®®

The Impact of Professional Development Models and Strategies on

Teacher Practice and Student Achievement in Early Reading

The Impact of Professional Development Models and Strategies on

Teacher Practice and Student Achievement in Early Reading

IES Research Conference

Michael S. Garet

June 8, 2009

IES Research Conference

Michael S. Garet

June 8, 2009

®® 2

PD Impact Study

The 5-year study was supported by IES

The report is available on the IES website

®® 3

Principal StaffMichael S. Garet (project director) AIR

Fred Doolittle (co project director) MDRCStephanie Cronen (deputy project director) AIR

Meredith Ludwig, AIRTerry Salinger, AIRMarian Eaton, AIR

Anja Kurki, AIRHoward Bloom, MDRC

Rob Ivry, MDRC

®® 4

Partner Organizations

American Institutes for Research (AIR)www.air.org

MDRCwww.mdrc.org

REDA International, Inc.www.redainternational.com

Sopris Westwww.sopriswest.com

COREwww.corelearn.com

®®

Introduction

Test of two intensive, content-focused PD interventions that represent “best practices” to improve 2nd grade reading achievement

Examines impact on ultimate outcome (student achievement) and intermediate outcomes (teacher knowledge and classroom instruction)

®®

PD Models Tested Treatment A: A content-focused PD series consisting of

eight institute and follow-up seminar days (48 hrs). Based on Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS) developed by Louisa Moats

Treatment B: The eight-day institute and seminar series plus coaching throughout the year (~108 hrs). Coach training conducted by the Consortium on Reading Excellence (CORE)

“Business as Usual:” The control condition

®®

Research Questions

What effect does the institute and seminar series have on 2nd grade teachers’ knowledge, practices, and students’ reading achievement? (A vs. C)

What effect does the institute and seminar series plus in-school coaching have on these same outcomes? (B vs. C)

What is the added effect of in-school coaching above and beyond the institute and seminar series alone? (B vs. A)

®®

Design

School-level random assignment 90 schools located in 6 districts using one of two popular reading programs consistent with

the National Reading Panel (NRP)

270 teachers

5,500 students (77% eligible for free or reduced priced lunch; 16% White; 78% African American; 6% Asian, Hispanic, or Other

MDES: 0.20 for student-level outcomes, 0.40 for teacher-level outcomes

Timing Year 1: Implementation of the PD and data collection

Year 2: Follow-up data collection only

®®

Data Sources for Outcomes

Teacher Knowledge: Reading Content and Practices Survey (RCPS) Total, word-level, and meaning-level scales

Teacher Practices: Classroom Observations Explicit instruction, independent student activity, and

differentiated instruction scales

Student Achievement: District Records (Standardized Assessments)

®®

Implementation of the PD

According to sign-in sheets, teachers attended 35 of the 45 hours of institutes and seminars

According to coach logs, the coaching included the planned topics and time (62 hours)

According to teacher surveys, treatment A and B teachers attended significantly more institute and seminar hours than control teachers (39 and 47 vs 13 hours), and treatment B teachers received significantly more coaching (71 hours vs 6 hours)

®®

Impacts on Total Knowledge by Year

0.37 0.38

0.01

0.180.07

-0.11

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

A vs C B vs C B vs A

Implementation Year Follow-up Year

* *

®®

Impacts on Explicit Instruction by Year

0.33

0.53

0.210.09

-0.03-0.12

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

A vs C B vs C B vs A

Implementation Year Follow-up Year

*

*

®®

Impacts on Student Activity by Year

0.05

0.220.17

-0.05 -0.03

0.03

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

A vs C B vs C B vs A

Implementation Year Follow-up Year

®®

Impacts on Diff Instruction by Year

0.08 0.03

-0.05

0.100.01

-0.09

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

A vs C B vs C B vs A

Implementation Year Follow-up Year

®®

Impacts on Student Achievement by Year

0.08 0.03

-0.05

0.100.01

-0.09

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

A vs C B vs C B vs A

Implementation Year Follow-up Year

®®

Summary of Study Results

Although there were positive impacts on teachers’ knowledge and on one of the three instructional practices promoted by the PD, neither PD intervention resulted in significantly higher student test scores.

The added effect of the coaching intervention was not statistically significant.

There were no statistically significant impacts on measured teacher or student outcomes in the year following the treatment.

®®

Exploratory Analyses We conducted exploratory analyses to examine questions raised by the main

impact results: What might explain why the impacts on teacher knowledge and practice did not translate

into impacts on student achievement?

Why were the impacts on teacher outcomes found during the implementation year no longer significant at follow-up?

What might explain why the PD affected teachers’ word- but not meaning-level knowledge?

Why didn’t the coaching plus institutes produce greater impacts relative to the institutes alone?

®® 18

Report The Impact of Two Professional Development

Interventions on Early Reading Instruction and Achievement (NCEE20084030)

http://ies.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=NCEE20084030