Characteristics and Consequences of Different

Modes of Expert Coaching with Pre-kindergarten Teachers

Collaborators

• Douglas Powell, PI, Purdue

• Karen Diamond, Co-PI, Purdue

• Matthew Koehler, Instructional Technology, Michigan State

• Margaret Burchinal, Methodologist, U. of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Research Aim

• Examine effects of two different methods of providing expert coaching to teachers on instructional practices

• Goal of intervention is to improve Head Start classroom and teacher supports for literacy and language development, and children’s language and literacy skills

Expert Coaching

• Increasingly used as a professional development strategy

• Includes components recommended in the in-service teacher education literature:– guided implementation of research-based

knowledge in classroom practices – individualized delivery– immediate feedback, including analysis of

teaching

Role of Technology

• Technology is an emerging resource in early childhood professional development

• Viewed as a potentially economical alternative to on-site coaching, particularly for supporting teachers in geographically remote locations

• Research on effects of technologically-delivered expert coaching is limited

Two Forms of Technology Developed in Current Project

• Video review tool – Supports critique of videotaped teaching

practices submitted by teachers– Used by coach to divide videotaped teaching

sample into segments– Coach provides constructive feedback and

suggestions on each segment of instruction– Teacher views critique on split screen:

segments on left, coach comments on right

Two Forms of Technology Developed in Current Project (cont.)

• Case-based hypermedia resource– 16 cases on how teachers can improve children’s

early literacy outcomes– Each case is comprised of

• video clips of research-based practices plus text that highlights key practice elements

• practitioner-oriented articles on case topic• references to research and other resources• links to related cases in hypermedia resource

– Links to cases are embedded in coach comments to teachers

Research Design

• 84 Head Start classrooms in 29 centers randomly assigned to fall or to spring intervention semester

• Classrooms assigned to spring intervention semester served as control classrooms in fall semester

• Within each intervention semester, classrooms randomly assigned to on-site or to remote coaching condition

Research Design (cont.)

• Teacher, classroom, and child outcome data collected before and after intervention semester plus follow up (one-semester post intervention) in fall semester intervention group

• Teacher/classroom measure: ELLCO

• Child measures: PPVT, WJ-LW, letter naming, blending

Intervention

• Two-day workshop prior to intervention semester• Remote coaching condition

– Critique of teacher-submitted videotape of instruction (M=22 mins) plus hypermedia resource

• On-site coaching condition– Critique of observed instruction (M=105 mins)

provided in one-on-one consultation (M=32 mins) as part of visit to classroom

• Approximately twice monthly contact in each condition

Sample (2005-2006 cohort)

• Head Start classrooms serving urban, small city, rural communities

• Teachers (n = 51)– 82% associate’s or bachelor’s degree– Median of 3.0 years in current position– No statistically significant background differences

between semester or condition

• Children (n = 470)– 27% Latino, 37% African American– 4 years of age by December 31

Classroom Instruction Outcomes

• Intervention and intervention X time differences on ELLCO overall and language-literacy instruction: Both intervention groups had greater gains than control

• Effect sizes were substantial (approximately d = 1.0)

Child Outcomes

• Children in intervention groups scored higher and made greater gains on measures of letter and word identification, naming letters, and blending than children in control group

• Effect sizes were moderate (approximately d=.23)

• No differences in outcomes between the two intervention conditions

Feedback and Suggestions by Coaching Condition: Amount

• Preliminary analyses of coaching sessions (n=60) in randomly-selected classrooms (n=8). (Coaches were assigned to both on-site and remote conditions.)

• Coaches provided feedback/suggestions on more topics in remote than in on-site condition.

• Coaches offered about twice as many feedback statements and suggestions in remote than in on-site condition.

Amount of Feedback/Suggestions Per Contact

Remote

M (SD)

On-site

M (SD)

Topics 9 (3.2) 5 (1.5)

Feedback Statements 5 (2.5) 2 (0.7)

Suggestions 6 (2.6) 3 (1.6)

Feedback and Suggestions by Coaching Condition: Content

• Higher percentage of coach comments in: – on-site related to literacy materials– remote related to individualization of teaching

practices.

• The percentage of coach comments related to literacy teaching practices for all children was similar across the two coaching conditions.

Content of Feedback/Suggestions Per Session

Remote On-site

Literacy Materials 20% 32%

Teaching Practices: All Children 69% 66%

Teaching Practices: Individual Children

11% 2%

Rethinking Our Starting Point

• Original premise: A technologically-mediated method of coaching may be an effective alternative to the dominant (on-site) method of coaching.

• Revised premise: Technologically-mediated and on-site methods of coaching may provide distinctive, complementary contributions to improvements in teacher quality.

• Supported by grant award #R305M040167 from the Institute of Education Sciences to Purdue University.

• For further information: powelld@purdue.edu or kdiamond@purdue.edu