research for action makinga diff...

Making aDifference:Year Two Report of thePennsylvania High SchoolCoaching Initiative

O C T O B E R 2 0 0 7

RESEARCH for ACTION

Research for Action (RFA) is a Philadelphia-based,non-profit organization engaged in educationresearch and evaluation. Founded in 1992, RFAworks with public school districts, educationalinstitutions, and community organizations toimprove the educational opportunities for thosetraditionally disadvantaged by race/ethnicity,class, gender, language/cultural difference,and ability/disability. For more information aboutRFA, please go to our website,www.researchforaction.org.

About this Report

Research for Action is conducting a three yearevaluation study of the Pennsylvania High SchoolCoaching Initiative (PAHSCI) that includes surveyresearch as well as in-depth qualitative research inparticipating schools and districts. This report pres-ents findings from the first two years of researchand provides recommendations for PAHSCI stake-holders as they refine the program and for othereducation reformers as they consider the benefitsof instructional coaching as a strategy for improv-ing high schools and student achievement.

Mission Statement

Through research and action, Research for Actionseeks to improve the education opportunities andoutcomes of urban youth by strengthening publicschools and enriching the civic and communitydialogue about public education. We share ourresearch with educators, parent and communityleaders, students, and policy makers with thegoals of building a shared critique of educationalinequality and strategizing about school reformthat is socially just.

RESEARCH FOR ACTION

RESEARCH for ACTION

Year Two PAHSCI Report

Making aDifference:Year Two Report of thePennsylvania High SchoolCoaching Initiative

Prepared by:

Diane Brown, Ed.D.Rebecca Reumann-Moore, Ph.D.Roseann Hugh, M.Ed.Jolley Bruce Christman, Ph.D.Morgan RifferPierre du PlessisHolly Plastaras Maluk, Ph.D.

Research for Action

Research Assistance provided by:

Timothy Victor, Ph.D.Emmanuel Angel, M.S.

RESEARCH FOR ACTION

1

Introduction 2

Section 1A PAHSCI’s Design 5

Theory of Change 6

Section 1B Research Methods 9

Section 1C Testing PAHSCI’s Theory of Change 10

Section 2 PAHSCI’s Impact on Teaching and Student Engagement 11

Teachers’ Participation in PAHSCI Activities 12

Impact of Teacher Level of Participation in PAHSCI Activities 14

Increased Knowledge and Skill 18

Increased Levels of Student Engagement 18

Improved Quality High School Teaching 19

Conclusion 20

Section 3 The Role of Coaching in Changing Instruction 21

Factors Leading to Teachers’ Use of PLN’s Research-based Strategies 21

Conclusion 26

Section 4 PAHSCI Sites for Learning, Leadership Development,

and Strong Professional Community 27

Learning and Professional Community within the School 28

Learning and Professional Community outside of School 33

Conclusion 36

Section 5 The PAHSCI Experience: Participants Speak 37

District and School Administrators 37

Foundations’ Mentors 38

PLN Instructors and Facilitators 38

Coaches 38

Conclusion 39

Section 6 Sustaining PAHSCI: Year Three and Beyond 41

Accomplishments 41

Challenges 42

Recommendations for PAHSCI Leaders 43

Lessons about Instructional Coaching 44

Reference List 45

Appendix A Participating Districts and Schools 46

Appendix B Research Methodology 47

Surveys 47

School Site Visits 50

Questionnaires 51

Event Observations and Evaluations 51

Appendix C PLN Strategies: Brief Descriptions from Penn Literacy Network 52

Appendix D Recommendations and Updates 54

About the Authors 57


Table of Contents

RESEARCH FOR ACTION

2 Introduction

The Scene:

An Algebra II Classroom in

a Large Urban High School,

Eastern Pennsylvania

Ms. Davis1 warmly greets each of the 17 students in her algebra II class by nameas they enter her room. Its walls decorated with math formulas, student work and

progress reports, the room provides a visually stimulating environment. As the raciallyand ethnically diverse group of students settles down, they turn their attention to theDo Now2 math problems on the board. Ms. Davis, an eighth year teacher, walks alongthe rows, checks students’ homework and comments on the progress each is making ontoday’s task. She engages each student individually and her interactions show under-standing and kindness. When she spots an error one student is making she says, with asmile, “Hey, that’s a leap you’re not allowed to make!” The young Hispanic male stu-dent sheepishly replies, “My bad, Ms. Davis, you’re right.”

Speaking to the whole class, Ms. Davis asks for a volunteer to solve the problemon the board. She gently challenges, “Who’s going to go out on a limb and put theirwork on the board? Any brave soul?” As the student volunteer, an Afro-Caribbeanfemale, explains her work, Ms. Davis encourages her at every step. “Yes, that’s right.Yes, you showed the minus sign. Yes, you cancelled out the i’s. One small adjustment.”The students spontaneously clap for the volunteer as she takes her seat.

From a show of hands, Ms. Davis learns that only four students had fully andcorrectly solved the problem. For the next several minutes, students share wherethey went wrong and write notes to themselves about corrections using CollinsLevel One Writing, that Ms. Davis learned while working one-on-one with a mathcoach. In an example of culturally relevant teaching, she enunciates vocabulary wordsfor each of the steps involved in the solution and the students rhythmically repeat afterher. For the remainder of the class, students solve similar problems from their text andpair up to practice problems for tomorrow’s exam. The session ends with Pair ShareGroups of two and three reflecting on the lesson by suggesting a “trick of the trade”that they believe will help their classmates solve similar problems on tomorrow’s exam.

In an interview after the class, Ms. Davis shared that the PAHSCI coach had observedher classroom and afterward asked her “Whose voices are heard during class?” Thiscaused her to really think about this question. After that, she began to bring more activi-ties into her classroom where students talked to each other about solving problems. Shehad to overcome the sense that this was “cheating,” but now she knows it has been ben-eficial to the students and they are learning together, not just engaging in casual talking.

Introduction

1 Pseudonyms are used throughout this report.2 Research-based instructional strategies presented in the Penn LiteracyNetwork courses are highlighted in bold throughout this report.

The Scene:

A Ninth Grade Honors English Class

in a Large Rural High School,

Central Pennsylvania

Ms. Bellows, a 12-year veteran, hands a 3x5 card to each of her 22 students asthey file into her classroom. Engagingly decorated, with curtains at the window,

the classroom is well equipped with up-to-date audio and visual technology. This group isracially and ethnically similar, with only one African American student among 21 Caucasians.Ms. Bellows points out the Do Now question on the board: “List similarities and differencesbetween the movie and book versions of The Hobbit.” Within a few minutes, hands arewaving and the class is enthusiastically generating a list, which Ms. Bellows captures on theoverhead projector. She frequently voices her approval. “Excellent! A good list. You nameditems that the other sections missed. Good work!”

The 3x5 cards the students received as they entered the classroom each display an elementof fiction. Students must find examples of these elements in The Hobbit. Students are familiarwith this activity; in only a few minutes they have found partners to form an Expert JigsawGroup to define the element of fiction on their cards. They talk in whispers, consult the dic-tionary, their notebooks, and the text and appoint a designated spokesperson to report to thegroup. As each spokesperson reports on the collaborative work of the team, Ms. Bellowsexpresses pride in the accuracy and completeness of the presentations.

A Jeopardy board is permanently mounted at the front of the room and the class is dividedinto two teams with a great prize for members of the winning team: six points added to theirtest score on The Hobbit. Recognizing that some students who give wrong answers are takingit to heart, Ms. Bellows soothingly encourages them with, “It’s alright. That was a particularlyhard question.” Or, “Good try! You’ll get it next time.” At the end of the period, Ms. Bellowsasks students to write three questions about The Hobbit and their answers as their Ticket Outthe Door. Although it is the final activity of the class, students enthusiastically jot down theirresponses. One young male laughingly brags, “Mine are real brain busters! No one will getthem right.”

In an interview after this class, Ms. Bellows reported that she and the literacy coacheshad reviewed her AP curriculum. They had visited her classroom and co-taughtlessons and that this impacted the way she was now teaching this course.


Introduction 3

RESEARCH FOR ACTION

4 Introduction

What do the two teachers in these classroomscenarios have in common? Both have attend-ed professional development led by the Penn-sylvania Literacy Network (PLN) and workedwith an “instructional coach” as part of theirschool’s participation in the PennsylvaniaHigh School Coaching Initiative (PAHSCI).Highlighted in bold are the PLN strategieseach teacher used in these examples. Bothshow how working with a coach has helpedthem integrate new instructional techniquesinto their daily classroom practice. Studentsare actively engaged, taking responsibility fortheir own and their peers’ learning, and usingliteracy—reading, writing, and speaking—toaccomplish the tasks of the lesson.

In 2004, the Annenberg Foundationpartnered with the Pennsylvania Departmentof Education (PDE) to address the literacyneeds of adolescents in high-need secondaryschools in Pennsylvania through instructionalcoaching. They established the PennsylvaniaHigh School Coaching Initiative, designed tosupport teachers from across the major subjectareas to create literacy rich classrooms inwhich students actively engage in learningtasks that deepen their content knowledgeand strengthen their abilities to think criticallyand communicate well. While most highschool reforms have worked to change schoolstructures, PAHSCI has directly focused onchanging classroom instruction by infusingresearch-based literacy practices across thecurriculum, with the support of PAHSCIliteracy and math coaches.

In this second year report we demonstrate thatPAHSCI is “making a difference,” that meas-urable progress is occurring. In Section One,we review the overall design of PAHSCI—intended accomplishments and strategies forachievement. We also present an importantoverall finding: PAHSCI is having the intend-ed impacts. In Section Two, we present find-ings from our classroom observations, follow-up teacher interviews, and teacher survey,which indicate that teachers from across thesubject areas are working with instructionalcoaches and adopting new instructionalpractices. It is clear that those involved in mul-tiple PAHSCI program components have thedeepest understanding of PLN strategies. InSection Three, we describe how instructionalcoaching helps teachers adopt new teachingstrategies and we describe the factors thatenhance coaches’ impact and those thatimpede it. In Section Four, we discuss themultiple sites for professional learning that arepart of the PAHSCI model and how these con-tribute to leadership development and profes-sional community. In Section Five, we offerthe perspectives of PAHSCI participants on theproject. And in Section Six, we outline recom-mendations for sustaining instructional coach-ing in Year Three and beyond and offer les-sons from the first two years of PAHSCI.

The Pennsylvania High School CoachingInitiative (PAHSCI) seeks to improve

student achievement in high-need high schoolsacross Pennsylvania by enhancing the teachingof literacy skills across subject areas. It isambitious in its scope as a statewide initiativeand distinctive in its direct focus on instructionas the pathway to improving secondary educa-tion. (See the box below for a summary of thedistinctive features of PAHSCI.) The pro-gram’s design (see Theory of Change on page6) relies on instructional coaching, profession-al development, and mentoring, and the PennLiteracy Network’s framework to yield bothintermediate and, over time, long term positiveoutcomes.

Improving students’ literacy3 by using the sup-port of instructional coaches is at the heart ofthe design. Unfortunately, many students arenot gaining the literacy skills they need forproductive employment and civic participa-tion. Particularly troubling are the data forlow-income students and minorities.4 Althoughprogress has been made in developing literacyinterventions for students in kindergartenthrough third grade, considerably less attentionhas been paid to helping high school studentsdevelop the basic literacy skills they need tolearn history, science, and mathematics. Thetask is particularly daunting for low-incomeyouth who often come to school with speciallearning needs and who have become disaf-fected and disengaged in large high schoolswhere they frequently fall between the cracks.

Many researchers believe that the key toimproving adolescents’ literacy skills is toprovide strong professional developmentfor secondary teachers—across all subjectareas—to strengthen their capacity to teach lit-eracy. In addition, instructional coaching—arelatively young reform—has been identifiedas a promising professional development strat-egy and, although there is not yet conclusiveresearch linking coaching teachers to increasedstudent achievement, a number of studies indi-cate that coaching helps teachers better under-stand new instructional practices and incorpo-rate new strategies into their classroominstruction.5


Section 1A 5

Distinctive Features of PAHSCIPAHSCI is distinctive in its:

• scale as a statewide initiative.Most coaching initiatives are district-based;

• direct focus on classroom instruction in high-needhigh schools. Most high school reform initiativesfocus on changing organizational structures;

• focus on content – the infusion of literacy-basedpractices across the curriculum by PAHSCI literacy andmath coaches. Many coaching models use “changecoaches” who provide generic technical assistanceto principals and teacher leaders but do not focuson specific professional development content;

• design which includes interventions aimed atcreating the necessary conditions in districts andschools that will result in effective coaching andimproved student achievement;

• direct site-based monthly mentoring of coachesand administrators by mentors;

• research and development model designed as a cycleof documentation, assessment and refinement, and asan effort that will create knowledge about coaching.

3 We define literacy as a complex phenomenon that involvesthe ability to understand, interpret, create, and communicateusing a variety of written materials from different contexts.

4 McCombs, J.S., Kirby, S.N., Barney, H., Darilek, H., &Magee, S.J. (2004). Achieving State and National LiteracyGoals, a Long Uphill Road: A Report to CarnegieCorporation of New York. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

5 Edwards, J.L. & Newton, R.R. (1995). The Effect ofCognitive Coaching on Teacher Efficacy and Empowerment.Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the AmericanEducation Research Association, San Francisco, CA;Showers, B. & Joyce, B. (1996). The Evolution of PeerCoaching. Educational Leadership, 53, 12-16.

Section 1A

PAHSCI’s Design

Program Components

The PAHSCI design is comprised of threecentral components working within a theoryof change to improve the academic programsand student achievement in participating highschools. Instructional coaching, together withthe other program components, providesinputs in PAHSCI’s Theory of Change. In thissection of the report, we describe the centralcomponents of the program, the assumptionsthat underlie these components, and howthese components have been designed towork together in a theory of change aboutimproving the academic program and studentachievement in participating high schools.

Component One: Instructional CoachingEmbedding professional learning in the actualdaily work that teachers do in their classroomsand with their colleagues makes sense as astrategy to help teachers adopt research-basedinstructional practices. Further, becausecoaches have deep knowledge about theschools in which they work, they are able to

help teachers select appropriate instructionalstrategies and tailor those strategies to thespecific needs of the students.

PAHSCI’s literacy and math instructionalcoaches work with teachers one-on-one intheir classrooms: planning lessons and units,providing resources, conducting demonstrationlessons, co-teaching, observing, and facilitatingreflective conversations after the in-classroomwork. Additionally, they lead a wide range ofprofessional development activities and planand facilitate faculty and department-widetraining sessions focused on the analysisof student performance data. Coaches alsowork with administrators to integratecoaching into the school culture.

Effective instructional coaching needs districtand school leaders who understand and believethat instructional coaching is an effectivemodel of professional development. Commit-ted school leaders provide the organizationalstructure and resources for the successfulimplementation of the model.

RESEARCH FOR ACTION

6 Section 1A

ClassroomLevel

School Level

Intermediate Outcomes

InstructionalCoaching

� Leadership Development

� Strengthened Professional Community

� Ownership of PAHSCI

Program Components Long-term Outcome

Literacy-rich Curriculumand Instructionacross content

areas

Teachersskilled in

research-basedinstructionalstrategies

StudentsActively

Engaged

ImprovedStudentAchievement

� Professional Development– PLN Trainings– Foundations’ Networking Sessions

� Leadership and Content Mentoring

� PLN Framework

� Sustained consultation to teachers focusingon literacy-rich curriculum & instruction

� Professional development such as study groups

� Assistance with the use and analysis of data

� Collaboration among teachers

PAHSCI Theory of Change


Section 1A 7

Component Two: Professional Development,Leadership, and Content MentoringRecognizing that schools have limitedresources, PAHSCI established partnershipswith leaders in education practice to providedistricts and schools with the support theyneed to build the necessary infrastructure,leadership, knowledge, and momentumfor change. These partners include:

• The Penn Literacy Network (PLN),a professional development programwithin the Graduate School of Educationat the University of Pennsylvania thatoffers a research-based framework andpractical strategies for establishingliteracy-rich classrooms across allsubject areas. PLN provides trainingin its framework for coaches, adminis-trators, and teachers through intensivesummer institutes and in regional coursesthroughout the school year. In addition,PLN supports districts and schools byleading centralized (all participating dis-tricts attend) and regional (local sessionswith selected groups of teachers, coach-es, and mentors) training.

• Foundations, Inc., a non-profit organiza-tion that provides professional develop-ment, training, technical assistance,assessment tools, and publications to theeducation community, brings knowledgeof school improvement processes and therole of school leadership in promotingprofessional learning. It provides leader-ship mentors who work with district andschool leaders and coaches to establishthe enabling conditions that will supportthe instructional coaching model andcontent mentors who work with coachesand other school leaders to implementthe PLN framework. These mentors visitdistricts four times each month and pro-vide training, ongoing technical support,and opportunities for coaches and admin-istrators to problem solve, reflect upontheir work, and refine their coachingskills. Foundations, Inc. also providesnetworking opportunities among districts.

Component Three:The Penn Literacy Network’s FrameworkAll high school teachers, across all contentareas, are teachers of reading, writing, and oralcommunication. Teachers need a sharedapproach to developing the literacy skills ofstudents so that literacy instruction is coherentand consistent.

The Penn Literacy Network (PLN) offers aresearch-based framework and practical strate-gies for establishing literacy-rich, student-cen-tered classrooms across all subject areas.PLN’s framework supplies participants with ashared language for talking about instructionand student learning that in turn helps buildcollaborative learning communities amongschool-based educators. (PLN’s framework isdescribed in the box below and a list of PLNstrategies appears in Appendix C.)

Penn Literacy Network’s FrameworkPLN’s framework is based on four interrelated “lenses”from which instructional strategies are derived that pro-mote student engagement, problem solving, and criticalthinking. These lenses are central to learning and goodteaching and the framework encourages teachers to usethe lenses as they work with their students.

The lenses are:

1 meaning-centered (relating new informationto existing prior knowledge);

2 social (learning in a collaborative, social context);

3 language-based (reading, writing, and talkingfor authentic purposes); and

4 human (self-reflecting to increase awarenessof one’s own unique learning styles).

Also integral to the frameworkare five critical experiences:

1 transacting with text,

2 composing texts,

3 extending reading and writing,

4 investigating language, and

5 learning to learn.

The training also includes strategies aligned with stateand national content standards that connect disciplinarycontent to the real world.

The Theory of Change (page 6) illustrates howPAHSCI’s program components are intendedto affect both intermediate outcomes and longterm student achievement outcomes. The threeschool level intermediate outcomes include:

• Leadership Development: Leadership isdefined by education researchers Spillaneet al. as, “the identification, acquisition,allocation, coordination, and use of social,material, and cultural resources necessaryto establish the conditions for the possi-bilities of teaching and learning.”6

• Strengthened Professional Community:In strong professional communities edu-cators work together “to continuouslyseek, share, and act on their learning” forthe purpose of improving teaching andstudent achievement.7 Building strongprofessional communities within schoolsis widely considered to positively impactteacher collaboration and thus lead toimproved classroom instruction.

• Ownership of PAHSCI: Research on howeducation innovations are sustained overtime shows that ownership of the reformmust change hands from external actorsto internal actors (i.e., district and schoolpractitioners). Ownership requires deepknowledge of the reform and the authorityto perpetuate it.8

Three additional intermediate outcomes occurat the classroom level.

• Literacy-rich, student-centered curriculum:Literacy-rich classrooms and student-cen-tered curriculum emphasize the importanceof having students speak, read, and write asways to deepen their learning and demon-strate what they know. Such opportunitiesshould occur daily for all students acrossall content areas.

• Actively engaged students: Student engage-ment can be defined as “the student’s psy-chological investment in and effort directedtoward, learning, understanding, or master-ing the knowledge, skills, or crafts that

academic work is intended to promote.”9

Students who are actively engaged in theirlearning attend school regularly, learn more,are more likely to persist to graduation, andare less likely to exhibit problem behaviors.10

• Teachers skilled in research-basedinstructional strategies: When teachersconsistently use research-based instruc-tional strategies, their students showachievement gains. This is especially truefor low-income and minority students.11

The long term outcome of improved studentachievement occurs when the program inputscreate the intermediate outcomes necessaryto accomplish this ultimate goal. An importantgoal for this evaluation has been to helpPAHSCI stakeholders refine the Theory ofChange and test the theory in practice byexamining whether the program inputsare having the intended benefits—bothintermediate and long-term.

RESEARCH FOR ACTION

8 Section 1A

9 Newmann, F. M. (Ed.). (1992). Student Engagement andAchievement in American Secondary Schools. New York:Teachers College Press.

10 Bowen, E. R. (2003). Student Engagement andIts Relation to Quality Work Design: A Review of theLiterature. [On-line]. Retrieved on August 31, 2007, fromhttp://chiron.valdosta.edu/are/ebowenLitReview.pdf.; Weiss,C. C. (2003, November). The Neglected Importance ofConnections: The role of student engagement in the transi-tion to high school. Presented at the Association for PublicPolicy Analysis and Management, Washington, DC.

11 Knapp, M. S., Shields, P. M., & Turnbull, B. (1995, June).Academic Challenge in High-Poverty Classrooms. PhiDelta Kappan, 76(10), 770-776.

6 Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R. R., & Diamond, J. B.(2001, April). Investigating School Leadership Practice:A Distributed Perspective. Educational Researcher, 24.

7 National High School Alliance (2007). EmpoweredEducators. [On-line]. Retreived on March 20, 2007,from http://www.hsalliance.org/call_action/empowered_educators/research.asp.

8 Coburn, C. E. (2003). Rethinking Scale: Moving BeyondNumbers to Deep and Lasting Change. EducationalResearcher, 32(6), 3-12.


Section 1B 9

Section 1B

Research Methods

In Year Two, Research for Action’s mixed-methods research continued to examine

PAHSCI’s implementation and its impact onintermediate outcomes including: professionalcommunity, leadership development, literacy-rich student-centered classroom practices,student engagement, and reform ownership.Changes in intermediate outcomes are likelyto emerge earlier than changes in studentachievement.12 Thus, they provide usefulinsight into whether progress is occurringtoward the desired final results.

In reporting our findings, we draw primarilyfrom three data sources:

• Qualitative data collected in 52classroom observations and follow-upinterviews with teachers in 7 PAHSCIschools;

• Survey data collected from teachers,coaches, and administrators; and

• Questionnaire data collected fromcoaches, mentors, and school anddistrict administrators.

Almost all of the findings presented in thereport are supported by data drawn from morethan one data source (e.g., observation data,interview data, and survey data; observationdata and interview data). Where this is not thecase, we make that explicit. Bringing multipledata sources into play in an analysis strength-ens the trustworthiness of the findings.

Major Research Activities in Year Two

School Site Visits and ClassroomObservationsRFA visited 7 high schools in six PAHSCIdistricts across the state. Schools were chosento represent diversity in terms of geographicalregion of Pennsylvania (eastern, western,central), urbanicity, and school size. Wefocused on 9th and 10th grade English andmath teachers in our school-based classroomvisits and interviews. We assessed teachers’levels of participation in PAHSCI-sponsoredactivities and rated them either high or lowparticipation. We used a classroom visit guideto record both student and teacher behaviorsand to assess instruction and student responseon three dimensions; implementation of thePLN framework, facilitation of learning, andstudent engagement. Follow up interviewswith teachers focused on the typicality of thelesson and the response of students, as wellas on teachers’ experiences with PAHSCIand work with coaches.

These observations allowed us to provide amore finely-grained analysis of if, and how,teachers with various levels of participationin PAHSCI are integrating the PLN frameworkand strategies into their classroom practice,and thus help to draw an evidentiary pathwayfrom PAHSCI activities to classroom activities.(For a more complete description of ourqualitative research methods and analyticalprocedures, see Appendix B.)

SurveysAll teachers, coaches, and administrators inPAHSCI high schools were included in thesamples for the Year Two teacher, coach, andadministrator surveys. The teacher survey hada response rate of 65 percent (N=1230); thecoach survey had a response rate of 96 percent(N=89); the administrator survey had a

12 Outside the scope of this report, quantitative consultants,with support from the Pennsylvania Department of Education,are conducting research to make the direct association ofhigh participation in PAHSCI and improved studentachievement.

RESEARCH FOR ACTION

10 Section 1C

response rate of 81 percent (N=21). Surveysfocused on the following areas: respondentcharacteristics, school environment and pro-fessional climate, understanding of PAHSCIand the PLN framework, coaches and theirrole, PAHSCI supports, professional learningopportunities, professional community,instructional change, coaching challenges(coaches only), student engagement andachievement, and PAHSCI in Year Three.

We used our analysis of the teacher surveyto provide a broad descriptive picture of theparticipation levels of teachers and to deter-mine the factors associated with teachers’level of participation in PAHSCI. We also usedour analysis of the teacher survey to determinethe relationships between level of participation

and the desired intermediate outcomes ofleadership development, professional commu-nity, ownership of PAHSCI goals, literacy-richstudent-centered classrooms, and activelyengaged students.

QuestionnairesQuestionnaires were administered duringnetworking sessions in December andMay to mentors, administrators, and coaches.Questionnaires focused on their assessmentof program implementation and the program’searly impacts on three areas: establishingliteracy rich classrooms, strengtheningprofessional communities in schools, anddeveloping educational leaders who have theskills to help teachers improve their practice.

Section 1C

Testing PAHSCI’s Theory of Change

An important goal of the evaluationresearch has been to develop ways to

measure implementation of the PAHSCIprogrammatic components, as well as theintermediate outcomes, and then to examinewhether there were the intended relationshipsbetween program activities and intermediateoutcomes: Did PAHSCI make the intendeddifference? Our analytical method includedusing the teacher survey to test whetherteachers with high levels of participation inPAHSCI were likely to demonstrate greaterassociation with the desired intermediateoutcomes (e.g., use of PLN’s research-basedstrategies, student engagement, leadershipdevelopment, professional community, andownership of PAHSCI) than teachers with lowparticipation. (See Appendix B for a completedescription of the survey measures and analy-sis.) While positive associations between highparticipation and the intermediate outcomes

might be supposed, they cannot be assumed.This analysis is an important test of whetherPAHSCI is working in the ways intended byits designers.

Finding 1: Higher levels of participation inPAHSCI predicted higher levels in all of theintermediate outcomes. All of the correlationsbetween participation level and outcomevariables are highly significant, p<.001.This analysis indicates an overall robustness ofthe PAHSCI model and supports the argumentthat PAHSCI is having the intended impacts inparticipating schools and classrooms. In otherwords, the program’s theory of change isworking in practice.

In the remainder of this report, we will offera more detailed description of the impact ofPAHSCI and we will discuss the factors thatare contributing to progress, as well as thechallenges that remain.

Undoubtedly, the real challenge forPAHSCI is changing classroom practice.

In this section, we examine how PAHSCIis reaching the classroom and translating intoliteracy-rich instruction where teachers use avariety of research-based strategies to stimu-late the active involvement of their studentsin learning. PAHSCI efforts are directly aimedat the classroom by providing teachers with:ongoing, high quality classroom-based assis-tance from instructional coaches; high quality,intensive professional development offered incourses run by PLN; and school-based profes-sional development opportunities, includingstudy groups, departmental meetings, andwhole faculty meetings. Both the one-on-onecoaching and the professional developmentsessions focus on the PLN framework andhow to use its research-based strategies inthe classroom.

Important questions for the evaluation include:

• Are teachers participating in thesePAHSCI-sponsored opportunities?

• At what level of intensity areteachers involved?

• What is the impact of teachers’involvement on their classroominstruction and on engaging studentsmore actively in their learning?

The answers to these questions provideinformation about progress towards the goalsof the Initiative. They also provide a windowinto the potential for institutionalization andsustainability of instructional coaching. Inorder for education reforms to take hold theymust have reach; they must be taken up byteachers. The reach must be both broad—increasing numbers of people embrace thereform—and deep—people have sufficientunderstanding of the reform to implementnew practices in an authentic way.

In this section we draw from three maindata sources: the Year Two Teacher Survey(N=1230); observations of lessons in 52classrooms and follow-up interviews withthe teachers in those classrooms. The surveyprovides information about teachers’ participa-tion across the whole Initiative and teachers’perceptions of the impact of their participa-tion. The classroom observations provide amore nuanced and independent descriptionof teachers’ instruction.


Section 2 11

Section 2

PAHSCI’s Impact on Teachingand Student Engagement

At first, I was very resistant. I thought, what arethey [coaches] going to teach me? I’ve beenaround for a long time. And then, I listened.When I do use PLN strategies, I think I’m a bet-ter instructor. I thought I was wonderful but Iwas doing most of the talking. That’s one of thehardest things, getting the students to partici-pate. So now I do a lot of group work. I’m will-ing to try new things.

– 10th Grade English Teacher

Excerpt from RFA Researcher/Teacher Interview

RFA Researcher: How much of the lesson that Isaw today has been influencedby your work with the coach?

9th GradeMath Teacher: If I didn’t have the coaching, I

would probably not have donethis lesson at all. I would havegone right into test review.

Figure 1

Percentage of Teachers Participating in PAHSCI-Related Activities

Criteria for High Participation0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Teachers’ Participationin PAHSCI Activities

Finding 1: Seventy-four percent of teachersresponding to the Year Two Teacher Survey metat least one of the four criteria for our definitionof high participation in PAHSCI-sponsored activi-ties. Seventy-two percent worked one-on-onewith an instructional coach and 52 percent metwith their coach frequently enough to meet thecriterion for high participation.

Approximately three quarters of the teachersresponding to the Year Two Teacher Surveyindicated that they had participated in aPAHSCI-sponsored activity frequently enoughto meet at least one of the four criteria for highparticipation. Almost the same number hadhad some kind of one-on-one interaction withan instructional coach with half of all teachersindicating they are working with a coach atleast twice a semester. This indicates thatPAHSCI’s reach is broad and coaches arefinding ways to work with a considerablerange of teachers. Figure 1 shows thepercentage of survey respondents whoreported participating in the four kinds ofPAHSCI-sponsored activities that we used

as criteria to be high participation in PAHSCI.Teachers had to meet three out of four criteria.Only 18 percent met our rigorous criteria forhigh participation; given that this is onlythe second year of the program, this isnot surprising.

Figure 2 shows a further break down of theintensity of teachers’ one-on-one work withcoaches. Only 28 percent of teachers reportedno one-on-one contact with a coach. This isencouraging in light of coaches’ reports lastyear that they were encountering significantteacher resistance. Thirty-six percent reportedthat they have worked with a coach monthlyor twice monthly. Likewise, this percentageis encouraging in that it indicates that coachesare getting into classrooms and working in aconsultative role with more than one third ofresponding teachers. A promising indicator,53 percent of teachers responding to the surveyindicated that they would like to have a coachvisit their classroom and offer feedback and55 percent would like to have a coach modela lesson in their classrooms. However, thechallenge that lies ahead is creating thetime for ongoing, intensive coach-teacherrelationships with the majority of the staff.

RESEARCH FOR ACTION

12 Section 2

Worked one-on-one with a coachat least twice a semester

Attended a PLN coursein either 05-06 or 06-07

Attended a school based study groupthat met at least twice a semester

Attended school-based professionaldevelopment sessions related toPAHSCI at least twice a semester

52 %.

36%.

29%.

23%.


Section 2 13

Figure 2

Teachers’ Work with Coaches

Figure 3

Teachers’ Perceptions of Coaches

One-on-one work with a coach

0 10 20 30

Never 28%.

Once a Semester 20%.

Twice a Semester 16%.

Monthly 16%.

Twice Monthly 20%.

My coach addresses my needs as a teacher

0 10 20 30 40 50

Don’t Know 14%.

StronglyDisagree 5%.

Disagree 13%.

Agree 48%.

Strongly agree 20%.

The work I do with my coach is applicable to my area

0 10 20 30 40 50

Don’t Know 14%.

StronglyDisagree 3%

Disagree 9%.

Agree 53%.

Strongly Agree 21%.

My coach plays a significant role in improvingclassroom instruction and practices

0 10 20 30 40 50

Don’t Know 17%.

Strongly Disagree 7%.

Disagree 24%.

Agree 38%.

Strongly Agree 14%.

RESEARCH FOR ACTION

14 Section 2

Finding 2: Year Two Teacher Survey results indi-cate that coaches are working one-on-one withteachers from a variety of subject areas and withteachers who work with special needs popula-tions. They also indicate that math teachers aremore likely to work with coaches at least twicea month than teachers in other subject areas.

PAHSCI coaches were trained to assistteachers across the content areas in applyingliteracy-rich instructional strategies to class-rooms. Encouragingly, 74 percent of teachersresponding to the Year Two Teacher Surveyreported that their work with coaches wasapplicable to their content area and 68 percentagreed that coaches addressed their needs asa teacher. Further, 52 percent responded thattheir coach played a significant role inimproving classroom practice.

Figure 4 shows the percentage of respondentsin each of the subject areas who indicated thatthey had worked with a coach at least twice amonth. It is interesting to note that math teach-ers were more likely to report working with acoach than their counterparts in other subjectareas. The qualitative research indicated thatmany math teachers have been struggling withhow to make routine use of literacy-rich activ-ities in their math classes. It is heartening thatmath teachers are seeking help from coaches.

The Impact of Teacher Level of Partici-pation in PAHSCI Activities on ClassroomPractices and Student Engagement

We described PAHSCI’s reach in terms of thenumbers of teachers involved in instructionalcoaching and other Initiative-related activitiesand the intensity of their involvement. Now,we turn our attention to the question of thedepth of PAHSCI’s reach. Teachers with adeep understanding of the pedagogical princi-ples of a reform are better able to respond tonew demands and changing contexts in waysthat are consistent with underlying principlesof the reform, thus sustaining and intensifyingthe reform practices over time.13 Our analysisexamines the degree to which teachers withhigh levels of involvement understand thePLN framework and can implement its strate-gies with rigor. While it might be expectedthat this would be the case, it cannot beassumed. It is essential to establish whetherinstructional coaching, at its best, reaps thedesired results in classrooms—use of PLN’sresearch-based practices and active studentengagement in learning. We draw on data fromour classroom visits and interviews of teachersto explore this question.

For the qualitative research, to meet thecriteria of high participation teachers neededto demonstrate three of the following fiveindicators:1 working one-on-one with a coach;

2 attendance at PLN regional course;

3 attendance at school-based professionallearning given by PAHSCI coaches, mentors,or administrators;

4 participation in study groups, departmentalmeetings, or additional examples of collegiallearning opportunities connected to PAHSCIcontent; and

5 ongoing requests for coaching and PLNresources.

The research staff consulted with coaches andconfirmed with teachers their level of partici-

Figure 4

Percent of teachers in each subject area whoworked with a coach at least twice a month

0 10 20 30

Math 33%.

Social Studies 24%.

English 22%.

ESL 21%.

Special 19%.Education

Vocational/ 19%.Career

13 (Coburn, 2003, 6)


Section 2 15

pation in PAHSCI. Of the 52 ninth and tenthgrade English and math teachers, 31 wererated as having high levels of participation;21 with low levels.14

In collaboration with PLN facilitators andinstructional coaches, RFA staff designed aclassroom visit guide and teacher interviewprotocol. The guide and protocol provided datafor assessing the lesson observed along threedimensions; use of PLN strategies, the facilita-tion of instruction, and student engagement.(See Appendix B for a fuller description of ourobservation methodology.)

Integrating the Research-BasedStrategies of the PLN Framework

We characterize teachers’ use of the PLNframework and its research-based strategiesby drawing from the work of Banks and Bankson the integration of multicultural content intocurriculum.15 We show progression from sur-face manifestations of the PLN framework tomore in depth change through the integration

of deeper pedagogical principles.16 The chartabove identifies four levels of integration andillustrates each level with selected examplesfrom both multicultural models and the PLNframework.

PAHSCI teachers at the first and secondlevels generally applied a few isolated PLNstrategies such as Do Nows at the openingor close of the lesson. However, at this lowerlevel of integration, the tasks were not con-nected to the remainder of the lesson nor didthey help focus students on the lesson content.In many cases, lessons were dominated by

14 Our sample was what is known as a purposeful sample.We did not seek representativeness because our purpose wasnot generalizability to an entire population. Instead, wesought to understand the impact of the Initiative operating atits highest level of intensity.

15 Banks, J. A. & Banks, C. A. M. (Eds.). (2005).Multicultural Education: Issues and Perspectives(5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.16 (Coburn, 2003)

Comparison of Integration Levels: The MulticulturalEducation Model and the PLN Framework Model

Levels of Integrationof New Practices Multicultural Model PLN Framework (Selected Examples)

Use of isolated PLN framework strategies such asDo Nows, Word Splash with no connections to stu-dents’ current knowledge or the body of the lesson.

Use of process strategies such as small groups,pair share–without building students’ capacityto learn together.

Evidence of a coordinated instructional focus usingthe PLN framework to provide extended readingand writing activities, some review and check-in orassessment of learning. Students performing thetasks, problems, or activities.

All of Level Three and evidence that studentsrecognized the relevance of the lesson, students’reading, writing and talking was interrelated andstudents took risks and had opportunities to besuccessful.

ContributionLevel One

AdditiveLevel Two

TransformationLevel Three

Social ActionLevel Four

Focuses on heroes, holidays, anddiscrete cultural events

Content, concepts, themes and per-spectives are added to the curriculum with-out changing its structure

The structure of the curriculum ischanged to enable students to viewconcept, issues, events, and themesfrom the perspectives of diverseethnic and cultural groups

Includes all of the elements of the transfor-mation approach but adds componentsthat require students to make decisionsand take actions related to the concept,issue, or problem studied in the unit

RESEARCH FOR ACTION

16 Section 2

“teacher talk” or “busy work” that was notstudent-centered. Some teachers struggledwith classroom management and were unableto engage students in learning tasks. In otherwords, they merely added, or layered uponpreviously existing classroom structures, afew new strategies, but their rationale for suchadditions were neither apparent, nor were theyintegrated throughout the lesson.

Teachers at the third and fourth level ofimplementation used the PLN frameworkstrategies to build on and extend studentknowledge and connect reading and writingopportunities to the lesson content. Theymodeled various types of responses and theyinvited students to replicate their modeling.Subsequently, students moved from individualconjectures, to sharing in pairs, to reporting tothe whole group. Students were often invitedto make meaning for themselves and othersbased on prior knowledge. To arrive at thishigher level of integration, teachers reportedthat working with a coach was, as one teachershared, “an integral part of the process…Working with my coach helped me to adaptthe strategies and make them a good fit formy students.”

Finding 3: There were both English and mathteachers who were implementing the PLNframework at a high level of rigor and success.However, overall, a greater percentage ofEnglish teachers than math teachers showedfacility with PLN strategies.

As a group, both math and English teachersreceiving level 4 ratings in one or all of thethree dimensions were focused on having stu-dents share ideas and explanations, defend andjustify solutions, solve challenging problems,and grapple with complex ideas. They fre-quently invited students to do the talking, hadstudents interact with one another and success-fully used key PLN strategies such as TextRendering, Expert Jigsaw, and Reviewingand Predicting all the while connecting theactivity to real world experiences. For exam-ple, in a ninth grade English class studyingRomeo and Juliet, student directors were cre-ating character portraits of the cast by listing

the qualities and skill sets they wanted in theactors they were interviewing for a live pro-duction of the play. In this example, studentsused their understanding of the elements ofcharacter and applied them to real situations.Significantly, students of varying ability levelswere learning to interact with their peers—andlearned to trust their peers’ input—thusextending the scope of learning beyond the“teacher as the holder of the right answer.”Students in classrooms of math teachers whowere working at levels 3 and 4 of integrationwere encouraged to formulate conjectures, testthem, and justify their solutions to each otherin the context of an inquiry-oriented learningapproach. Neumann’s study of student engage-ment emphasizes the importance of instruc-tional tasks that “provide extrinsic rewards,intrinsic interest, sense of ownership, connec-tion to the ‘real world,’ and fun.”17

Taken as a whole, the data highlights Englishteachers’ higher levels of implementationof PLN strategies. (See Table 1 on page 17)Only two math teachers with low levels ofparticipation in PAHSCI activities were work-ing at a level 4 of integration on at least one ofthe three dimensions of the classroom visitobservations. By comparison, 9 math teachers,assessed as high program participants, wereworking at level 4 of integration on a mini-mum of one of the three dimensions. ForEnglish teachers, 11 low participation teacherswere working at a 4 level and 14 high partici-pation teachers were working at a 4 level in atleast one dimension.

Our qualitative research during Year Oneof PAHSCI indicated that English and mathteachers responded differently to the PLNframework—with math teachers generallyreporting having more difficulty seeing therelevance of the framework to their subjectmatter and incorporating PLN strategies intotheir teaching. Several math teachers inter-viewed reported, “math is a different creature,”and “the math curriculum is not organizedaround reading and writing,” and “PLNis a much better fit for English and humanities

17 (Newmann, 1992)


Section 2 17

teachers.” In addition, math teachers weretwice as likely to report student resistanceto writing. A few complained that PLN strate-gies took time away from the mandated mathcurriculum and from preparing students for thePSSA (the state test). In addition, math teach-ers were more likely to report that they “trieda few of the strategies” but did not continueto use them. However, some math teachersbelieved that having math students providewritten explanations of test answers wouldcontribute to improved comprehension in mathand ultimately improved math scores onachievement tests.

As pointed out earlier, math teachers weremore likely to be involved in more frequentone-on-one coaching. We suggest that mathteachers reported more frequent sessions withcoaches because they felt outside their “com-fort zone” when using the PLN strategies.They wanted support and encouragement fortheir efforts. Hopefully, instructional coachingwill make a difference in math classroomsacross PAHSCI schools.

Both math and English teachers showed highquality use of PLN strategies, althoughEnglish teachers were more likely to demon-strate competence. This evidence indicates thatPAHSCI activities are shaping the kinds of les-sons that teachers teach and, as some partici-pants have put it, are “opening our minds” toconceiving new ways of teaching.

Finding 4: In interviews, high participating Englishand math teachers reported a broader range ofbenefits from their participation in PAHSCI.

In our interviews of teachers, both high partic-ipation and low participation teachers reportedbenefits from PAHSCI. However, high partici-pation teachers in English and math cited abroader range of positive outcomes from PAH-SCI. The most frequently cited benefits were:

• increased knowledge and skill,

• increased levels of student engagement, and

• improved quality high school teaching.(The teacher survey data collaborates thisfinding.)

Distribution of Ratings for Teachers with HighLevels of Participation in PAHSCI Activities

Implementation Climate for Student Activitiesof PLN Framework Learning and Student Engagement

High Participation Low Participation High Participation Low Participation High Participation Low Participation

English Math English Math Englis Mathh English Math English Math English Math(N=13) (N=18) (N=12) (N=9) (N=13) (N=18) (N=12) (N=9) (N=13) (N=18) (N=12) (N=9)

Integration 0% 0 % 8% 11% 0% 0% 0% 22% 8% 0% 0% 22%Level 1 (Low)

Integration 26% 44% 17% 56% 31% 28% 17% 56% 8% 22% 17% 56%Level 2

Integration 54 % 44% 58% 22% 23% 56% 33% 11% 54% 56% 58% 11%Level 3

Integration 31% 11% 17% 0% 46% 17% 50% 11% 31% 22% 25% 11%Level 4 (High)

Table 1

RESEARCH FOR ACTION

18 Section 2

Increased Knowledge and Skill

Teachers’ knowledge of students, academiccontent and overall pedagogy are central com-ponents of high quality teaching and learning.The critical work of teaching and learning isreferred to as “the instructional core,” whichfeatures three interdependent components:

• teachers’ knowledge and skills,

• students’ engagement in their ownlearning, and

• academically challenging content.

Cohen and Ball posit that teachers’ intellectualand personal resources18 all influence classroominstruction.19 Students bring experiences, under-standings, interests and potential for engage-ment to the classroom. At the same time, inter-actions among students are additional resourcesfor student learning. The academic contentand materials make up the third element ofthe instructional core. Instructional materials,as presented in text and other media, as wellas the actual instructional tasks, problems, orprojects students do, make up the curriculum.

PAHSCI’s model of coaching and mentoringis directly aimed at the instructional coreby providing professional development thatimmerses teachers in research-based instruc-tional practices and provides them with ongo-ing, high quality classroom-based assistance.PAHSCI’s theory of change is stronglysupported by Cohen and Ball’s claim thatteachers play the pivotal role in strengtheningthe instructional core. They elaborate,

Because teachers mediate instruction, theirinterpretation of educational materials affectscurriculum potential and use, and their

understanding of students affects students’opportunities to learn. As teachers learnnew things about content and students, theynotice different things about both, and areable to use them differently. Change in stu-dents, teachers, or materials has the poten-tial to change the relations of teachers, stu-dents, and materials, and hence affectinstructional capacity. But change in teach-ers has unique potential, because teachersmediate all relationships within instruction.20

Over 50 percent of teachers we observed andinterviewed indicated that PAHSCI gave themopportunities to learn and practice new ideasand strategies. Both math and English, highand low participation teachers reported that theInitiative had influenced them to de-emphasize“straight lecture” as the dominant format oftheir classroom teaching. Teachers reportedincreased confidence in their own teachingpractice and more effective use of their time.They also reported more frequent collabora-tion with other teachers and explained that thePLN framework provided a common languagefor talking about literacy-based strategiesacross English and math.

Increased Levels of Student Engagement

Students like it. They like having choice inreading. They like breaking up into smallergroups. They like a lot of the strategies more.

When I first came in as a teacher, I waslike, “Okay, I’m going to teach this lesson.This is what I have to get the students toknow.” So, it was more thinking, this iswhat I’m going to give to them. And now Ithink it’s more of a, “Well, now I have tolisten more.” So I think that is making itmore of a two-way street. And that it isn’tmy show; that has been helpful.

—9th Grade English Teacher

Both English and math teachers reportedincreases in student engagement throughPAHSCI, but English teachers were muchmore likely to report this. Participation levelmade little difference in English teachers’

18 Their conceptions of knowledge, understanding of con-tent, flexibility in understanding and tapping into students’prior knowledge, and their repertoire of strategies to repre-sent and extend knowledge, and to create classroom envi-ronments conducive to quality teaching and learning

19 Ball, D. L. & Cohen, D. K. (2004). Reform by the Book:What is — or might be — the role of curriculum materialsin teacher learning and instructional reform? EducationalResearcher, 25(9), 6-8.

20 (Ball & Cohen, 2004, 6-8)


Section 2 19

perceptions, with 75 percent ofhigh and 73 percent of low partici-pation English teachers reportingimproved student engagement.However, high participation mathteachers were more than twice aslikely as their low participationcolleagues to report increased stu-dent engagement through PAHSCIwith 47 percent of high participa-tion math teachers affirming this.

Importantly, high participationEnglish and math teachers saidthat students were writing more

and their writing was more reflective. Inaddition, teachers found that with dailyopportunities to write, writing came moreeasily to students. Teachers describedenhanced student initiative, student owner-ship of their learning, and student confi-dence. Observing the relevance of student-to-student interactions, one teacher shared,“I’ve learned that students actually learnbetter from other students. They seem to getit quicker.” High participation math teacherswho had implemented Read alouds andread alongs reported an overall improve-ment in student comprehension of the mathcomputations needed to solve a problem.High and low participation teachers cited astrong belief that increased engagementleads to increased student understandingand learning. Both English and math teach-ers noted that increased student engagementhelped them as teachers more accuratelyassess what students were learning, whatthey understood, and what they did not.

Improved Quality High School Teaching

Sometimes you’re looking at it, thecurriculum, and you just don’t see anotherway to teach it and you just need anothercolleague or someone, to ask, “Have youconsidered another way?” “No I haven’t,but I’m thinking about it.”

Are students learning what I want themto learn, academically challenging content?

And that really is the question. That’s allthat I’m concerned about.

High participation English and some highparticipation math teachers reported that theywere taking academically challenging contentand chunking it in new and more interestingways. Several reported an increase in theirexpectation of students’ ability to handledifficult subject matter. One English teachertried using the I-Search Paper, a strategy shelearned from the PLN course along with addi-tional insights from her coach. She shared,

This was the first time that I implementedsomething like that. Because I think my 9thgraders, they really need to have a founda-tion for research skills, and that paperenabled them to get on the computer, getto the library, look for books, and touch onsites that maybe were useful, maybe werenot, but they were still able to get thereand to utilize those skills.

For one teacher, both the quality of her teach-ing and her personal enjoyment from teachingincreased. She shared,

I personally see teaching as more enjoy-able. I’m actually teaching less and the kidsare learning more—from each other andtheir own discoveries.

A few teachers worried that the PLN frame-work, while improving student engagement,might not meet the needs of their most aca-demically driven students who expected ahighly competitive environment. One said,

I would like to have (and I will in thesummer) more time to sit down and processall the information and look at my curriculumand see where I can apply it, and see whereit would work well. And I Iook forward toworking with [instructional coach] to helpsort some of this out.

Although some teachers were reluctant todirectly confront the issue of equity in teach-ing racially and academically diverse learners,a few high participation (math and English)teachers reported that the use of the PLNframework helped them to teach more rigorous

RESEARCH FOR ACTION

20 Section 2

content to diverse learners. They explainedthat they are improving their quality of teach-ing because they were focusing on experiencesfrom their students’ world (especially whenthe teacher is not the same race or class astheir students) and better connecting whatstudents already knew to academic content.

Low participation teachers and a smallerpercentage of high participation teachersfrequently reported having insufficient timeto implement the PLN strategies in the waythey would like. Specifically, teacherssuggested that the periods were too short.In addition, several reported needing moretime to reflect on the instructional strategiesthey were learning and to work with coaches.Some found that integrating the strategiesinto their lessons takes more time than usingtraditional teaching methods.

More than English teachers, math teachersreported that they perceived a trade-offbetween covering content at an acceptablepace and integrating more writing into theirmath lessons. They were more likely to reportthat they were unsure how to incorporate thestrategies and it took time they did not have toreflect on how to change “how math is taught.You know, the math curriculum doesn’t lenditself to enough writing. You just kind of haveto see where you can squeeze it in.” Again,these struggles reported by math teachers pointto the important role of working with a coachone-on-one and it is promising that mathteachers report the highest incidence of work-ing one-on-one with a coach.

A few teachers report that coaches have helpedthem with classroom management. However,poor classroom management is an obstacle tousing the PLN strategies for some teachers andinhibits them from implementing the frame-work at higher levels. Some teachers reportthat the PLN strategies contributed to theirclassroom management woes, i.e., studentsbecome too talkative and rowdy; whereas oth-ers report that orchestrating a more literacy-rich environment has improved studentengagement and considerably helped theirmanagement issues.

Conclusion

Showers and Joyce found that teachersinvolved in a coaching relationship practicednew skills and strategies more frequently andapplied them more appropriately than didteachers who worked alone21 and so under-standing more about the reach of instructionalcoaches is important.

RFA’s observations, interviews, documentanalysis of lessons and artifacts and quantita-tive analysis of the teacher survey data allowus to report that English and math teacherswith high participation levels in PAHSCIactivities are changing their classroompractices in positive, measurable ways.As argued earlier, teachers’ enhancedknowledge and understanding has uniquepotential, because teachers mediate all rela-tionships within instruction and the supportof one-on-one coaching focuses and enhancesthe potential to change classroom practice.

We are reminded that during our preparationto visit PAHSCI classrooms, PLN facilitatorsmapped out key indicators of changingclassroom practice that we should be ableto observe in Year Two. In high participating,high implementation classrooms, writing waswoven throughout the lesson, this was reflec-tive writing, not just copying from a text.Teachers in these classrooms confirmed thatthis was a shift from previous practice. Wesaw teachers using scaffolding strategies andaddressing the range of ability levels amongtheir students by using more strategic group-ing, teaching and assessing, and re-teachingand most important, engaging students intheir own learning.

Finally, PAHSCI aims to encourage all teach-ers to “try something new and improved” andthough not without challenges and struggles,many of the teachers we visited and inter-viewed reported that what we observed repre-sented a shift in their thinking and practice.The support of an instructional coach to helprefine their practice is making a difference andas a result, teachers are changing classroompractice and their students are benefiting.21 (Showers and Joyce, 1996)

Section 3 21

Table 2

Professional Experience of PAHSCI Coaches.

In total, 61% of coaches participated in all these training opportunities.


Section 3

The Role of Coaching inChanging Instruction

At the heart of PAHSCI are coachesproviding ongoing instructional guidance

to teachers. Hasbrouck and Denton describethe work of coaching as “job-embedded,individualized, and sustained professionaldevelopment to teachers.”22 This section willdiscuss how instructional coaching, focusedon implementation of the PLN framework,contributes to changes in teachers’ instructionalpractice. Drawing from mentor and coachquestionnaire data, interviews and surveys ofteachers, and interviews and surveys of coaches,we will describe how coaches have guidedteachers to deeper levels of implementationof the PLN framework.

Factors Leading to Teachers’ Use ofPLN’s Research-based Strategies

Based on coach survey data, coach interviews,teacher interviews, and teacher survey data,our research identified four major factors thatlead to a teacher’s use of PLN’s research-based strategies:

1 Attendance at a PLN course followed up byencouragement and guidance from an instruc-tional coach;

2 One-on-one work with a coach;

3 Work with a coach whose professional identitywas closely aligned with PAHSCI goals and whohad a clear understanding of the coach role; and

4 Use of the Before-During-After Consultation Cycle.

The coaching initiative has been amazing. Notjust the training. Not just the new approaches toreading, and writing, which were great, but alsothe coaching—having a classroom teacher whowe all know, who we all understand what qualifi-cations they bring, having them…just the worditself, having them to coach you through this.

—English Teacher

I’ve told my coach severaltimes, “Wow, I wish I knewlast year what I know now.”The coaches have been won-derful. I go to them a lot. Ithink without them the jobwould be a lot more difficult.

—Math Teacher

22 Hasbrouck, J. & Denton, C. A. (2007, April). Student-Focused Coaching: A Model for Reading Coaches. TheReading Teacher, 60(7), 690.

Most coaches had, or were inthe process of obtaining, agraduate degree.

55% Master’s degree

6% Doctorate degree

25% Enrolled in agraduate program

Overall, coacheshad many years ofteaching experience.

33% 10-20 years

27% 21-30 years

12% 31-35 years

Coaches also attended trainingsessions to equip them for thework of coaching.

73% PLN 1

76% PLN 2

72% Year One networking sessions

74% Year Two networking sessions

RESEARCH FOR ACTION

Coaching and the PLN Course CreateMomentum for Instructional ChangeThe first time I did one of the strategies itdidn’t go as well. I learned it at PLN and Itried it immediately. There were things I sawthat I had to work out. Then I saw one ofthe coaches and I said, ‘I’m overwhelmed.I don’t know where to start. Can you giveme some ideas?’ And they’ve alwaysbeen there for me.

–Math Teacher

Finding 1: Teachers’ attendance at a PLN coursefollowed up by guidance from a school-basedinstructional coach increases the chances thatteachers will use the research-based practicesof the PLN framework.

Our qualitative data – observations and inter-views with 52 teachers – suggest that teachersare more likely to change their instructionalpractice when they attend a PLN course andreceive support from an instructional coach.Further, they are more likely to have a greaterunderstanding of the principles of the PLNframework and be able to implement its strate-gies. According to Rogers the decision toadopt or reject an innovation is influenced bythe actor’s knowledge of the innovation andpersuasion to use the innovation.23 Teachersneed to acquire three types of knowledge aboutan innovation: 1) awareness of the innovation;2) procedural knowledge of the innovation;and 3) knowledge of the principles underlyingthe innovation. Research on professionaldevelopment has indicated that awarenessand procedural knowledge are the most easilyacquired knowledge; internalizing an overallinstructional framework and its principles ismuch more difficult to achieve, but necessaryto sustaining the innovation.24 Persuasion isessential because it moves the teacher from

merely contemplating the benefits to embrac-ing them; and from abstract knowledge to con-crete use. Knowledge and persuasion togetherare necessary for adoption of an innovation.

Analysis of teacher interviews indicated thatinstructional change was particularly powerfulwhen teachers had acquired knowledge of thePLN framework through taking the PLNcourse and had worked with a coach that pro-vided the persuasion necessary to actualizethat knowledge. Because of their knowledgeof teachers’ backgrounds, their students, andtheir classrooms, coaches were able to helpteachers customize what they had learned fromthe course. This assistance with customizationoffered teachers one more reason to give PLNactivities a try. Essentially, coaches helpedteachers transform their abstract knowledgeof PLN strategies into something concrete,thus greatly increasing the likelihood ofusing those strategies.

Teachers reported that they frequently encoun-tered challenges in their first attempt to imple-ment PLN strategies. Such challenges, accord-ing to Rogers, often lead to discontinuance ofuse of the strategies. However, coaches wereinstrumental in helping teachers get past initialchallenges in implementing PLN strategies bygiving teachers ideas for adapting the strate-gies further, and encouraging them to keepworking at it “a little bit more.”

On the survey, coaches reported that, ingeneral,25 the strategies most frequentlyimplemented by teachers include: Do Now,Reflective Writing, and Transacting withText. (Frequency of use was defined as usingthe strategy at least once a week.) The leastfrequently used strategies were Jigsaw, andOn-Demand Prompts. Figure 5 provides adescription of these PLN strategies.

22 Section 3

23 Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations. (5th ed.)New York: The Free Press.

24 Franke, M. L., Carpenter, T. P., Levi, L. W., & Fennema,E. (1998, April). Teachers as Learners: Developing under-standing through children’s thinking. Presented at theAnnual Meeting of the American Educational ResearchAssociation, San Diego, CA.

25 No distinction is made here between teachers who workedone-on-one with a coach, and those who did not.


Figure 5

Coaches Report: Frequency of Use of PLN Strategies

Momentum for instructional change wasgenerated as coaches provided follow-up,customization of the PLN strategies, andencouragement to teachers who attendedthe PLN course.

Finding 2: One-on-one work with a coachpositively influenced teachers’ use of the PLNframework and its research-based strategies.

According to teacher survey data, teacherswho worked one-on-one with a coach weremore likely to use PLN strategies. Teachersalso reported this in our interviews with them.

This is the case whether we are looking at themost frequently used strategies or the leastfrequently used strategies.) As reported earlier,72 percent of teachers who were surveyedreported working one-on-one with a coach atleast once a semester (20 percent twicea month, 16 percent once a month, 16 percenttwice a semester, 20 percent once a semester),while 28 percent report never working one-on-one with a coach. Thus, one effective waythat coaches can help teachers implement PLNstrategies is by working with them on a one-on-one basis.

Section 3 23

Percent of Coaches Who Report Their Teachers Use These Strategies at Least Once a Week

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Do Now 94%.

Reflective Writing 79%.

Transacting with Text 71%.

Jigsaw 32%.

On-demand Prompts 28%.

Coach Survey 2007 (N=93)

Description of Select PLN Strategies

Most Used Strategies:....

Do NowA simple and quick writing assignmentused at the beginning of class tostimulate student interest.

Reflective WritingConnects students with the text, tappinginto their prior knowledge.

Transacting with TextConstructing meaning from text andapplying student-text-context interactions.

Least Used Strategies....

JigsawStudents become experts in one areaand break up into groups to share theirexpert knowledge with each other.

On-demand PromptsA writing assignment that is tied to instruc-tion, is read aloud, and is reviewed by theauthor; this kind of writing requires greatertime but improves students’ writing skills andtheir understanding of the content under study.

RESEARCH FOR ACTION

Strong Professional Identity and Role ClarityPositively Influence the Impact of Coaches

Finding 3: Teachers are more likely to use PLNstrategies if they work with a coach who has astrong professional identity as a coach and aclear understanding of the coach role.

In order to understand this finding, we turnto a brief description of the coach surveymodel. The following factors determined acoach’s professional identity (followed bythe percentage of coaches who met thatindividual criterion):

1 Knowledge of their role as a coach, 88%knowledge of the PLN framework,and knowledge of content

2 Active participation in various 75%school-based meetings

3 Active participation in 65%PAHSCI trainings

4 Self-rated effectiveness in 80%improving classroom practiceand student achievement

Coaches who checked 3 out of 4 of these indi-cators were viewed as having a professionalidentity that was closely linked to PAHSCI.Coaches who checked two or fewer of theseindicators were viewed as having a profession-al identity that was more peripheral toPAHSCI. Using these indicators, 73 percent ofcoaches were classified as having a profes-sional identity tied closely to PAHSCI.

Analysis of the 2007 coach survey datashowed that a coach’s professional identity isassociated with more frequent implementationof the PLN framework by the teachers inhis/her school. In the model, a coach’s profes-sional identity is both positively correlated(.362) with teachers’ implementation of thePLN framework (as reported by coaches),and is statistically significant (p = .003).

This means that the degree to which a coach’sprofessional identity is linked to PAHSCIaffects how frequently teachers use PLNstrategies. Thus, the professional identity ofa coach matters a great deal in how frequentlyteachers implement the PLN framework.In this finding, we see further evidence thatthe PAHSCI theory of change is working.

When coaches clearly understood their roles,teachers at their schools more frequently usedPLN strategies. In the first year, coaches beganforming consultative relationships with teachersdespite the fact that they “struggled mightilywith the ambiguity of their new assignment.”26

According to Promising InRoads and Learningto Change, it is common for instructionalcoaches to be ambiguous about their rolebecause of the numerous and varied needs inschools, and the paucity of research to guidethe work of coaches.27

PAHSCI coaches have made great strides indefining and clarifying their role from YearOne to Year Two. In 2006, only 57 percent ofcoaches agreed or strongly agreed that theyunderstood their role as a coach. In contrast,this year (2007), 98 percent of coaches agreedor strongly agreed that they understood theirrole. Figure 6 illustrates how far coaches havecome in understanding their role.

Using 2007 coach survey data, we found that94 percent of coaches who agreed or stronglyagreed that they understood their role as acoach, also agreed or strongly agreed that theyplayed an important role in improving class-room instruction. Because professional iden-tity is tied to coaches’ impacts on teacher prac-tice and coaches’ understanding of their role isa component of professional identity, thisincrease is a positive sign.

24 Section 3

26 (Franke et al.,1998, 21)

27 Brown, D., Reumann-Moore, R. J., Hugh, R., du Plessis, P.,& Christman, J. B. (2006, September 1). Promising InRoads:Year One of the Pennsylvania High School CoachingInitiative. Philadelphia: Research for Action.; Brown, C. J.,Stroh, H. R., Fouts, J. T., & Baker, D. B. (2005, February).Learning to Change: School Coaching for Systemic Reform.Mill Creek, WA: Fouts & Associates, L.L.C.


Figure 6

Section 3 25

As this quotation from a math coach illus-trates, coaches’ clear understanding of theirrole is critical to how effective they can be intheir work with teachers.

Originally, I misunderstood my charge toimplement math literacy classrooms. I triedto force writing for writing’s sake. Now Iunderstand better what it means to bemath literate. As a result, teachers under-stand better what’s expected of them.

– Math Coach

“If the institutional role of the coach isambiguous, then [coaches] run the risk ofbecoming irrelevant to the real work of theschool.”28 With a better understanding of theirrole, PAHSCI coaches were able to sharpentheir focus on helping teachers customizeimplementation of the PLN framework.

Use of the Before-During-AfterConsultation CycleFinding 4: Our data suggest that teachersare more likely to adopt PLN strategieswhen coaches use the Before-During-After(BDA) Consultation Cycle.

Coaches often use the BDA ConsultationCycle as a way of structuring their work withteachers. In the teacher-coach BDA Consul-tation Cycle, the “Before” segment involvesplanning with a teacher; the “During” segmentinvolves visiting the classroom and observingthe lesson being taught and, in some cases,

helping to teach the lesson; and the “After”segment is when coaches debrief with teachersand help them reflect on the lesson taught.According to our data, 73 percent of theteachers who were interviewed describedgoing through some segment of the BDAConsultation Cycle with their coach.

In the 2007 coach survey, coaches were askedto respond to a list of potential obstacles totheir work as a coach. Coaches reported thattheir greatest obstacle was truncated BDAs,i.e., committing to some portion of the BDAConsultation Cycle, but not the entire cycle,with 77 percent of coaches agreeing or stronglyagreeing with the statement.

When teachers were interviewed, the descrip-tions of their consultation with coaches mostlyfell into the “Before” and “During” categories.Teachers least often mentioned going throughthe “After” segment with a coach. But as thequotation below shows, the “After” portion ofthe cycle is the time when teachers reflectupon their practice, and it is in that periodof reflection that seeds of instructionalchange are planted.

After the lesson, I’ll ask him, ‘How do youfeel that it went? What would you changeif you had anything to change?’ And so wehave that rapport and he listens. He theninternalizes that, and I will see him change.Then the next time I visit his classroom,I do see that change.

Percentages of coaches who agree or strongly agree that they understand their role

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

2006 57%

2007 98%

28 International Reading Association (2006). Standards forMiddle and High School Literacy Coaches. Newark, DE:Author, 45.

RESEARCH FOR ACTION

26 Section 3

The 2007 coach survey reveals one potentialreason for truncated BDA ConsultationCycles. Seventy-four percent of coachesreported that lack of teacher planning timebuilt into the school day was a challenge totheir work. This highlights the point thatschool supports must be in place in order forinstructional coaching to be successful.

As discussed in section two, implementationof the PLN framework happens on differentlevels. Implementation ranges from “levelone”—using strategies in isolation and withoutclear goals for how and why to use the strate-gies—to “level four”—having a clear andwell-articulated rationale for which strategiesto use and how to use them. Our interviewand observation data indicate that coacheswere effective in guiding teachers to deeperlevels of implementation when they used theBDA Consultation Cycle in their work withteachers.

Conclusion

Teachers are changing their instructionalpractices, and coaches are playing a largepart in that change process. Strong momentumfor instructional change was produced whencoaches followed up with teachers who attendedPLN courses. In this way, coaches helpedteachers apply and make concrete what theylearned in the course. In addition, other factorsthat contributed to a teacher’s implementationof the PLN framework included one-on-onework with a coach, coaches’ clear understand-ing of their role, and coaches’ strongprofessional identity. Coaches used the BDAConsultation Cycle to guide teachers to deeperlevels of implementation; however, the “After”portion of the cycle was most often sacrificed.


Section 4 27

In this vignette, we see how PAHSCI bothbenefits from, and contributes to, a col-

laborative learning environment that supportsteachers’ professional growth and movementinto leadership roles—two important interme-diate outcomes that PAHSCI is trying to posi-tively affect. Mr. Able has been a part ofnumerous PAHSCI-related sites of learning,both within the school and outside. Throughthe regional course, he learns about the PLNframework and its strategies with educatorsfrom his own and other districts. He has thesupport of a coach to help him translate thislearning into action in the classroom. In addi-tion, he has colleagues who are also engagedin learning about the PLN framework and heis taking on a leadership role in sharing hisexperiences with them. He is articulate indescribing his own change process, pointing tosignificant shifts in his beliefs about teaching

math and about the role of high school teach-ers in relation to literacy. His school’s tutorialprogram creates an environment that encour-ages teacher collaboration. Mr. Able seizesthat opportunity to step up to leadership andto work toward building a common languageof instruction that draws from the PLN frame-work. Mr. Able’s professional community isstrong because: learning is collaborative andthe faculty is building shared knowledge;coaches and teachers have time and opportunityto work together; there are learning oppor-tunities inside and outside of school; and thereare leadership opportunities for teachers.

PAHSCI’s program design explicitly createsstructures and opportunities for building lead-ership at the school and district levels anddeveloping professional community within andacross schools. Coach-teacher interactions takeplace within a larger context of professional

Section 4

PAHSCI Sites for Learning,Leadership Development, andStrong Professional Community

Mr. Able, a veteran math teacher, describes instructional changes he and his colleagues havemade because of PAHSCI,

I know we’re doing a lot more literacy strategies, especially for me as a math teacher. Ididn’t do a whole lot of writing or reading or anything, and that has really kind ofopened my eyes to realize that we’re all reading teachers. . . In order to get the bestresults out of the content area, we have to all work towards literacy strategies, imple-menting those into our classrooms.

Mr. Able took the PLN 1 regional course in Year Two; he worked with the math coach onseveral occasions, including team teaching lessons in his classroom. He and his coach havedeveloped rapport and Mr. Able feels free to approach his coach to problem-solve, share,and plan. He has a colleague in the adjacent classroom who shares his enthusiasm for theprofession and they “try to go to every professional development activity they can.”

In addition, Mr. Able’s school is offering tutorial classes for ninth graders in math and English.These classes are team taught and Mr. Able is participating in the program. As the only oneon his team who has taken a PLN course, Mr. Able shares PLN strategies, especially thevariety of techniques for incorporating writing into math lessons. He explained,

I kind of take charge. When the coach assigned me, she assigned me with two mathteachers who were not PLN trained, so that hopefully by being in there with me, andworking with the students, and me modeling it, they will take it back to their classrooms.

RESEARCH FOR ACTION

learning. For PAHSCI to scale up, i.e., movebeyond individual classrooms to effect broaderand deeper change within schools and districts, itmust influence school and district culture in waysthat will support PAHSCI goals of using instruc-tional coaching to change teaching and learningto impact student engagement and achievement.This section will examine the major sites oflearning within PAHSCI, as well as how thesesites work together to support change.

As we have discussed, research indicates thepivotal role professional community can play infacilitating school change. “In high performingschools, a nurturing professional communityseems to be the ‘container’ that holds the cul-ture.”29 Milbrey McLaughlin found that “success-ful teachers, without exception, single out theirprofessional community as the source of theirprofessional motivation, the reason they don’tburn out in the face of exceedingly demandingsituations, and the foundation of their abilityto adapt to today’s new students.”30 Schoolleadership and professional community areboth important elements of a school’s instruc-tional capacity31 and must be nurtured to supportchanges in instructional capacity. Developingleaders—teacher leaders, coaches, administra-tors—and strengthening the school environmentfor ongoing professional learning are two of thesurest ways to sustain the goals of PAHSCI,long after the Initiative has ended.

Professional community is most commonlytalked about as something that happens withinschools. PAHSCI seeks to foster professionalcommunity at multiple levels—within theparticipating schools but also within districtsand across participating schools and districtswithin the state. PAHSCI fosters professional

community within districts both by linking cen-tral office staff to school-based communities inmeaningful ways focused on instruction and,where two or more schools within a district areparticipating, by creating the potential for mean-ingful professional learning networks acrossthose schools. Cross-school and cross-districtPAHSCI networking sessions and courses bringtogether variously positioned participants forshared learning. These different sites of learningreinforce each other and help create the potentialfor deeper learning. Opportunities for participantsto learn as individuals, as well as collaborativelywithin schools, districts, and across the state, arecentral to PAHSCI’s design.

Our findings indicate that professional communi-ties focused on teaching and learning are growingstronger in many PAHSCI schools. In addition,these communities and networks of educatorsare extending across schools within districts andacross districts, creating a context for supportingdeep learning and sustainable change. Theselayers of learning opportunities, in concert withsupport from coaches, mentors and administra-tors, are supporting the leadership developmentof variously positioned participants. At the sametime, there are continuing challenges to creatingdeep, meaningful professional communitieswithin and across schools.

Learning and ProfessionalCommunity within the School

PAHSCI seeks to create multiple sites of learningwithin a school. This includes individual, smallgroup, department-wide and whole school set-tings for learning. Coaches and administrators,with the support of mentors, play important rolesin making this work possible. The PennsylvaniaCollaborative Coaching Board underlined theimportance of coaches’ work related to leadershipand professional community in their compilationof seven skills of coaching that all coaches need.First on the list is “skills of creating a communityof learners/thinkers or a professional learningcommunity” and second is “skills of leadershipand school-wide planning.”

The following vignette tells the story of whatcan happen when PAHSCI teachers are at schools

28 Section 4

29 Arbuckle, M. (2000). Triangle of Design, Circle ofCulture. In P. Senge, N. Cambron-McCabe, T. Lucas, B.Smith, J. Dutton, & A. Kleiner, (Eds.), Schools that Learn:A Fifth Discipline Fieldbook for Educators, Parents, andEveryone Who Cares about Education. New York:Doubleday, 326.

30 McLaughlin, M. W. & Talbert, J. E. (2001). ProfessionalCommunities and the Work of High School Teaching.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

31 (McLaughlin & Talbert, 2001)

with weak professional community; it providesa contrasting image to the earlier vignette.

One experienced English teacher we visitedtaught a high engagement class characterizedby a clear instructional focus, extended read-ing and writing activities, well-developedclassroom processes, and scaffolding to helpstruggling learners. Our RFA observer ratedher classroom pedagogy and facilitation oflearning as excellent and student engagementin her classroom as very high. However,school coaches rated her participation inPAHSCI as low. She could not give herself aself-assessment rating for PLN understandingor implementation due to lack of exposure.This teacher seemed a prime candidate toimplement and even become a leader inPAHSCI. However, she had not participated inthe regional training and noted that otherteachers did not share what they learned at thetrainings. She thought she might have heardcoaches talk about PLN at one staff meetingthat year, but she wasn’t familiar with anyPLN strategies. She planned to start imple-menting literature circles soon after our visitbut was not aware that these were a strategyPLN promotes and did not know whether any-one else in the school used them.

This story emphasizes the opportunities forlearning (this teacher’s and others’) and devel-oping deeper knowledge that are lost whenteachers work in isolation. In a setting with aweak culture of collaboration, it is likely thatteachers whose work is already very congruentwith PAHSCI will not be aware of the pro-gram. There are not opportunities for capitaliz-ing on such teachers’ knowledge and skills,nor the ability to use them in leadership roles.The weak professional community alsoimpedes cultivating broad or deep implemen-tation of the PLN framework.

Finding 1: In many schools, PAHSCI is supportingdevelopment of professional communities bychanging professional development, creatingnew school-based leaders, and creating andbroadening networks of support and learningwithin participating schools.

Administrators' Perceptions of PAHSCI'sInfluence Overall, in interviews, surveys andquestionnaires, teachers, coaches, mentorsand administrators described increasedcollaboration, greater agreement on beliefsabout instruction, and deeper engagement inprofessional learning among educators in theircontext. One administrator said, “Teachers arehaving many more professional conversationsregarding best practice, lessons, and studentachievment.”A large majority (83 percent)of administrators responding to the surveyindicated that instructional coaching and thePLN framework were significantly changingthe focus of professional development attheir school in 2006-2007. Their schoolsand districts are instituting concrete structuralchanges to support the goals of PAHSCI.Examples included:

• Instituting walkthroughs. Seventy-ninepercent of those surveyed say they con-duct PAHSCI-related classroom walk-throughs daily, weekly, or monthly.

• Changes in professional developmentstructures, including new times ormodes for professional development.For example, implementing beforeschool study groups, use of substitutesfor ongoing professional development,changing date and time of departmentmeetings to allow for group planningfor the following week, addressingdata in professional development.

In addition, administrators noted that theyhave made changes to curricula and schoolschedules because of their involvement withPAHSCI, e.g., extended time for reading andmath; PSSA test preparation class; use ofnovels—not just anthologies that use novelexcerpts—in English literature classes; revisedlesson plan design; addition of SustainedSilent Reading (SSR).

Coaches, mentors, and administrators allagreed that the number of PAHSCI-relatedprofessional development sessions that coachesled increased significantly from Year One toYear Two. Eighty percent of coaches and


Section 4 29

RESEARCH FOR ACTION

administrators said coaches provided moreprofessional development this year in compari-son to Year One. There was also an increase inthe number of schools that provided coach-ledprofessional development on the PLN frame-work to every teacher in the school.

Coaches’ provision of, and teacherparticipation in, study groups has increaseddramatically in Year Two. In Year Twoof PAHSCI, 77 percent of coaches reportconducting at least six study groups, comparedto only 26 percent in Year One. Ninety-twopercent of administrators surveyed said studygroups are a form of professional learningavailable for teachers in their school. Forty-one percent of teachers surveyed say theyhave attended a study group. The mostcommon study group sessions across theparticipating schools were; PLN I and IISupport Groups, Student EngagementApproaches, Academic Literacy, and4Sight/PSSA Support Approaches.

As Figure 7 indicates, teachers recognizedan increase in collaborative efforts andprofessional learning at their schools as wellas the coaches’ role in making this happen.

Both coaches and teachers identify other coach-es, teachers, and mentors as important to theirown professional development (see below).Coaches and teachers rely on each other forlearning and support. Such roles are greatlyfacilitated by strong professional community.

Teacher Perceptions of Support

Teachers have supported, guided 88%and provided direction in PAHSCI.

Coaches have supported, guided 91%and provided direction in PAHSCI.

Mentors have supported, guided. 75%and provided direction in PAHSCI

% of teachers agreeing or strongly agreeing (N-1230)

Coach Perceptions of Support

Teachers have been important 94%to my development as a coach.

My school based coaching team has been 89%important to my development as a coach.

The monthly visits from Foundations 82%mentors have been important to mydevelopment as a coach.

% of coaches agreeing or strongly agreeing (N=93)

30 Section 4

Figure 7

Teachers’ Perceptions of PAHSCI’s Influence onCreating Professional Community at their School

Percentage of teachers agreeing or strongly agreeing with the statements

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Coaches are a catalyst for staff learning

More discussion of student work

Increase in cross-content discussions

More teachers plan lessons together

Coaches promote teacher cross-visitation

65%.

52%.

49%.

38%.

35%..


Section 4 31

One concrete manifestation of increasedprofessional community and collaborationis that 63 percent of administrators surveyednoted increased inter-class visitation amongstaff. One administrator said, “The coach’soffice has become a hub for professionaldevelopment. The setting encouragesteacher participation and supports previousprofessional development with relevantresources.” During our site visits, we learnedof teachers who took PLN courses and arenow taking leadership roles with their peers(thus extending the reach of PAHSCI coaches)in various school-based professional develop-ment opportunities, such as departmentalmeetings and team teaching meetings.

Finding 2: Coaches and teachers with higherparticipation in PAHSCI were more likely toreport strong professional community at theirschools. High participation teachers were alsomore likely to emphasize the importance ofschool-wide implementation of PLN.

Both coach and teacher survey data supportPAHSCI’s positive impact on professionalcommunity. According to the coach surveydata, there were strong and statisticallysignificant correlations between coacheswhose professional identity is stronglylinked to PAHSCI and (1) more robust teachercollaboration (.289), (2) teacher participation inprofessional learning opportunities (.479), and(3) professional community (.502).32 Similarly,teacher survey data shows strong and statisti-cally significant correlations between PAHSCIparticipation and the intermediate outcome ofprofessional community. Teachers with highparticipation levels in PAHSCI are more likelyto report strong collaborative environments(.306).33 It is possible that teachers with highparticipation in PAHSCI see the value of,and seek out, collaborative professionalcommunity or that they are involved increating it so are more aware of it thanlow participation teachers.

In interviews, high participation teachers wereespecially likely to recognize the importanceof school-wide implementation of PLN—andof the problems caused by lack of this.Teachers identified this school-wide invest-ment in PAHSCI as important because widerimplementation helps develop a common lan-guage and shared approach for teachers andstudents and because they believed there isgreater impact on student learning when stu-dents use the strategies in multiple classrooms.

It may be that a high degree of classroomimplementation, along with participation inInitiative learning opportunities, supportsteachers in looking beyond their individualclassrooms to the changes needed across aschool or district. Coburn conceptualizes fourinterrelated dimensions necessary for scalingup educational reforms. These four dimensionsare depth, sustainability, spread, and shift inreform ownership.34 These high participatingteachers are articulating the importance of thefourth dimension and that broad involvementin, and ownership of, PAHSCI is important toits impact.

From two different vantage points—a schoolwith strong professional community and widePLN implementation and a school lackingboth—two high participation teachers describethe advantages of, and need for, school-wideimplementation.

A teacher from a school with strongprofessional community:And then, with the PLN, it was reallyeffective for me, because I see the consis-tency. The kids are seeing [PLN strategies],in ninth grade, tenth grade, now that it’sin its second year, they’re seeing it in math,in science, in social studies. They’re gettinga common language of assignments.… Itseems like a faster-paced situation, some-times. I guess when all the kids see a largepercentage of teachers doing things in a

32 All three correlations are significant at the .01 level.

33 This correlation is significant at the .01 level.

34 (Coburn, 2003).

RESEARCH FOR ACTION

certain way, and they see it working, they canrelate to that. At our school, the teachers Iworked with in PLN, we discussed how weneeded to talk to these kids, and explain tothem what we’re, doing. And they [the stu-dents] like it. They like having choice in reading.They like breaking up into smaller groups.They like a lot of the strategies more. Formal,standard approaches just weren’t working.

A teacher from a school with weakprofessional community:

I think I’ve used some of the lessons in myclass and I think that it helps with classroomparticipation, especially. For the whole school,I don’t know. It’s hard because I don’t com-municate with everybody throughout the wholeschool very often. But one of my friends whohas also taken the course uses the PLN lessonsa lot and she also likes them; she sees moreclassroom participation as well. When I was tak-ing the PLN class, the facilitator said that someof the schools that were in trouble at first, laterbecame these really literate schools, but inthose schools he said that everybody was work-ing together. And I said, to him, ‘I can’t evenimagine that happening here.’ I think it [activereading and focus on reading comprehensionwith PLN strategies] has to be a habit in all oftheir classes. That could help if they could takethose skills themselves and apply them whenthey’re actually taking the PSSAs. …I wish moreteachers believed that it does improve theirachievement on standardized tests becausethen I think that it would be so helpful.

Finding 3: While the data reveals much cause forhope about the development and strengthening oflearning-focused professional communities at PAHSCIschools, it also underlines challenges to building andsustaining professional community.

Despite the positive data in this section, only55 percent of teachers responding to the surveyagreed that, at their school, “The staff and adminis-tration have established a high level of professionalcollegiality and trust.” Key challenges include:

Development of shared beliefs and attitudesWhen Coburn identifies depth as one of the four

dimensions of moving reforms to scale, she meansin part the importance of building shared beliefsamong educators. “Beliefs” refers to teachers’underlying assumptions about how students learn,the nature of subject matter, and expectations forstudents or what constitutes effective instruction.Many external reform initiatives promote a view ofteaching and learning that challenges conventionalbeliefs about one or more of these dimensions.”35

Changed attitudes and beliefs aligned with a reforminitiative support efforts toward sustainability.Beliefs both take time to shift and are also keyto creating lasting change.

Not surprisingly, just two years into the Initiative,the data shows mixed results in terms of changingattitudes and beliefs. One goal of PAHSCI is tocreate school cultures where the staff believes thatteaching literacy is the responsibility of all highschool teachers. Responses to Year Two surveysindicated that this key belief is almost unanimouslyshared by coaches (98 percent agreed). A signifi-cant percentage of teachers (72 percent), but onlyhalf of administrators (54 percent), agreed with thisstatement. In interviews, some teachers sharedstories of changing beliefs, however there is clearlya gap between the belief PAHSCI seeks to promoteand many participants’ beliefs. PAHSCI is alsostructured on the premise of high expectations forall students and here there is also a gap. Sixty-ninepercent of coaches say that teachers’ low expecta-tions for students are an obstacle to their work.

The data indicate that in Year Two, both teacherresistance and lack of administrative supportwere not such significant factors as in Year One,but both remain challenges. For example, 76 percentof coaches say teacher cynicism and indifferenceabout change are obstacles. While only a minorityof teachers may show cynicism and indifference,this may still create an obstacle for coaches’ dailywork and the creation of deep learning and changeschool-wide.

The administrator’s role remains crucially importantto the success of this or any initiative. Principalsare key actors in creating the professional climatein their school. Year Two survey data indicate somepositive signs of increasing integration of coachesinto building leadership roles. In the coach survey,

32 Section 4 35 (Coburn, 2003)


Section 4 33

87 percent of coaches said their instructionalleadership was endorsed and supported bytheir administration. And in the administratorsurvey, 96 percent of administrators agreedthat “Coaches are a vital part of the schoolleadership team.” Yet, 40 percent of coachesreported a lack of administrative support as anobstacle to their work.Inadequate time for planning and collabo-ration Forty-two percent of teachers inter-viewed said that insufficient time for PAHSCIactivities, especially one-on-one coaching andimplementing PLN instructional strategies,was a challenge. This included class periodsthat were too short, as well as inadequate timefor planning and reflection. An English teachersaid, “What I think most that I need is the timeto be able to sit down and reflect, ‘how can Iput this into my daily lesson plans?’ I wish Ihad more of that time. I think we all do.” Thecoach survey indicated that coaches also per-

ceive challenges related to time. Seventy-fourpercent of coaches say lack of teacher plan-ning time built into the school day is an obsta-cle and 57 percent also identify inadequatetime to plan professional development, meetwith teachers, visit classrooms and debrief.Forty-seven percent of teachers surveyed dis-agreed with the statement, “teachers have ade-quate time to meet with coaches and plan withthem.”

Learning and ProfessionalCommunity outside of School

Finding 4: PAHSCI-sponsored professional learn-ing opportunities effectively and consistentlymet the learning needs of a broad range ofparticipants.

The chart below depicts the formal opportuni-ties for cross-district professional learningwithin PAHSCI during Year Two.

Year Two PAHSCI Forums for Cross-Site Professional Learning

Type of Setting Facilitator PrimaryParticipants

Frequency of Sessions

PLN CentralizedCourse

PLN staff &Foundations

MentorsCoaches andAdministrators

3 multi-day meetings in summer and early fall2006. (All PAHSCI districts participate together.)

Regional Courses PLN staff Teachers andCoaches

PLN 1 – 5 meetings plus work at schoolPLN 2 – 3 meetings plus work at schoolMeetings take place between October and March.

(Courses for five larger districts brought togetherteachers from multiple schools within the district;three other courses involved participants from atleast two districts)

AdministratorRetreat

FoundationsMentors

Administrators November 2006

(All PAHSCI districts participate together.)

NetworkingSessions

FoundationsMentors, PLNProject Manager,and expertconsultants

Coaches andadministrators

Separate east and west sessions in December;all-PAHSCI session in May.

RESEARCH FOR ACTION

PAHSCI provides multiple cross-districtprofessional learning opportunities for a widerange of differently positioned participantsincluding teachers, coaches, building admin-istrators and district administrators. Theseparticipants come from very different schoolcontexts and cultures and bring a range ofneeds, experiences and expectations to thesesites of learning. Across these differences,participants rated all the major PAHSCIlearning opportunities very highly:

• PLN Centralized and Regional Courses:At the end of each of the three sessionsof the 2006-2007 centralized trainings,participants completed evaluations. Anaverage of 95 percent of participatingadministrators and coaches agreed thatthe sessions were useful and wouldenhance their work with PAHSCI.PLN courses, particularly PLN 1, haveconsistently garnered very positivereviews from participating teachers.Overwhelmingly, the PLN Regionalcourse evaluations demonstrate thatparticipants are experiencing positivechanges in their teaching and in students’engagement and learning. Over the twoyears of PAHSCI, almost 1,000 teachershave earned PLN credits. The followingquotes convey what excitedteachers about the PLN courses:

I’ve found that when students are ontask during class, they are less likely tostart causing problems in other ways.So it’s just helpful in every aspect. Isigned up for the PLN 2 class next yearbecause I really want to get a betterunderstanding of it, and I want to be abetter teacher and I want to keep thekids learning more…. the PLN classeswere good. The instructors gave a lotof real life examples. A lot of modelingof how to teach certain strategies inthe classroom. So that was helpful, themodeling really worked for me. Theygave us these articles to read, and everyone of them was like, ‘I did not eventhink of that, I’ve got to do that.’They were real eye-openers for me.It was an exciting class for me.

Teacher 1 (Since taking PLN I)

I went through the PLN 1 this past year.This is my first year teaching, so for meit was absolutely awesome.

Teacher 2

• Networking Sessions: At the three 2006-2007 networking sessions, an average of94 percent of administrators and coachesagreed that the session was useful andwould enhance their work with PAHSCI.

• Administrator Retreat: An all daysession on educational change featuredTim Lucas, one of the authors of Schoolsthat Learn,36 as presenter. His presentationand other aspects of the day facilitatedby Foundations’ mentors were highlyrated by district and school administratorsfrom across the state.

Finding 5: The variety of PAHSCI sites forcross-district learning both strengthens school-based professional community and facilitates thedevelopment of larger learning communitiesand networks across schools and districts.

34 Section 4

36 Senge, P. M., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith,B.,Dulton, J. & Kleiner, A. (Eds.). (2000). Schools That Learn:A Fifth Discipline Fieldbook for Educators, Parents, andEveryone Who Cares about Education. New York:Doubleday.


Section 4 35

Regional and centralized trainings and net-working sessions foster both school-basedand cross-school professional community.Regional trainings bring together school-basedteams of teachers and coaches from multipleschools and/or districts for PLN training.Their structure links them to in-school learningopportunities since coaches follow up andcollaborate with teachers back in their building.Centralized trainings and networking sessionsinvolve school-based teams of coaches andadministrators from PAHSCI schools acrossthe state and provide participants with oppor-tunities to meet by school as well as withothers in their job role (administrators,coaches) or in diverse groups across roleand school/district.

Across PAHSCI-sponsored professionallearning opportunities, participants valued ses-sions that provided opportunities to collaboratewith other districts, with their school-basedteams, and with their same position peers. Aswas the case in Year One, some participantscontinued to indicate that at home they lacksufficient opportunities to talk and problemsolve with other PAHSCI leaders in their dis-trict (e.g., coaches, administrators, districtleaders). Participants continued to emphasizethat they value time to talk as a district aboutissues and challenges specific to their context.

When asked to rate the December networkingsessions, participants at both the east and westsessions commented on the benefits of sharingand networking with other districts. Whenasked for suggestions for the May networkingsessions, the most frequent request from parti-cipants at the west sessions was for more sus-tained and comprehensive opportunities to net-work with other districts. One district adminis-trator commented after a centralized coursesession, “The most useful aspect was collabo-ration among peers and colleagues as weworked in a professional learning communitythat will benefit our district’s educational goals.”

Survey data indicate that coaches already seecoaches from other districts as a resource andas part of a wider support network. Seventy-nine percent of PAHSCI coaches surveyedindicated that other PAHSCI coaches acrossthe state have been important to their develop-ment as a coach. Cross-visitation is takingplace in some contexts. For example, 35percent of coaches surveyed say they visitPAHSCI coaches in other schools weeklyor monthly. However, 66 percent of coachesreport that they have never visited a coachat another PAHSCI school.

Finding 6: Mentors play an important role infacilitating participant learning and leadershipdevelopment, both within schools and acrossschools and districts.

The Annenberg Institute for School Reformnoted in a summary of research that effectivecoaching supports collective, interconnectedleadership across a school system.37 We wouldposit that PAHSCI’s addition of mentors to thecoaching model works to enhance coaches’efforts in fostering such leadership.

Coach and administrator survey and question-naire data affirm the utility of the mentor role.Eighty-two percent of coaches said that themonthly visit from the Foundations mentors

37 King, D., Neuman, M., Pelchat, J., Potochnik, T., Rao, S.,& Thompson, J. (2004). Instructional Coaching: Profes-sional Development Strategies that Improve InstructionProvidence, R.I.: Annenberg Institute for School Reform.

RESEARCH FOR ACTION

36 Section 4

had been important to their development as acoach. Ninety-three percent of administratorssaid training with PAHSCI leadership mentorswas very or somewhat useful. To the chagrinof some coaches, administrative personnelchanges and other confounding factors haveled to tensions between some coaches andadministrators. In these incidences, coacheshave looked to their mentor teams to helpnegotiate a better understanding of roles andresponsibilities.

Coach questionnaire responses about howPAHSCI has contributed to their own leader-ship development underlined the importanceof the mentors in this process. One coach said,“The monthly coach-mentor meetings havehelped me to be a better coach. I listen moreand more carefully to what the teachers say.I ask pointed questions. I also feel at easerunning study group sessions and in-servicesessions.” Another said, “Our mentors listento us and get back to us in a timely fashion,as always.”

Mentors also organized and facilitatedadditional professional learning opportunitiesthat supplemented the formal opportunitiesdiscussed above. These opportunities tookplace within individual schools or involvedcoaches from multiple schools within a districtor across districts. For example, one groupof mentors worked with two districts whicheach had a relatively small number of coaches(six in all). They brought the coaches togetherfor full-day professional learning sessionsapproximately six times during the year tohelp participants build their coaching skills.Participants met as a whole group and in mathand literacy sub-groups. As one mentor said,“They were able to share what was workingand to feel like they had expanded theirresources beyond their own coaching team.”The school teams were able to help eachother with issues they both faced but whichone or the other may have had new strategiesto address. This networking expanded thelearning beyond the individual schools.

Conclusion

In Schools That Learn, Peter Senge arguesthat change is only sustainable if it involveslearning and that successful change takesplace through multiple layers of leadership.38

Instructional change research indicates thatinternalization of an overall approach andaccompanying changes in belief and skillsare the hardest to achieve as opposed to sim-ply trying new strategies in isolation. Strongprofessional communities are important toPAHSCI’s success because they provide thecontext for distributed leadership and thedeeper learning that promotes sustainablechanges in instructional practices andbelief systems.

The varied sites for learning have beeneffective overall. The Initiative-wide learningopportunities supported participant learningand helped develop professional communityacross schools and districts. At the schoollevel, it is clear that administrators matter.Our research shows that professional com-munity is strongest when administratorsencourage coaches and teachers to assumeleadership and create time for teacher-teacherand teacher-coach collaboration.

38 (Senge et al., 2000)


Section 5 37

PAHSCI leadership, partners andparticipants begin Year Three with

accomplishments to celebrate as well aschallenges to address. At the June 2007centralized training, PAHSCI leadership,administrators, Foundations’ mentors, PLNfacilitators, and coaches were asked to brain-storm what they needed “to meet or exceedtheir expectations and goals for Year Threeand beyond.” Not surprisingly, perspectivesdiffered on the challenges ahead and thesupports needed to tackle those challenges.

However, there was strong agreementaround a number of themes:

• inadequate time for coaching;

• the critical importance of strongadministrative support for instructionalcoaching;

• the need for continued resources; and

• a statewide commitment to instructionalcoaching beyond Year Three.

Below, we summarize participants’reflections in order to bring their voicesto bear on priorities for the initiative goingforward. We have organized the summaryin a way that sheds light on how perspectiveswere similar and different across the rolesof the various participants.

District and School Administrators

Administrators talked about the need toprovide more time for coaches to work one-on-one with teachers in their classrooms andin consultative conference before and after theclassroom visits. A few administrators pledgedto decrease the amount of paperwork given tocoaches, while others spoke of their commit-ment to create meeting time for coaches andteachers during the school day, somethingmany admitted they had not assisted withadequately in the previous years. Time, manyadministrators reflected, would also allowteachers to integrate what they are learninginto their practice and thus create more mean-ingful lessons. In addition, several pledgedthat they would make the time to conductwalk-throughs to all classes, in order to seefor themselves how teachers are incorporatingPLN strategies into their instruction.39

Section 5

The PAHSCI Experience:Participants Speak

39 Instructional walk-throughs: A team of observers, usuallya building administrator and teachers, however, sometimesparents, visits several classrooms where they look for veryspecific things. In most walk-throughs, the teaching contin-ues and the visitors sit in the back or walk quietly aroundthe room looking for evidence of the particular goal/class-room strategies they would expect to find. Narrowing thefocus to specific instructional activities, the team assemblesthe information from their notes and they share what theyhave learned with the teachers whose rooms have beenobserved.

Three years is a good start, but teachers and studentsneed the kind of support that coaches provide on anongoing basis. Comprehensive high schools are stress-ful places for teachers and students. The personalattention and appreciation that coaches provide forteachers is therapeutic for teachers and in turn for stu-dents. Teacher support and collaboration within aschool are essential for the school’s growth.

– PAHSCI District Administrator,Centralized Training Evaluation, 2007

RESEARCH FOR ACTION

Administrators requested technical assistancewith organizing and analyzing data, moretraining for coaches in analyzing data, andmore meaningful (relevant to their school’sgoals) data to analyze. A few administratorsmentioned the need for teachers to have timeto digest and process classroom assessmentdata. For several administrators, data analysiswas directly linked to time and resources:“Financial resources to have substitutes forteachers so that time is available to trainfaculty to use data to drive their decisionmaking and instruction/assessment of students.”

All administrators want to see the Initiativecontinue either in its current form (withcoaches) or, at the very least, through PAHSCI’slegacy of increased teacher collaboration andincorporation of the PLN framework. Severalspoke of the need to “find funds to continueour coaches in their current capacity” andseveral “hoped to receive assurance thatthe Coaching Initiative will last longerthan three years.”

Foundations’ Mentors

Mentors reported the importance of coachesand administrators extending their reach. Asone mentor shared, “I’d like to have theadministration and coaches of each schoolfully committed to reaching all teachers in theschools on [behalf of] the PAHSCI effort andthe PLN strategies.” Several mentors proposedthat PAHSCI strive to recruit the maximumnumber of staff members in PLN I, II, and IIIcourses. A few mentors mentioned broadeningPAHSCI’s reach by engaging students in theprocess of improving student achievement:

“They need to be included in the dialogue andto accept that they are regular players in thisnow and into the future.”

Mentors wanted to help coaches “grow studygroups so teachers can begin to look at studentwork together and collaborate on setting goalsfor improving learning.” An important goal,according to mentors, is expanding leadershipbeyond administrators and coaches to class-room teachers. One mentor wrote, “Buildcapacity for teacher leadership by expandingthe core group that develops and delivers pro-fessional development opportunities.” Finally,one mentor expressed the need for “increasedopportunities for deep coaching with teach-ers.” Mentors wanted to meet more frequentlywith coaches and teachers throughout the yearas well as to promote and secure greater dis-trict-wide collaboration and investment as away to sustain and expand the initiative.

PLN Instructors and Facilitators

PLN instructors and facilitators were veryconcerned about administrative support forteacher recruitment for PLN courses. Theysaw administrators as key in encouragingteachers to take the PLN courses and inempowering teachers to take the risksassociated with trying new instructionalstrategies. Also, several instructors andfacilitators emphasized the need for adminis-trators to consistently support the coaches.As one PLN facilitator shared, “I do feelfrustrated for the coaches who are at thewhim of administrators who sometimes doand sometimes don’t support the Initiative.”

38 Section 5


Coaches

An overwhelming majority of coaches saidthat more time was needed for them to workone-on-one with their teachers, and also moretime for teachers to plan their units and les-sons and refine their use of the PLN strategies.Acknowledging that the BDA ConsultationCycle—so important to changing classroompractice—takes time, coaches urged thatadministrators and teachers “carve out moretime for coaches to work with teachers usingthe BDA Consultation Cycle.”

Many coaches mentioned the absolute necessityfor administrators to be mindful of the goals ofthe initiative and to honor coaches’ role as aone-on-one consultant to teachers. One coachwondered what she might be able to accom-plish if she were provided the time to actuallywork with teachers without being “pulled indifferent directions by the administration.”Several coaches lamented the fact that, as onewrote, “Much of the time that should have

been spent on coaching was redirected toadminister 4Sight and PSSA.” Several coachescited the need for “better communicationsbetween administrator and coaches.”Consistently coaches expressed the need foradministrators, coaches, mentor, and teachersto have the same “game plan.” As one coachexplained, “A priority for Year Three is admin-istrators, mentors, and coaches to work moreclosely together for common goals and wewill include teacher leaders in this endeavor.”

Coaches emphasized that learning how tomotivate and to reinforce motivation forteachers to grow, is not one-time learning.One reflected honestly, “I need to continuefiguring out how to best motivate andencourage some teachers.” Speaking tothe challenges inherent in wearing somany hats, coaches reflected honestlyabout their need to:

• continue to develop all of the capacitiesthat a coach needs to foster teachers’

Section 5 39

professional growth and learning;

• institutionalize study groups and build onthem, bringing new teachers into leader-ship roles so that change can be sustained;

• encourage teachers in action research.

With an eye to professional community, sever-al coaches hope to create “cross curriculumcooperation to have teachers learn and teachone another.”

Conclusion

Taken as a whole, participants’ declarations,admissions, and hopes for Year Three all pointto their commitment to build upon, improve,and sustain the effort they have put forth inimplementing instructional coaching. It isinteresting to note that of the 145 responsesto our open-ended prompt about what frontline participants needed to meet their expecta-tions and goals, not one respondent questionedthe value of the work begun in PAHSCI ortheir potential to meet their expectations andgoals. This raises an important question, Whatare the implications for sustaining instructionalcoaching beyond Year Three?

RESEARCH FOR ACTION

40 Section 5


Section 6 41

I envision every teacher would worktogether/collaborate on the various strate-gies presented to them and include thesestrategies on a daily basis. Every teacherwould reflect on how he or she is con-tributing to student learning. Every teacherwould become a leader with regard tostudy groups and presenting professionaldevelopment.

—Instructional coach

In the above quote an instructional coach laysout her hopes for what PAHSCI will achieve.Her thoughts speak to the conditions necessaryfor sustaining the Initiative’s efforts. There arenumerous conceptualizations of sustainabilityin the education reform literature. In one help-ful example, it is defined as, the capacity of asystem to engage in the complexities of contin-uous improvement.40 Typically, sustainablereforms have:

• Depth: The reform matters because it ismaking a positive contribution to the aca-demic program and student learning.There is sufficiently deep understandingof the innovation that its adoption is notprocedural, but authentic. The instruc-tional coach above addresses depth whenshe talks about teachers’ use of the PLNstrategies on a “daily basis,” teachers’reflection on how their instruction con-tributes to student learning, and the abili-ty of teachers’ to move into leadershiproles as they become knowledgeable andskilled in the PLN framework.

• Breadth: The reform spreads because itspositive effects are recognized andembraced by increasing numbers of peopleand organizational units. The instructionalcoach above addresses breadth when shetalks about “every teacher” would use thestrategies, every teacher would reflect, andevery teacher would become a leader.

• Endurance: The reform persists even asleaders come and go and the educationpendulum swings. The depth and breadthof its institutionalization help it to sur-vive transitions. The instructional coachabove addresses endurance as she talksabout the future and what teachers willbe doing.

• Advocates: People inside and outside thesystem have deep understanding of thereform and recognize the positive differ-ence it is making. They speak up about itsmerits and help to mobilize energy andresources for its continuation. The instruc-tional coach above addresses advocacywhen she talks about all teachers becom-ing leaders. As leaders, they would bedemonstrating their ownership of theresearch-based instructional strategies.

In the following, we review what we havelearned about PAHSCI to date with the goaltoward providing insights and recommenda-tions for sustaining the momentum of theInitiative in Year Three and beyond.

Accomplishments

Our research indicates that PAHSCI is makinga difference. It is having a positive impacton all of the intermediate outcomes that wemeasured in both our qualitative and surveyresearch. Participating teachers across the sub-ject areas are working with coaches and usingPLN strategies, offering more opportunities forstudents to read, write, and speak as a way ofmore deeply engaging them in the ideas andskills of the subject area. Not surprisingly,the more highly involved a teacher, the morecompetently s/he implements the strategiesand incorporates the principles of the frame-work into his/her practice. The one-on-onesupport offered by instructional coaches toteachers as they use the PLN framework iscatalyzing teacher change in the very waysintended by program designers. This study

Section 6

Sustaining PAHSCI:Year Three and Beyond

40 Hargreaves, A. & Fink, D. (2003). The Seven Principles ofSustainable Leadership. Boston: Educational Leadership.

RESEARCH FOR ACTION

42 Section 6

adds to the growing body of evidence thatinstructional coaching helps teachers as theyimplement new teaching techniques.

Perhaps, most importantly, when teachersadopt the PLN strategies, their students aretaking more active roles in the classroom andassuming more responsibility for their ownand their peers’ learning—quite an accom-plishment, given statistics on adolescents’disengagement especially the dismal dataon high school drop out in schools with largenumbers of low-income students. Increasedstudent engagement is also promising as anearly indicator that may lead to improvedstudent achievement.

And PAHSCI is positively influencingschools’ professional culture. In many schools,PAHSCI is supporting development of profes-sional communities by influencing how teach-ers learn together, creating new school-basedleaders, and broadening networks of supportand learning within schools. Because ofPAHSCI, many school leaders are re-thinkingtheir conceptions of professional development.They value the instructional coaching modelof job-embedded professional learning andthey are offering increasing numbers of partic-ipating teachers the opportunity to lead profes-sional development about classroom instruc-tion. The PLN framework is providing a com-mon language and set of principles for plan-ning and reflecting on instruction and advo-cates for instructional coaching using aresearch-based instructional framework.

However, two important questions remain.First is: Will these positive differences inintermediate outcomes add up to positivechanges in student achievement? That is aquestion that researchers will address at theend of Year Three of the project. Second is:Can instructional coaching be sustained and,if so, in what form? It is this second questionthat we address below by identifying chal-lenges to sustainability and making recom-mendations for addressing them.

Challenges

In order for PAHSCI’s program goals to beachieved, all stakeholders must work togetherto overcome the challenges named in this reportthat can impede progress towards sustainability:

• District and school leaders must encourageteachers across all subject areas to partici-pate in PLN courses and one-on-one coaching,the surest pathway to improved instruction-al practices. They must find the time neces-sary for coaches to work with teachers inthe meaningful ways described in the BDAConsultation Cycle. Administrators havecommitted to doing this. Follow-up is need-ed to make certain that this is happening.

• Coaches must continue to hone their skillsin order to address teachers’ concerns about:1) meeting the needs of all students espe-cially those with special learning needs and2) strategies for classroom managementwhen using PLN learning activities. Theymust also make the BDA ConsultationCycle a priority, making certain to includethe “after” portion which is essential toteachers reflecting on their practice.

• Mentors must support coaches in theirlearning and work with school leaders(including coaches) to remove the persist-ent obstacles that undercut coaches’ workand teachers’ continued learning. Mentorsshould re-enforce PAHSCI’s belief thatall high school teachers are teachers ofliteracy, especially with administrators.An important focus should be the BDAConsultation Cycle. Finally, mentors areuniquely positioned to align the work ofadministrators and coaches with the goalsof PAHSCI and to address the tensionsthat arise among key players and thatcan stymie momentum for change.

In the final segment of this report, we providemore specific recommendations that the datasuggest are important for PAHSCI to reach itsfull potential for sustainability and achieve itsmajor goals.


Section 6 43

Recommendations for PAHSCI Leaders

In our Year One report, we presented severalrecommendations. We have provided an updateof progress in addressing those recommenda-tions in Appendix D. One essential recommen-dation offered was to take steps to expandand deepen the work in Year Two, (extendthe reach to a greater number of teachersand administrators, and deepen participants’understanding of the PLN framework).46 Weconclude that many of those steps were takenin Year Two. In order to maintain and broadenthese successes during Year Three, we presentthe following recommendations focusing firston the start of school and then moving tooverarching recommendations for YearThree and beyond.

Starting the School Year• Hold school-wide professional develop-

ment for staff on the PLN frameworkand the BDA Consultation Cycle forinstructional coaching.

• Provide “PLN framework refresher”opportunities to staff.

• Create a forum (possibly with mentorsand administrators) for coaches todiscuss the challenges they face and thevulnerabilities they feel as the Initiativeenters Year Three. (Many coaches reportedthat they were worried about their per-sonal futures as well as the sustainabilityof instructional coaching.)

• Have the leadership team reviewstudent achievement data and determineif their action plan utilizes instructionalcoaching to target improved studentachievement.

• Continue to develop coaches’ skill inworking with teachers who hold lowexpectations for students.

• Have the leadership team at eachparticipating school meet with coachesand the Foundations’ mentor team torevisit the Year Three action plan andcertify that the personnel, infrastructure,and resources are in place to meet YearThree goals.

Setting Priorities• Make working one-on-one with teachers

a priority in allocating coaches time,and encourage coaches’ to use the BDAConsultation Cycle with teachers.

• Promptly fill coach vacancies withrespected staff, knowledgeable aboutthe PLN framework.

• Individualize the learning supports forcoaches; like students, coaches needdifferentiated learning opportunities.

• Support coaches in helping teachers46 (Brown et al., 2006)

RESEARCH FOR ACTION

44 Section 6

develop or maintain rigorous expecta-tions for students.

Setting Year Three Goals,Celebrating Successes• Re-enforce the goals of PAHSCI and

how they should shape coaches’ ownprofessional goals and identity.

• Practice shared goal setting amongcoaches, administrators, andFoundations’ mentors with clearly delin-eated benchmarks of success. Identify theroles and responsibilities of coaches,administrators, and Foundations’ mentorsin meeting these goals.

• Create forums to recognize successes ofcoaches, administrators, mentor teams,and teachers.

Communications• Use Blogging, Blackboard, and the

PAHSCI website to reach out toparticipants and the wider communityinterested in instructional coaching.

• Encourage school-based participantsto participate in PLN’s system ofBlackboard to share learning amongand across regional site participants.

• Publicly make the case that coaching ismaking a difference with new, mid-careerand veteran teachers, and that teachersusing the PLN framework strategies arereporting success with diverse studentpopulations.

Leadership Opportunities• Provide and advocate for leadership

opportunities; for example, Foundations’mentors and administrators can promoteavenues for coaches to move into district-

wide leadership opportunities. Likewise,coaches and administrators can bringteachers into leadership roles.

Administrative Support• Have Foundations’ leadership mentors provide

additional support to new administrators.

• Enlist the support of school and districtadministrators to advocate for instructionalcoaching at high schools across the state.

• Enlist district and school administratorsto advocate for all high school teachersto be teachers of literacy.

Lessons About Instructional Coaching

As in our Year One report, we offer someearly lessons from PAHSCI that are worthyof note by others interested in adoptinginstructional coaching as a reform initiative:

• Tie the work of coaches to research-basedinstructional strategies that are central tothe school’s approach to overall schoolimprovement. These practices serve asthe focus of coaches’ work with teachers.

• Make one-on-one work with teachersa high priority for coaches and use astandardized framework for one-on-onework such as the BDA ConsultationCycle.

• Make certain that there is a clear, sharedunderstanding about the role and respon-sibilities of instructional coaches.

• Assign more than one coach to a schooland intentionally build a coaching teamthat works with other school leaders toestablish instructional priorities andstrategies for meeting those priorities.


Reference List 45

Arbuckle, M. (2000). Triangle of Design, Circle ofCulture. In P. Senge, N. Cambron-McCabe, T.Lucas, B. Smith, J. Dutton, & A. Kleiner (Eds.),Schools That Learn: A Fifth Discipline Fieldbookfor Educators, Parents, and Everyone Who Caresabout Education. New York: Doubleday.

Ball, D. L. & Cohen, D. K. (2004). Reformby the Book: What is — or might be — therole of curriculum materials in teacher learningand instructional reform? Educational Researcher,25(9), 6-8.

Banks, J. A. & Banks, C. A. M (Eds.). (2005).Multicultural Education: Issues and Perspectives(5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Bowen, E. R. (2003). Student Engagement and ItsRelation to Quality Work Design: A Review of theLiterature. [On-line]. Retrieved August 31, 2007,from chiron.valdosta.edu/are/ebowenLitReview.pdf.

Brown, C. J., Stroh, H. R., Fouts, J. T., & Baker, D.B. (2005, February). Learning to Change: SchoolCoaching for Systemic Reform. Mill Creek,Washington: Fouts & Associates, L.L.C.

Brown, D., Reumann-Moore, R. J., Hugh, R., duPlessis, P., & Christman, J. B. (2006, September).Promising InRoads: Year One Report of thePennsylvania High School Coaching Initiative.Philadelphia: Research for Action.

Coburn, C. E. (2003). Rethinking Scale: MovingBeyond Numbers to Deep and Lasting Change.Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3-12.

Edwards, J. L. & Newton, R. R. (1995).The Effect of Cognitive Coaching on TeacherEfficacy and Empowerment. Paper presentedat the Annual Meeting of American EducationResearch Association, San Francisco, CA.

Franke, M. L., Carpenter, T. P., Levi, L. W., &Fennema, E. (1998, April). Teachers as Learners:Developing understanding through children’sthinking. Paper presented at the annual meetingof the American Educational Research Association,San Diego, CA.

Hargreaves, A. & Fink, D. (2003). The SevenPrinciples of Sustainable Leadership Boston:Educational Leadership.

Hasbrouck, J. & Denton, C. A. (2007, April).Student-Focused Coaching: A Model for ReadingCoaches. The Reading Teacher, 60(7), 690.

International Reading Association (2006).Standards for Middle and High School LiteracyCoaches. Newark, DE: Author.

King, D., Neuman, M., Pelchat, J., Potochnik, T.,Rao, S., & Thompson, J. (2004). InstructionalCoaching: Professional Development Strategiesthat Improve Instruction Providence, RI:Annenberg Institute for School Reform.

Knapp, M. S., Shields, P. M., & Turnbull, B.(1995, June). Academic Challenge in High-PovertyClassrooms. Phi Delta Kappan 76(10), 770-776.

Lightfoot, S. L. & Davis, J. H. (1997). The Art andScience of Portraiture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

McCombs, J. S., Kirby, S. N., Barney, H., Darilek,H., & Magee, S. J. (2004). Achieving State andNational Literacy Goals, a Long Uphill Road:A Report to Carnegie Corporation of New York.Santa Monica, CA: RAND.

McLaughlin, M. W. & Talbert, J. E. (2001). Profes-sional Communities and the Work of High SchoolTeaching. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

National High School Alliance (2007). EmpoweredEducators. [On-line]. Retreived March 20, 2007,from www.hsalliance.org/call_action/empowered_educators/research.asp.

Newmann, F. M. (Ed.). (1992). StudentEngagement and Achievement in AmericanSecondary Schools. New York: Teachers CollegePress.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of Innovations.(5th ed.) New York: The Free Press.

Senge, P. M., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas,T.,Smith,B.,Dulton, J. & Kleiner, A. (Eds.). (2000).Schools That Learn: A Fifth Discipline Fieldbookfor Educators, Parents, and Everyone Who CaresAbout Education. New York: Doubleday.

Showers, B. & Joyce, B. (1996). The Evolution ofPeer Coaching. Educational Leadership, 53, 12-16.

Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R. R., & Diamond, J. B.(2001, April). Investigating School LeadershipPractice: A Distributed Perspective. EducationalResearcher, 24.

Weiss, C. C. (2003, November). The NeglectedImportance of Connections: The role of studentengagement in the transition to high school.Presented at the Association for Public PolicyAnalysis and Management, Washington, DC.

Reference List

RESEARCH FOR ACTION

Appendix A

Participating Districts and Schools 2006-2007

District High School

Bellwood Antis Bellwood Antis

Erie City Central

East

Strong Vincent

Harrisburg Harrisburg

SciTech

William Penn

Career and Technical Academy

Hazleton Hazelton Area

Intermediate Unit 1 Burgettstown Area

Charleroi

Jefferson Morgan

McGuffey

Mapletown

Uniontown Area

Albert Gallatin Senior

Keystone Central Central Mountain

Lancaster J. P. McCaskey

McCaskey East

Philadelphia Germantown

Simon Gratz

Abraham Lincoln

William Penn

Reading Reading

Scranton Scranton

West Scranton

46 Appendix A


Appendix B 47

In Year Two, Research for Action’s mixed-methods research continued to examine

PAHSCI’s implementation and its impact onintermediate outcomes including: professionalcommunity, leadership development, reformownership at the school level and literacy-rich,student-centered curriculum, teachers skilledin diverse strategies, and student engagementat the classroom level.

This appendix discusses the major datacollection methods and data analyses inthe Year Two research.

Surveys

All PAHSCI coaches and all teachers andadministrators in PAHSCI high schools wereincluded in the sample for the coach, teacherand administrator surveys. Surveys focused onthe following areas: respondent characteristics,school environment and professional climate,understanding of PAHSCI and the PLNframework, coaches and their role, PAHSCIsupports, professional learning opportunities,professional community, instructional change,coaching challenges (coaches only), studentengagement and achievement, and PAHSCIin Year Three.

Coach and administrator surveys wereadministered online but paper copies werealso available if needed. Teacher surveyswere administered in paper form only. Papersurveys were scanned. All survey data wereimported into SPSS for preliminary analysis.Further in-depth analysis of teacher and coachsurveys was conducted by quantitative consul-tants Timothy Victor, Ph.D. and EmmanualAngel, M.S. A technical report on the analysisof the teacher and coach surveys is availableupon request.

The coach survey had a response rate of96 percent (N=89). The teacher survey hada response rate of 65 percent (N=1230). Theadministrator survey had a response rate of81 percent for building administrators (N=21).

Teacher Survey

A teacher’s participation level was determinedby affirmative responses to any three of thefollowing four questions: (a) Attendance at aYear One or Year Two PLN Regional Course;(b) Attendance at school-based professionaldevelopment about PAHSCI at least twice asemester; (c) Attendance at study groups atleast twice a semester; and (d) one-on-onework with a coach at least twice a semester.

Thus, teachers who responded positivelyto any three of four of these indicators wereviewed as having a high participation level inPAHSCI. Teachers who responded positivelyto two or fewer of the indicators were viewedas having a lower level of involvement inPAHSCI. By this definition, 18 percent ofteachers were classified as having a highparticipation PAHSCI.

The teacher survey model shows therelationship between the determining variables(enabling conditions, school structure and pro-fessional environment), the central variable(teacher participation level, i.e., high participa-tion in PAHSCI) and ten outcome variables.The links indicate how strongly associated dif-ferent variables are, as well as their statisticalsignificance.

Appendix B

Research Methodology

RESEARCH FOR ACTION

48 Appendix B

EnablingConditions

SchoolStructure

ProfessionalEnvironment

.640 (p < .001)

.327 (p < .001) .249 (p < .001)

ParticipationLevel

1Participant Assessment of Student AchievementStudent Achievement

2Student Engagement

PAHSCI's Focus onAt-Risk Learners

3Ownership of PAHSCI

High Quality High School Teaching

4Leadership

DevelopmentSchool

5Literacy-Rich Student- Centered Classrooms

Individual Knowledge of PAHSCI

.208(p < .001)

.140(p < .001)

.188(p < .001)

.212(p < .001)

.265(p < .001)

.024 (p = .622) .166 (p = .013) .121 (p = .003)

10 Ownership of PAHSCI

PLN Individual

6Student

EngagementStudent

Engagement

Collaborative Environment

7Strengthened

Professional Community

8Student Engagement

Student Active Participation

9Literacy-Rich Student- Centered ClassroomsClassroom Practices

.088(p < .001)

.306(p < .001)

.205(p < .001)

.161(p < .001)

.299(p < .001)

T

Teacher Survey Model

1 Measures the degree to which teachers believetheir coach has played a role in improving stu-dent achievement.

2 Measures the degree to which teachers believePAHSCI should focus on at-risk learners.

3 Measures the degree to which teachers believethat PAHSCI could be a catalyst for high qualityteaching.

4 Measures the degree to which the teachers feelschool staff buy into and implement the PLNframework.

5 Measures teachers’ responses about their ownknowledge and understanding of PAHSCI

6 Measures the degree to which teachers agree thattheir students work in small groups, are engaged,communicate content knowledge, think critically,and are involved in literacy rich activities.

7 Measures the degree to which teachers agreethat coaches and PAHSCI have positively impactedprofessional community.

8 Measures teacher perceptions about students’response to specific PLN strategy.

9 Measures how many specific PLN instructional stra-tegies were introduced to teachers through PAHSCI.

10 Measures responses about teachers’ understandingand knowledge of the PLN framework and how itcan impact student learning.

Bold: Intended IntermediateOutcomes of PAHSCI

Unbold: Survey IntermediateOutcome Variables


Coach Survey

Our central variable, coach’s professionalidentity, was determined by responses toquestions regarding coaches’:

1 knowledge of their role as a coach, knowledgeof the PLN framework, and knowledge of content(88% of coaches responded positively);

2 active participation in various school-basedmeetings (75% of coaches responded positively);

3 active leadership in ongoing PAHSCI trainings(65% of coaches responded positively); and

4 self-rated effectiveness in improving classroompractice and student achievement (80%responded positively).

Coaches who responded positively on 3 outof 4 of these indicators were viewed as havinga professional identity that was closely linkedto PAHSCI. Inversely, coaches who respondednegatively on two or more of these indicatorswere viewed as having a professional identitythat was more peripheral to PAHSCI. By thisdefinition, 73 percent of coaches were classi-fied as having a professional identity closelytied to PAHSCI.

The 2007 Coach Survey Model shows therelationship between determining variables,the central variable (coach’s professionalidentity), and outcome variables. In addition,the links show how strongly associateddifferent variables are, as well as theirstatistical significance.

In our model, a coach’s professional identitywas influenced by three variables (see tophalf of figure):

1 professional climate of the school;

2 enabling conditions that supported orimpeded the work of coaches; and

3 PAHSCI and school supports.

In our analytic model, a coach’s profes-sional identity influenced five intermedi-ate outcomes (see bottom half of figure).

Appendix B 49

The 2007 Coach Survey Model

PAHSCISupports

EnablingConditions

ProfessionalClimate

Coach’ sProfessional

Identity

0.167(p = .199)

0.131(p = .404)

Teachers’ Skills & Knowledge: Coaches’ Support of Teachers’

Professional Learning

Teachers’ Skills & Knowledge: Teachers’

Implementation ofPLN Framework

Strengthened Professional

Community: Increased Professional Learning

Opportunities

Strengthened Professional Community:

TeacherCollaboration

Ownership of PAHSCI: Teachers’

Participation in ProfessionalLearning Opportunities

0.250(p = .234)

0.362(p = .003)

0.502(p = .001)

0.479(p = .003)

0.289(p = .009)

-0.363(p = .221)

-0.035(p = .793)

0.459(p = .008)

0.385(p = .008)

RESEARCH FOR ACTION

School Site Visits

RFA visited seven high schools in six PAHSCIdistricts across the state. Schools were chosento represent diversity in terms of geographicalregion of Pennsylvania (eastern, western,central), urban city, and school size. Wevisited PAHSCI schools and classrooms togather direct observational data. We alsointerviewed teachers after we visited theirclassrooms so they could clarify and elaborateon the observed lesson and further describetheir participation in PAHSCI and theirunderstanding of the PLN framework.The protocol was purposefully brief (15-20minutes). As Lightfoot notes, it is importantto observe and talk to individuals in theirnatural setting. “Surrounded by the familiar,they can reveal their knowledge, their insights,and their wisdom through action, reflection,and interpretation.”47

We selected 52 teachers in seven schoolswho varied in their level of participation inPAHSCI activities and in their use ofresources. We limited our selection to ninthand tenth grade English and mathematicsteachers because it provided both a similarityin level of content—the beginning years ofhigh school—and diversity in contentmathematics and English.

We used the following indicators to assessteachers’ high or low participation in PAHSCI:a) attendance at PLN regional course;

b) attendance at school-based professional learninggiven by PAHSCI coaches, mentors, or administrators;

c) participation in study groups, departmentalmeetings or additional examples of collegial learn-ing opportunities connected to PAHSCI content;

d) working one-on-one with a coach, i.e., BDAConsultation Cycle, and

e) ongoing requests for PLN resources, checking–inwith coaches, requesting classroom visits and act-ing on feedback from coaches and/or volunteeringto have mentors visit and observe a coach/teachercollaboration.

To meet the criteria of high participation,teachers needed to demonstrate three of thefive indicators. In addition, coaches providedtheir assessment of teachers’ level of participa-tion (e.g., high or low) in PAHSCI.

In collaboration with PLN facilitators andinstructional coaches, RFA staff designed aclassroom visit guide and teacher interviewprotocol with two main parts. The first calledfor a continuous recording of both the teacher’sand the students’ behaviors during the observa-tion. The second assessed the lesson for its useof PLN framework strategies; the facilitationof instruction; and student engagement. TheClassroom Visitation Guide on the next pageshows the lesson components that researcherswere asked to track for each of the threedimensions. (In the analysis of observations,all three dimensions are equally weighted.)RFA researchers debriefed observations with aco-researcher who was also conducting obser-vations in that school to increase inter-raterreliability. Researchers interviewed teachersafter the observation to determine the typicalityof the lesson and the response of students.

Coaches’ assessment of PAHSCI participationand RFA assessments of PAHSCI implementa-tion were put into a spreadsheet. We usedthese assessments of implementation to assessthe level of integration of the PLN frameworkin each classroom. (See Section 2 for a moredetailed discussion of the four levels of inte-gration). Analytic codes were created for theteacher interview data and interviews werecoded using Atlas.ti. Data within thesedescriptive categories were then analyzed toidentify themes that emerged from the coding.Observation notes were recorded and analyzedto gain a greater understanding of the strate-gies teachers were using and the potentialconnection to student engagement.

Questionnaires

Questionnaires were administered inDecember and May to mentors, administrators,and coaches during networking sessions inwhich all administrators and coaches were

50 Appendix B

47 Lightfoot, S. L. & Davis, J. H. (1997). The Art and Science ofPortraiture. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.


Classroom Visitation Guide

Pedagogy

Instructional Focus

Implementation of PLNFramework (See Examples)

State Content Standards

Reading

Writing Composition

Math Computations

Math Problem Solving

Critical Thinking Skills

Test Preparation

Maintenance/review of skills

Tutorial time

Enrichment opportunities

Facilitation ofLearningTeacher BehaviorsClimate for Learning

Modeling/demonstrating

Facilitating/scaffolding

Assessing

Listening/watching/feedback

Guiding practice

Telling/direct explanation

Lecture

High Level Questioning

Student Work Displayed

Models of Graphic Organizers/other resources Displayed

Student Engagementand ResponseStudent BehaviorsStudent Activities

Reading

Writing

Manipulating

Talk (Student led)

Oral Response

Individual

Group

Individual Reading

Small Group

Listening

Recitation

Examples of PLNFrameworkCheck if observed

1 Note-making

2 Jigsaw

3 Reflective writing

4 Do Now – Type 1 andType 2 Writing

5 On Demand Prompts –Type 3 Writing

6 Transacting with Text

7 Read Aloud Think Along

8 KWL

Appendix B 51

expected to participate. Questionnaires focusedon these front line educators’ assessment of pro-gram implementation and the program’s earlyimpacts on three areas: establishing literacy richclassrooms, strengthening professional communi-ties in schools, and developing educational lead-ers who have the skills to help teachers improvetheir practice. Questionnaires were scanned intoSPSS and analyzed using SPSS software.Responses to open-ended questions were codedaccording to themes arising in the data.

At the June 2007 centralized training, 145participants were asked to respond to the prompt,“What do you need to meet or exceed yourexpectations and goals for Year Three andbeyond?” Mentors, coaches, and administratorsanswered this prompt. Responses to the open-ended prompt regarding Year Three were ana-lyzed within respondent groups, e.g., mentor,coach, administrator. Major themes wereidentified for each group.

Event Observations and Evaluations

RFA attended all project-wide PAHSCI

professional development sessions including fourcentralized course sessions (Year 2 sessions inJune, August, and September 2006 and Year 3 inJune 2007), the administrator retreat (November2006), and the networking sessions (December2006 and May 2007). RFA staff attended largeand small group sessions and wrote up fieldnotes.Data from observations of professional develop-ment sessions were analyzed to provide feedbackto partners about professional development andemerging issues.

RFA conducted event evaluations at thecentralized trainings and at the networkingsessions. The evaluations asked participantsto rate the usefulness of various sessions andgave them the opportunity, through open-endedquestions, to provide further feedback includingsuggestions for future sessions. The participantfeedback was analyzed immediately and sharedwith partner organizations to inform the planningof future events. Evaluations were scanned;scaled responses were calculated throughSPSS software; and themes in the open-endedresponses were identified and coded.

RESEARCH FOR ACTION

Brief Descriptions from copyrighted materialPenn Literacy Network

1. Text Rendering:During activity requiring students to go backto text, evaluate and choose key sentences,phrases, and words to express the main ideaor make connections. This can be done orallyin a large/small group and/or in writing.

2. Word Splash:Choose keywords and phrases from a story;requires students to use these words in a cre-ative writing piece before reading the text.Key issue: Limit the number of words; this is aprediction task also.

3. Key Term:Before reading – choose one key term formthe reading. This requires students to write andconnect their feeling about term. This is a pre-dictive/reflective type of writing experience.

4. Note-Making:Double entry/Cornell note-making – requiresstudents to connect, question, and interactwith text. (Ex. Key terms on left. Main ideasand questions on right)

5. Jigsaw/Expert Jigsaw:Cooperative Learning Task – Chinking text inexpert groups and home-group/sharing teams.Students become expert in one area and sharetheir knowledge with home group. This is acomplete BDA experience.

6. Reflective Writing:This is a before activity which asks students toconnect with the text before they transact withtext, enabling students to tap prior knowledge.

7. Pair/Share:This during activity requires students to read(together) and discuss their understanding ofthe text. They share their understanding of thetext (during the paired reading) and go backand forth in their discussion, stopping to dis-cuss and make connections with the text.

8. Critical Reading:Re-reading activities/going back to the text,enabling students to infer correctly; strategicreading.

9. Self-Questioning:BDA activity, with students creating questionsthat may be answered from text.

10. Previewing and Predicting:For all content areas – using student’s priorknowledge to focus, motivate, and provideinterest.

11. Chunking:Taking apart pieces of any text and groupingthem into manageable learning segments. Allare strategies to improve comprehension of text.

12. Mental Imaging:Making a “mind picture” using verbal clues asa descriptive tool.

13. Do Nows:Type 1/Type 2 writings – often used to modeland guide student responses; usually stimulateinterest.

14. Paragraph Frames:A type of model and checklist used to assurethat all components of a well-written para-graph are present.

15. Templates:(Same things) These are used to model andguide student responses.

16. Revision and Peer Revision:Used in Type 3, 4, and 5 writing assignmentsand includes one-foot voice, partner read-alouds, as well as individual revision.

17. Document Review:Activity to celebrate, understand and instructusing student writing samples.

18. FCA’S:Focus Correction Areas used to simplify qualityfeedback and focus student writing. (Specificareas to be corrected: For example – punctua-tion, varied sentence structure, spelling)

52 Appendix C

Appendix C

PLN Strategies


19. Rubrics:Criteria for assessment and teaching. Caninclude teacher-made or student madeassessment; benchmarks for scoring.

20. Choice In AssignmentsProvide choices for students; negotiatedchoices for writing.

21. On Demand Prompts:Type 3 writing assignments tied to instruc-tion.

22. Literature Circles:Activity to provide motivation and choice instudent reading by assigning roles to individ-ual members of cooperative groups. Thisactivity enhances comprehension of a novelthrough group dynamics.

23. I-Search:Personalized, streamlined research acrosscontent areas.

24. Performance Assessment:A method of assessing student understand-ing and application of material. It requiresstudents to demonstrate that they have mas-tered specific skills and competencies byperforming or producing something.

25. Transacting With Text:Constructing meaning from text and apply-ing student-text-context interactions.

26. Journalism/Free Writing:Connecting students’ ideas to classroomcontexts.

27. Paraphrasing

28. Back To Text

29. Summarizing:(Strategies 27, 28 & 29 are) After readingactivities to improve comprehension, under-standing and connection to materials

30-34 Type 1-5 Writing:

Type 1: Capture IdeasWriting that has no correct answer-or, if thereis a correct answer it’s okay to guess. Onedraft

Type 2:Respond CorrectlyWriting that makes a point – has correctanswer or content. One draft

Type 3: Edit for FCAsWriting that is read aloud and reviewed bythe author who then asks three critical ques-tions: Does it complete the assignment? Is iteasy to read? Does it fulfill the focus correc-tion areas? One draft.

Type 4: Peer Edit for FCAsWriting that is type Three writing and hasbeen read aloud and critiqued by another.Two drafts.

Type 5: PublishWriting that is publishable, that can go out-side the classroom without explanation orqualification. Multiple drafts.

35. Guided Lecture Procedure:Before/During/After experiences using struc-tured overviews, Cornell note-making, pro-cessing of key words, and questions to guideand understand lectures.

36. Read Aloud Think Along:Teacher and student modeling, oral readingof questions and connections about text.

37. Point of View Re-WriteRe-written retellings from a particular charac-ter’s point of view.

38. KWL:Structure/graphic organizer for connectingthe new to the known through an activelearning process.

Appendix C 53

RESEARCH FOR ACTION

Recommendations (Year One Report)

Develop a comprehensive and intensivestrategy for promoting writing in the contentareas.

Help teachers examine data and reflect ontheir implications for changes in classroompractice.

Devise new instructional strategies and adaptexisting PLN strategies to address the needs ofdiverse groups of students learners (i.e. ELL,Special Education).

Implement study groups that bring teacherstogether to examine classroom practice byfocusing on student work.

Increase opportunities for teachers to partici-pate in PLN courses or in PLN-related profes-sional development opportunities.

Attend to the specific needs of math coachesand math teachers within the Initiative andhow best to support their growth and learning.

Provide coaches with additional tools and skillsto deepen the knowledge of teachers currentlysupported and to reach additional teachers.

Articulate clear expectations for the roles andresponsibilities of coaches and make certainthat everyone understands those expectations.

Year Two UPDATES

Math and English teachers interviewed report a dramaticincrease in the quantity and quality of student writing.Teacher survey data: 25% reflective writing daily; 45%once or twice a week. 55% use written “Do Nows” daily.

Implementation of 4Sight and other benchmark testingprovided increased examination of data. Networking May2007 an expert consultant provided training in data analy-sis to participants. Coaches unanimously report dataanalysis support is a new skill they have used in 2006-2007.

2006-2007 trainings featured break out sessions on spe-cial needs learners. Overall evaluations rated these ses-sions as helpful.

Increase in number of study groups. Most frequenttopics: PLN framework, student engagement approaches,alignment of curriculum

Regional Trainings (485 people received PLN1 or PLN 2credits in 2006-2007).

Math Specific Breakout at 2006-2007 trainings andnetworking sessions; Math specific coaches’ trainingsessions at October 2, 2007. Networking Session.

PAHSCI website; PAHSCI Newsletter (9 issues); Presen-tations at conferences; Attendance at national confer-ences on coaching. Library of texts for Study Group use.

Monthly Mentor team visits. PAHSCI website; PAHSCINewsletter (9 issues); Reaffirmed expectations at network-ing sessions and administrative retreat in Nov. 2006.

54 Appendix D

Appendix D

Recommendations and Updates

To extend and deepen changes in classroom practice,continue the press to:


Recommendations

Building the knowledge and commitment of districtand school leaders. Ensure ongoing and significantprofessional development and professional learningopportunities for Administrators.

Clarifying the role of the principal in encouraging col-laborative and productive relationships betweenteachers and coaches.

Providing systematic opportunities for district andschool leaders to network about learning about pro-fessional development and participation in PAHSCI.

Providing opportunities for administrativeproblem solving across districts about commonchallenges.

Focusing work of the leadership mentors to makethe most positive difference (i.e.) help school anddistrict leaders shape instructional priorities toalign with the PLN framework.

Continuing to reflect on and make adjustments to thementor role.

Recommendations

Maintaining partner integration, coordination andclose communication.

Responses

Administrators Retreat, 2006Networking Session Administrator Breakouts.Action Planning Support from Foundations’ Mentors.Monthly support from Foundations’ mentors.

Administrators Retreat, 2006Networking session Administrator Breakouts.Regular monthly meetings with Foundations’Leadership Mentors.

Administrators Retreat, 2006Networking sessions 2006-2007, AdministratorBreakouts. Cross district visitations.

Administrators Retreat, 2006Networking session Administrator BreakoutsFoundations Leadership Mentors.

Leadership Mentors meet monthly and plan as aleadership group.Former Leadership Mentor serves as "Senior"Leadership Support. Attendance at conferencesto nourish professional growth of mentors.

Adjustment and redevelopment of Mentor Logs.Mentors professional development on buildingcoach capacity.

Responses

Monthly partner meetings; partners report on newlearnings and participate in collaborative problemsolving

Appendix D 55

To build the enabling conditions greater attention be given to:

To further coordination of partners’ work greater attention be given to:

RESEARCH FOR ACTION

Recommendations

Developing a political andcommunications strategy.

Defining more explicitly what wouldconstitute sustainability and expansion.

Creating processes, timelines and supports for workon sustainability at the school and district level.

Developing leaders from all ranks who will championcoaching and promoting the visibility of these leadersin local, state, and national circles.

Articulating the relationship between coaching,teacher change, and student achievement.

Helping schools prioritize activities which assist indeveloping a more collaborative, instruction-focusedprofessional culture.

Responses

Hired Communications staff. Advisory BoardMeetings; Joined PA Collaborative Coaching Board;Two PAHSCI "expert consultants" work as advocatesfor the initiative; meet with key state stakeholders;PAHSCI Newsletter (9 issues); Hired PR firm.

Partner meetings and Advisory Board Meetingszeroed in on sustainability and a viable action plan.Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE);Ongoing discussions with school/district leadershipteams to identify sustainable components.

PAHSCI Management and consultants along withpartner organizations; Ongoing support from PDE.

Presentations and attendance at local and nationalconferences on coaching.

RFA memo, "Much More Prepared This Year":Frontline Educators Assess PAHSCI Progress;Monthly Newsletters;Evaluating the receptivity, use, and delivery of PLNframework and mentoring program by AED;Analyzed student outcomes and PSSA growth.

RFA formative feedback, Foundations’ Mentor Teams,Leadership teams used PAHSCI generated assess-ment tools for analysis and planning;Action planning to identify priorities.

56 Appendix D

To build the conditions for sustaining and scaling up coaching Partnersgive greater attention to:


About the Authors

Diane Brown, Ed.D. is team leader of RFA’s evalu-ation of the Pennsylvania High School CoachingInitiative and a thirty-year veteran educator, retiredfrom the Philadelphia School District. She hasextensive experience at RFA with youth actionresearch programs – as the Director of RFA’sSisters Together in Action Research (STAR), a lead-ership and literacy development program for low-income, adolescent girls of color (1998-2004) andas the team leader of RFA’s Action Research Camp,a summer program for teaching action researchskills (2004-2005).

Rebecca Reumann-Moore, Ph.D. has worked ina range of educational settings, particularly adultliteracy programs. She is co-team leader of theCarnegie-funded project, Going Small, which islooking at the transition to small high schools inPhiladelphia. At RFA, she has worked on a rangeof projects with many overlapping themes includingusing professional development as part of a largerchange initiative; building effective partnershipsbetween non-profit organizations and schools; andbuilding community in large educational institutions.

Roseann Hugh, M.Ed. entered the educationallandscape with the motivation to provide qualitylearning opportunities to urban children and youth.Working towards those goals she received herM.Ed. from Teachers College in educational leader-ship and policy. In addition, she taught in a NewYork City charter school and public school, as wellas worked at the New York State EducationDepartment where she wrote a policy brief enti-tled, The Path to Charter Renewal.

Jolley Bruce Christman, Ph.D. is a Founder andPrincipal of Research for Action. She has publishedin the areas of urban high school reform, instruc-tional communities, civic capacity in urban publicschools, students’ perspectives on their education-al experience, and evaluation methodology. Sherecently served as a director of the Learning fromPhiladelphia’s School Reform , a five-year studyfunded by the William Penn Foundation and othernational and local foundations. She also completeda five-year evaluation of Philadelphia’s systemicreform effort, Children Achieving.

Morgan Riffer is a Research and TechnologyAssistant at Research for Action. Her work at RFAincludes research and technology assistance forthe projects Learning from Philadelphia’s SchoolReform and an evaluation of the New JerseyGraduate Teaching Fellows Program. Publicationsinclude: Contracting Out Schools: The First Year ofthe Philadelphia Diverse Provider Model withKatrina Bulkley and Leah Mundell. She has a B.A.in Anthropology from Haverford College.

Pierre du Plessis graduated from GeorgeWashington University with a Bachelors degreein Anthropology. Pierre is interested in issuesrelated to social justice and the processes ofglobal change. Originally from Botswana, he wrotehis thesis about the displacement of indigenouspeoples in the Central Kalahari.

Holly Plastaras Maluk, Ph.D. is a ResearchAssociate at Research for Action. She is trained asan anthropologist and brings experience workingin non-profit, academic, and government settings.At Research for Action, Holly is a team member forGoing Small and School Choice in a City ofNeighborhoods: Philadelphia’s Approach to HighSchool Reform, a study of Philadelphia’s goal todevelop regional choice for high schools.

Timothy W. Victor, Ph.D. Senior ResearchConsultant, has more than 17 years of experiencein evaluation research in fields ranging from K-12education (including the quantitative survey workfor the Pennsylvania High School CoachingInitiative) and adult literacy to pharmaceuticals anddisease management. He is a clinical assistant pro-fessor of psychology at the Philadelphia College ofMedicine and a lecturer in the Graduate School ofEducation at the University of Pennsylvania wherehe teaches experimental design, program evalua-tion, measurement theory and psychometrics.He has earned doctorates from the University ofConnecticut in social psychology and the Universityof Pennsylvania in psychometrics.

About the Authors 57

Emmanuel Angel, M.S. is currently a doctoral can-didate at the University of Pennsylvania’s GraduateSchool of Education within the Policy Research,Evaluation, and Measurement program (PREM).Emmanuel’s special interests include psychologicaltesting and measurement ( i.e., psychometrics),survey design, and Internet implementation ofsurveys, and scientific software development.Emmanuel is also a musician and is currently work-ing on a dissertation in which he is collecting newdata via an Internet survey to assess the personalcharacteristics, sources of occupational pressure,coping behaviors, and wellness of professionalmusicians throughout the USA and Canada.Emmanuel holds a B.S. in psychology from RutgersCollege, a M.S. in computer science from RutgersUniversity, and an M.S. in education from theUniversity of Pennsylvania. He currently works as astatistical and software consultant to the pharma-ceutical industry and in educational research.

RESEARCH FOR ACTION

58 About the Authors

GraphicDesign:ParallelDesign,Inc.

RESEARCH for ACTION

3701 Chestnut StreetPhiladelphia, PA 19104Tel: (215) 823-2500Fax: (215) 823-2510E-mail: [email protected]: www.researchforaction.org

research for action makinga diff...

Documents