Literacy clinical teacher preparation that is transformative
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 132

Literacy Clinical Teacher Preparation that is Transformative PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 78 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Literacy Clinical Teacher Preparation that is Transformative. Literacy Research Association Dallas, TX December 4, 2013. Four Distinct Research Studies. Transfer & Transformation of Teachers in Clinic: Longitudinal review of the 30 Cases across 6 years.  Collective Case Study Approach

Download Presentation

Literacy Clinical Teacher Preparation that is Transformative

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Literacy clinical teacher preparation that is transformative

Literacy Clinical Teacher Preparation that is Transformative

Literacy Research Association

Dallas, TX

December 4, 2013


Four distinct research studies

Four Distinct Research Studies

  • Transfer & Transformation of Teachers in Clinic: Longitudinal review of the 30 Cases across 6 years. Collective Case Study Approach

  • Video for Assessment: Use of video clips to analyze students’ reading performance by experts, graduate students and novices.

    Formative Design Study of Assessment Protocols & Rubrics

  • Video for Teacher Reflection: Analysis of video tasks across sites

    Design-based in Year #1; This year: Cross-Case Analysis

  • iPad Use in Clinics

    Mixed methods (qualitative & quantitative) across five sites.


Summarizing across sites

SUMMARIZING ACROSS SITES

  • Teachers take what they learn in Reading Clinic into their classrooms/schools.

  • Analyzing videos of children’s reading, with guidance from rubrics, is helpful in assessing teachers’ knowledge of literacy processes.

  • Using video with specific directions, debriefing, and collaborative inquiry deepens teachers’ reflections.

  • Technology use by teachers is becoming more pedagogically powerful in Reading Clinics.


Literacy clinic cases

Literacy Clinic cases

Evan Ortlieb, Monash University (Australia)

Julie Gray, University of Virginia (Virginia)

Tammy Milby, University of Richmond (Virginia)

Barbara Laster, Towson University (Maryland)

Stephen Sargeant, Northeastern State University (Oklahoma)

Literacy Research Association

Dallas, TX

December 4, 2013


History of the cases project

History of the cases Project

  • 2006-2007

    • Interview study of 28 graduates

    • Identified 5 areas of clinic transfer (instruction, assessment, coaching, leadership, technology)

  • 2009-2010

    • In-depth interviews of nine clinic graduates

  • 2010-2011

    • Add nine additional graduates, including two new sites

    • New projects based on transfer/transformation findings

  • 2011-2012

    • Add five additional graduates, continuation of work on

      “Transfer” and “Transformation”

    • Research Team Examines:

      • Habits of Mind

      • Clinical Experiences that Matter & Recommendations

      • Disjunctures

  • 2012-2013

    • Three additional cases added, review of all 30 cases in entirety


Purpose rationale

Purpose/Rationale

  • Literacy Clinic: Research to practice-

    • Explore ways in which clinic/lab graduates transfer clinic/lab practices to schools

    • Explore ways in which graduates take on literacy leadership roles in schools

    • Understand how the clinic/literacy lab experience supports literacy leadership

    • Investigate current instructional & assessment practices transferred including national trends

    • Understand clinic/lab role in multiple paths to leadership


Context theory

Context & theory

  • Roles of literacy professionals changing (Bean, et al., 2002)

  • Coaching and leadership in the forefront (Walpole & McKenna, 2004)

  • Little research on preparation of literacy professionals (Anders, et al., 2000)

  • Growing condemnation of teacher preparation (Darling-Hammond, 2000, 2006; Duncan, 2009)

  • Leadership is a key component of educational reform (Middlebrooks, 2004)

  • Teachers need support to navigate mandates, enhance skills as literacy leaders/coaches, & reflect on best practices (Ortlieb & Cheeks, 2013)

  • Research needed on literacy professional preparation that leads to both effective teaching and effective leadership

  • Training vs. Teaching (Hoffman & Pearson, 2000)

  • Guided practice opportunities are essential


Research questions

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

  • 1.) What transfers from the literacy lab to educational contexts?

  • 2.) How have trends, leadership, and disjunctures changed across time?


Methodology

Methodology

  • Identical methodology across new & existing sites

    • Maryland (1 site)

    • Virginia (2 sites)

      Each researcher followed a 3 phase process:

  • Phase 1

    • Initial screening interview

    • Collection of artifact to represent practice (graduate chosen)

    • Screening observation

  • Phase 2

    • In-depth interview

    • Targeted observation

  • Phase 3

    • Follow-up/Retrospective interview


Data analysis

DATA ANALYSIS

  • 3 Phases using Constant Comparative Method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990)

  • Phase 1: Identified instances where graduates focused on

    • Aspects of clinic/lab that supported their development (Clinic Experience)

    • Current practices in classrooms that drew from participation in clinic (Transfer, Transformation)

  • Phase 2: Grouped instances from Phase 1 into like categories within clinic experience and transfer; created codes for categories

  • Phase 3: Confirm/reconfirm categories (Miles & Huberman, 1994); collapsed into broader themes

  • Member checking


2012 2013 findings

2012-2013 Findings :

Text Selection/Text Types

Program Fidelity versus Student Needs

Beginning of Common Core Implementation

Assessments

Instructional Insights

Confidence

Flexibility & Masterful Reflection


Participant quotes

Participant quotes:

Amy, Reading Specialist, Maryland

  • They took Bud, Not Buddy—which is a6th grade text—and bumped it down to 4th grade. It seems as though they are just taking what was a higher grade curriculum and putting it down to a lower grade—and then they call that “rigor.”

  • My idea is to have our Guided Reading as the heart of our reading program here. Then, we will have accessible texts for all students on their instructional level. Because these CCSS texts are very frustrating for these students, so how are they progressing if they are frustrated?


Participant quotes1

Participant quotes:

Paula, Classroom Teacher, Grade 2, Virginia

  • As a beginning teacher last year, I felt totally overwhelmed. School let out at 2:00pm, but I never left before 6:00pm. Our school was on the “warned list” due to our performance and someone from outside [the district representative] was always coming in. I survived because of collaboration. There was this revolving door of new initiatives all the time. After the tutoring class, I knew I needed support from others who ‘understood’ and I reached out to the Title 1 Teacher & Reading Specialist.

  • For our curriculum, we implemented a balanced approach to literacy. We do whole group, small groups (guided reading & words study), word study and writing. I felt comfy with this format due to the approach we learned in clinic.


Participant quotes2

Participant quotes:

Miranda, Reading Specialist, Virginia

  • I decided to leave the classroom and move into a leadership role because of the mentoring and confidence I gained [from clinic]. We learned every type of assessment and intervention… Tutoring students helped me look at reading with diverse learners [Lengthy discussion naming different assessments learned]. It helps me to know how to do more rich assessments with students now.

  • I was always very interested in ESL students… our class allowed me to work one-on-one tutoring a student whose home language is Burmese and I also worked with a student with a disability. Both clinic experiences prepared me for how to work with small groups and prepared me for the variety of needs and challenges I face now as a Reading Specialist in this urban setting. After the clinic, I decided to go ahead and complete my ESL endorsement.


Longitudinal review of the 30 cases across 6 years collective case study approach

Longitudinal review of the 30 Cases across 6 years, Collective Case Study Approach

  • Approach:

    • Seek IRB approval

    • Define design (Merriam (1988); Miles & Huberman (1994) & Barone (2004):

      • Particularistic:

        • Cases are all focused on ‘Literacy Clinic’ transfer categories determined through previously research* (instruction, assessment, coaching, leadership, technology).

        • Descriptive: triangulation provides rich description of common trends

      • Heuristic: continued study of existing data will enrich understanding of what transfers from clinic across time

      • Inductive: Data drives the understandings which are emerging

    • Examine existing “cases” data & findings to complete an in-depth analysis of trends (categories, coding). Seek cases containing information-rich informants.

    • Check for accuracy & misconceptions by consulting with key informants and/or researchers.

      • *Derived from interviews of 28 additional clinic graduates


Summarizing across sites1

SUMMARIZING ACROSS SITES

Does clinic make a difference compared to other coursework approaches? Collective review of clinic graduates report that the literacy clinic helped them in similar ways:

  • Student-centered, differentiated instruction

  • More of a focus on strengths & needs

  • Variety of “assessment practices” incorporated in the classroom

  • Collaboration & Sharing with others

  • Coaching/leadership opportunities

  • Working through disjuncture/policy changes/mandates successfully or deciding to change paths

  • Advocacy & implementation for research-based practices

  • Developing deep and thoughtful beliefs about literacy

  • More “masterful” teaching approach, habit of mind

    • (reflective practice, asking why?, seeking excellence


In conclusion

In Conclusion:

“[Clinic]really puts it all together when you focus on one student—use data and plan intervention that matches—a real eye opener. Now when I analyze data I can see the big picture…Writing the practicum report actually…showed how to triangulate the data, helped me write a more cohesive report, helped me look at individuals as well as the classroom. It helped me recognize trends, organize—prioritize instruction and made me more confident so when I write a report or meet with a teacher, I really know what I am talking about and can now explain it in “real words” and get down to what learning needs to take place.”


Literacy clinical teacher preparation that is transformative

Video Protocols for the assessment of Teacher Knowledge and Skill in Literacy Assessment and Instruction

Literacy Research Association

Dallas, TX

December 4, 2013


Team members

Team Members


Purpose rationale1

Purpose/Rationale

  • Develop an authentic assessment to measure reading teacher/specialist candidates’ abilities in assessment and planning instruction

  • Provide a tool aligned to instructional pedagogy

  • Enhance multiple-choice format state certification exams


Video for assessing teacher knowledge and skills research questions

Video for Assessing Teacher Knowledge and Skills: RESEARCH QUESTIONS

  • How can literacy faculty develop a protocol that can be used across the nation, when multiple forms and analyses of assessment are used?

  • How can we authentically assess teachers/specialist candidates’ ability to analyze student reading?

  • How can we develop a reliable and valid rubric as a tool to evaluate teacher knowledge and skill in assessing videos of a student’s reading?


Experimental design formative research

Experimental Design:Formative Research

  • Intended to improve instructional theories, models, practices, and processes (Bradley & Reinking, 2011; Brown, A. 1992).

  • Focuses on the characteristics of Reinking and Bradley’s (2007) formative design:

  • Established educational goals based in theory

  • Implement an intervention to achieve goals (protocol)

  • Collect data to identify factors enhancing or inhibiting achieving goal

  • Modify intervention based on unanticipated factors

  • Note how intervention changed

  • Determine positive and negative unanticipated effects of the intervention (to be determined)


Methodology video development

Methodology:

Video Development

  • Video protocol Instructions

  • Authentic text

  • Introduce the passage

  • Student reads the passage

  • Request oral retelling

  • Probe hesitant reteller

  • No published assessment text


Hungry animals text

Hungry Animals Text

Reading Recovery Level 11

Middle First Grade


Graduate student video response

Graduate Student Video Response


Declaration of independence amazing days of abby hayes

Declaration of Independence: Amazing Days of Abby Hayes

4.3 GE

Lexile 510

Guided Reading Level Q.


Methodology video response protocol

Methodology

Video Response Protocol


Methodology1

Methodology

Mixed Methods

Qualitative Methods

  • Rubric: Researcher Developed

    • Researcher “answer keys” completed with comparison of responses of all six independent responses

  • Benchmarking: All six researchers used rubric on one set of teacher papers

    • Rubric adjusted to reflect experience in application to the teacher papers

    • Rubric “tested” by partners on one set of papers

    • Rubric again revised

  • Revision: Teams of two researchers used rubric to score each teacher’s paper independently

  • Discrepancies resolved


Methodology continued

Methodology-Continued

Mixed Methods

  • Quantitative Methods

    • Descriptive data presented by class sets and combined data set

    • Correlations of subscores and totals in combined data set

  • Data consolidation


Participants contexts of sites

Participants (Contexts of Sites)

  • Southeastern United States (1Case)

    • Administered at beginning of the semester

    • Undergraduate students in senior year

    • In ⅘ sequence of reading endorsed courses

  • Central United States (2 Cases)

    • Administered at the beginning of the semester

    • Graduate students at the beginning of the program- some with no knowledge of IRI’s and Running Records

    • Graduate students during first clinical course

  • Western United States (4 Cases)

    • Administered at the beginning and end of the term (pre- and post-assessments)

    • Undergraduate students in a Literacy Lab course

    • Had completed two other literacy courses including IRIs and running records


Current protocol rubric

Current Protocol Rubric


Current protocol rubric continued

Current Protocol Rubric Continued


Data consolidation histogram n 106

Data ConsolidationHistogram N=106


Data analysis case 1 southeastern united states

Data Analysis-Case 1Southeastern United States


Data analysis case 2 central ha early program

Data Analysis-Case 2CENTRALHA EARLY Program


Data analysis case 3 central ha beginning clinical

Data Analysis-Case 3Central HA BEGINNING CLINICAL


Data analysis case 4 western ah pre

Data Analysis-Case 4 Western AH Pre


Data analysis case 5 western ah post

Data Analysis-Case 5 Western AH Post


Data analysis case 6 western ha pre

Data Analysis-Case 6Western HA Pre


Data analysis case 7 western ah post

Data Analysis-Case 7 Western AH Post


Conclusions

Conclusions

  • Creating a reliable and useful rubric requires a commitment of significant time

    • Inter-rater reliability

    • Trial applications to candidate responses

    • Multiple revisions

  • Individual rubrics must be created for each video sample

  • Current data resulted in “normal distributions” of scores

  • Given this sort of development it may be possible to take this approach to assessment “to scale”

    • Latent semantic analysis could be used for initial machine scoring

    • Readings of individual protocols may be necessary


Next steps

Next Steps

  • Performance task of this nature is very promising

  • Capturing good quality videos requires careful planning and recording

  • Collect 4 new videos with revised protocol (primary, intermediate, middle and high school)

  • Develop specific rubrics for each

  • Administer it as a pre-test and post test for undergraduate and graduate students


References

References

Bradley, B., & Reinking, D. (2011). Revisiting the connection between research and practice using formative and design experiments. In N. Duke & M. Mallette (Eds.), Literacy research methodologies handbook (2nd ed.). (pp. 188-212). New York, NY: The Guildford Press.

Brown, A. L. (1992). Design Experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2(2), 141--178.

Creswell, J. W. & Plano Clark, V. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research, 3rd Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Greene, J., Caracelli, V., & Graham, W. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-methods evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255-274.

Johnson, R. B. & Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come. Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14-26.

Onwuegbuzie, A. & Mallette, M. (2011). Mixed research in literacy research. In N. Duke & M. Mallette, (Eds.). Literacy research methodologies handbook, (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Guildford Press.

Reinking, D., & Bradley, B. A. (2008). On formative and design experiments: Approaches to language and literacy research. New York: Teachers College Press.


Videotaped analysis for teacher reflection

Videotaped Analysis for Teacher Reflection

Literacy Research Association

Dallas, TX

December 4, 2013


Participants

Participants

  • Terry Deeney, University of Rhode Island

  • Cheryl Dozier, University at Albany

  • ZubeyirCoban, University at Albany

  • Barb Laster, Towson University

  • Jeanne Cobb, Coastal Carolina University

  • Marcie Ellerbe, Coastal Carolina University

  • Debbie Gurvitz, National Louis University

  • Anne McGill-Franzen, University of Tennessee

  • Natalia Ward, University of Tennessee

  • Jennifer Lubke, University of Tennessee

  • Mary McVee, University at Buffalo

  • Ashlee Ebert Campbell, University at Buffalo

  • Liz Tynen, University at Buffalo

  • Erica Bowers, University of California at Fullerton


Theoretical framing

Theoretical Framing

  • Dewey (1933) reflection is “active, persistent, and careful consideration of belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it ends” (p. 9)

  • Schon (1983) analyzing and acting purposefully on a situation with the goal of changing it; developmental process

    • Reflection on action

    • Reflection in action

    • Reciprocal reflection in action

    • Renewed interest in using video as a reflective tool (Grossman, 2005)


Video reflection as a tool for improving teaching

Video reflection as a tool for improving teaching

  • Research suggests video reflection can be an effective strategy to help teachers improve their teaching (Penny & Coe, 2004; Tripp & Rich, 2012)

  • In our transfer/transformation study (Deeney et al, 2011) clinic participants named video reflection as a powerful tool for improving their practice

  • Studies vary on ways in which reflection was structured [Tripp & Rich, 2012(a); 2012 (b)]


Literacy clinical teacher preparation that is transformative

Dimensions of Video Analysis (Tripp & Rich, 2012, p. 681)


Purpose rationale2

Purpose/Rationale

  • Systematic look at how videotaped reflection tasks are structured in clinics/labs across the country

  • Analysis of collegial and instructor feedback across the country

  • A beginning analysis of how clinic participants respond to video reflection tasks


Research questions1

Research Questions

  • In what ways do clinics across the country have teachers use video to reflect on their own teaching?

  • What practices do clinics/labs across the country use to facilitate reflection on videos of one’s own teaching?

  • How has video-facilitated reflection affected teachers’ understanding of their own teaching?


Methodology2

Methodology

Seven sites in six states

  • New York (2 sites)

  • South Carolina (1 site, 2 instructors)

  • Tennessee

  • Rhode Island

  • Maryland

  • Illinois


Data collection

Data Collection

  • Sites posted data to a common Google site

    Video reflection assignment/task directions

    Video reflection rubrics or scoring guides

    Some sites also posted student responses to video reflection assignment


Data analysis1

Data Analysis

  • Initial qualitative analysis of assignment tasks across sites to identify commonalities and differences

    • What did clinic/lab reflection tasks ask students to do?

    • What format did reflection take?

    • What kind of feedback/collaboration was involved?

  • Compared to dimensions of reflection identified in Tripp & Rich (2012)

    • Posted analysis to Google site

    • Site participants reviewed and revised as needed

  • Identified additional information needed for subsequent analysis

    • Participants provided information on Google site


Dimensions of clinic lab video reflection process

Dimensions of clinic/Lab Video Reflection Process


Dimensions of reflection tasks

Dimensions of Reflection Tasks

How do clinics/labs structure video reflection tasks?


Dimensions of guiding reflection

Dimensions of Guiding Reflection

What types of analysis do clinics/labs use to guide teacher reflection?

Less structuredMore structured

Analysis included

  • Language

  • Engagement

  • Scaffolding

  • Materials used/chosen

  • Responsiveness

  • Time


Guiding questions prompts used across sites

Guiding Questions/Prompts Used Across Sites

  • Analyzing language: What types of questions do I ask (open ended, closed)?

  • Does my language/Do my prompts encourage student independence?

  • What is going well? How do I know (evidence)? What would I change/do differently? Why? What do I need to think about in the future?

  • How much time is spend reading? writing? on word study?

  • What types of prompts do I use primarily? Am I over-scaffolding?

  • Who is doing the talking? How do I honor partially correct responses?

  • Am I encouraging critical thinking?

  • Is the text appropriate/at the appropriate level?

  • Talk about the level of student engagement/teacher engagement

  • What did I learn about wait time?

  • Why was this instruction needed?

  • What explicit feedback am I providing?

  • What I learn from my language choices?

  • Talk about the productiveness of your responses and your decision making


Video length

Video Length

What portion of the teaching session is videotaped and analyzed by teachers?

Short segment Whole Session Portions of Multiple Sessions

multiple reflections of single segment

multiple reflections of multiple segments

Single reflection of single segment


Number of reflections

Number of Reflections

  • How many video reflections do teachers complete?

    16


Individual collaborative reflection

Individual/Collaborative Reflection

In what ways do clinics/labs facilitate reflection?

Occasional Always

One colleague several colleagues whole class

In class/person Online (e.g. Google community)

Oral conversations Written conversations Oral/written/online

No viewing guide Student-constructed viewing guide

Instructor not part of collaborative reflection Instructor facilitates


Facilitating colleague feedback

Facilitating Colleague Feedback

Occasional Always

Guiding questions/prompts across sites

  • Three things you noticed about your colleague’s teaching/interactions/positive feedback

  • Three things your colleague could have done differently/suggestions on ways to improve practice/constructive criticism

  • How your colleague’s instruction connects to your own student

  • How your colleague’s instruction connects to research/course readings

  • Prompts/Language your colleague used

  • Where should this lesson go from here?


Instructor feedback responses

Instructor Feedback/Responses

Do instructors provide feedback?

Never SometimesAlways

What types of feedback/responses are given by instructors?

Oral Written Both

Feedback on teaching or reflection Feedback on teaching and reflection


Conclusions1

Conclusions

Through video reflection, teachers were asked to slow down the process of their teaching and provide written and/or oral feedback of

  • their own teaching practices

  • colleagues’ teaching

  • student engagement


Teacher responses to videotaped tasks

Teacher Responses to Videotaped Tasks

Through videotaped reflections and viewings, teachers

  • Described multiple ways to approach teaching and learning (What went well? What would you do differently? Why?)

  • Named instructional practices and language choices of colleagues

  • Analyzed the intersections of teacher and student engagement

  • Identified practices for transfer to classroom or tutoring sessions


Next steps1

Next Steps

  • Does/In what ways does transcription improve the quality of teacher reflection? How much is too much?

  • What are the essential elements in reflective practice? (tensions)

  • Considering contexts

    • online/on campus

    • short summer sessions, full semester

    • placement across the program/clinic

    • transfer

      • Reflecting on instructional practices

      • collegial reflection (PLCs)


Videotaped analysis for teacher reflection1

Videotaped Analysis for Teacher Reflection

Literacy Research Association

Dallas, TX

December 4, 2013


Participants1

Participants

  • Terry Deeney, University of Rhode Island

  • Cheryl Dozier, University at Albany

  • ZubeyirCoban, University at Albany

  • Barb Laster, Towson University

  • Jeanne Cobb, Coastal Carolina University

  • Marcie Ellerbe, Coastal Carolina University

  • Debbie Gurvitz, National Louis University

  • Anne McGill-Franzen, University of Tennessee

  • Natalia Ward, University of Tennessee

  • Jennifer Lubke, University of Tennessee

  • Mary McVee, University at Buffalo

  • Ashlee Ebert Campbell, University at Buffalo

  • Liz Tynen, University at Buffalo

  • Erica Bowers, University of California at Fullerton


Theoretical framing1

Theoretical Framing

  • Dewey (1933) reflection is “active, persistent, and careful consideration of belief or supposed form of knowledge in the light of the grounds that support it and the further conclusions to which it ends” (p. 9)

  • Schon (1983) analyzing and acting purposefully on a situation with the goal of changing it; developmental process

    • Reflection on action

    • Reflection in action

    • Reciprocal reflection in action

    • Renewed interest in using video as a reflective tool (Grossman, 2005)


Video reflection as a tool for improving teaching1

Video reflection as a tool for improving teaching

  • Research suggests video reflection can be an effective strategy to help teachers improve their teaching (Penny & Coe, 2004; Tripp & Rich, 2012)

  • In our transfer/transformation study (Deeney et al, 2011) clinic participants named video reflection as a powerful tool for improving their practice

  • Studies vary on ways in which reflection was structured [Tripp & Rich, 2012(a); 2012 (b)]


Literacy clinical teacher preparation that is transformative

Dimensions of Video Analysis (Tripp & Rich, 2012, p. 681)


Purpose rationale3

Purpose/Rationale

  • Systematic look at how videotaped reflection tasks are structured in clinics/labs across the country

  • Analysis of collegial and instructor feedback across the country

  • A beginning analysis of how clinic participants respond to video reflection tasks


Research questions2

Research Questions

  • In what ways do clinics across the country have teachers use video to reflect on their own teaching?

  • What practices do clinics/labs across the country use to facilitate reflection on videos of one’s own teaching?

  • How has video-facilitated reflection affected teachers’ understanding of their own teaching?


Methodology3

Methodology

Seven sites in six states

  • New York (2 sites)

  • South Carolina (1 site, 2 instructors)

  • Tennessee

  • Rhode Island

  • Maryland

  • Illinois


Data collection1

Data Collection

  • Sites posted data to a common Google site

    Video reflection assignment/task directions

    Video reflection rubrics or scoring guides

    Some sites also posted student responses to video reflection assignment


Data analysis2

Data Analysis

  • Initial qualitative analysis of assignment tasks across sites to identify commonalities and differences

    • What did clinic/lab reflection tasks ask students to do?

    • What format did reflection take?

    • What kind of feedback/collaboration was involved?

  • Compared to dimensions of reflection identified in Tripp & Rich (2012)

    • Posted analysis to Google site

    • Site participants reviewed and revised as needed

  • Identified additional information needed for subsequent analysis

    • Participants provided information on Google site


Dimensions of clinic lab video reflection process1

Dimensions of clinic/Lab Video Reflection Process


Dimensions of reflection tasks1

Dimensions of Reflection Tasks

How do clinics/labs structure video reflection tasks?


Dimensions of guiding reflection1

Dimensions of Guiding Reflection

What types of analysis do clinics/labs use to guide teacher reflection?

Less structuredMore structured

Analysis included

  • Language

  • Engagement

  • Scaffolding

  • Materials used/chosen

  • Responsiveness

  • Time


Guiding questions prompts used across sites1

Guiding Questions/Prompts Used Across Sites

  • Analyzing language: What types of questions do I ask (open ended, closed)?

  • Does my language/Do my prompts encourage student independence?

  • What is going well? How do I know (evidence)? What would I change/do differently? Why? What do I need to think about in the future?

  • How much time is spend reading? writing? on word study?

  • What types of prompts do I use primarily? Am I over-scaffolding?

  • Who is doing the talking? How do I honor partially correct responses?

  • Am I encouraging critical thinking?

  • Is the text appropriate/at the appropriate level?

  • Talk about the level of student engagement/teacher engagement

  • What did I learn about wait time?

  • Why was this instruction needed?

  • What explicit feedback am I providing?

  • What I learn from my language choices?

  • Talk about the productiveness of your responses and your decision making


Video length1

Video Length

What portion of the teaching session is videotaped and analyzed by teachers?

Short segment Whole Session Portions of Multiple Sessions

multiple reflections of single segment

multiple reflections of multiple segments

Single reflection of single segment


Number of reflections1

Number of Reflections

  • How many video reflections do teachers complete?

    16


Individual collaborative reflection1

Individual/Collaborative Reflection

In what ways do clinics/labs facilitate reflection?

Occasional Always

One colleague several colleagues whole class

In class/person Online (e.g. Google community)

Oral conversations Written conversations Oral/written/online

No viewing guide Student-constructed viewing guide

Instructor not part of collaborative reflection Instructor facilitates


Facilitating colleague feedback1

Facilitating Colleague Feedback

Occasional Always

Guiding questions/prompts across sites

  • Three things you noticed about your colleague’s teaching/interactions/positive feedback

  • Three things your colleague could have done differently/suggestions on ways to improve practice/constructive criticism

  • How your colleague’s instruction connects to your own student

  • How your colleague’s instruction connects to research/course readings

  • Prompts/Language your colleague used

  • Where should this lesson go from here?


Instructor feedback responses1

Instructor Feedback/Responses

Do instructors provide feedback?

Never SometimesAlways

What types of feedback/responses are given by instructors?

Oral Written Both

Feedback on teaching or reflection Feedback on teaching and reflection


Conclusions2

Conclusions

Through video reflection, teachers were asked to slow down the process of their teaching and provide written and/or oral feedback of

  • their own teaching practices

  • colleagues’ teaching

  • student engagement


Teacher responses to videotaped tasks1

Teacher Responses to Videotaped Tasks

Through videotaped reflections and viewings, teachers

  • Described multiple ways to approach teaching and learning (What went well? What would you do differently? Why?)

  • Named instructional practices and language choices of colleagues

  • Analyzed the intersections of teacher and student engagement

  • Identified practices for transfer to classroom or tutoring sessions


Next steps2

Next Steps

  • Does/In what ways does transcription improve the quality of teacher reflection? How much is too much?

  • What are the essential elements in reflective practice? (tensions)

  • Considering contexts

    • online/on campus

    • short summer sessions, full semester

    • placement across the program/clinic

    • transfer

      • Reflecting on instructional practices

      • collegial reflection (PLCs)


Use of ipads in reading clinics

Use of iPadsin Reading Clinics

Literacy Research Association

Dallas, TX

December 4, 2013


Researchers

Researchers

  • Judith Wilson, University of Nebraska-Lincoln (NE)

  • Guy Trainer, University of Nebraska-Lincoln (NE)

  • Lee Ann Tysseling, Boise State University (ID)

  • Melissa Stinnett, Western Illinois University (IL)

  • Gilda Martinez-Alba, Towson University (MD)

  • B. P. Laster, Towson University (MD)

  • Shelly Huggins, Towson University (MD)

  • Margie Curwen, Chapman University (CA)

  • Todd Cherner, Coastal Carolina University (SC)

  • Mary Applegate, St. Joseph’s College (PA)


Purpose rationale4

Purpose/Rationale

To explore how teachers/tutors—after given training-- use iPads in multiple reading clinics across the nation. Understand whether iPads are used for drill-and-practice activities or for more powerful instructional activities.


Research questions3

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

  • How do teachers/tutors in Reading Clinic transform their practice by using iPads?

  • What is the impact of training about iPad applications on teacher use?

  • In what ways do teachers and students in reading clinics use iPads?


Research design mixed methods

Research Design: Mixed Methods

  • Similar data collection across sites in five states:

    • University of Nebraska (2 different clinics)

    • Towson (Maryland)

    • Boise State (Idaho)

    • Western Illinois

    • Coastal Carolina (South Carolina)

  • Identical pre-& post survey of teachers/tutors; some observations; collected artifacts (e.g., client reports; sampling during clinic)


Data analysis mixed methods

Data Analysis: Mixed Methods

  • Quantitative Analysis of Pre- & Post Survey

    • Answers given numerical values

    • Means calculated

    • ANOVA for determining GROWTH

      • ES=Effect Size

    • Excel sheets that generated graphs for analyzing specific advantages or disadvantages of using iPads

    • Tallies of which apps used


Data analysis mixed methods1

Data Analysis: Mixed Methods

  • Qualitative Data Analysis of uses/purposes

    Coded & analyzed all observations, artifacts, and reports of apps used data in phases: constant comparative method (Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Strauss & Corbin, 1990).

    • Phase #1 Site researchers independently coded purpose of iPad use of their own data

    • Phase #2: Shared across researchers using Google Site. Re-coded by non-site researchers in categories of use and emerging themes—and checked with site directors.

    • Phase #3: Several researchers focused on macro-levels of CATEGORIES OF TECHNOLOGY USE, novice-established use, other emerging themes.

    • Cross-checking (inter-rater) at every stage.


Findings the ipad story across sites

Findings: The iPad Story Across Sites

  • AcrossfiveClinics, 51 recommended apps and other uses of the iPads were formally presented.

  • Although some professors were using the iPads for the first time themselves, professors carefully thought through apps to model, as well as created themes.

    At all Clinics…

  • Critical examination of apps via rubrics, charts, online review sites, and/or through discussion


Literacy clinical teacher preparation that is transformative

A Rubric to Evaluate Apps:

  • http://kathyschrock.net/pdf/ipad_app_rubric.pdf

    Places to Research Apps:

  • http://www.appitic.com/

  • http://www.uen.org/apps4edu/

    Searchable App Review Site developed by Todd Cherner

  • appedreview.org


The impact of training on the use of apps

The Impact of Training on the Use of Apps

Coastal Carolina – An “App”etizers activity used every other week to discuss pros/cons of different apps, uses in the classroom; the professor used rubrics to help teachers critique apps.

Towson – Presentations by Advanced Clinicians – six key apps & other uses of the iPads at the beginning of Clinic. Strong correlation between the apps presented & the apps used. Teachers used the iPad for assessment, motivation, instruction.

Western Illinois – An Apple representative – provided a demonstration of different apps on week six.

University of Nebraska - iPads themes – such as phonemic awareness, decoding/spelling, books, vocabulary, etc. were created. Teachers were encouraged to use the iPads during their warm up and cool down. Teachers filled out a chart to provide the name of an app reviewed, its description, and how it could be used for instruction.

Overall – Presenters provided a formalized way to help teachers think critically about apps and their uses for instruction.


How the ipads were used

How the iPads Were Used

  • Apps were modeled by the professors or advanced clinicians; key apps were used at each site

    • A total of 259 apps used by 53 teachers across sites

  • Teachers/tutors used apps with their clients, and showcased them to each other

  • Teachers who already had iPads were comfortable using them, especially if they had experience with iPads within their school setting

  • iPads were used with clients for skill and drill, reward/play, assessment, and for reading and writing instruction


The story some conclusions

The Story: Some Conclusions

  • Teachers needed to be willing to take risks, and try apps they were not familiar with

    • Those who were willing to take risks were motivated to continue trying more apps

  • A few professors commented that they would like to learn about more apps to demonstrate how to match an app with instruction needed

  • Overall – the professors noted motivation related to using apps for instruction, both by the teachers and the clients; and, they are pleased to continue building their knowledge base about existing and upcoming apps to provide meaningful instruction


Question 1 dispositions towards ipad use

Question #1Dispositions Towards iPad Use


Ipad use overall

iPad Use Overall

N=9

ES=1.0

N=21

ES=.9

N=19

ES=.4

N=17

ES=.3

N=10

ES=.-.2

4=I love it, 3= I like it, 2= It’s OK I guess


Ipad personal use

iPad Personal Use

N=21

ES=.8

N=19

ES=.3

N=17

ES=.1

4=I love it, 3= I like it, 2= It’s OK I guess


Ipad use professionally

iPad Use Professionally

N=21

ES=1.2

N=19

ES=.5

N=17

ES=.2

4=I love it, 3= I like it, 2= It’s OK I guess


Ipad use in practicum

iPad Use in Practicum

N=21

ES=1.3

N=19

ES=.4

N=17

ES=.3

4=I love it, 3= I like it, 2= It’s OK I guess


Findings pre and post surveys question 1

Findings: Pre- and Post SurveysQuestion #1

How confident are you about using the iPad use?

ILLINOIS-for PERSONAL USE

4/15 (27%) felt More confident using the iPad by the end of the study.

2/15 (15%) felt LESS confident using the iPad

10/15 (67%) felt the SAME Amount of high confidence throughout the study

1/15 (7%) felt the same amount of low confidence throughout the study.


Findings pre and post surveys question 11

Findings: Pre- and Post SurveysQuestion #1

How confident are you about using the iPad?

ILLINOIS-for Professional use?

3/15 (20%) felt More confident using the iPad by the end of the study.

1/15 (7%) felt LESS confident using the iPad

10/15 (67%) felt the SAME Amount of high confidence throughout the study

2/15 (13%) felt the same amount of low confidence throughout the study.

1/15 (7%) felt this question is not applicable.


Findings pre and post surveys question 12

Findings: Pre- and Post SurveysQuestion #1

How confident are you about using the iPad?

ILLINOIS-for Practicum use?

6/15 (40%) felt More confident using the iPad by the end of the study.

1/15 (7%) felt LESS confident using the iPad

8/15 (53%) felt the SAME Amount of high confidence throughout the study

2/15 (15%) felt the same amount of low confidence throughout the study.


Question 2 high points advantages

Question #2: High Points/Advantages


Questions 2 3 advantages disadvantages

QuestionS #2 & #3: Advantages/Disadvantages

  • Dramatic increases from pre to post in the recognition of

    • the pedagogical potential of the iPAD

    • the potential for motivating and engaging students.

  • Decreases in negative observations about the familiarity with the physical features of the iPAD

  • Even in the positive observations, it seemed that there was less attention paid to the iPAD as a physical tool and greater attention to its broader uses.


Q 2 high points combined sites

Q 2: High Points Combined Sites

OP = Operation, Mechanics, Physical Features/Positive

NA = Not applicable

PU = Pedagogical Uses or Applications

PA = Personal Uses or Applications

M = User Motivation or Engagement

PR = Professional Uses (non-pedagogical)


Q2 high points combined sites

Q2: High Points—Combined Sites

OP = Operation, Mechanics, Physical Features/Positive

NA = Not applicable

PU = Pedagogical Uses or Applications

PA = Personal Uses or Applications

M = User Motivation or Engagement

PR = Professional Uses (non-pedagogical)


Q 2 high points western illinois pre post

Q 2: High Points—Western IllinoisPre- Post

OP = Operation, Mechanics, Physical Features/Positive

NA = Not applicable

PU = Pedagogical Uses or Applications

PA = Personal Uses or Applications

M = User Motivation or Engagement

PR = Professional Uses (non-pedagogical)


Q 2 high points towson pre post

Q 2: High Points—Towson Pre- Post

OP = Operation, Mechanics, Physical Features/Positive

NA = Not applicable

PU = Pedagogical Uses or Applications

PA = Personal Uses or Applications

M = User Motivation or Engagement

PR = Professional Uses (non-pedagogical)


Q 2 high points coastal carolina pre post

Q 2: High Points—Coastal CarolinaPre- Post

OP = Operation, Mechanics, Physical Features/Positive

NA = Not applicable

PU = Pedagogical Uses or Applications

PA = Personal Uses or Applications

M = User Motivation or Engagement

PR = Professional Uses (non-pedagogical)


Q 2 high points boise state pre post

Q 2: High Points—Boise state Pre- Post

OP = Operation, Mechanics, Physical Features/Positive

NA = Not applicable

PU = Pedagogical Uses or Applications

PA = Personal Uses or Applications

M = User Motivation or Engagement

PR = Professional Uses (non-pedagogical)


Question 3 low points disadvantages

Question #3: Low points/Disadvantages


Findings q3 what are the low points in using ipads

Findings Q3? What are the low points in using iPads?


Low points by category

Low Points by Category


Question 4 uses of the ipad

Question #4 Uses of the iPad


Literacy clinical teacher preparation that is transformative

Across Sites Question #4: What Applications/Websites/Programs Have You Used on the iPad? Pre-tutoring Responses

  • 76 teachers across five locations reported prior use of 126 distinct apps/websites/programs on the iPad

  • The application/websites/programs were cited as “used” by a teacher 190 times on the survey

  • The overall mean of apps used per teacher was 2.5; means by location were UNL (1.1), Boise State (1.4), Towson (1.76), Western Illinois (3.82), and Coastal Carolina (5.59)

  • The most common response was “no experience with the iPad” from 24 teachers.

  • The next most common responses were: “games” (10), Educreation (10), Facebook (8), Safari (8), email (6), Dictionary (6), iTunes (5), Edmodo (5), Pinterest (4), Popplet (4), Who Am I? (4)

  • Of those responses, Educreation, Popplet, and Who Am I? would most likely be used with students


Literacy clinical teacher preparation that is transformative

Across Sites Question #4: What Applications/Websites/Programs Have You Used on the iPad? Post-tutoring Responses

  • 76 teachers across five location reported use of 229 distinct apps/websites/programs on the iPad

  • The applications/websites/programs were cited as “used” by a teacher 447 times on the survey

  • The overall mean of apps used per teacher was 5.88; means by location were Boise State (2.4), Western Illinois (5.18), Towson (5.24), UNL (6.47), and Coastal Carolina (11.33)

  • The most common responses were: Opposites (23), AudioNote (21), Dictionary (20), iCard Sort (17), Kid Doodle (15), Popplet (15), Who Am I? (11), Chicktionary (10), Educreation (10), Quizlet (8), Camera (7), Edmodo (7), Safari (7), Clock/timer (7)

  • Teacher descriptions of use show that all of these apps and tools were used with students


Literacy clinical teacher preparation that is transformative

Across Sites Question #4: What Applications/Websites/Programs Have You Used on the iPad? Post-tutoring Responses

  • Apps use identified by faculty categorized into Writing, Spelling, Phonics, Reading, Vocabulary, Fluency, & Teacher Support

  • Writing: 4 writing pads (as, Kid Doodle), 2 multipage electronic books (Educreation, Story Bird), 4 support tools (Notes, Google Images, Dragon Dictation, Trading Cards)

  • Spelling: 1 word sorting (iCard Sort), 6 spelling games (as, Chicktionary, Word Zombie)

  • Phonics: 6 games and/or practice apps (as, ABC Magic, Phonics Awareness, Phonics TicTacToe)

  • Reading: 6 writing pads or multipage apps used for comprehension activities/reader’s response (Popplet, Educreation, Trading Cards, Graphic Organizer, Idea Sketch, Quizlet); 3 support tools for comprehension (Safari, Google Images, Camera for videotaping story parts); 1 Inferencing app (Who Am I?), 1 reading material app (Storia)


Literacy clinical teacher preparation that is transformative

Across Sites Question #4: What Applications/Websites/Programs Have You Used on the iPad? Post-tutoring Responses (cont’d)

  • Vocabulary: 5 engaging with words apps (Opposites, Mad Libs, Word to Word, iCard Sort, word Dynamo), 2 reference tools (Dictionary, Visual Thesaurus), 1 multipage app used as a vocabulary notebook (Moleskin Virtual Notebook)

  • Fluency: 3 audio recorders (AudioNote, Dragon Dictation, QuickVoice), 1 timer (Clock/timer)

  • Teacher Support: Edmodo, Drop Box, Power Teacher, 3 Ring, Class Dojo, Facebook


Literacy clinical teacher preparation that is transformative

Across Sites Question #4: What Applications/Websites/Programs Have You Used on the iPad? Comparing Pre and Post-tutoring Responses

  • The teachers gained knowledge of 103 new apps.

  • Teachers gained experience in using apps at more than twice the pre-tutoring level (prior use mean of 2.5 apps per teacher, post-tutoring mean of 5.88 apps per teacher)

  • Teachers shifted from use of primarily personal apps (Facebook) to educational apps (Opposites, AudioNote, Dictionary, iCard Sort)

  • Teachers used apps across all parts of the curriculum (and, in some cases, for assessment) and used apps flexibly in different instructional contexts.


Macro analysis how teachers use the ipad

Macro-Analysis: How Teachers Use the iPad


Apps to what purpose

Apps: To what purpose

Previous categories:

  • Technologies for literacy assessment

  • Technologies to replace the instructor

  • Technology to support teacher-directed instruction

  • Assistive technology

  • Student-directed independent uses of technology

  • Possibilities and challenges of the emerging new literacies

Dubert, L  & Laster, B. (2011) “Technology in Practice: Educators Trained in Reading Clinics/Literacy Labs.   Journal of Reading Education 36(2).


Limitations

Limitations

  • Self-report data

  • Difficult to determine extent of use

  • Teachers may have “mis-named” apps

  • Implementation may vary widely

    • Teacher/student use not determined

    • Innovative uses possible (e.g. Educreations)

  • Context may have limited implementation or type of use

    • Some preloaded apps

    • Instructor modeling/emphasis

    • Availability if iPad (take home, own, stay in Lab/Clinic)

  • Survey questions may not have been completely “clear” (reliable)

    • e.g. instructor knows teachers used apps that were not mentioned (DropBox, BlackBoard, Video Camera)


Data 324 apps

Data (324 apps)


Macro level conclusions

Macro-Level Conclusions

  • Drill and practice dominates

    • May be an “easy” out or reflect cultural practices

  • Making progress in “Agentive” uses (Student-directed Independent Uses of Technology and Possibilities and Challenges of Emerging Technologies)

    • Content Creation/Video/Audio

    • Research/writing activities

  • Technologies to “Replace the Instructor” still popular

    • Multiple Sites

  • Much less evidence of assessment apps


Final conclusions ipads in six clinics

Final Conclusions: iPads in six clinics


Summarizing across sites2

SUMMARIZING ACROSS SITES

  • Sites vary in quantity & quality of use of iPads, especially as they progress from novice to more established approaches to using this technology.

  • A correlation between initial presentation of the uses of iPads and how the teachers/tutors used them.

    • Teachers who were willing to take risks were motivated to continue trying more apps.

  • Even without connectivity, iPads had helpful pedagogial uses.

  • We see clear progress in “agentive” uses, although drill-and-practice uses stills dominates.


Summarizing across sites3

SUMMARIZING ACROSS SITES

Teachers in Reading Clinic

  • gained knowledge of more than 100 new apps.

  • gained experience in using apps at more than twice the pre-tutoring level.

  • shifted from use of primarily personal apps to educational apps.

  • used apps flexibly in different instructional contexts.


  • Login