University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Cognitive coaching training for master teachers and its effects on student teachers' ability to reflect on practice

(USC Thesis Other)

Cognitive coaching training for master teachers and its effects on student teachers' ability to reflect on practice

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. U M I films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send U M I a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these w ill be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note w ill indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9* black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact U M I directly to order. ProQuest Information and Learning 300 North ZMb Road, Ann Arbor, M l 48106-1346 USA 800-521-0600 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. COGNITIVE COACHING TRAINING FOR MASTER TEACHERS AND ITS EFFECTS ON STUDENT TEACHERS’ ABILITY TO REFLECT ON PRACTICE by Glee Ruth Brooks A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment o f the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF EDUCATION August 2000 Copyright 2000 Glee Ruth Brooks Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. U M I Number. 3054851 Copyright 2000 by Brooks, Glee Ruth All rights reserved. __ ___ __® UMI UM I Microform 3054851 Copyright 2002 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. A ll rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, M l 48106-1346 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA School of Education Los Angeles, California 90089-0031 This dissertation, written by Glee Ruth Brooks under the direction o f h£I. Dissertation Committee, and approved by all members of the Committee, has been presented to and accepted by the Faculty o f the School o f Education in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of D o c t o r o f Ed u c a tio n 'Dat e ' Demi Dissertation Committee Chairperson Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to my family who supported me and encouraged me to stay the course. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am very grateful to several who have encouraged me along die way. I owe them great thanks, for without them this dissertation would still be in process. Dr. Dennis Hocevar, my dissertation chair, came along at just the right time and showed me this could be done. I am very thankful for his calm encouragement and his commitment to our Redding Cohort. Great appreciation is due to Dr. Mike McLaughlin, a committee member, who heard my first idea for a dissertation in our first course and encouraged me to go with it. He played a big part in facilitating the doctoral program being placed in Redding, CA. He was the shepherd o f our Redding Cohort. I am thankful for Dr. Robert Baker who agreed to serve on my committee. Simpson College has been a tremendous support to me in this endeavor. I am grateful for all the interest, concern and support I am indebted to Dr. Carol Whitmer who mentored me and modeled how to strive for dreams. My cohort colleagues were the best Everyone lent support when it was needed. I am grateful to Dr. Tom Forbes who led the way, Dr. Jane Gunderson who led us to the goal, and especially my cohort friend, Dr. Patricia Dougherty, who shared this dissertation dream with me. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. IV TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION M t m — f M W M t M t m M W t W M W W t W M M W W M M M W W W M M M M M M W W M W M n ACKNOWLEDGMENTS m CHAPTER ONE...— .......—...................— ....... 1 INTRODUCTION Sta tem en t o f th e P roblem................................................................................................. 1 Ba ck grou nd o f t h e Pr o b l e m ............................................................................................2 Sig n ifica n ce o f t h e St u d y .................................................................................................3 M eth o d o lo g y.......................................................................................................................... 4 Resea rch Q u e st io n s............................................................................................................. 4 Lim it a t io n s............................................................................................................................... 5 D efinition o f T e r m s...............................................................................................................6 Org a n iza tio n o f t h e Ch a pt e r s........................................................................................ 8 CHAPTER 1AVO — M — . . W . W — W W W W W W — W . . W ^ . . . . . W . M t . M W W . . . W . . . . . — W W W . 9 REVIEW O F THE LITERATURE. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • a * C o g n itiv e C oa ch in g, Reflection, a n d t h e Ro l e o f ...............................................9 M a ster T eacher M e n to r in g.............................................................................................9 T rust.................................................................................................... 11 Learning.............................................................................................. 13 Holonomy............................................................................................ 16 Histo rica l B a ck grou nd...................................................................................................20 Cognitive Coaching and its Relationship to Learning..................... 22 Reflectio n in t h e L earning Pr o c e ss...........................................................................23 T h e Ro l e o f Ma ster T eacher M entoring in t h e Student T eaching Pr o c ess.................................................................................................................................... 3 2 CHAPTER THREE_________________________________________________44 METHODOLOGY__________________________________________________ 44 Im petus fo r t h e St u d y...................................................................................................... .45 Su b je c t s...................................................................................................................................46 In stru m entation..................................................................................................................46 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Procedures.............................................................................................................47 Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Evaluation.......................................... .48 Tim eline................................................................................................................. 3 0 The Training...........................................................................................................53 The Data.................................................................................................................58 Master Teacher D ata.......................................................................... 58 Student Teacher D ata........................................................................ 3 9 CHAPTER FO UR____________________________________________ 61 Summary o fth e Study.........................................................................................61 Master Teacher D ata.......................................................................... 62 Student Teacher Data......................................................................... 77 Synopsis of the R esults...................................................................... 88 Research Questions.............................................................................................89 CHAPTER FIV E..............................................M ......................_____ ............93 CONCLUSION 93 Summary.................................................................................................................93 Purpose of the Study.......................................................................... 93 Research Questions............................................................................ 93 Data A nalysis......................................................................................94 Conclusion.............................................................................................................95 Discussion...........................................................................................96 Recommendation.................................................................................................. 97 REFERENCES______________________ 99 APPENDICES_____________________________________________________ 103 A. Agenda for Training............................................................104 B. Nuts and Bolts Checklist for Master Teachers...................106 C. Open-ended Questions.........................................................110 D. Reflective Evaluation of Training.......................................112 E. Survey of Master Teachers..................................................114 F. Survey of Student Teachers................................................ 124 G. M aster Teacher Weekly Evaluation of Student Teachers.. 129 Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. vi Cognitive Coaching Training for Master Teachers and Its Effects on Student Teachers’ Ability to Reflect on Practice ABSTRACT This case study o f six master teachers and their student teachers examines the effects o f a cognitive coaching training on master teachers’ skills in mentoring their student teachers’ ability to reflect on practice. Veteran teachers are a vital link in the preparation o f student teachers, but they often receive no special training to mentor a beginning teacher during the student teaching phase. This research sought to develop mentoring skills in master teachers. During the first nine weeks o f student teaching, the master teachers attended a 15-hour training on the cognitive coaching techniques o f questioning strategies for use in conferencing with their student teachers. Multiple data sources were examined to determine the impact of the training. Master teachers completed training evaluations, a post training survey, an interview, and a weekly evaluation o f their student teachers’ progress toward meeting the California Standards for the Teaching Profession. Student teachers completed a survey, an interview, and a daily journal reflecting on their teaching. The data were triangulated to determine the effect o f the training on student teachers’ ability to reflect on their practice. The data were also analyzed using a slight modification o f Kirkpatrick’s Evaluating Training Programs (Kirkpatrick, 1998) as a framework. Kirkpatrick’s four levels o f evaluation all showed positive responses. The master teachers’ reaction was positive to the training and they Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. vii expressed appreciation for learning how to mentor a student teacher. The tr a in in g evaluations showed the master teachers acquired new understandings. Both the master teacher interviews and die student teacher interviews verified a behavior change. The master teachers did indeed use the new knowledge acquired in the training with their student teachers, and the student teachers did reflect on their teaching. Acquisition o f cognitive coaching skills, specifically questioning techniques, resulted in a more positive master teacher and student teacher experience. The student teachers were better able to reflect and analyze their teaching pedagogy. Both master teachers and student teachers felt prepared with tools for dialogue and reflection. Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 COGNITIVE COACHING TRAINING FOR MASTER TEACHERS AND ITS EFFECTS ON STUDENT TEACHERS' ABILITY TO REFLECT ON PRACTICE CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION It is the purpose o f this study to provide a qualitative analysis o f a cognitive coaching for master teachers and how it affected their student teachers’ ability to reflect on their teaching. This study may reveal a process that will enhance the success o f the student teaching experience from the vantage o f both the master teacher and the student teacher through the use o f cognitive coaching training. It will add to the body o f knowledge about an effective way to prepare elementary teachers. Cognitive coaching is a staff development model developed by Costa and Garmston (1994) that focuses on the internal thought processes resulting in decision making rather than the observation and analysis o f the overt teaching behaviors o f teachers. The cognitive coach employs questioning techniques to lead teachers to reflect and metacognitively analyze their own teaching performances. This model leads the teachers to reflect on their own teaching, whereby they identify areas to modify and adjust, rather than being told what to fix by the expert Statement o f the Problem Master teachers who supervise student teachers have little or no special training to mentor student teachers. Traditionally, preservice teachers process through coursework into student teaching to receive their teaching credential. Once candidates leave their institution’s approved coursework, they are placed with Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 volunteer veteran teachers who may be excellent teachers, but who may have little experience in mentoring adult student teachers. Teacher candidates from Simpson College spend over one half o f their preparation in field experience, yet little is done in the way o f preparing master teachers to mentor the candidate. Background o f the Problem The last step toward a teaching credential usually involves the field experience o f student teaching. It is during this last phase that institutions depend on experienced teachers in the field to support student teachers in learning to apply their knowledge and skills. The knowledge, skills, and talents o f a master teacher mentoring a student teacher in the final phase o f teacher credentialing often make the difference in the level o f success o f the preservice teacher. However, master teachers are often unprepared to deal with the needs o f the neophyte teacher, nor are they given any special training to be a master teacher. Although master teachers may be able to model exemplary teaching, they may not necessarily be able to mentor a developing teacher. There is a need for the training o f master teachers in mentoring the preservice teacher. Two areas o f needed training include an understanding o f the best practices o f the teaching profession as defined by the California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP) and development o f questioning skills to lead student teachers to reflect on their practice. In 1997 the California Standards for the Teaching Profession were developed to define a common language to describe excellence in all areas of teaching. They describe best teaching practices from beginning to an exemplary performance level. There are six standards: 1) Engaging and Supporting All Students in Learning 2) Creating and Maintaining Effective Environments for Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3 Student Learning 3) Understanding and Organizing Subject M atter for Student Learning 4) Planning Instruction and Designing Learning Experiences for All Children 5) Assessing Student Learning, and 6) Developing as a Professional Educator. Another skill needed to be an effective master teacher is the ability to lead student teachers to evaluate and reflect on their teaching. Cognitive coaching training develops this skill for master teachers. Arthur Costa and Robert Garmston (1994) developed cognitive coaching, a model for teachers to coach one another to improve teaching practice. Coaching has its roots in clinical supervision established by Cogan and Goldhammer (1994) which includes a hierarchical relationship involved in a process o f planning and observing, with the expert analyzing the performance. Cognitive coaching also includes planning, observing, and feedback, but with a different focus. The cognitive coach employs questioning techniques to lead teachers to reflect and metacognitively analyze their own teaching performance. This constructivist model o f scaffolding the student teachers in their Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) (Woolfolk, 1998) leads the student teachers to reflect and modify their own teaching. Master teachers need training to learn how to scaffold and support their student teachers through the use o f questioning techniques. The vehicle for common language is the California Standards for the Teaching Profession. Significance o f the Study A key component in the teacher credentialing preparation process is the master teacher during the student teaching phase, yet there is little in the way o f Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4 support and preparation for the master teacher. It is expected that being a successful teacher qualifies one to mentor a student teacher. This study may reveal a process that will enhance the success o f the student teaching experience from the vantage o f both the master teacher and the student teacher through the use o f cognitive coaching training. It will add to the body o f knowledge about an effective way to prepare elementary teachers. Methodology A case study design was used to evaluate the impact of a cognitive coaching training for master teachers. Kirkpatrick’s model o f Four Levels o f Program Evaluation (1998) was used to assess the effectiveness o f the training. A training was conducted with master teachers. Then data were collected from master teachers and student teachers from the first nine weeks o f student teaching for Simpson College during the fall o f 1999. Through interviews, surveys, and an examination o f reflective journals, reflective essays, workshop evaluations, and master teacher written evaluations o f their student teachers, an analysis o f the impact o f the training was made. Research Questions The research questions that guided the evaluation were: 1. What is the impact o f cognitive coaching training on master teachers’ skills in helping student teachers be reflective on their practice? 2. Is there implementation o f the cognitive coaching techniques o f open-ended questioning, paraphrasing, and clarifying in communications between master teachers and student teachers? Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5 3. Do master teachers employ the cognitive coaching strategy o f the planning conference, lesson observation, and reflective conference with their student teachers? 4. Do master teachers use the California Standards for the Teaching Profession in their dialogue with student teachers? 5. How do the student teachers whose master teachers attended the training rate their experience as a student teacher during the first nine weeks? 6. How do the master teachers who attended the cognitive coaching training rate their experience as a master teacher? Limitations This study was limited by several factors. The study was limited to only master teachers and student teachers who were part o f the Teacher Credentialing Program from Simpson College in Redding California. It is unknown how the findings may generalize to other institutions. The study group was small. It was unknown how many master teachers would voluntarily attend the cognitive coaching training. O f the twenty-five teachers who attended, only six were master teachers. Results were also dependent upon their attendance, both mentally and physically, at the trainings. The results were based on this small group o f master teachers and their assigned student teachers, their self-reported perceptions and surveys. The responses on the surveys, evaluations o f the training sessions, and interviews were limited to the teachers’ perceptions. Their responses were subject to the sincerity, mood, and emotional state o f the day. Also, the subjects, being aware o f their participation in a study, may have given responses the researcher wanted, or have been unwilling to share true feelings thinking they may be judged. Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6 Among the participants there were no secondary master teachers, so the results only reflect elementary perspectives. The degree to which the master teachers applied the new techniques depended upon their willingness to do so and the time available to listen to their student teachers. There was no assessment comparing master teachers’ knowledge and practice prior to this training, other than a survey question which indicated whether or not they had ever been trained as a cognitive coach. The exposure o f the student teachers to school culture and teaching experiences prior to student teaching varied from three and a half years o f aiding, to no prior experience before the credentialing program. This researcher was an observer/participant in that I facilitated the development and delivery o f the training as well as designed the surveys and conducted the interviews. Prior to development o f this study I was unaware o f the cognitive coaching model. The last limitation was time. The training was conducted and implemented during a 46-day period. This was the time remaining during the first student teaching assignment The effects on the master teachers were measured during this time period. However, the student teachers continued on for nine more weeks of student teaching with a different master teacher. They were able to compare the two assignments. Definition o f Terms Master Teacher: A California credentialed teacher who has taught for at least three years and is recommended by the administrator as one who is effective at teaching. For this study, only public elementary school (K-8) master teachers Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7 involved with the Simpson College Teacher Credentialing Program were used. Sometimes called cooperating teacher. Student Teacher: A Simpson College elementary preservice teacher who has successfully completed at least the four prerequisite core courses for student teaching, has passing MSAT scores, has fingerprint clearance, and is in a public elementary school classroom for the first nine weeks o f their field experience. Student Teaching Assignment: Eighteen weeks o f practice teaching under the supervision o f a credentialed teacher. Simpson College student teachers are placed for nine weeks in a primary grade classroom (K-3) and nine weeks in an upper grade classroom (4-8). Only the first nine-week assignment will be examined for this study. California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP): Developed in 1997 by the California Department o f Education, the CSTP is the common language describing best practices in all areas o f teaching. Cognitive Coaching Training: Developed by Arthur Costa and Robert Garmston (1994), cognitive coaching training consists of, among other elements, techniques used to help a learner reflect and analyze metacognitively and solve problems, instead o f the traditional supervision model o f the expert advising how to do it better. This occurs through the use o f questioning techniques during a planning conference, lesson observation, and reflecting conference. Master teachers attended a 15-hour cognitive coaching training over five weeks during the time they mentored a student teacher. Evaluation Logs: Once a week written entry by the master teacher discussing the student teacher’s teaching progress compared against the CSTP. Student Teacher Journals: Daily reflections on how the day’s teaching went. Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8 Reflection: Metacognitive thinking about one’s teaching. Organization o f the Chapters Chapter Two discusses a review o f the literature surrounding cognitive coaching, the process o f reflection, and the role o f mentoring a student teacher. In Chapter Three the research design, procedures, and instrumentation are described. Chapter Four examines the data collected from the surveys, journals, reflective essays, written evaluations, and interviews. Chapter Five interprets the results o f the data and discusses implications for mentoring student teachers. Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9 CHA PTER TW O REVIEW O F THE LITERATURE Cognitive Coaching. Reflection, and the Role of Master Teacher Mentoring Part one o f this review o f literature addresses the components o f cognitive coaching drawing on the primary source Cognitive Coaching (1994) by Arthur Costa and Robert Garmston. It discusses the historical perspective o f cognitive coaching, and examines the relationship o f cognitive coaching and learning. Part two looks at reflection in the learning process, and part three examines the role a master teacher plays in the mentoring o f a student teacher. Cognitive coaching happens when colleagues dialogue and give support to each other surrounding the decisions made about teaching lessons. The goal of cognitive coaching is to enhance teaching performance resulting in improved student performance. Cognitive coaching designed by Costa & Garmston (1994) uses the strategy o f a coach helping a teacher focus on the thought processes surrounding teaching decisions in planning, teaching, reflecting, and applying the new knowledge to future teachings. The peer coach guides and probes the cognitive thinking o f the teacher as together they collaboratively examine the considerations o f lesson plans, the teaching o f the plans, and reflection on how the teaching w ent This is a nonevaluative process and confidential. It is voluntary and the teacher is in control o f the coaching process. By combining the methodology o f coaching and the psychology of cognition, Costa and Garmston developed cognitive coaching— the training o f one’s Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 10 thinking process. The coach is to “instruct and train” (Thorndike & Barnhart, 1967, p. 187) the student teacher in a process o f reflective thinking to self-evaluate teaching. (Woolfolk, 1998) defines cognitive as “inner thought processes and intellectual functions o f memory and reasoning developed through interaction with the world.” Thorndike and Barnhart (1967) define coach as “to convey a valued colleague from where he or she is to where he or she wants to be.” Teaching is a dynamic process, one, which calls for constant modification in the moment o f teaching, in planning, and post reflection. A repertoire of teaching techniques may give a teacher strategies based on research, but teaching with real students in real time calls for skills in reflection and ability to adjust. A repertoire o f techniques may produce results for some students, but when they do not, the teacher must consider what to modify to reach the other students. During the coaching sessions, a cognitive coach helps the teacher reflect and think about the teaching plan, observes the teaching and gives nonjudgmental feedback, and in a post conference asks the teacher open ended questions to help guide reflection on how the teaching went and how it could be modified for the future. The premise o f cognitive coaching is that if teachers’ reflective skills leading to a change in decision-making are improved, student learning will be enhanced (1994). Costa and Garmston’s (1994) model o f cognitive coaching has the three goals o f trust, learning, and holonomy (1994): trust in the coaching process, learning by the teacher in analyzing instruction, and the holonomous goal of autonomy in teaching while working interdependently with professional peers. Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 11 Trust Trust (1994) is vital for the coaching process to succeed The teacher is expected to share through discussions the thinking and feelings that went on regarding the planning and teaching o f a lesson. The coach asks probing questions to help the teacher analyze the thought processes that led to decisions. The teacher must trust the coach in several ways. Trust that the coach will confidential. Trust that the coach will be nonjudgmental. Trust that the coach will be sensitive and respectful. Trust that the coach will understand the professional goals o f teaching. Trust that the coach will not increase the stress o f teaching. Costa and Garmston relay a story told by Ken Blanchard (1994). Blanchard observed some trainers at Sea World training whales and porpoises. He noted they used his strategy o f catching them doing something right and rewarding them. They said, “Yes, we do that, but we do something else first We get in the water and play with them to convince them we mean them no harm. Without th a t they do not leam” (p. 41). So it is with trust in cognitive coaching. The trust level will impact the degree o f reflection and learning by the teacher. Four areas o f trust include trust in the low stress environment trust in the coaching process, trust in the integrity and character o f the coach, and trust between the teacher and coach. The coach creates a low stress environment in that the process is confidential and not manipulative. The purpose is not to fix the teacher. The process has clear expectations so there will be an understanding o f responsibilities and the nature o f the relationship. The coach is a person o f integrity, Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 12 knowledgeable about teaching pedagogy, knowledgeable about his or her own and others diverse modalities o f learning and teaching, and exhibits consistency in his or her values and behaviors. The teacher trusts the integrity o f the coach. And fourthly, there is.trust between the teacher and coach. This is developed through the coach’s understanding the teacher’s “values, goals, and interests” (p. 40), understanding o f the teacher’s cognitive learning style and “modality preferences” (p. 40), and understanding the teacher’s “concerns” (p. 40). Trust is further enhanced when the coach shows personal regard by spending time with the teacher outside o f the conferencing, showing interest in personal issues in the teacher’s life, and sincerely using communication behaviors o f physical closeness, touch, and appropriate ‘ ’ personal compliments” (p. 41). In addition to attending to the four trustbuilding areas, effective coaches also encourage trust through rapport building techniques. Effective communicators use rapport building techniques naturally, but they can be learned to improve the coaching relationship. Rapport There is rapport when there is a synchrony and harmony in the interchange between two individuals. The nonverbal behaviors are commonalities o f body posture, pitch and tone o f voice, gestures, and also breathing rate. In addition to the nonverbal behaviors, rapport and trust is built with nonjudgmental verbal behaviors o f “structuring, silence, accepting, clarifying, and providing data” (p. 46). Structuring provides the consistent, predictive environment and clear expectations o f the coaching relationship. Both the coach and teacher agree on the structure o f the observation, the time, and what the observation will focus on. Waiting in silence for more than a couple o f seconds for the teacher to reflect and Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 13 respond implies a trust that the teacher can and will create an answer. The teacher will respond more deeply and completely when given thinking time. The nonjudgmental paraphrasing back to a teacher his or her words communicates to the teacher an acceptance o f his or her knowledge and feelings. Trust is built by listening intently and paraphrasing the teachers’ thoughts. Probing and clarifying are extension questions seeking more information. This not only shows the teacher the coach’s interest in the lesson, but also helps extend the teacher’s thinking by causing the teacher to become more specific in description and thinking. Through observation o f the lesson, the coach collects nonjudgmental, objective data for the teacher. The coach is another set o f eyes. The teacher examines this data using higher level thinking skills o f “comparing, inferring, or drawing causal relationships” (p. 49). This analysis is prompted by the reflective questions o f the coach during the post conference. The coach does not interpret the data. A climate o f trust is vital for the goal o f learning to be realized. Learning The second goal o f cognitive coaching— learning, refers to the intellectual reflective processes the teacher develops through the questioning techniques o f a coach during the planning conference and the reflecting conference following teaching. Planning During the planning stage (1994) o f instruction the coach asks questions pertaining to 1) Goals: What is the purpose o f the lesson? 2) Desired student behaviors: W hat will the students be doing? 3) Strategies: What strategies will you use? 4) Sequence: How will you structure the lesson? Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 14 S) Assessing: How will you know if the students understand? 6) Concerns: Do you have any concerns about this lesson? These questions set the parameters for the coaching session. The questions focus the teachers thinking on why, what, and how. Teaching which is planned instead o f incidental must first address the “why” o f the choice o f lesson. This is expressed in the open-ended goal question. What will be taught or how it will be taught is addressed in the subsequent paraphrasing, clarifying, and probing questions. The planning session concludes with a discussion o f what the teacher wishes the coach to specifically look for during the lesson. They concur on how the data will be collected or tabulated. Teaching. During the observation phase (1994) o f the teaching, the coach silently observes nonjudgmentally, collecting data chosen by the teacher. Some o f the feedback the teacher may choose to have the coach look for are clarity o f direction giving, on-task behaviors, teacher movement, student participation, transitions, pace, non-verbal feedback, questioning strategies, or mannerisms (1994). The coach assembles all o f the data for presentation at the reflecting post conference. Data may include tick charts, frequency patterns, or interaction patterns. Teachers often ask for data on use o f time, transitions, and movement throughout the classroom, pacing, mannerisms, questioning strategies, clarity, or participation. Reflecting. In the post-conference phase (1994) the coach again asks open- ended questions to lead the teacher to reflect on the teaching. The questions include 1) Feelings about the lesson 2) Describing student behavior Reproduced with permission ofthe copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 15 3) Analyzing teacher behavior to produce the lesson outcomes 4) Comparing student behavior with what was expected 5) Comparing teacher behavior with what was planned 6) Analyzing student success with the lesson, and 7) Analyzing why the students were successful. During this conference the data is presented by the coach and analyzed by the teacher. Applying. The final step o f the post-conference the coach mediates the teacher’s thinking by asking two questions about: I) Reflecting on alternative teaching strategies for next time, and 2) Analyzing how the coaching process worked for the teacher. The coach is only another set o f eyes. The coach does not evaluate the teacher, interpret the data, or judge the teacher’s actions. The coach facilitates the teacher’s learning by use o f questioning strategies and collection o f nonjudgmental data. Through the repeated conference and observation experiences it is expected teachers will internalize the reflective thought processes and, ultimately, self-coach. Cognitive coaching emphasizes the nonjudgmental role o f the coach. It is the coach’s job to impartially ask open-ended questions, paraphrase, probe, clarify, and provide objective data to the teacher. The teacher is reflective and self- analytical prompted by the questions. Ultimately, the teacher will self-analyze by using the same questions learned in the coaching experience. During the learning phase o f conferencing, teachers focus on their skills of teaching in an autonomous manner. Holonomy connects the isolated teacher to peers and the educational community. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 16 Holonomv The third goal o f cognitive coaching is holonomy. Holonomy, a term Costa and Garmston “borrowed from Arthur Koestler” (p, viii), is pictured as the teacher who works collaboratively with other professionals (Gr. holos: the whole group) while teaching independently (Gr. on: part— alone) (p. 129). Costa and Garmston (1994) identify five states o f mind as sources of holonomy— “efficacy, flexibility, craftsmanship, consciousness, and interdependence” (p. viii). Capable individuals in any profession exhibit these qualities. These states o f mind are the energy sources that support their actions and performance. Holonomous, high performing individuals believe they will be successful, can see both the details and the big picture in a situation, strive for perfection in performance, are simultaneously aware o f their own internal thoughts and the actions o f others, and are able to adjust themselves to the goals o f the group. Efficacy. (1994). Efficacious individuals are optimistic and have great confidence in their own abilities to succeed. Abraham Lincoln was probably a very efficacious person given the many failures he experienced on his way to the Presidency. Efficacious individuals do not depend on luck, nor blame others for their plight Their locus o f control is internal. They set goals and accomplish them. Efficacy as a state o f mind for a teacher is vital for the teacher to believe he or she can and will make a difference in the life o f a child or in the organization (Smylie, 1993). Flexibility. (Costa & Garmston, 1994). Flexibility “involves the ability to [metacognitively] step beyond yourself and look at a situation from a different perspective” (p. 135). This is especially helpful when teaching students. Flexible Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 17 teachers can understand their students’ point o f view. Flexibility also includes being able to analyze the details and put them together to synthesize holistically the big picture. Flexibility means being resourceful with many options. A flexible teacher can juggle the multi-dimensional classroom considering ability levels, groupings, individual's needs, short and long range planning, in short, think on his or her feet. “Consistently, studies have found that flexibility, adaptability, and creativity are among the most important determinants o f teachers’ effectiveness” (Darling- Hammond, 1997, p. 72). Darling-Hammond (1997) also references research that shows that teachers who plan with students’ needs in mind and are flexible produce students’ more adept at higher-order thinking. Craftsmanship. (Costa & Garmston, 1994). This state o f mind is characteristic o f one who is a life long learner, always seeking to improve performance, seeking to improve their effectiveness in teaching. They do perform at a high level. Consciousness. (1994). Teachers who demonstrate consciousness have what Kounin calls with-it-ness— the awareness o f oneself and everything occurring in the classroom at the same time (1994, Borich, 1996 p. 483). This is the ability to continue teaching while simultaneously addressing or assessing a student need. Interdependence. (Costa & Garmston, 1994). The state o f mind o f interdependence demonstrates holonomy. Holonomy exists in individuals who are conscious o f their own values and goals, but are able to participate in group consensus— for the greater good. These individuals reciprocally contribute to the group and are shaped by their participation in the group. Teachers ply their craft in isolation, but together with other professionals they shape and are shaped by the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 1 8 collegial dialogue. Smylie (1993) reported that teachers involved in collaboration with other teachers focused more on issues o f student learning and instruction instead o f classroom management and discipline. Coaching can affect the development o f the five states o f mind. Based on the work o f Lankton and Lankton (as cited in Costa and Garmston, 1994), Costa and Garmston identified Nine Principles o f Intervention: (pp. 143-144). 1) People act on their internal map o f reality and not on sensory experience 2) People make the best choice for themselves at any given moment 3) Respect all messages from the other person 4) Provide choice; never take choice away 5) The resource each person needs lies within his or her own personal history 6) Meet the other person in their own model o f the world 7) The person with the most flexibility or choices will be the controlling element in the system 8) A person cannot not communicate 9) Outcomes are achieved at the psychological level The role o f the coach is vital in guiding the teacher to higher levels o f holonomy. Secured in trust, the relationship between the teacher and coach can result in the teacher developing greater efficacy, flexibility, craftsmanship, consciousness, and interdependence. The questioning techniques used in conferencing can lead the teacher to reflect more deeply leading to greater understanding o f teaching pedagogy and craftsmanship. Cognitive coaching has three goals: 1) trust building 2) learning, and 3) holonomy. In an atmosphere o f trust through rapport building, coaches and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 19 teachers collaborate in helping teachers learn to improve their pedagogy through the use o f conferencing and questioning techniques. The coach confers with the teacher on planning, observation o f teaching, reflection and analysis o f the teaching, and applying the learning through the use o f open-ended questions, paraphrasing, clarifying, and probing. Holonomy, teaching autonomously while collaborating interdependently with other professionals, is driven by five states o f mind: 1) efficacy 2) flexibility 3) craftsmanship 4) consciousness, and 5) interdependence. The purpose o f cognitive coaching is to impact the learning o f the students through the thinking o f teachers concerning decision-making about instruction. ‘Teachers who are well prepared are better able to use teaching strategies that respond to students’ needs... and encourage higher-order learning” (Darling- Hammond, 1997, p. 308). True reform will only happen at the foundational level, between a teacher and a student (1997). The research o f Sprinthall and Theis- Sprinthall (as cited in Garmston, 1994) indicates that teachers who operate at a higher level o f intellectual functioning produce students who achieve at higher levels. One positive side effect noted in a research project in Carrollton Farmers Branch Independent School District in Dallas, Texas (Sparks, & Hirsh, 1997) was that in a three year project using cognitive coaching as an alternative to traditional evaluation, the students o f those teachers exhibited greater higher order thinking skills. It appeared the cognitive coaching process which increased teachers’ reflectivity and skills in analysis, transferred to their students. Decision-making reveals the choices teachers make about what, why, and how to teach. Cognitive coaching is inserted into the decision-making process. In Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 20 an atmosphere o f trust and in a nonjudgmental way, teachers are led through a series o f reflections on what, why, and how they plan to teach, are observed during teaching for data collection chosen by the observed teacher, and finally in a post conference the teachers are again led through a series o f questions designed to cause them to reflect on the teaching (Appendix C). Historical Background Cognitive coaching belongs to a collection o f systems used to help teachers improve in teaching pedagogy, and hence, student performance. Traditional supervision is a hierarchical model o f classical organizational theory (Hanson, 1996, Odden, 1995), with an authority or expert observing and judging performance. It is an evaluative, summative system focusing on control. It exists, specifically, in relation to evaluation o f personnel for reemployment It is a “snapshot in time”. It identifies a level o f performance and has limited impact in changing teacher behavior. Traditional supervision subscribes to McGregor’s Theory X (Hanson, 1996) o f “coercion and...sanctions” (p. 201) believing the teachers are only going to do the minimum to get by. It does not subscribe to McGregor’s (1996) Theory Y wherein the worker is viewed as self-motivated and functioning at the highest levels o f Maslow’s hierarchy o f needs (Woolfolk, 1998). Cognitive coaching ascribes to Theory Y. In a Harvard project during the 1960’s, Morris Cogan and Robert Goldhammer (as cited in Costa & Garmston, 1994) developed clinical supervision. Clinical supervision (Garmston, 1985; Foley, 1994; Showers & Joyce, 1996) differed from traditional supervision, where the “expert” identified and prescribed remediation, in that clinical supervision involved the teacher in his or her own learning through collaborative conferences. The teacher received help from others Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 21 and self-analyzed for improvement However, there was still the element o f others analyzing teacher behaviors. B u t in contrast to traditional summative evaluation, clinical supervision was formative and dynamic. Acheson and Gall(1987) applied Cogan and Goldhammer’s work to supervision o f teachers and student teachers. Their model includes the planning conference, observation o f teaching, and a feedback conference with the teacher involved in the discussion and planning o f the supervision. Acheson and Gall’s model has the supervisor/employee relationship. Since this process is part o f an evaluative process, the degree to which the teacher participates depends upon the trust level between the supervisor and the teacher. Building on the work o f Cogan, in the early 1980’s Art Costa and Bob Garmston (1994) co-developed the cognitive coaching model. Cognitive coaching is a version o f Cogan and Goldhammer’s clinical supervision. However, it focuses not on teacher behaviors during teaching (1994), but on the thought processes o f the teacher during the planning, teaching, and reflecting phases. It is designed to be conducted between peers, although it can be conducted by those in a hierarchical relationship as long as there is trust that it is not to be used for evaluation purposes. Costa and Garmston’s (1994) model puts the teacher in charge o f the coaching process, with the goal being change in teacher thinking leading to change in behavior or teaching pedagogy. The peer coach can be another teacher, a trusted supervisor, or even someone not involved in teaching. The coach simply nonjudgmentally observes for the requested data and asks questions to cause the teacher to reflect on his or her thinking. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 22 Cognitive C oaching and its Relationship to Learning Cognitive coaching aligns with Vygotsky’s (Woolfolk, 1998) constructivist view o f learning. In cognitive coaching teachers play an active role in constructing an understanding o f their teaching pedagogy. They leam in a natural hands-on setting, in a social environment, and by being scaffolded by a coach who assists their reflection to create meaning through self-analysis o f the teaching experience. Development o f new understandings depends on the teacher connecting prior knowledge to the new experience. It is during this time o f reflection the cognitive coach assists the teacher to deepen and reach higher levels o f thought processes in analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. Bloom’s taxonomy o f six levels o f thought has been applied to education. Although not hierarchical in importance, the last three-analysis, synthesis, and evaluation are considered the higher order thinking skills requiring use of the lower levels o f knowledge, comprehension, and application. It is at these higher levels o f conceptual thinking teachers analyze and evaluate the results o f their teaching. They are able to project through planning how lessons will succeed for the students. During the moment o f teaching they modify, adjust, and change to adapt to the situation. Through analysis and evaluation o f the situation they synthesize a newly adjusted plan in action. After teaching they again analyze, review, and evaluate the success. They synthesize and create a new plan for the future based on the experience. The scaffolding (1998) provided by the coach supports the teacher in what Vygotsky calls the zone o f proximal development (ZPD), the juncture where through support from another, new learning can occur. The use o f language is central to Vygotsky’s theory. Through open-ended questions the coach guides the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 23 teacher in reflection. The pattern o f open ended questions, paraphrasing, clarifying, and probing questions become inner speech for the teacher to self reflect beyond the coaching experience. Reflection in the Learning Process Reflection: Not ju st a mirror... Are you vulgar? Sophisticated? Or critical? Reflective or technical? Have an internal or external locus of control? Is all teaching reflective? What is this powerful notion called reflection, how do we get it, and how do we use it, if indeed, “It is through reflection on our teaching that we become more skilled, more capable, and in general better teachers” (Zeichner & Liston, 1996, p. xvii)? There is a shared understanding about reflection on teaching--that we metacognitively think about what has happened, and why, for the purpose o f improving it the next time (Lemlech, Hertzog, Pensavalle, personal communication, July, 1998; Schlosser, 1998; Darling-Hammond, 1997; Ushijima, 1996; Zeichner & Liston, 1996; Costa & Garmston, 1994). Zeichner and Liston (1996), Dewey, and Schon are some o f the key researchers who have defined aspects o f reflection. Although reflection certainly is not new news— Socrates employed reflection in Socratic dialogues (Wiggins & McTighe, 1998), John Dewey positioned reflection in this century with his treatise on teachers as reflective practitioners (Zeichner & Liston, 1996). Dewey stated that teachers encounter a puzzlement, then metacognitively step back and analyze and reflect on it Dewey’s perspective held that teachers who routinely, behavioristically, and automatically conduct themselves in teaching without pause to consider the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 24 effectiveness or appropriateness o f their actions, are unreflective technicians (1996). Dewey did not expect that all teaching should be reflected upon; this is not reasonable. The structure o f routines is necessary. Being an educational technician is appropriate at times. However, the unreflected teacher-technician also has the perspective o f external locus o f control (Costa & Garmston, 1999). That is, the assumption that the causes and solutions o f problems lie outside o f the teacher. The teacher who has an external locus o f control does not take responsibility for the outcome o f instruction. The unreflected teacher ascribes to the element o f control o f others and cause and effect from the behaviorist model. The limited reflection which occurs focuses on methods o f getting students to adjust to the system and teaching, rather than the teacher adjusting to the student. The reflective teacher has an internal locus o f control and assumes responsibility o f the results o f teaching interactions (Kellough, 1999). The reflective teacher views teaching challenges through the lens o f Dewey’s “open- mindedness, responsibility, and wholeheartedness”( Zeichner & Liston, 1996, p. 10). Open-minded teachers have what Costa and Garmston (1994) call efficacy and flexibility. They have confidence that they will succeed. They can see several perspectives. They can metacognitively step outside themselves and see other points o f view and ask themselves “why are they doing what they are doing?” (1996, p. 10). Zeichner and Liston (1996) compare the open-minded reflectors with C. W. M ills’ critical believer-one who is able to hear opposing beliefs without fear o f losing one’s own. Critical believers feel their own beliefs are strengthened by considering other points o f view. Less reflective teachers, Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 25 technicians, would align with Mills’ sophisticated believer -- one who listens to another’s point o f view so as to refute it, or the vulgar believer— one who is unable to listen to other points o f view and operates within an unreflected belief system. Critical, open-minded, reflective teachers have an internal locus o f control. They take responsibility for their actions and students learning. Costa and Garmston (1994) define efficacious individuals as those who have an internal locus of control. They also have great confidence in their capacity to make a difference. Not only do reflective teachers have efficacy, Caine & Caine (1997) state, ‘T he capacity to engage in self-reflection to grow and adapt..govem s the ability to implement and understand the different instructional approaches” (p. 221). Schon (Zeichner & Liston, 1996)) analyzes two more aspects o f reflection as applied to education. He describes reflection- in-action and reflection-on-action. Reflection-on-action occurs during the planning phase o f a lesson and after the lesson when it is analyzed. Reflection-in-action occurs during moments of teaching when the teacher observes the reactions o f the learners and immediately adjusts his or her teaching (Sergiovanni, 1985). While Schon identified two main times o f reflection-before or after teaching, and while in the moment o f teaching, Griffiths and Tann (as cited in Zeichner & Liston, 1996), two educators from the United Kingdom, expanded Schon’s two time frames to five. The first they call rapid reflection that occurs immediately and automatically during the moment o f teaching. The second they call repair which is still during teaching but gets a “quick pause for thought” (Zeichner & Liston, p. 45). The rest all happen after teaching. The third is called review that occurs within the day and focuses on events o f the day. The fourth is research over tim e about issues o f interest And the last is retheorizing and Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 6 reformulating as a teacher reflects over years regarding their beliefs and practices. Reflective teachers spend varying amounts o f time in each o f these dimensions. Reflection on one’s thinking calls upon the higher intellectual thinking processes identified by Benjamin Bloom’s (Woolfolk, 1998) taxonomy o f thinking. Bloom’s higher order thinking skills— analysis, synthesis, and evaluation are the heart o f reflective teaching. It is at these higher levels o f conceptual thinking teachers analyze and evaluate the results o f their teaching. They are able to project through planning how lessons will succeed for the students. During the moment o f teaching they modify, adjust, and change to adapt to the situation. Through analysis and evaluation o f the situation they synthesize a newly adjusted plan in action. After teaching they again analyze, review, and evaluate the success. They synthesize and create a new plan for the future based on the experience (Brooks, 1999). Schon’s times o f reflection have little application when teachers use scripted programs like Saxon Math and Saxon Phonics, individualized programs, and the basal reading programs o f the S O ’s. These programs leave little room for modification by the teacher to adjust the instruction to meet the needs o f the children, adapt for their learning styles, to say nothing o f adapting to the teacher’s teaching style. The reflection that exists with teacher proof materials compares progress in the program instead o f analysis o f how to adjust the program to meets the individual needs o f children. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 27 There have been several waves o f education reform with their respective reflective applications. Prior to the 1980’s much o f the reform was focused behavioristically on teachers and students as objects to be controlled (Zeichner & Liston, 1996). Programs were tightly scripted with teacher-proof materials, and instruction was organized around behavioral objectives. Teacher behaviors regarding instructional delivery and objectives for curriculum and student learning were the focus. Children were analyzed by a deficit model comparing them to what they did not know leading to remediation strategies. Common during this period o f time was the philosophy that the child was considered an empty vessel waiting to be filled by the expert The child’s prior knowledge was not considered. This approach used systems that teachers taught methodically. Reflective analysis connected the child’s progress to either the teacher’s ineffective instruction o f the program or the inattentiveness o f the child. This philosophy was counter to Sparks and Hirsh (1997, p. 9; Wiggins & Tighe, 1998) which posit the constructivist view that “...learners create their own knowledge structures rather than merely receive them from others. Knowledge is not simply transmitted from teacher to student, but instead is constructed in the minds o f the learner.” Taylor’s phrase comes to mind ‘ T oday’s teacher is a guide on the side, not a sage on the stage.” The unreflective teacher has a mechanized, stand and deliver approach to teaching, viewing the child as an empty vessel waiting to be tilled. Whereas, the reflective teacher has a constructivist stance and considers what the child already knows and facilitates learning by creating an environment and lessons appropriate for that child. The reflective teacher is a guide for the child. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2 8 To be reflective aligns with constructivism’s learning theory o f the active learner as one who creates and constructs new knowledge based on a teaching experience (Smith, 1997; Danielson, 1996; Richardson, 1994; Garmston, Linder, & Whitaker, 1993). I f there is nothing new for the teacher’s schema that occurs during instruction, the teacher’s schema is simply reinforced and the knowledge assimilated, but if there is something new that occurred, the teacher has disequilibrium, must reflect on it, and finally adjust the existing schema to include the new knowledge, or accommodate it by creating a new schema if the event lacks a comparison schema (Woolfolk, 1998). Learners use this process in real life experiences, as do teachers as they continually teach, reflect, and modify their understandings o f how to improve. Constructivists do not emphasize memorization o f knowledge, but rather experiential activities leading to learners creating their own understanding based on their prior knowledge (schema) integrated with the new knowledge gained from the experience. Richardson defines constructivism as ...a meaning-making theory that suggests that individuals create their own new understandings, based upon the interaction o f what they already know and believe, and the phenomena or ideas with which they come into contact. It promotes the integration between new and old knowledge ...necessary for internalization and deep understanding (p. 133) In The Case fo r C onstructivist Classrooms, Brooks and Brooks (1993) state “humans learn best when ...[they] construct meaning for themselves” (p. 63). Constructivism is based on the learner bringing prior knowledge to the experience and building upon i t Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 29 Dewey shares Vygotsky’s (Woolfolk, 1998) perspective on the learner constructing meaning from social interactions with life experiences. It is the scaffolding, support, provided by the guide or teacher that lifts the learner to new understandings within the learner’s ZPD (Zeichner & Liston, 1996). Another dimension o f the constructivist approach is the development of knowledge holistically through understanding the meaning o f the whole picture and the relationship o f its parts. This approach is in contrast to the behavioral view o f emphasis o f the parts that are then assembled to understand the whole. The behavioral philosophy o f the late 1960’s o f analysis o f the skills and subskills of subject matter was weak in developing an understanding o f how to apply the knowledge. Students were good at their times tables and decoding o f words, but application in real life was lacking. The constructivist period o f education that followed approached learning from whole to part, not part to whole. The reflective constructivist teacher analyzed the students’ learning through connecting their prior knowledge to the meaning o f the whole, and then created a learning environment to engage and scaffold the student to new understanding. Constructivist methods o f inquiry and discovery o f the 80’s and 90’s were developed with teachers as guides facilitating children’s learning. Although this methodology did not see pure application except in perhaps Montessori and Walden Schools, teachers reflected on how they were teaching and realized there were choices to be made. During this period o f time o f teachers were encouraged to reflect on ways to diversify instruction and create learning experiences to meet individual needs. This second wave o f educational reform held a constructivist view that focused on not remediating the child’s weaknesses, but teaching through the child’s Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 30 strengths. This reform also considered the affect, or emotion, o f the learner and was very hands-on, learner centered. Teachers helped children build new understandings through active learning experiences. Programs in math and science featured hands-on experiential activities, language arts was approached holistically through real literature emphasizing meaning instead o f skills, and social studies examined the relationships connecting themes o f our existence in this world. Teachers analyzed their children’s strengths and reflected on pedagogy for guiding the children to new levels o f understanding. What was missing was automaticity o f fundamental knowledge and accountability o f individual children’s progress along a continuum. The current, and third wave o f reform was triggered by low scores on the National Assessment o f Educational Progress (NAEP). Society supported legislators in their mandating educational pedagogy with the implementation o f a structured system o f accountability. The State o f California approved programs featuring tightly scripted teacher-proof materials, without the inquiry and discovery pedagogy. In addition, national presenters who promote holistic learning practices are denied compensation with public funds for presentations in California. Many o f the new programs do not leave room for the flexibility o f constructivist practices, nor call for reflection on the part o f the teacher. The teacher-proof materials may be delivered by skilled technicians. But because o f the positive elements o f built-in review, a scope and sequence, and ongoing assessment for accountability, these programs are producing results beyond what the recent constructivist practices had. The constructivist practices lacked the awareness o f where a child was on a curricular continuum. Since the public perceived the teachers were not going to change, change was Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 31 legislated. The pedagogical pendulum has swung impacting the choices o f a reflective teacher for meeting the needs o f individual children. The coexistence o f constructivism and accountability is possible. Reflective teachers can use constructivist hands-on, teaching practices while attending to progress o f individual children to help them reach grade level standards and goals. It is this writer’s opinion, as a teacher o f 36 years; this accountability reform was inevitable and expected. But I believe the reflective teachers would have solved the concern about balance in pedagogy by building in check points o f progress while choosing appropriately when to use inquiry and discovery method. However, low national and state scores sparked the legislators to legislate how education should be delivered. California’s one billion-dollar support for reform was needed, but legislating teaching pedagogy is not the way to go. Reflective teachers must have and must use an eclectic quiver full o f pedagogical arrows to reach the diverse learning needs o f the children. Although reflection at a high level o f thinking is natural for some effective teachers who design instruction to guide learning, it can be developed in those for whom it is not natural. Just as the teacher facilitates learning for children, the cognitive coach is a “guide on the side” o f the teacher. This constructivist approach values the teacher’s prior knowledge instead o f the coach’s knowledge. Cognitive coaching does not seek to fix the teacher, but to assist the teacher in self-analysis and growth in reflective teaching. Cognitive coaching (1994) focuses on moving the teacher along in his or her teaching pedagogy through reflective conversations aimed at the teacher’s zone Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 32 o f proximal development (ZPD) (Woolfolk, 1998; Green & Smyser, 1996; Patterson, 1993). It is effective in enhancing teacher decision-making by causing teachers to reflect and analyze their thinking behind their practices. Cognitive coaching develops teacher’s reflection during the instructional stages o f planning, teaching, post-teaching reflection, and finally application for the future. The shared collegial conversations clarify reflections (Zeichner & Liston, 1996). Reflection is higher order thinking applied to decision-making by teachers before, during, and after teaching. It is a I) a process where teachers search for meaning, solutions, definitions, and improvements 2) it is both a directed systematic process and a sporadic or random act, that focuses on understanding what is happening and why for the purpose o f correcting or improving a situation, and 3) it involves taking time to proactively think about the situation, evaluate its positive and negative elements, and plan for change in the next steps. The theories on reflection by Dewey, Schon, Zeichner and Liston are constructivist Reflective teachers in and out o f the moments o f teaching are creating meaning through their higher order thinking skills o f analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. It is through this process that reflective teachers are able to adjust and meet the needs o f the students for whom the instruction is designed. A mirror reflects and gives back an image, but interpretation o f that reflection is where “we become more skilled, more capable, and in general better teachers” (Zeichner & Liston, 1996 p. xvii). The Role o f M a s t e r Teacher Mentoring in the Student Teaching Process When Odysseus went off to war with Troy he entrusted his son, Telemachus, to the care o f Mentor who became his teacher, guide, friend...mentor. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 33 Today, one who guides the learning o f another is a mentor. In the field experience o f student teaching, a veteran teacher volunteers to mentor a preservice teacher in the art and skill o f teaching. Woolfolk (1998) calls this “cognitive apprenticeship” whereby a novice “acquires knowledge and skills under the guidance o f an expert” (p. 357). The relationship between the student teacher and the master teacher is hierarchical with the master teacher in charge o f the classroom and responsible for guiding the student teacher, but there exists a trust between them. The master teacher, sometimes called cooperating teacher, helps the student teacher apply teaching knowledge by first modeling, demonstrating, and explaining what, why, and how the lessons are developed. Then the student teacher practices the skills with the support and scaffolding o f the master teacher. Gradually, the master teacher withdraws allowing the student teacher to teach independently. When the master teacher debriefs the modeled lessons, he metacognitively “stands outside him self’ (Costa, 1994) and elaborates and analyzes the thinking that went into the decisions related to the lesson. The master teacher makes his thinking “visible” to the student teacher. He is modeling reflecting. When the student teacher conferences with the master teacher during planning and then post conferencing after the lesson, he will use those same reflecting skills modeled by the master teacher to evaluate his decision-making during planning and teaching. The master teacher is the guide to the novice teacher. The foundation o f the mentoring model o f student teaching rests in constructivist Vygotsky’s (W oolfolk, 1998) zone o f proximal development (ZPD), social interactions, and his application o f Bruner’s scaffolding. The master teacher analyzes the ZPD o f the student Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 34 teacher, determining what level o f expectation and teaching responsibilities he is ready for, and then the master teacher scaffolds the novice in teaching. Scaffolding “can be encouragement, clues, reminders, breaking the problem down into steps, or providing an example” (p. 47). This discourse occurs in Bandura’s social environment The experience o f mentoring a student teacher is steeped in constructivism’s experiential orientation. In constructivism the learner (student teacher) constructs meaning from life experiences. Learning is personally relevant hands-on experiences, and social. Vygotsky, a Russian psychologist believed our cognitive development depended on the verbal and cultural interactions with others. The patterns or schemas we learn from these experiences provide the self-talk for future problem solving. M aster teachers provide that discourse that models and guides the student teacher. As the student teacher acquires new knowledge through the master teacher’s scaffolding, modeling, explaining, or encouragement, he or she will develop enhanced or new schemas for teaching. In schema theory, the skills o f teaching exist as schemas or categories o f knowledge about what and how to teach. Schemas are “the basic structures for organizing information” (p. 259). These schemas are built through the learner’s personal construction o f an understanding o f their meaning by active experience. The body o f knowledge regarding teaching pedagogy and the California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP) (1997) exists as schemas. The student teacher receives scaffolding in developing facility in application o f the CSTP, and experientially develops his or her schema. Picture a collection o f information around the topic o f transitions during the teaching o f a lesson. A novice teacher would have a very small schema for this Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 35 topic compared to the master teacher. The master teacher, through many experiences with this schema, has a complex web o f information to draw upon. It is the role o f the master teacher to help the student teacher develop a larger and more complex schema for transitions. This occurs by the master teacher modeling, metacognitively explaining transitions, helping the student teacher plan a transition, observing and scaffolding the student teacher during teaching, and then having a post conference with the student teacher to further the development o f the transition schema through questions which will cause the student teacher to reflect The body o f knowledge (schemas) the student teacher is striving to acquire is defined by the CSTP (1997). Based on the work o f Charlotte Danielson (1996), California expanded her four domains to six standards which define effective teaching: 1) Engaging and Supporting All Students in Learning 2) Creating and Maintaining Effective Environments for Student Learning 3) Understanding and Organizing Subject M atter for Student Learning 4) Planning Instruction and Designing Learning Experiences for All Students S) Assessing Student Learning, and 6) Developing as a Professional Educator. Danielson’s (1996) four domains also include a rubric for identifying levels o f performance — unsatisfactory, basic, proficient, and distinguished. As part o f the California Beginning Teacher Project, California has developed its own performance rubric for each standard, called California Formative Assessment & Support System for Teachers (CFASST) (Olebe, Jackson, & Danielson, (1999). Several o f the elements in the beginning teacher support system developed by the State o f California (1999) are featured in the Simpson College preservice experience. Novices and mentors collaborate and dialogue to plan for instruction based on the CSTP. Student teachers receive feedback and assistance in planning Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 36 and teaching lessons. It is during student teaching with children that theory is tied to practice (Wilmore, 1996). The CSTP provide a common language around best teaching practices so teachers and their student teachers can discuss and plan for professional growth. Knowles’ adult learning theory o f andragogy is the “art and science of helping adults leam” (as cited in Schlosser, 1998, p. 26). Knowles posits that adults prefer to be self-directed, have a bank o f prior experiences to draw upon, are intrinsically motivated, and focus on problem solving. “They are builders o f practical knowledge” (p. 26). These four assumptions are parallel to the tenets of cognitive coaching (Costa & Garmston, 1994). In cognitive coaching the teacher asks the coach to partner in the process o f reflective dialogue surrounding the teaching o f a lesson. By having the teacher in control o f the coaching, he or she can choose the problem to focus on, is intrinsically motivated to solve a problem with personal relevance, and bases the planning and teaching in prior experiences. The coach is an adult mentor. Cognitive coaching is applied adult learning theory. Key to adult learning is the independent, self-directed nature o f the mentoring. Adults are able to evaluate their own knowledge and understandings, drawing upon their prior experiences and choosing which problems they wish to address. “The traditional management o f control culture does not incorporate the findings o f cognitive research and adult teaming into its practices” (Schlosser, 1998). Therefore, control and coercion do not belong in a mentoring relationship. In fact, trust and respect are the fulcrum between the student teacher and the master teacher. The trust magnitude determines the extent o f development o f collegial partnering. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 37 The relationship between the student teacher and m aster teacher in the Simpson College teacher credentialing program does have the element o f hierarchy. The master teacher is more experienced and more knowledgeable than the student teacher, is responsible for his or her students, and responsible for the development o f the student teacher. But, grading or doing a summative evaluation is not present The master teacher guides, supports, and gives feedback to the student teacher. When difficulties arise, it is the role o f the college supervisor to remediate the situation. It is the college supervisor who ultimately determines the level of performance as “pass or fail”. Darling-Hammond studying mentoring programs for beginning teachers found that “beginning teachers who received mentors’ support moved more quickly from concerns about discipline and basic classroom management to concerns about instruction and student learning” (Smylie, 1993, p. 139). The transit through the beginning teacher stages o f survival with focus on discipline and organizational management, to focus on the delivery o f lessons, to finally concern for learner’s needs can be facilitated by coaching. Zeichner and Liston (1996; McAllister & Neubert, 1998) applied Van Manen’s levels o f reflective thinking and called them technical rationality, practical action, and pedagogical action. All teachers go through the three stages o f first being concerned about themselves and delivery o f the lesson, next awareness o f the effect o f the lesson on the students and their needs, and finally a concern about the global issues o f education and society. Coaching can enhance teacher efficacy— the belief that he or she will make a difference and succeed. It is one o f the five states o f mind o f a holonomous teacher, one who is accomplished at a high level autonomously and simultaneously Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 38 within the organization (Costa and Garmston, 1994). Bandura states there are four influences on efficacy. Mentoring a student teacher employs all four-encouragement, experiences, observing others, and personal physical and emotional feedback (Woolfolk, 1998). First the student teacher discusses teaching issues with the master teacher and receives guidance and encouragement, next the master teacher models while the student teacher observes, then the student teacher practices the teaching under the guidance o f the master teacher, and finally the student teacher receives his or her own personal feedback from their own physical response to the teaching experience. Cognitive researchers took a different stance than the earlier researchers of teaching effectiveness. Earlier behaviorists looked through the lens whereby the teachers’ overt actions were analyzed as a cause and effect relationship. Cognitive coaching looked at what the teacher was thinking relative to the overt behavior (Costa & Garmston, 1994). It is in this mode that teaching is viewed as a complex, intellectual process o f decision-making. Cognitive coaches help teachers analyze their thinking leading to decisions, thereby helping the teacher metacognitively seif-analyze for improvement Cognitive coaching promotes teacher reflection. Use o f the cognitive coaching strategy o f conferencing and explicit questioning for reflection is new to the Simpson College student teaching field experience. This application o f cognitive coaching between a master teacher and student teacher is designed to help master teachers in coaching their student teachers in reflecting. Reflecting is the process that Schon describes happens ‘in-action and on- action” (Zeichner & Liston, 1996). Effective teachers reflect at a higher level o f understanding than those who minimally reflect do. Those who have higher Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 39 intellectual functioning analyze the causes o f reactions to their lessons, see the relationships in the details, weigh the import o f the information, and synthesize new application o f the conclusions for future teaching. These higher order thinking skills parallel the last three o f Bloom’s taxonomy for levels o f thinking (Woolfolk, 1998). These are the thinking processes cognitive coaching addresses through the questioning during conferences surrounding design o f instruction. The coach asks open-ended questions to facilitate the thinking o f the student teacher. Follow up questions and statements are made to paraphrase, clarify, and probe for more information. The coach observes the student teacher, collects data, and gives feedback in a nonjudgmental manner. Collection o f frequency charts, patterns o f movement, and recording o f expressions are examples o f nonjudgmental data. As the student teacher becomes adept in answering these questions, it is expected that self-reflection will evolve to where the student teacher will automatically consider the issues raised by the questions. Cognitive coaching by Costa and Garmston (1994) was designed to be a reciprocal process between two colleagues. But, in teacher credentialing the student teacher does not coach the master teacher. Experiential, constructivist learning is the applied theory in student teaching. Just as with children, the telling and directing o f direct instruction and lecture have less impact on learning than do constructivist practices. Stand and deliver teacher inservices, presentations, and trainings without application and reflection tend to not alter knowledge and skills. (Darling-Hammond, 1996; Sparks & Hirsh, 1997). One o f Schon’s concerns (Zeichner & Liston, 1996) is that in teacher preparation programs there is little opportunity for practice to develop “reflection-in-action in the "messy swamplands’ where the children exist” (p. 42). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4 0 Relying on coursework knowledge o f teaching pedagogy without experiential practice has a limited impact on student teachers growing in the skills they need to develop to teach children. The application o f new knowledge immediately is necessary for the locking in o f the information to the brain and body. An analogy can be drawn between listening about how to play the piano, or even observing someone doing it, but until one experiences the process o f playing, the knowledge has little utility. Joyce and Showers state that one shot professional development ...doesn’t stick... for training programs to work, there must be “ exploration and presentation o f theory, demonstration and modeling o f the skills being taught, practice o f the skills by those being trained, feedback to the practitioner about their performance, and then coaching in the workplace.” (as cited in Odden, 199S, p. 136). Two o f the four variables o f effective schools and the change process include collegial interactions and community support and trust (Brandt, 1996; Odden, 1996). Both o f these are underpinnings o f coaching and mentoring. Job embedded learning connects the knowledge with application. “The most powerful learning is that which occurs in response to challenges currently being faced by the learner and that allows for immediate application, experimentation, and adaptation on the job” (Sparks & Hirsh, 1997, p. 52). Teaching is not a paper-pencil test that must be passed. It happens in real time with learners who are also striving to construct new knowledge and skills. Educators Darling-Hammond and Schon both emphasize the experiential approach by encouraging teachers to “work collaboratively with colleagues on real Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 41 problems” (Darling-Hammond, 1996 p. 6) and actually doing the new techniques “guided by a skilled coach” (Rowley, 1999, p. 28). Joyce and Showers report that when learning new teaching skills, hearing the theory will yield only 5% success. Add demonstration to theory and the yield is 10%. Add practice to theory and demonstration and the yield is 20%. The “rate o f transfer goes up to 25% if feedback is added” (Gottsmann, 1998, p. 21). Finally, with the addition o f coaching the transfer yields 90%! Coaching is vital in the preparation o f student teachers. Teachers who have had a preservice training program are more accomplished in reflecting and modifying their own teaching to meet the needs o f diverse learners (Schlosser, 1998; Darling-Hammond, 1997; Odden, 1995). It is important to include the school-based master teachers in the planning o f the preservice field experience. Their practical experience concurs with the list o f needs o f beginning teachers: learning how to schedule the day, communicating with parents, teaching students with diverse learning needs, finding resources, and classroom management (Wasley, 1999). Field experience is necessary for development o f new teachers as expressed by Wasley, ‘ Teachers enter their first year of teaching with sound theoretical knowledge but little practical skill” (p. 13). Goodlad, in an interview by Carol Tell, concurred with Wasley’s perspective that if we are to get excellent new teachers, they must be mentored in field service by excellent veterans (Tell, 1999). Checkley and Kelly (1999), in an interview with Asa Hilliard, found he believes that only “successful teachers” be allowed to mentor new teachers (1999, p. 59) since a lot o f teachers who are “really good at teaching don’t necessarily know how to describe what they are doing” (1999, p. 60; Wilmore, 1996). Hilliard Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 42 ascribes to Feurenstein’s Mediated Learning which “codifies” mentoring behaviors (1999, p. 60.) Cognitive coaching is another such program that is the focus o f this writer’s research. Since the “quality and caliber o f teachers is the single greatest factor influencing student learning” (Scherer, 1996 p. 7), and 30% o f new teachers leave the profession in the first five years, it is imperative we give new teachers the best possible preparation and support Contrary to Joyce and Showers research exhalting the effects of coaching, Hilliard believes it is most important for new teachers to develop a “deep knowledge about the subjects they love” (Checkley & Kelly, 1999, p. 58). This passion will help them inspire students and give themselves the motivation to leant strategies to teach the subject well. There is a need for master teachers to be trained to mentor. In a study by Edwards (as cited in Schlosser, 1998) it was reported that mentors who had training in the questioning techniques o f cognitive coaching were themselves more reflective about their teaching and facilitated it in their students as well. Those who volunteer to mentor others often have an altruistic spirit and exhibit characteristics o f Erikson’s 7th level o f generalization wherein adults have a concern for future generations (Woolfolk, 1998). Mentors also find themselves on the top o f Maslow’s Hierarchy o f Needs at a level o f self-fulfillment and self- actualization. When asked what were some characteristics o f mentors, teachers often include confidentiality, listener, integrity, life-long learner, and encourager. (Gottsmann, 1994). Rowley (1999, p. 20) lists six qualities o f a m entor Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 43 1. committed to the task. [They have high efficacy and determination to make a difference with the student teacher, they are trained, and rewarded.] 2. empathetic 3. skilled at providing instructional support [of wait time and nonjudgmental feedback] 4. adjust to the needs o f a student teacher 5. model continuous learning, and 6. communicate hope and enthusiasm. The responsibility o f a master teacher in mentoring a student teacher has profound effects on future generations. Research is replete with the import of coaching on the developing skills o f a novice teacher. This constructivist practice o f guiding, encouraging, and giving feedback hones the skills o f the evolving neophyte. The metacognitive dialoguing which reveals the intellectual processes connected to teaching demonstrate the invisible thinking that impacts decision-making surrounding instruction. A successful teacher, trained as a master teacher who can give cognitive assistance, is a vital element of preparing successful teachers for our children. The next chapter examines the procedures and instrumentation that lead to an evaluation o f the effects o f a cognitive coaching training program for master teachers. Specifically, it describes the process for delivering the training and collecting the data. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 44 CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY This chapter presents the methods and procedures used in this study. A need was expressed, a training designed, and participants invited. The training was conducted and data were collected and analyzed. A cognitive coaching training for master teachers o f Simpson College was developed using materials from the Costa and Garmston video series published by the Association o f Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) (1985). This study examined the effects o f this training o f master teachers on student teachers’ ability to reflect on their teaching. Teachers who reflect on their actions and adjust and modify for improved results should produce increased performance in their students. (Costa & Garmston, 1994). Six master teachers participated in the training. Due to the small number of participants, a case study design was selected, using a program evaluation model based on Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels o f Evaluation (1998). The four levels o f evaluation are reaction, learning, behavior, and results. This study looked at the reaction the master teachers had to the cognitive coaching training. It looked for evidence that learning occurred and behavior changed, and lastly, it measured the results or effect the training had on the student teachers’ reflection on their teaching. The research questions that guided the investigation were: 1) What is the impact of cognitive coaching training on master teachers’ skills in helping student teachers be reflective on their practice? Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 45 2) Is there implementation o f cognitive coaching techniques o f open-ended questioning, paraphrasing, and clarifying in communications between master teachers and student teachers? 3) Do master teachers employ the cognitive coaching strategy o f the planning conference, lesson observation, and reflective post conference with their student teachers? 4) Do master teachers use the California Standards for the Teaching Profession in their dialogue with student teachers? 5) How do the student teachers whose master teachers attended the training rate their experience as a student teacher during the first nine weeks? 6) How do the master teachers who attended the cognitive coaching training rate their experience as a master teacher? Impetus for the Study In response to a recommendation by the Advisory Committee to the Simpson College Teacher Credentialing Program in the spring o f 1999, the Education Dean agreed to explore the development o f a training for master teachers. The intent was to develop a larger pool o f quality master teachers and to give them enhanced skills to use in mentoring their student teachers. The ultimate goal was to find a process that would produce a more reflective student teacher. This researcher volunteered to develop and oversee the training. It was also agreed that the new training would be evaluated for its effectiveness. Permission to administer the surveys, interviews, collect the master teacher written evaluations of student teachers, the student teacher reflective essays, and daily journals was granted by the Dean o f Education as part o f the ongoing data collection process by Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 46 the institution for the purpose o f monitoring the effectiveness o f its credentialing program. A planning date o f June 18,1999 was set. The Advisory Committee discussed the possibility that a summer training might not work with teachers out on vacation. It was agreed to try for an August training to possibly coincide with their return to school. They were right The August training date did not work o u t After looking at three video series on coaching, the ASCD video series on cognitive coaching, based on Costa and Garmston’s work, Another Set o f Eyes, was used. Cognitive coaching applies the constructivist learning theory that ascribes to metacognitive, personal reflection as the catalyst for change in teaching pedagogy. Subjects Participants were six master teachers and their assigned student teachers from Simpson College during August through November 1999 in the Redding, California public elementary schools. They were all in classrooms serving primary grade (K—3) students. The master teachers were from five different school districts in the Redding, California area. Two were from Gateway School District, and one each from Bella Vista School District, Enterprise School District, Redding School District, and Shasta Union School District. The thirty-five master teachers for fall 1999 were sent personal letters o f invitation to participate in the cognitive coaching training. The six who signed up for the training became the participants for this study. There were 19 other teachers in the training who were not master teachers. Instrumentation This study used qualitative measures. D ata were triangulated from master teacher reflective evaluations o f the training, surveys from student and master Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 47 teachers, master teacher weekly evaluations o f their student teachers, student teacher journal reflections, and student teacher reflective essays. They were examined for evidence o f use o f cognitive coaching techniques resulting in the student teachers applying reflection on their teaching. The self-report post surveys on satisfaction with the student teaching/mentoring experience used a Likert scale. Procedures During student teaching for elementary teachers, Simpson College student teachers spend nine weeks in a primary grade assignment and nine weeks in an upper elementary assignm ent This study examined the master teachers and student teachers in the first nine weeks o f student teaching during August through November 1999. All 35 master teachers for fall o f 1999 were invited to participate in a 15-hour course on cognitive coaching for master teachers during September and October 1999. Participants for the study were the six master teachers who volunteered to attend the cognitive coaching training. All master teachers received the usual $150 stipend for mentoring a student teacher for nine weeks, plus $50 for attending the training. Those who attended this training continue to receive the increased stipend o f $200 for mentoring any Simpson student teacher in the future. They also had the opportunity to receive one unit o f graduate credit for taking the cognitive coaching training for a reduced rate o f $45 instead o f the usual $400 per unit. Four o f the six master teachers who attended the training opted to take the training for credit The student teachers were assigned in the spring before it was known which master teachers would attend the training. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 48 Kirkpatricks’ Four Levels o f Evaluation (1998) were used as a framework to evaluate the impact o f the program. The data reflected evidence o f how the participants reacted to the training, what they learned, how their behavior changed, and what results there were in helping their student teachers reflect on their teaching. Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels o f Evaluation Level One: Reaction. Did they like it? It is important to evaluate the reaction o f the participants to the training. If the reaction is positive, there is a potential for the purpose o f the training to be accomplished, if negative, it is likely the purpose o f the training will certainly not be accomplished (1998). The reflective evaluations, survey, and interview data were collected to evaluate their reactions to the setting, the presentation, and the concepts o f the training. Level Two: Learning. What did they learn? Change in behavior is contingent on learning having occurred. There are three kids o f learning in this study: knowledge, skills, and attitudes (1998). Specifically studied were the knowledge o f cognitive coaching strategies and the California Standards for the Teaching Profession, skills o f cognitive coaching in use o f questions and conferencing with the student teachers, and attitudes, a change o f attitude toward use o f the cognitive coaching techniques. Evidence o f learning was collected from the responses o f the training reflection evaluations, the surveys, and the interviews. Level Three: Behavior. Did their behavior change? After the training, did the master teachers apply their new knowledge and skills with their student teachers? For there to be results with the student teachers, the master teachers needed to put into action the new techniques (1998). Opportunity to try out the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 49 new techniques was available during the period o f the training to the end o f the student teaching assignment 46 days later. Another element o f behavior change is motivation to do so. There are three possibilities o f response: “I like what happened, and I plan to use the new behavior.” ‘1 don’t like what happened, and I will go back to my old behavior.” “I like what happened, but situation or time prevented me from continuing it” (p.48). Evidence o f change was garnered from the student teacher interviews and surveys about their master teachers. Level Four Results. This is the dollars and cents question: What impact did the training have on student teachers and was the impact justifiable financially (1998)? The college spent a considerable amount o f time and money on this training, searching for an improved method for building student teacher skills. The cost o f the training included the presenters, food, certificates, pins, room use, video series, and copies. Several administrators o f the college took time to attend the final session to show support for the training and the master teachers. An evaluation o f the results will inform the decision to continue spending money on the training for future master teachers. An appropriate amount o f time is necessary for the results to be evident. When the results cannot be measured in dollars and cents, the evidence collected must be satisfactory to show success. A repeat o f the training and comparison o f results would validate the impact o f the program. Evidence o f student teacher change was collected from the master teacher interviews, student teacher journals, student teacher essays, and student teacher survey. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 50 Timeline At a June 8,1999 meeting, the Advisory Board to the Teacher Credentialing Program for Simpson College suggested that a training be developed to support the master teachers in mentoring their student teachers. It was recommended that the college facilitate the training, but the instructors should be area teachers since it was believed peers teaching peers was an effective method and more accepted than being taught by a college professor. To choose the teacher instructors for the course, the Credentialing Faculty met to select 25 former master teachers from the pool o f hundreds who were recognized as exemplary in mentoring student teachers. The list o f names was given to their principals for their approval, to verify the teachers as teacher leaders. These 25 teachers were invited to a brainstorming meeting on June 18 to plan the August 10 training. Because school was out, it was difficult to contact the 25 teachers. Eight attended. At the June 18 meeting the teachers brainstormed about the needs o f being a master teacher and student teacher needs. The master teacher needs were identified. They were respecting that there are different styles o f teaching, learning about the California Standards for the Teaching Profession, making a list o f what student teachers need, learning how to model for a student teacher, and knowing when to support and when to challenge the student teacher. The student teachers’ needs were identified as learning how to teach reading, how to structure the day, what curriculum should be taught, classroom management, how to use machines, faculty relationships, parent relationships, and do’s and don’ts o f the culture o f the school. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 51 The teachers decided the training should include the CSTP, a segment on trustbuilding, and a segment on questioning strategies. The group set a date to meet again on August 3rd and 4th prior to the training for August 10 to view the three series o f videos on mentoring for use in the presentation and decide who would present which parts. A third grade teacher volunteered to teach an hour session on the California Standards for the Teaching Profession and the administrator volunteered to do the sessions on trustbuilding. It was not determined at that time who would do the questioning strategies sessions. A kindergarten teacher volunteered to be involved in some way. A follow-up summary o f the meeting was sent to the same 25 potential teacher instructors at their school addresses, inviting them to the August planning meeting. The school districts would not release the home addresses o f the teachers for the information to be sent to their homes, so, school secretaries were called to ask them to let the teachers know they had mail at school. It is unknown if this was done. At the August 3rd and 4th planning meeting there were only this researcher and one other teacher who showed up. I decided that this timeline would not work in August since it was so hard to contact teachers. A new date was set to do the training in September after the teachers could be contacted and they had gotten settled into the school year. This training was co-planned by a USC colleague— an elementary school administrator, and myself. This colleague was collecting data for her dissertation on trustbuilding. Together we made executive decisions about the presenters. We had tried unsuccessfully to get teachers to co-present as recommended by the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 52 Advisory Board. We decided to lead the training ourselves. The administrator took responsibility for the trustbuilding sessions, the third grade teacher agreed to do the session on CSTP, the kindergarten teacher agreed to lead the group in developing a list o f things a student teacher should know, and I planned the sessions on questioning strategies. The administrator and I were the facilitators responsible for the oversight o f the training. We prepared the agendas, materials, location, snacks, and instruction. The middle o f August an advertisement flyer was sent to all o f the 1100 elementary public school teachers o f Shasta and Siskiyou Counties in California inviting them to participate in a 15-hour training in cognitive coaching to become master teachers for Simpson College. Each o f the thirty-five master teachers already selected for the first nine weeks o f student teaching for fall o f 1999 were sent personal letters o f invitation. O f the twenty-five teachers who attended, six were already selected as fall 1999 master teachers. The master teachers participated in a 15-hour cognitive coaching training during September and October 1999. All sessions were on the Simpson College campus. They attended 8:00 - 3:00 on September 11,1999 for 6 hours o f training and September 14 and 21,1999,5:45 - 8:00 for six more hours o f refinement o f the cognitive coaching skills and feedback. On October 26, 1999,5:30 - 8:30 they met at a dinner meeting for a final sharing o f successes and artifacts o f accomplishments. Substantial snacks were served at every meeting. They included salads from Applebee’s, deli meat and cheese trays, fruit, cookies, and drinks. The final meeting concluded with a catered dinner held in the President’s Dining Room on campus, complete with cloth napkins. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 53 In attendance at the final meeting were the Dean o f Education, Associate Dean of Education, the former Dean o f Education who was the guest speaker, and the college President At the end o f the last meeting, the participants were presented with a Simpson College lapel pin and a certificate o f “M aster Teacher Coach”. Data were collected from the six master teachers who attended the training and their assigned student teachers. The master teachers wrote reflective evaluations at the end o f each training session and completed the survey at the end o f the last training session. The master teachers were interviewed January and the student teachers in February and March. The student teacher journals, reflective essays, and master teacher weekly evaluations o f their teaching were collected from the student teachers at the interview. Following the interview the student teachers filled out the survey. The Training The master teachers participated in a 15-hour cognitive coaching training during September and October 1999 during the time they had a student teacher. The training was designed by this researcher and a team o f one administrator and two exemplary elementary teachers who were recommended by the Simpson College faculty and their administrators as outstanding teachers, served successfully at least two times as a master teacher for Simpson College, and were recognized as teacher leaders by their administrators. The two teachers received $ 150 for assisting in the designing and teaching the 15-hour course. The first session o f training was held on Saturday, September 11, from 8:00- 3:00 to establish a foundation in the areas to be covered in the training (Appendix A). Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 54 Thirty-two teachers sent an RSVP, and 25 attended. The participants were given a folder containing the agendas for the four sessions, a reflective evaluation sheet to evaluate the training, a collection o f six articles on cognitive coaching, and worksheets on trustbuilding, conferencing, and questioning strategies. A continental breakfast was provided. Salads were ordered from Applebee’s. The group rapport building activity involved talking in groups o f three to find three things they had in common that did not relate to school. It was discovered that 18 o f the participants were from the same school, Bella Vista, where the co-presenter was an administrator. They knew each other well. This accelerated the rapport building in the group. Sharing was quite forthcoming. This researcher explained the overview o f the sessions and goals o f the training. It was known that those who weren’t already master teachers were being encouraged to consider it The trustbuilding session was conducted by the administrator. A video clip on trustbuilding was shown from the series Another Set o f Eyes and the teachers practiced using the strategies o f body mirroring, voice matching, paraphrasing, and awareness o f suppositions in their statements. After the morning break, the kindergarten teacher led the group in a brainstorming o f ideas that master teachers should know to be an effective master teacher, and things student teachers need to know. A preliminary list called “Nuts and Bolts Checklist for Master Teachers” was created (Appendix B). After lunch the group viewed the video on conferencing techniques. It covered the preconference, lesson observation for the purpose o f collection o f objective data, and the post conference sharing o f the data in a nonjudgmental way and analyzing the lesson taught. Included in the conferencing techniques were the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 55 strategies o f asking questions about the lesson during a planning conference, how to probe for more information, and how to ask clarifying questions. The teachers worked in groups to write sample questions to ask during a conference. For the preconference, they wrote questions about the purpose o f the lesson, expected student behavior, teaching strategies to be used, the lesson sequence, assessment o f the lesson, anticipated concerns, and the identification o f the data to be collected by the observer. The post conference questions addressed feelings about the lesson, student behavior that supported the feelings, recall o f the teacher’s actions, a comparison o f expected student and teacher behavior, analyzed why the students achieved or did not achieve, reflected on how it might be done differently next time, and finally how did the coaching process work for the teacher (Appendix C). The teachers practiced the new techniques by playing the roles o f master teacher and student teacher discussing an upcoming lesson. The questions they wrote were published on bright purple paper for the group to try with their student teachers. The group concluded with the assignment to read the articles on cognitive coaching and filled out the reflective evaluation o f the session (Appendix D). The second session on Tuesday, September 14, ju st three days later, was held in the evening from 5:45 - 8:45. Meat and cheese deli trays, fruit, cookies, and drinks were provided. The evening began with a general sharing o f their experiences about trying the new coaching strategies o f conferencing and questioning. They did share about some trustbuilding experiences, but had not had enough time to try out the conferencing and questioning strategies. The strategies were reviewed. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 56 The kindergarten teacher led the group in a review and revision o f the “Nuts and Bolts Checklist” for master teachers-things they should cover with their student teachers. The evening ended with a reflective evaluation o f the session. The third evening, September 21, one week later, again began with food and sharing o f experiences in trying out the new techniques o f trustbuilding and conferencing and questioning. A third grade teacher, a Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Provider provided a presentation on the California Standards for the Teaching Profession (CSTP). Surprisingly, not one teacher was familiar with the CSTP prior to this presentation. She had them do a carousel walk around the room, where they listed artifacts that would exemplify each o f the standards on the six chart papers. The standards are the common language describing best teaching practices. They address every area o f teaching— planning, assessment, environment, engaging every student in learning, curriculum knowledge, and professional growth. The ideas o f the teachers were typed up and distributed back to the group for reference. The Nuts and Bolts Checklist for M aster Teachers was revisited for the last time. There was wide disparity among the teachers about what each felt was important to be on the list It was also felt that needs for kindergarten were different than eighth grade. The list was all inclusive o f everyone’s ideas, from handling lice problems to discipline. The evening concluded with encouragement to try the cognitive coaching strategies o f trustbuilding and conferencing/questioning with their student teachers during the next month. The CSTP were the common language for discussion with Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 57 the student teacher. And lastly, they filled out the reflective evaluation on the evening. There were five weeks between the third and fourth sessions o f training so the teachers could try out the strategies with their student teachers. During October the teachers were sent an e-mail or letter reminding them about trying the strategies and to RSVP for the dinner on the last session. The final session was held in the President’s Dining Room, an elegantly appointed room. The menu was in French, the tables decorated with candles. In attendance at the final meeting were the Dean o f Education, Associate Dean o f Education, the former Dean o f Education who was the guest speaker, and the college president The evening began with a review o f the strategies o f trustbuiding and conferencing/questioning. The teachers were given 18” petals o f a flower upon which were written the elements o f trustbuilding. As each teacher placed the petal on the flower, she described its meaning. The conferencing graphic was a circular wheel. As each teacher placed the spokes o f the wheel on the wall, she explained its meaning. This was followed by sharing o f their experiences o f the last five weeks. Several shared their impressions o f the difference it had made. Following dinner, the group was welcomed and addressed by the Dean o f Education, the Associate Dean o f Education, the college president, and the guest speaker, a former Dean o f Education. At the end o f the last meeting, the participants were presented with a Simpson College lapel pin and a certificate o f “Master Teacher Coach”. They concluded with filling out a 20-minute survey which was designed by the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 58 administrator and m yself to address their responses to the cognitive coaching training and master teacher experience. The Data Master T rarher Data At the end o f each o f the cognitive coaching training sessions, master teachers filled out a reflection on the training. It asked the participants to respond to prompts o f “For me, today was about..., I was reminded o f..., Some next steps I could take..., and, I would like to learn more about..” The reflections were evaluated for their feelings about the training (Kirkpatrick’s Level One), the knowledge they gained (Kirkpatrick’s Level Two), and changes in behaviors (Kirkpatrick’s Level Three) (1998). Data from the student teachers revealed the extent Level Four was met. Master teachers completed an end o f the nine weeks self-report post-survey. They described their use o f cognitive coaching questioning techniques in addition to rating their satisfaction in mentoring a student teacher. In addition to on-going conversations with their student teachers, master teachers wrote weekly evaluations o f their student teachers’ progress toward the California Standards for the Teaching Profession. These weekly evaluations were evaluated for the master teachers’ level o f awareness o f the CSTP. After the last week o f student teaching the master teachers were interviewed to discuss their experiences in mentoring their student teachers. The six master teachers were audio-taped in interviews where they discussed their experiences of mentoring a student teacher for nine weeks. Their comments were analyzed for evidence o f use o f cognitive coaching techniques o f open-ended questioning, paraphrasing, clarifying and probing, and use o f the California Standards for the Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 59 Teaching Profession. Their comments were also evaluated for Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels o f Program Evaluation. Student Teacher Data The student teachers kept a daily reflection journal, wrote two reflective essays, completed a survey, and participated in an interview. The student teachers were unaware o f their master teachers’ training unless they happened to be told by their master teacher. Student teaching essays and journals were collected from the student teachers at the end o f the first nine weeks. As part o f their student teaching requirements, all student teachers kept a daily reflective journal analyzing their teaching and experiences for the day. These journals were collected from the six student teachers whose master teachers participated in the training. They were evaluated for evidence o f reflection. At the end o f the nine weeks o f student teaching they wrote two essays reflecting on how they had grown in the areas o f planning and classroom management. Student teachers kept a portfolio showcasing artifacts o f their experience in student teaching. They were required to have tabbed sections o f the six California Standards for the Teaching Profession. Student teachers were required to present artifacts for three sections— 1) Creating and Maintaining Effective Environments for Student Learning 2) Planning Instruction and Designing Learning Experiences for All Students and, 3) Developing as a Professional Educator. Each o f the first two sections was prefaced with a reflective essay reflecting on how they had grown in that area during the nine-week student teaching experience. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 60 Student teachers were also interviewed and given a post-survey following the completion o f their 18 weeks o f student teaching. They rated and described their student teaching experience, and evaluated their level o f reflection on their teaching. Through the surveys, demographic information was gathered from all student and master teachers. It was evaluated for years o f experience, years in California schools, educational background, and number o f prior experiences with student teachers. Teachers who were previously trained cognitive coaches from the Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Program were eliminated. None o f the six master teachers were found to be cognitive coaches prior to the training. This researcher was an observer/participant in that I facilitated the design o f the training course and co-presented it. The cognitive coaching training for master teachers o f Simpson College was developed in response to a need expressed by the Advisory Committee to the Teacher Credentialing Program and the education faculty. The training was conducted during the first nine weeks o f student teaching for fall 1999. Data were collected between September 11,1999 and March 2,2000. Chapter Four discusses the results of the training as revealed by the data. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 61 CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS Summary o f the Study This case study analyzed the effects o f a cognitive coaching training for master teachers on their student teachers’ ability to reflect on their teaching. A training or intervention was conducted with six master teachers and data were gathered from the master teachers and their assigned student teachers. Data gathered from the master teachers were reflective evaluations o f the training, a post survey, master teachers’ weekly evaluations o f their student teachers, and an interview. The data collected from the student teachers were their daily journals from student teaching, a post survey, two reflective essays on how they had grown during student teaching in the areas o f classroom management and planning, and an interview which asked them to describe their student teaching experience and conferencing experience for planning and teaching, and compare their experience during the first nine weeks o f student teaching and their second nine weeks o f student teaching. Only the master teachers from their first nine weeks had the training. Data were triangulated for comparison o f evidence presented. The data on the surveys were compared to similar prompts during the interviews, and compared to the information given by the student teachers on their master teachers, and the master teachers on their student teachers. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 62 Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels o f Evaluation (1998) were used as a framework to evaluate the impact o f the program. The next section examines the multiple measures o f data aligned with Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels o f Evaluation. Master Teacher Data The Training Reflective Evaluation (Appendix D). Each of the four training sessions was concluded with a written reflective evaluation. It was designed to determine the teachers understanding o f what the session was about, connect their understandings to personal feelings, cause a decision on their part to choose what to implement from the training, and to cause them to reflect on what they learned and wanted to know more about The prompts for the evaluation were “For me, today was about... I was reminded o f... Some next steps I could take...and, I would like to learn more about”. The responses to each prompt show they did understand the purpose for each o f the sessions, they did connect personally to the new information, they did choose elements to implement and they showed their understanding o f the information by indicating what they wanted to leant more about. Honest opinions were preserved by the anonymity o f the reflective evaluations. Kirkpatrick’s Level One Reaction considerations were given to the creature comforts o f the training. There were coffee and drinks, continental breakfast or meat trays, and desserts. There were plenty o f breaks, opportunities to move about the room, and opportunities to talk and share. The participants expressed gratitude for the unexpected dining pleasures. One participant expressed, “Thank you for treating us like professionals”. The location on campus was convenient for parking Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 63 and restrooms were nearby. The location o f the last session was in a beautiful room, but there were complaints about the air conditioning begin too cold. These examples o f the responses were positive concerning the training: Level One: Reaction I was reminded o f... I was reminded o f my student teaching days, and how this type of pre-observation, post observation questions would have helped me to be more aware o f what I was doing and my objectives. I was reminded o f times when I wish I had used this trustbuilding both personally and professionally. I was reminded o f how overwhelmed I was with so much thrown my way the first few weeks o f student teaching. Prior evaluations when I was judged unfairly. This is so non- adversarial - great! Things my master teacher did, the good and the bad. I was reminded o f another teacher coming to my room and building trust as our literacy coordinator. I was reminded that so much of what the standards are about we already do in our classrooms. Our mission is to relay the importance o f all o f these things to our student teachers and help them to find ways to address all o f the standards. The last session: I was reminded o f... How far we've come since this class started and the special friendships that have evolved. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 64 My beginnings as a student teacher many years ago. Although it was a wonderful experience, this process develops a more supportive structure for the master and student teacher. Experiences with my master teacher and how really important they are and how long they stay with someone. My need to continuously improve! Why we teach, sharing of our experience and dedication to the profession. The responses to the Level One prompt revealed a positive feeling about the information presented. Level Two: Knowledge For me, today was about... Becoming a better master teacher. Learning about building trust and learning about phrasing questions. Building trust using questioning techniques. Building of trust and good questioning techniques that will build trust and community. I am finding that I am becoming more aware o f my role as a mentor who takes the raw materials, the good and the things that need work, and guide my student teacher toward making useful discoveries about herself. I think that if she discovers through observations and reflections her own truths about her strengths and weaknesses she will be more invested in the suggestions and strategies which we feel she should try. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 65 Improving my communication with my student teacher...w hy I do what I do. I need to be aware o f the importance of explaining the “why’s” behind the lesson or schedule. It is imperative to “over explain” sometimes, perhaps more attention needs to be directed to this. The professional teacher standards and practical strategies. The teaching standards. I wonder why it has taken so long for this information to filter to us. Thank you for presenting this to us. Teacher evaluation is so arbitrary particularly when your district doesn’t seem to have standards in place. This is a great evaluation tool (self and administrative). This class allowed me to step back and really analyze my teaching on a more conscious level. It's so easy to get into automatic pilot mode. I began to analyze process more and its relationship on student outcomes. It really helped me to help my student teacher put to conscious thought many o f the things she did on an intuitive level which in turn improved her planning and analysis o f her teaching. Nice Job! Thank you! The last session: Tonight was about: A celebration o f teachers. Recapping the course. You remember best what you hear la st Closure o f a formal training in the process o f assisting student teachers, but the process is never ending. It's also the beginning o f a new structured process to support new teachers. Celebrating success, gathering feedback and closure. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6 6 Celebrating new learning. Putting it all together...personal reflection on what it means to us and our teaching relationships. These Level Two responses indicate the teachers understood the key concepts that were presented. Level Three: Behavior Some next steps I could take... Work on the questioning strategies to help my student teacher reflect on her own successes and challenges and to help me give constructive advice and ideas in positive ways that will be readily accepted by her. More pre-observation in depth-dbcussion. Asking what one thing she wants me to observe. More in-depth questions - allow her to talk, more than me. I have been giving my student teacher a running commentary: lots o f praise but also areas o f concern. It is time for her to tell me what area she would like me to look at. I hope we can reflect more. I feel we have built a good relationship and can take these ideas and run with them. I could review the trustbuilding questions given tonight and try using them both with people I care about and those who I seldom meet with. I think these will be effective for conferences. M y next steps are to use these techniques regularly with my student teacher. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 67 Teach more specifically to the professional teacher standards lists of ideas/strategies. I am going to work on better, sensitive communication! Use cognitive coaching questions and self evaluate using teaching standards. I will continue to work on the questioning techniques - they have really helped us to clarify what we are working on. The last session: Some next steps I could take... Continue trustbuilding with my colleagues. I hope more people get involved in this class, particularly administration. It has to start somewhere, preferably at the top. Be more reflective of my process, so that I can be a better master teacher next time. Peer observation, reflect on teaching. Keep trying out new techniques. Attend future training in coaching to better learn how to communicate effectively with my student teacher colleagues. I like to think of them as a teammate/partner in the classroom. Thanks for everything! The responses showed a willingness to try the strategies o f cognitive coaching. Whether or not they followed through was ferreted out via the interviews. The Master Teacher Interview. The second source o f data was the interview o f the master teachers. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6 8 An appointment was made to interview each o f the six master teachers for about 45 minutes. Four o f the interviews were conducted individually, and one interview was a focus group o f two master teachers. All but one o f the interviews were conducted in the classroom o f the master teacher. The one remaining occurred in my office. They were audio-taped and the tapes were transcribed. All master teachers were asked similar questions, preceded with an expression o f appreciation for giving the time to assist with the study. I reviewed the cognitive coaching training, indicating I would be focusing on the questioning techniques o f conferencing and not the trustbuilding that the administrator was studying. I reviewed the cognitive coaching strategies of preconference, lesson observation, and the reflective post conference and the techniques o f open-ended questions, probing questions, clarifying questions, and paraphrasing. All interviewees were asked, “How did these techniques work for you?” The presupposition was that they had indeed tried them. They described how they used them with their student teachers. In the interview it was not determined how often the master teachers tried the questioning strategies, but all indicated they had used them several times. Some responses about their experiences with the questioning and conferencing techniques were: M: I used them, particularly after going to the class and getting the techniques on a conscious level...I was trying to get her to the point that when she was asked questions she could kind o f metacognate on an answer. She got better as she went along. I think it was part o f the process. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 69 K: I used the questions. They were good. They gave me a new tool to use with my student teacher. I saw her change because o f her thinking about the questions. She would metacognate and think things through. K: I found m yself listening more. I tend to solve problems, and so for the first time I looked at this through the student teacher's eyes. I asked questions and listened. I would ask, “How did you think the lesson went?" instead of jumping right in and evaluating it. L: At first I was coming from the top down and telling what to do because of the rush o f it, not only did I have my agenda or what I needed to get done by the end of the day. But I needed to make sure she knew, I felt there was so much I had to tell her... I had to step back and realize that she wasn't where I was and may never be where I am though, because not everyone thinks the same. So I was able to step back and give her some empowerment, so that's what the class did for me. M: The questioning techniques allowed me to give her more empowerment By asking these questions getting at the structure to work with her made me reflect on #1 where she was, and I would stop and make sure I would talk about this and ask, “W hat do you think?" and when she would say, “Help me," I would say, “See what you can do," and she would work it through. M: These questions were great I was wishing I had taken the class before I had her. I'll be ready for the next one now. I'll be better prepared to give her the good structure and support she needs. L: I think it was a lot more powerful than just pouring it in. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 70 Some o f the master teachers had had up to 14 student teachers over time. The fewest were two. It was thought that perhaps some o f them were automatically doing the techniques naturally, so the question was asked, “W ere the cognitive coaching strategies taught in class new to you, or a reminder o f what you already knew?” Two other questions were “Were nine weeks long enough to see a change in the depth o f how much the student teacher changed in her thinking?” and “Did you see a change in solving their own problems as a result o f the questions?” K: What a difference in my thinking! Oh! I listen more now. It is like night and day. MC: What I saw particularly towards the end of her solo time was that she was just so intuitive and natural, she did start thinking about “You, know, I could make that lesson a bit different or stronger”. She started coming up with that on her own. We talked quite a bit after school, a lot after school, about things to reflect on and how do you think this went, or do you think there is a way you could have handled such and such. K: It was powerful for me. I think she really had it. After she had done her solo, she said, “I know how to do this now, and if I were to do this unit again, I know how I would go further here, and extend here and go different ways.” L: I think it lets them relax more, because it doesn't feel like you are evaluating them. There is a lot different feeling when they feel you are there to help them. And once you say that really powerful thing, “ What do you want me to look at?”...Y eah, it's the questions. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 71 L: Oh, yes, my student teacher compared our experience with me to her next assignment with a master teacher who had not had the class. She said she really missed those questions and talking about them. Do you think it might work as well with another student teacher who isn’t quite so intuitive? I think it's pretty powerful actually, and I think it is beneficial to the master teacher, because o f what it causes you to do when you are thinking about the questioning techniques or how you are approaching something, it also makes you think about how you are doing things, and why you are approaching something, it also makes you think about how you are doing things, is it the most effective way to be doing it? Are there any comments or information you wish I knew about concerning this training? How you felt about it or would you recommend it to someone else? What I like about the program, is that it is beneficial for both the master teacher and the student teacher. Because in doing it you have to reflect on your own style and it causes you to look again. All master teachers expressed positive Level One Reactions, such as “I wish I had taken the class before I had her. I’ll be ready for the next one,” “It is beneficial to the master teachers”, or ‘ I t was more powerful than just pouring it in”. Level Two Learning was evident throughout their comments as they referred to their use o f the strategies such as, “I asked her more questions and listened, instead o f ju st jumping in and fixing it,” or “The questions were good. They gave me a new tool to use with my student teacher.” The Level Three Behavior was expressed by their comments o f “I used the questions”, “I asked more questions and listened more”. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 72 The master teachers described the Level Four Results o f their questioning and listening through such comments as, “I saw her change and reflect,” “I saw her change because o f thinking about the questions. She would metacognate and think them through.'’ “I gave her more empowerment,” and 'Tow ards the end o f her solo, she did start thinking aloud about how she could make that lesson different or stronger.” M aster Teacher Survey (Appendix E) The survey design was based on suggestions from Kirkpatrick’s Evaluating Training Programs (1998). The items consisted o f checking boxes, a Likert scale, short essay answer, and ranking items o f importance. The questions were posed in several forms to verify responses. The questions covered demographics, prior experience with cognitive coaching, rating o f the training, rating o f the facilities, rating o f the workshop leaders, and rating o f the schedule. Questions covered their acquisition o f new knowledge o f questioning in conferencing, trustbuilding, reflection, and use o f the new strategies. One short essay addressed suggestions for improving the training. They ranked the elements o f the training indicating which ones they used, which ones impacted their master teacher experience, which ones impacted their student teacher, and which ones they recommended for use in future trainings. On a scale o f 1 to 5 they rated their master teacher experience, the extent the training affected their master teacher experience, and how often they conferenced with their student teacher in planning. They also rated the impact o f the training on the experience o f the student teacher. A summary o f the demographics shows that the six master teachers had taught from four to twenty-five years in the California public schools. Their ages Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 73 ranged from 36 to over SI. They all had California Elementary Teaching Credentials, and one had a master’s degree in speech. All but one had had a student teacher in the past The numbers o f student teachers they had had before were two, three, six, and fourteen. None had had any special training to be a master teacher, nor training in cognitive coaching. How do you rate the subject? All responses were Excellent. How do you rate the facilities? The facilities were rated Excellent by four and Very Good by two. There were complaints o f being too cold in the final session. How do you rate the workshop leaders? All responses were Excellent. How do you rate the schedule of the workshop? Four responded Excellent, one Very Good, and one Fair. It is unknown what their concern was about the schedule. The training occurred on a Saturday, and three Tuesday evenings. Perhaps their concern pertained to the schedule o f the sequence o f activities inside each session. What would have improved the program? The praises were “Good pace and balance o f lecture and discussion, colleagues presenting, and the new ideas. Suggestions were only pertinent to the cold air conditioning on the final session. It was not possible to adjust the air. There were four questions on the Likert scale section that received the perfect score o f 1 on a scale o f I to S. They were: The instructors built trust and rapport within the group. The workshop has helped me with my reflective practices as a teacher. I would recommend this workshop. The strategies I have learned are useful beyond the coaching setting. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 74 A mean score o f 1.16 was reflected in the responses to: The material was presented in an interesting way. The workshop has helped me use trustbulding strategies. The workshop helped me with conferencing and observing skills. The workshop helped me with questioning and responding skills. A mean score o f 1.33 was reflected in the responses to: The handouts will be helpful with my coaching practice. There was good balance with presentation and group involvement. The workshop has helped me use rapport building in my relationships. The workshop has helped me reflect and modify my behaviors. The lowest mean score was l.S, although it was not low as it was split three and three between the highest possible scores o f 1: Strongly Agree and 2: Agree. I have a personal interest in this workshop. These responses show that at a Level One Reaction the teachers liked the training and they would recommend it to others. A Level Two Knowledge response is evident by the response o f being helped in their reflective practices as a teacher, and they gained knowledge in conferencing and observing skills, and questioning and responding skills. An example o f a Level Three Behavior response was ‘ T he workshop has helped me reflect and modify my behaviors.” When asked to check which parts o f the training they would recommend be included in future trainings, they indicated all components be kept but they gave low marks to role playing and the video series. They responded least favorably to the suggestion the student teachers be included in the future. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 75 They recommended keeping sessions on trustbuilding, questioning techniques, discussion o f master teacher needs, discussion about student teacher needs, development o f the Nuts and Bolts for M aster Teachers Checklist, discussion on supervision o f student teacher issues, having multiple presenters, snacks, handouts, graduate credit, and all recommended keeping the same schedule. This last recommendation was ironic in that one o f the respondents ranked the schedule as “Fair” in an earlier part o f the survey. Three out o f five respondents recommended keeping the session on California Standards for the Teaching Profession. When asked to check all the questioning and conferencing techniques they tried with their student teachers, they indicated they had all tried open-ended questions, paraphrasing, and clarifying questions. Five indicated they had given non-judgmental feedback, and four indicated they had asked probing questions for specifics. The question “W hat part o f the Cognitive Coaching for Master Teachers course do you feel had the greatest impact on your master teacher experience?” listed ten areas covered in the training. They gave the highest marks for questioning techniques for conferencing, next trustbuilding, and third, discussion about student teacher needs. Again the lowest scores were on role-playing. When asked, “What aspect o f your training in Cognitive Coaching for Master Teachers do you feel had the most effect on your student teacher?” they all marked questioning techniques the highest, followed by trustbuilding, discussion o f student teacher needs, and handouts. Lowest were role-playing and the video series. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7 6 When asked if they observed a change in the effectiveness o f their student teacher’s teaching after the use o f the cognitive coaching strategies, one person indicated G reat Change, and the others Some Change. No one marked No Change. Another version o f the previous question was ‘ W hen you tried the questioning techniques did you feel the student teacher was able to reflect and analyze the teaching more deeply than when those techniques were not used?” Three responded G reat Change, and three responded Some Change. They were asked to choose which conferencing technique caused the student teacher to reflect more deeply. Open-ended questions ranked highest, followed by clarifying, and then paraphrasing. Non-judgmental feedback got one point and probing got none. All master teachers reported conferencing daily with their student teacher about planning. When asked, “After learning about the questioning techniques for preconference and post conference, how many times did you try them out with your student teacher?” two indicated daily, and four indicated 2 - 4 tim es a week.. When the responses, which did not have to do with student teachers, were compared between the master teachers and the rest o f the teachers who took the training, the results were similar. The same items received high or low marks in both groups. They ranked the knowledge o f questioning techniques highest, trustbuilding next, and California Standards for the Teaching Profession next Least appreciated were-role playing and the quality o f the video series. From the master teacher data it was apparent at a Level One Reaction they liked the training and at Level Two Knowledge they learned about cognitive Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 77 coaching strategies and California Standards for the Teaching Profession. They self-reported they applied the knowledge about cognitive coaching in their interactions with their student teachers for a Level Three Response. The analysis o f the student teacher data triangulates the master teacher data and produces a Level Four Results evaluation. The data collected from the student teachers served to corroborate the data from the master teachers. Student Teacher Data Student Teacher Interview. All o f the interviews were done at my office except one which was a long distance conference. That student teacher had moved immediately upon finishing her first nine weeks o f student teaching to Southern California where she had gotten a job. All were individual interviews except for two who decided to go at the same time. They were recorded and the tapes transcribed. The open-ended questions asked o f all were ‘ T alk about the changes you saw in yourself during the first nine weeks o f student teaching. What do you think helped you grow during that time, and how did the first nine weeks experience compare to the second nine weeks experience? Describe how the conferencing about planning went with your master teacher.” Interview comments were favorable for all o f the six student teachers except one who did not feel he had a good experience during the first nine weeks o f student teaching. Examples o f comments were: I could [compare my two student teaching experiences] in a big way! L looked over all o f my lessons everyday, and wrote her comments. We would discuss after every lesson and she would give me feedback. She spent a lot of Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 78 time with me after school, whereas M, my second master teacher did not go over things as much. That was OK though because I had grown in my own mind. I had confidence. It was neat to have L give up control o f the class to me. I was like a blossoming flower. And then L had that class from you, so she would look at the questions, like how did you feel about the lesson, and if it didn't work she would say, “W ell, what could you have done differently**, and then I would think of something. What helped quite a bit was the consistency o f reviewing the lesson plan first, teaching it, having your Master Teacher there watching you, and then getting their feedback. With the second teacher we didn't spend a lot o f time. I just taught and thought about my lessons on my own. Reflecting daily in my journal helped me a lo t I would read them on the weekend and think about what had happened the last week and what I needed to do differently. The question card you used from the master teacher course was really helpful. They really help you think and reflect what you are going through. I saw the difference between a master teacher who had had the training and one who did not and it really boosted my confidence in teaching the lesson. I could see a difference after L started your class. It was a positive. T: Something that helped me grow was just being in the classroom everyday and talking with my master teacher after school a lot. Planning together for the next day and the next week. I grew the most in classroom management. I was helped by my journaling, and getting feedback from my supervisor. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 79 Our planning was kind o f slow at first and then she went to Simpson for a teachers' meeting [cognitive coaching training! and then after that it picked up a lot. She said, "Now I know what to look for." She would ask me to pick one thing for the week for her to observe me for. She was more focused on her observations and feedback than before. It was always positive. S: Most o f the conferencing with my master teacher was informal while we were setting up for the next day's kindergarten lessons. T: Now I am able to look for different things that I wasn't looking for before, I am automatically reflecting throughout the day of how I've done. SB: On communication. We spent a lot of time together. About three hours after school and every Saturday without fail. We ended up developing a very good friendship that made it fun and enjoyable. She shared everything with me. I had so much to choose from to teach with. She didn’t give me much feedback after the lessons, just "That was good" or “Here’s a suggestion''. And she didn't write up many critiques, it was mostly verbal. I grew the most in reaching the needs o f every child...always adjusting. And in being overprepared. D: My first experience was not good. I mean I thought it was OK because I didn't have anything to compare it to. My second experience was great. I got to just dive in and start teaching. He trusted me. W ith B Iju st watched for a long time, and then taught whatever she told me to. She didn't tell me anything positive. She would just say what I had done wrong. When we planned she planned for the both o f us, and I just taught it Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 80 N: I learned how to bring the material down to the level o f a first grader. And that when I pick up the speed it solves nine out of ten problems. I've grown the most in classroom management. My master teacher would ask me constantly questions about what I thought about certain kids, about the situation, how I thought I could fix it. She was a teacher to me too, and she would ask a question when she knew I could figure out the answer. She would write up a critique of every lesson I taught until solo time. The interview comments from the student teachers indicate that all but one master teacher used questioning and conferencing strategies with their student teachers. This corroborated that the Level Four Results did occur. Master teachers did apply what they learned in the course with their student teachers. Student Teacher Survey. (Appendix FI The survey design was based on suggestions from Kirkpatricks’ Evaluating Training Program s (1998). The items used a Likert scale and two short essay type questions. Following the interview the student teachers completed the written survey. It contained questions on demographics, rating o f their student teaching experience, rating o f their master teacher in areas o f conferencing, listening, helping grow in classroom management, planning, meeting individual needs, and giving feedback. They listed how often they conferenced with their master teacher on planning, and wrote two short answers on “What ways did your master teacher affect your ability to reflect on your teaching?” and “What do you think helped you grow the most during student teaching?” Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 81 A summary o f the demographies shows that the six student teachers were five women and one man, ages in the range o f 23 to SO . Their BA degrees were in social sciences, agriculture, sociology, and three had degrees in liberal arts. Two student teachers had prior experience as elementary school aides. All were assigned to primary grade classrooms for the first nine weeks o f student teaching. Two were in kindergarten, one in second grade, and one each in a 1/2 combination, K/l/2combination, and 2/3 combination. When asked to rank their student teaching experience, three said very positive, and two said somewhat positive. This resulted in a 1.5 Likert scale rating on a scale o f I to 5. The mean score for “How did the California Standards for the Teaching Profession impact your teaching?” was 2.0. On the rest o f the survey the scale changed to four choices— Excellent, Very Good, Fair, and Poor. When converted to a Likert scale o f 1 to 4 the remainder of the items ranked showed the master teachers were ranked all average or above in mentoring their student teachers. However, one student teacher gave the master teacher a mark or “poor” in weekly planning. These were the mean scores on a 1 to 4 Likert scale when asked, “How would you rate your master teacher in: 2.5 Conferencing with you 2.0 Listening to you 1.8 Discussing your needs as a student teacher 1.5 Help you grow in the area o f classroom management 1.6 Help you grow in the area o f daily planning 2.0 Help you grow in the area o f weekly planning Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 82 2.5 Help you grow in the area o f long range planning 2.6 Help you address the needs o f individual children 1.6 Time available to you for discussion 1.8 Giving you feedback about your teaching 2.0 Giving you nonjudgmental feedback about your teaching 2.3 Help you be able to be more reflective about your teaching 1.3 Modeling o f classroom management techniques 1.5 The master teacher’s keeping o f a detailed weekly planbook 1.8 Connecting teaching to the California Standards for the Teaching Profession 2.0 Affecting your growth in being able to reflect on your teaching The scores were all from choices Excellent, Very Good, and Fair, with one mark for Poor. The majority o f the marks fell in Very Good. Highest marks were for modeling classroom management techniques and conferencing with the student teacher. The lowest marks were for instruction in how to do long range planning. Two o f the student teachers indicated the master teachers met with them daily for planning, three said they met 2 to 4 tunes a week, and one said once a week. At least once a week, all but one o f the student teachers were taken through the process o f preconference questioning before teaching a lesson, followed by feedback and a reflective post conference. One indicated it happened less than once a week. In response to the short essay answer question o f “In what ways did your master teacher affect your ability to reflect on your teaching?” they stated... Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. S3 She was constantly assessing my performance, I was constantly assessing my performance. I was always trying to anticipate problems in my lessons and fix them before I made them. We talked daily after school. We discussed how the day went and how the students responded. I would ask questions or she would offer suggestions. We were always really organized in our weekly planning which helped me a lo t There were a couple of students who had a hard time in class and we reviewed what seemed to work or how I could change some o f my behavior management Every once in a while she would point out some teaching strategy that was not working and she would ask what I could have done differently to achieve the goal I was trying to attain with the student When I was watching the master teacher do her thing I would see some things in her methodology that I would adopt but I would also see some things that I would do differently. She was always modeling and trying to improve herself, reading books, she would learn from other teachers, and was always sharing. She helped me reflect by consistently going over my plans, watching me teach and them having a conference. She would point things out, especially on my lesson plans. She demonstrated excellent teacher skills and then guided my skills as well. I worked to model her in the classroom. If there was something I was unsure of, then it was wide open for me to go to her and talk about it. My master teacher was a great partner in my learning. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 84 In response to the short essay answer question o f “What do you think helped you grow the most during student teaching?” some o f the responses were: Constant feedback. I couldn’t get away with “wasting time” or ignoring problems I didn't want to face. I was forced to fix things* and I desired to fix things before they were problems. Being in the classroom everyday and actually working with the kids helped me so much. Actually using behavior management and running a classroom independently helped me as well. I also enjoyed the feedback from my master teacher and my supervisor. Being left alone to my own devices...being able to make my own decisions with some limited guidance from the master teacher...getting to know the personalities o f each student and feeding off that to teach to individuals and not the mass group. Kind words by the master teacher emphasizing the positive not the negative. Gradual indusion...I observed* and then took on one area at a time. Her modeling helped me grow the most. Talking together consistently, lots o f repetition. And going over my plans, and then she would see me teach and have a conference with me about it afterwards. The actual experience of teaching helped me grow the most. Working with an excellent master teacher helped a lot too. To be able to teach and then discuss it with a good teacher benefited my education the most. Modeling good teaching and then talking to the student teacher about his or her lessons and conferencing about how the lesson went were expressed as the most valuable in helping the student teachers grow in reflection. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 85 Martyr TVacher Weekly Evaluations (Appendix GV During the nine weeks o f student teaching die master teacher was expected to put in writing an evaluation concerning the progress o f the student teacher. The areas to be commented on were listed on the top o f the “Classroom Observation Guide”. They were based on the California Standards for the Teaching Profession. The master teacher could choose to comment on those or on choices o f another direction. Observations by the master teachers were o f individual lessons and also a summarization o f the week. The master teachers complete seven to 11 written evaluations during the nine weeks. At the end o f the nine weeks the master teachers did a more formal evaluation o f the students’ progress towards the CSTP. All but one o f the master teachers rated the student teachers in the 4 to 5 range, 5 being the highest. The exception rated her student teacher as needs improvement in areas o f classroom management, standards for student behavior, creating a positive classroom environment, and a climate o f fairness and respect The only area she rated him a 4 on is reflecting on teaching. This student teacher also gave low marks to the master teacher. They both scored each other low. The written evaluations on student teacher progress were examined for evidence that the master teachers recognized reflective thinking on the part o f the student teachers. Some comments that supported this were: She worked daily for continuous improvement both in her skills as a teacher and for each student. She asks excellent questions insisting the children think through the problem for himself/herself. She is very flexible. She is tuned in to both the cognitive domain o f knowledge but also the affective domain for these kindergartners. She is able to modify and go with the flow. She is reflective on her lessons, supporting her decisions but able to Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 86 consider how she might alter it next time. Throughout she has evaluated for positive moments and areas to adjust. Student Teacher Journals The student teachers kept a daily reflective journal. These were no fewer than fifty pages long for each student teacher. They reviewed the events o f the day, discussed the high and low points, and reflected on the lessons they taught that day. They stated what went well and what they could have done differently. This daily summarization gave the student teachers constant practice in reflection. Some reflective comments were... My story yesterday was a little too long for them, so now I know not to use books quite so long. It was hard to keep everyone on track in math because some o f them were having a hard time counting. Centers got started late today, so I had to change my math lesson plan to just “picture walk" through some numbers instead o f the full lesson. I wish I had made nametags for all the kids on the fiekltrip, plus one more thing, have everyone go to the bathroom before the trip! I was pleased by how they followed directions today, and I didn't hear anyone complain they didn't know what to do. Today’s math lesson went welL Actually, teaching something makes all the prep worth it. I have to remember to watch the clock and allow enough time for the students to do their assignment. I am really learning how to change the day as I go, to catch up slower students and continually challenge those who are ahead. It feels good. It is getting easier and easier every day. It's also easy to change things around if need be. Math was kind o f shaky. I should have brainstormed questions with the entire group instead of the way I did it. I will try this next time: wait until I have everyone's attention, state the directions, then have a Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 87 student restate then back to me. I had tried a writing lesson and it was a total bomb! Then I watched my master teacher do i t Now I see what I could have done; Today went smoothly. I hope tomorrow will too. Another good day under my belt! My math lesson went better than expected. I kind o f changed it at the last minute, but it went really well. I was pretty happy with today. All the lessons seemed to go pretty smoothly. I*m thinking that uneventful is good. I guess the key to teaching is to know what you want and not settle for less. Student teachers commented on every lesson they prepared and taught, how the lessons went and why they thought they went as they did. They mentioned the help o f the master teacher during planning and teaching and discussing after the lessons were over. There is evidence the student teachers reflected constantly on their teaching. They wrote a great deal about classroom management and behavior management They were so happy when they had a good day in that area. They wrote about understanding the curriculum and strategies for teaching it Student Teacher Essavs. At the end o f student teaching, the student teachers were asked to write a one to two page reflective essay on how they had grown in the areas o f planning and classroom management It was a summarization o f all they had learned in that nine weeks. They wrote o f learning the power o f positive reinforcement and “Catch them being good”, and the power o f time-out and taking away recess. Another mentioned the effect o f having a faster pace to the lesson. They didn’t have time to get into trouble. But mostly, they realized the importance o f prevention through prepared lessons. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8 8 Routines and planning got a lot o f mention in the essays. Routines were mentioned for their impact on classroom management and planning for the organization o f the day. Planning was a challenge because they had to learn the curriculum for the assigned grade level. Then inside that they had to provide for individual needs. “Flexibility” was the word that probably occurred the most in the journals. I think meeting each of the students where they are, and then bringing them to where they should be and beyond, is one o f the fundamentals of teaching. Synopsis o f the Results Seven types o f data were collected to measure the impact o f the cognitive coaching training on student teachers’ ability to reflect on their teaching. Key to this reflection was the cognitive coaching training attended by the master teachers. It was there they learned to ask questions during conference time with the student teachers about their lessons. Previously, the master teachers had been in the mode o f direct instruction whereby they modeled for the student teachers, observed them and then gave them feedback about how to do it better. With the cognitive coaching strategies they led the student teachers to reflect on their own teaching and adjust accordingly. The cognitive coaching program was evaluated using Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels o f Evaluation for Program Evaluation. The data collected on the master teachers— their reflective evaluations o f the training, their interviews, and their surveys, showed a positive response to all o f the Four Levels. The Level One Reaction response indicated they liked the training and the concepts they learned. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 89 The Level Two Learning response indicated they understood the open- ended questioning strategies to be used in conferencing with the student teachers. They also indicated they understood the California Standards for the Teaching Profession. The Level Three Behavior response indicated they were planning to apply their new knowledge with their student teachers. Level Four Results were indicated through the student teachers’ surveys, interviews, written evaluations by their master teachers, the student teachers’ reflective essays, and their daily reflective journals. They verified that, in fact, the master teachers did use the cognitive coaching strategies with them. The impact o f the intervention, though, was that student teachers did reflect on their teaching. This was strongly evident in their daily journals, reflective essays, survey, and interview. Research Questions This summary o f the data shows how the data relate to the research questions. The research questions that guided the evaluation were: 1. What is the impact o f cognitive coaching training on master teachers* skills in helping student teachers be reflective on their practice? This umbrella question interrelates all o f the other questions in this study. M aster teachers were trained in the cognitive coaching technique o f open- ended questioning for use during conferencing with their student teachers. The data collected from the master teachers— reflective evaluations o f the training, a survey, and an interview, all concur that indeed the master teachers did like the training, learned new strategies about cognitive coaching and about the California Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9 0 Standards for the Teaching Profession, and made a conscious choice to apply their new knowledge and skills. They reported there was growth in their student teachers’ skills in reflecting on their teaching. The data collected from the student teachers verified the data from the master teachers. The student teachers were aware o f the questioning strategies the master teachers used during conferencing. They also understood the California Standards for the Teaching Profession were what the master teachers were using to conference with them. The student teacher data o f daily reflective journals, reflective essays, the master teacher written evaluations, the survey, and interview all gave support to the claim that student teachers were reflecting on their teaching. 2. b there implementation o f cognitive coaching techniques o f questioning, paraphrasing, and clarifying in communications between master teachers and student teachers? There was repeated evidence that master teachers used the technique of open-ended questioning with the student teachers. There was very little in the way o f evidence that they used paraphrasing and clarifying techniques. The master teachers stated on the survey that they used all o f these techniques, but no where else did evidence emerge. 3. Do master teachers employ the cognitive coaching strategy of the planning conference, lesson observation, and reflective conference with their student teachers? This was corroborated by all o f the seven measures collected. The master teachers did purposefully and informally meet with the student teachers to conference about the student teachers’ lessons. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 91 4. Do master teachers use the California Standards for the Teaching Profession in their dialogue with student teachers? There was less direct evidence o f this. The CSTP were listed on the top o f the weekly evaluation form filled out by the master teacher on the student teacher’s progress, but they did not call these by name. However, everything discussed in the conferencing and discussed in the reflective daily journal were elements o f CSTP. Considerable emphasis was placed on the standard Creating and Maintaining an Effective Learning Environment for Students. Under this standard is classroom management and behavior. The students and master teachers spent a lot o f time discussing and writing about this topic. They also spent a large portion o f their time on planning and learning how to deliver lessons. This is the second standard, Planning Instruction and Designing Learning Experiences for All Students. Standard Six is Developing as a Professional Educator. This includes the student teachers’ reflective journal and their essays. 5. How do the student teachers whose master teachers attended the training rate their experience as a student teacher during the first nine weeks? Three o f the six student teachers chose the highest rating o f 1 and the other three chose 2 on a scale o f 1 to S. This indicates an above average positive response. 6. How do the master teachers who attended the cognitive coaching training rate their experience as a master teacher? Five o f the master teachers chose the highest rating o f 1 and one master teacher chose a 3. The master teacher who chose a 3 also scored her student teacher low in several areas, as did he o f her. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 92 There appears to be evidence that the cognitive coaching training did affect the student teachers’ ability to reflect on their teaching. The research data indicate several conclusions can be drawn. Five o f the six master teachers did try the new strategies with their student teachers, and the student teachers did reflect on their teaching practice. The final chapter discusses the implications for this data. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 93 CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION This final chapter presents a summary, conclusion, and recommendations regarding the cognitive coaching training for master teachers and its effects on student teachers’ ability to reflect. Summary Purpose o f the Study The purpose o f this study was to provide a qualitative analysis o f a cognitive coaching program for master teachers and how it affected their student teachers’ ability to reflect on their teaching. Cognitive coaching is a staff development model developed by Costa and Garmston (1994) that focuses on the internal thought processes resulting in decision making rather than the observation and analysis o f the overt teaching behaviors o f teachers. The cognitive coach employs questioning techniques to lead teachers to reflect and metacognitively analyze their own teaching performances. This model leads the teachers to reflect on their own teaching, whereby they identify areas to modify and adjust, rather than being told what to fix by the expert Research Questions The research questions that guided this evaluation were: 1. What is the impact o f cognitive coaching training on master teachers’ skills in helping student teachers be reflective on their practice? 2. Is there implementation o f the cognitive coaching techniques o f open-ended questioning, paraphrasing, and clarifying in communications between master teachers and student teachers? Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 94 3. Do master teachers employ the cognitive coaching strategy o f the planning conference, lesson observation, and reflective conference with their student teachers? 4. Do master teachers use the California Standards for the Teaching Profession in their dialogue with student teachers? 3. How do the student teachers whose master teachers attended the training rate their experience as a student teacher during the first nine weeks? 6. How do the master teachers who attended the cognitive coaching training rate their experience as a master teacher? Data Analysis The study began with a training intervention with master teachers. Data were gathered from multiple sources. Master teachers wrote reflective evaluations o f each session o f the training, completed a survey, participated in an interview, and wrote weekly evaluations o f the progress o f their student teachers. Student teachers wrote daily reflective journals, two reflective essays on how they had grown in ability to teach, completed a survey, and participated in an interview. The data were looked at through Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels o f Program Evaluation. The data was found positive for all four levels o f program evaluation. For Level One Reaction, the master teachers indicated they liked the training and the concepts presented. The student teachers indicated they liked having the master teachers use the open-ended questions with them when they conferenced with their master teachers. The Level Two Learning response was found positive in that the master teachers’ reflective evaluations showed an understanding o f the cognitive coaching Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 95 strategies o f open-ended questioning and conferencing. They also expressed an understanding o f the California Standards for the Teaching Profession on the reflective evaluations o f the training and on the survey. They referred to them in their weekly write-ups on their student teacher when evaluating their progress. Level Three Behavior showed a change had taken place in that the master teachers did implement the new learnings with their student teachers. This was self-reported, but corroborated by the student teachers in their surveys and interviews. Level Four is Results. This is the heart o f the study. Did the training with master teachers impact the student teachers’ ability to reflect on their teaching? Yes. There was ample evidence contained in the student teachers daily journals, their reflective essays, survey responses to the two short essay questions, and the interviews. The cognitive coaching techniques o f open-ended questioning during conferencing with the student teachers about their lessons caused them to reflect on their action and change or modify their teaching. Conclusion When evaluating a program which does not have a dollars and cents result, it is necessary to be “satisfied with evidence even if proof is not available” (Kirkpatrick, 1998, p. 61). That is the case with this study. It appears that the evidence supports a positive finding for the effectiveness o f this cognitive coaching training. Five o f the six master teachers did try the new strategies with their student teachers and the student teachers did reflect on their teaching practice. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 96 Discussion I did not expect the intense positive reaction to the training. There were several unquantifiable factors influencing the training, any o f which could have affected the results. I believed in the research that indicated a coaching model produced more change in teachers’ actions than a supervisory model. I believed this model would be beneficial for student teachers if their master teachers could mediate their thinking about teaching. I didn’t know if any master teachers would choose to attend the training, accept the new information, or try it out with their student teachers. The positive elements that may have influenced the outcome were the popularity o f the co-presenter— the administrator who was also using this training for her dissertation on trustbuilding. One teacher was overheard on the first session, “I don’t even know what this is all about, but if [she] is here, I want to be here”. The co-presenter and I used Kirkpatrick’s (1998) suggestions for Level One Reaction in that we considered the sequence o f the sessions, the need for the information by the master teachers, their interest in the topic being similar to Peer Assisted Review, the plentiful food, pace and breaks, a $50 stipend for becoming a master teacher after taking the training, no homework, variety o f activities, voluntary participation, an option o f a graduate unit o f credit for only $45, a final elegant dinner attended by the college president, and most importantly, the powerful concepts o f Costa and Garmston’s cognitive coaching. Although the timeline was short in which to learn the new cognitive coaching strategies and practice them, the time seemed to work favorably. The Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 97 master teachers were in the midst o f working with their student teachers and it was natural to try out the strategies. Returning to the sessions and being asked about their experiences encouraged them to try them so they could report to the group. Another favorable time factor was that the student teachers followed their first nine weeks o f student teaching with their second nine weeks. They had an immediate opportunity to experience the difference between a master teacher who had the training and one who had n o t They reported a noticeable loss o f conferencing and listening on the part o f the second master teacher. I was not prepared for the intense reaction to my question during the master teacher interviews, “Was there a difference in how you conferenced with your student teacher?” “Oh, yes! Like night and day. I’ve changed my whole thinking about how to mentor a student teacher. I listen more, and ask questions to help guide her thinking.” This is exactly what was hoped for. The questions that remain are “Are the master teachers practicing their questioning strategies with future student teachers?” and “Do the student teachers continue to reflect, now that they have left the mentorship o f the master teacher”. Recommendation This study shows that there is benefit to master teachers and student teachers through the application o f the cognitive coaching techniques. It is recommended that the program continue. As a footnote to this study, the college did continue to offer the training every semester for master teachers based on the positive preliminary data from the first training. Twenty-five more teachers were trained in the following semester. Data continues to be collected from the trainings. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 96 This study has added to the body o f knowledge concerning the effectiveness o f cognitive coaching and the mentoring o f student teachers. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 99 REFERENCES Acheson, K. & Gall, M. (1987). Techniques in the clinical supervision o f teachers. New York: Longman, Inc. Borich, G. (1996). E ffective teaching methods. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Brandt, R. (1996). Coaching and collegiality. Educational Leadership, 53(6), 3. Brooks, G. (1999). Unpublished paper, October 27,1999. Brooks and Brooks (1993). The case fo r constructivist classroom s. Alexandria, VA: Association o f Supervision and Curriculum Development Caine, R. & Caine, G. (1997). Education on the edge o f possibility. Alexandria, VA: Association o f Supervision and Curriculum Development p. 221,224-5. C alifornia standards fo r the teaching profession (1997). California Commission on Teacher Credentialing and California Department o f Education. Sacramento, CA. Checkley, K., Kelly, L. (1999). Toward better teacher education: A conversation with Asa Hilliard. Educational Leadership, 56(8), 58-62. Costa, A. & Garmston, R. (1985). Supervision for intelligent teaching. Another set o f eyes video series handbook. Alexandria, VA: Association o f Supervision and Curriculum Development. Costa, A. & Garmston, R. (1994). C ognitive coaching. Norwood, MA.: Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc. Danielson, C. (1996). Enhancing professional practice. Alexandria, VA: Association o f Supervision and Curriculum Development Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). The quiet revolution: Rethinking teacher development Educational Leadership, 53(6),4-10. Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 100 Delgado, M. (1999). Lifesaving 101: How a veteran teacher can help a beginner. Educational Leadership,56(8), 27-29. Foley, S.D. (1994). The clinical supervision model: Supervision in historic perspective. A nother set o f eyes video series handbook. Alexandria, VA: Association o f Supervision and Curriculum Development Garmston, R. (1994). Coaching teacher cognition. Another set o f eyes video series handbook. Alexandria, VA: Association o f Supervision and Curriculum Development Garmston, R., Linder, C., & Whitaker, J. (1993). Reflections on cognitive coaching. Educational Leadership, 51(2)57-61. Gottesman, B. Jennings, J. (1994). P eer coaching fo r educators. Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishing Company, Inc. Green. J. & Smyser, S. (1996). The teacher portfolio. Lancaster, PA: Technomic Publishing Company, Inc. Hanson, M. (1996). Educational adm inistration and organizational behavior. Needham, MA: A llyn& Bacon. Henderson, J. (1996). Reflective teaching. Columbus, OH: Prentice-Hall Inc. Joyce, B. & Weil, W. (1996). M odels o f teaching. (5th ed). Needham, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Kellough, R. (1999). Surviving your fir s t yea r o f teaching. Upper Saddle River, NY: Merrill, Prentice-Hall, Inc. Kirkpatrick, D. (1998). Evaluating training program s. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc Luca, C. (1999). Developing competent practitioners. Educational Leadership,56(8) 45-48. Lyons, N. (1999). How portfolios can shape emerging practice. Educational Leadership, 56(8) 63-66. Lytle, S., & Cochran-Smith, M. (1990). Learning from teacher research: A working typology. Teachers College Record, 92(1), 83-103. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 101 McAllister, E. & Neubert, G. (1998). New teachers helping new teachers: Preservice peer coaching. Bloomington, IN: EDENFO Press. Odden, A. (1995). Educational leadership fo r am erica’ s schools. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc. Olebe, M., Jackson, A., & Danielson, C. (1999). Investing in beginning teachers: The California model. Educational Leadership,56(8) 41-44. Pajak, E. (2000). Approaches to clinical supervision. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers, Inc. Patterson, L, & Shannon, P. (1993). Teachers are researchers: Reflection and action. Newark, DE: International Reading Association, (pp. 7-11). Patton, M.. (1990). Q ualitative evaluation am i research methods. Newbury Park: Sage Publications. Rowley, J. (1999). The good mentor. Educational Leadership, 56(8) 20-22. Richardson, V. (1994). C onstructivist teacher education: Buiding a world o f new understandings. Falmer Press. Schlosser, J. (1998). The im pact o f cognitive coaching on the thinking processes o f elem entary school teachers. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Brigham Young University. Scherer, M (1999). Perspectives: Knowing how and knowing why. Educational Leadership,56(8) 7. Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books. Sergiovanni, T. (1985). Landscapes, mindscapes, and reflective practice in supervision. Another set o f eyes video series handbook. Alexandria, VA: Association o f Supervision and Curriculum Development Showers, B. & Joyce, B. (1996). The evolution o f peer coaching. Educational Leadership,53(6), 12 - 16. Smith, M. (1997). Self-reflection as a means o f increasing teacher efficacy through cognitive coaching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, California State University, Fullerton. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 102 Smylie, M. (1993). Redesigning teachers’ work. Review o f Research in Education. 20. Sparks, D. & Hirsh, S. (1997). A new vision fo r stetffdevelopm ent. Alexandria, VA: Association o f Supervision and Curriculum Development p3-5, 60-61. Tell, C. (1999). Renewing the profession o f teaching: A conversation with John Goodlad. Educational Leadership, 56(8) 1-19. Thorndike, E. & Barnhart, C., (1967). Comprehensive dictionary, California State Series, Sacramento: California Department o f Education. Ushijima, T. (1996). F ive states o f m ind scale fo r cognitive coaching. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University o f Southern California. Wasley, P. (1999). Teaching worth celebrating. Educational Leadership, 56(8)8-13. Wiggins, G., and McTighe, J. (1998). Understanding by design. Alexandria, VA: Association o f Supervision and Curriculum Development W oolfolk,A., (1998) Educational psychology. Needham Heights. MA: Allyn and Bacon. Zeichner, K & Liston, D. (1996). R eflective teaching. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Zimmerman, D. (1985). Supervision for intelligent teaching. A nother set o f eyes video series handbook. Alexandria, VA: Association o f Supervision and Curriculum Development. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 103 APPENDICES Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 104 APPENDIX A . Agenda for Training Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 105 Simpson College Cognitive Coaching For Master Teachers Boom 32 F all 1999 SESSION ONE September 11,1999 & 00-& 30 C oaU aeatal B reakfast G et A cqu ain ted -G lee Brooks O verview o f th e 8 e n r in a r-d ee Brooks 8:90-10:45 T rustb uilding-P atricia Dougherty Video: ‘Another S et of Epee” B reak - Order lunch framApplebee’ s Tkustbufldiag Activities: TB I M i S 10:45- 12:00 N ate and B olts o f M entoring a S tu d en t T eacher - w ith Moira Casey W hat are student teachers' needs? W hat are m aster teacher^ needs? How does mentoring a student teacher differ from peer assisted evaluation? 1 2 0 0 -1 2 :3 0 L oach d elivered from A pplebee’ s 1 2 £ 9 -2 :9 0 Q w H o n tn g S k ills <er C o n fa w a d m - fflec Brooks Video: ‘Another S et of Eyes” Articles 8 & 5 W hat are the questioning skills? Compare to Bloom’ s Levels o f Questioning Questioning Activities: Q 1,2,3,4 ,5,6 2:90-9:00 R eflect - For me, today w as about.... I w as reminded of— Some next step s fir i U n til w e m eet a g a in -. Try out the new strategies < r f trustbuilding and questioning Begin a lis t of item s student teachers need to know and m aster teachers need to teach them Optional: Reflect in a journal about your new experiences and what yon are learning in th is course. Ycnnead n ttn n i.it in, but Glee and Patricia would enjoy reading it. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 106 Simpson College Cognitive Coaching For Master Teachers Room 42 Fall 1999 SESSION TWO September 14 5:46 - 8:45 R eview T rustboilding and Q u estion in g Sk tlle Share exp erien ces froas M onday an d T uesday Snacks provided C alifornia Standards fo r th e T earh in g P rof ession - with Kathleen H ugw uon N u ts aad B o te o f M eatorinff a S tu d en t T eacher - with Moira C— ey Share lis t of ideas/begin creation o f cheek-cff lists lor m aster teachers R eflect For me, today was ab ou t-. I w as reminded af„.. Some next steps for me— U n til w e m eet again— Stretch by trying more trosthniM ing and questioning strategies Centinne lis t of itama student teachers and ma star teachers should know Optional: Reflect in a journal about your new experiences and what yon are learning in th is coarse. Yaa needn’ t tarn it in, bat G lee and Patricia would enjoy reading it. 5:45-4(45 Break 7:00-&00 & 6 0 -*3 0 &M-8E4S Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 107 Simpson College Cognitive Coaching Far U u tsr Teachers Room 42 F ell 1999 SESSION THREE September 21 5:45 - 8:45 5:45-6:45 R eview T rustbuilding and Q uestioning SkiDs Share exp erien ces Break Sn ack s pro vided 7H M -M 0 C alifornia Standards for th e T each in g P rofession - with Kathleen Haagenaon What are some artifacts far each standard? 7:30-8:30 N a ts and B olts o f M entoring a Stu dent T eacher - w ith Moira Casey Share lis t of ideas/ begin creation o f check-off lists far m aster teachers 8:30 - 8:45 R eflect For me, today w as about... I w as reminded of— Some next steps for me_ U n til w e m eet a g a in .. Stretch by trying more trustbuilding and questioning strategies Continue list o f item s student teachers and master teachers should know Optional: Reflect in a journal about your new experiences and what you are learning in th is course. You needn’ t turn it in, but d e e and Patricia woold enjoy reading it. SESSION FOUR O ctober 26 5:30-8:30 P resid en t’ s D inin g Room in D in in g H all 5:30-6:30 D inner - B eef Burgundy T ips 6:30-7:30 F in a lise M entoring H andbook o f C heck-off lis t s 7:30 - 8:30 C om plete su rvey on jo o r ex p erien ces w ith th is sem inar O ptional: Turn in reflections to G lee and P a tricia Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 106 APPENDIX B. N ats and Bolts C hecklist for M aster Teachers Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. c r a o s A n u ts and b o lts check o ff lis t fo r m aster teach ers! a Grade Level Standards a Assessm ents •form al a •inform al/anecdotal a fin n in g and Record Keeping □ Emergency Procedures •fir e driB •earthquake drill •fails evacuation • intruder an campus □ D uties •bus •ex tra curricular □ C afeteria Procedures a Referral Procedures •ed u cational a U O e o f O ffice Machbiet TEKson/AccuCkit Die cu tter •book binduig machine • s chool policy regordmg «ie» o f machines □ School Behavior Code □ Classroom Behavior Management System □ Field Tr|p Procedures □ School Lice Policy □ F irst Aid Procedures □ School Procedure on Releasing Students to Non custodial Parents /O ther Adults a S S T and IBP Procedures □ Board M eeting Protocol □ PTA/PTO/Booster dub □ Fund Raising Committees □ r QV C R r COVvTCrOICCSf I^ V OV vB Logs o f Confidentia lity □ N O O f N U U V I I flU H U U T P □■Resources •tnilhhipment supplies •com ity o ffic e services •local comm u nity resources Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 110 APPENDIX C. O pen-ended Q uestions Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Media tional Questions Preobservation Conference - Postnbservatkm Conference PRE-obiervathmal Conference C Fl a n ) 1. Goals; What is the purposeof this lesson? 2. Student behaviors desired: What do you expect to see the studen ts doing, or what iIndent b d uw ioa w ill show yoaB u y understand? 3. Strategies: What teaching stw tsgi m w ill you nse far the I u m b ? 4. Sequence: How w ill yon siructuie the lesson? 3. Assessing: How wiH you know if the students understand? 6. Concerns. P o yon have any concerns about this lemon or the students? What is your Plan B? 7. Role of the Observer What would you lik e me to look for and how would you Hke me to do that? POST ohaervilionsl Conference (reflect and analyze) 1. Feelings about the lesson: How do you le d about today's lesson? 2. Student behaviors: What are you recalling in the lesson that makes you think that? 3. Teacher behavior What is it that you did to cause the lesson to go as it did? 4. Compare student behavior How did the students do compare to what you wanted? 5. Compare teacher behavior How do you feel the lesson w ent com pared to what you had planned? D id you uoe a Plan B? 6. Achievement of the purposes: As you reflect on the lemon, what were to u t examples o f students' understanding? 7. Analyze student behaviors: Why do yon dunk the students (demonstrated) got it? Paatobservathm (apply) Synthesise new learnings 8. Alternative teaching strategies: A s you reflect on this lesson, how would you do it differently? 9. Evaluate the process: A s you reflect on our coaching today, w hat did this process do for you? Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 112 APPENDIX D . R eflective Evaluation o f Training Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 113 Reflection on Today For m e today w as about— I w as rem inded o f... Som e next step s I could take... I w ould lik e to learn more about... Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. APPENDIX E. Survey o f M aster Teachers Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 115 Survey o f Cognitive Coaching for Master Teachers and Veteran Teachers February29.2000 ‘ Ttaailaida fia Iln T i n liin g flrnfminn w ir fr tr lr ffnlfi fur M a in Trartim fr V i t a u Teachen. Thank You for participating in this study. Your help makes our project possible . On the following pages, you w ill find a w ide variety o f questions regarding your feelings and beliefs about Cognitive Coaching, Bapport Building, and Trust Building. A bo included are som e questions about your school setting and students in order to better understand the context of your teaching situation. All o f your responses are completely confidential and for research purposes only. We greatly appreciate your commitment to participation in this program. PartO ae Demographics 1. What is your age. (a id e one) 21 to 25 25 to 30 31 to 35 36 to 40 41 to 50 51+ 2. Gender (code one) Male Female 3. Please list all credentiab and authorizations you currently h o k L - 4. What is your educational background. B .A . or B .S ./M ajor______________________________________ _ M .A. or M .S ./ M ajor___________________________________ 5. Years U M A iw g experience in die California public school system ._____ 6l I am teaching in the (circle one) primary or upper grades this year- 7. Years at present school:___________ 8. 1 currently have a student teacher during the first nine weeks o f Fall 1999. Y es N o Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 116 Page2of9 9. I w ill be having a student teacher Second nine weeks In a future quarter 10. Have you had a student teacher BEFORE this semester? Yes N o 11. How many student teachers?______ 12. How many student teachers from Simpson College?______ 13. Have you participated in a workshop in Cognitive Coaching Before? Yes N o 14. Are you trained as a BTSA support provider? Yes N o 15. Other than BTSA training, have you participated in training to be a master teacher BE FO RE tins workshop? Yes N o 16. If you participated in training to be a master teacher, did it include Cognitive Coaching? Yes N o 17. Have you participated in a workshop on being a reflective teacher? Yes N o Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 117 Page 3 o f 9 Part Two: P n g n a E n h u liM L How do you rate this subject (interest S c benefit e c t) E xcellent Very good Fair Poor 2. How do you rate the fadfities.(Oomfoct con vc n ita oe ^e L ) E xcellent Very Good Fair P oor 3. How do you rate die wottahop leatertQ a w whiip otidbitdar tic a l l y f c > Excellent Very Good F a ir Poor 4 How do you rate die schedule of this workshop. E xcellent Very Good F a ir P oor 5. What w ould have improved die program? Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. S t r a a g t y A g r e e 6. The material covered was 1 relevant to my job. 7. The material was presented 1 in an interesting way. 8. The instructors built trust and 1 rapport within the group. 9. The instructors were well 1 prepared. 10. The handouts w ill be helpful 1 with my coaching practice. 11.1 w ill be able to apply much of 1 this knowledge to my job. 12. There was a good balance with I presentation fc group involvem ent 13. The workshop has helped me 1 build better peer relationships. 14. This workshop has helped me use 1 trust building strategies. 15. The workshop has helped me use 1 rapport building in my relationships. 16. The workshop has helped me with 1 my reflective practices as a teacher. 17. The workshop has helped m e I coach my colleagues. 18. The workshop has helped me with 1 conferencing and observing skills. 19. The workshop has helped me with 1 questioning and responding skills. 118 Rage 4 of 9 A g r e e S V w w g l y D i s a g r e e O a T t K M W 2 3 4 5 0 2 3 4 5 0 2 3 4 5 0 2 3 4 5 0 2 3 4 5 0 2 3 4 5 0 2 3 4 5 0 2 3 4 5 0 2 3 4 5 0 2 3 4 5 0 2 3 4 5 0 2 3 4 5 0 2 3 4 5 0 2 3 4 5 0 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 119 Page 5 of 9 2 a S i r a a s l j r A f r a B My administration was supportive 1 o f tins workshop. Afm 2 3 4 S V n a t f y Phiffn 5 D a a f t K M w 0 21. My administration is willing to give m e tim e to observe my colleagues. 1 2 3 4 5 0 22. My administration is supportive of coaching as a peer assistance tool. 1 2 3 4 5 0 23. I have a personal interest in this workshop. 1 2 3 4 5 0 24. This workshop has helped me reflect and modify my behaviors. 1 2 3 4 5 0 25. 1 w ould recommend this workshop. 1 2 3 4 5 0 26. The strategies 1 have learned are useful beyond the coaching setting. 1 2 3 4 5 0 27. This workshop has helped reduce isolation among my peers. I 2 3 4 5 0 28. This workshop has created more sharing among my colleagues. 1 2 3 4 5 0 29. What part of the Cognitive Coaching for Master Teachers course would you recommend be inducted in future master teacher trainings? (Check all that apply.) Trust building ^^Q uestioning techniques for conferencing Discussions about master teacher needs Djacusnons about student teacher needs Development o f the “ Nuts 4c Bolts for Master Teachers* list Learning about the California Standards for the Teaching Profession Tim e for discussion on supervision of student teacher issues Multiple presenters Snacks Another Set O f Eyes Video Series R ole Playing Inclusion o f student teachers Handouts Continue to offer for graduate, credit (15 hours-: one unit) _ K e e p die same schedule (6hxs. on a Saturday, 4 c 3 evenings of 3 hrs. each) Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 120 Page6of9 30. W hatpartof the Cognitive Coaching for Master Teachers coarse would you La A A ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ A A A a ^ a^ ^ A A a ) fj^ ^ ^ A A la A ll A L a A aaaLb 1 I CQ Onf l M M KMBOCQOlIUnR peer C O K n O l f lIH U np/ (U R » 1 1 1 w i »ppty-J Trust baHding .Q u e stio n in g techniques for conferencing Learning about die California Standards for die Teaching Profession Multiple Presenters gnacfce . . ^ s i f e r Set Q f % s Flaying Handouts _jContiiM ie to olfer graduate credit (15 hra^one unit) Keep fee same schedule (6brs. on a Saturday It 3 evenings o f 3hrs. each) 3L W h d ln atW M h g tsdadqun did you try? (Check afl that appty.) ___postun matching ^ — a a A L a A I a ^ ^ jw ip jin fiic a m n i paraphrasing bade what you heard eye contact .a w a r e n e ss in j u r a g p a iM a s in qpaslionn refinemant in your ability to u V evah n te your skills _ _ reflection, anatysw^ sad application 32. Which questioning tedaiiques for confeieiidng cBd you try7(check all diat m b - ) open ended questions _ _ p a raphrasing clarifying questians pronuig quesuons icr ipmnrB non judgmental feedback I tried all the questions on the punde card for pceconferencc I tried ail the questions on die purple card f a fpostum ference I haven't tried any yet Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 121 Page7of9 Part Three: Questions for M atter Teachers Who Supervised a Student Teacher in the Firs* Nine W eeks. 1. What part of the Cognitive Coaching for Master Teachers course do you fed had the greatest import on your master teacher experience? (Rank them #1 being the highest) Trust building Questioning techniques for conferencing Discussions about master teacher needs Discussions about student teacher needs Development o f the "Nuts and Bolts for Master Teachers* list Learning about the California Standards for the Teaching Profession Time for discussion on supervision o f student teacher issues Another Set O f Eyes Video Series ___flole Playing Handouts N o Impact 2. How did the California Standards for the Teaching Profession workshop impact your dialogue with your student teacher? (cxrde) Used in discussions Used somewhat N ot used 1 2 3 4 5 3. How did the *Nuts and Bolts List* impact your dialogue with your student teacher? Used in discussions Used somewhat N ot used 1 2 3 4 5 4. How would you rate your master teacher experience? Very positive Somewhat positive N egative 1 2 3 4 5 5. To what extent do you fed your training in Cognitive Coaching for Master Teachers affected your experience? (drde) Greatly affected Somewhat affected N o Effect 1 2 3 4 5 6. To what extent do you fed your training in Cognitive Coadung for Master Teachers affected your student teacher's experience? (chde) Greatly affected Somewhat affected No Effect 1 2 3 4 5 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 122 Page 8 of 9 7. What aspect of your training in Cognitive Coaching for Master Teachers do you fed had die m ost effect on your student teacher? (check ail that apply) Trust building Questioning techniques for conferencing Discussions about master teacher needs Discussions about student teacher needs Development of foe "Nuts and Bolts for Master Teachers* list Learning about the California Standards for the Teaching Profession Time for discussion on supervision o f student teacher issues Another Set O f Eyes Video Series ___Jtole Playing H andouts No effect 8. Did you observe a change in the effectiveness of your student teacher's teaching after you used cognitive coaching strategies of questioning, compared to when the student teacher sim ply planned and taught? (Circle) Great change Some Change No Change N ot Used 1 2 3 4 5 0 9. When you tried foe questioning techniques did you fed foe student teacher was able to reflect and analyze the teaching more deeply than when those techniques were not used? Great change Some Change No Change N ot Used 1 2 3 4 5 0 10. What part of foe cognitive coaching do you fed helped foe student teacher reflect foe mod? Purple question card for conferencing Trust building Both are equal None o f the above 11. Specifically, which conferencing technique caused the student teacher to reflect mare deeply? open ended questions paraphrasing clarifying probing non judgmental feedback none o f foe above not used Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 123 Page9of9 12. During the nine w e d s of having a student teacher, how often did you conference about lesson planning? daily ___ 2-4 tim es a week once a week less than once a week 13. After learning about the questioning techniques for pccconference and post conference; how many tim es did you try them out with your student teacher? daily _ 2 -4 tim es a week once a w eek less then once a week never Thank you for participating in this new venture for our Sm pson College Master Teachers. We w ill use your feedback to create future trainings for master teachers. During this last year, Sm pson College has m et w ith master teachers, administrators, college supervisors, and student teachers to create a stronger student teaching experience. This has resulted in an increased master teacher stipend, development of this cognitive coaching course for master teachers, a higher stipend for those master teachers who complete this training, a workshop on the California Standards for the Teaching Profesuon, and a "Nuts ic Bolts List* for master teachers. We recognize your contribution to future teachers as you share with them your expertise and heart for children. Our Last Refledaou N am e________________________ T on igh t w as a b o u t... I w as rem inded o f... - Some next step s I could take... ______________________ __ _ , , -----_________________________________ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 124 APPENDIX F . Survey o f Student Teachers Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 125 Survey o f Student T eachers Fall 1999 Thank you fix’participating in this study. Gh the following pages, yon w ill And a w ide variety o f questions regarding your feelings and belifs about your experience in student teaching. Also are included som e questions about your school setting and students in order to understand the context o f your teaching situation. All o f your responses are com pletely confidential and fix research purposes only. Combined results o f data w ill be reported In general term s. Part One: D em ographics 1. What is your age-(circle one) 21-25 26-30 31-35 36-40 41-50 51+ 2. Gender: (circle one) Male Female 3. What is your educational background? RA. or B L S . / M ajor_______________________________________ _ M.A. or M.S. / Major_________________________________________ 4. Years o f experience as: an aide a substitute as a noncredendaled teacher 5. My first student teaching assignm ent fix fall o f 1999 was in grade(s) a t ___________ School w ith _____ number o f students. 6. How would you rate your student teaching experience? V ery Positive Somewhat Positive Negative 1 2 3 4 5 7. How did the California Standards for the Teaching Profession im pact your teaching? Used in planning or discussions Used som ewhat M ot Used I 2 3 4 5 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8. How would you rate your m aster teacher In: a. Conferencing w ith you BaceUent _ V te ry G o o d tx Listening to you Bg eflen t V ery Good B air c Discussing your needs as a student teacher E x cellen t Very Good B air fta r d. Help you grow In the area o f ctassroom management Excellent V e r y flm d e. Help you grow in the area o f daily planning Euneflent V ery Good f. Help you grow in the area o f w eekly planning B flnellent V ery Good F air ft* g. Help you grow In the area o f long-range planning ■ E x reflen t V ery Good .. ftdr ft* h. Help you address needs o f individual children B opeflent V ery Good B ah- L Time available to you for discussion E x cellen t Very Good Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 127 ). Giving you feedback about yoar teaching E x cellent V ery Good k. GMng you nonjudgmental feedback about your teaching _ _E xcellen t V ery Good B air P oor L Help you be able to be more reflective about your teaching E x rellenr Very Good R air Boor m. Modeling o f classroom management techniques Excellent V ery Good - B air Boor n. The master teacher's keeping of a detailed w eekly planbook E x reDenr V ery Good P air Boor a Gonnecring teaching to th e California Standards for th e Teaching Profession Excellent Very Good R air Boor p. Affecting your growth in being able id reflect on your teaching E x cellent Very Good R air Poor 9. During the nine weeks o f student teaching, how often did you conference about lesson planning? daily 2 - 4 tim es a week once a week less than once a w eek 10. How often did you use the process before teaching a lesson o f preconference about your lesson, teacher observes and collects data for feedback, post conference on the lesson? d aily 2 - 4 tim es a week once a w eek _ less than once a w eek Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 128 9. In what ways did your master teacher affect your ability to reflect on your teaching? 10. What do you think helped you grow the m ost during student teaching? Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 129 APPENDIX G . M aster Teacher W eekly Evaluation o f Student Teachers Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 130 CLASSROOM OBSERVATION GUIDE O w bN bj m i flutf w M s q sto d M lfe iM d^pound* X — Hw dJnlopM i<M H M W ingi TtMNnadlMlmlH onM mimM mli ■ M M W n M I M V ^ M m i M > » M b in 1 o l C K 2*11 20 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Effects of the STAR testing program on teachers and the curriculum

PDF

An evaluation of probation supervision and its role in performance of students identified as living in poverty in Shasta County Court and Community Schools

PDF

A quantitative and qualitative study of computer technology and student achievement in mathematics and reading at the second- and third-grade levels: A comparison of high versus limited technolo...

PDF

Evaluation of the effects of a continuous improvement program on special education student achievement

PDF

An evaluation of the REMEDY project with an emphasis on sustainability: A Safe Schools /Healthy Students federal grant

PDF

Institutional factors affecting academic persistence of underprepared community college freshmen

PDF

Family group conference: An innovative approach to truancy in schools. A case study

PDF

Evaluation of the effects of longitudinal tracking of student achievement to assess school quality

PDF

Into, Through and Beyond: Evaluation of migrant education reading tutor program innovations

PDF

Effects of an integrated content and methods course on preservice teachers' beliefs and efficacy toward mathematics

PDF

An elementary school's perceptions of the effectiveness of teacher evaluation to enhance teacher practice

PDF

An analysis of perceptions and implementation of California's teacher evaluation process in a K--5 public school and its impact on teacher practice

PDF

A comparative study of the role of the principal in conventional public schools and in charter schools

PDF

A case study of instructional supervision, including teacher evaluation, and the impact on teacher practice

PDF

Class size reduction: A case study

PDF

Differential characteristics of beginning teachers

PDF

An evaluation of a Gallup -designed professional development mentoring program

PDF

A study of effective superintendents and how critical incidents contributed to their success

PDF

A case study of the California teacher evaluation system and its impact upon teacher practice in an alternative education high -performing urban high school

PDF

Evaluation of CLAD training in northern California

Asset Metadata

Creator Brooks, Glee Ruth (author)

Core Title Cognitive coaching training for master teachers and its effects on student teachers' ability to reflect on practice

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Education, Teacher Training,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Hocevar, Dennis (committee chair), Baker, Robert (committee member), McLaughlin, Michael (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-170854

Unique identifier UC11334982

Identifier 3054851.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-170854 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3054851.pdf

Dmrecord 170854

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Brooks, Glee Ruth

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA