Implementation and Effectiveness of the Content-Focused Coaching® Program

Presentation Transcript

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

•Little evidence showsthat coaching influences instruction and student learning

Research shows that quality of coaching varies significantly across schools

Standards for coach qualifications often not followed (IRA, 2004; 2006)
What it means to be a “coach” is variably defined (Duessen et al, 2007)
Coaching resources used in a diffuse way

Content Focused Coaching

Intensive literacy-coach professional development program developed by the Institute for Learning (IFL)

3 days a month over the academic year led by IFL fellows

Goals of the coach training

Develop coaching skills
Build subject matter knowledge and pedagogical skills to assist Ts to enact more rigorous reading comprehension lessons

Improving quality of class discussions about texts (Questioning the Author, Beck & McKeown, 2006)

Content-Focused Coaching®

• Coaches work with

IFL Trainers 3x month

• Principals and District staff attend

District

Coaches work with Ts:

• Weekly meetings in grade-level teams

• Monthly meeting individually, modeling in classrooms, observing and co-teaching

School

Classroom

Ts enact QtA lessons

with Ss in their

classroom

Study Design

• Three year study (2006-2009)

• Urban district in Texas

91% of students eligible for free-lunch
80% Hispanic, 15% African American
40% English language learners

•Lowest-performing schools randomly assigned to treatment (n=15) and comparison (n=14) conditions

Data Sources

•Data sources include:

Teacher surveys (baseline and end of each study year)

Frequency of participation in literacy coaching
Satisfaction with coaching
Content of the coaching activities

Coach and principal interviews (once a year)
Classroom observations (fall and spring of each study year)

Quality of text discussions
Rigor of text discussions and lesson activities

Student test scores

Degrees of Reading Power assessment (fall and spring of each study year)
Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (spring of each year)

Overview of the Talk

Part 1: Influence of a school’s social resources on the implementation of the Content-Focused Coaching (CFC) program (Y1)

Principal leadership
Norms for the professional community
Teacher experience

Part 2: Effectiveness of the CFC program (Y1 and Y2):

Ts participation in coaching
Observed text discussions
Ss reading achievement (all Ss; ELLs)

Part 1: Influence of a School’s Social Resources on Teachers’ Coaching Participation

Analyses

• Regression analyses based on T survey responses (N=96)

Social resources assessed at baseline

Principal leadership
Norms for the professional community
Professional experience

Teachers’ coaching participation assessed at the end of Y1

Overall frequency of Ts’ participation in coaching
Ts perception of the usefulness of coaching
Content of coaching activities

Qualitative analyses of CFC coach interviews

Principal Leadership is Key

•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 Leadership

•Principal’s willingness to share leadership predicted:

Greater frequency of T participation in coaching (p<.05 )
Greater emphasisof coaching received by Ts

Planning and reflecting on instruction (p<.05 )
Lesson enactment (p<.05)

Stronger T agreementthat the coaching they received had improved their practice (p<.01 )

Mechanisms by Which Principals Influence Coaches’ Work

•Interviews with CFC coaches indicated that principals positively influenced their work by:

Actively supporting and participating in the CFC program

The day I came, the P introduced me to the faculty. She told them that CFC was vital for us to change our ways of thinking and that it was going to take some time…and that we would be very patient and not despair. They would get it and everybody is learning. She was learning…I was in a learner-student role and they were gonna be in the same role.
CFC isn’t the Ps agenda. It’s happening at her school and she knows that if she tries to block it she will get into trouble, but she is not going to pave the way for me. If the Ts are reluctant or hesitant she is not going to help.

Publicly identifying the coach as a resource for Ts

Referring Ts to coach for literacy related questions
Holding faculty-wide PD sessions, inviting coach to serve on leadership committees, watching the coach model lessons in Ts classrooms

Allowing coaches to manage their own schedules

Ps negative relationship with Ts impeded coaches’ work

Norms of the Professional Community

•Strong existing culture of T collaboration predicted:

Less emphasis of coaching received by Ts on

Planning and reflecting on instruction (p<.05 )
Lesson enactment (p<.05 )

Stronger T disagreementthat the coaching they received had improved their practice (p<.05 )

Mechanisms by Which Ts Professional Community Influence Coaches’ Work

•Interviews with CFC coaches suggested that:

In a few schools Ts were organized against coaching (n=2)

[This school] has a reputation to oust their coach within a year or two. They don’t like coaches at this campus so the longest a coach has been here is two years and then they’re out, they’re gone…

In a few schools with strong professional communities, reform goals were not aligned with CFC goals (n=3)
In some schools with a very weak professional culture, Ts were interested in working with coaches to alleviate their isolation (n=5)
Contrary pattern of collaborative professional community supporting coaching also found in some schools (n=5)

Teachers’ Years of Experience Teaching

•Less experienced teachers participated more frequently in coaching (p<.05 )

New Ts described by coaches as more receptive to coaching than more veteran teachers (n=10)

New teachers are really positive and appreciative of getting extra support.
I’m just another person coming into her school trying to save her school…She’s seen my kind so many times before she’s sick of us. So I don’t expect her to be my best buddy anytime soon.

Part 2: Effectiveness of the CFC Program (Y1 and 2)

•What is the influence of the CFC program on teachers’ coaching experiences, reading comprehension instruction and students’ reading achievement?

Participants

• Students (N=1754)

4th and 5th grade
91% eligible for free or reduced price lunch
80% Hispanic; 15% African American
40% English language learners (ELLs)

Teachers (N=98)

7 years average teaching experience
38% heldmaster’s degree
56% taught in both English and Spanish

Analyses

•Hierarchical linear growth models:

Amount of coaching and focus of coaching received by Ts

T surveys (baseline and end of each year)

T belief that coaching helped improve their practice

T surveys (baseline and end of each year)

Quality of instruction

Observed text discussions (fall and spring of each year)

Student achievement

Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (end of each year)
Degrees of Reading Power Assessment (fall and spring of each year)

Effect of CFC on T Participation in Coaching

•Ts in the CFC schools compared to Ts in comparison schoolsby the end of Y2

Participated more frequently in coaching (p=.000, ES=.89)
More strongly agreed that the coaching they received was useful to them for improving their practice (p=.000, ES=.95)

Figure 1: Coach Observed Teacher for 30 Minutes

Effect of CFC on Content of Coaching Activities

•Ts in the CFC schools compared to Ts in comparison schools participated in coaching activities at the end of Y2 that more strongly emphasized

Building knowledge of the theory underlying effective reading instruction (p=.016, ES=.70)
Planning and reflecting on instruction (p=.002, ES=.94)
Lesson enactment (p=.001, ES=.91)
Differentiating instruction (p=.007, ES=.76)

Observations of Classroom Discussions

•T and Ss participation

Percent of Ss participating in the discussion
T connects Ss contributions
Ss connect to each others’ contributions
T presses Ss to explain their answers using evidence from the text
Ss use evidence from the text to explain their answers

Rigor of the lesson

Quality (‘grist’) of text discussed
Ss opportunity to analyze and interpret a text

Effect of CFC on Observed Instruction

•T and Ss participation observed in CFC schools compared to comparison schools

Greater proportion of Ss participating in the discussion(p=.005, ES=.35)
T more often connects Ss contributions (p=.003, ES=.46)
Ss more often connect to each others’ contributions (p=.025, ES=.38)
T more often presses Ss to explain their answers using evidence (p=.049, ES=.33)
Ss more often use evidence from the text to explain their answers(p=.006, ES=.43)

Effect of CFC on Observed Instruction

Rigor of the lesson observed in CFC schools compared to comparison schools

Higher quality (‘grist’) of the text discussed (p=.012, ES=.52)
More opportunities for Ss to analyze and interpret a text (p=.011, ES=.39)

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.

Effect of CFC on Student Achievement

Average school-level achievement for students in CFC schools compared to students in comparison schools

Higher average gain in reading achievement for ELL students (p=.013, ES=.61)
No significant effect on the average level of reading achievement for all students

Dimensions of Instruction Associated with

Improved Achievement for ELL Students

Higher average reading achievement of ELL students in CFC schools associated with:

Greater proportion of Ss participating in the discussion (p=.000, ES=.85)
Ss more often use evidence from a text to support their answers (p=.026, ES=.33)
Higher quality of the text discussed (p=.008, ES=.45)

Recent NAEP Findings (2007)

ELLs are the fastest growing subgroup in the U.S.
The reading achievement of ELL students is very low

7.5% proficient
70% below-basic

Summary of Findings

Contextual factors in schools significantly influenced the initial implementation of CFC

Principal leadership played a key supportive role
Less experienced Ts were more receptive to coaching
Stronger existing professional norms negatively impacted some of the coaches’ work with Ts