You are on page 1of 28

Supporting Effective

Instruction: Technology and


Professional Development
Carol McDonald Connor
Frederick J. Morrison
Christopher Schatschneider
Barry Fishman
Coming to PD through the back
door
 IndividualizingStudent Instruction Study
 RFT to test the impact of child
characteristics-by-instruction interactions
on student outcomes
 Aptitude by treatment interactions
Designing the PD Protocol
 Used the research base to develop a “state of
the art” professional development protocol,
 delivered to all treatment group teachers
 We assumed that, with our coaching, the
teachers would be able to implement ISI in the
first experimental year with enough fidelity so
that we could test our hypotheses
 most PD research suggests that it takes 2 to 3
years for teachers to fully implement a new practice
What was the Intervention?
 Created algorithms based on the HLM
results in our Beyond the Reading Wars
paper
 Assessment to Instruction (A2i) software
created to compute recommended
amounts and types of instruction for each
child
 Embedded in planning software design to
scaffold research-based reading practices
Multiple Dimensions of Instruction

Teacher Managed Child Managed


Code Alphabet activities Spelling
Focused Letter Sight-Sound phonics worksheets,
Phonological Awareness handwriting activities
Onset-rime, blending and decoding activities

segmenting
Meaning Word Segmentation
Vocabulary Student Buddy Reading
Focused Teacher Read Aloud Sustained Silent Reading
Student Read Aloud, Choral Reading Comprehension
Group Writing, Writing worksheets
Instruction, Model Writing Student Individual Writing
Listening Comprehension Pair writing
Discussion
Algorithm Results TM-CF

TMCFa = ((End of Year Target - (.2* LW GE))/(.05 + (.05 * LW)))+13.


TMCF_Recommended = (TMCFa - (.82 * Month )).
Algorithm Results for CM-MF

CMMFa = ((3.76 – End of year target + (1.4 * Vocabulary AE))/(.30)) - 14.


CMMFsl = 10-(.24*CMMFa).
CMMF_Recommended= CMMFa + .5*(CMMFsl * Month).
PD Protocol
 Focused on using A2i to plan instruction and
then on implementing the recommended
amounts for each child in the classroom
 Grouping
 small group rather than whole class
 using A2i recommended groupings (homogeneous)
 Classroom organization
 Effective child-managed activities
 Individualizing time, content, and delivery
 no one way to individualize instruction
 Research-based practice
Mentor or Coaching Model
 “Research Partners”
 classroom based – 2 hours bi-weekly
 School level meetings
 Individual meetings
 Individualized
 Same amount of time
 Content and focus varied
Did the PD work?
 Evidence from child outcomes
 Evidence from A2i software tracking
 Evidence from changes in teacher
knowledge
 Evidence from classroom observations
Evidence from Child Outcomes
HLM - Treatment versus Control Student Reading
Comprehension Outcomes

470
Comprehension WScore

468
Spring Passage

466

464 Treatment
Control
462

460
Treatment
Control
Mean scores controlling for fall vocabulary, passage comprehension, letter-word reading, curriculum,
FARL, and Reading First status. 464 = GE 1.8, 468 = GE 2.0, n = 616 students
Evidence from Software Tracking
A2i Use and Reading Comprehension
472

470
Spring Comprehension WScore

AE = 8.2 years
468

466

AE = 6.0 years
464

462

460
Control 90min 180min 270min 360min

HLM fitted growth curves controlling for fall vocabulary, letter-word reading,
curriculum, FARL, and Reading First status. 464 = GE 1.8, 468 = GE 2.0,
Evidence from changes in Teacher
Knowledge
 Teacher Knowledge Test Descriptives and Reliability
 Assesses teachers’ understanding of English phonology,
orthography, and morphology, and concepts of literacy
acquisition and instruction
 34 multiple choice and 11 short answer items
 Administered fall and spring
 Cronbach’s alpha = .87.
 Teachers in the treatment group had significantly higher
spring TKS scores compared to control teachers
 Controlling for school SES status, other PD opportunities,
teacher credentials and fall TKS scores
 standardize beta = .40
 A2i and TKS correlations
 Fall TKS and A2i total use did not correlate
 Spring TKS and A2i correlation = .58
Importance of Teacher Knowledge

Scores on the TKS ranged from 9 to 36 (M = 23.45,


SD = 7.27).

First Graders – end of year grade equivalent score of 1.9 = 428


Evidence from Classroom Observations

Child-managed
Pair
4.1. Literacy Codes:
4.1.2. Phoneme
4.1.2. Phoneme Awareness
Awareness
4.1.3. Syllable Awareness
4.1.4. Morpheme Awareness
4.1.5. Onset/Rime Awareness
4.1.6. Word ID/Decoding
4.1.7. Word ID/Encoding
4.1.8. Fluency
4.1.9. Print Concepts 4.1.2. Phoneme Awareness
4.1.10. Oral Language 4.1.2.2. Blending
4.1.11. Print Vocabulary
4.1.2.3. Elision/Initial
4.1.12. Reading Comprehension
4.1.13. Text Reading 4.1.2.4. Elision/Final
4.1.14. Writing 4.1.2.5. Elision/Vowel
4.1.15. Library 4.1.2.6. Elision/Medial
4.1.16. Assessment 4.1.2.7. Substitution/Initial
4.1.2.8. Substitution/Final
4.1.2.9. Substitution/Vowel
4.1.2.10 Substitution/Medial
4.1.2.11 Segmenting/Counting
TCM Small-group Code-focused
Teacher-Managed Instruction

25

20

15
Min/day Treatment
10 Control

0 Small Group
TM-CF TCM-CF TM-MF TCM-MF
18
16
Whole Class 14
12
10
Treatment
8
Control
6
4
2
0
TCM-CF TCM-MF
Child Managed Instruction
20
18
16
14
12
Min/Day 10
Treatment
8
Control
6
4
2
0
CM-SG-CF CM-Ind-CF CM-SG-MF CM-SM-Ind-
MF
Winter Observed – A2i
recommended amounts

10
5
0
-5
Treatment
Distance From
-10 Control Recommendation
-15
-20
Absolute Values
-25 25

*
TCM-CF TCM-MF CM-CF CM-MF

Simple 20

Differences 15
Min/Day Treatment
10 Control

0
TCM-CF TCM-MF CM-CF CM-MF
Effect of Distance from
Recommendations
Winter TM-CF DFR Winter CM-MF DFR
471 460

470
458
469
456

Spring LWWscore
468
Spring PC Wscore

467 454
466
452
465
464 450
463
448
462
461 446
43 0.12 62 0.01
TCM-CF DFT (minutes/day) CM-MF DFT (minutes/day)

450 = 1.9, 458 = 2.5 .6 GE or


464 = 1.8, 470 = 2.1 or
about a 5 and a half month
about a 3 month difference
difference in GE
in GE
HLM - DFR predicting student
outcomes
 Cumulative fall, winter and spring DFR for TM-CF and
CM-MF
 DFR Treatment teachers < DFR Control Teachers
 Total Amounts of instruction did not predict student
outcome growth (residualized change)
 Cumulative TM-CF and CM-MF DFR negatively
predicted both Passage Comprehension and Letter-
Word Identification residualized change
 TM-CF DFR amount and change fall to spring
 CM-MF DFR amount
Discussion
 Finding effective ways to change teacher
practice quickly are critical
 For Random Field Trials
 Improving student learning
 Why did our PD work?
 Practice-based PD versus General Knowledge
 Focus on A2i, which was designed to scaffold the
kinds of instruction research suggests are more
effective in improving students’ reading skills
 Did the technology really make a difference?
 We don’t know – and will need to conduct a RFT to find out