�ǿմ�ý

In the final blog of this series, we review the seven key questions we posed around coaching in Project CLEAR. These facets of professional development are shown to be the most impactful. Each of the essential components is summarized below:

Key Idea 1: What does it mean to be content-focused and job-embedded?

The coach in a building or district is usually more experienced and brings another set of eyes to problem-solve a situation. Classroom coaches can be grade-level or content-area peer teachers and are often close to the context the teacher is examining (Campbell & Malkus, 2011). Teachers in Project CLEAR engage in professional development delivered by the coach, and is content-focused and job-embedded, as well as context-specific. 

Key Idea 2: What does it mean to incorporate active learning utilizing adult learning theory?

Research has shown that adults bring varied experiences to new learning and need to have experiences that inform the teaching services they will be providing (Trotter, 2006). Reflection is a key part of the process of inquiry and learning in these adult contexts and has been proven over decades to impact student learning. In contrast, the most common models of generic professional development that cover a broad topic or wide grade-level span are not as effective.

Key Idea 3: Why is it essential to support collaboration in job-embedded contexts?

In the professional development provided under Project CLEAR, collaboration is at the heart of the work. Teachers observe live or video-recorded lessons, have collaborative discussions while observing, and reflect as a team to problem-solve to improve teacher-student interactions. We are collaborating, not evaluating or criticizing teaching practices or delivering the same generic guidance. Administrators and classroom teachers join us and are guided to take a collaborative stance. This collaborative approach is different than a coach visiting a teacher, but the key concepts are applicable in all contexts.

Key Idea 4: Why use models and modeling of effective practice?

Essential to the preparation of coaches and embedded in the one-on-one intervention program during professional development is the use of models and modeling effective practice, which is a core principle of Project CLEAR. Just like an open-door policy, we operate on an open lesson practice. The idea of “behind the glass” or observing lessons while they are occurring and participating in collaborative discussions about each student’s response to intervention are essential preparations for a coach. Using models and modeling is as true for coaching novice and experienced teachers as it is when interacting with students.

Examples of modeling can include:

• live or video lessons of teaching
• observations of student learning
• lesson records, along with samples of student assessments, records of reading, and writing
• materials such as manipulatives, carefully selected books for each individual, and a student writing journal

Key Idea 5: Why provide coaching and expert support?

We have data from many studies over the last two decades that consistently show that teachers who received coaching, especially early literacy teachers, had larger gains in student performance than those who weren’t coached. These data focused on coaching as the variable that made the difference (Powell, Diamond, Burchinal, & Koehler, 2010). One common structure for providing expert support is one-on-one coaching in the context of a teacher’s classroom; this may occur in person or with remote mentors using technology.  Individuals with a variety of experiences can fill the role of the coach. In Project CLEAR, Teacher Leaders coach teachers, teachers coach peers, and teachers coach students. 

Key Idea 6: Why offers opportunities for feedback and reflection

In the true sense of what coaching means, supportive and constructive feedback occurs during the teaching at all levels. Teachers are guided to closely observe students' responses to instruction during teaching and learning interactions to adjust instruction in the moment. Reflective practice is a central tenet of responsive teaching. Feedback and reflection are both powerful tools found in effective professional development and are critical components of adult learning theory (Knowles, 1984). Feedback and reflection often happen during mentoring and coaching but are not limited to these spaces. While feedback and reflection are two distinct practices, they weave together to help teachers move thoughtfully toward the expert visions of practice that they may have learned about or seen modeled during the interactive professional development session.

Key Idea 7: Why sustain professional development over time? 

Studies show that effective professional development that has a positive impact includes teacher participation in an initial, intensive workshop, followed by the application of learning in the classroom. Additional professional development days or coaching sessions that extend and reinforce the teacher’s learning are beneficial (Allen, et al., 2013). One advantage of this model may be the opportunity for teachers to continue their learning outside the formal professional development meetings, whether in their classrooms, in collaboration with colleagues, or through other informal means. 

An invitation: Opportunities to engage in Project CLEAR initiatives

In Project CLEAR, teachers and coaches engage in multiple opportunities for educators to receive feedback in a program targeting children’s language and literacy development in both English and Spanish. Three asynchronous courses are a new offering in Project CLEAR. These focus on 1) Gathering Data During Focused Learning Groups, 2) Expanding English Vocabulary in any Student’s Language, and 3) Writing and Sketching in Response to Reading.  Further information about Project CLEAR can be found at (insert website URL). Training is available for coaches and teachers as well as administrators who work in English and/or Spanish languages. Information about all of these options is on the website. We invite you to visit a class and watch both the teaching and the coaching in action. Classes are offered in-person and virtually across the state.

References:

Allen, J. P., Hafen, C. A., Gregory, A. C., Mikami, A. Y., & Pianta, R. (2015). Enhancing secondary school instruction and student achievement: Replication and extension of the My Teaching Partner-Secondary intervention. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 8(4), 475–489.

Campbell, P. F., & Malkus, N. N. (2011). The impact of elementary mathematics coaches on student achievement. The Elementary School Journal 111(3), 430–454; Landry, S.H., Anthony, J. L., Swank, P. R., & Monseque-Bailey, P. (2009). Effectiveness of comprehensive professional development for teachers of at-risk preschoolers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(2), 448–465.

Knowles, M. (1984). Andragogy in action. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Powell, D. R., Diamond, K. E., Burchinal, M. R., & Koehler, M. J. (2010). Effects of an early literacy professional development intervention on Head Start teachers and children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 299–312.

Trotter, Y. D. (2006). Adult learning theories: Impacting professional development programs. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 72(2), 8.

For Further Reading:

Baker, J. & Brown, K. (2019), The sweet spot of coaching: Where teachers and administrators find common ground while development developing a comprehensive literacy system. Journal of Reading Recovery, 18(2). 27-36.

Bernhardt, V. (2017). Data Analysis for Continuous School Improvement, 4th Ed. New York: Routledge.

Costa, A., and Garmston, R., Hayes, C., and Ellison, J. (2015). Cognitive coaching: Developing self-directed leaders and learners. Christopher- Gordon. Publishers.

Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., Gardner, M. (2017). Effective Teacher Professional Development. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.

Forbes, S. & Dorn, J. (2015). Marie Clay’s search for effective literacy instruction: A contribution to Reading Recovery and small-group teaching. Journal of Reading Recovery, 14(2), 28-32.

Greenleaf, C. L., Hanson, T. L., Rosen, R., Boscardin, D. K., Herman, J., Schneider, S. A., Madden, S., & Jones, B. (2011). Integrating literacy and science in biology: Teaching and learning impacts of reading apprenticeship professional development. American Educational Research Journal, 48(3), 647–717.

Kaye, E., & Matczuk, A., (2021, Spring). Professional learning: Constructing understanding. Journal of Reading Recovery, 21(2), 29-30.

Podolsky, A., Darling-Hammond, L., Doss, C., & Reardon, S. (2019). California’s positive outliers: Districts beating the odds. Palo Alto, CA: Learning Policy Institute.

Schwartz, R. M., Bates, C. C., Klein, A., Morgan, D., & Williams, J. (2021). The role of observation in advancing the Science of Reading and instruction. Journal of Reading Recovery, 21(1), 47-55.

Showers, B., & Joyce, B. (1996). The evolution of peer coaching. Educational Leadership, 53, 12–16.