Support for the Improvement of Practices through Intensive Coaching (SIPIC): Literacy Coaching for Reading Achievement - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 20
About This Presentation
Title:

Support for the Improvement of Practices through Intensive Coaching (SIPIC): Literacy Coaching for Reading Achievement

Description:

Support for the Improvement of Practices through Intensive Coaching (SIPIC): Literacy Coaching for Reading Achievement Misty Sailors The University of Texas at San ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:188
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 21
Provided by: MistyS8
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Support for the Improvement of Practices through Intensive Coaching (SIPIC): Literacy Coaching for Reading Achievement


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 Effectiveness
  • March 4 6, 2010
  • Washington, DC

misty.sailors_at_utsa.edu
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)
3
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)

4
Furthermore
  • 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)

5
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)

6
Research questions
  1. 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 (N44)
  • 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
  • N527
  • Low-income, minority families

Assigned to group at the school level to prevent
experimental treatment diffusion
8
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)

9
Delivery of content of PD
  • Workshop 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
  • WORKSHOP
  • 2 days
  • Focused on making inferences
  • Features of effective PD (Garet et al., 2001
    Guskey, 2000)

10
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)

11
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)

12
(No Transcript)
13
Interrater reliability .80 (Cohens kappa)
14
Data Collection Timeline
Teacher post- observations
Teacher pre- observations
Workshops
September
April/May
Intervention
Student pre-assessments
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?
18
(No Transcript)
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 Demonstration Impact by aspect Co-teaching Impact by aspect Co-teaching Impact by aspect Guided reflection Impact by aspect Guided reflection Impact by aspect Guided conversations 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
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com