Date post: | 29-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | ezra-oconnor |
View: | 215 times |
Download: | 0 times |
A Clinical Approach to Coaching and Teaching
The Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI)
Marnie C. GinsbergAmy HedrickLynne Vernon-Feagans
AERA May, 2010
Technology Transfer: From Factory Model to Clinical Model
• From factory model of uniform, whole group instruction
• Toward clinical model of individualized diagnosis and therapy
• Develop high-level, specialist knowledge and skills for the classroom teacher
Current factory model of education• Whole group• Move everyone
along at same pace
• More product than service
Reading Coaches appear to be vulnerable to the same pattern
• Coaches usually don’t spend time with teachers (Reading First study; Kavanagh et al, 2003, pg 46 Implementation– Avg of 28 % of time w teachers
(despite guidelines in 3 of 5 states to spend 60-80% of time w teachers)
– Roller (2006) 15% of time w teachers– 5200 RF coaches (Moss, Jacob,
Boulay, Horst, & Poulos, 2006)
What is the Targeted Reading Intervention?
• Collaborative consultation for K-1 teachers’ professional learning
• Serving struggling K-1 students
• Intensive, diagnostic reading instruction
• Daily • Given by the
classroom teacher• One-on-one small
groups• Rapid reading
growth
Struggling ReaderReading Achievement
TeacherPedagogical Knowledge & Practice
TRI Coach(and On-Site)
Clinical Coaching & Teaching
Instructio
nal Relat
ionship
Struggling ReaderReading AchievementDemonstrated improvements
The Research: A Series of K-1 Randomized Control Trials in Rural
School Districts
• Study 1 – Face-to-Face coaching– N=186 students and 20 teachers
• Study 2 – Webcam coaching– N=364 students and 43 teachers
• Study 3 – Webcam coaching– Largest study N=648 and 75 teachers
9
Research Design
• Pair matched schools – free and reduced lunch, – % minority, – school size, and – Reading First status
• Random assignment of schools• Within each classroom:
• 5 focal children – randomly selected – identified by the teacher as struggling learners
• 5 non-focal children – randomly selected – identified by the teacher as progressing typically
The Research: A Series of K-1 Randomized Control Trials in Rural
School Districts
• Study 1 – Face-to-Face coaching– N=186 students and 20 teachers
• Study 2 – Webcam coaching– N=364 students and 43 teachers
• Study 3 – Webcam coaching– Largest study N=648 and 75 teachers
Race N %
African American 81 43.55
Native American 29 15.59
European American 64 34.41
Other 12 6.45
Gender
Female 88 47.31
Male 98 52.69
Grade
Kindergarten 90 48.39
1st Grade 96 51.61
Study 1: Child Demographics (N = 186)
Mother’s Education N %
8th Grade or less 2 1.07
Some high school 35 18.82
Diploma or GED 47 25.27
Some college or Associates Degree
81 43.55
Bachelors degree 12 6.45
Graduate school 5 2.69
Study 1: Child Demographics (N = 186)
Note: Counts or percents may not add to 100 due to missing data.
Variable N
Race
African American 6
European American 13
Other 1
Gender
Female 20
Age
20-29 5
30-39 2
40-49 5
50-59 6
60+ 2
Certification Level
Elementary Ed. Certified 18
Master’s Degree or Higher 5
Study 1: Teacher Demographics (N = 20)
Vernon-Feagans et al., 2009
The Research: A Series of K-1 Randomized Control Trials in Rural
School Districts
• Study 1 – Face-to-Face coaching– N=186 students and 20 teachers
• Study 2 – Webcam coaching– N=364 students and 43 teachers
• Study 3 – Webcam coaching– Largest study N=648 and 75 teachers
16Amendum et al., 2009
17Amendum et al., 2009
18Amendum et al., 2009
19Amendum et al., 2009
The Research: A Series of K-1 Randomized Control Trials in Rural
School Districts
• Study 1 – Face-to-Face coaching– N=186 students and 20 teachers
• Study 2 – Webcam coaching– N=364 students and 43 teachers
• Study 3 – Webcam coaching– Largest study N=648 and 75 teachers
Growth in PPVT
21
Fall Spring80
85
90
95
100
105
110
Focal Experimental
Focal Control
Non-Focal Experimen-tal
Non-Focal Control
PP
VT
Sta
ndar
d S
core
Time Point
Growth in Word Attack
22
Fall Spring400
410
420
430
440
450
460
470
480
Focal Experimental
Focal Control
Non-Focal Experimental
Non-Focal Control
Wor
d A
ttac
k W
-Sco
re
Time Point
Growth in Letter Word ID
23
Fall Spring340
360
380
400
420
440
460
Focal Experimental
Focal Control
Non-Focal Experimental
Non-Focal Control
Lett
er W
ord
ID W
-Sco
re
Time Point
Growth in Passage Comprehension
24
Fall Spring390
400
410
420
430
440
450
460
470
Focal Experimental
Focal Control
Non-Focal Experimental
Non-Focal Control
Pas
sage
Com
preh
ensi
on W
-Sco
re
Time Point
Growth in Spelling of Sounds
25
Fall Spring440
450
460
470
480
490
500
Focal Experimental
Focal Control
Non-Focal Experimental
Non-Focal Control
Spe
lling
of
Sou
nds
W-S
core
Time Point
Instructio
nal Relat
ionship
Demonstrated improvementsGinsberg, M. C. & Fitzgerald, J. (2009, April). Toward a transactional model of early reading development. In K. C. Gallagher (Chair), Supporting young struggling readers using the Targeted Reading Intervention (TRI): Multiple perspectives on a longitudinal intervention. Symposium conducted at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
Current Study’s Questions ?
?
1. What instructional and emotional supports do coaches provide to classroom teachers?
2. How do these instructional relationships relate to teacher change?
Technologically-Mediated• Web cam video conferencing• Email• Text chat• Video conference• Phone• Websites
Web-cam for TRI Sessions
Web-cam for Team Meetings
• TRI resulted in student growth• Coaches usually don’t spend time with teachers (Reading
First study; Kavanagh et al, 2003, pg 46 Implementation– Avg of 28 % of time w teachers (despite guidelines in 3 of 5
states to spend 60-80% of time w teachers)– Roller (2006) 15% of time w teachers– 5200 RF coaches (Moss, Jacob, Boulay, Horst, & Poulos, 2006)
• “Training (no matter how well done) by itself is an ineffective implementation method” (Fixsen et al., 2005, p. 70).
• Student-focused coaching
• Since the first edition of this book was printed, peer coaching appears to have turned sharply to peer supervision in many applications, which does pull those forms of coaching toward an evaluative stance. Peer supervision and evaluation, as well as principal and supervisor evaluation seem to be normative in the literature (see, for example, Garmston, 1987).
– Joyce, Bruce. Student Achievement Through Staff Development.– Alexandria, VA, USA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum
Development, 2002. p 90.– http://site.ebrary.com/lib/uncch/Doc?id=10044806&ppg=101
– Copyright ? 2002. Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development. All rights reserved.
• Gladwell practice effects• Guskey practice->student outcomes-> teacher change• Joyce and Showers: Effective training includes: knowledge theory and
rationale, modeling, practice, and peer coaching
• How much practice is needed depends, of course, on the complexity of the skill. To bring a teaching model of medium complexity under control requires 20 or 25 trials in the classroom over a period of about 8– 10 weeks. Simpler skills, or those more similar to previously developed ones, will require less practice to develop and consolidate than those that are more complex or different from the teacher’s current repertoire.
• Joyce, Bruce. Student Achievement Through Staff Development.• Alexandria, VA, USA: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development,
2002. p 74.• http://site.ebrary.com/lib/uncch/Doc?id=10044806&ppg=85
• Copyright ? 2002. Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development. All rights reserved.
Guided Participation (Rogoff, 1990)
• The novice guides the expert into full participation• Providing bridges to solve new problems
– Social referencing– Supplying Words
• Structuring Situations• Transferring responsibility
– Scaffolding involves (Wood, Bruner, and Ross, 1976)• Recruitment to the task• Reduction in possible errors by simplifying the task• Maintenance of attention to the task• Accentuation of critical features• Control of frustration• Demonstration
– Sensitive adjustment of support– “Upping the ante”
In the context of the TRI, how do coaches guide classroom teachers in the process of
change?
TRI Coaches…
• Affirm• Elaborate• Tie to common models and terms• Monitor implementation• Do not evaluate
Data Collected
Summer Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 10-28 1:1 session
12-09 1:1 session
9-8Team Meeting
10-2Team Meeting
12-4 Team Meeting
10-30 Team Meeting
12-18 Team Meeting
6-30 email
10-10 email
11-6 email
12-12 email
7-2 email 10-28 email
Jan. Feb. March April May 1-6 1:1 session
2-17 1:1 session
3-3 1:1 session
4-1 1:1 session
1-20 1:1 session
4-7 1:1 session
1-15 Team Meeting
2-19 Team Meeting
3-26 Team Meeting
4-23 Team Meeting
1-29 Team Meeting
2-18 email (2)
3-3 -- 3-5email
4-2 email
1-6 email 2-19 email 3-8 – 3-9email
1-22 email 2-20 email
Kathy’s Available Data
Data Collected
Summer Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. 10-11:1 session
11-191:1 session
12-9 1:1 session
10-141:1 session
10-28 1:1 session
9-17Team Meeting
10-1Team Meeting
11-19Team Meeting
12-10Team Meeting
10-8Team Meeting
10-29Team Meeting
9-19 email 10-8 email 11-11 email
12-11 email
9-23 email 10-9 email 11-11 email
9-30 email 10-15 email
9-30 email 10-17 email
10-17 email
Brenda’s Available Data
Data CollectedJan. Feb. March April May 1-81:1 session
2-51:1 session
4-61:1 session
1-191:1 session
2-161:1 session
4-201:1 session
1-21Team Meeting
3-25Team Meeting
4-15Team Meeting
Brenda’s Available Data
Technology-Mediated
Classroom teacher as specialist
Ongoing Professional Learning
One-on-one instruction
Diagnostic Thinking
Collaborative Consultation
The Clinical Model
of theTargeted Reading Intervention
Targeted Reading Intervention Benefits
Struggling Readers
• Academic achievement
• Motivational improvements
• Behavioral improvements
Classroom Teachers
• More specialized knowledge about literacy instruction
• Increased self-efficacy with struggling readers
• Spreading effect to rest of class