Coaching and demonstration of evidence-based book-reading practices: Effects on Head Start teachers’ literacy-related behaviors and classroom environment

ABSTRACT

This study examined the effects of coaching with versus without demonstrations of evidence-based book-reading practices on teachers’ use of strategies during independent book-reading periods. A total of 22 Head Start teachers were randomly assigned to one of two cohorts. One cohort (n = 12) participated in biweekly coaching sessions that included having coaches demonstrate how to incorporate a focus on key literacy skills while reading books aloud to students (C + D); the other cohort (n = 10) participated in coaching sessions that did not include explicit demonstration and modeling of evidence-based book-reading practices (C-only). Postintervention observations revealed that teachers in the C + D cohort engaged in behaviors and interactions during their book reading that focused on phonological awareness, alphabet and word knowledge, and print and book awareness to a greater extent than did teachers in the C-only cohort. Cohort differences were also found during an observed small-group activity and on the language and literacy items of a general measure of the classroom literacy environment. Results lend support for the importance of demonstration and observational learning as dimensions of coaching to bring about significant change in teachers’ literacy-enhancing practices.

Funding

This research was supported in part by a grant from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, S359A040145. Any findings and conclusions expressed in this publication are ours and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department of Education. We thank the teachers, children, and staff of the Social Development Commission–Head Start in Milwaukee who participated in this study.

Notes

1. By design, all teachers in the professional development program received didactic training combined with in-class coaching. Although this precluded a comparison to a no-coaching condition, it did allow us to vary systematically the modeling component of coaching while standardizing other components of professional development.

2. The small sample size precluded the use of a more psychometrically sound data-reduction technique, such as principal components analysis, to derive the final set of items.

3. The low agreement (.69) occurred for phonological awareness and was due to the overall low frequency of teacher interactions that focused explicitly on rhyming, alliteration, or syllabication during book reading.

4. Based on feasibility testing, we chose to adopt a 3-point rating (rather than a dichotomous, occurrence-versus-nonoccurrence coding). This allowed for teachers who engaged in a behavior/interaction either infrequently (e.g., identified a letter in a word only one time) or ineffectively (e.g., did not allow sufficient response time to an open-ended question) to receive a partial score.

5. Alpha coefficients based on implementation with a combined sample of pilot study teachers (n = 18) and current study participants (n = 22).

Additional information

Funding

This research was supported in part by a grant from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, S359A040145. Any findings and conclusions expressed in this publication are ours and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department of Education. We thank the teachers, children, and staff of the Social Development Commission–Head Start in Milwaukee who participated in this study.