Who Has Time? Challenges to Implementing a Multicomponent Instructional Model for English Language Learners

• In Event: Helping Teachers to Help English Learners: Initial Findings From Three Studies of Sustained Professional Development for Teachers

Abstract

With the increased population of English learners, educators need programs that help students access academic content while learning to understand, speak, read, and write English (Tharp, Estrada, Dalteen, & Yamaguchi 2000; Echevarria, Short & Powers, 2006). Since the early 1990s, Project GLAD (Guided Language Acquisition Design) has made claim to be such a program. Project GLAD is a mutliK-12 instructional model designed to build academic English and grade-level content knowledge for students at varying levels of English language proficiency. The model provides 35 instructional strategies that can be used with any curriculum. Although widely used on the west coast, before our study it had not undergone a rigorous evaluation. Because the professional development is expensive and time-consuming, the degree to which teachers can implement Project GLAD has practical implications for schools and districts. For our implementation study, we explored the degree to which teachers implemented Project GLAD, implementation changes from year one to year two, and teachers’ view of implementation challenges.

Our study randomly assigned 30 Idaho schools to treatment or control conditions. Fifth-grade teachers in 42 treatment classrooms received standard Project GLAD training: seven days of training and six days of in-class coaching support; 34 remained in the treatment group for two full two years. To measure teachers’ use of Project GLAD, we employed the following measures over two years: 1) 15 monthly surveys; 2) five classroom observations; 3) four interviews with each teacher.

In Year 1, we found substantial variation in how many Project GLAD strategies teachers reported using each week (average of 12.5 strategies, range of 7-22 out of 35). There was also variation in which of the 35 strategies were implemented. Observations revealed similar variation in the fidelity of implementation, with average teacher fidelity ratings ranging from 29 to 100 percent (mean of 72%).

Interviewed teachers reported that they implemented at a higher level in the second year. However, this conflicted with survey data which revealed a slight, non-significant decrease in the average number of strategies teachers used per week. Fidelity of implementation also did not change.

In interviews, teachers cited lack of time to prepare the materials and/or a lack of class time to deliver some strategies as the biggest challenges. Other common challenges included uneasiness with classroom management, particularly with strategies that required small group work. Fewer than half of teachers predicted they would ever use the model to its full potential.

Despite high-quality professional development and coaching over two years, implementation varied by teacher and in many cases teachers did not implement Project GLAD with high frequency or fidelity. This finding raises questions about teachers’ ability to implement complex, multi-component instructional programs. It may be that important supports for implementation were missing. Teachers overwhelmingly reported the missing component was time. However, the lack of school-wide implementation and strong principal support or limited coaching may have contributed to implementation quality. While our study cannot answer these questions, it suggests that future studies of professional development should explore these factors.

Authors

• Theresa Deussen, Education Northwest

• Kari Nelsestuen, Education Northwest

• Elizabeth Autio, Education Northwest