Presentation on theme: "1 The Effects of an Intensive Model of Professional Development on the Instructional Reading Practices of Classroom Teachers Misty Sailors The University."— Presentation transcript:
1 The Effects of an Intensive Model of Professional Development on the Instructional Reading Practices of Classroom Teachers Misty Sailors The University of Texas at San Antonio International Reading Association Annual Research Conference 12 May 2007 Toronto, Canada
2 Teacher Quality Professional Development Reading grant Institute of Education Sciences Three year development grant Pilot (year 1) The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
3 This study is NOT about answering these questions… Can children be taught to be more strategic in their thinking? (Paris, Waskik, & Turner, 1991; Pressley, Borkowski, & Schneider, 1987; Pressley, 2000 ) Are teachers teaching comprehension? (Knapp, 1995; Langer, 2000; Metsala et al., 1997; Morrow, Tracey, Woo, & Pressley, 1999; Pressley, Rankin, & Yokoi, 1996; Taylor, Pearson, Clark, & Walpole, 2000 ) Can teachers learn to teach comprehension? (Duffy, 1993) Strategic thinking is helpful in developing metacognition in children (Paris, Waskik & Turner, 1991; Pressley, Borkowski & Schneider, 1987).
4 This study IS about… Model of professional development with inservice classroom teachers Describing the aspects of the model that are helpful to teachers in improving their practices… Describing the aspects of the model that are helpful in raising the reading achievement of students…
5 Background The Study Findings Conclusions and discussions
6 Background Teacher quality and expertise consistently and accurately predict student achievement (Darling-Hammond, 2000; Laczko-Kerr & Berliner, 2002; Snow, Burns & Griffin, 1998) PD in the USA – 44/50 require PD 32 to maintain license 33 to maintain employment No clear directives for content and/or context for PD activities
7 Further… Focus of many reports (Darling-Hammond, 2000; National Commission Teaching and Americas Future, 1996; NCES, 1999) Federal initiatives for high quality teachers (No Child Left Behind) Emperors New Clothes
8 Traditional models of PD Traditional one shot models of PD – Direct instruction, full day, outside expert – Decontextualized (Sandholtz, 2002) – Boring, irrelevant, forget 90% (Miller, 1998) No clear evidence that these training models have significant impact on learning (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999; Duffy, 2004)
9 Features of high quality PD Structural features – Form/organization of – Duration in – Collective participation in Substantive features – Specific content learning – Promotion of active learning – Promotion of coherence (alignment with standards) Focused on specific instructional practices Proof! (Butler et al., 2004; Guskey, 2002; Porter et al., 2003; Stein et al., 1999)
10 PD and Reading Teachers Quality countsteacher knowledge, beliefs and practices AND student achievement (Anders, Hoffman & Duffy, 2000) Strategy instruction (Duffy, 1993a, 1993b, 2004; Duffy et al., 1997; Pressley et al., 1992) Long-term process (Duffy, 1993a, 1993b)
11 Features of high quality reading teacher PD Volunteer (and choice) Intensive levels of support (money, time, contact hours) Monitoring/ Coaching/ Clinical support Reflection Deliberation and dialogue Collaboration (Anders, Hoffman & Duffy, 2000) Framework
12 In summary, effective PD is classroom-based, embedded in the school day, centered on specific research- based practices, and sustained over time.
13 The current study Purpose: To explore the impact of an active, situated, and intense model of professional development on the instructional comprehension practices of classroom teachers. Research questions: – Does an intense model of PD lead to an increased use of focus instructional practices? – Does the increased use of focus instructional practices lead to increased reading achievement of students from low-income and minority backgrounds? – To what extent can improvement of instructional practices and student achievement be attributed to various aspects of the professional development model?
14 Participants Regular education teachers – 3 districts (6 elementary; 5 middle schools) – N=44 – Average years of teaching 9.83 (SD = 7.56) Students – N=569 – Low-income, minority families – Parental consent – Above, on, and below grade level readers Assigned to group at the school level to prevent experimental treatment diffusion (Cook & Campbell, 1979)
15 Design: pretest-posttest control group (Mertens, 1999) Partial Intervention Group Two day workshop only + WebQuests (accessibles) (Beck & McKeown, 2004) Full Intervention Group Two day workshop only + WebQuests (accessibles) (Beck & McKeown, 2004) + Follow-up support in classrooms (minimum of 15 visits per year)
16 Content: Learning to teach reading strategies Capitalize on their existing instructional strategies (think aloud and questioning) Provide opportunities to engage in comprehension strategies Provide children with access to their metacognition – Direct explanation model (Duffy) and Transactional model (Pressley) Name it When and why How to do it (cognitive processes involved, subroutines) Keep the big picture in mind (Duffy, 1987, 1993a, 1993b, 2004; Pressley, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1992, 1995, 1996, 2000)
17 Content (continued) Word identification/knowledge, Comprehension, and Fix-up strategies (Almasi, 2003) Cognitive requirements of sample texts New Literacies comprehension strategies Assessment of instructional needs of students Modes of interaction (read alouds, guided reading, and independent reading) Different grouping configurations Variety of texts (genres and formats) Across subject areas
18 Model of Intervention Frame based on (Anders, Hoffman & Duffy, 2000) Partial Intervention Group Two day workshop only + WebQuests (accessibles) (Beck & McKeown, 2004) Full Intervention Group Two day workshop only + WebQuests (accessibles) (Beck & McKeown, 2004) + Follow-up support in classrooms (minimum of 15 visits per year)
19 Model of Intervention: The Mentors (IRA, 2004) Mentor 1 Ph.D. (Language and Literacy studies) Reading specialist (TX) certified Graduate and undergraduate literacy education courses Mentor 2 MEd. Practicing reading specialist (TX) for 23 years Undergraduate literacy education courses Combined 15 years of classroom teaching AND 10 years of classroom based professional development experience
25 Data Collection: Student Data Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic Evaluation (GRADE) (AGS, 2001)– used to measure change in level of reading comprehension Wide Range Achievement Test 3 (WRAT 3) (Wilkinson, 1993)– used to identify three focus students Administered by Research Associates (graduate students and adjunct instructors)
26 Data Collection: Teacher Data Instructional Comprehension Strategy Observation Protocol Developed to measure implementation of content Observational note-taking and quantitative coding process (Herbert & Attridge, 1975; Martin, 1977) 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)
30 Data Collection: Mentor Data Mentor site visit reports
31 Data Collection: Data Collectors Research Associates – Seeking MEd in Literacy Studies (Master Reading Teacher certification) – Adjunct instructors of literacy education courses Training – One day at university – Two days in classrooms (80% agreement) – Ongoing reliability checks (interrater reliability)
33 Limitations Small sample size Volunteers– Teachers adoption of innovation was a function of choice to be involved (Borko, Davinroy, Bliem, & Cumbo, 2000; El- Dinary et al., 1993; Garet et al., 2001; Gersten, Vaughn, Seshler, & Schiller, 1997; Linek et al., 2003; Yamagata-Lynch, 2003)
34 Data Analysis Screened for – Missing data/extreme data – Distributional patterns of frequency counts – Examined general linear model assumptions Multilevel modeling analytic strategies (HLM) Between group nonparametric multinomial regression and chi-squared analysis
35 Data Analysis: Composite variables Provided opportunities to engage in comprehension strategies (expressed as frequency counts) – Word ID/Word knowledge; – Fix-up; – Comprehension– comp Intentional instructional explanations of comprehension strategies – Named it, told and modeled when and why, explained how to, provided practice– intent_instruct Almasi, 2003
36 Findings: Question #1 Does an intensive model of professional development lead to an increased use of intentional instructional practices? Yes. Statistically significant differences between the groups (direction of full intervention group) in the opportunities the FI teachers offered to their students to engage in comp (X² (1) = 3.13, p <.05) Small effect sizes (Cramers V=.08) No statistical or practical effects for word ID/word knowledge or fix-up strategies Yes. Statistically significant differences between the groups direction of full intervention group) in the engagement of intentional instructional practices intent_instruct (X² (1) = 3.65, p<.05) Medium practical effect (Cramers V =.40) Cohen (1988) Small =.10-.34; med =.35 to.6; large = >.60
37 Was there a particular type of teacher who was more inclined to improve their practices? No. Non-significance/practical effects (Years of Experience / Teaching Area / Level of Education) on dependent variable (intent_instruct) Yes. Statistically significant main effect observed on dependent variable (intent_instruct) between groups in the engagement of intentional instructional practices intent_instruct by the type of certification held by teachers (F = 2.78, df = 7, 31; p<.05) Large effect size (η² =.39) general linear model regression/ANOVA (η² )
38 Findings: Question #2 Does the increased use of intentional instructional practices lead to increased reading achievement of students from low-income backgrounds? Main effect of the intervention between groups across time. – Yes. Statistically significant change in reading achievement between the treatment (mean = 419.85) and control (mean = 402.58) groups. – The fixed effects portion of the model yielded a 17.3 point difference between groups. Main effect of the intervention overall and by learner group (above, on, and below) – Yes. Statistically significant main effect for group (F = 4.32, df = 1, 431; p <.05), but not for student learner level as assessed by the WRAT3.
39 Findings: Question #3 To what extent can improvement of instructional practices and student achievement be attributed to various aspects of the professional development model? No statistical relationship between change in GRADE from pre- to post- and the providing of opportunities to engage in comprehension strategies (comp) Practical trend emerged– 71% of students whose teachers displayed comp characteristics resulted in positive GRADE score changes. No statistical relationship between change in GRADE from pre- to post- and teachers use of intentional instructional practices (intent_instruct) Practical trend emerged– 71% of students whose teachers displayed intent_instruct characteristics resulted in positive GRADE score changes. Relationship between contentof PD and student outcome
40 Findings: Question #3 To what extent can improvement of instructional practices and student achievement be attributed to various aspects of the professional development model? Statistically significant differences (direction of full intervention group) regarding the number of visits made and intent_instruct Regression equation – effect size of.236 (or 23.6%) There were no observable influences regarding the nature of interactions between the teachers and mentors, including the initiation of the interaction and the content of the interaction and their engagement in intentional instruction (comp or intent_instruct) There were large practical effects for all the predictors (contingency coefficients) demo (CC) =.77 co-teach (CC) =.81 feedback (CC) =.82 conf (CC) =.84 teacher_init (CC) =.87 mentor_init (CC) =.82 Relationship between quantity and quality of mentoring and implementation of content of PD
41 Findings: Question #3 To what extent can improvement of instructional practices and student achievement be attributed to various aspects of the professional development model? The variable comp was a statistically significant predictor of intent_instruct – (F = 7.99, df = 1, 25; p <.001), – Regression equation yielded an adjusted R2 of.24.
42 In summary Teachers who are supported in classrooms can learn to – Provide their students with opportunities to engage in comprehension strategies AND – Explain the underlying processes of those strategies more often… – Are associated with students who make statistically significant higher gains on measures of comprehension Support comes in the form of – A highly qualified mentor – Interaction with the teacher in a variety of ways
43 Discussions: Common Sense versus Common Practice Teachers who are provided with opportunities to interact with a knowledgeable other in the presence of their students under conditions selected by the teacher is HELPFUL in informing their instruction Policy mandates with little regard to quality
44 Coaching as a model of PD in the USA No Child Left Behind Virtues of coaching – IRA, NCTE, NCTM, NSTA, NCSS (IRA, 2006 Roles and responsibilities of coaches (Dole, 2004; Roller, 2006) Characteristics of high quality coaches (Shanklin, 2006) Qualifications of reading coaches (IRA, 2004; 2006) Models of coaching (Bean, 2004; Toll, 2006; Walpole & McKenna, 2004) Guiding texts for coaches (Walpole & McKenna, 2004; Toll, 2006; Kise, 2006; Hasbrouck & Denton, 2005; Casey, 2006; Allen, 2006) Empirical evidence???? New is not always right. (Wilson & Berne, 1999, p. 5)
45 In conclusion Empirical evidence that supports qualitative features of professional development of reading teachers (Anders, Hoffman, & Duffy, 2000; Darling-Hammond, 1999; Hoffman & Pearson, 2000; National Reading Panel, 2000; Pearson 2001; Snow, Burns & Griffin, 1998)