Close to the Classroom Is Close to the Bone: Coaching as a Means to Translate Research into Classroom Practice
Journal article by Russell Gertsen, Martha Morvant, Susan Brengelman; Exceptional Children, Vol. 62, 1995
Journal Article Excerpt
Close to the classroom is close to the bone: coaching as a means to translate research into classroom practice. by Russell Gertsen , Martha Morvant , Susan Brengelman [They] have often welcomed new ideas and techniques ... as means of liberation from [the] past; they, have also, and probably almost as often, responded to change with nostalgia, anguish, and despair. (Hardson, 1989, p. xii) The few studies of attempts to alter classroom teachers' practice so that it better serves students with mild disabilities report extremely limited change in observable teacher behavior (Jenkins & Leicester, 1992; Simmons, Fuchs, Fuchs, & Mathes, 1995). Jenkins and Leicester found that many, of the teachers in their sample displayed an ability, to develop instructional plans that would help special education students, but in reality, they rarely, implemented these plans. To better understand why this occurred, Jenkins and Leicester stressed the importance of understanding, the contextual factors that influence a classroom teacher's work, along with the specific variables that inhibit or compete with the implementation of truly individualized instruction in the classroom. Kauffman (1993) recently called for programmatic research using both qualitative and quantitative methodologies to build a knowledge base that fosters understanding of the lives of special education students in the general education classroom, as well as understanding the types of consultation and information exchanges between special educators (both researchers and practitioners) and classroom teachers that benefit these students. Kauffman argued that this knowledge will be be generated not from sloganeering or "dramatic gestures," but from the study of seemingly "mundane activities includ[ing] self-questioning, reflection, practice, persistence, [and] attention to detail" (p. 14). The purpose of this study was to develop, refine, and better understand the process of transmitting the knowledge base on effective teaching to general education teachers. Our objective was to introduce research-based teaching strategies to help participating teachers succeed with students with learning disabilities (and other students at risk for school failure). To ensure successful use, we provided teachers with ongoing feedback on the day-to-day implementation of these strategies and the impact the practices were having on their students. The research base included the effective teaching research of the 1980s (Brophy & Good, 1986), as well as newer, cognitively oriented instructional research (Mastropieri, Bakken, Scruggs, & Whedon, 1995; Palincsar & Klenk, 1992). Our efforts centered on reading/language arts instruction, which was a major source of concern at this school. Because we were most interested in understanding the complexities of the process of change in teaching practice, qualitative research methodologies seemed most appropriate. The research team was actively involved in conceptualizing and conducting the change effort, as well as using ongoing data collection to refine the intervention process. Thus, this was a case of action research, specifically what Holly (1991) calls "research for action." Research for action "intertwines action and research by promoting the importance of both new action and the simultaneous observation of the effects of the action" on participants (p. 150). THE CONCEPT OF COACHING AS A MEANS TO TRANSLATE RESEARCH INTO PRACTICE The means of translating research into practice was called coaching - a form of expert consultation (Fuchs, 1993; Jenkins & Leicester, 1992) derived from the research literature on factors leading to successful, enduring change in classroom practice (Fullan & Miles, 1992). Two project staff with extensive experience in classroom consultation and special education teaching worked with two district special educators in the process of coaching 12 classroom teachers. The coaching process (graphically depicted in Figure 1 on the next page) was based on three major principles: * Classroom observation and feedback by special educators should be ongoing and intense, including informal discussions of how instructional principles relate to observed teaching and learning situations. * Coaching sessions should highlight observed impact of suggested practices on target students. * Suggestions should be concrete and practical and should fit the realities of the classroom. McLaughlin (1990) found that if change efforts were to have an impact on classroom practice, individuals were needed who could provide "the ongoing and sometimes unpredictable support teachers needed" (p. 12). "Support" is intentionally used in the broad sense-to include feedback on use of new techniques, empathy, and collegial discussion of the impact of the new techniques and strategies on students. Further, Cruickshank (1985) found that when teachers carefully and systematically analyzed their use of teaching strategies with a knowledgeable colleague, not only did they gain insight into their role as teachers, but student learning increased significantly.Consideration of these factors led to our first working hypothesis, ... |
End of free preview...
To continue reading this publication, you must have a Questia Subscription.
Try Us Today! Click Here
Questia provides the world's largest online library of scholarly books and journal articles, with integrated footnote and bibliography tools, highlighting, note taking and book marking. With a Questia subscription, you'll have access to the full text of more than 67,000 books and 1.5 million articles.
Already a subscriber? Login:
Sponsored Links
Free Newsletter
Get helpful how-to's, writing tips, search strategies, quizzes & more!
Search the Library
