickly reject that program and move on to the next fad (Stahl, Will that be the 1998, p. 31). future of intensive PD for teachers, including the work of coaches? + Challenges for Designing PD Wayne, A. J., et al., Experimenting with teacher professional development: Motives and methods. Educational Researcher, 37, no. 8 (November 2008) pp. 469-79. + Characteristics of Effective PD 1. Intensive But this is actually too 2. Sustained vague a list. 3. Job embedded What is the actual 4. Content rich dose needed of what type of PD for what 5. Includes active effect? learning 6. Coherent Who should do it? 7. Collective Where and when participation should it happen? + How does coaching address these effective characteristics? To what extent does it suffer from the problems identified? + Two Competing Forces Theory of Instruction Theory of Teacher Change How exactly will you What exactly is the support teachers? instructional goal? How will the PD be What do you want paced and how will the teachers to know and teachers receive do? feedback on their progress? In school-based PD, you have to tackle both of these. However, either one could be wrong and influence thinking about the other one. + Our Theory of Instruction Daily Literature Language development, concept development, and Read-Aloud vocabulary development must be addressed for all, far in advance of literacy development. Core Instruction Children at each grade level deserve grade-level instruction, delivered quickly, competently, and similarly across classrooms. In order to accomplish this, teachers must agree on exactly which choices to make in the core program. Differentiated Informal data can gauge children’s progress, and a Instruction simple set of choices (our stair-step model) can make differentiation targeted, fast, and reasonable for teachers to design and deliver. Intensive Children for whom core and differentiation are Intervention insufficient need highly specialized additional instruction. +Our Theory of Teacher Change Teacher Large-group PD for teachers builds common Academies language across schools and districts. Book Studies Extended discussion of ideas deepens understanding and promotes shared responsibility for instructional design. Lesson Models Scripted differentiated lessons allow teachers to experience differentiation more quickly and evaluate its effects on their children. Observation Observation and feedback from a coach and Feedback provide the differentiated support that increases the quality of instruction. + The theory of instruction could be inconsistent with the district’s or school’s approach. Other PD (ambient PD) Many other things may interfere with the can go wrong! target PD. The PD may not be delivered as planned or accepted by the teachers. + Is our theory of instruction fully tested in your school? How about our theory of teacher change? Have any of these challenges been especially salient in your school? + We’llturn now to what others are saying and learning specifically about coaching Evidence of a Shift Toward Coaching Literacy Coaching Clearinghouse (IRA/NCTE) http://www.literacycoachingonline.org Evidence of a Shift Toward Coaching NRC 2008 Conference 39 papers on coaching Coaching Study Group Evidence of a Shift Toward Coaching Recent Dissertations 60 since 2000 Evidence of a Shift Toward Coaching What’s Hot and What’s Not in IRA’s Reading Today Coaching rated a “Very Hot” topic in 2008 2007 2006 2005 Not even listed in 2004! + Some Reasons Literacy Coaching May Have a Future of ad hoc approaches to Ineffectiveness professional development Widespread implementation of coaching outside of federal initiatives IRA Standards for Reading Professionals have added coaching to the responsibilities that reading specialists are expected to assume + Some Reasons Literacy Coaching May Not Have a Future Expense of coaching relative to other forms of professional development Termination of funding for federal initiatives that have encouraged coaching Lack of definitive research establishing the efficacy of coaching as a means of improving achievement + Reasons We Are Hopeful 1. Lack of reasonable alternatives 2. Emerging evidence of effectiveness + Four Assumptions about Evaluating Coaching 1. The instructional methods teachers employ influence student achievement. 2. Variations in the methods themselves and in the quality of teacher implementation are considerable. 3. Coaching can help teachers implement specific methods and abandon others; coaching can help teachers improve the quality of their work. 4. The effect of coaching can be gauged by changes in student achievement that result from this altered practice. Coaching affects achievement by fostering teacher knowledge about effective instructional practices and by supporting teachers as they begin to apply those practices in their classrooms. Coaching can be a cause of increased achievement, but it is a distal cause. In order to meaningfully evaluate the impact of coaching, we must also gauge its impact on the more proximal causes of achievement: expanded teacher knowledge and altered practice. (See Guskey, 2000.) Taylor (2008) describes the array of factors that complicate the causal inferences from research. Specification & development of the practice or program Motivation to implement Knowledge and skills Teacher knowledge requires specifying the focus of learning and accounting for the motivation to implement what is learned. Instructional Leadership Distribution Specification & development of Alternative the practice or Instructional program Guidance Motivation to (PD, TA,& implement Peer Collab.) Knowledge and Larger school, skills district, state reform effort & policy context Professional community Other factors also influence teacher norms knowledge. These include leadership Supporting and policy factors, alternative PD, resources available TA, and other resources. Instructional Leadership Distribution Specification & development of Alternative the practice or Instructional program Guidance Motivation to (PD, TA,& implement Peer Collab.) Knowledge and Larger school, skills district, state reform effort & policy context Professional community These factors also influence the nature norms of coaching in a particular context. Supporting resources + Qualifying Questions about Coaching 1. How do models of coaching direct coaching efforts? 2. To what extent are coaching efforts mediated by characteristics of districts and schools? 3. How can coaches work with administrators to optimize their efforts? 4. How can coaching be differentiated to meet the needs of all teachers? 5. What personal characteristics tend to be shared by effective coaches? Selection Process We included studies of coaching and studies that involved coaching. We included peer-reviewed studies that met two criteria: 1. The study provided insight into one or more of our qualifying questions. 2. The study reported new findings based on quantitative or qualitative data. We used ERIC and Education Full Text to identify potential studies. This process resulted in 176 potential studies. We read abstracts in order to eliminate opinion pieces and articles about peer coaching, technology-based coaching, and sports coaching. This process left 19 studies for full review. + Characteristics of Studies Reviewed 19 peer-reviewed articles: 12 case studies of schools, coaches, or initiatives 2 survey studies to gauge reactions to coaching 5 comparative studies of coaching and non- coaching or of varieties of coaching Date range: 1995-2008 18 of 19 published in 2003 or later + Emerging Themes 1. Models of Coaching 2. School and District Characteristics 3. Working with Administrators 4. Serving the Needs of Teachers 5. Personal Characteristics + Models of Coaching A model specifies coaching roles and activities and time apportioned to each A model defines the focus of coaching All of these studies have roots in Joyce and Showers’ cycle of theory, demonstration, practice, and feedback. + A professional support system Theory Feedback Demonstration Practice Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. + Models of Coaching Models are of two principal kinds: 1. Discretionary models that permit a coach wide latitude in making decisions (Fearn& Farnan, 2007; Gibson, 2005, 2006; Swinnerton, 2007; Wood, 2007) + Models of Coaching 2. Up-front models that specify in advance the amount of outside- and inside-the- classroom support (Kinnucan-Welsch et al., 2006; Denton et al., 2007; Neilson et al., 2007; Spencer & Logan, 2003) Up-front models employ specific tools for observing and relieve the coach of having to negotiate access to teachers. + What do you think are the strengths and weaknesses of each of these models? What model do you actually use? + School and District Characteristics These coaching studies varied by: Level (elementary, middle, high school) Student achievement Receptivity to coaching (Swinnerton, 2007) + School and District Characteristics Teacher receptivity to coaching varied. Resistance was higher in reform contexts. Resistance occurred in both more- (Al Otaiba et al., 2008; Gersten et al., 1995) and less-controlled curriculum contexts (Darby, 2008). + In what ways do school and district characteristics influence your effectiveness? + Working with Administrators Principals’ views of coaches differ. Coaches can be part of a leadership team (MacIver et al., 2003; Morgan & Clonts, 2008). Coaches may act as mentors or directors (Walpole & Blamey, 2008). + Working with Administrators Some coaches report directly to the district, causing potential problems involving their supervision (Swinnerton, 2007; Wood, 2007). Some principals have encouraged coaches to conduct formative observations to better prepare teachers for summative observations (Nielson et al., 2007). + In what ways does your work with administrators influence your effectiveness? + Serving the Needs of Teachers Teachers in these studies were often faced with challenges, such as: Being novices (Nielson et al., 2007) Lacking credentials (MacIver et al., 2003) Teaching in low-performing schools (Al Otaiba et al., 2008; Darby, 2008) Serving struggling adolescent readers (Denton et al., 2007; Lovett et al., 2008) Combinations of these (Gersten et al., 1995) + Serving the Needs of Teachers Some studies differentiated coaching By newness of teachers (Nielson et al., 2007) By grade level (Neilson et al., 2007) By content area (at middle and high) (MacIver et al., 2003) By students served (Gersten et al., 1995; Menzies et al., 2008) + Serving the Needs of Teachers Nonproductive relationships arose regardless of the teacher characteristics Such relationships were caused by Competing agendas Power struggles Positioning relative to influence (Gibson, 2005; Rainville & Jones, 2008) + What special challenges do your teachers present? In what ways have you been able to differentiate? + Personal Characteristics Trust was a recurring theme. Coaches had to nurture relationships with both principals and teachers (Swinnerton, 2007). Some coaches positioned themselves as co- learners, allaying teacher fears (Darby, 2008; Rainville & Jones, 2008). + Personal Characteristics Expertise was a recurring theme. Coaches had to focus teachers on core goals (Gibson, 2005, 2006). Coaches had to have credibility as teachers (MacIver, 2003). expertise could lead to teacher Differential resistance (Gersten et al., 1995). + What personal characteristics have helped you to coach? What personal characteristics have presented a challenge? + Across the Emerging Themes Some studies addressed more than one of these themes. None addressed all five. you, of course, have to deal with all of But them at once! + Suggestions for Researchers Make every effort to account for the complex contexts of coaching. Conduct studies that are multidisciplinary, informed by the literature of leadership, adult learning, and professional development. Conduct studies that are multi-level. Both qualitative and quantitative approaches provide powerful tools for doing so. + Research is the process of going up alleys to see if they are blind. – Marston Bates + Suggestions for Policy Makers wait for the definitive “word” on Don’t whether coaching “works.” Consider coaching to be a form of PD that is potentially better–and certainly no worse– than traditional approaches. Thinkabout how to adapt, not whether to adopt, coaching. coursework on coaching in the Include preparation of administrators. Consider coaching endorsements that require, but are distinct from, the reading specialist endorsement. + Now let’s do some coaching practice a look at the checklist resources First, take that we’ve gathered. They include a checklist for coaching (which you’ve seen) and also some specific checklists for differentiated instruction and for read- alouds that have been generated by participants in this project. We’llwatch a series of videos of instruction and of coaching, and discuss them using the checklists. + Final Bibliography Al Otaiba, S., Hosp, J. L., Smartt, S., & Dole, J. A. (2008). The challenging role of a reading coach, a cautionary tale. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 18(2), 124-155. Darby, A. (2008). Teachers' emotions in the reconstruction of professional self- understanding. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1160-1172. Denton, C. A., Swanson, E. A., & Mathes, P. G. (2007). Assessment-based instructional coaching provided to reading intervention teachers. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 20, 569-590. Fearn, L., & Farnan, N. (2007). The influence of professional development on young writers' writing performance. Action in Teacher Education, 29(2), 17- 28. + Final Bibliography Gersten, R., Morvant, M., & Brengelman, S. (1995). Close to the classroom is close to the bone: Coaching as a means to translate research into classroom practice. Exceptional Children, 62, 52-66. Gibson, S. A. (2005). Developing knowledge of coaching. Issues in Teacher Education, 14(2), 63-74. Gibson, S. A. (2006). Lesson observation and feedback: The practice of an expert reading coach. Reading Research and Instruction, 45, 295-318. Kinnucan-Welsch, K., Rosemary, C. A., & Grogan, P. R. (2006). Accountability by design in literacy professional development. Reading Teacher, 59(5), 426- 435. + Final Bibliography Lovett, M. W., Lacerenza, L., De Palma, M., Benson, N. J., Steinbach, K. A., & Frijters, J. C. (2008). Preparing teachers to remediate reading disabilities in high school: What is needed for effective professional development? Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 24, 1083-1097 MacIver, D. J., Ruby, A., & Balfanz, R. (2003). Removed from the list: A comparative longitudinal case study of a reconstitution-eligible school. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 18, 259-289. Menzies, H. M., Mahdavi, J. N., & Lewis, J. L. (2008). Early intervention in reading: From research to practice. Remedial and Special Education, 29(2), 67-77. Morgan, D. N., & Clonts, C. M. (2008). School leadership teams: Extending the reach of school-based literacy coaches. Language Arts, 85, 345-353. + Final Bibliography Nielsen, D. C., Barry, A. L., & Addison, A. B. (2007). A model of a new-teacher induction program and teacher perceptions of beneficial components. Action in Teacher Education, 28(4), 14-24. Rainville, K. N., & Jones, S. (2008). Situated identities: Power and positioning in the work of a literacy coach. The Reading Teacher, 61, 440-448. Spencer, S. S., & Logan, K. R. (2003). Bridging the gap: A school based staff development model that bridges the gap from research to practice. Teacher Education and Special Education, 26(1), 51-62. Swinnerton, J. (2007). Brokers and boundary crossers in an urban school district: Understanding central-office coaches as instructional leaders. Journal of School Leadership, 17(2), 195-221. + Final Bibliography Van Keer, H., & Verhaeghe, J. P. (2005). Comparing two teacher development programs for innovating reading comprehension instruction with regard to teachers' experiences and student outcomes. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 21, 543-562. Walpole, S., & Blamey, K. L. (2008). Elementary literacy coaches: The reality of dual roles. The Reading Teacher, 62, 222-231. Wood, D. (2007). Teachers' learning communities: Catalyst for change or a new infrastructure for the status quo? Teachers College Record, 109(3), 699-739.
Pages to are hidden for
"Everything We Know Now About Coaching That We Wish We Knew When "Please download to view full document