Literacy Coaching as a Component of Professional Development Joanne F. Carlisle, PhD Coauthors: Kai Cortina, Dan Berebitsky (University of Michigan), and Lauren Katz (Bowling Green State University) IES Conference June

Current issues:  What are effective features of programs of professional development (PD) for teachers of early reading? Three proposed features:  Content to improve teachers’ disciplinary knowledge,  Some way to engage teachers’ interest, motivation commitment to improving their teaching practices,  Adequate (long-term) support for making and evaluating changes, implementing new approaches  Are all three necessary to bring about substantive change in instruction and students’ achievement in reading? IES Conference June

What features of PD motivate teachers to analyze their own teaching and seek ways to improve it?  A discouraging finding is that few efforts to improve teachers’ professional knowledge have had “detectable effects” on instruction (Cohen & Ball, 1999).  Researchers have called for studies of components of PD programs that are likely to deepen teacher’s professional knowledge and bring about improvements in their instruction (Borko, 2004; Desimone, 2009).  Garet et al. (2008), PD with coach, without coach, and control group: improvement in knowledge but no significant differences in instruction or students’ reading achievement IES Conference June

Project inspired by Reading First as implemented in Michigan:  Knowledge: Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS; Moats, 2003)  Guidance in using student assessments (e.g., DIBELS) to evaluate the effectiveness of instruction  Support for integration and implementation from literacy coach (weekly grade level meetings, class visits). If LETRS is considered a basic (traditional) model, what is the added value (if any) of the two other components? A question of importance for resource-limited schools. IES Conference June

5

6 The first study compares teachers’ responses to the three models of PD:  Do perceptions of the effectiveness of their teaching change?  Does instruction change across the year? The second study compares KEC and KE models:  Is coaching associated with greater improvements in students’ literacy?  Does school climate mediated the effect of the PD on students’ improvement in reading?

Study 1: Method  Participants: 111 first-grade teachers in schools in 9 districts (KEC 43 teachers; KE 33; K 35). No difference in % 4 th graders underachieving in reading by model. Teachers did not differ in ethnic background, years teaching; KE had more teachers with master’s degree.  Treatment:  9 seminars delivering Moats’ Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling;  KEC and KE teachers taught to use DIBELS, guidance interpreting results.  KEC teachers had in-school support from the coach (weekly grade-level meetings, classroom visits). IES Conference June

Data collection  Surveys:  Satisfaction with my work: 3 factors--Self-Efficacy, Perceived Improvement in Teaching Reading, and Perceived Sources of Teaching Support.  Language and Reading Concepts: designed to assess knowledge gained from LETRS.  Classroom observations: fall, winter, and spring; coding system--Teachers’ Instructional Practices (TIP). Of interest, practices influenced by LETRS:  % time spent on components of reading (e.g., phonics  % of time providing small group instruction and using learning centers (e.g., flexible grouping, guided reading).  Coach survey: (21 coaches) (in schools with coaches only) IES Conference June

9

Study 1: Results  Were there differential benefits in terms in improved performance on the teacher knowledge measure (LRC) by condition? No. Significant effect for time but no significant differences for teachers in the three models.  Did teachers in the three conditions differ in their self- reported views about their teaching?  Satisfaction With My Work: Significant effect for time; KE teachers showed significantly greater gains in self- efficacy in the winter and spring. IES Conference June

 Were there observed differences in key areas of instruction in year 1 (TIP variables) ?  Phonics showed decrease over time for whole class lessons—more rapid for KEC than KE or K. (Time spent on comprehension/vocabulary, fluency, writing did not differ by condition.)  Centers/small group instruction: Increase in time devoted to SGI; across the year, KEC teachers spent more time providing instruction in small groups. IES Conference June

IES Conference June Whole class phonics: broken line shows KEC spent less time in phonics overall, big drop in winter.

Do satisfaction, knowledge, and observed practices distinguish teachers in the three models? Discriminant function analysis (fall, winter, spring)  The the fall, the first function was not significant; for winter and spring, first function was significant.  For the winter, time spent on centers/small group instruction), phonics, writing, and fluency significantly discriminated the groups.  For the spring, the variables that significantly distinguished the groups were time spent on centers/SGI, fluency, and writing.  Classification results (% correctly predicted by variables): Winter: 76% KEC, 42% KE and 48% K; Spring: 72% KEC, 70% KE, and 30% K. IES Conference June

Rationale for Study 2: Comparison of KE and KEC  Experts believe that literacy coaching provides more intensive, on-demand support to extend teachers’ PD in their school and classroom (IRA, 2004).  School leadership and efforts to build a collaborative teacher community have been found to contribute to school improvement (e.g., Sebring et al., 2006)  The major research question: Is teachers’ participation in the KEC or KE model associated with different outcomes for students’ word decoding, when taking into account attitudes toward the PD program, school climate, and time spent on key aspects of their reading instruction? IES Conference June

Study 2, Method (year 2 of the study):  30 KEC and 39 KE teachers  Measures from classroom observations (TIP)  Four “school climate” teacher surveys (scales developed by Chicago Consortium):  Communication Around Literacy (winter)  Attitudes Toward PD (spring)  rincipal Support for Change (spring)  Reflective Dialogue (spring)  DIBELS Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF): reading nonsense words in 1 min; data collected by classroom teachers in the fall, winter and spring. Measures: raw scores and “risk” status (low, medium, high). IES Conference June

IES Conference June

IES Conference June

Study 2, Preliminary Results:  KEC and KE teachers did not differ in their attitudes toward the PD they received, the support of their principal, or opportunities for collaboration with other teachers.  Differences in two areas of observed instruction (repeated measures ANOVAs controlled for fall NWF, teachers’ experience, and school climate measures)  Phonics: KE teachers’ time on phonics dropped off more across the year.  Small group instruction/centers): KEC teachers spent more time; the level of principal support positively and significantly influenced SGI. IES Conference June

IES Conference June

IES Conference June Multilevel analysis: effects of classroom entering ability NWF, instruction (e.g., SGI), and “climate” variables on change of risk status. Only significant covariates were teachers’ assessment of principals support for change an NWF fall class average (others dropped) Results showed that the probability of high risk students being designated as at risk or some risk in the spring decreased more for KEC than KE

IES Conference June

What have we learned?  Teachers responded positively to PD, whatever model they participated in. LETRS led to gains in knowledge, but that alone did not lead to noticeable changes in instruction.  More intensive PD models with more support for teachers better than efforts to improve knowledge alone.  Differences in changes in time devoted to areas of literacy instruction distinguished the teachers in the three models, winter and spring.  Support for coaching over and above KE: greater change in 1st graders’ decoding in KEC than KE classrooms. Results are unlike those of Garet et al (2008) perhaps because of methodology. IES Conference June

Questions? Comments? Contact information: Joanne F. Carlisle IES Conference June