wyandotte county early reading first wy-erf team drs. mary abbott & jane atwater jeanie...
TRANSCRIPT
Wyandotte County Early Reading First
Wy-ERF TeamDrs. Mary Abbott & Jane Atwater
Jeanie Schiefelbusch, Deb Montagna, Younwoo Lee & Liesl Edwards Juniper Gardens Children’s Project
University of Kansas
Martha Staker, Amy Herring, Beth Nicholas, Debbie Jones, & Geralyn SosinskiProject EAGLE
University of Kansas Med. Center
Information in this presentation is available for noncommercial use only. You may use the information provided that: (a) you do not modify or delete any content;(b) you do not redistribute content without identifying the website and author as the source of content; (c) the use of content does not suggest that our ERF project promotes or endorses any third party causes, ideas, Web sites, products or services.For additional permission requests, please contact Dr. Mary Abbott, [email protected]
WY-ERF Introduction
Organizational frameworkTier-1 (universal) professional development dosage and topic areasData sources:Fidelity of implementation/teacher data – Coaching activity reports– Teacher knowledge assessment– Teacher action plans– Teacher evaluation of professional developmen
Evaluation of child data
PROJECT EAGLEMentor coaches
JUNIPER GARDENSCHILDREN’S PROJECTWy-ERF project oversight
Project coordinatorProfessional Development planTier 1 and 2 instructional plan
Tier 2 intervention coachesEvaluation Services
SCIENCE-BASED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT, IMPLEMENTATION, AND EVALUATION
EOF HEAD START EL CENTRO ACADEMY OF
CHILDREN
RELATIONSHIP AMONG PARTNERS IN WYANDOTTE COUNTY
EARLY READING FIRST
Instructional Implementation3 teachers per classroomInstructionally-sound tiered delivery model Increased intensity of differentiated instruction identified through data-based decision makingAppropriate for pre-school populationEvidenced-base literacy and oral language components
Conceptual FrameworkProfessional Development
High-quality, on-going teacher training Intensive mentoring-1 primary level mentor for every 3 classrooms + intervention coach Regular feedback based on frequent monitoring of implementation
Student + Environmental Outcomes•Student growth in literacy skills•Phonological awareness•Alphabet knowledge•Concepts of print (print awareness)•Writing use
•Student oral language development•Expressive•Receptive
•Instructional environment•Literacy materials•Literacy usage
Yearly Tier-1 Professional Development Dosage
Format Session Frequency
Session Length Time Across School Year
Summer Teacher Workshops
3 8 hrs. 24 hrs.
Weekly Teacher Mentoring Daily 2.5 hrs. 450 hrs.
School Year Teacher Workshops
4 ½ days 4 to 7 hrs. 32 hrs.
Mini-Trainings teachers Periodically 30-60 minutes 20 hrs.
Teacher Training Topics
Training focuses on:• Skill content (literacy and language)• Environmental content (e.g., room arrangement,
praise/reprimand, schedules)• Daily content expectations for circle, small group,
learning centers, and storybook (e.g., specified activities for 15 minutes of circle time)
• Instructional strategies for teaching skills– I do it; we do it; you do it (model, guided
practice, independent practice)
Teacher Mini-Trainings
Targeted trainings were provided in individual classrooms at nap time and were based on these data sources:– Weekly mentor coach reports of implementation– Student outcomes
Training topics included:– Classroom management– ELL strategies– Literacy activities during center time– Beginning reading instruction
Data Sources for Data-Driven Decision-Making
Teacher fidelity of implementation results– Conducted 2-3 times per year – criteria goal 80%
Classroom environment and child outcomes– Classroom environment – fall and spring– Child outcome measures – fall and spring– Child progress monitoring – fall, winter, and spring
Mentor coach reports about implementation– Completed weekly
Teacher knowledge assessmentTeacher evaluation of professional development
Fidelity Content
Fidelity of Implementation Checklists addressed the following areas of implementation:
• Has the activity been planned as evidenced by the lesson plan?
• Is the lesson plan being followed?• Do teachers use appropriate procedures taught during
professional development (e.g., circle or center times)?• Do the teachers provide appropriate behavior management
techniques?• Are transition times and methodology appropriate?
Teacher Fidelity of Implementation
0102030405060708090
100
Fall 2007 Fall 2008
Circle
Center
Storybook
Small Group
Mentor Coach Weekly Notes
Provides various sources of data on Time spent in each classroom (2 ½ weekly hours of instructional time + 1-2 hours of planning)Time spent supporting teachers with materialsFocus of coaching activityTeacher activity while coach is embedded in classroom and assisting during planning
Teacher Knowledge Assessment
Assesses individual teacher knowledge in the areas of
Phonological awareness
Print knowledge
Oral language
Instructional strategies
Classroom TeacherFidelity 20 Questions
Circle Small Center Story Total Pre Post
1
100% 90% 61% 100% 81% 75% 85%
100% 95% 67% 100% 85% 45% 65%
100% 91% 67% 91% 87% 75% NA
2
100% 78% 50% 100% 74% 55% 55%
100% 75% 36% 100% 68% 85% 75%
94% 90% 61% 83% 82% 90% NA
3
100% 64% 50% 50% 65% 75% 55%
100% 64% 67% 67% 68% 55% 70%
NA NA NA NA NA NA 75%
4 90% 78% 71% 81% 79% 65% 70%
90% 70% 61% 100% 75% 80% 80%
5 100% 77% 72% 69% 79% 70% 70%
75% 73% 71% 100% 75% 45% 65%
6 100% 77% 78% 56% 78% 45% 65%
100% 68% 69% 100% 76% 30% 25%
7
94% 83% 64% NA 81% NA 70%
100% 86% 72% NA 94% 70% 85%
100% 67% 57% NA 67% 55% 60%
8
94% 77% 67% 89% 81% 90% 85%
75% 61% 50% 100% 61% NA 45%
NA NA 57% 100% 70% 40% 65%
9 83% 50% 21% 22% 42% 60% 70%
75% 67% 36% 83% 60% 55% 55%
Teacher Action Plans & Professional Development Evaluation
During formal Professional Development teachers:Create an action plan that relates to a goal discussed
during training (see handout packet) – These goals are rated as a percentage toward completion by
the coach.– Used to determine if more training should be provided
Provide feedback to the quality of the training (see handout packet)
– This feedback is used to modify future training topics content delivery, and food preference.
Identifying children who need more intensive intervention to meet language and early
literacy benchmarks for their age:
TOPEL (Test of Preschool Early Literacy)
Subtests: Print knowledge, definitional vocabulary, and phonological awareness
Children met the TOPEL benchmark if:– Total score (Early Literacy Index) was within or above the
typical range (>=90) - OR -– Scores on at least 2 subtests were within or above the typical
range (>=90)
Percentage of children who did not meet the TOPEL benchmark at the beginning of the school year
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Pe
rce
nta
ge
Center 1 Center 2 Center 3 Center 4
English 1st Language ELL
Monitoring children’s progress over the school year and providing information to teachers:
Children who did not meet TOPEL benchmark were assessed monthly.Children at or above benchmark were assessed three times.Progress monitoring measures:– PALS Pre-K – (a) Letter Knowledge and (b) Letter Sound
Knowledge– DIBELS – (a) Word Part Fluency for Sounds and Syllables (with
separate versions for English and Spanish), (b) First Sound Fluency, and (c) Letter Naming Fluency
– Get It, Got It, Go (GGG) – Picture Naming Fluency
GGG: Picture Naming Fluency – Children Above and Below TOPEL Benchmark
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Oct/Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr/May
Nu
mb
er
of
Co
rre
ct R
esp
on
ses
Above - Eng 1st Lang Above - ELL Below - ELL Below - Eng 1st Lang
PALS Pre-K: Upper Case Letter Knowledge – Children Above and Below TOPEL Benchmark
0
5
10
15
20
25
Oct/Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr/May
Up
pe
r C
ase
Le
tte
rs I
de
ntif
ied
Co
rre
ctly
Above - Eng 1st Lang Above - ELL Below - ELL Below - Eng 1st Lang
DIBELS: Word Part Fluency – Children Above and Below TOPEL Benchmark
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Oct/Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr/May
Nu
mb
er
of
Co
rre
ct R
esp
on
ses
Above - Eng 1st Lang Above - ELL Below - ELL Below - Eng 1st Lang
Determining whether children made significant pre-post gains in standardized
assessments of language and early literacy:
Pre-Test – October/November 2007
Post-Test – April/May 2008
Standardized assessments:
– TVIP
– PPVT-IV
– TVIP
Pre-post gains were evaluated with paired sample t-tests.
Gains in TOPEL Standard Scores – Children Whose First Language is English
80
85
90
95
100
Ave
rag
e S
tan
da
rd S
core
Print Knowledge DefinitionalVocabulary
PhonologicalAwareness
Early Literacy Index
Pre Post
*** Gains from pre to post were statistically significant, p < .001.
******
******
Gains in TOPEL Standard Scores – English Language Learners
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
Ave
rag
e S
tan
da
rd S
core
Print Knowledge DefinitionalVocabulary
PhonologicalAwareness
Early Literacy Index
Pre Post
* P < .05 ** p < .01
***
Gains in PPVT and TVIP Standard Scores
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
Ave
rag
e S
tan
da
rd S
core
PPVT - English 1st Lang TVIP - ELL
Pre Post
** P < .01 *** p < .001
*** **
Determining whether 4-year-old children met language and early literacy goals to be ready for kindergarten:
Children who were age-eligible to enter kindergarten in 2008Goal for standardized assessments – typical range or above (i.e., scored better than 1 standard deviation below the mean)– TOPEL– PPVT/TVIP
Goal for progress monitoring assessments – met or exceeded benchmarks– PALS Pre-K Upper Case Letter Knowledge– DIBELS Word Part Fluency– DIBELS Letter Naming Fluency
Percentage of 4-year-old Children Who Met or Exceeded Progress Monitoring Goals by April 2008
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Pe
rce
nta
ge
PALS Pre-K LetterKnowledge (>=18)
DIBELS Letter NamingFluency (>=8)
DIBELS Word SoundFluency (>=7)
English 1st Lang (N=47) ELL (N=9)
Percentage of 4-year-old Children Who Scored Within or Above the Typical Range on Standardized Assessments (April 2008)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Pe
rce
nta
ge
TOPEL Early LiteracyIndex (>=90)
PPVT (>=85) TVIP (>=85)
English 1st Lang (N=47) ELL (N=9)
For more information contact:
Mary Abbott, PhD Jane Atwater, PhDERF Director Evaluation Director
[email protected] [email protected]
University of Kansas Juniper Gardens Children’s Project
650 Minnesota 2nd fl.Kansas City, KS 6610