Core Assessment 4B: Coaching Report

EDUG 577. Fall 2010

by Elaine Vázquez

Introduction

Recent research has uncovered the pivotal importance reading

specialists play in moving schools towards making gains in the area of

reading scores. More specifically, reading specialists who spend part or all of

their time working as a literacy coach for large groups of teachers, or for

one-on-one coaching tend to demonstrate meaningful gains over time

(Blachowicz et al., 2010). In preparation for future work in the field, Reading

Specialists in training must have the opportunity to practice working with

teachers as groups and individuals as one way of improving a school’s

progress towards powerful literacy gains. This paper will explore my own

efforts working as a literacy coach to the teaching staff at Dr. Pedro Albizu

Campos Puerto Rican High School in Chicago, Illinois in the fall and winter of

the 2010-2011 school year.

Description of Coaching Meetings

Thus far, I have facilitated several coaching meetings at my school

site. Each week, I am afforded time every Wednesday during the

instructional staff meeting to meet with all of the teaching staff for the

purpose of Professional Development related to literacy, although at times

the meetings are postponed if other issues arise, so dates are not
consecutive weekly. Each session, I prepared the agenda and tasks ahead of

time on a website so teachers could easily access the material again in the
future or if they had missed the prior meetings.
 My main goal was to create in-house coaching for every full-time

teacher in a way that created continuity and consistency that was responsive

to our teachers’ personal needs, ability levels, and desires; while also being

in-line with the mission and vision of the school. I began with a basic

introduction to what I felt were key elements of literacy: The first two PDs

focused on the importance of pre-, during-, and after-reading strategies

through a participatory, experiential framework, and the second one focused

on the theory behind it (schema theory and learning), to help solidify the

reasoning behind using the three stages of reading. In this session, I passed
out a questionnaire to get a sense of what teachers’ primary areas of

concern was in literacy to tailor the workshops I held from then on out. Since

most teachers talked about vocabulary in their responses, I created the

second session to present several possibilities for school-wide vocabulary

strategies. Unfortunately we didn’t have time to complete all of the

activities successfully, so the meeting was abbreviated to be continued at

the next date.

In the time between that meeting and the next, I purchased and read

Richard L. Allington’s book What Really Matters in Response to Intervention

(2009). The book was so transformative that I made the choice to put off the

PD session about vocabulary to a later date. In brief summary, Allington

draws attention to the fact that students whose independent reading levels

fall below the level of material being presented in the classroom spend their

entire school day without reading material they understand in their hands.

Conversely, students whose independent reading levels are at or above the

level of instruction spend all day improving their reading fluency and

comprehension with texts that are not only easy to understand, but that are

also conveying the content material they need to learn. Allington suggests

that multiple levels of relevant and engaging texts need to be available and

in use for students to read in every classroom if struggling readers are to

make the kind of gains necessary to reach their grade-level peers.

As a result of this finding, I admittedly left the vocabulary strategies

behind with a sense of urgency guiding me in another direction. Instead, I

created a PD that informed teachers of the importance of having differently

leveled texts in students’ hands. It is this session that I would like to focus

on for the sake of this assignment. In preparation for the session, I took a

“snapshot” of reading at our school. In the space of one class period, I went

door to door to every class in session and briefly asked the teacher if they

were reading anything in that class. If the were, I asked for a copy of the

reading. If not, I made note of it. I performed a Fry Readability analysis of

all of the readings I collected and put all of the data in a chart that I

embedded in a larger digital Presentation. (see below) I also included a

multiple choice “quiz” question where teachers would have to informally

guess the average TABE score reading level of our student population. The

presentation contained several quotes from Allington, and ended with a

prompt for brainstorming ways of addressing the issue of widely spread

reading levels in one classroom.

The presentation went very well and made a big impact on teachers.

Teachers made a collective decision that this was the big “issue” they

wanted to tackle in an attempt to raise reading levels across the student

body. They discussed how hard an issue it is to tackle in a school with

limited resources and brainstormed several ideas for addressing the

problem. Their solutions are visible on the screen shot below:
 Teachers suggested making reading centers with multiple levels of text

in different content areas, splitting students into same-level reading groups

with appropriately leveled texts, mixed-level groups with interest-based texts

and roles for different students, Literature Circles, students reading a wide

variety of leveled texts on essentially the same topic but perhaps in different

genres or even content areas, using www.donorschoose.org to solicit funds

for building libraries of texts, and filling classrooms with books students want

to read.
 As a follow-up, we met as a group and began to select texts that

would both address course content and reach a wider range of reading levels

in the classroom. Each teacher selected a lower-level text (3rd-5th grade)

mid-level text (6th-8th grade) and an upper-level text (10th-11th grade) for

the current unit they are working on. I made plans for a “field trip” PD to be

held on December 15th so teachers could check out the books they

selected-- and others they might find at the library that would be of interest

to students.

Teachers also needed a way to deliver instruction that took the

different reading levels into consideration. In response to teachers’

suggestion that a Literature Circle may be one way to address the issue, I

delivered a “Getting Readable Texts into our Students Hands, Part 2”

workshop where teachers read a chapter on Literature Circles from

Literature-Based Reading Activities by Yopp and Yopp (2010), and then

discussed it in Literature Circle format, with each teacher taking on one of

the roles of a Literature Circle so they could experience the process and

foresee any challenges. Teachers wrote written reflections and discussed

their writing, and I later posted a summary of written concerns on the PD

website. Teachers were most concerned about how attendance would

impact long-term literature circle commitments, how to set up the rules and

ensure participation, and how to explain that there were different levels of

texts in the classroom and create a safe and accepting environment where

students could feel comfortable reading any level of text.

 I have been working with several of our teachers in one-on-one

coaching sessions since these professional developments, but one teacher I

have been working with a great deal is a first year Science teacher. She is

currently in the middle of a research-paper writing unit and has asked for a

lot of help in the writing aspect of the project. Our first few meetings we

talked about teaching writing as a process and scaffolding the different

stages of the writing process. We also had several conversations about

teaching vocabulary, and the use of a book she recommended early in the

school year called Seedfolks that we later worked to push to our

administrator as a book that was worthy of becoming an “All-School Read.”

After our pre-observation meetings, I co-taught/observed two classes,

and we met afterwards to re-assess where we were at. In one of the classes

I observed, I had the opportunity to work with students as they looked up

definitions, etymology, synonyms and antonyms of terms they hadn’t

understood in a reading she had provided on adolescent brains; and another

where I was able to help students through the drafting stage of their

research papers.

Since we had worked on so many things, I wanted our post-

observation/check-in meeting to have a broad focus. Vocabulary,

instruction of writing for research purposes, writing assessment, and finding

material for various reading levels were all on the agenda.

In our discussion on vocabulary, I asked her how her idea to create

vocabulary “atoms” was working out. She liked my idea of having a wall
chart with definitions, etymology, synonyms, and antonyms all present as

part of a daily reminded of word complexity, (a strategy presented in the

vocabulary PD) so she decided she wanted to try to do the same thing, only

in a circle, “atom” format where each atom’s ring had another layer of

meaning (word in the middle, then definition, then sentence example, etc.).

She had said that she felt it was O.K. but that she hadn’t been able to

implement it in any kind of systematic way. I mentioned that I had noticed

that when the students were looking up the definitions of the words, they

would write down the definition whether they understood it or not. She

acknowledged this and added that she wanted the instruction to be more

systematic, because it had felt like a single assignment to her, rather than an

ongoing instruction. She also added that she had noticed that the teacher in

the classroom next door to her had students “act out” new vocabulary

words, and she said she wanted to try this herself, but that she wasn’t sure

how well it would work with science terms. I assured her that I would be

there to support her decisions and that we’d work on implementing these

choices in the future.

Next we focused on the research paper. I had given her some

materials to help with the writing process, which led her to create a

structured outline for students to help them come up with their research

ideas. She had created a basic outline for students and students had written

introductions and procedures for their experiments. She mentioned she was

about to move into the actual experimentation phase of the research paper,
and I asked what she would be using to help students record the data they

would need to gather for the body of the report. She said she hadn’t

planned anything but that she was glad I mentioned it. I suggested a

graphic organizer that used each “step” in the students pre-planned

procedure as a basis for observational notes they could take. She hesitated

for a moment and told me that she couldn’t think of a data collection sheet

that would be broad enough to be useful to all of the students’ experiments.

I suggested making 2-3 different types of data-gathering graphic organizers

that students could choose from: one for survey data, one for observations,

etc. and she agreed to this and was eager to put it together.

Her hesitation brought up an important point, and I asked her how she

felt about the scope of the assignment. She mentioned that it had gotten

much bigger than she had imagined. Students had come up with very wide-

ranging topics and there had been few boundaries placed on their

imaginations. She was feeling overwhelmed. She had said that she wanted

to prepare students for research papers in college because she didn’t recall

having any structure when she went to college. I suggested we take this as

an opportunity to give them a toolbox of skills they could use over and over,

and let the cards fall where they may. The important part was that students

got through the writing process successfully and learned skills at each step.

This led me to a question about how she planned on evaluating the

writing in her class. She said she hadn’t thought much about it much, but

that she imagined she’d be evaluating based on formatting, grammar, and

editing. I asked her if she had ever heard of the 6+1 writing traits, and

explained what each of the traits was and how they allowed students to talk

about writing in a more complex way than they might do so otherwise. I

asked her if she though this might be a possible option for evaluating the

writing for the research paper. She replied that she liked the idea of using

the traits because she felt it would be best for their development as writers,

but she had issues with using 6 +1 because she was concerned about the

amount of time it would take out of the science curriculum to teach each of

the terms in a way that students would understand and find useful. I agreed

with her and told her that money and time had been budgeted in our school

improvement to provide professional development for ALL teachers in the

realm of 6+1 traits, and that it shouldn’t be her responsibility to teach all

6+1 traits but rather that we should consider a plan of teaching each of the

traits cross-curricularly so that students were learning about 6+1 all day,

consistently in classes, but teachers were taking minimal time out of their

curriculum. I asked her if she thought using 6+1 traits would be more

feasible in the future if the obligation of teaching the traits was spread

across all content areas, and she agreed that it would be much more

realistic, and that she was excited for that possibility. We decided to focus

on peer editing for this particular research paper, and move to the 6+1 traits

later in the year when there was more support for implementation.

Finally, I asked her how her implementation of the “Readable Text in

the Hands of Every Student” initiative was coming along. She said she had
asked local libraries to donate science magazines they were planning on

getting rid of, and she had found and bought some interesting leveled

science texts at a sale at Barnes and Noble. She had also researched some

selections to check out at the library on our upcoming PD field trip. She said

the biggest trouble she was having at the moment was that of being in the

middle of a writing unit. Students had so much to do in terms of their

writing, there was little time left over to do any reading. She commented

that in the future, she looked forward to a time when students could take a

whole class period to “curl up” with some science reading at all grade levels

with some pre-, during- and after-reading strategies prepared for them to do

as they read. I agreed that would be great and that we had recently decided

to allocate a great deal of money for students and teachers to travel

together to Borders to buy content-area texts at all levels and supply every

classroom with a small collection of books that were both high interest (they

would have to pass student approval) and content-focused (they would have

to pass teacher approval), while also being at a variety of reading levels.

I also asked what she was doing in terms of ensuring students were

getting access to research text that was accessible to their reading level as

research articles are usually written at a higher level. She said that she had

allowed them to do “google” research and hadn’t limited the type of source

they had to use so they could get practice finding sources and using them to

support evidence. I agreed that for now this would work, and that we should

consider teaching “reliable” sources as a mini-lesson later.

 To end things off, I asked her if there was anything else she needed my

help with in the future. She said she wanted to find common planning time

for further literacy support on writing the research paper. She also wanted

to have continued co-teaching support on lab days when they were busy

drafting and writing. She hoped I could help students whose research

projects involved some literacy-based questions (one student wanted to

know how much reading comprehension improved when students knew all of

the vocabulary vs. when there was a large number of vocabulary words they

didn’t understand). And she wanted to keep a lookout for the things we had

talked about and continue working on each aspect.

Reflective analysis of Effectiveness

Overall, I have met over six times with this particular teacher and she

had been very thankful for the extra help. I look forward to continuing my

coaching relationship with her, and to growing literacy within the science and

other content area courses.

To gather feedback of my staff-wide professional developments, I

created an electronic survey asking various questions. Unfortunately, only

six teachers completed the survey, but the results gathered were still

instructive. I will provide screen shots of all of the data first, and analyze it

comprehensively below:
(Below is a detailed breakdown of the categories listed in the bar graph

about areas useful to cover in the future, which are cut off)
 Overall, teachers surveyed found PDs useful, and nobody found them

to be a waste of time. The most useful PD overall for five out of the six

respondents was the literature circle PD, followed closely in popularity by

pre-, during-, and after- reading strategies, and vocabulary strategies.

People were most eager (80% and 67% respectively) to learn strategies

related to comprehension and writing in the future, with 50% also looking

forward to content-area strategies and technology and literacy. Two people

also indicated interest in using data to drive instruction. In terms of what

people felt they needed more of in the future, resources in the classroom

and varied PDs were in the lead, followed by one-on-one coaching and co-

teaching. Finally, most teachers felt neither confident nor incompetent

about their ability to teach literacy in the classroom with 67% indicating a 3

out of a scale of 1-5 with 1 representing “I need lots more help” and 5

representing “I’m very confident”.

As a result of the articles I have read this semester, and as a result of

the surveys I have gotten back from teachers, I have decided to bump up my

one-on-one coaching and co-teaching considerably. PD-wise, I intend to

finish off our “Readable Texts in Every Student’s Hands” initiative and move

next into a series of PDs focused on writing instruction and evaluation in the

content area, using comprehension strategies as a “warm-up” to each

reading presented in the writing PDs. I will continue checking-in with

teachers to see how the multiple-levels of text are working in their

classroom, and how successful the literacy circles are. I also plan on

creating a binder of literacy resources that teachers could use with little

foreknowledge in the time between now and when I can work with them

individually, as well as for future reference. My goal is to improve teachers’

confidence in teaching literacy in the classroom, and I plan on doing so both

in whole-group Professional Development sessions, as well as one-on-one to

check-in with how school-wide initiatives are working.

Upon reflection, I feel strong about the coaching I have done thus far. I

am ready to acknowledge that I should have privileged teacher coaching

much more than I have to this date. With that said, I learned today that

reading TABE scores are up by a lot in our school, with most students making

the minimum gains necessary, and a good deal more making huge gains-

sometimes four to five grade levels or more. How much of that is related to

literacy learning and how much is related to student investment in the school

(students know school performance is evaluated through their scores, and

most students grow to love our school by this time of the year and want to

see it do well, so they will try harder than they did the first time around), or

in their graduation (students also know a 10.0 TABE score is required to

graduate), I can’t prove. But I do expect to see big gains by the end of the

year, now that my focus has shifted to working with teachers regularly, a

solid portion of the day, every day. I feel that both the data and the

conversations I’ve had with teachers reflect a positive movement towards

literacy development and change in our school, and I look forward to the

future possibilities for this year and the years to come.

References

Allington, R. L. (2009). What really matters in response to intervention:

research-based designs. Boston: Pearson.

Yopp, R. H., & Yopp, H. K. (2010). Literature-based reading activities (5th

ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Blachowicz, C. L., Buhle, R., Ogle, D., Frost, S., Correa, A., & Kinner, J. D.

(2010). Hit the ground running: Ten ideas for preparing and supporting

urban literacy coaches. The Reading Teacher, 63(5), 348-359.

Appendices

- Appendix A: Copy of eval forms used:

All questions are cited within the paper, along with data reflecting responses.

- Appendix B: Sign-in sheet from small group meeting and from

meeting with teacher

We did not keep a sign in sheet for each of the meetings, nor do I have a

record of who was there. The sign-in sheet for the post-observation with the

science teacher is attached.

- Appendix C: Copies of flyers

No flyers or publication materials were created because all meetings are

mandatory for the entire teaching staff.

- Appendix D: Electronic log documenting in-service meetings and

work with individual teachers.

Meetings with Staff for PD:

09/15/2010- Pre-, during-, and after-reading strategies

09/22/2010- Schema and learning

10/13/2010- Vocabulary Strategies

10/20/2010- Readable Texts in students hands part 1

11/03/2010- Readable Texts part 2

11/10/2010- Readable Texts part 3

Meetings w/ Science teacher:

11/12/2010- Pre-observation

11/24/2010- in-class co-teach: Vocabulary study

11/30/2010 in-class co-teach: Research steps

12/06/2010- post-observation reflection and plans for future.