The Impact of Professional Development Models and Strategies on Teacher Practice and Student Achievement in Early Reading

1
The Impact of Professional Development Models and
Strategies on Teacher Practice and Student
Achievement in Early Reading
IES Research Conference Michael S. Garet June 8,
2009
2
PD Impact Study

• The 5-year study was supported by IES
• The report is available on the IES website

2
3
Principal Staff

• Michael S. Garet (project director) AIR
• Fred Doolittle (co project director) MDRC
• Stephanie Cronen (deputy project director) AIR
• Meredith Ludwig, AIR
• Terry Salinger, AIR
• Marian Eaton, AIR
• Anja Kurki, AIR
• Howard Bloom, MDRC
• Rob Ivry, MDRC

3
4
Partner Organizations

• American Institutes for Research (AIR)
• www.air.org
• MDRC
• www.mdrc.org
• REDA International, Inc.
• www.redainternational.com
• Sopris West
• www.sopriswest.com
• CORE
• www.corelearn.com

4
5
Introduction

• Test of two intensive, content-focused PD
  interventions that represent best practices to
  improve 2nd grade reading achievement
• Examines impact on ultimate outcome (student
  achievement) and intermediate outcomes (teacher
  knowledge and classroom instruction)

6
PD Models Tested

• Treatment A A content-focused PD series
  consisting of eight institute and follow-up
  seminar days (48 hrs). Based on Language
  Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling
  (LETRS) developed by Louisa Moats
• Treatment B The eight-day institute and seminar
  series plus coaching throughout the year (108
  hrs). Coach training conducted by the Consortium
  on Reading Excellence (CORE)
• Business as Usual The control condition

7
Research Questions

• What effect does the institute and seminar series
  have on 2nd grade teachers knowledge, practices,
  and students reading achievement?
• (A vs. C)
• What effect does the institute and seminar series
  plus in-school coaching have on these same
  outcomes?
• (B vs. C)
• What is the added effect of in-school coaching
  above and beyond the institute and seminar series
  alone?
• (B vs. A)

8
Design

• School-level random assignment
• 90 schools located in 6 districts using one of
  two popular reading programs consistent with the
  National Reading Panel (NRP)
• 270 teachers
• 5,500 students (77 eligible for free or reduced
  priced lunch 16 White 78 African American 6
  Asian, Hispanic, or Other
• MDES 0.20 for student-level outcomes, 0.40 for
  teacher-level outcomes
• Timing
• Year 1 Implementation of the PD and data
  collection
• Year 2 Follow-up data collection only

9
Data Sources for Outcomes

• Teacher Knowledge Reading Content and Practices
  Survey (RCPS)
• Total, word-level, and meaning-level scales
• Teacher Practices Classroom Observations
• Explicit instruction, independent student
  activity, and differentiated instruction scales
• Student Achievement District Records
  (Standardized Assessments)

10
Implementation of the PD

• According to sign-in sheets, teachers attended 35
  of the 45 hours of institutes and seminars
• According to coach logs, the coaching included
  the planned topics and time (62 hours)
• According to teacher surveys, treatment A and B
  teachers attended significantly more institute
  and seminar hours than control teachers (39 and
  47 vs 13 hours), and treatment B teachers
  received significantly more coaching (71 hours vs
  6 hours)

11
Impacts on Total Knowledge by Year


12
Impacts on Explicit Instruction by Year


13
Impacts on Student Activity by Year
14
Impacts on Diff Instruction by Year
15
Impacts on Student Achievement by Year
16
Summary of Study Results

• Although there were positive impacts on teachers
  knowledge and on one of the three instructional
  practices promoted by the PD, neither PD
  intervention resulted in significantly higher
  student test scores.
• The added effect of the coaching intervention was
  not statistically significant.
• There were no statistically significant impacts
  on measured teacher or student outcomes in the
  year following the treatment.

17
Exploratory Analyses

• We conducted exploratory analyses to examine
  questions raised by the main impact results
• What might explain why the impacts on teacher
  knowledge and practice did not translate into
  impacts on student achievement?
• Why were the impacts on teacher outcomes found
  during the implementation year no longer
  significant at follow-up?
• What might explain why the PD affected teachers
  word- but not meaning-level knowledge?
• Why didnt the coaching plus institutes produce
  greater impacts relative to the institutes alone?

18
Report

• The Impact of Two Professional Development
  Interventions on Early Reading Instruction and
  Achievement (NCEE20084030)
• http//ies.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubidNCE
  E20084030

18