Eating an elephant: changing an instructional culture!

Sean Murphy 2137 Pine Tree Lane, Rocky Mount N.C., 27804"
How Increases as !

Introduction!
School reform is not easy. At South Johnston High School, years of lax leadership led to rudimentary instruction and a toxic climate. In 2010, a new principal was asked to take over. By 2011, the climate was safe enough to shift the focus to changing instructional practices. The Problem of Practice followed the Inquiry-Action Cycle detailed by Militello, Rallis & Goldring, (2009). A data-audit was taken of the school, collecting a broad array of indicators (see Artifacts binder). Analysis showed that there were no solid interventions for struggling learners. Also, core instructional practices was lacking, with little or no differentiation and student collaboration. Thus, any intervention needed to impact both the what of instruction (content), as well as the how (instructional strategy). English I was identified as a key leverage class for implementing new content in pedagogically innovative ways.

What Decreases!

Evaluation Questions & Data!

Strategies!
STRATEGIES( Evalua5on(Ques5ons(
How#many#hours#were#spent#training' teachers#on#13#stages#of#instruc9on?#( How#many#hours#were#spent# suppor,ng'teachers#on#the#13#stages# of#instruc9on?'( Did#the#teachers#think#the#session#was# of#high#quality?#( On#how#many#strategies#were# teachers#trained?( How#many#professional#development# training#sessions#were#given?#( To#what#extent#did#teachers#think#the# trainings#were#useful#for#their#instruc9on?(

Results!
Teachers received training on pedagogy (the how) during pre-service days, fall 2011. Training for the literacy strategies (the what) was interspersed throughout the school year. Surveys were collected asking teachers if trainings were effective. Results were mixed, but mostly positive (Figure 4).

Instances of Research Based Instruction"

Time"

Xtreme Reading Pedagogy Strategies "

Data(
Training(agendas( Support(logs( Professional(Development( Ques,onnaire(

Xtreme Reading Content Strategies"

A:(The(13(instruc,onal( stages(provided(an( instruc,onal(rou,ne(of( pedagogic(prac,ce( (the(how).(

B:(Program(X( included(8(research=based( literacy(strategies( explicitly(taught(to( students((the(what).( C:(Possible(Selves( was(a(mo,va,onal( strategy.(( D:(On=going(support(for( Program(X(teachers( and(students(included( coaching,(planning( assistance(and(modeling.((

Training(agendas( Support(logs( Professional(Development( Ques,onnaire(

Figure 4. The above graph shows broad trends for implementation. As explicit instruction of strategies declined (the what represented by the dotted line), frequency of differentiated instruction and collaborative learning increased (the how represented by the solid line). "

Recommendations!
How does one eat an elephant? One bite at a time. The first year of Xtreme Reading implementation indicates that a small bite is fraught with ups and downs, but crucial lessons must be learned. This is how change happens. Looking at the next bite, some proactive action steps can be made. A walk through tool was developed to monitor the frequency of research based instruction. Instances of explicit instruction of literacy strategies (the what) were collected, along with instances of differentiated instruction and collaborative group work (the how). A pre/post survey was given to students after seven months of implementation. Programmatic Explicitly set goals and monitor the dual purposes of the program (content and instructional strategies). Respond to areas of concern more purposefully. Level of preparedness should dictate the level of directive support. Logistical Ensure that teachers have adequate support, especially during the first quarter of implementation. Utilize the programs resources (e.g. model lesson plans and timelines) more consistently. Ultimately, when working in tandem, the literacy program will provide kids with what they need to know conveyed in ways they are most likely to learn it.

For(the(purpose(of(the(project,( results(were(insignicant(.( How#many#hours#of#support#were# provided#for#the#strategies?#( How#supported#did#teachers#feel# during#the#process?# Likert#Scale( Focus#Group(

Figures 1a,b. EVAAS 2010 Growth Indices and English I EOC results show South Johnston lagging behind other schools in the district."

Figure 3a. Strategies were designed to prepare teachers for the changes in pedagogy (seen in the 13 stages of instruction) and content (represented by the literacy strategies) which would be explicitly taught to students. " Objectives!
Objec5ves( Evalua5on(Ques5ons(
How#condent#do#teachers#feel#using# researchIbased#strategies?# How#oEen#do#teachers#use#researchI based#strategies?#

Problem of Practice
A program was selected in the summer of 2011 to change both the content and method of instruction. Program X is an evidenced-based reading intervention for students 1 4 years behind in reading. X involves explicit instruction of literacy strategies. All strategies are taught using 13 stages of instruction, a pedagogical routine that includes direct instruction, differentiated practice and student collaboration. Three English 1 teachers (including one Exceptional Children teacher) received training and support throughout the year.
Data(

1:(Teachers(can(explicitly( teach(literacy(strategies( to(students((the(what).(

Professional(Development( Ques,onnaire(( Teacher(Self=Report(Survey((

Problem(of(Prac,ce(
STRATEGIES(
A:(Train(teachers(on(the( 13(instruc,onal(stages(( used(year(long(as(core( instruc,onal(strategies(

2:(Teachers(dieren,ate( instruc,on,(as(laid(out(in( the(13(Instruc,onal(Stages( (the(how).(

How#oEen#do#teachers#dieren9ate# instruc9on?##

Learning(Strategies(Walk( Through(Rubric((( Retrospec,ve(Pre/Post( Student(Survey(( Pre=Post(Assessments(for( Each(Strategy(

OBJECTIVES(

ULTIMATE(GOAL(

Teachers(know(and(use( research=based( strategies(eec,vely(

B:(Train(teachers(on( research(based(literacy( strategies(through( Program(X(

Teachers(dieren,ate( instruc,on((

Teachers(know( how(to(reach( struggling( learners( At=risk(students( are(more( condent(and( successful( readers.(

3:(Students(collaborate( during(class,(as(laid(out(in( the(13(instruc,onal(stages( (the(how).(

How#oEen#do#students#collaborate#during# class?#

4:(Students(use(literacy( strategies(prociently(.(

How#many#students#used#the# strategies#prociently?#(

Student perception survey (Figure 5) shows an increase in frequency and magnitude of inclass collaboration."

Acknowledgments!
I would like to thank North Carolinas Department of Public Instruction for planning and funding the secondary RtI pilot. The NELA program for providing the unique full time internship experience. Kelley Johnson for her constant support and input. Eddie Price for the vision and relentless dedication to eat an elephant. Most importantly, all the teachers and students of South Johnstons Freshman Academy.

C:(Train(teachers(to(use( Possible(Selves(strategy((

Students(collaborate( during(class( Students(use(literacy( strategies(prociently(

D:(Provide(on=going(( support(for(Program(X( teachers(and(students(

Figure 2. A logic model illustrating the implementation process. Strategies included training and support scheduled by administration. Effectiveness of strategies would be gauge by changes in classroom practices. "

Figure 3b. The extent of change in classroom instruction was based in observable classroom practices and perceptional ratings from teachers and students."

For further information!

Please contact seanisalways@gmail.com. More information on this and related projects can be obtained at ncsunela.wikispaces.com. A link to the poster session can be found online at: nela9murphy.wikispaces.com. Figure 6. Data collected from twenty-six walk through forms taken over three months. "