Advertisement

Reading and Writing

, Volume 20, Issue 6, pp 569–590 | Cite as

Assessment-based instructional coaching provided to reading intervention teachers

  • Carolyn A. Denton
  • Elizabeth A. Swanson
  • Patricia G. Mathes
Article

Abstract

The use of student assessment data is a key component of a model of instructional coaching, Student-Focused Coaching (Hasbrouck & Denton, 2005), designed to support student achievement by engaging reading teachers in a collaborative problem-solving process to modify instructional strategies with the goal of enhanced student outcomes. In this paper, we describe the role of student assessments in a technology-based implementation of the Student-Focused Coaching model provided to reading intervention teachers within a study of scaling-up research-validated educational innovations. Examination of transcripts of teacher–coach interchanges in the technology-based implementation of Student-Focused Coaching supported the key role of assessment in that model, revealing that coaches frequently (a) answered teachers’ questions related to assessment, (b) suggested that teachers implement specific instructional strategies based on assessment results, (c) engaged teachers in examining assessment results and observing students for specific purposes, and (d) provided feedback, especially encouragement, to teachers about students’ progress based on assessment results. Further, these classes of interactions were observed between coaches and teachers in both a flexible intervention heavily dependent on teacher decision-making and in a highly prescriptive intervention program.

Keywords

Collaboration High-risk students Mentoring Professional development Reading assessment Reading coach Reading intervention Technology 

Notes

Acknowledgment

This research was supported in part by Grant # R305W030257 from the Institute of Education Sciences of the US Department of Education.

References

  1. Bahr, M. W., & Kovaleski, J. F. (2006). The need for problem-solving teams. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 2–5.Google Scholar
  2. Bean, R. M., Swan, A. L., & Knaub, R. (2003). Reading specialists in schools with exemplary reading programs: Functional, versatile, and prepared. The Reading Teacher, 56, 446–455.Google Scholar
  3. Chard, D. J. (2004). Toward a science of professional development in early reading instruction. Exceptionality, 12, 175–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Conte, K. L., & Hintze, J. M. (2000). The effects of performance feedback and goal setting on oral reading fluency within curriculum-based measurement. Diagnostique, 25(2), 85–98.Google Scholar
  5. Denton, C. A., Foorman, B. R., & Mathes, P. M. (2003). Schools that “beat the odds”: Implications for reading instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 258–261.Google Scholar
  6. Denton, C. A., Hasbrouck, J. H., & Sekaquaptewa, S. (2003). The consulting teacher: A case study in Responsive Systems Consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 14, 41–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Denton, C. A., & Hocker, J. K. (2006). Responsive reading instruction: flexible intervention for struggling readers in the early grades. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.Google Scholar
  8. Denton, C. A., & Mathes, P. G. (2003). Intervention for struggling readers: Possibilities and challenges. In B. R. Foorman (Ed.), Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale. (pp. 229–251). Timonium, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
  9. Denton, C. A., Swanson, E. A., Mathes, P. G., Jia, Y., & Shih, M. (April, 2007). Student outcomes and response to "tier 2" reading intervention scaled up in multiple schools. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  10. Dole, J. (2004). The changing role of the reading specialist in school reform. The Reading Teacher, 57, 462–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Engelmann, S. (1999). Student-program alignment and teaching to mastery. Paper presented at the 25th national direct instruction conference, Eugene, OR.Google Scholar
  12. Evans, S. B. (1991). A realistic look at the research base for collaboration in special education. Preventing School Failure, 35, 10–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Foorman, B. R., Schatschneider, C., Eakin, M. N., Fletcher, J. M., Moats, L. C., & Francis, D. J. (2006). The impact of instructional practices in grades 1 and 2 on reading and spelling achievement in high poverty schools. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fuchs, L. S., Deno, S. L., & Mirkin, P. K. (1984). Effects of frequent curriculum-based measurement and evaluation on pedagogy, student achievement, and student awareness of learning. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 449–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Allinder, R. M. (1991). The contribution of skills analysis to curriculum-based measurement in spelling. Exceptional Children, 57, 443–452.Google Scholar
  16. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., & Stecker, P. M. (1991). Effects of curriculum-based measurement and consultation on teacher planning and student achievement in mathematics operations. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 617–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Walz, L., & Germann, G. (1993). Formative evaluation of academic progress: How much growth can we expect? School Psychology Review, 22, 27–48.Google Scholar
  18. Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 915–945.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gravois, T. A., & Rosenfeld, S. A. (2006). Impact of instructional consultation teams on the disproportionate referral and placement of minority students in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 42–52.Google Scholar
  20. Hasbrouck, J. E., & Denton, C. A. (2005). The reading coach: A how-to manual for success. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.Google Scholar
  21. Idol, L. (1993). Special educator’s consultation handbook (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
  22. International Reading Association (2004). The role and qualifications of the reading coach in the United States: A position statement of the International Reading Association. Newark, DE: International Reading Association. http://www.reading.org/resources/issues/positions_coach.html Accessed 01.03.2006.Google Scholar
  23. Klingner, J. K. (2004). The science of professional development. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 248–255.Google Scholar
  24. Kovaleski, J. F., & Glew, M. C. (2006). Bringing instructional support teams to scale: Implications of the Pennsylvania experience. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 16–25.Google Scholar
  25. MacLeod, I. R., Jones, K. M., Somers, C. L., & Havey, J. M. (2001). An evaluation of the effectiveness of school-based behavioral consultation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 12, 203–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mathes, P. G., & Denton, C. A. (2002). The prevention and identification of reading disability. Seminars in Pediatric Neurology, 9(3), 185–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mathes, P. G., Denton, C. A., Fletcher, J. M., Anthony, J. L., Francis, D. J., & Schatschneider, C. (2005). The effects of theoretically different instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 148–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mathes, P. G., Torgesen, J. K, Menchetti, J. C., Wahl, M., & Grek, M. K. (1999). Proactive beginning reading. (Available from P. G. Mathes, Institute for Reading Research, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX).Google Scholar
  29. National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.Google Scholar
  30. Perie, M., Grigg, W. S., & Donahue, P. L. (2005). The nation’s report card: Reading 2005 (NCES 2006-451). Washington, DC: Department of Education Institute of Education Sciences.Google Scholar
  31. Poglinco, S. M., & Bach, A. J. (2004). The heart of the matter: Coaching as a vehicle for professional development. Phi Delta Kappan, 85, 398–400.Google Scholar
  32. Safran, S. P., & Safran, J. S. (1996). Intervention assistance programs and prereferral teams. Remedial & Special Education, 17, 363–369.Google Scholar
  33. Sheridan, S., Welch, M., & Orme, S. (1996). Is consultation effective? A review of outcome research. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 341–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Showers, B., & Joyce, B. (1996). The evolution of peer coaching. Educational Leadership, 53, 12–16.Google Scholar
  35. Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.Google Scholar
  36. Sugai, G. M., & Tindal, G. A. (1993). Effective school consultation: An interactive approach. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  37. Tilly, W. D. (2006). Diagnosing the learning enabled: The promise of response to intervention. Perspectives, 32(1), 1, 4–7.Google Scholar
  38. Torgesen, J. (2004). Lessons learned from research on interventions for students who have difficulty learning to read. In P. McCardle, & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research (pp. 355–382). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
  39. Vaughn, S., & Coleman, M. (2004). The role of mentoring in promoting research-based practices in reading. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Ysseldyke, J. E. (2001). Reflections on a research career: Generalizations from 25 years of research on assessment and instructional decision making. Exceptional Children, 67, 295–309.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carolyn A. Denton
    • 1
  • Elizabeth A. Swanson
    • 1
  • Patricia G. Mathes
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Special EducationThe University of Texas at AustinAustinUSA
  2. 2.Southern Methodist UniversityDallasUSA

Personalised recommendations