+ everything we know now about coaching that we wish we knew when we started sharon walpole...
TRANSCRIPT
+Everything We Know Now About Coaching That We Wish We Knew When We Started
Sharon WalpoleUniversity of Delaware
Michael C. McKennaUniversity of Virginia
+
What do you expect your CRCT data to say this year? How about your end-of-year DIBELS data?
Why do you expect these results?
+GoalsToday Tomorrow
1. Share the results of our survey
2. Review recent research on coaching
3. Use video and checklists to practice coaching
1. Provide you a chance to share resources you’ve made to support teachers
2. Consider strategies for coaching reluctant teachers
Back in School
• Continue to support teachers to maximize student achievement this year
• Evaluate your own success and plan for next year – whatever your role
+A professional support system
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
+A training cycle
+Survey Questions
1. How successful were we in providing you with what you needed to support teachers?
2. What modifications could we make for next year?
Serve continuing schools Serve schools not continuing Serve schools outside of Reading First
Lecture portion of Architect training
Lesson Demonstrations by Architects
Video Examples
Chapters to Read
Follow-up Planning Day
Specialists’ Support
Specialists’ Support: Most Effective
Specialist Support: Least Effective
Future Architect Services: Theory
Future Architect Services: Demonstration
Future Architect Services: Leadership
Most Important Future Architect Services
+What did we learn?
We can only serve one audience at a time; we need to design separate sessions for teachers that have less emphasis on theory.
We should reformat our work so that it can be accomplished in shorter chunks of time.
You want more lessons and more video.
+
Discuss these ideas with your colleagues. To what extent do these responses represent your experiences?
Do you have any questions?
Next we will turn to what others are learning about coaching.
+
Garet, M.S., et al., 2008
The Impact of Two Professional Development Interventions on Early Reading Instruction and Achievement
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee.
+ Treatments
PD Only PD Plus Coaching
District-only
Scripted PD, sold as a package from Sopris West, in the summer and in the school year
Scripted PD plus in-class coaching, with coaches trained by CORE
Regular district PD offerings
2nd grade teachers from 30 different high-poverty schools assigned to each treatment
+
+
Results
+Both PD treatments increased teacher knowledge compared with regular district PD.
+Both PD treatments increased teachers’ use of explicit instruction.
+
Results
−Neither treatment was associated with higher student achievement compared with regular district PD.
−PD plus Coaching did not increase teacher use of explicit instruction, high-quality independent activities, or differentiation compared with PD alone.
+
Why do you think that the study’s findings were so disappointing?
+ When the results of the program turn out to be disappointing, we quickly reject that program and move on to the next fad (Stahl, 1998, p. 31). Will that be the
future of intensive PD for teachers,
including the work of coaches?
+ Challenges for Designing PD
Wayne, A. J., et al., Experimenting with teacher professional development: Motives and methods. Educational Researcher, 37, no. 8 (November 2008) pp. 469-79.
+Characteristics of Effective PD
1. Intensive2. Sustained3. Job embedded4. Content rich5. Includes active
learning6. Coherent7. Collective
participation
But this is actually too vague a list.
What is the actual dose needed of what type of PD for what effect?
Who should do it?
Where and when should it happen?
+
How does coaching address these effective characteristics?
To what extent does it suffer from the problems identified?
+ Two Competing Forces
Theory of Instruction
Theory of Teacher Change
What exactly is the instructional goal? What do you want teachers to know and do?
How exactly will you support teachers?How will the PD be paced and how will the teachers receive feedback on their progress?
In school-based PD, you have to tackle both of these. However, either one could be wrong and influence thinking about the other one.
+ Our Theory of Instruction
Daily Literature Read-Aloud
Language development, concept development, and vocabulary development must be addressed for all, far in advance of literacy development.
Core Instruction
Children at each grade level deserve grade-level instruction, delivered quickly, competently, and similarly across classrooms. In order to accomplish this, teachers must agree on exactly which choices to make in the core program.
Differentiated Instruction
Informal data can gauge children’s progress, and a simple set of choices (our stair-step model) can make differentiation targeted, fast, and reasonable for teachers to design and deliver.
Intensive Intervention
Children for whom core and differentiation are insufficient need highly specialized additional instruction.
+Our Theory of Teacher Change
Teacher Academies
Large-group PD for teachers builds common language across schools and districts.
Book Studies Extended discussion of ideas deepens understanding and promotes shared responsibility for instructional design.
Lesson Models
Scripted differentiated lessons allow teachers to experience differentiation more quickly and evaluate its effects on their children.
Observation and Feedback
Observation and feedback from a coach provide the differentiated support that increases the quality of instruction.
+
Many other things can go wrong!
The theory of instruction could be inconsistent with the district’s or school’s approach.
Other PD (ambient PD) may interfere with the target PD.
The PD may not be delivered as planned or accepted by the teachers.
+Is our theory of instruction fully tested in your school?
How about our theory of teacher change?
Have any of these challenges been especially salient in your school?
+
We’ll turn now to what others are saying and learning specifically about coaching
Evidence of a Shift Toward CoachingLiteracy Coaching Clearinghouse (IRA/NCTE)
http://www.literacycoachingonline.org
Evidence of a Shift Toward Coaching
NRC 2008 Conference39 papers on coachingCoaching Study Group
Evidence of a Shift Toward CoachingRecent Dissertations
60 since 2000
Evidence of a Shift Toward Coaching
What’s Hot and What’s Not in IRA’s Reading TodayCoaching rated a “Very Hot” topic in
2008200720062005
Not even listed in 2004!
+Some Reasons Literacy Coaching May Have a Future
Ineffectiveness of ad hoc approaches to professional development
Widespread implementation of coaching outside of federal initiatives
IRA Standards for Reading Professionals have added coaching to the responsibilities that reading specialists are expected to assume
+Some Reasons Literacy Coaching May Not Have a FutureExpense of coaching relative to other
forms of professional development
Termination of funding for federal initiatives that have encouraged coaching
Lack of definitive research establishing the efficacy of coaching as a means of improving achievement
+Reasons We Are Hopeful
1.Lack of reasonable alternatives
2.Emerging evidence of effectiveness
+Four Assumptions about Evaluating Coaching
1. The instructional methods teachers employ influence student achievement.
2. Variations in the methods themselves and in the quality of teacher implementation are considerable.
3. Coaching can help teachers implement specific methods and abandon others; coaching can help teachers improve the quality of their work.
4. The effect of coaching can be gauged by changes in student achievement that result from this altered practice.
Coaching affects achievement by fostering teacher knowledge about effective instructional practices and by supporting teachers as they begin to apply those practices in their classrooms.
Coaching can be a cause of increased achievement, but it is a distal cause. In order to meaningfully evaluate the impact of coaching, we must also gauge its impact on the more proximal causes of achievement: expanded teacher knowledge and altered practice. (See Guskey, 2000.)
Taylor (2008) describes the array of factors that complicate the causal inferences from research.
Specification & development of the practice or program
Motivation to implement
Knowledge and skills
Teacher knowledge requires specifying the focus of learning and accounting for the motivation to implement what is learned.
Instructional Leadership Distribution
Alternative InstructionalGuidance(PD, TA,&Peer Collab.)
Larger school, district, state reform effort & policy context
Professional community norms
Supporting resources
Specification & development of the practice or program
Motivation to implement
Knowledge and skills
Other factors also influence teacher knowledge. These include leadership and policy factors, alternative PD, available TA, and other resources.
Instructional Leadership Distribution
Alternative InstructionalGuidance(PD, TA,&Peer Collab.)
Larger school, district, state reform effort & policy context
Professional community norms
Supporting resources
Specification & development of the practice or program
Motivation to implement
Knowledge and skills
These factors also influence the nature of coaching in a particular context.
+ Qualifying Questions about Coaching
1. How do models of coaching direct coaching efforts?
2. To what extent are coaching efforts mediated by characteristics of districts and schools?
3. How can coaches work with administrators to optimize their efforts?
4. How can coaching be differentiated to meet the needs of all teachers?
5. What personal characteristics tend to be shared by effective coaches?
Selection Process
We included studies of coaching and studies that involved coaching.
We included peer-reviewed studies that met two criteria:1. The study provided insight into one or more of our qualifying
questions.
2. The study reported new findings based on quantitative or qualitative data.
We used ERIC and Education Full Text to identify potential studies.
This process resulted in 176 potential studies.
We read abstracts in order to eliminate opinion pieces and articles about peer coaching, technology-based coaching, and sports coaching.
This process left 19 studies for full review.
+Characteristics of Studies Reviewed
19 peer-reviewed articles: 12 case studies of schools, coaches, or
initiatives 2 survey studies to gauge reactions to coaching 5 comparative studies of coaching and non-
coaching or of varieties of coaching
Date range: 1995-2008 18 of 19 published in 2003 or later
+Emerging Themes
1. Models of Coaching
2. School and District Characteristics
3. Working with Administrators
4. Serving the Needs of Teachers
5. Personal Characteristics
+Models of Coaching
A model specifies coaching roles and activities and time apportioned to each
A model defines the focus of coaching
All of these studies have roots in Joyce and Showers’ cycle of theory, demonstration, practice, and feedback.
+A professional support system
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
+Models of Coaching
Models are of two principal kinds:
1. Discretionary models that permit a coach wide latitude in making decisions
(Fearn & Farnan, 2007; Gibson, 2005, 2006; Swinnerton, 2007; Wood, 2007)
+Models of Coaching
2.Up-front models that specify in advance the amount of outside- and inside-the-classroom support (Kinnucan-Welsch et al., 2006; Denton et al., 2007; Neilson et al., 2007; Spencer & Logan, 2003)
Up-front models employ specific tools for observing and relieve the coach of having to negotiate access to teachers.
+What do you think are the
strengths and weaknesses of each of these models?
What model do you actually use?
+ School and District Characteristics
These coaching studies varied by:Level (elementary, middle, high school)Student achievementReceptivity to coaching (Swinnerton,
2007)
+ School and District CharacteristicsTeacher receptivity to coaching varied.
Resistance was higher in reform contexts.
Resistance occurred in both more- (Al Otaiba et al., 2008; Gersten et al., 1995) and less-controlled curriculum contexts (Darby, 2008).
+
In what ways do school and district characteristics influence your effectiveness?
+Working with AdministratorsPrincipals’ views of coaches differ.
Coaches can be part of a leadership team (MacIver et al., 2003; Morgan &
Clonts, 2008).Coaches may act as mentors or
directors (Walpole & Blamey, 2008).
+Working with Administrators
Some coaches report directly to the district, causing potential problems involving their supervision (Swinnerton, 2007; Wood, 2007).
Some principals have encouraged coaches to conduct formative observations to better prepare teachers for summative observations (Nielson et al., 2007).
+
In what ways does your work with administrators influence your effectiveness?
+Serving the Needs of Teachers
Teachers in these studies were often faced with challenges, such as:Being novices (Nielson et al., 2007)Lacking credentials (MacIver et al., 2003)Teaching in low-performing schools (Al
Otaiba et al., 2008; Darby, 2008)Serving struggling adolescent readers
(Denton et al., 2007; Lovett et al., 2008)Combinations of these (Gersten et al.,
1995)
+Serving the Needs of Teachers
Some studies differentiated coaching By newness of teachers (Nielson et al.,
2007)By grade level (Neilson et al., 2007)By content area (at middle and high)
(MacIver et al., 2003)By students served (Gersten et al.,
1995; Menzies et al., 2008)
+Serving the Needs of TeachersNonproductive relationships arose
regardless of the teacher characteristics
Such relationships were caused byCompeting agendasPower strugglesPositioning relative to influence(Gibson, 2005; Rainville & Jones, 2008)
+
What special challenges do your teachers present?
In what ways have you been able to differentiate?
+Personal Characteristics
Trust was a recurring theme.
Coaches had to nurture relationships with both principals and teachers (Swinnerton, 2007).
Some coaches positioned themselves as co-learners, allaying teacher fears (Darby, 2008; Rainville & Jones, 2008).
+Personal Characteristics
Expertise was a recurring theme.
Coaches had to focus teachers on core goals (Gibson, 2005, 2006).
Coaches had to have credibility as teachers (MacIver, 2003).
Differential expertise could lead to teacher resistance (Gersten et al., 1995).
+
What personal characteristics have helped you to coach?
What personal characteristics have presented a challenge?
+Across the Emerging Themes
Some studies addressed more than one of these themes.
None addressed all five.
But you, of course, have to deal with all of them at once!
+Suggestions for Researchers
Make every effort to account for the complex contexts of coaching.
Conduct studies that are multidisciplinary, informed by the literature of leadership, adult learning, and professional development.
Conduct studies that are multi-level. Both qualitative and quantitative approaches provide powerful tools for doing so.
+
Research is the process of going up alleys to see if they are blind.
– Marston Bates
+ Suggestions for Policy Makers
Don’t wait for the definitive “word” on whether coaching “works.”
Consider coaching to be a form of PD that is potentially better–and certainly no worse– than traditional approaches.
Think about how to adapt, not whether to adopt, coaching.
Include coursework on coaching in the preparation of administrators.
Consider coaching endorsements that require, but are distinct from, the reading specialist endorsement.
+Now let’s do some coaching practiceFirst, take a look at the checklist
resources that we’ve gathered. They include a checklist for coaching (which you’ve seen) and also some specific checklists for differentiated instruction and for read-alouds that have been generated by participants in this project.
We’ll watch a series of videos of instruction and of coaching, and discuss them using the checklists.
+Final Bibliography
Al Otaiba, S., Hosp, J. L., Smartt, S., & Dole, J. A. (2008). The challenging role of a reading coach, a cautionary tale. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 18(2), 124-155.
Darby, A. (2008). Teachers' emotions in the reconstruction of professional self-understanding. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1160-1172.
Denton, C. A., Swanson, E. A., & Mathes, P. G. (2007). Assessment-based instructional coaching provided to reading intervention teachers. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 20, 569-590.
Fearn, L., & Farnan, N. (2007). The influence of professional development on young writers' writing performance. Action in Teacher Education, 29(2), 17-28.
+Final Bibliography
Gersten, R., Morvant, M., & Brengelman, S. (1995). Close to the classroom is close to the bone: Coaching as a means to translate research into classroom practice. Exceptional Children, 62, 52-66.
Gibson, S. A. (2005). Developing knowledge of coaching. Issues in Teacher Education, 14(2), 63-74.
Gibson, S. A. (2006). Lesson observation and feedback: The practice of an expert reading coach. Reading Research and Instruction, 45, 295-318.
Kinnucan-Welsch, K., Rosemary, C. A., & Grogan, P. R. (2006). Accountability by design in literacy professional development. Reading Teacher, 59(5), 426-435.
+Final Bibliography
Lovett, M. W., Lacerenza, L., De Palma, M., Benson, N. J., Steinbach, K. A., & Frijters, J. C. (2008). Preparing teachers to remediate reading disabilities in high school: What is needed for effective professional development? Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 24, 1083-1097
MacIver, D. J., Ruby, A., & Balfanz, R. (2003). Removed from the list: A comparative longitudinal case study of a reconstitution-eligible school. Journal of Curriculum and Supervision, 18, 259-289.
Menzies, H. M., Mahdavi, J. N., & Lewis, J. L. (2008). Early intervention in reading: From research to practice. Remedial and Special Education, 29(2), 67-77.
Morgan, D. N., & Clonts, C. M. (2008). School leadership teams: Extending the reach of school-based literacy coaches. Language Arts, 85, 345-353.
+Final Bibliography
Nielsen, D. C., Barry, A. L., & Addison, A. B. (2007). A model of a new-teacher induction program and teacher perceptions of beneficial components. Action in Teacher Education, 28(4), 14-24.
Rainville, K. N., & Jones, S. (2008). Situated identities: Power and positioning in the work of a literacy coach. The Reading Teacher, 61, 440-448.
Spencer, S. S., & Logan, K. R. (2003). Bridging the gap: A school based staff development model that bridges the gap from research to practice. Teacher Education and Special Education, 26(1), 51-62.
Swinnerton, J. (2007). Brokers and boundary crossers in an urban school district: Understanding central-office coaches as instructional leaders. Journal of School Leadership, 17(2), 195-221.
+Final Bibliography
Van Keer, H., & Verhaeghe, J. P. (2005). Comparing two teacher development programs for innovating reading comprehension instruction with regard to teachers' experiences and student outcomes. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 21, 543-562.
Walpole, S., & Blamey, K. L. (2008). Elementary literacy coaches: The reality of dual roles. The Reading Teacher, 62, 222-231.
Wood, D. (2007). Teachers' learning communities: Catalyst for change or a new infrastructure for the status quo? Teachers College Record, 109(3), 699-739.