Loading in 2 Seconds...
Loading in 2 Seconds...
Implementation and Effectiveness of the Content-Focused Coaching® Program. LINDSAY CLARE MATSUMURA HELEN GARNIER BRIAN JUNKER LAUREN RESNICK DONNA DIPRIMA BICKEL March 4, 2010 Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness. Context for the Study. • Literacy coaching is widespread
LINDSAY CLARE MATSUMURA
DONNA DIPRIMA BICKEL
March 4, 2010
Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness
•Literacy coaching is widespread
•Little evidence showsthat coaching influences instruction and student learning
• Coaches work with
IFL Trainers 3x month
• Principals and District staff attend
Coaches work with Ts:
• Weekly meetings in grade-level teams
• Monthly meeting individually, modeling in classrooms, observing and co-teaching
Ts enact QtA lessons
with Ss in their
• Three year study (2006-2009)
• Urban district in Texas
•Lowest-performing schools randomly assigned to treatment (n=15) and comparison (n=14) conditions
•Data sources include:
• Regression analyses based on T survey responses (N=96)
•You take the principals to the [CFC] trainings, but honestly, it still comes down to if the principal doesn’t really want the coach to do these things, doesn’t value the coach doing these things, isn’t leading the way so the coach can follow, it just isn’t going to happen.
•Principal’s willingness to share leadership predicted:
•Interviews with CFC coaches indicated that principals positively influenced their work by:
•Strong existing culture of T collaboration predicted:
•Interviews with CFC coaches suggested that:
•Less experienced teachers participated more frequently in coaching (p<.05 )
•What is the influence of the CFC program on teachers’ coaching experiences, reading comprehension instruction and students’ reading achievement?
• Students (N=1754)
•Hierarchical linear growth models:
•Ts in the CFC schools compared to Ts in comparison schoolsby the end of Y2
•Ts in the CFC schools compared to Ts in comparison schools participated in coaching activities at the end of Y2 that more strongly emphasized
•T and Ss participation
•T and Ss participation observed in CFC schools compared to comparison schools
Figure 2. Observation Ratings of Quality of Participation in Class Text Discussions,Fall 2006 to Spring 2008 (Cohort 1, N=98)Note. Significant change over time indicated in graph by **p<.01.Within-time comparisons indicated the following differences:Fall 2006, Spring 2007: No differences detected. Fall 2007, Spring 2008: CFC>Comparison, p<.01.
Figure 3. Observation Ratings of Rigor of Class Text Discussions,
Fall 2006 to Spring 2008 (Cohort 1, N=98)Note. Significant change over time indicated in graph by *p<.05.Within-time comparisons indicated the following differences:Fall 2006, Spring 2007, Spring 2008: No differences detected. Fall 2007: CFC>Comparison, p<.01.
Improved Achievement for ELL Students
For further information about the study please contact me at: