Developing Effective Genre-Based Literacy Practices With English Language Learner Teachers Through Sustained Professional Development

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

Abstract

This paper presents initial data from a two-year study on the impact of the WRITE program and its use of a trainer of trainers professional development model on teacher practice and English language learner (ELL) achievement. Since 1990, the award-winning WRITE program has been implemented in over 150 districts, 500 schools, and with over 2,000 teachers. The study has two complementary components: a randomized controlled trial of the new implementation of the WRITE program and a quasi-experimental research design with schools with established WRITE programs. The study involves 85 California middle and high schools and 230 teachers.

There is on-going concern about how to effectively educate the growing ELL population to be college and career ready as intended by the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) (CCSSO, 2013; Flannery, 2009). Effective instructional practices are central to improving ELL achievement (Callahan, 2005). Research has consistently shown that teacher professional development that leads to increased and even high rates of implementation of effective, research-based literacy practices should be regular, sustained over multiple years, and involve peer-to-peer assistance and critique of actual lessons and student work (Garet et al., 2001). Studies also suggest that professional development that improves teachers’ own writing improves the effectiveness of their literacy teaching (Spandel 2005). At the same time, teacher development is uneven, as some teaching skills take more time to develop than others (Walqui & van Lier, 2010). Specific knowledge of teachers’ development in implementing the spectrum of research- and genre-based literacy practices can be useful in developing and implementing effective teacher professional development programs.

Data were collected and analyzed for three types of annual teacher practice data: writing practice surveys; (2) classroom walk-through teacher interviews; and (3) focus group interviews. Preliminary analyses show that WRITE training had its greatest impact on the overall portfolio of research-based practices implemented by the treatment teachers; however, the level of implementation of the more student-led practices was less than intended by WRITE and the research literature generally. From the teacher walk-through interviews, 89% of treatment teachers exhibited implementation across a moderate to high array of best practices, compared to 65% of control teachers. Also, both treatment and control teachers more frequently implemented the teacher-controlled activities, i.e., displaying student work and daily student writing, than more student-led activities, i.e., students writing choices and peer editing. In the focus group interviews, both treatment and control teachers stated they did not implement portfolios, peer editing, and student choice as often as they could have. In contrast, in the teacher survey, treatment teachers reported a significantly greater frequency of engaging students in peer editing (always or almost always implemented: treatment 70%; control 40% (p = .041)). In sum, teachers more quickly incorporated new classroom activities they could control than student-led/teacher-guided activities. Teachers appear to take multiple years to develop the skills necessary to consistently incorporate student-led activities. Implementing new teacher-controlled activities may be a key first step toward implementing student-led activities in a professional development program that promotes both.

Author

• Eric Haas, WestEd