1 / 20

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

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. misty.sailors@utsa.edu. Purpose .

washington
Download Presentation

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

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  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@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 • Does an intensive model of coaching lead to an increased use of intentional comprehension instruction on the part of teachers? • Does the increased use of intentional comprehension instruction by teachers lead to increased reading achievement of students from low-income backgrounds? • 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

  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. Interrater reliability = .80 (Cohen’s kappa)

  13. Data Collection Timeline Teacher post- observations Teacher pre- observations Workshops September April/May Intervention Student pre-assessments Student post-assessments

  14. 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

  15. Findings: (1) Does an intensive model of coaching lead to an increased use of intentional comprehension instruction on the part of teachers?

  16. Findings: (2) Does the increased use of intentional comprehension instruction by teachers lead to increased reading achievement of students from low-income backgrounds?

  17. 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?

  18. 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

More Related