Transcript action research project

Critical Friends in Action
Dr. Allison K. Harley, Principal
Mr. James B. DeWitt, Assistant Principal
Ms. Gladys M. Jones, Teacher Leader
Ms. Cecilia Hunter, Professional Partner
Robert Renick Educational Center
Superintendent’s Urban Principal Initiative
August, 2007-June 2008
Abstract
Robert Renick Educational Center is a special
education center providing academics and
therapy for students who are labeled
Emotionally Behaviorally Disturbed (EBD) in
grades K through 12. An area that was identified
as needing improvement was in instructional
strategies. Professional development in
instructional strategies was delivered through
peer coaching and Critical Friend Groups
comprised of teachers, paraprofessionals and
student service personnel.
Introduction
Education is the only profession in which the
professional is required to implement, analyze,
research and test the results on a continuous
basis. Many teachers spend large portions of
their summers attending workshops and
conferences to hone their skills (Bambino,
2002). Minimal credit is given to valuing teacher
knowledge, what teachers have to offer, what
teachers can teach other and dedication not only
to the profession but to their students as well.
Introduction (continued)
Critical friends is a strategy that can be used to alleviate
teacher isolation, building collegiality through positive
feedback and assistance, boosting professionalism and
skills, helping teachers to feel better about the service
they provide, assists in the transference of skills
acquired from meaningful staff development to
classroom use and can raise student achievement level
through improved teaching (NWREL, 2005). Peer
coaching is a way to encourage teachers to observe
each other in a non-judgmental, non-threatening setting.
Peer coaching is a process through which trust among
colleagues is nurtured and collaboration and
communication key (Bambino, 2002).
Background/Context
• Robert Renick Educational Center is a self contained
center which serves students who are Emotional
Behavioral Disturbed from grades Kindergarten through
twelfth grade. The ethnical/racial make-up of the student
population is 60 percent African American, 32 percent
Hispanic American and 18 percent Anglo American.
• The school employs a total of 112 full time faculty
members. Eighty-five faculty members participated in
the project. Sixty percent have Masters degrees and 8
percent have Doctoral degrees.
Research Questions
• How will collegial coaching between
special education educators (teachers,
paraprofessionals, and student services)
impact their attitudes towards teamwork?
• What affect will collegial coaching have on
teacher efficacy?
Literature Review
• Martimore and Sammons (1987) found that
teaching had 6 to 10 times as much impact on
achievement as all other factors combined.
• Robert Marzano (2003) points to numerous
studies demonstrating that two teachers working
with the same socioeconomic population can
achieve starkly different results on the same
test.
• William Sanders, known for his “value added”
studies, found that just three years of effective
teaching accounts on average for an
improvement of 35 to 50 percentile points.
Literature Review (Continued)
• Erick Hanushek has found that five years of
instruction from an above-average teacher could
eliminate the achievement gap on some state
assessments (Haycock, 2005).
• One recent study shows that the best teachers
in a school have six times as much impact as
the bottom third of teachers (Haycock & Huang,
2001).
• Allen Odden and his colleague conclude that
“improved classroom instruction is the prime
factor to produce student achievement gains”
(Odden & Wallace, 2003, p. 64).
Methodology/Intervention
• Faculty members comprised of teachers,
paraprofessionals and student service personnel
were divided into groups of eight.
• Groups met monthly for professional
development delivered by the principal and
teacher leader.
• Professional development focused on Critical
Friends Groups as a means for each group of
individuals to learn from each other.
Methodology (continued)
• Meetings were monthly lasting from 45
minutes to 2 hours, including one whole
day of activity.
• Each month a different best practice
strategy was featured.
• Team building activities were included in
every meeting.
• Data was collected by means of surveys
and observation.
Methodology (continued)
• The culminating activity was a Teacher Share
Fair.
• Team members observed one another teaching
a lesson using a best practice that had been
previously covered in the professional
development.
• Groups were given a protocol to use for the
observation.
• Groups debriefed afterwards with one another.
Data Collection
• Data collection was obtained through a teacher attitude
survey as it references teaching a subject area and
comfort level with their own performance as a teacher.
• The teachers met within their Critical Friends Group to
discuss the process and anecdotal information was
obtained from each group member using a four question
quadrant titled “What Are You Thinking?”
• The researchers also used their own on-going
observations as data.
• A final ten question survey of the participants attitudes
towards the Critical Friends Groups process was
collected.
Data Analysis
• What Are You Thinking Responses:
• “It is important for us to work together and agree to
disagree.”
• “I would definitely like to visit more of colleagues rooms
to further enhance my skills and teaching strategies with
regard to behavioral and instructional components.”
• “I appreciate these workshops because they bring the
staff to a new level of cooperation in an exciting way.”
• “I felt a little out of place in the beginning being in groups
but that all changed as the time continued.”
• “I learned the significance of empowering the students.”
Data Analysis
Target Areas
Faculty Collegiality Pre Survey
Observation
Para Pro
Knowledge
Counselor
Teacher
Efficacy
Collegiality
0
20
40
60
Percentage
80
100
• Data Analysis
Target Areas
Faculty Collegiality Intermediate Survey
Observation
Para Pro
Knowledge
Counselor
Teacher
Efficacy
Collegiality
0
20
40
60
Percentage
80
100
• Data Analysis
Target Areas
Faculty Collegiality Post Survey
Observation
Para Pro
Knowledge
Counselor
Teacher
Efficacy
Collegiality
70
75
80
85
Percentage
90
95
100
Findings/Results
• Survey results indicated teachers were
more willing to share with each other but
did not know how.
• Student service personnel were less
willing to share due to minimal knowledge
in content area.
• Paraprofessionals wanted to participate
and share but felt that opportunities to
share were not available.
Findings/Results (Continued)
• We learned a great deal about our staff and
educators in general. The results of the “What
Are You Thinking Survey?” indicated that initially
the participants felt intimidated to work in groups
but slowly embraced the process over time.
• The final Critical Friends survey indicated that
by the end most participants really found
working with others and participating in reflective
practices was beneficial and most likely will have
a lasting affect on their teaching practices.
Implications/ Recommendations
• Collaborative teams will be maintained for
professional development activities for the
following school year.
• Needs assessment of professional
development will be administered.
• Each team will be assigned a professional
development topic to present utilizing high
yield instructional strategies.
References
• Bambino, D. (2002). Critical Friends. Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• National Regional Educational Laboratory. (2005).
Teachers Working Together. Retrieved from
http://www.nwrel.org/nwedu/11-01/cfg/.
• National School Reform Faculty. (2006). Critical Friends
Groups – Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved from
http://www.nsrfharmony.org/faq.html.
• Schmoker, M. (2006). Results Now. Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
• Zemelman, S., Daniels, H. & Hyde, A. (2005) Best
Practice Today’s Standards for teaching & Learning in
America’s Schools. Heinemann Publishing.