This article was downloaded by: [Florida State University]On: 12 November 2014, At: 12:44Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Action in Teacher EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uate20

Teacher Professional Development for At-RiskPreschoolers: Closing the Achievement Gap byClosing the Instruction GapPriscilla L. Griffith a , Susan J. Kimmel a & Belinda Biscoe aa University of Oklahoma , USAPublished online: 02 Jan 2012.

To cite this article: Priscilla L. Griffith , Susan J. Kimmel & Belinda Biscoe (2010) Teacher Professional Developmentfor At-Risk Preschoolers: Closing the Achievement Gap by Closing the Instruction Gap, Action in Teacher Education,31:4, 41-53, DOI: 10.1080/01626620.2010.10463534

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01626620.2010.10463534

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitabilityfor any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinionsand views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy ofthe Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources ofinformation. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution inany form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Teacher Professional Dewelopment for At-Risk Preschoolers: Closing the Achievement Gap by Closing the Instruction Gap Priscilla L. Griffith

Susan J. Kimmel

Belinda Biscoe University of Oklahoma

ABSTRACT Students entering school from economically disadvantaged homes may have dif- ficulty developing early literacy skills, leading to subsequent reading difficulties and poor aca- demic performance. It is not sufficient for at-risk children to make progress; their achievement has to be accelerated, given that their middle-class peers are also making progress. This article describes a professional development model that has evolved from work with grants based on Early Reading First. The model grew out of action research, during which we reflected on our practice to determine why children served by one grant were not making anticipated gains. The model consists of three necessary but not individually sufficient components: appropriate envi- ronment, research-based curriculum, and instruction informed by professional development. We present the research base for the model and empirical evidence for the efficacy of the model.

In the state of Oklahoma, as in many parts of the United States, the poverty rate for families is increasing. Students entering school from economically disadvantaged homes are more likely to have difficulty in developing early lit- eracy skills and subsequent reading difficulties, leading to poor academic performance. Early Reading First (ERF) legislation focuses on closing the schooling gap for children living in poverty. This legislation implies that closing the gap means closing both the achievement gap and the instruction gap between current and best practices. National studies have in-

dicated that children entering Head Start are already below grade level in their emergent reading skills (Stahl6r Yaden, 2004). I t is not sufficient for at-risk children to simply make progress; their achievement has to be acceler- ated given that their middle-class peers are also making progress.

At the University of Oklahoma, we have been working with preschool teachers to create early-childhood centers of excellence (ERF, n.d.) through grants funded by ERF. In this article, we share a professional develop- ment model that has evolved from that work

Address correspondence to Priscilla L. Griff ith, Hardman Center, Jeannine Rainbolt College of Education, University of Oklahoma, 555 East Constitution (Building 4, South Campus), Room 118, Norman, OK 73072. E-mail: pgriffith@ou.edu.

Action in Teacher Education Vol. 31, No. 4 41

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

44 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

42 PRISCILLA L. GRlFFlTH ET AL.

and has resulted in accelerating the progress of at-risk preschool-age children. The model grew out of action research during which we reflected on our practice to determine why children were not making the gains that we had anticipated. This model is effective be- cause it creates an upward spiral of closing the gap in student achievement and in implemen- tation of best practices. Figure 1 illustrates this spiral process.

As teachers realize that their instruction can have an impact on student outcomes, they become motivated to strive toward ex- cellence in their instruction; the improved quality of teaching results in greater student achievement. Feedback on accelerated student achievement is presented to teachers through progress-monitoring data; the improvement in the quality of instruction is brought about through professional development classes and coaches working side by side with teachers in their classrooms to help them implement best practices instruction.

We begin with an overview of the model, a presentation of the research base that sup- ports the components in the model, and a history of the construction of the model, in-

cluding how we have implemented the model in our ERF grants. Next we provide our em- pirical evidence for the efficacy of the model for accelerating at-risk children’s progress in the literacy domains emphasized in the pro- fessional development the teachers received. We conclude with some reflections on the model and a discussion of the next steps in the model’s validation.

The Griffith-Kimmel Optimal Learning Sector Model for Acceleration

Figure 2 presents the professional development model. The context for the Griffith-Kimmel professional development model is a research- based curriculum embedded within an appro- priate environment. Appropriate environment includes aspects found within evidence-based preschool curricula. These aspects encompass a safe and interesting physical environment (e.g., interest centers, literacy-rich displays of children’s work, classroom library and writing center, alphabet display); a daily routine with

Figure 1. An upward spiral closes the gap in student achievement and implementation of best practices .

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

44 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Teacher Professional Development for At-Risk Preschoolers 43

Appropriate Environment

Research-Based Curriculum

Instruction Informed by Professional Development

bgress [ OLS 1 Content 1 Monitoring A

Optimal Learning Sector for Acceleration

Figure 2. Griffith-Kimmel optimal learning sector (OLS) model for acceleration.

small- and large-group time that incorporates literacy as part of instruction, both focused and indirect; and a classroom community that stresses oral language for relation building as well as problem solving (Dodge, Colker, & Heroman, 2002; Vukelich & Christie, 2009). The ERF curriculum stresses early language, cognitive, and prereading skills that prepare children for continued school success. Preread-

ing skills include but are not limited to phono- logical awareness, print awareness, and alphabet knowledge (ERF, n.d.). The heart of the model is instruction informed by professional develop- ment. The goal of the Griffith-Kimmel model is for all teachers and students to be within the optimal learning sector (OLS), which occurs at the intersection of progress monitoring and professional development. Within the OLS,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

44 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

44 PRISCILLA L. GRlFFlTH ET AL.

teachers’ knowledge and skills increase, and children’s learning accelerates. In our projects, coaching has become the link between progress monitoring and content knowledge. Through interaction with teachers, literacy coaches are a catalyst to enable teachers to plan instruction arising from ERF content classes and informed by progress-monitoring data. In this model, each of the three components-appropriate environment, research-based curriculum, and instruction informed by professional develop- ment-is necessary for optimal learning to oc- cur; however, none is alone sufficient to create an OLS for acceleration.

Research Base for the Griffith-Kimmel Model

A recent study of preschool curricula (Pre- school Curriculum Evaluation Research Consortium, 2008) supports our notion that environment and curriculum alone are not sufficient for closing achievement gaps. In this study, based on an experimental design, 14 curricula were evaluated in comparison to local control conditions (i.e., “curricu- lum-as-usual”; p. xxxii) at 12 independent sites. Each intervention curriculum focused on students’ reading and prereading, pho- nological awareness, early language, early mathematics knowledge, and behavior at the end of prekindergarten and kindergarten. In total, data were collected from 27 measures, and among these measures across all stud- ies were assessments of beginning reading skills, phonological awareness, oral language development, and mathematical knowledge and skills; classroom environment ratings (e.g., Early Childhood Environment Rat- ing Scale-Revised) and observations; and teacher reports of child behavior. Results in- dicate that only one curriculum had positive effects on literacy-related student outcomes in prekindergarten, and only three curri- cula had positive effects on similar student outcomes in kindergarten. In this study, the Doors to Discovery (2002) curriculum used in the University of Oklahoma ERF proj- ects had no impact on prekindergarten or

kindergarten student-level outcomes, even though this curriculum had a positive impact on classroom-level early literacy and early language instruction. We argue that this im- pact on instruction in the absence of impact on student outcomes supports our assertion that each of the three components of the Griffith-Kimmel acceleration model must be in place to close achievement gaps among at-risk children.

A critical aspect of the Griffith-Kimmel acceleration model is the interplay between what to teach, how to implement instruc- tional strategies, and when to deploy a specific instructional strategy and with what inten- sity. These aspects are depicted as content, coaching, and progress monitoring within the instruction informed by the professional development component of the Griffith- Kimmel model. Staff development literature (e.g., Guskey, 1995; Joyce &a Showers, 2002; McKenna & Walpole, 2008; Raikes et al., 2006) indicates that teachers need support for implementation of new learning through on- going professional development that includes opportunities for reflection, discussion, and observation of others. Cantrell and Hughes (2008) reported the benefits of professional development and coaching on teachers’ ef- ficacy. The researchers stated that interviews with teachers “affirmed that feedback and support from coaches was essential in enabling them to build a sense of proficiency with new teaching techniques” (p. 120) learned in a yearlong professional development project.

But is coaching sufficient to bring about changes in student outcomes? Garet and colleagues (2008) reported a study that com- pared the effectiveness of two professional development interventions for improving the reading achievement of second-grade students in high-poverty schools. The study used an experimental design in which 270 teachers in 90 schools in six districts were randomly assigned to three professional de- velopment treatment groups. In one group, teachers participated in eight content-fo- cused institute and seminar days. In the second group, a coach in each school sup-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

44 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Teacher Professional Development for At-Risk Preschoolers 45

plemented the institute and seminar days “to increase teachers’ understanding of the content learned in the institute series and to provide ongoing practice and support for ap- plying their new knowledge and implement- ing their core reading program effectively” (p. x). In the third group, a control, teachers participated in the usual professional devel- opment provided by their school districts. None of the professional development in- terventions resulted in significantly higher student test scores at the end of the 1-year treatment. In comparison to our model ad- opted at the University of Oklahoma, the missing element in the Garet study was student progress monitoring. Kame’enui and colleagues (2006) discussed the need to tailor instruction to individual needs using a process of screening, diagnosis, progress monitoring, and outcome evaluation. In shaping progress monitoring in the Griffith- Kimmel model, we drew on their description of it-namely, to gauge rates of reading im- provement through assessment administered multiple times through the year. In our ERF work, we have found that although the rhetoric is simple, the practice is complex and requires coaches to work with teachers in how to plan and implement differentiated best practices instruction based on progress- monitoring data. In essence, all the pieces of the Griffith-Kimmel model must be in place to see acceleration of children’s learning.

Construction and Implementation of the Model

Construction of the model was grounded in the body of work on metacognition, and it incorporates core features of effective profes- sional development. We discuss these in turn in the following sections.

Metacognition. Flavell (1976, 1979) pro- vided an early definition for metacogni- tive knowledge as an individual’s knowledge about his or her cognitive processes and the products or outcomes of those cognitive processes. Teaching is a cognitive process involving both awareness and judgment, and

metacognition seemed the best place to start in revisioning our professional development. Garner (1994) described metacognitive knowledge as what we know about ourselves, the tasks we face, and the strategies we employ. In the development of the Griffith- Kimmel model, tasks and strategies became important understandings for teachers. Paris, Lipson, and Wixson (1994) provided addi- tional information toward the development of the model through a discussion of the types of knowledge that learners acquire as they change from novices to experts. Ac- cording to Paris and colleagues, learners need to have declarative, procedural, and condi- tional knowledge. In terms of the Griffith- Kimmel model, teachers need declarative knowledge about early literacy instruction; that is, they need to know the task structure and task goals of early literacy-what they need to teach. They also need information about how to accomplish their tasks, and they need to be strategic about when to deploy appropriate instructional strategies- the procedural and conditional knowledge of early literacy instruction. When we began our ERF work, professional development resembled Figure 3A. We had an appropri- ate environment and a research-based cur- riculum in place. We verified our environ- ment through Early Language and Literacy Classroom Observation scores (Smith 6r Dickinson, 2002) that reached near-ceiling levels across all subscales: Book Use and Availability; Writing Materials and Display; General Classroom Environment; Language, Literacy, and Curriculum; Book Reading; and Writing. In addition, our curriculum, Doors to Discovery (2002), incorporated in- struction within thematic units to encourage children’s development in the foundational areas of oral language, phonological aware- ness, concepts of print, alphabet knowledge, writing, and comprehension (What Works Clearinghouse, n.d.). However, at the end of the 1st year of one of our grants, we saw no difference in the progress of children in ERF and comparison classrooms on our out- come measures for letter knowledge, print

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

44 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

46 PRISCILLA L. GRlFFlTH ET AL.

A Appropriate Environment

Reacarcb-B.sed Curriculum

Figure 3. Construction of the Griff ith-Kimmel optimal learning sector (OLS) model for acceleration.

concepts, and rhyming (phonological aware- ness). We subsequently began to examine our practice in providing the type of professional development that would result in improved student learning. As depicted in Figure 3A, we realized that we were providing declarative knowledge about early literacy instruction through the content knowledge that teachers received in ERF classes. In addition, we em- ployed literacy coaches to work with teachers. However, there was no systematic monitoring of children’s progress, and we lacked explicit coaching connected to content to help teach- ers implement instruction. We adopted a goal of moving our professional development from a traditional model, in which content infor- mation was separated from what was actually implemented in the classroom, to a reform- oriented model of professional development (Penuel, Fishman, Yamaguchi, & Gallagher, 2007) that helped teachers apply declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge about

early literacy to their thinking about instruc- tion (Figure 3R.) Specifically, we needed instruction informed by professional develop- ment in which teachers acquired knowledge of what to teach, how to translate their knowledge into actual classroom strategies, and when to differentiate instruction to meet children’s instructional needs.

Core features of effective professional de- velopment. Current research on professional development (Desimone, 2009; Penuel et al., 2007) points to core features of effective professional development, including content focus, collective participation, active learn- ing, duration, and coherence. The Griffith- Kimmel model incorporates each of these core features.

Content focus comes through regular classes that the teachers attend, which aim to build teachers’ knowledge about children’s early literacy learning. Their structure revolves around a social view of learning-that is,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

44 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Teacher Professional Development for At-Risk Preschookrs 47

classrooms should support interaction in the form of instructional conversations wherein participants contribute to one another’s mu- tual growth and learning (Vygotsky, 1978). The structure of the classes enables collec- tive participation as the teachers engage in discourse with other preschool teachers. Table 1 presents a list of topics presented in the content classes.

Opportunities for teachers to engage in active learning come about through literacy coaches working in classrooms with teachers. Coaching is clearly distinguished from super- vision in which there is an evaluative element in the process. Coaching typically begins with an observation in which the coach may visit the classroom to see how the teacher is doing and to find out what type of support she or he might need. The coaching focuses on teacher performance through a gradual release model (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983)) with ‘‘I do,” “We do,” and “You do” components. Coaches provide support for technical skills-related learning and growth, using a format that in- cludes preconference, coaching intervention, and reflection. Among the interventions are the following:

demonstration in which the coach teaches the class while the teacher observes and takes notes on classroom organization and management rou- tines; shadow coaching in which the coach demonstrates a short and fairly simple procedure, such as how to use a new set of manipulatives, and the teacher im- mediately implements what the coach modeled; and side-by-side coaching across several les- sons in which (1 ) the coach demon- strates an instructional strategy with specific content while the teacher watches, (2) the teacher and the coach together implement the instructional strategy with new content, and, ulti- mately, (3) the teacher implements the instructional strategy as the coach watches (Casey, 2006).

Table 1. Topics Presented in the Early Reading First Content Classes

Doors to Discovery curriculum and implementation Progress-monitoring assessment Observations and anecdotal notes Literacy benchmarks for

phonological awareness alphabet knowledge oral language print concepts

EnvironmenVclassroom management At-risk child language development Language comprehension Teacher-child interactions Homeschool connections Home visits Family literacy nights

The model reflects duration in both span of time (in this project, 3 years) and depth of time spent in professional development activi- ties supporting pedagogical change (Desim- one, 2009).

In professional development, coherence “refers to teachers’ interpretations of how well aligned the professional development activi- ties are with their own goals for learning and their goals for students” (Penuel et al., 2007, p. 931). With the Griffith-Kimmel model, we provide coherence through progress moni- toring. In our ERF intervention classrooms, teachers assess children four times a year us- ing alternate forms of an early literacy prop ress-monitoring tool that we created at the university. Progress-monitoring assessments are administered to all students at the begin- ning of the school year to identify children “at risk” for not developing the prerequisite skills of literacy acquisition and thus needing addi- tional instructional intervention. Assessments are repeated at defined intervals during the school year (approximately every 2 months) to ensure that the instruction meets the needs of children. In our ERF classrooms, the coaches initially administered these assessments to demonstrate the process for teachers. The progress-monitoring process was subsequently turned over to the teachers as they developed their assessment skills. Now, teachers for- ward their progress-monitoring data to their

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

44 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

48 PRISCILLA L. GRlFFlTH ET AL.

coaches. The data are returned to teachers within 2 weeks as an assessment report with various formats, including the following:

a bar graph for each assessment (let- ter names, concepts about print, and rhyming) comparing class average scores with target scores for each month of the progress-monitoring administration- these bar graphs enable teachers to see the class’s yearly progress toward end-of- the year goals; a chart with individual students’ scores on each progress-monitoring assessment; a chart with suggestions based on indi- vidual students’ scores for small-group instruction in each assessment area; a chart indicating the percentage of students in the class who could iden- tify each letter-teachers can use this information to plan whole-class letter- knowledge instruction; and a chart indicating the percentage of students in the class who were suc- cessful in answering print awareness questions: point to a letter, point to a capital letter, point to a word, which way to go, where to begin, book title, meaning of a period, return sweep, and word-by-word matching-teachers can use this information to plan whole- class print-awareness instruction.

When coaches deliver the progress-monitoring report to teachers, they together discuss the outcomes. The addition of progress-monitoring data has enabled the coaches to sharpen the entire process-preconference, coaching inter- vention, and reflection+ that the focus is specific to children’s needs.

Empirical Evidence for the Efficacy of the Griff ith-Kimmel Model

Method

Participants. At the University of Oklahoma, we have implemented three ERF grants at dif-

ferent sites. Our ERF classrooms have included private child care, Head Start, and public school classrooms. In this article, we report data from our first ERF grant, in which chil- dren were attending prekindergarten classes in seven public elementary schools and private child care centers. Levels of teacher prepara- tion varied-from teachers with college de- grees and licensure from the state department of education, to those with high school diplo- mas and no form of certification.

The intervention sites were chosen on the basis of their location and the low levels of family income of the students enrolled in the classrooms. Comparison sites were cho- sen and matched on key criteria: location, to- tal number of students enrolled in the school or child care center, ethnicity, percentage receiving free or reduced-price lunch (in the public schools) or percentage receiving child care subsidy (in the private child care ten- ters), and standardized test scores for third graders in the public schools in which the prekindergarten site was located.

Procedure. Across all years of the study, children in ERF classrooms received instruc- tion informed by professional development as implemented through the grant, in addition to whatever professional development the teach- ers received as part of their jobs. Children in comparison classrooms received instruction as usual, without any intervention related to the ERF grant. During Year 1 of the study, we implemented professional development as depicted in Figure 3A. ERF teachers and teacher aides attended biweekly classes taught by a master’s-level literacy specialist, and each classroom had a mentor who facilitated imple- mentation of the curriculum and provided in- structional support for teachers. At the end of Year 1, there was no difference in the progress of children in the ERF classrooms and children in the comparison classrooms. During Year 2 of the study, we reflected on our practices as providers of professional development and re- envisioned our work (Figure 3B). During Year 3 of the study, we implemented professional development as depicted in Figure 2.

Data collection and analysis. In this article, we use the terms project evdution and progress monitoring. We used progress-monitoring assess-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

44 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Teacher Professional Development fur At-Risk Preschoolers 49

ments (phonological awareness skill of rhyming, alphabet knowledge, and print concepts) to as- sess students on a regular basis.

Our ERF grant had a project evalua- tion component separate from the progress- monitoring component. Our evaluation de- sign was quasi-experimental, composed of intact intervention and comparison class- rooms. For evaluation purposes, our child outcome measures focused on the same skills assessed through progress monitoring. How- ever, we emphasize that the child assessment instruments used to evaluate the study were different and were administered separately from the assessments used by teachers for progress monitoring. The child outcome instruments used to evaluate the grant in- cluded the following:

Alphabet knowledge was assessed by attempted identification of all 26 up- percase letters. The scores reported are the total numbers of letters correctly identified. Print concepts were assessed with Clay’s (2000) Concepts About Print. The scores reported are raw scores for the number of items correct out of a total possible of 24. Rhyming was assessed using the Yopp Rhyming Test, which consists of 20 pairs of words. The child is asked if each pair of words rhyme, and he or she is given 1 point for each correct response. The scores reported for this assessment are the total raw scores for the number of items answered correctly (Yopp, 1988).

Trained data collectors administered the proj- ect evaluation instruments. In addition, the project evaluator conducted a yearly focus group interview with intervention teachers.

Quantitative data were analyzed using paired t tests. Focus group data were summa- rized for recurring ideas.

Results

Year I results. Before implementing the Griffith- Kimmel model, we found no significant differ-

ence in scores on our three evaluation measures in the intervention and comparison sites, de- spite ongoing professional development in the form of regular classes for teachers and follow-up mentoring. Figure 4 depicts the results at the end of Year 1 on the project evaluation measure for alphabet knowledge. Results for rhyming and print concepts were similar. Note that chil- dren in both the intervention classroom and the comparison classroom made gains in their letter recognition skill; however, what we did not see was an acceleration of the progress of the chil- dren in the ERF intervention classrooms.

Year 3 results. Subsequent to the imple- mentation of the Grifith-Kimmel professional development model, children in the ERF intervention classrooms scored significantly higher on each of the three measures than did the children in the comparison classrooms- alphabet knowledge, t(132) = 4.1, p < .001, print concepts, t(132) = 4.3, p < .001, and phonological awareness rhyming, t ( 13 2), = 3.3, p < .001. Figure 5 illustrates this acceleration of the ERF children’s progress.

In Table 2, we report a summary of the teachers’ comments from the focus group data, which support our contention that the Grifith-Kimmel acceleration model results in increased teacher efficacy. In these inter- views, the teachers also indicated how they used the progress-monitoring data to hone their ins t ruc t ion.

Reflections on the Model

According to Koshy (2005), research is about generating new knowledge, and action research creates new knowledge through in- quiry within specific and practical contexts. We did not set out to construct a profes- sional development model that would result in acceleration of student outcomes. It was primarily a 1st year of less-than-anticipated outcome gains that forced us to examine our practice using an action research cycle- namely, planning, acting and observing, reflecting, and revising-to determine where we needed to make changes in the project. In the 2nd year, we introduced more fo- cused coaching and progress monitoring and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

44 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

50 PRISCILLA L. GRlFFlTH ET AL.

Upper Case Alphabet (Maximum 26)

Pm Tat Post Test

Early Reading First

comparison

Figure 4. End-year results for Year 1: Mean number of correctly identified letters per group.

continued to observe and reflect. As we look across 3 years of the study, we recognize that during the 1st year of the project, teachers were becoming immersed in the theory and practice of early literacy learning. Likewise, it took time and practice for the coaches to develop their coaching skills and for teach- ers and coaches to understand how progress monitoring worked in classrooms with chil- dren. Earlier in the article, we mention that all the components of the Griffith-Kimmel model were necessary but none alone was sufficient for acceleration of student prog- ress. We reiterate this point now. It was in Year 3 when all the components were in place and we achieved the results that we had initially hoped to see.

In this article, we report data from the first University of Oklahoma ERF grant. We recognize limitations in this initial

work. For example, we implemented progress-monitoring assessment that we are only now refining through item analyses, re- liability tests, and the development of soft- ware for independent classroom implementa- tion. Our statistical analyses are not as sophisticated as some of the hierarchical lin- ear modeling frameworks reported in more recent studies of professional development (e.g., Penuel et al., 2007). Further validation of the model needs to be done in scale-up projects that include more classrooms, more grade levels, and statistics that will enable us to track progress of children within class- rooms. Likewise, the model needs to be sys- tematically tested under conditions in which the three variables of professional develop- ment, coaching, and progress monitoring are manipulated. Such manipulation is impor- tant in our state because progress monitoring

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

44 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

Upper Case Alphabet (Maximum 26)

Teacher Professional Development for At-Risk Preschoolers 5 1

Pm Tost PostTed

Print Concepts (Maxlmum Score 24)

Early Reading First

Comparison

Prc, lost PostTed Figure 5. End-year results for Year 3 Group mean scores.

is mandated by the Oklahoma Department of Education, yet not all teachers are aware of how to use the data they collect. Finally, the model needs to be tested with compari- son groups of middle-class children to see the

extent to which the professional develop- ment will stand under those conditions. Nevertheless and despite these limitations, we stand by our model for closing instruction and achievement gaps.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

44 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

52 PRISCILLA L. GRlFFlTH ET AL.

Table 2. Summary of Focus Group Data From Teachers in Early Reading First Classrooms

Child progress

a

a

a

a

Teacher efficacy

a

a

a

0

Teachers keep a checklist on a clipboard to ensure that children in the lowest-performing groups receive extra notice or additional instruction and practice in targeted early literacy skills. During large-group time, teachers ensure that children in the lowest-performing groups are engaged and provided additional support when needed. During small-group time, children are grouped by early literacy skill attainment level and provided instruction accordingly. During center time, children in need of acceleration receive additional support and instruction. Children scoring in the lowest-performing groups are targeted for reach-out phone calls to their parents, who are provided homework that they and their children can do together. Seeing the improvement in the progress-monitoring scores over time motivated teachers to do more and try harder. The results of the progress-monitoring assessments allowed teachers to make needed refinements to lesson plans in a more time-sensitive manner. The progress-monitoring process resulted in more focused and useful time with coaches to go over the reports together and come up with a plan of instruction for the children. The progress-monitoring process was more tangible and more easily implemented than other professional developments they have had. The results they observed as a result of the progress monitoring validated their self-image as an early-childhood educator and not just a babysitter.

References

Cantrell, S. C., & Hughes, H. K. (2008). Teacher efficacy and content literacy implementation: An exploration of the effects of extended pro- fessional development with coaching. Journal of Literacy Research, 40, 95-127.

Casey, K. (2006). Literacy coaching: The essentials. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Clay, M. M. (2000). Concepts About Print: What have children learned about the way we print lan- guage? Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers’ professional development: Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Edu- cational Researcher, 38(3), 181-199.

Dodge, D. T., Colker, L. I., & Heroman, C. (2002). The creative curriculum for preschool (4th ed.). Washington, M=: Teaching Strategies.

Doors to discovery. (2002). Bothell, WA: Wright Group / McGraw-Hill.

Early Reading First. (n.d.). Retrieved November 12, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov/programs/ earlyreading/index.html

Flavell, J. H. (1976). Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), The nature of intelligence (pp. 231-235). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cogni- tive monitoring: A new area of cognitive- developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34. 906-911.

Garet, M. S., Cronen, S., Eaton, M., Kurki, A., Ludwig, M., Jones, W., et al. (2008). The impact of two professional development interoen- tim on early reading instruction and achievement (NCEE No. 2008-4030). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation.

Garner, R. (1994). Metacognition and executive control. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 715-732). Newark, DE: Inter- national Reading Association.

Guskey, T. R. (1995). Professional development in education: In search of the optimal mix. In T. R. Guskey & M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional devebpment in education: New paradigms and practices (pp. 114-131). New York: Teachers College Press.

Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achieve- ment through staff development (3rd ed.). Alex- andria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Kame’enui, E. J., Fuchs, L., Francis, D. J., Good, R., 111, O’Connor, R. E., Simmons, D. D., et al. (2006). The adequacy of tools for assessing reading competence: A framework and review. Educational Researcher, 35(4), 3-1 1.

Koshy, V. (2005). Action research for improving practice: A practical &. Thousand Oaks, CA: Chapman.

McKenna, M. C., & Walpole, S. (2008). The liter- acy coaching challenge: Models and methods from Grades K-8. New York: Guilford Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

44 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014

PRISCILLA L. GRlFFlTH ET AL. 53

Paris, S. G., Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1994). Becoming a strategic reader. In R. B. Ruddell, M. R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 788-810). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Pearson, P. D., & Gallagher, M. (1983). The in- struction of reading comprehension. Contem- porary Educational Psychology, 8, 22-23.

Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Yamaguchi, R., & Gallagher, L. P. (2007). What makes profes- sional development effective? Strategies that foster curriculum implementation. American Educational Research Journal 44(4), 921-958.

Preschool Curriculum Evaluation Research Con- sortium. (2008). Effects of preschool cuniculum programs on school readiness (NCER No. 2008- 2009). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research.

Raikes, H. H., Torquati, I. C., Hegland, S., Raikes, H. A., Scott, J., Messner, L., et al. (2006). Studying the culture of quality early education and care: A cumulative approach to measuring characteristics of the workforce and relations to quality in four Midwestern states. In M. Zaslow & I. Martinez-Beck (Eds.), Critical is- sues in early childhood pr~essional development (pp. 11 1-136). Baltimore: Brookes.

Smith, M. W., & Dickinson, D. K. (2002). Early bnguage and Literacy Classroom Observation (ELLCO) Tookit (Research ed.). Baltimore: Brookes.

Stahl, S. A., & Yaden, D. B., Jr. (2004). The de- velopment of literacy in preschool and primary grades: Work by the Center for the Improve-

ment of Early Reading Achievement. Elemen-

Vukelich, C., & Christie, J. (2009). Building a foundation for preschool literacy. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The devebp- ment of higher psychological processes. Cam- bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

What Works Clearinghouse. (n.d.). Doors to d i s - covery. Retrieved May 29, 2009, from http:// www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdoc s2sql/content-storage-O l/OOOOO 19b/80/2b/ bf/ff.pdf

Yopp, H. (1988). The validity and reliability of phonemic awareness tests. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 160-177.

tary S~hoolJOUmal, 105(2), 141-165.

999

Priscilla L. Griffith is the Ruth G. Hardman Chair in Education and professor of instruc- tional leadership and academic curriculum, Jeannine Rainbolt College of Education at the University of Oklahoma.

Susan J. Kimmel is director of the Center for Early Childhood Professional Development in the College of Continuing Education at the University of Oklahoma.

Belinda Biscw is assistant vice president for public and community services for university outreach in the College of Continuing Educa- tion at the University of Oklahoma.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Flor

ida

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

] at

12:

44 1

2 N

ovem

ber

2014