The El Paso MPS study of the Impact of Instructional Coaches on Middle School Teachers
and Students has produced a rich data base on the effects of "instructional coaching" and
the conditions under which it seems to produce strong effects. The major findings of
the study are as follows:
- The practices and strategies of the coaches varied
across schools and districts. Data from the logs and interviews revealed four distinct
approaches among the 24 staff developers: Analyst (n=8), Proceduralist (n=4), Mentor
(n=9), and Helper (n=3).
- Teaching practice improved in many of the
classrooms in which the coaches were working, and it improved in the areas that they were
focused on.
- Students taught by a science teacher who participated in
intensive work with a coach scored 33 points higher on the Texas Assessment of Knowledge
and Skills (TAKS) science test in 2007 than other students.
- The analyses of
specific staff development activities and student achievement revealed that the core
strategies of the MSP science coaches were significantly positively related to improved
student performance in science during the 2006-07 school year.
- School
contexts varied and influenced the work of the coaches; critical variables included
principals' stance towards the availability and role of coaches; the school schedule and
department meeting times; the professional culture of the school; and teachers'
perceptions of their areas of need.
- Coaches reported differing levels of
interest in and support for their work, as well as different approaches to structuring and
managing their work by the district
- The application of the PCK survey to
math teachers in 2006 and 2007 showed some significant growth in their pedagogical content
knowledge, but that growth was not related to improvements in mathematics student
achievement on TAKS.
Table 1. Relationships between Intensive Staff Development and
Students' TAKS Performance in 2006-07 HLM
Coefficient Estimate | Subject |
Math | Science |
Relative Performance Gain | -9.21 | 33.15*** |
Standard Error | (11.36) | (9.22) |
Table 2. Relationships between Staff Development Activity and
TAKS Performance Staff Development
Activity | School Year & Subject |
Math | Science |
2005-06 |
2006-07 | 2005-06 | 2006-07 |
Work with Individual Teachers | | | | |
Classroom Observation | 0.98 | -0.86 | 0.39 | 1.13~ |
Co-Lesson Planning | 0.61 | 0.20 | 0.79 |
7.45*** |
Co-Teaching | 0.60 | 0.10 | 0.21 |
2.39* |
Data Analysis | 2.81 | 1.46 | 21.62 | 3.29 |
Assessment | 8.60 | -5.30 | 6.89 | -18.58 |
Debriefing/Reflection | 0.96 | 0.68 | 3.15 |
1.57 |
Figure 1. Pedagogical Content Knowledge for Teaching
Mathematics (PCK)
Pre-Post Scores from February 2006 to May 2007
(N=45)
Table 3. Relationships between Teachers PCK Scores and
Students' TAKS Performance in Math HLM
Predictor Variable | School Year |
2005-06 | 2006-07 |
PCK Score | -1.09 | -0.78 |
Gain in PCK Score | | -0.08 |
Note: None of these estimates is statistically significant.