This article was downloaded by: [University of California Santa Cruz]On: 09 October 2014, At: 19:29Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Early Childhood TeacherEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujec20

Supporting Literacy in Preschool: Usinga Teacher-Observation Tool to GuideProfessional DevelopmentShelly McNerney a , Diane Corcoran Nielsen a & Phyllis Clay ba University of Kansas , Lawrence, Kansas, USAb Youth Policy Research, Inc. , Kansas City, Kansas, USAPublished online: 23 Feb 2007.

To cite this article: Shelly McNerney , Diane Corcoran Nielsen & Phyllis Clay (2006) SupportingLiteracy in Preschool: Using a Teacher-Observation Tool to Guide Professional Development, Journal ofEarly Childhood Teacher Education, 27:1, 19-34, DOI: 10.1080/10901020500528838

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10901020500528838

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

19

Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 27:19–34, 2006Copyright © National Association of Early Childhood Teacher EducatorsISSN: 1090-1027 print/ 1745-5642 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10901020500528838

UJEC1090-10271745-5642Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, Vol. 27, No. 01, January 2006: pp. 0–0Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education

Supporting Literacy in Preschool: Using a Teacher-Observation Tool to Guide

Professional Development

Supporting LiteracyS. McNerney et al. SHELLY MCNERNEY, 1 DIANE CORCORAN NIELSEN,1 AND PHYLLIS CLAY2

1University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, USA2Youth Policy Research, Inc., Kansas City, Kansas, USA

Teachers involved with professional-development opportunities inevitably differ intheir content knowledge, access to resources, and instructional practices. The purposeof this study was to investigate how a standardized assessment observation tool,selected to gather summative information for grant-evaluation purposes about pre-school teachers’ early literacy instruction environment and practices, could be used toguide the implementation of an early literacy peer-coaching professional-developmentprogram involving 23 teachers in 5 preschools. Data were obtained from threesources: baseline and end-of-project data for each teacher on the standardized obser-vation tool, interviews with codirectors and coaches, and documents provided by codi-rectors and coaches. Results indicate that a standardized observation tool can be usedformatively in three ways: (1) to guide decisions about materials purchases; (2) toadjust professional-development workshop sequence and delivery; and (3) to guidecoaches as they work one-on-one with teachers.

While students at all levels of school need knowledgeable teachers, the need for teacherswho are knowledgeable about early literacy is especially great (Snow, Burns, and Griffin,1998). Research on the variables that impact reading achievement has found that early lan-guage competency promotes achievement in reading, when “reading” is defined as skillfulcomprehension (Tabors, Roach, & Snow, 2001). Students in literacy-rich environmentsthat focus on the development of oral language and phonemic and print awareness willenter later grades with a solid base on which to build higher level literacy skills (Snowet al.). In order to maximize their students’ potential, teachers must have the knowledgeand skills to create learning environments and to provide instruction that fosters languageand literacy development (Neuman & Roskos, 1997). Additionally, these teachers mustrely on classroom-management techniques that provide students with the safe, stable arenanecessary for both social and cognitive growth (Edwards, 1993; Killin & Williams, 1995).

Many children face daily challenges, such as poverty and neglect, which affect theirsocial, language, and cognitive development—the roots of success in later aspects of con-ventional literacy (Hart & Risley, 1992; Snow et al., 1998). Consequently, preschoolteachers must be prepared to meet the varied needs of their students in relation to early

Received 8 November 2005; accepted 2 December 2005.This study was funded in part by a grant from the U.S. Department of Education Early Child-

hood Educator Professional Development Program (S349A020017-02).Address correspondence to Diane Corcoran Nielsen, 446 J.R. Pearson Hall, 112 West Campus

Road, Lawrence, Kansas 66045-2340. E-mail: dnielsen@ku.edu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 19:

29 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

20 S. McNerney et al.

literacy development. Traditionally, preschool teachers have not focused on language andliteracy, and their preservice education varies greatly. Some preschool teachers are well-prepared in early childhood education and hold masters’ degrees, while many others havelittle or no education beyond high school, much less education in early childhood literacy.According to Fitzgerald and Hunt (2004), only one third of child care teachers holds a collegedegree. Urban schools especially must grapple with high turnover rates, and administra-tors often accept emergency-certified teachers who do not have the same content and ped-agogical knowledge that traditionally certified teachers receive during their degreeprograms (Cooter, 2003; Darling-Hammond, 1994). Compounding this challenge is thefact that urban schools often have limited access to print materials (McGill-Franzen &Allington, 1993), further separating the teachers from valuable learning resources andcontributing to classroom climates that do not support early literacy development.

With the variety of certification options available for preschool teachers, providinghigh quality professional-development opportunities for teachers can support their effortsto implement appropriate literacy-related instruction and classroom environments.According to Guskey (2003), not every teacher, every school, or even every district willhave the same professional-development needs. Teachers involved with professional-development opportunities inevitably differ in their content knowledge, access toresources, and instructional practices. Effective professional-development programs mustaddress these differences. Research suggests that professional development is more likelyto change educational practice when it is focused, occurs over time, and involves a varietyof approaches, such as presentation, modeling, videos, observation of others, and peerinteractions about problems and solutions (Fullan, 1991; Stallings, 1989; Stoll & Fink,1996). Effective professional development incorporates opportunities for teachers to takemore ownership of their learning and reflect on their practice (Anders, Hoffman, & Duffy,2000). Effective professional development also requires resources to support adult learn-ing and collaboration (Wilson & Berne, 1999). One possible source of this support is peercoaching. In conjunction with seminars/workshops, peer coaching has been shown toincrease the effectiveness of professional development (Joyce & Showers, 1995) and is afactor in reducing teacher turnover (Cooter, 2003). Peer coaches work with individualteachers to model techniques introduced in group sessions, adapt lesson ideas to meet theindividual needs of teachers and their students, and provide feedback to teachers in a non-threatening way (Lapp, Fisher, Flood, & Frey, 2003). A 1995 peer-coaching study of pre-school teachers found that 75% of the teachers demonstrated more procedural changesduring the coaching phase of the experiment than during the baseline phase and that afterthe coaching program ended, these teachers maintained the changes in their classroompractice (Kohler, Crilley, Shearer, & Good, 1997). One possible reason for the effective-ness of peer coaching is that it allows professional development to be personalized to meetthe needs of individual teachers. As peer coaching becomes more widely recognized as aneffective means of providing professional development, the need for qualified peercoaches will only grow. However, since peer coaching is so new and preparation pro-grams for literacy coaches are in their infancy, schools looking to include coaching as partof a comprehensive professional-development program have few if any experienced peercoaches to include in their program. The reality is that although many newly hired peercoaches may be highly qualified master teachers, they still must develop their coachingskills on the job.

The authors of this paper wanted to learn how a standardized assessment observationtool, selected to gather summative information on preschool teachers’ early literacyinstruction environment and practices for grant-evaluation purposes, could be used for

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 19:

29 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Supporting Literacy 21

formative purposes as well. The purpose of this study was to explore how the codirectorsand coaches of a grant-funded project involving five preschools located in a high-povertyurban environment could use the information obtained from the standardized teacher-observation tool, the Early Language and Literacy Classroom Observation (ELLCO)(Smith & Dickinson with Sangeorge & Anastasopoulos, 2002), to guide the implementationof an early literacy peer-coaching professional-development program that included bothgroup and individualized professional-development opportunities. Additionally, the researchteam investigated how the four inexperienced literacy coaches could use the ELLCO to helpguide their peer-coaching activities. The ELLCO was chosen for this project because it is astandardized literacy observation tool developed specifically for use in prekindergartenthrough third-grade classrooms. Additionally, the development process’s extensive fieldtesting helped ensure that the tool had high validity and reliability (Smith et al.).

Method

Context

This study is an outgrowth of a federally funded project designed to provide professionaldevelopment in language and literacy to 23 preschool educators in 5 preschools located in ahigh-poverty city. Two preschools were under the auspices of the local school district, whicheducates approximately 20,000 students in kindergarten through 12th grade, and three pre-schools were community preschools. The children in these five schools resided in the high-est-poverty quadrant of the city, where more than 90% of the students qualified for free orreduced lunches and more than 50% of the students were recent immigrants. The teachershad a range of education levels (from high school diplomas to master’s degrees), wereethnically diverse, and English was the second language of two of the teachers. Professional-development opportunities for the teachers were outlined as part of the grant-writing pro-cess. In-services were organized into “modules” on topics including print-rich environments,phonological awareness, and storybook interaction, and were delivered through workshops.On-site support also occurred, with approximately one peer coach for every six teachers.

Participants

Of the 23 teachers, 9 were employed by the school district and 14 by the community-basedpreschools. There were 22 females and 1 male. The teachers ranged in age from 24 to 64(mean: 44 years) and varied in years of experience from 2 to 34 years (mean: 15 years).Their ethnic backgrounds were also diverse. Eleven teachers were African American, 4 wereHispanic, and 8 were Caucasian. Additionally, 2 of the 23 were bilingual, with Spanish astheir first language for 2 teachers. The educational levels of the 23 teachers varied as well.Across the 13 teachers in the three community sites, 5 held high school diplomas, 5 obtainedchild care certificates in addition to their high school diploma, 2 had completed their Associ-ate’s degrees, and one had a Bachelor’s degree from another country but not in education.None of the teachers in the community sites held early childhood certification from the state.All 9 teachers in the two district preschools held state certification in early childhood, 5 hadearned bachelor’s degree/and 4 held a master’s degrees in early childhood special education.

Working closely with these teachers were 4 literacy coaches, who were selected onthe basis of their experience in preschool classrooms and their knowledge of and effec-tiveness in aspects of early language and literacy instruction. The coaches ranged in agefrom 30 to 48 (mean: 39 years) and varied in years of experience from 6 to 22 years

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 19:

29 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

22 S. McNerney et al.

(mean: 13 years). Their teaching experiences were varied. Two had more experiencewith typically developing preschool and primary-grade students and the other two withspecial-needs students. Three of the four had master’s degrees (two in early childhoodspecial education) one held state endorsement in teaching English as a second language(ESL). In terms of ethnicity, one coach was Hispanic and the others, Caucasian. Thecoaches were responsible for attending professional-development workshops with theteachers and for providing ongoing, on-site support to help the teachers implement ideasfrom the workshops. They met weekly with teachers, set goals, modeled teaching behaviors,and helped with room design, and organization of materials, as well as with planning andcoordination of family literacy materials and events.

Leading the professional-development implementation were 2 project codirectorsguided by a university professor whose work focuses on early literacy. The codirectorshave had extensive experience in working both early childhood and early childhood spe-cial education classrooms. Between the two of them, they had 48 years of experience, onein early childhood special education (Master’s degree and ESL endorsement) and theother in preschool through Grade 1 classrooms of typically developing children. She helda Bachelor’s degree in elementary education and an early childhood endorsement. Eachhad worked as a half-time coach in a previous grant-funded project, and they both hadbeen selected for their expertise in preschool instruction, particularly in incorporating lan-guage and literacy activities into the early childhood curriculum, and their leadershipskills. They were responsible for ordering materials, orchestrating the professional-devel-opment workshops, and providing guidance for the coaches.

Materials and Procedures

The ELLCO (Smith et al., 2002) was designed for use in prekindergarten through thirdgrade. The psychometric properties of this instrument, as presented in the technical appen-dix of the manual, were based on studies conducted in 147 classrooms in lower incomecommunities. Interrater reliabilities were reported as .88 for the Literacy Environmentchecklist, .90 and better for the Classroom Observation, and .81 for the Literacy ActivitiesRating Scale. These reliability figures had been reported after testers were trained in giv-ing each component. Internal consistency (Cronback’s alpha) coefficients for the LiteracyEnvironment Checklist were .73 for the Books subtotal, .75 for the Writing subtotal, and.84 for the Total score. Internal consistency coefficients for the Classroom Observationwere .83 for the General Classroom Environment subtotal, .86 for the Language, Literacy,and Curriculum subtotal, and .90 for the Total Score. Internal consistency coefficients forthe Literacy Activities Scale were .92 for the Full-Group Reading subtotal, .73 for theWriting subtotal, and .66 for the Total score.

The ELLCO was composed of three interdependent components. The Literacy Environ-ment Checklist allowed an observer to become familiar with the organization and contents ofa classroom in relation to books and writing. This 24-item checklist consisted of a combina-tion of yes/no (present/absent) items and items that required the rater to count items and rankthem on a scale: for example, to count and rank the number of books in the block area. TheClassroom Observation (supplemented with a brief teacher interview) was designed to allowthe observer to make objective ratings about the quality of the language and literacy in theclassroom. The Classroom Observation component had two subscales: General ClassroomEnvironment (5 items) and Language and Literacy and Curriculum (8 items). All ClassroomObservation items were addressed through 5-point Likert-scale questions (1 = Deficient,3 = Basic, 5 = Exemplary) accompanied by six brief interview questions used to clarify

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 19:

29 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Supporting Literacy 23

observations. Information on an additional item on the “Presence and Use of Technology”was obtained and added to a total score. The Literacy Activities Rating Scale was obtained byaddressing 9 questions, mostly yes/no (present/absent) and a few items where the observercounted, for example, the number of times an adult helped a child to write (0, 1–2, more). Itprovided a summary of information on the nature and duration of literacy-related activitiesthat occurred while the observer was present. It was composed of three summary variables:Book Reading (group, teacher-and-child, child-to-child), Writing (adult modeling, child andadult, child alone), and Total. Teachers received scores on individual ELLCO items, subtotalsfor several areas, and a total ELLCO score. Project codirectors collected the ELLCO data inthe 23 classrooms, after achieving interrater reliability through training and practice observa-tions in Massachusetts with leaders in a Head Start site where the ELLCO has been used sinceits development. They also worked to agreement observing and discussing their scores withtwo teachers at project sites before doing the rest of the ELLCOs independently. The codirec-tors recognized from their previous training on the ELLCO that while it is not difficult toobtain interrater reliability on the Literacy Environment Checklist because the classroomenvironment remains the same within a short period of time, how a teacher is rated on theobservational components of the ELLCO depends upon what is happening when observersare present, since activities in preschools may vary from day to day. For this reason, the codi-rectors observed their 2 practice teachers at the same time, scored independently, thendiscussed and came to agreement on those items they initially disagreed upon. From thatexperience they decided to conduct the remaining ELLCOs on their own but visited eachteacher on three to four occasions to feel more confident that they had fairly scored a teacher.

Data Sources and Analysis

Data were obtained from three sources: baseline and end-of-project data for each teacheron the ELLCO (spring 2003 and spring 2004), interviews with the codirectors and 3 of the4 coaches, and documents provided by the codirectors and coaches. Means (group andindividual teacher) were calculated on ELLCO scores. Some were subtotal scores, such asthe Literacy Environment Subtotal, and others were individual items, such as the numberof expository texts present in the classroom. This information allowed the codirectors andthe research team to gain valuable information about conditions in the teachers’ class-rooms. The codirectors and three of the four coaches (the fourth was unavailable due to amove), were interviewed after the project ended about the role of the ELLCO in theproject: how it was administered, how the codirectors and later the coaches engaged theteachers in rating themselves on the ELLCO and discussing their ratings and their percep-tions and teachers’ perceptions of the ELLCO. Interview transcripts were read to discoverhow codirectors and coaches used the ELLCO beyond the grant-mandated summative useof the ELLCO scores (project evaluation). The codirectors and coaches provided addi-tional documents for use in this study. These included a “Strengths and Concerns” list,“Goal Sheet,” and “Plan for Improvement” for each teacher (to be explained in more detail inthe Findings section) collected at two points: spring, 2003 and mid-to-late fall, 2003. Theseteacher documents as well as a codirector’s report detailing the project provided additionalevidence about the ELLCO’s role in this professional-development project.

Findings

Baseline ELLCO data revealed that the teachers involved in the grant varied widely intheir language and literacy instruction, as did their access to materials that support

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 19:

29 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

24 S. McNerney et al.

literacy-rich environments between and within sites. Table 1 displays the diversity inscores between schools (mean scores) and within schools (standard deviations) for com-ponents and subcomponents of the ELLCO at the initiation of the project (pre-spring of2003) and at the end of the project (post-spring of 2004). This diversity suggested to usthat the ELLCO could be used for formative, not just summative purposes as required.

We determined that ELLCO data could be used formatively in three specific ways: Toprovide guidance in making decisions about materials purchases, to adjust professional-development workshop sequence and delivery, and to guide coaches as they workedone-on-one with teachers.

Materials Purchases

The Literacy Environment checklist provided valuable information on the literacy materi-als available in each classroom. Thus, as the codirectors began to make their initial pur-chases, they referred back to the ELLCO to determine how to allocate materials. Threeitems were of particular interest: number and use of books, presence of a listening center,and presence and use of writing materials. The total number of accessible books was ratedon a 3-point scale in Literacy Environment Item 5. Frequency analysis indicated thatseven classrooms had fewer than 15 books available, and only seven classrooms had morethan 25 books available. The range of scores is illustrated in Table 2. The codirectors

Table 1Means (and Standard Deviations) on ELLCO Subscales Pre-Spring 2003

to Post-Spring 2004

School (number of teachers)

LEtot possible pts: 41

GCEtot possible pts: 25

LLCtot possible pts: 40

BROr possible

pts: 8

WOr possible

pts: 5

LArs possible pts: 13

C1 (n = 6)PrePost

11.3 (5.0)22.0 (7.8)

16.0 (2.1)15.5 (1.9)

22.7 (5.2)23.0 (4.0)

5.0 (1.3)4.3 (1.0)

1.7 (1.0)1.7 (1.4)

6.7 (1.2)6.0 (1.9)

C2 (n = 4)PrePost

10.6 (1.5)21.3 (2.6)

17.3 (1.3)21.0 (1.7)

22.5 (.58)26.0 (1.8)

4.8 (.96)4.5 (.58)

2.0 (.82)1.8 (1.3)

6.8 (.96)6.3 (.96)

C3 (n = 4)PrePost

17.0 (8.1)23.5 (6.8)

17.3 (2.1)18.5 (2.9)

19.8 (3.9)21.5 (4.4)

2.0 (2.3)4.5 (1.7)

.75 (.5)

.50 (1.0)2.8 (2.6)5.0 (2.4)

D1 (n = 3)PrePost

18.7 (8.1)28.7 (6.4)

21.7 (1.5)21.7 (.58)

31.7 (5.7)31.7 (2.1)

4.3 (.57)5.3 (.58)

2.3 (1.2)3.0 (1.7)

6.7 (1.5)8.3 (1.5)

D2 (n = 6)PrePost

14.5 (2.3)23.3 (7.4)

19.0 (3.9)19.5 (4.1)

27.8 (5.6)27.8 (5.0)

4.5 (.84)4.7 (.82)

.83 (1.6)2.2 (1.8)

5.3 (2.4)6.8 (2.1)

Note: LEtot = Literacy Environment Total; GCEtot = General Classroom Environment Total;LLCtot = Language, Literacy and Curriculum Total; BROr = Book Reading Observation Rating;WOr = Writing Observation Rating; LArs = Literacy Activities Rating Scale (BROr and WOr com-bined); D = District preschools; C = Community preschools.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 19:

29 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Supporting Literacy 25

looked at individual teacher scores on this item when making book purchases, and class-rooms that had fewer books were allotted more newly purchased books.

Literacy Environment Item 6 (Table 2, LE6) used a 3-point scale to examine the num-ber of informational (nonfiction) books available to the students. Frequency analysisrevealed that eight classrooms had no informational books available, and nine other class-rooms had only one or two informational books available. Codirectors noted that all class-rooms needed more factual books that conveyed concepts in an interesting way, and sothey made special efforts to purchase high-interest informational books related to commonpreschool content themes (e.g., animals, plants, vehicles, community helpers, etc.) for theclassrooms. Recognizing the importance of access to books (Neuman, 1999), the projectsought to “flood” the classrooms with books, to promote their use by teachers, and toimprove their accessibility for children. At the end of the project, no classrooms wererated as deficient; and 57% of the classrooms were rated above basic on item LL8, involv-ing the presence and condition of books. Similarly, absence of listening centers in manyclassrooms (74%) at the beginning of the project led the codirectors to purchase materialsand provide support to develop a listening center in those classrooms early in the project.

Table 2ELLCO Items Guiding Use of Funds for Purchase of Materials: Teacher

Frequencies and Group Means

Range of points 0 1 2 3 4 5

LE5 – number of books accessible to children (1–3 point scale).

Group mean: 2 (15–25books)

NA 7 fewer than 15 books

915–25books

7 more than 25 books

NA NA

LE6 – number of factual books available (0–3 point scale).

Group mean: 1 (1–2 books)

8 none

91–2 books

33–5

books

36 or more

NA NA

LL8 – presence, setting, condition and content of books (1–5 Likert scale).

Group mean:3.2 basic.

NA 2 Deficient

2 11 Basic

4 5 Exemplary

LE12 – listening center (present or absent).

Group mean: .26 overallabsent.

17 absent

6 present

NA NA NA NA

LE20 – charts, big books. 15 absent

7 1–2

present

0 3–5

present

1 6+

present

NA NA

LE22a – writing tools in block and play areas.

20 absent

3 present

NA NA NA NA

LE22b – writing prompts in block and play areas.

20 absent

3 present

NA NA NA NA

Note: LE = Literacy Environment; LLC = Language, Literacy & Curriculum; NA = not applicableto this item.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 19:

29 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

26 S. McNerney et al.

Several items on the ELLCO assess the role of writing in the preschool class-room (materials, access, teacher and student writing displays). There was variationacross teachers on these items, and this provided guidance for the purchase of writ-ing-related materials. For example, in the “Writing Around the Room” section of theLiteracy Environment Checklist of the ELLCO, several items judged the availabilityof writing materials. As is clear in Table 2, writing materials were not common in theplay areas of project classrooms as illustrated in the findings of Items LE22a andLE22b (writing tools and props in block and dramatic play areas) with no evidence ofsuch materials for 87% of the teachers. Similarly, item 20 on the Literacy Environ-ment Checklist (LE20) scored teachers on evidence of chart use and big books forfull-group literacy activities. Fifteen (65%) of the 23 teachers were rated at a zero(no evidence) at the beginning of the project. Purchasing charts and demonstratinghow to use them (e.g., interactive writing) was heavily emphasized during profes-sional development, and the results showed that the presence and use of charts andbig books increased. By the project’s end, the number of teachers who did not usethese items decreased from 15 to 6.

This close examination of the ELLCO Literacy Environment data allowed the codi-rectors to be selective about materials purchased for individual teachers early in theproject and to decide how much money should be spent on different classrooms. However,later in the project, each teacher received equal funds to purchase materials of his or herchoosing. While teachers had complete freedom with this money, in retrospect, these pur-chases could have been selected through “guided choice,” with teachers and coaches refer-ring to the ELLCO to help pinpoint specific areas of need.

Revision of Professional-Development Workshop Sequence and Delivery

The grant proposal included a schedule for professional-development workshops thatteachers would attend. The planning team (university professor and district curriculumdirector in consultation with the codirectors) attempted to anticipate the needs of theteachers, based on their prior experiences in the district and the current research on earlylanguage and literacy development. However, as the baseline ELLCO results were ana-lyzed, the professional-development team (codirectors, university professor, and doc-toral student) realized that the teachers were not facilitating students’ oral-languagedevelopment to the degree that the planning team had anticipated when developing thegrant proposal. The professional-development team used two Likert-scale ELLCOitems: Language, Literacy and Curriculum Item 7 (Oral Language Facilitation) and Lan-guage, Literacy and Curriculum Item 9 Primary (Approaches to Book Reading) to makethis determination. This 5-point Likert scale identified a score of 1 as Deficient (“Thereis minimal evidence of . . . ), 3 as “Basic (“There is some evidence of . . .” ), and 5 asExamplary (“There is strong evidence of . . . ”). Sixteen of the teachers were rated asBasic or below on the Oral Language Facilitation item, and 13 teachers were rated atBasic or below on the Approaches to Book Reading item. As a result of these lowscores, the professional-development team decided to modify the workshop schedule.“Language and Cognitive Development: Classroom Conversations in Large and SmallGroups” became the first, rather than the fourth, workshop topic because the team feltthat teachers must begin to facilitate students’ oral-language development as soon aspossible.

The Oral Language Facilitation (LLC-7) and Approaches to Book Reading (LLC-9)items were also used to tailor the delivery of the professional-development workshops to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 19:

29 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Supporting Literacy 27

meet specific site needs. This was done by calculating a grand mean for each item and amean score for each item by site. As may be noted in Table 3, there were considerable dif-ferences across sites. The Oral Language Facilitation item had a grand mean of 3.2, whichtranslates to a “basic” Likert-score rating. Community preschools 1 and 2 had site meansof 2.8 and 2.5 respectively, indicating they were limited in their facilitation of oral lan-guage, while district preschool 1 had a mean score of 4.7, which was nearly at the Exem-plary level on this Likert scale. Thus when the codirectors presented the “Language andCognitive Development: Classroom Conversations in Large and Small Groups” to eachsite, they tailored their workshop content and delivery to meet each site’s unique needs.For the sites with lower ELLCO scores, the workshops focused more on basic principlesof oral-language facilitation. At other sites, where teachers were already more proficient atpromoting oral-language development, the workshops focused more on enhancing exist-ing classroom practices and on reading and discussing professional articles on the topic.This workshop differentiation ensured that while each site received information onimproving oral-language facilitation in the classroom, the information was tailored to theneeds of teachers at different sites.

Guidance for Coaches

Just as the codirectors modified each professional-development workshop to fit the needsof each site, the coaches also used ELLCO results to shape their work with each teacher.Because the coaches were only able to work with teachers for one school year (2003–2004),it was essential that they acclimate quickly to the different teachers and their classrooms.

Table 3Beginning-of-Project Mean Scores on Oral Language-Related Items by School

Group n = 23

teachers

C1 n = 6

teachers

C2n = 4

teachers

C3 n = 4

teachers

D1n = 3

teachers

D2 n = 6

teachers

LLC-7 – oral language facilitation (range: 1–5) 1 = deficient, 3 = basic, 5 = exemplary.

3.2 basic 2.8 below basic

3.0 basic 2.5 below basic

4.7 exemplary

3.5 above basic

LLC– nine approaches to book reading (range:1–5) 1 = deficient, 3 = basic, 5 = exemplary.

3.3 basic 3.3 basic 2.5 below basic

2.0 between basic and deficient

4.3 between basic and exemplary

4.0 between basic and exemplary

Note: LLC = Language, Literacy & Curriculum; C = Community preschools; D = District pre-schools.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 19:

29 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

28 S. McNerney et al.

To aid in this process, the ELLCO was used several times throughout the course of theone-on-one coaching.

After completing baseline ELLCO evaluations (spring 2003), the codirectors listedeach teacher’s strengths and areas of concern. (See Table 4 for an example.) These lists,not the actual ELLCO data, along with a written summary on each teacher, were sharedwith the coaches, but not with the teachers. Codirectors and, later, coaches consideredthese lists as they provided on-site guidance to the teachers.

Following this baseline collection and analysis, the codirectors met individually withteachers. Each teacher was asked to self-evaluate himself/herself using the ELLCO. Incases where the ELLCO was a challenge to read or the terms were unfamiliar, the codirec-tor helped the teacher complete the self-evaluation. The self-evaluation allowed theteacher and codirector to discuss the teacher’s literacy environment and instructional prac-tices. These self-evaluations and the “Strengths and Concerns” list helped the codirectorand the teacher to set goals. Each teacher used information from the ELLCO to set a goalto focus on between late spring and before the first meeting with his or her literacy coachin mid-fall of 2003. For some teachers, initial goals were related to classroom manage-ment (e.g., a system for center rotations) or the literacy environment (e.g., putting booksinto all areas of the room). For teachers with strengths in the areas of management and lit-eracy environment, goals were related to instruction. For example, one teacher’s initialgoal was “to increase use of vocabulary in centers.” Following the goal-setting discussion,each teacher completed the 2003–2004 ELLCO “Plan for Improvement” with the help of acodirector. The “Plan for Improvement” was modified from a similar chart created byteachers at an early childhood center in Massachusetts and shared with the codirectorswhen they visited that site. See Table 5 for a sample of a “Plan” in chart form. Since it wasimportant that teachers focus their energies for improvement, they did not have long- andshort-term goals in all subcategories of the ELLCO. When the coaches began workingwith the codirectors in July of 2003, the codirectors shared the following on each teacher:“Strengths and Concerns” list, summary, and “Plan for Improvement,” which listed initialgoals. These documents provided the basis for discussion between the codirector andcoach and between the coach and teacher during their first meetings in the fall of 2003.

In mid-fall of 2003, the codirectors completed a second round of ELLCO observationsin each classroom. The codirectors again created a summary and lists of strengths and con-cerns. Around the same time, coaches asked teachers to engage in a self-evaluation using theELLCO and to discuss it with the coach. The discussion around the self-evaluation, alongwith the list of strengths and concerns, helped coaches to guide their discussions with

Table 4Example of a Teacher’s Strengths and Areas of Concern

Strengths Concerns

Library Center included board books. Centers are not clearly defined.Incorporates phonemic awareness

into literature selections.Did not observe children attempting to write.

Uses vocabulary words to increase students’ language base.

Oral language use is limited during meal times.

Requires students to use full sentences when asking questions.

Books need to be included in all areas of the room.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 19:

29 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Supporting Literacy 29

teachers to set new goals, plan for improvement, and monitor progress toward previously setgoals. One coach commented on the value of teachers doing the self-assessment with theELLCO, “I think it is good in a sense that you kind of know what needs to be there and thenwhen you do a self-assessment, if you are honest with yourself, it can be a growth tool.”

Coaches also used the strengths/areas of concern lists to help adjust their individualcoaching sessions to meet the needs of teachers. For example, while some teachers whoseldom incorporated literacy into their day beyond an occasional read-aloud needed helpin classroom management related to literacy activities, other teachers regularly incorpo-rated literacy into their classrooms but needed help facilitating oral language or engagingstudents in writing. As the project continued, coaches, teachers, and the codirectorsreferred to the ELLCO “Plan for Improvement” to monitor progress toward goals and toset future goals. Some coach/teacher teams continued to use the chart format (Table 5) asthey revised Plans for Improvement, while others moved to a more simplified one-pagesheet with only the following: Long-term goals (e.g., books in all centers), Short-termgoals (e.g., create a library center separate from the circle area), Person(s) responsible(teacher, paraprofessional, coach, speech-language pathologist) with a place for signa-tures, and Comments (notes and progress toward achieving these two goals). The goal set-ting and planning helped make what was an “overwhelming” experience for someteachers more manageable/and personalized. For example, a teacher at school C1 setworking on students’ vocabulary as her long-range goal. The coach recognized that theteacher really enjoyed science so she (the coach) was able to build upon that interest as shesupported the teacher’s efforts toward the long-range vocabulary goal as illustrated in thefollowing words.

Table 5Example of a Plan for Improvement

Area ConcernsShort-term

goalsLong-term

goalsPerson(s)

responsible Follow-up

Literacy Environment

General Classroom Environment

Language, Literacy, and Curriculum

Students’ use of oral language is limited.

Lead students in talking about a topic during snack time.

Focus on increasing students’ opportunities to talk.

Ms. X (teacher) Ms. Z (coach)

Book ReadingWriting Writing needs

to be integratedinto the classroom.

Writing tools in play areas.

Ms. X (teacher)

9/23 clipboard, paper & pencils in housekeeping.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 19:

29 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

30 S. McNerney et al.

She was more interested in things like that (science). So we used those thingsand I helped her develop lists of words that the kids were becoming familiarwith and write up a parent letter that said, “These are the word we are talkingabout, you know, the fish in the sea or whatever in our unit for the next coupleof weeks and these are some words that the kids are hearing and these aresome of the toys they are playing with,” and etc., etc. They had to deal withfish and ocean and waves and there were specifics like turtles and specific ani-mals. (C1 coach)

Discussion and Conclusions

Professional development is complex (Wilson & Berne, 1999). However, just as studentdata can be used to guide instruction, data on teachers, such as that obtained from a stan-dardized observational tool like the ELLCO, can be used to guide multiple aspects of pro-fessional development. The codirectors found that the initial round of ELLCOobservations provided them with an opportunity to observe teachers and to take stock ofwhat language and literacy instruction occurred in their classrooms. Because the codirec-tors had no prior experience with most of the teachers involved in the project, the observa-tions provided them with critical understandings of what each teacher needed. Using thedata beyond their grant-mandated summative purpose provided a model for how ELLCOdata and potentially other data could be used to inform professional-development efforts.Teacher-observation data can help guide how professional-development money is spenton materials; to adjust the order, content, and other aspects of delivery of group work-shops/seminars; and to individualize on-site support for teachers.

The research is clear that the preschool literacy environment can support literacydevelopment (Snow et al., 1998), particularly with regard to the environment’s design(Neuman & Roskos, 1992), children’s access to books (Neuman, 1999), and writing mate-rials, both in writing centers and as a part of literacy-enriched play areas (Neuman & Ros-kos, 1990, 1992). Careful use of data on the availability of and access to materials can leadto a more prudent use of funds designated for materials. It was clear from analysis of thebaseline ELLCO data that the availability of materials varied widely across sites andbetween teachers. With regard to the initial materials purchase, for which the codirectorswere responsible, one codirector commented in her interview that after the baselineELLCOs were completed, “We could see where there were definite deficit areas . . . so itreally geared us toward buying pocket charts and all kinds of actual manipulatives . . .staying very heavily on the language.” In response to questions about how these materialswere distributed, this same codirector explained that “it wasn’t necessarily that everyteacher got the same amount. It went by where the need was.” This is an important point,as funds for resources become tighter and tighter. Those in charge of allocating and spend-ing money on materials must recognize that there are sometimes major differences in theavailability of critical materials that teachers need to promote their students’ literacydevelopment. An assessment of materials needs, whether through the ELLCO or someother means, should be considered.

Professional development is multifaceted today (Wilson & Berne, 1999). However,whole-group presentations to teachers continue to be a typical part of professional-devel-opment models. A curriculum director or other administrator often decides the focus forthese sessions. In the case of this project, the planning team (university professor and dis-trict curriculum leader, in consultation with the codirectors) selected topics and planned asequence based on the literature and the codirectors’ limited previous experience with

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 19:

29 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Supporting Literacy 31

coaching some of the district teachers. Deciding what the teachers “ought to know and beable to do” based on assumptions rather than actual data is not uncommon. An analysis ofthe baseline data of the ELLCO revealed that the “best-laid plans” had some kinks. Thismismatch between the content that the providers planned to deliver and what was appro-priate for the teachers may only emerge during the professional-development workshop,as evidenced by teachers’ responses. The content may have been too familiar and did notstretch the teachers into something new. Conversely, if workshop designers make falseassumptions about teachers’ prior knowledge and experience with a topic, the content ofthe workshop may be too difficult for the teachers. A careful analysis of ELLCO data andone-on-one interactions between the codirectors and the teachers about the self-evaluationled the team to adjust the professional development to better meet the needs of teacherswith such varied educational backgrounds and differing knowledge of aspects of literacyinstruction for preschoolers. This diversity of educational preparation in language and lit-eracy instruction reflects how the state of knowledge and skill among early childhood edu-cators (Snow et al., 1998) must be addressed when group professional-developmentsessions are planned. Teachers’ knowledge affects what topics are covered and how thecontent is delivered. Focusing on professional articles during a workshop, for example,may present too big a challenge for some preschool educators, who might find the infor-mation more useful if it were presented in another format.

Literacy coaches are becoming an integral part of professional-development models(Lyons & Pinnell, 2001) and have even been a mandated component in federally fundedReading First projects. While coaches and mentors are becoming more commonplace,there is little research on the topic and few guidelines for coaches to follow. The ELLCOdata used in this project were particularly helpful to the coaches. One coach commentedthat the self-assessment “does make you question your teaching and what you have inyour room” and that it helps teachers to “be reflective about [their] teaching.” Anothercoach commented that the self-evaluation helped create a common language between thecoaches and the teachers. She explained, “Teachers sometimes thought they were doingwriting and would score themselves high on these items on the ELLCO, but during discus-sions, it came out that they interpreted this as any activity that involved using paper, pen-cils, and crayons. They didn’t see it as systematic writing instruction/activities.”

While coaches and codirectors found the information on the teachers’ self assess-ments useful, one codirector suggested that because the ELLCO’s terminology might notbe user-friendly for teachers, completing the self-evaluation with a codirector or coachcould eliminate communication barriers. The list of strengths and areas of concern, in con-junction with the “Plan for Improvement,” helped provide coaches with an agenda to dis-cuss with teachers. Often coaches discussed issues on the lists with teachers and used thelist to choose some initial objectives to focus on as a team. Coaches also felt that using theELLCO’s objective rating scale helped build relationships with the teachers. “It [ELLCO]gives you a common reference,” noted one coach, “and it is not like you are coming in [tothe classroom] and making a judgment. It’s in black and white, and it’s on a scale that isidentified as an early-childhood environment scale.” Opportunities for teachers to beengaged and reflective about their own professional development, which occurred as anoutgrowth of using the ELLCO data formatively, are important to teacher growth (Bos &Anders, 1994).

Though funding for this project has ended, enthusiasm continues for the ELLCO andfor its potential to guide the professional development of early childhood educatorsaround issues of language and literacy instruction. The district hired the codirectors towork as coaches in district sites, and the ELLCO continues to guide their efforts not only

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 19:

29 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

32 S. McNerney et al.

in the ways presented in this paper, but also in further customizing professional develop-ment for teachers. Coaches decided, for example, to create study groups for teachersaround topics relating to the goals of several teachers. These groups include teachers whohave gained content knowledge and are beginning to implement it in classroom practices.One group is reading about and working on incorporating more opportunities for childrento use language throughout the day (e.g., mealtimes, center time, etc.).

In conclusion, while this study was limited to investigating the use of a specific stan-dardized teacher observation tool, the ELLCO, in a short-term project with five preschoolsites and 23 teachers, it has implications for professional development in general, and forthe professional development of preschool teachers around language and literacy in partic-ular. Decisions based on evaluations of current classroom practices could result in moreappropriate acquisition of materials, more relevant professional-development sessions,and more individualized, on-site support for teachers.

The growing need for professional development for teachers at all grade levelsrequires that schools and districts explore innovative tools which will allow teachers toenhance their knowledge base through professional community-based learning. Providingteachers and administrators with the tools to facilitate this learning, when they at times areunsure of best practices themselves, becomes a challenge. Standardized classroom obser-vation tools, such as the ELLCO, provide school personnel with information about class-room practices designed to foster students’ social and academic success.

By focusing not just on classroom materials, and not just on teacher behaviors, aclassroom environment evaluation tool draws attention to the importance of how accessi-ble materials and teacher behaviors work together to create the optimum learning environ-ment. Additionally, a strength of a tool such as the ELLCO is that it requires observers toconsider “best” practices with regard to general teaching (e.g., classroom management),which are the building blocks for effective literacy-related teaching behaviors such as fos-tering classroom discussion.

A research-based observation tool can help schools and districts become instrumentalin developing their independent ability to evaluate their own needs, and begin to seekinformation related to their specific needs, interests, and resources. The formative use ofan assessment tool can also serve to help guide staff members as the professional develop-ment is implemented, and can serve as an important “objective” gauge of progress. Theresult is that teachers no longer feel threatened by evaluation that rests on vague, or ill-defined goals, and staff members can also rest assured that all staff members are evaluatedfor their progress toward the same goals.

Just as effective teachers use data-driven instruction, tailored to meet the needs of theirstudents (Taylor, Pearson, Clark, & Walpole, 2000; Wharton-McDonald, Pressley, & Mis-tretta, 1998), professional development for teachers may also be improved when it movestowards a data-driven model. Well-rounded observation tools, as well as their thoughtfulapplication, can help move professional development for teachers into a new realm of effec-tiveness, while simultaneously making teachers more familiar with the expectations andchange requirements, thus creating a more open, collaborative environment.

References

Anders, P. L., Hoffman, J. V., & Duffy, G. (2000). Teaching teachers to teach reading:Paradigm shifts, persistent problems, and challenges. In M. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D.Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 719–742). Mahwah,NJ: Earlbaum.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 19:

29 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Supporting Literacy 33

Bos, C. S., & Anders, P. L. (1994). The study of student change. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Teacherchange and the staff development process: A case in reading instruction (pp. 181–198). NewYork, NY: Teachers College Press.

Cooter, R. (2003). Teacher “capacity-building” helps urban children succeed in reading. The Read-ing Teacher, 57(2), 198–205.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). Who will speak for the children? How “Teach for America” hurtsurban schools and students. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(1), 21–33.

Edwards, M. E. (1993). Restructuring in Dallas. The American School Board Journal,, 180(5), 30–32.Fitzgerald, J., & Hunt, D. (2004). Raising the bar. The American Prospect, 15(11), A19–A20.Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York, NY: Teachers College

Press.Guskey, T. R. (2003). What makes professional development effective?. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(10),

748–767.Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1992). American parenting of language-learning children: Persisting dif-

ferences in family-child interactions observed in natural home environments. DevelopmentalPsychology, 28(6), 1096–1105.

Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1995). Student achievement through staff development: Fundamentals ofschool renewal (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Longman.

Lyons, C. A., & Pinnell, G. S. (2001). Systems for change in literacy education: A guide to profes-sional development. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Killin, T. E., & Williams, R. L. (1995). Making a difference in school climate, counseling services,and student success. NASSP Bulletin, 79(570), 44–50.

Kohler, F. W., McCullough-Crilley, K., Shearer, D., & Good, G. (1997). Peer coaching: Effects onteachers implementation of an instructional innovation and corollary student outcomes. Journalof Educational Research, 90, 340–349.

Lapp, D., Fisher, D., Flood, J., & Frey, N. (2003). Dual role of the urban reading specialist. Journalof Staff Development, 24(2), 33–36.

McGill-Franzen, A., & Allington, R. L. (1993, Oct. 13) What are they to read? Not all kids,Mr. Riley, have easy access to books. Education Week, p. 26.

Neuman, S. B. (1999). Books make a difference: A study of access to literacy. Reading ResearchQuarterly, 34, 286–312.

Neuman, S. B., & Roskos, K. A. (1990). The influence of literacy-enriched play centers on preschoolers’engagement in written language. In J. Zutell, & S. McCormick (Eds.), Literacy theory and research:Analysis from multiple perspectives (pp. 179–187). Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.

Neuman, S. B., & Roskos, K. A. (1992). Literacy objects as cultural tools: Effects on children’s lit-eracy behaviors in play. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 202–225.

Neuman, S. B., & Roskos, K. A. (1997). Literacy knowledge in practice: Contexts of participationfor young writers and readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 10–32.

Smith, M. W., Dickinson, D., with Sangeorge, A., & Anastasopoulos, L. (2002). User’s guide to theearly language literacy classroom observation toolkit, Research Edition. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Snow, C., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties. Washington, DC:National Academy Press.

Stallings, J. A. (1989). School achievement effects and staff development: What are some criticalfactors? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Associa-tion, San Francisco, CA. .

Stoll, L., & Fink, D. (1996). Changing our schools: Linking school effectiveness and schoolimprovement. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press.

Tabors, P., Roach, K., & Snow, C. (2001). Home language and literacy environment: Final results.In D. Dickinson, & P. Tabors (Eds.), Beginning literacy with language (pp. 111–138). Baltimore,MD: Brookes.

Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P. D., Clark, K., & Walpole, S. (2000). Effective schools and accomplishedteachers: Lessons about primary-grade reading instruction in low-income schools. ElementarySchool Journal, 101(2), 121–165.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 19:

29 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

34 S. McNerney et al.

Wharton-McDonald, R., Pressley, M., & Mistretta, J. (1998). Literacy instruction in nine first-gradeclassrooms: Teacher characteristics and student achievement. Elementary School Journal, 99,101–128.

Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge:An examination of research on contemporary professional development. In A. Iran-Nejad, &P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of Educational Research (Vol. 24, pp. 173–209). Washington, DC:American Educational Research Association.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a Sa

nta

Cru

z] a

t 19:

29 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014