Program Evaluation · In contrast to the more traditional one-shot forms of teacher in-service, “instructional coaches customize professional development to match each teacher’s

Program Evaluation

Instructional Coach School-Based Professional Development Program

Research Office

Loudoun County Public Schools

Chad Green, Program Analyst Stephan Knobloch, Research Supervisor

July 13, 2006

Research Office 2 Department of Instruction 08/18/06

Program Evaluation: Instructional Coach Program

Background Information The Instructional Coach program provides school-based professional development to new teachers (protégés) in Loudoun County Public Schools (LCPS). New teachers comprise two subgroups: (a) novice (first-year) teachers and (b) experienced teachers new to LCPS or new to a school. The primary objective of this initiative is to increase the job satisfaction and retention of new hires by facilitating their successful transition into the school culture. The Instructional Coach program, developed under the sponsorship of the LCPS Teacher Mentor program, was piloted at Dominion High School (DHS) in the 2005-06 school year. DHS was selected as a pilot site based on two criteria: (a) it had not met the state’s Adequate Yearly Performance requirements under the No Child Left Behind Act in the previous year; and (b) it is designated a hard-to-staff school by the Virginia Department of Education. A retired veteran teacher from DHS was hired as a part-time instructional coach two days a week in the summer of 2005 to implement the program. Instructional Coach Model In the context of teacher professional development, coaching is a way to support the continuous growth of teachers by moving them toward using new instructional strategies and knowledge about teaching and learning. Sweeney (2003) describes this support person or “instructional coach” as one who models high quality instruction and provides feedback when the teacher or apprentice begins to use the new strategies. The process follows a gradual release of responsibility through:

• Modeling of instruction: Demonstration lessons, observation, videos, and professional reading with discussion.

• Guided practice: Co-teaching, observation with feedback, continued professional reading with discussion, and planning sessions.

• Independent teaching: Sharing successes with colleagues, receiving coaching to support next steps, fine-tuning, assuming new leadership roles, and determining where to begin new learning.

In contrast to the more traditional one-shot forms of teacher in-service, “instructional coaches customize professional development to match each teacher’s needs and interests while they help the school establish a common understanding across all teachers” (Sweeney, 2003). Many researchers have validated the effectiveness of coaching as a venue for improving instructional quality. For example, Darling-Hammond and McLaughlin (1995) state that “effective professional development is…sustained, on-going, and intensive, supported by modeling, coaching, and collective problem solving around specific problems of practice.” Garmston and Wellman (1999) report that coaching is the most powerful means to increase teacher knowledge and improve practice. Greene’s (2004) review of the literature on school-based staff developers similarly concludes that effective professional development “must be multidimensional, research- and theory-based, on-going including demonstrations/modeling of strategies and skills, supported by coaching on the job site, and providing specific feedback.” Instructional Coach Program at Dominion High School During the summer of 2005, the instructional coach attended a series of leadership team meetings to help plan the school’s faculty retreat in mid-August. A week before the retreat, she met with protégés and their mentors to orient them to the new Instructional Coach program. The week of the retreat included a three-day institute on the school’s instructional strategies collectively called “Truly Titan Teaching” after the school’s mascot. Protégés would be evaluated on these strategies throughout the year (see Appendix A). The instructional coach then visited the classrooms of each new hire and delivered a “Welcome to DHS” goody bag. During the first week of classes, she visited the classrooms of protégés as they became available. A personal, handwritten note was sent to each protégé within 24 hours of each visitation. No conference was arranged or requested during this first round of visitations.



After the first few weeks of school, the administration and department chairs provided referrals to the instructional coach with a request for follow-up teacher observations to address specific performance and/or management concerns. The instructional coach would observe the protégés in class with respect to their ability to follow the school’s instructional strategies, then follow up with a personal e-mail containing her observation notes and a request for a conference. As new teachers were hired during the school year, the administration referred them to the instructional coach for an orientation on the school’s instructional strategies (“Truly Titan Teaching”), daily routine, clubs, teams, and other relevant information. In response to this responsibility, the coach developed a packet of handouts summarizing this information. In addition, the coach visited the classrooms of the new hires during their first week of instruction to offer assistance as needed. Every month the instructional coach held an induction team meeting with the assistance of the DHS lead mentor. The agenda was developed with input from the lead mentor and principal. These meetings, which lasted 55 minutes, were formatted to model the school’s instructional strategies and followed a varied format of group discussion, speakers, question/answer exchanges, and opportunities to share personal experiences in the classroom. A series of questionnaires was given throughout the year in order to collect formative feedback and share successes and areas of concern. Over the course of a year, the instructional coach at DHS allocated her time to the following activities:

• One-on-One Professional Development (74 hours): Visitations, observations, and conferences with protégés during the school year;

• Summer Faculty Retreat (54 hours): Planning and orientation sessions for protégés in the summer;

• Induction Team Meetings (32 hours): Monthly group-discussion sessions with protégés during the school year; and

• Discussions with Non-Protégés (14 hours): Conferences with the administration, department chairs, and non-protégé contacts (e.g., co-teachers and aides) concerning protégés during the school year.

In addition, she sent a total of 208 electronic and handwritten messages to protégés and their contacts. Research Questions The purpose of this study is to answer the following research questions:

1. Are protégés satisfied with the quality of the Instructional Coach program as measured by an online satisfaction survey?

2. To what extent does support by an instructional coach predict a teacher’s sense of efficacy as measured by Gibson and Dembo’s Teacher Efficacy Scale?

3. To what extent does support by an instructional coach predict student behavior as measured by the number of discipline referrals in the classroom?

Methodology The study was a summative evaluation that assessed the satisfaction, efficacy, and performance of new teachers at the end of their first year of participation in the Instructional Coach program. All new teachers at DHS participated in the program during the 2005-06 school year. Program Participants A total of 34 protégés (13 novice and 21 experienced teachers) received assistance from the instructional coach during the 2005-06 school year. Of the 13 novice teachers, five (38.5%) had not student taught prior to teaching at LCPS. All 34 teachers received one-on-one assistance at varying levels of intensity: on average, novice teachers received 3 hours of face-to-face assistance (median = 3.1 hours) and experienced teachers received 1.7 hours (median = 1.1 hours). Total hours were divided almost equally between novice (39 hours or 52.9%) and experienced (34.8 hours or 47.1%) teachers. The instructional coach also



provided individual follow-up assistance via e-mail: on average, four personal messages were sent to novice teachers (median = 4) and 2.9 messages to experienced teachers (median = 2). Besides one-on-one professional development, the monthly induction team sessions were reportedly attended by at least 90% of all protégés, and 24 of 34 teachers (70.6%) participated in the summer induction sessions; the remaining ten teachers were hired after the summer session had ended. Instruments and Procedures Satisfaction Survey: A number of data sources were used to inform the analysis. After reviewing the literature on site-based professional development, an anonymous survey was developed using Zoomerang.com (see Appendix B) to collect data on teacher satisfaction with the Instructional Coach program. Twenty-two of 34 protégés (64.7%) completed the online survey during the last monthly induction team meeting of the school year. Respondents represented 11 of 13 novice teachers (84.6%) and 11 of 21 experienced teachers (52.4%). Teacher Efficacy Scale: In Bandura’s (1977) social cognitive theory, self-efficacy is the primary motivational force behind an individual’s actions. He defines self-efficacy as “the conviction that one can successfully execute the behavior required to produce outcomes” (p. 193). Today the concept of self-efficacy is one of the most consistently defined constructs used in motivational research (Murphy & Alexander, 2001). Using instruments such as Gibson and Dembo’s Teacher Efficacy Scale, researchers have established the distinct dimensions of teacher efficacy, and have found that the construct correlates to areas such as student achievement (e.g., McLaughlin & Marsh, 1978), student motivation (e.g., Midgley, Feldlaufer, & Eccles, 1989), teacher valuing of educational innovations (e.g., Cousins & Walker, 2000), classroom management skills (Woolfolk, Rosoff, & Hoy, 1990) and teacher stress (Greenwood, Olejnik, & Parkay, 1990). Once established, however, efficacy beliefs seem resistant to change among experienced teachers (Woolfolk Hoy, 2000). Bandura (1997) suggests that when people gain new skills and have experiences that challenge their low estimate of their capabilities, they “hold their efficacy beliefs in a provisional status, testing their newly acquired knowledge and skills before raising their judgments of what they are able to do” (p. 83). Teacher efficacy data were collected via a 10-item version of the Teacher Efficacy Scale (Gibson & Dembo, 1984) adapted by Woolfolk and Hoy (1993). This scale (see Appendix B) consists of five personal teacher efficacy (PTE) and five general teaching efficacy (GTE) questions. PTE questions measure the degree to which teachers believe that they can make a difference with their own students whereas GTE questions capture the teachers’ impressions on whether teaching in general has an impact on student learning. Example PTE items are: “If a student did not remember information I gave in a previous lesson, I would know how to increase his/her retention in the next lesson” and “When I really try, I can get through to the most difficult students.” Example GTE items are: “If students aren’t disciplined at home, they aren’t likely to accept any discipline” and “If parents would do more for their children, I could do more.” Researchers have consistently found the two dimensions of efficacy to be mutually exclusive or independent of one another. Thus, for example, individuals who believe that teaching in general is a powerful factor in students’ learning may also believe either that they personally are effective or that they lack the ability to make a difference with their own students. Responses to each item follow a 6-point Likert scale from “Strongly Agree” to “Strongly Disagree.” For both dimensions, the higher the score (the closer to 6), the more efficacious the respondents perceive themselves to be (PTE scores for questions 3 and 6-9 must be reversed). Twenty-five of 34 respondents (73.5%) mailed or e-mailed their surveys to the Research Office at the end of May 2006, representing 12 of 13 novice teachers (92.3%) and 13 of 21 experienced teachers (61.9%).



Participation and Performance Data: In addition to perception data, program participation (e.g., number of minutes spent individually with each protégé) and performance data (number of discipline referrals) were collected in May 2006. The instructional coach’s activity log proved to be an invaluable resource for the participation data. Discipline referrals provided by the protégés themselves were identified in Star_Base and exported via the Research Office’s Oracle Discoverer software for analysis.

Results Are protégés satisfied with the quality of the Instructional Coach program as measured by an online satisfaction survey? For the purpose of this study, a high level of satisfaction is defined as an average of 2.0 or lower for each six-point Likert-scale question on the teacher satisfaction survey (see Appendix B). This means that the majority of respondents marked either a “1” (Strongly Agree) or “2” (Moderately Agree) for each question. Overall, the protégés were highly satisfied with the instructional coach herself (see Figure 1) with respect to timely feedback (1.5), number of observations (1.9), application of new practices (1.8), and overall coaching expertise (1.9). With respect to the overall program (see Figure 2), they expressed a high level of satisfaction with the level of improved collegiality (2.0) and recommended replication in other schools (1.9). Modeling of new strategies (2.2) received the lowest average score among all nine question items. Disaggregating the data by novice and experienced teachers revealed different patterns. Experienced teachers were highly satisfied in all nine items (see Figures 3-4), expressing greatest satisfaction with timely feedback (1.1) and the number of observations (1.2). Novice teachers (see Figures 3-4), met the conditions for high satisfaction on only one question: timely feedback (1.8). They were least satisfied with the number of observations (2.5), followed by improved knowledge and modeling of new strategies (both 2.4). The responses for novice teachers were further disaggregated by student teaching experience (see Figures 5-6) to see if any different patterns would emerge. Additional analysis revealed that novice teachers without student teaching experience (N=3) were highly satisfied for all question items with the exception of number of observations (2.7). Novice teachers with student teaching experience (see Figures 5-6) showed the same pattern as all novice teachers, however, they were least satisfied in this case with improved knowledge and modeling of new strategies (both 2.6). The respondents answered two yes/no questions related to satisfaction with the Instructional Coach program as follows: • Willingness to transfer to another school: Two out of 22 protégés (9.1%) said that they would

transfer to another school for the 2006-07 school year if LCPS policy provided new teachers this option. The respondents represented one novice and one experienced teacher.

• Retention in 2006-07 school year: All 22 respondents (100%) stated that they would return to DHS in 2006-07.

Nine out of 22 protégés (40.9%) provided suggestions for next year as follows: • Induction meetings: Four out of 22 protégés (18.2%) offered ideas for improvement to the monthly

induction meetings. Two respondents wanted the meetings to end no later than 8:45 a.m. to provide adequate time for teachers to get ready for classes. One went further to suggest that meetings be held with individual teachers during the middle of the year to assess progress toward goals. Another respondent stated that the meetings needed to be “more focused and less redundant” as the same content was covered in other faculty meetings (e.g., school-wide meetings, departmental meetings). Still another protégé wanted to divide the meetings between novice and experienced teachers given their disparate needs.

• Instructional coach: Four out of 22 protégés (18.2%) provided feedback on the instructional coach. Three described the coach with words such as “very helpful,” “very valuable,” and “a great help.” One respondent said that, “if I ever had any problems with my classes or students, I could easily turn to her for help and guidance.” Another protégé “felt safe really sharing a truthful picture of the problems that I saw in my classroom,” as opposed to the need to “put on a façade for the administration or



department chair.” One protégé who recorded the lowest average satisfaction score (5.9) in the survey commented that the coach and overall program were “completely worthless” without detailing the reasons for this opinion.

• Other comments: One protégé thought the idea of combining the expertise of a subject mentor (for one’s concentration) with an instructional coach (for school policies) was “beyond helpful” for first-year teachers.

To what extent does support by an instructional coach predict a teacher’s sense of efficacy as measured by Gibson and Dembo’s Teacher Efficacy Scale? Experienced teachers (N=13) and novice teachers (N=12) had roughly similar average scores in personal teaching efficacy (PTE), general teaching efficacy (GTE), and total efficacy (see Table 1). The scores for experienced teachers varied more than for novice teachers, indicating a wider range of efficacy among experienced teachers. As a group, novice teachers (see Table 2) who had student taught (N=7) had higher PTE scores (+1.29) on average than those who did not student teach (N=5). Those who had not student taught had higher average GTE scores (+1.94), however. The scores for novice teachers revealed less variation within this group than between experienced and novice teachers. In social science, significant correlation values are often in the range of .3 to .6 when straight-line relationships are found. According to the scatterplots in Figures 7-9 and correlation analysis in Tables 3-4, the time spent with the instructional coach (independent variable) was found to correlate positively with PTE (r=.532, p<.10), GTE (r=.714, p<.01), and total efficacy (r=.859, p<.01) scores for novice teachers. These results mean that the more time novice teachers spend with an instruction coach, the higher their sense of efficacy on all dimensions. The PTE scores for experienced teachers initially appeared to have a negative relationship with coaching time (r=-.731, p<.01). Removing the outlier with 520 minutes of coaching time effectively reduced this correlation to insignificance (r=-.264, p=.407). Given the particularly strong correlation found (r=.859) between coaching minutes and total teacher efficacy scores for novice teachers, a regression analysis was performed (see Table 5) in order to predict the total scores of novice teachers in the general population. The resulting equation (R2=.737) was: Total Efficacy Score = (0.41*NumberOfCoachingMinutes) + 39.80. Most statisticians consider a coefficient of determination (R2) of 70% or higher to be a reasonable model for prediction purposes. Thus, for every 60 minutes of coaching time, a novice teacher’s total efficacy score would be expected to increase 2.46 points about 74% of the time. Since the maximum total efficacy score is 60 points, the benefits of coaching effectively peak at 8 hours of coaching time. To what extent does support by an instructional coach predict student behavior as measured by the number of discipline referrals in the classroom? Based on the analysis of discipline referral data from Star_Base, experienced teachers (N=21) averaged 3.9 referrals whereas novice teachers (N=13) averaged 4.5 referrals. Novice teachers who had student taught (N=8) had on average 3 referrals while those who had not student taught (N=5) had 7 referrals. The median within all four protégé subgroups was 3 referrals. According to the scatterplot in Figure 10 and correlation analysis in Tables 3-4, the time spent with the instructional coach (independent variable) was found to correlate negatively with the number of referrals (dependent variable) for experienced teachers (r=-.345, p=.125). This result could mean that the more time experienced teachers spend with an instruction coach, the lower their number of referrals. Note, however, that omitting one outlier (24 referrals) from the group of novice teachers also resulted in a correlation (r=-.435, p=.158). These results should be interpreted with caution, however, given the probability of error and limited number of protégés with over 300 minutes of coaching time.

Conclusions Experienced teachers are highly satisfied with the quality of the coaching and program overall. Novice teachers who have not student taught are equally content with the exception of the number of classroom



observations. Novice teachers with student teaching experience appear to be the least satisfied group in a number of key program areas compared to the other protégés. Changing the format of the monthly induction meetings may be one way to increase the overall satisfaction of this group. Novice and experienced teachers have roughly similar average scores on all dimensions of the Teacher Efficacy Scale. The instructional coach has had a significant impact on the novice teachers’ sense of efficacy as demonstrated by the strong, positive linear relationship shown in Figure 7. Little or no relationship between coaching time and teacher efficacy was found for experienced teachers, however. Protégés in general logged about the same number of referrals (median = 3). The instructional coach may have had a moderate impact on the number of referrals for both novice and experienced teachers, but more research is necessary to confirm this finding.

Recommendations 1. Focus one-on-one coaching sessions on novice teachers: The instructional coach has had the greatest

impact on novice teachers as evidenced by the strong relationship between coaching time and teacher self-efficacy scores. She has spent on average only 3 hours individually with each novice teacher, however. The amount of one-on-one coaching time could be increased (e.g., through additional observations and conferences) to no more than 8 hours per teacher by scheduling a fixed number of coaching sessions for each novice teacher per term. Experienced new teachers should also continue receiving coaching assistance; however, their sessions could be planned around the novice teacher sessions assuming available hours in the coach’s weekly schedule. Those requiring extensive one-on-one assistance (e.g., late hires) could be referred to the lead mentor for additional guidance (e.g., to provide school-based orientations).

2. Personalize professional development through self-assessment: In lieu of providing support in response to student referrals, consider developing a rubric for the “Truly Titan Teaching” strategies to help protégés self-assess their level of expertise in each skill area. The instructional coach can then personalize professional development based on the assessment results. This rubric could be combined with the existing teacher mentor program rubric to help align school- and district-level professional development strategies.

3. Differentiate monthly induction team meetings: The induction team meetings are a great opportunity for teachers to form collegial relationships while they learn from one another. Given the disparate needs of novice and experienced new teachers as evidenced by the survey results, separate meetings should be conducted for both groups of teachers. Sessions for novice teachers could provide support and training on topics identified by beginning teachers and others as important for a successful first year. Experienced new teachers, along with second-year teachers, could discuss topics that (a) cut across the curriculum (e.g., assessment literacy), (b) build on their past experiences, and (c) align with SIP priorities. In both cases, experienced teachers at the school can be brought into the meetings to demonstrate skills or share success stories. If meetings are scheduled during the school day, they should end on time to enable teachers to prepare for their classes. Distributing an agenda at meetings and appointing a timekeeper is one strategy to ensure meetings end on time.

4. Set desired conditions for professional development in new sites: When planning a site-based instructional coach program in a new school site, ensure that the school has decided on common professional development priorities similar to DHS’ teacher observation rubric (see Appendix A). Teachers can then be coached and evaluated on a consistent basis on these key skill sets.

5. Create guidelines for instructional coaches: To ensure consistency across participating schools, program staff should develop guidelines for coaches to follow during the coaching process. Guidelines should incorporate best practices from the latest research on school-based staff development (e.g., see related section on the National Staff Development Council’s web site).

6. Disseminate findings: This report with recommendations should be shared with DHS administrators and teachers in order to seek their input on the results and recommendations and to finalize a plan of action for 2006-07. The report will also be available to the public on the Research Office’s web site (Program Evaluation section).



References Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W. H. Freeman. Cousins, J. B. & Walker, C. A. (2000). Predictors of educators’ valuing of systematic inquiry in schools. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation, Special Issue, 25-53. Darling-Hammond, L. & McLaughlin, M. (1995). Policies that support professional development in an era of reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(8), 597-604. Garmston, R. J. & Wellman, B. (1999). The adaptive school: A sourcebook for developing collaborative groups. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon. Gibson, S. & Dembo, M. H. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 569-582. Greene, T. (2004). Literature review for school-based staff developers and coaches. Alexandria, VA: National Staff Development Council. Retrieved April 19, 2006, from: http://www.nsdc.org/library/schoolbasedlitreview.pdf. Greenwood, G. E., Olejnik, S. F., & Parkay, F. W. (1990). Relationships between four teacher efficacy belief patterns and selected teacher characteristics. Journal of Research & Development in Education, 23, 102-106. Hoy, W. K. & Woolfolk, A. E. (1993). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and the organizational health of schools. The Elementary School Journal, 93, 356-372. Joyce, B. & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. McLaughlin, M. W. & Marsh, D. D. (1978). Staff development and school change. Teachers College Record, 80, 70-94. Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. S., (1989). Change in teacher efficacy and student self- and task-related beliefs in mathematics during the transition to junior high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2), 247-258. Murphy, P. K. & Alexander, P. A. (2001). A motivated exploration of motivation terminology. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 3-53. Sweeney, D. (2003). Learning along the way. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers. Woolfolk, A. E., Rosoff, B., & Hoy, W. K. (1990). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and their beliefs about managing students. Teaching & Teacher Education, 6, 137-148. Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2000, April). Changes in teacher efficacy during the early years of teaching. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. Retrieved May 15, 2006, from http://www.coe.ohio-state.edu/ahoy/efficacy%2043%2022.pdf.



Appendix A: Teacher Observation Rubric at Dominion High School Evidence of Truly Titan Teaching

Not Observed

Some Evidence

Good Evidence

Powerful Evidence

Bell Ringer: This is a little task that students do when they come in the classroom. It is based on previously learned information. It helps students focus right away and provides additional recall and practice.

Agenda: The activities for the day are posted in the classroom.

Objectives: The objectives or outcomes for the day are posted in the classroom and verbally discussed at the beginning of class.

Wait Time: When teachers ask a question, they will often wait 3-5 seconds before accepting answers. This gives students time to think about the answer and process the information.

Wait Time Extended: After asking students a question and giving them 3-5 seconds to think about the answer, teachers will instruct students to discuss the answer with a partner. Then the teacher will accept answers from the class.

Interaction Sequence: When students do not know the answer to a question, they may say “Pass,” and the teacher will call on another student. The teacher will always go back to the original student who passed and then have them repeat the correct answer.

On the Clock: This is an accountability system that helps students manage their time. Students are given a small but reasonable amount of time to get a job done. When students are given a specific amount of time to complete a task, they are more likely to get it done.

Closure: This is a mental process where the learners are asked to summarize their perception of what has been taught. It is used at the end of a class, unit, chapter, project, activity, etc. This is a major check for understanding.

Note: This rubric is to help identify the evidence of those indicators that support quality teaching. Not every indicator will be evident in every situation or lesson. The purpose is to focus on the indicators and expectations for quality teaching over a period of time and to develop goals for potential growth along with highlighting areas of strength and quality.



Appendix B: Survey Instruments Teacher Satisfaction Survey INSTRUCTIONS: A number of statements about organizations, people, and teaching are presented below. The purpose is to gather information regarding the actual attitudes of educators concerning these statements. There are no correct or incorrect answers. We are interested only in your frank opinions. Your responses will remain confidential. Results will be aggregated into a report and shared with all participating Instructional Coach staff so that recommendations can be made for next year. Your individual responses will be kept anonymous in the report. 1. Please indicate your teaching status at LCPS:

___ Novice (First-Year) Teacher ___ Experienced Teacher, New to LCPS ___ Experienced LCPS Teacher, New to DHS

2. For Novice Teachers Only: Did you student teach prior to working at LCPS?

___Yes ___No

Please indicate your personal opinion about each statement below by circling the appropriate response at the right of each statement.

KEY: 1=Strongly Agree 2=Moderately Agree 3=Agree slightly more than disagree 4=Disagree slightly more than agree 5=Moderately Disagree 6=Strongly Disagree

Instructional Coach 3. My instructional coach improved my knowledge and awareness of new instructional and

management practices as expected of teachers at Dominion High School. 4. My instructional coach effectively modeled new instructional practices. 5. My instructional coach provided timely feedback after each classroom observation. 6. The number of observations by the instructional coach was sufficient. 7. I can consistently and appropriately use the new practices in my classroom. 8. I am satisfied with the overall quality of coaching that I received. Overall Program 9. The Instructional Coach program improved collegiality among teachers at Dominion High School. 10. The Instructional Coach program improved the level of teacher experimentation at Dominion High

School. 11. I would recommend the Instructional Coach program to other schools.

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Plans for the Future 12. If LCPS policy provided new teachers the option to transfer, would you consider applying for transfer to another

school for the 2006-2007 school year? Yes___ No___



13. Will you be employed with LCPS for the 2006-2007 school year? Yes___ No____

14. If you answered “No” to question 13, which best explains your decision not to return to LCPS? Select all that apply. ___ Relocating ___ Child care ___ Dissatisfaction with LCPS ___ Dissatisfaction with teaching ___ High cost of living ___ Commute time to and from school ___ Contract was not renewed ___ Did not receive Licensure ___ Other: Please specify: ____________________________________

15. Any other comments for next year:

Thank you very much! Your feedback is much appreciated.



Teacher Efficacy Scale1 INSTRUCTIONS: A number of statements about organizations, people, and teaching are presented below. The purpose is to gather information regarding the actual attitudes of educators concerning these statements. There are no correct or incorrect answers. We are interested only in your frank opinions. Your responses will remain confidential. Please indicate your personal opinion about each statement by circling the appropriate response at the right of each statement.

KEY: 1=Strongly Agree 2=Moderately Agree 3=Agree slightly more than disagree 4=Disagree slightly more than agree 5=Moderately Disagree 6=Strongly Disagree

1. The amount a student can learn is primarily related to family background. 2. If students aren't disciplined at home, they aren't likely to accept any discipline. 3. When I really try, I can get through to most difficult students. 4. A teacher is very limited in what he/she can achieve because a student's home environment is a

large influence on his/her achievement. 5. If parents would do more for their children, I could do more. 6. If a student did not remember information I gave in a previous lesson, I would know how to

increase his/her retention in the next lesson. 7. If a student in my class becomes disruptive and noisy, I feel assured that I know some techniques

to redirect him/her quickly. 8. If one of my students couldn't do a class assignment, I would be able to accurately assess whether

the assignment was at the correct level of difficulty. 9. If I really try hard, I can get through to even the most difficult or unmotivated students. 10. When it comes right down to it, a teacher really can't do much because most of a student's

motivation and performance depends on his or her home environment.

1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

1 Hoy, W. K. & Woolfolk, A. E. (1993). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and the organizational health of schools. The Elementary School Journal, 93, 356-372.



Appendix C: Figures

Figure 1: Satisfaction with the Instructional Coach



Figure 2: Satisfaction with the Overall Program

Figure 3: Satisfaction with the Instructional Coach by Protégé Status



Figure 4: Satisfaction with the Overall Program by Protégé Status

Figure 5: Satisfaction with the Instructional Coach by Student Teaching Experience



Figure 6: Satisfaction with the Overall Program by Student Teaching Experience

Figure 7: Relationship between IC Minutes and Total Teacher Efficacy



Figure 8: Relationship between IC Minutes and General Teacher Efficacy

Figure 9: Relationship between IC Minutes and Personal Teacher Efficacy



Figure 10: Relationship between IC Minutes and Discipline Referrals



Appendix D: Tables

Table 1: Teacher Efficacy Scores by Protégé Status

Experienced

Teacher Mean Median Variance Std. Deviation Min. Max. PTE Score No 24.75 25.00 6.205 2.491 20 29 Yes 24.69 25.00 22.397 4.733 13 30 GTE Score No 21.67 22.00 13.879 3.725 16 27 Yes 22.31 23.00 27.897 5.282 13 30 Total Score No 46.42 47.50 21.538 4.641 40 53 Yes 47.00 45.00 63.000 7.937 36 59

Table 2: Teacher Efficacy Scores by Novice Teacher Status

Student Taught Mean Median Variance Std. Deviation Min. Max.

PTE Score No 24.00 25.00 8.500 2.915 20 27 Yes 25.29 25.00 4.905 2.215 23 29 GTE Score No 22.80 22.00 20.700 4.550 16 27 Yes 20.86 23.00 9.810 3.132 17 25 Total Score No 46.80 47.50 20.700 4.550 42 52 Yes 46.14 45.00 25.476 5.047 40 53



Table 3: Correlations of IC Minutes and Dependent Variables for Novice Teachers

ICMins IC Minutes Pearson Correlation 1 Sig. (2-tailed) N 13 PTE Score Pearson Correlation .532 Sig. (2-tailed) .075 N 12 GTE Score Pearson Correlation .714** Sig. (2-tailed) .009 N 12 Total Score Pearson Correlation .859** Sig. (2-tailed) .000 N 12 Referrals Pearson Correlation -.155 Sig. (2-tailed) .613 N 13

*Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed). **Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed). Table 4: Correlations of IC Minutes and Dependent Variables for Experienced Teachers

ICMins IC Minutes Pearson Correlation 1

Sig. (2-tailed) N 21 PTE Score Pearson Correlation -.731** Sig. (2-tailed) .005 N 13 GTE Score Pearson Correlation .179 Sig. (2-tailed) .558 N 13 Total Score Pearson Correlation -.317 Sig. (2-tailed) .292 N 13 Referrals Pearson Correlation -.345 Sig. (2-tailed) .125 N 21

*Correlation is significant at the .05 level (2-tailed). **Correlation is significant at the .01 level (2-tailed).



Table 5: Regression of IC Minutes and Total Teacher Efficacy for Novice Teachers Model Summary

Model R R Square Adjusted R

Square Std. Error of the Estimate

1 .859(a) .737 .711 2.494 a Predictors: (Constant), ICMins ANOVA(b)

Model Sum of

Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Regression 174.707 1 174.707 28.084 .000(a) Residual 62.210 10 6.221

1

Total 236.917 11 a Predictors: (Constant), ICMins b Dependent Variable: TotalScore Coefficients(a)

Unstandardized Coefficients

Standardized Coefficients

Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig. (Constant) 39.835 1.436 27.747 .000 1 ICMins .041 .008 .859 5.299 .000

a Dependent Variable: TotalScore

Program Evaluation · In contrast to the more traditional one-shot forms of teacher in-service, “instructional coaches customize professional development to match each teacher’s

Documents