Supporting the Development of Language and Reasoning Skills of Pre-Kindergarten Students

1. Supporting the Development of Language and Reasoning Skills of Pre-Kindergarten Students Carol Berg College of Staten Island

2. PROBLEM Universal Pre-Kindergarten (UPK) classrooms receiving minimal scores on the Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scale – Revised (ECERS-R) in the subscale measuring the quality of activities and interactions that support the development of language and reasoning skills have indicated a need for program improvement in this area.

3. The Importance of Language and Reasoning Skills of Pre-Kindergarten Students • “Early learning in these areas predicts young children’s later reading ability” Lyon and Torgeson (2002). • “Decades of research have shown the importance that learning vocabulary plays in children’s ability to learn to read and ultimately, in their success in school” Hart & Risley and Snow (2003).

4. Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scale-Revised (ECERS-R) • a tool that measures the quality of early childhood programs serving children ages 2 ½ to 5 • examines both the processes and structures within a program that impact student learning • “Numerous research projects in the United States and abroad had used the ECERS to assess global quality and had discovered significant relationships between ECERS scores and child outcome measures” Harms, Clifford & Cryer (2005).

5. When using the ECERS-R the interactions of head and assistant teachers are measured by the same standard and weighed equally, as they are both directly involved with the students for a substantial portion of the day.

6. Questions to Consider • Do both head and assistant teachers have opportunities throughout the day to support the development of language and reasoning skills? • How are they interacting with the children? • Do they spend most of their time managing behaviors and routines or providing instruction? • Do they collaborate with each other regarding the instruction and assessment of students? • Do they receive similar professional development to support their practice?

10. Teacher Survey Teacher Survey Teacher Survey Instructional Coordinator Survey

11. Trends in the Data • Assistant teachers spend more time attending to routines & classroom preparation • Head teachers interact with students more frequently as they engage in center-based learning • Head teachers spend more time observing and assessing the students than the assistant teachers • Collaboration of the teachers range from never to frequently • Assistant teachers receive considerably less instructional support and professional development than the head teachers, especially from the instructional coordinators

14. COMMITTEE MEMBERS UPK Program Office of Early Childhood 1. Director 2. Head Teacher-Classroom #1 3. Assistant Teacher-Classroom #1 4. Head Teacher-Classroom #2 5. Assistant Teacher-Classroom #2 6. Program Manager 7. Program Administrator 8. Instructional Coordinator #1 9. Instructional Coordinator #2

16. What Does the Research Tell Us? • “Curriculum without intensive, ongoing professional development may not achieve the intended success of the program or intervention. Professional development of teachers may be the critical factor in effectively translating practices into positive outcomes” Wasik (2010). • “Positive effects for both peer and expert coaching is grounded in the clinical supervision model” Joyce and Showers (1996). • “Current recommended guidelines for high quality professional development indicate that it should be sustained over time, grounded in practice, linked to curriculum and student outcomes, collaborative and interactive” The National Staff Development Council (2000).

20. .

21. Phase II (January 2012) • Professional development facilitated by the instructional coordinator • Peer observations of all teachers (within and/or between classrooms) using the observational tool: Teacher-Language DuringCenter-Based Learning in Pre-Kindergarten Classrooms • Team meeting: Supporting the development of language and reasoning throughout the day, reflection, determine next steps

22. Phase III (February/March 2012) • Implement next steps: possible professional development, additional coaching • Director observes all of the teachers using the tool: Teacher-Language DuringCenter-Based Learning in Pre-Kindergarten Classrooms, supported by the instructional coordinator • Team meeting: reflection

23. Phase IV (April 2012) • Instructional coordinator observations of all teachers using the tool: Teacher-Language DuringCenter-Based Learning in Pre-Kindergarten Classrooms • Team meeting: looking at student work with a focus on the development of language and reasoning, reflection • Modified ECERS-R review targeting subscale for language and reasoning by an instructional coordinator trained to reliability

24. Phase V (May 2012) • Team meeting: review of data, reflection of the intervention • All team meetings will be scheduled during lunch or end of the day, to be determined by the participants • All professional development will be scheduled at the end of the day

25. Baseline Data • ECERS-R score form 2010 in the subscale of Language and Reasoning, item #17 – using language to develop reasoning skills and item #18 – informal use of language. • Needs assessment survey results • Initial observation using the Teacher-Language DuringCenter-Based Learning in Pre-Kindergarten Classrooms observation tool

26. ASSESSMENT Formative Summative • Observations using the Teacher-Language DuringCenter-Based Learning in Pre-Kindergarten Classrooms observation tool • Teacher and director reflections • Student work • ECERS-R review targeting subscale Language and Reasoning, item #17 – using language to develop reasoning skills and item #18 – informal use of language • Final observation using the Teacher-Language DuringCenter-Based Learning in Pre-Kindergarten Classrooms observation tool • Teacher and director reflections

27. Barriers Solutions • Teacher coverage for the peer observations • Instructional coordinator’s lack of time to provide consistent on-site support • Director volunteered to cover the classrooms herself • Communicate with the site by phone and e-mail between visits • Peer and director observations will build capacity to observe, reflect and collaborate, independent of the instructional coordinator

29. References Harms, T., Clifford, R. M., Cryer, D. (2005). Early Childhood Environment Scale: Revised Edition. New York: Teachers College Press. Hsieh, W., Hemmeter, M. L., McCollum, J. A., Ostrosky, M. M. (2009). Using coaching to increase preschool teachers’ use of emergent literacy teaching strategies. Early ChildhoodResearch Quarterly, 24, 229-247. Warash, B. G., Markstrom, C. A., Lucci, B. (2005). The Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale-Revised as a Tool to Improve Child Care Centers. Education (Chula Vista, Calif.),1}}+26, no2, Winter, 240-250. Wasik, B. A. (2010). What teachers can do to promote preschoolers’ vocabulary development: Strategies from an effective language and literacy professional development coaching model. The Reading Teacher, 63(8), 621-633.