The Effectiveness of a Summer Institute and Remotely Delivered Science Instructional Coaching in Middle and High School

Gwen Nugent, Gina Kunz, James Houston, Chao Rong Wu, Irina Patwardhan, Soon Chun Lee, Sue Ellen DeChenne-Peters, Lin Lin Luo

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This study investigated the impact of a summer institute with follow-up coaching (treatment) versus no professional development (control) on middle and high school teacher and student science practice outcomes. Treatment teachers participated in a 2-week summer institute that used evidence-based professional development practices followed by remotely delivered instructional coaching led by project-based science coaches over 6–8 weeks during the school year. Results from 124 teachers across 110 schools showed significant differences between treatment and control groups for teacher science practice knowledge, performance, beliefs, and self-efficacy and student science practice skills and self-efficacy. Teacher effect sizes for the combined summer institute plus coaching (treatment) across all dependent variables ranged from 0.67 to 1.37. Student comparisons showed higher science practice performance for the treatment group; effect sizes were 0.39 for high school and 0.34 for middle school. Results demonstrated significantly higher increases in student self-efficacy for the treatment compared to the control group, and this increased self-efficacy was sustained through the end of the school year. Results substantiate the value of combining coaching with a summer institute to support teacher growth and development, with the summer institute providing foundational knowledge and fostering teacher self-efficacy to effectively implement newly learned instructional practices. The coaching in turn built on that foundation and provided needed support for teachers to transfer knowledge and skills to classroom practice.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)760-784
Number of pages25
JournalJournal of Science Teacher Education
Volume29
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 17 2018

Fingerprint

coaching
self-efficacy
teacher
science
school
student
Group
knowledge transfer
coach
performance
classroom
knowledge
evidence

Keywords

  • coaching
  • instructional practice
  • professional development
  • rural education

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Education

Cite this

The Effectiveness of a Summer Institute and Remotely Delivered Science Instructional Coaching in Middle and High School. / Nugent, Gwen; Kunz, Gina; Houston, James; Wu, Chao Rong; Patwardhan, Irina; Lee, Soon Chun; DeChenne-Peters, Sue Ellen; Luo, Lin Lin.

In: Journal of Science Teacher Education, Vol. 29, No. 8, 17.11.2018, p. 760-784.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Nugent, Gwen ; Kunz, Gina ; Houston, James ; Wu, Chao Rong ; Patwardhan, Irina ; Lee, Soon Chun ; DeChenne-Peters, Sue Ellen ; Luo, Lin Lin. / The Effectiveness of a Summer Institute and Remotely Delivered Science Instructional Coaching in Middle and High School. In: Journal of Science Teacher Education. 2018 ; Vol. 29, No. 8. pp. 760-784.
@article{9c33fdaa22d142649a2ecc66b81020c5,
title = "The Effectiveness of a Summer Institute and Remotely Delivered Science Instructional Coaching in Middle and High School",
abstract = "This study investigated the impact of a summer institute with follow-up coaching (treatment) versus no professional development (control) on middle and high school teacher and student science practice outcomes. Treatment teachers participated in a 2-week summer institute that used evidence-based professional development practices followed by remotely delivered instructional coaching led by project-based science coaches over 6–8 weeks during the school year. Results from 124 teachers across 110 schools showed significant differences between treatment and control groups for teacher science practice knowledge, performance, beliefs, and self-efficacy and student science practice skills and self-efficacy. Teacher effect sizes for the combined summer institute plus coaching (treatment) across all dependent variables ranged from 0.67 to 1.37. Student comparisons showed higher science practice performance for the treatment group; effect sizes were 0.39 for high school and 0.34 for middle school. Results demonstrated significantly higher increases in student self-efficacy for the treatment compared to the control group, and this increased self-efficacy was sustained through the end of the school year. Results substantiate the value of combining coaching with a summer institute to support teacher growth and development, with the summer institute providing foundational knowledge and fostering teacher self-efficacy to effectively implement newly learned instructional practices. The coaching in turn built on that foundation and provided needed support for teachers to transfer knowledge and skills to classroom practice.",
keywords = "coaching, instructional practice, professional development, rural education",
author = "Gwen Nugent and Gina Kunz and James Houston and Wu, {Chao Rong} and Irina Patwardhan and Lee, {Soon Chun} and DeChenne-Peters, {Sue Ellen} and Luo, {Lin Lin}",
year = "2018",
month = "11",
day = "17",
doi = "10.1080/1046560X.2018.1514193",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "29",
pages = "760--784",
journal = "Journal of Science Teacher Education",
issn = "1046-560X",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Effectiveness of a Summer Institute and Remotely Delivered Science Instructional Coaching in Middle and High School

AU - Nugent, Gwen

AU - Kunz, Gina

AU - Houston, James

AU - Wu, Chao Rong

AU - Patwardhan, Irina

AU - Lee, Soon Chun

AU - DeChenne-Peters, Sue Ellen

AU - Luo, Lin Lin

PY - 2018/11/17

Y1 - 2018/11/17

N2 - This study investigated the impact of a summer institute with follow-up coaching (treatment) versus no professional development (control) on middle and high school teacher and student science practice outcomes. Treatment teachers participated in a 2-week summer institute that used evidence-based professional development practices followed by remotely delivered instructional coaching led by project-based science coaches over 6–8 weeks during the school year. Results from 124 teachers across 110 schools showed significant differences between treatment and control groups for teacher science practice knowledge, performance, beliefs, and self-efficacy and student science practice skills and self-efficacy. Teacher effect sizes for the combined summer institute plus coaching (treatment) across all dependent variables ranged from 0.67 to 1.37. Student comparisons showed higher science practice performance for the treatment group; effect sizes were 0.39 for high school and 0.34 for middle school. Results demonstrated significantly higher increases in student self-efficacy for the treatment compared to the control group, and this increased self-efficacy was sustained through the end of the school year. Results substantiate the value of combining coaching with a summer institute to support teacher growth and development, with the summer institute providing foundational knowledge and fostering teacher self-efficacy to effectively implement newly learned instructional practices. The coaching in turn built on that foundation and provided needed support for teachers to transfer knowledge and skills to classroom practice.

AB - This study investigated the impact of a summer institute with follow-up coaching (treatment) versus no professional development (control) on middle and high school teacher and student science practice outcomes. Treatment teachers participated in a 2-week summer institute that used evidence-based professional development practices followed by remotely delivered instructional coaching led by project-based science coaches over 6–8 weeks during the school year. Results from 124 teachers across 110 schools showed significant differences between treatment and control groups for teacher science practice knowledge, performance, beliefs, and self-efficacy and student science practice skills and self-efficacy. Teacher effect sizes for the combined summer institute plus coaching (treatment) across all dependent variables ranged from 0.67 to 1.37. Student comparisons showed higher science practice performance for the treatment group; effect sizes were 0.39 for high school and 0.34 for middle school. Results demonstrated significantly higher increases in student self-efficacy for the treatment compared to the control group, and this increased self-efficacy was sustained through the end of the school year. Results substantiate the value of combining coaching with a summer institute to support teacher growth and development, with the summer institute providing foundational knowledge and fostering teacher self-efficacy to effectively implement newly learned instructional practices. The coaching in turn built on that foundation and provided needed support for teachers to transfer knowledge and skills to classroom practice.

KW - coaching

KW - instructional practice

KW - professional development

KW - rural education

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85054160991&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85054160991&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/1046560X.2018.1514193

DO - 10.1080/1046560X.2018.1514193

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85054160991

VL - 29

SP - 760

EP - 784

JO - Journal of Science Teacher Education

JF - Journal of Science Teacher Education

SN - 1046-560X

IS - 8

ER -