Early Childhood Educ J (2010) 37:311–317 DOI 10.1007/s10643-009-0346-8

Teacher Mentoring and Early Literacy Learning: A Case Study of a Mentor-Coach Initiative Grace Onchwari Æ Jared Keengwe

Published online: 23 September 2009 ! Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Abstract Educational reform policies such as the No Child Left Behind Act continue to place great demands on teachers. Additionally, educational reform policies such as this imply the need for continuous professional development activities that enhance teacher qualifications, especially for practicing teachers. This study examined the effectiveness of a nationwide mentor-coach initiative towards enhancing teacher pedagogy and its effect on children’s literacy performance. Forty-four Head Start teachers and classrooms were examined. Results indicated that reading and writing scores benefited significantly more when teachers participated in the mentor-coach initiative. These findings suggest that professional development activities such as mentor-coach initiatives, if offered appropriately, can enhance children’s academic performance. Keywords Mentoring ! Pedagogy ! Professional development ! Children ! Early literacy ! Teachers

Introduction The quality of staff working with children in Early Childhood programs has a major impact on the quality of education, care, and early learning experiences of children (Barnett 2003). Additionally, Saluja et al. (2002) point out

G. Onchwari (&) ! J. Keengwe Department of Teaching and Learning, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, ND 58202, USA e-mail: [email protected] J. Keengwe e-mail: [email protected]

that less than half of the lead teachers working with 3 and 4 year olds have a 4-year college degree. Consequently, there is a need to reach this group of individuals in order to improve the quality of staff working with children. It is possible that mentoring can improve teacher qualifications by means other than depending entirely on higher institutions (Ryan et al. 2004). However, due to the current changes and reforms in teacher education, a thorough understanding of the rationale for each aspect of training and how it relates to other dimensions is required. Mentoring in teacher training is especially useful for supporting teachers in keeping up with the constant demands of new educational reforms that require teachers to adopt new practices (Weaver 2004). Significant change in practices among teachers might not accrue from externally imposed expectations or mandates, or solely from one-time training or in-service courses (Barth 2001). However, professional development that provides one-to-one guidance as well as ongoing, on-site support is necessary. Since mentoring provides the benefit of training teachers in the field, it creates a framework through which a better understanding of teachers’ learning needs is achieved; it also offers training that is matched to the individual needs of teachers. Teacher Quality and Mentoring To meet the requirements for current educational reform policies, it is important that teacher professional development activities are offered on a regular and consistent basis (Tugel 2004). This process ensures that teachers are current with pedagogical skills to enhance their professional practice and support children’s learning. To master the art of teaching requires teachers to develop a practical knowledge base as well as develop interpersonal skills, such as working with colleagues, which can be incorporated effectively into their

123

312

process of teaching (Maynard and Furlong 1993). Further, educational reform policies like the NCLB demand a greater professional development responsibilities and activities that could be achieved through mentoring practices. According to the National Foundation for the Improvement of Education (NFIE 1999), mentoring could give new and inexperienced teachers access to the accumulated instructional knowledge and expertise of their colleagues in ways that contribute to academic success of children. However, to achieve this, ‘‘schools should move from the notion of supervision in schools, where teachers are supervising trainees in the application of training acquired elsewhere, to the notion of mentoring, which is an active process, where teachers themselves as practitioners have an active role in the training process’’ (Maynard and Furlong 1993, p. 71). The benefit of using a knowledgeable colleague in supporting teacher practices is documented by various researchers. For instance, Cruickshank (1998) noted that teachers who received such practice developed a reflective aspect that caused them to examine their roles as teachers. This practice positively impacted their teaching practices as well as contributed to the increase in student learning. Induction programs such as mentoring and coaching have long been used as ways of transmitting research-based teaching practices to classrooms (Gertsen et al. 1995). Further, classroom practices could improve if teachers receive ongoing and evolving support. It is important that professional development activities are planned in a way to provide contexts within which teachers can feel safe to make mistakes, study themselves, and share learning with each other to be successful in their instructional delivery (Dantonio 2001). The positive aspect of mentoring is that it builds skills while also fostering teacher relationships that can open up to other areas of teacher pedagogy that cannot be provided in a one-time in-service activity. For example, participants in the Rhode Island Teachers and Technology project recognized the positive effects of mentoring in helping them perfect their technology skills while providing social and interpersonal support (Carlson-Pickering et al. 1999). Cummins (2004) stated, Teacher education by itself will never be enough for quality care and education…what is needed are personal, ongoing relationships that can make a difference, and provide the understanding that mentoring is an important teacher professional development strategy that can produce a pool of quality early childhood educators (p. 257). Mentoring provides more benefits than other professional development programs such as workshops that stage a one-time situation that seldom has lasting effects;

123

Early Childhood Educ J (2010) 37:311–317

mentoring creates room for relationship development that is built on negotiation and trust. As Nicholls (2002) notes: The central premise of mentoring as a form of professional learning stems from the belief that individuals may best learn through observing, doing, commenting and questioning, rather than simply listening. Asking the ‘why’ question allows the mentor to reflect, share practice and collaborate to improve the mentee’s practice (p. 141). Mentoring allows for a more personalized process whereby mentees are likely to disclose their weaknesses and discuss how to improve. It also encourages teachers to be receptive to new ideas and explore their teaching styles through the guidance provided rather than imposing somebody else’s teaching style. More significantly, through the mentoring process, novices or inexperienced teachers are able to tap into the wide experiences and knowledge of experienced teacher mentors (Westerman 1999). Background of the Head Start Bureau Mentor-Coach Initiative In the 2002 State of the Union address, President Bush emphasized the need for schools to prepare children to read as one critical step in education reform (White House 2002). The focus on reading acknowledged the importance of the early years in shaping children’s success in school. The President initiated the Good Start, Grow Smart early childhood initiative and implored Head Start programs to implement strategies that would prepare children to achieve academically. In response, the Head Start Bureau began focusing on ways to improve its services, specifically in early literacy skills. A major initiative undertaken by the Head Start Bureau was providing national staff development training to all Head Start teaching staff in order to improve the quality of teachers serving children in each and every Head Start classroom (ACYF 2002). The training was centered on improving socio-emotional development, working with children whose first language is not English, and literacy mentoring. The training was also aimed at providing appropriate resources for enhancing early literacy development. The Regional Quality Improvement Center (QIC) was hired to provide training and technical assistance to Head Start programs in Region Vb (Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois). At the time, the QIC was in the last year of a 6-year contract to provide training to Head Start staff (Zorn et al. 2003). In this last year, trainers were instructed by the Head Start Bureau to focus their strategies on providing literacy resources to Head Start programs. These resources would support the Early Literacy Mentor-Coaches—teachers,

Early Childhood Educ J (2010) 37:311–317

who had received instruction in Washington, DC, to provide training to Head Start teachers in their programs as part of the Strategic Teacher Education Program (STEP). The STEP model is ‘‘a comprehensive, multifaceted, sequential professional development endeavor that was aimed at training teachers on research based literacy practices that would lead to positive child outcomes and school readiness’’ (ACYF 2002, p. 3). The Center for Improving the Readiness of Children for Learning and Education (CIRCLE) at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston developed the training model and materials that were used by STEP. Head Start programs were asked to select a few teachers from their programs to attend the CIRCLE training, which was held in Washington, DC during the summer of 2002. The teachers who attended the training were expected to act as the Early Literacy Mentor-Coaches for their respective Head Start programs. The STEP training focused on appropriate literacy environments and routines, phonological awareness, written expression, language development, print and book awareness, reading aloud, letter knowledge, and literacy mentoring areas (Zorn et al. 2003). After receiving the relevant training, the Early Literacy Mentor-Coaches were required to provide support to two or more teachers in their programs. The support was to be based on appropriate literacy practices as outlined in the STEP model. The Regional Quality Improvement Center was responsible for Mentor-Coach Specialists who offered support and further training to the early literacy mentor-coaches on the STEP materials. The Mentor-Coach Specialists were deemed qualified in the field of child development and early literacy and received the STEP training in 2002 to 2003 in Washington, DC. The Mentor-Coach Specialists were expected to visit Head Start programs and provide on-site support to the Early Literacy Mentor-Coaches twice a month for 4 h for each visit. This on-site training was conducted during the months of February 2003 to June 2003 when the mentor-coaching initiative ended (Zorn et al. 2003). This study explores the effectiveness of the mentorcoach initiative on early literacy practices to enhance children performance. Two specific questions guided this study: 1. 2.

Did the mentor-coach initiative enhance teacher literacy practices? Did the mentor-coach initiative enhance children’s literacy performance assessment scores?

Research Design and Participant Selection Forty-four teachers in 40 Head Start programs across two Midwestern states were part of this study. The lists of Head Start grantees were obtained from the Director of the Great

313

Lakes Head Start Quality Networks (QNets) Region Vb. A letter to Head Start directors requesting their willingness to participate was sent. Programs that agreed to participate were asked for the number of teachers that participated in the mentor-coach initiative and those that did not participate in the spring of 2003. This specific period was selected because the classrooms received support both through having teachers who had been trained in Washington. DC and having on-site support from the Mentor-Coach Specialists in the period February 2003 through June 2003, when the initiative ended. The two teachers who had received training were in turn expected to provide training and support to at least two other teachers in their programs. The teachers that received mentoring from these two early literacy mentor coaches were the target sample. Thirty-four classrooms were selected from two of the Head Start grantees in one state and ten classrooms from one Head Start grantee in the other state. Selection was based on the presence of teachers who were involved in the mentor-coach initiative in one site based on whether they sent someone to Washington for the training and the availability of an equal number of teachers that did not participate from the same grantee. In addition, only programs that were using the Creative Curriculum Developmental Continuum assessment as their form of child assessment were selected. Half of the classrooms in the sample (22 classrooms) had teachers that participated in the mentor-coach initiative. This half served as the experimental group and the other half as the control group. Dates for classroom observation were set together with the teachers and early childhood coordinators for the programs that agreed to participate. The different centers containing the 44 classrooms were visited and classroom observations were carried out. Data collection was done in the Spring of 2006. Observations were carried out for 1 h during prime literacy instruction, circle time, and learning center times in each participating classroom, while the other half hour was used for assessing classroom environment. Head Start directors were requested to provide copies of children’s performance assessment data and records without identifying children’s names for fall 2004 and winter 2005 from each of the participating classrooms. Assessment Instruments The Early Language and Literacy Classroom Observation (ELLCO) toolkit (Smith et al. 2002) was used to collect data on teacher literacy practices. The ELLCO toolkit is a research-based classroom observation tool for identifying practices and environmental features that promote children’s early literacy and language development. It is composed of three tools designed to be used together to provide a broad portrait of support for literacy in classrooms.

123

314

The first tool, the Literacy Environment Checklist, examines the presence or absence of literacy-related materials and spaces such as number of books available to children, presence of presence of a variety of books, how books are used, and the presence of writing materials (Dickson et al. 2002). The second tool, the Classroom Observation and Teacher Interview, examines two aspects of literacy instruction; the General Classroom Environment focuses on classroom organization, contents of classroom, and classroom management strategies that facilitate learning; the Language, Literacy, and Curriculum aspect focuses on teacher approaches that facilitate literacy learning such as oral language facilitation, book reading, and writing approaches. This tool is used during prime literacy instruction time followed by a brief follow-up interview with the teacher (Dickinson et al.). The third tool, the Literacy Activity Rating Scale, records the literacy activities observed in a session such as the number and duration of book reading activities observed, the way they were read to children (e.g., as a group or individually), writing activities, and involvement of adults in children’s writing attempts (Dickinson et al.). The Creative Curriculum Developmental Continuum (Dodge and Colker 1992) was used in assessment of children’s literacy performance. This instrument uses an Individual Child Profile Record to record each child’s performance data at three checkpoints during a program year: Fall, Winter, and Spring. The individual child profile is divided into four developmental areas: (a) cognitive development, (b) social emotional development, (c) physical development, and (d) language development. Only the language developmental area was used for the study. In the Creative Curriculum Developmental Continuum, two major curriculum goals are assessed in the language development domain: the listening and speaking domain and the reading and writing domain. Teachers carry out these assessments three times per school year (at the beginning of the year, in the middle, and at the end). Most Head Start programs identify these terms as Fall, Winter and Spring assessments. The records were obtained from the specific Head Start programs that had participated. Head Start directors were requested to send the records without identification of children’s names.

Results Differences in Children’s Literacy Skills To determine whether participating in the mentor-coach initiative had an impact on children’s reading and writing

123

Early Childhood Educ J (2010) 37:311–317

skills, independent t-test analysis were conducted. Significant differences across the two groups (t = -3.07; df = 626, p \ .05) in listening and speaking were obtained. Children in the experimental group performed significantly better in all the five subcategories of listening and speaking than the control group. The listening and speaking subcategory ‘‘understands and follows directions’’ received the highest score in both groups with experimental group showing greater (3.06) improvement than the control group (2.85). Data indicated that both groups scored low on the subcategory ‘‘hears and discriminates sounds’’ with the experimental group showing higher scores (2.56) than the control group (2.32). The children in the experimental group performed better in three speaking skills: (a) expresses self using words and expanded sentences, (b) answers questions, (c) asks questions. Data indicated that, other than simply understanding and following directions, children need more help in hearing and discriminating sounds as this was the skill with the lowest scores in both groups. This information is provided in Table 1. Impact on Children’s Reading and Writing Skills Comparisons among the two groups of children with mentored and non-mentored teachers indicated significant group differences in reading and writing (t = -2.53; df = 626, p \ .05). Results indicated that reading and writing scores were significantly higher when teachers participated in the mentor-coach initiative. Compared to listening and speaking, lower scores were achieved in this component for both groups with slightly higher gains for experimental group. Data indicated that children in both groups improved in the sub-category ‘‘enjoys and values reading’’, while using emerging reading skills to make meaning from print were scored lower. This information is provided in Table 2. Differences in Teacher Literacy Practices To examine differences across the two groups in teacher literacy practices in regard to effect of mentor-coach initiative, independent t-test analysis were conducted. Three different categories of teacher literacy practices (literacy environment, general classroom organization and facilitation, and literacy activities) were examined in regard to the ELLCO observation tool. Total scores in each of the three tools were added and used for analyses. Independent t-tests were run for each of the three literacy practices. Group comparisons across the two groups of teachers that did and did not participate in the mentor-coach initiative indicated significant differences in teacher classroom organization/language facilitation literacy practices (t = -2.57,

Early Childhood Educ J (2010) 37:311–317 Table 1 Mean scores— listening and speaking

Highest possible score 4

Table 2 Mean scores—reading and writing

315

Listening/speaking categories

Control (M)

Experimental (M)

Hears and discriminates sounds of language

2.32

2.56

Expresses self using words and expanded sentences

2.81

2.95

Understands and follows directions

2.85

3.06

Answers questions

2.76

2.92

Asks questions

2.69

2.79

Actively participates in conversations

2.82

2.92

Overall mean score

3.17

3.35

Reading and writing sub-categories

Control (M)

Experimental (M)

Enjoys and values reading

2.69

2.76

Demonstrates understanding of print concepts

2.37

2.47

Demonstrates knowledge of the alphabet

2.31

2.44

Uses emerging reading skills to make meaning from print

2.20

2.28

Comprehends and interprets meaning from books and other texts

2.29

2.53

Understands the purpose of writing

2.29

2.43

Writes letters and words

2.33

2.52

Reading and writing (overall mean)

2.35

2.49

Table 3 Differences in teacher literacy practices Literacy practice

t

df

p

Classroom observation

-2.57

42

.014

Literacy environment

-3.97

42

.693

Literacy activities

-1.71

42

.095

df = 42, p \ .05). No significant differences between the two groups of teachers that participated in the mentor-coach initiative were found on literacy environment practices (t = -.397, df = 42, p [ .05) and literacy activities (t = -1.71, df = 42, p [ .05). The results indicated that better classroom literacy activities were provided by teachers who had received the mentor-coach initiative than those that did not. This information is provided in Table 3.

Implications and Conclusions While there are many other factors that could contribute to children’s performance differences (e.g., teacher education, training, and experience), these preliminary data provide a base to look more closely at the effectiveness of this initiative. Students with mentored teachers did show significant improvement over the students with non-mentored teachers. This is quite consistent with Cruickshank’s (1998) findings that mentoring does enhance teacher pedagogy which in turn contributes to children’s performance. Data show that in both listening/speaking and reading/

writing, children in the experimental group scored higher in all the 13 sub-categories of language. Teachers that have trained mentors to support and guide their practice are more likely to enhance their teaching practices than teachers lacking mentors (Evertson and Smithey 2000). Children’s literacy performances point to possible benefits of the mentor-coach initiative down into the third year after it was offered. This suggests a need for intensive, ongoing mentor-coach initiatives for greater lengths of time if teacher practices are to be continuously sustained. While this initiative was implemented for close to 6 months, a similar initiative that is continuous for a greater length of time is more individualized is likely to have a greater impact (Carlson-Pickering et al. 1999). The positive effect of activities like mentoring is that they encourage teachers to explore their teaching practices under the support and guidance of an experienced, knowledgeable individual. While the researchers predicted that mentored teachers would show differences in the delivery of best literacy practices compared to the non-mentored teachers, this was identified in one set of best literacy practices: classroom organization and language facilitation practices. Once again, the importance of an enriched literacy environment and different literacy activities needs to be of major focus of training programs for early childhood teachers. It seems that teachers have somehow grasped aspects such as organization of classrooms to facilitate literacy, integrating literacy aspects to the rest of the curriculum, facilitating home support and engaging in appropriate assessment

123

316

strategies. Even so, more research is needed in how to use literacy materials to support learning, and how to develop reading and writing strategies that enhance children’s literacy development. Aspects such as how long reading sessions last, how many sessions are held, how many books are available, and modeling writing strategies need further consideration. Teachers have background knowledge of these aspects, but reinforcement strategies need to be provided such as using one on one guidance support from experienced colleagues. The advantage of this is that teachers are provided an individual that they can reflect with, visit their classrooms and see what is going on and plan with them how they can better integrate best literacy practices into what they are already doing. There are also other possible explanations for non significant results in the literacy environment and literacy activities teacher practices. During the data collection process, teachers were interviewed as part of the ELLCO tool requirements about their general overview of the mentor-coach initiative. One of the interview questions was ‘‘Is the mentor-coach initiative continuing in your program?’’ Out of the 44 teachers that participated in the study, 34 of them agreed that the mentor-coach initiative was continuing in their program. Even though the mentorcoach initiative was provided during the year 2002–2003, this initiative was continuing in the Head Start programs. It is possible that all teachers in the two groups had experienced the mentor-coach initiative in some way. During the researchers’ classroom observation visits, it was evident that all classrooms had been supplied with the materials outlined in the ELLCO toolkit. In addition, from information gathered from the teachers and from observations made, most of the classes observed had the same supplies of the STEP literacy materials stocked in their classrooms. However, there was a difference in the use of materials. While most classrooms had close to the same materials, most of the materials were stored on shelves. It is important that teachers are given training and support that encourages them to adopt materials into their teaching effectively. Reconsidering mentoring as one possible tool for changing teacher attitudes can go a long way toward making tremendous changes in teachers and children. After teacher attitudes are managed, change can take place. Since change brings about resistance (whether positive or negative) using mentoring relationships provide a channel through which teachers can identify with the need for adopting the positive practices being presented to them. In conclusion, the use of mentoring provides a channel through which experienced teachers can be models for novices or inexperienced teachers as they perfect the profession of teaching (Portner 1998). Policy makers and those

123

Early Childhood Educ J (2010) 37:311–317

advocating for reforms in education could also benefit from results on research on mentoring, especially as a vehicle to support the education reform process.

References Administration on Children, Youth, and Families (2002). The Head Start conference for STEP early literacy mentor-coaches workbook. Washington, DC: Author. Barnett, W. S. (2003). Low wages = low quality: Solving the real preschool teacher crisis. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research. Barth, R. S. (2001). Teacher leader. Phi Delta Kappan, 82(6), 443– 449. Carlson-Pickering, J., Fitzgerald, J., Poiner, R., Fredrick, D., & Cohoon, J. (1999). The two faces of mentoring: Human relationship and technology support. Retrieved July 27, 2008, from www.glef.org. Cruickshank, D. R. (1998). Use and benefits of reflective teaching. Phi Delta Kappan, 66(10), 704–706. Cummins, L. (2004). The pot of gold at the end of the rainbow: Mentoring in early childhood education. Childhood Education, 80, 254–257. Dantonio, M. (2001). Collegial coaching: Inquiry into the teaching self. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa. Dickson, D. K., McCabe, A., & Anastasopoulos, L. (2002). A framework for examining book reading in early childhood classrooms. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement. Dodge, D. T., & Colker, L. J. (1992). The creative curriculum for early childhood. Washington, DC: Teaching Strategies, Inc. Evertson, C. M., & Smithey, M. W. (2000). Mentoring effects on prote´ge´s’ classroom practice: An experimental field study. The Journal of Educational Research, 93, 294–304. Gertsen, R., Morvant, M., & Brengelman, S. (1995). Close to the classroom is close to the bone: Coaching as a means to translate research into classroom practice. Exceptional Children, 62(1), 52–66. Maynard, T., & Furlong, J. (1993). Learning to teach and models of mentoring. In D. McIntyre, H. Hagger, & M. Wilkin (Eds.), Mentoring: Perspectives on school-based teacher education (pp. 69–85). London, UK: Kogan Page Limited. National Foundation for the Improvement of Education. (1999). Teacher mentoring; a tool for school districts and their partners. Washington, DC: Author. Nicholls, G. (2002). Mentoring the art of teaching and learning. In P. Jarvis (Ed.), The theory and practice of teaching (pp. 135–142). London, UK: Kogan Page. Portner, H. (1998). Mentoring new teachers. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Ryan, S., Hornbeck, A., & Frede, E. (2004). Mentoring for quality improvement: A case study of a mentor teacher in the reform process. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 6(1). Retrieved September 14, 2009, from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v6n1/ryan.html. Saluja, G., Early, D. M., & Clifford, R. (2002). Demographic characteristics of early childhood teachers and structural elements of early care and education in the United States. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 4(1). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No. 464 765). Smith, M., Dickinson, D., Sangeorge, A., & Anastasopoulos, L. (2002). Early literacy and language classroom observation scale (ELLCO). Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.

Early Childhood Educ J (2010) 37:311–317 Tugel, J. (2004). Teacher quality: What the no child left behind act means for teacher quality and professional development. Science and Children, 41(5), 22–25. Weaver, P. E. (2004). The culture of teaching and mentoring for compliance. Childhood Education, 80(5), 258–260. Westerman, D. (1999). Expert and novice teacher decision making. Journal of Teacher Education, 42(2), 292–305.

317 White House. (2002). Good start, grow smart: The Bush administration’s early childhood initiative. Retrieved August 12, 2008 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/earlychildhood/toc.html. Zorn, D., Marx, M., Sullivan, S., & Bowe. W. (2003). Is ‘‘best practice’’ always best? Local implementation of a national early literacy initiative. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Evaluation Association, Reno, Nevada November, 2003.

123

Copyright of Early Childhood Education Journal is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Copyright of Early Childhood Education Journal is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.