Search

Two years after the onset of the pandemic, COVID-19 continues to take a toll on educators' morale and well-being. The need to strengthen relationships between educators and students is growing. The MyTeachingPartner-Secondary (MTP-S) program, which is a strengths-based coaching program for middle and high school teachers, helps educators respond to the demands and stresses of the pandemic. In this article, the authors speak with veteran district coaches who use this program to talk about their experience using MTP-S with teachers before and during the pandemic. Meg Ryan, a coach in Louisa County, Virginia, and Becky Odajima, a coach in Midway, Texas, are enrolled in a three-year research project to study student outcomes as a result of being in classrooms with teachers who are receiving MTP-S coaching. The authors also talked with coaching experts Anna Savitsky and Destiny Woodbury, who train, support, and coach coaches on using the MTP-S model. These experts shared their insights.

As the COVID-19 pandemic continues, educators, students, families, and community members are seeking ways to ensure students' needs are met across a range of academic, social, and emotional considerations. They are also looking ahead to the future, recognizing there may be opportunity for innovation after the last 18 months reset expectations for teaching and learning and made them think differently about what students need to help them learn and thrive. This article summarizes a recent research study by Justin Reich and Jal Mehta which offers information, insights, and recommendations from students and teachers about ways to reinvent schools and improve learning environments for everyone's benefit. [This article summarizes the following study: Reich, J. & Mehta, J. (2021, July 21). "Healing, Community, and Humanity: How Students and Teachers Want to Reinvent Schools Post-COVID." doi.org/10.35542/osf.io/nd52b.]

Project-based learning is popular with many parents, students, and teachers because of its focus on problem-solving, critical thinking, creativity, and real-world application (Gallup, 2019). It encourages teachers to act as facilitators while students actively engage in teacherand student-posed learning challenges, working alone and in groups on complex tasks organized around central questions leading to a final product. Does it work? Several recent studies from the George Lucas Educational Foundation suggest that the answer is yes -- when it is implemented with intentionality and quality. High-quality professional learning is part of that equation. Two recent randomized control trials are the focus of this column. Together, the studies involved more than 6,000 students in 114 schools with more than half the students from low-income households. They found positive impacts of two different project-based learning approaches across grades, subjects, and specific groups, and professional learning played a role in both of them.

Research has been at the heart of Learning Forward's Standards for Professional Learning since they were first conceptualized and shared with the field in the 1990s. The standards are built on a decades-long foundation of research literature that describes the ways in which professional learning can improve educator knowledge, skills, and mindsets and, in turn, improve educator practice and student learning. Updating that foundation with new research findings is an essential part of ensuring the standards remain relevant and useful. Along with lessons learned from 30 years of standards implementation and feedback from educators and field leaders, recent research and evidence have shaped the 2022 revision of Standards for Professional Learning. A team of researchers from the American Institutes for Research, with input from Learning Forward and the Standards Advisory Council Research Working Group, conducted a systematic literature review on professional learning. They paid particular attention to new research released since the previous version of standards was released in 2011. As a result, the new standards reflect the latest knowledge and findings, as well as the priorities and key issues for professional learning leaders today.

Children with Coloboma, Heart defects, Atresia choanae, Restricted growth, Genital hypoplasia, and Ear abnormalities (CHARGE) syndrome have many sensory impairments that can cause delays in motor development impacting physical activity, health, and quality of life. However, only one limited study has investigated motor competence in children with CHARGE syndrome. The purpose of this study was to examine differences in motor competence between children with and without CHARGE syndrome and the relationship between motor competence and age at independent walking, an important motor milestone. Thirty-three children with CHARGE syndrome and 38 typically developing peers were assessed on 13 motor skills using the Test of Gross Motor Development--Third Edition. Parents completed a demographic questionnaire about their child's age, sex, and motor milestones. Results indicated that the children with CHARGE syndrome were significantly behind their typically developing peers for all motor skills (p < 0.001). Age at independent walking in children with CHARGE syndrome was significantly later than their typically developing peers (p < 0.001) and had significant negative correlations with all motor skills (p < 0.01). The results of the study demonstrate a clear need for interventions focused on improving motor competence in children with CHARGE syndrome. Intervention planning should include a multidisciplinary team of relevant service providers to ensure the individualized needs of the child are met.

The school principal has long been recognized as a critical driver for school improvement and student success, but new research supported by The Wallace Foundation has found that principals have an even greater impact than previously stated. A synthesis of two decades of studies builds on previous research about how principals impact student outcomes and what characteristics and conditions lead to the greatest impact. The report, "How Principals Affect Students and Schools: A Systematic Synthesis of Two Decades of Research" (ED611009), updates the evidence base about school leadership, responds to changing policy contexts, and leverages recent improvements in research methodology. The report is a major contribution to the field as well as a critical resource for the revision of Learning Forward's Standards for Professional Learning. This research review describes the report methodology, and highlights findings and implications.

Jal Mehta is a professor at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. His work focuses on educational practices and policies that promote deep and meaningful learning. He has also conducted extensive research on the education workforce. He is the author of "In Search of Deeper Learning: The Quest to Remake the American High School" (Harvard University Press, 2019) and "The Allure of Order: High Hopes, Dashed Expectations, and the Troubled Quest to Remake American Schooling" (Oxford University Press, 2013). "The Learning Professional" recently interviewed Mehta about how the COVID-19 pandemic is changing teaching and learning and how to seize opportunities for improving schools moving forward. The conversation has been condensed and edited for this article.

Among the things that will be remembered about the year 2020 are phrases like "You're still on mute" and "Can I share my screen?" They are emblematic of how educators have been challenged to navigate uncharted waters of remote learning and overnight technological adaptation. To quote another phrase that will be remembered as a cliché, "These are unprecedented times." Learning Forward's newest network, Design Professional Learning for a Virtual World (DPLV), is designed to meet educators' pressing needs in this unusual moment by supporting districts and states with proactive planning tools and processes. Learning Forward and DPLV's first cohort of nine district and state education agency members are collaborating on how to stay strategic through the compounding challenges of responding to COVID-19, a national reckoning with racial injustice, and growing fiscal uncertainty caused by a mix of public health and public policy developments. This article describes the work of the DPLV as they engage in a planning process with customized coaching tailored to their local contexts and needs during and beyond the pandemic.

Linda Darling-Hammond, the Charles E. Ducommun Professor of Education Emeritus at Stanford University and founding president of the Learning Policy Institute, is a longtime leader in education, an expert on professional learning, and an influential researcher and policy advisor. She has been leading President Joe Biden's education transition team, giving her a unique perspective on the current moment in education and the future of U.S. policy. Elizabeth Foster, vice president, research & standards at Learning Forward, spoke with Darling-Hammond recently in a conversation that focused on opportunity in the midst of crisis and what educators are learning and accomplishing during the shift to online and hybrid learning environments. This article provides excerpts of Darling-Hammond's comments, which have been edited for clarity and length.

As awareness has grown about the harmful effects of exclusionary discipline, especially on the Black and Brown students who are disproportionately suspended and expelled, so, too, has interest in alternative approaches to discipline. Restorative practices focus on building or repairing relationships to address or preempt conflict. They are based on the idea that when young people come to understand how they have caused harm and collaborate with others to find a solution for repairing the harm, they learn to behave differently while strengthening their connection to the community rather than becoming ostracized from it. Researchers at the RAND Corporation conducted one of the first randomized controlled trial studies of the impact of restorative practices on classroom and school climates and suspension rates by studying the implementation of a program in the Pittsburgh (Pennsylvania) Public Schools in years 2015-16 and 2016-17. The researchers found that implementation resulted in positive effects, including improvement in overall school climates (as rated by teachers), reduced suspension rates, and reduced disparities in suspension rates between African American and white students and between low- and higher-income students. Professional learning leaders can glean insights from this initiative, which included support and ongoing professional learning. [This article summarizes RAND Corporation's 2018 study, "Can restorative practices improve school climate and curb suspensions? An evaluation of the impact of restorative practices in a mid-sized urban school district" (see ED594828).]

This study examined parents' perceptions of constraints that impact the attainment of independent walking in children with CHARGE syndrome. This syndrome is a multifaceted syndrome including a degree of vision and hearing loss at birth. The Dynamic Systems Theory (DST) was used as an ecological lens to provide insight into the complexity of issues impacting independent walking from the parents' perceptions. Semi-structured interviews were administrated to 23 parents of children with CHARGE syndrome to ascertain the degree to which individual, environmental, or task constraints impacted their child's development of independent walking. Data analysis was conducted through direct content analysis based on the DST. Parents reported that the task of walking was impacted by individual constraints, both structural and functional, and environmental constraints, such as space, surface area, and the use of furniture. Recommended interventions for professionals who work with children who are deafblind include manipulation and adaptation of environmental and task constraints.

Introduction: Children with CHARGE syndrome often show delays in balance and motor skills due to multisensory impairments. Research also suggests that children with CHARGE syndrome have fewer opportunities to engage in physical activity. However, little research has examined the relationship among all of these variables. Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between balance, motor skills, and physical activity. Methods: Participants consisted of 37 children with CHARGE syndrome aged 3-16 years who could walk independently. Parents of each child with CHARGE syndrome completed a demographics questionnaire and the Physical Activity Questionnaire for Children or Adolescents. Their child completed the Mini-BEST balance test and five motor skills (run, jump, slide, kick, and throw) from the Test of Gross Motor Development II. Results: Results indicate that anticipatory control had significant positive correlations with all five motor skills, sensory orientation with three motor skills, and reactive postural control and dynamic gait with two motor skills. Running was the only variable that had a significant positive correlation with physical activity. Discussion: The findings indicate that balance, especially anticipatory control, plays an important role in fundamental motor skills of children with CHARGE syndrome. There is also a strong connection between physical activity and running competence for this population; however, since this is based on a correlational analysis, the direction of the relationship is unclear. Implications for practitioners: Physical education teachers should work with students with CHARGE syndrome on increasing balance and motor skill performance to give them the competence and confidence to engage in physical activity. Moreover, parents can help by engaging in physical activity with their child at an early age and seeking out additional physical activity opportunities for their child outside of the physical education and school setting.

In March 2019, Learning Forward's Stephanie Hirsh interviewed Robert Pianta, who developed the evidence-based MyTeachingPartner 1:1 Video Coaching program (MTP). MTP is one of the few coaching models that meets the evidence requirements of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), based on studies of its effectiveness and efficacy. Rigorous research included in the What Works Clearinghouse with teachers in grades pre-K-12 has shown that MTP improves teacher practice and increases student engagement, peer relationships, and achievement. Here are excerpts from that interview. Questions and answers have been edited for clarity and brevity.

Acting to dismantle structural racial inequities begins with identifying and clearly naming the challenges being faced. Data play a powerful role in this process. Several recent publications synthesize data sources, research findings, and expert recommendations to inform and guide equity improvement efforts. A five-part "Statement of the Evidence" volume produced by the Society for Research in Child Development in September 2020 includes two-page summaries of research on students from each of five demographic groups -- American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian American, Black, Latinx, and LGBTQ+ -- in the era of COVID-19. Each brief's discussion of the research about learning challenges among student groups can provide content for professional learning tailored to local context and needs. While the Society for Research in Child Development evidence briefs highlight existing data about inequities for specific marginalized groups of students, a consensus report from the American Educational Research Association and the National Academies provides a framework of indicators that educators can use to monitor equity in their own systems. "Monitoring Educational Equity" recommends ways for districts to measure both access to learning opportunities and progress toward student outcomes. The goal is to provide a comparable set of indicators that decision-makers can use to benchmark within and across systems and collaboratively measure progress.

Determining current motor assessment practices used in adapted physical education (APE) settings is necessary to provide information about appropriate application for students with disabilities, including how it may affect student placement, and progression of motor skills. However, there is very little research to examine the most appropriate and widely used assessment instruments by APE teachers. The purpose of this study was to investigate motor assessments used and determinants for selecting assessments by APE teachers in the United States. Purposive sampling was used to recruit 146 APE teachers from across the United States who are currently assessing students with disabilities. The APE Assessment Questionnaire, designed to determine which assessment instruments are being used nationally by APE teachers, consisted of four sections: (a) participant demographics, (b) school demographics, (c) assessment questions, and (d) professional development. Mann Whitney U nonparametric statistics and frequency analysis was used to determine which assessment instruments are being used by APE teachers. Results indicated the Test of Gross Motor Development-2 (50%), Adapted Physical Education Assessment Scale (42%), and Competency Testing for Adapted Physical Education (39%) were the most frequently used motor assessments nationally by APE teachers. It is necessary for APE teachers to be exposed to a variety and the most appropriate assessments for students with disabilities in physical education environments. Additional information gathered from the study provides current gaps within the assessment tools available to APE teachers. Keywords: Assessment, physical education, adapted physical education, motor, Introduction The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004) had a major impact on the assessment procedures of students with disabilities. As outlined in IDEA (300.304 Evaluation Procedures), assessment must [...]

A recent qualitative study by a team of researchers looked into how grade-level teams of teachers are thinking about causes and strategies based on looking at student performance data. What is interesting in these findings is how infrequently teachers attribute student results to instruction -- just 15% of the time. Teachers in this study were much more likely to point to student characteristics such as behavior or effort or to an external factor such as a mismatch between student and the assessment. The research team observed six well-established grade-level teams (grades 3-5) over the course of an academic school year as they examined student assessment data. These observations took place in three schools mandated by the district to meet biweekly for a 30-minute block and also to meet quarterly for 90 minutes to examine student performance data. The three schools used these blocks for different purposes: one to primarily address Response to Intervention decisions by looking at large-scale assessments, one to look at both Response to Intervention decisions and inform broader discussions by using district assessments and classroom level assessments, and one to have collaborative conversations about students while using a wide range of data, including teachers' own student performance data. The researchers observed more than 44 hours of meetings and conducted 16 individual interviews and six group interviews with participating teachers. They were particularly interested in what teachers really talk about when they talk about student data and how what they know about students (and their context) influences their conversation and their next steps. This study found that the observed teachers did not analyze student performance through the lens of instruction but rather were fairly quick to attribute the data to student characteristics or, in some cases, to a mismatch of student abilities to the type of assessment given (especially regarding multilingual learners). The researchers coded some of the discussions as explanations rather than attributions because of the lack of analysis of the reasoning. "We did not observe teachers attempting to systematically identify root causes of student performance," they state in their findings. The researchers also did not observe teachers discussing whether student performance was fixed or able to be influenced by different instructional strategies.

Assessment can provide information about student learning and the effectiveness of classroom strategies, but what are the special considerations when used with English learners? To better understand the research about how schools and systems can support multilingual learners through assessment, Elizabeth Foster spoke with Margo Gottlieb, an expert in curriculum, instruction, and assessment of language learners and author of more than 90 articles, monographs, handbooks, guides, technical reports, chapters, and assessments. This article summarizes the conversation with Gottlieb, sharing a range of insights about the critical nature of assessment as it relates to understanding multilingual learners. Like other experts highlighted in this issue of "The Learning Professional," Gottlieb stresses the importance of recognizing the strengths multilingual students bring to the classroom. As she says, "If you only look through a monolingual lens, you don't know the whole child."

Many education stakeholders might grapple with some of these challenges in designing a new way to drive positive change in public education policy: (1) Implementing strategies that appear to hold promise but have never been scaled; (2) Maintaining the integrity of research-based interventions while addressing the need for contextual adaptation such as a different timeline or resource challenges; or (3) Balancing the benefits of focusing in one area with the pressing need to tackle multiple issues and solutions simultaneously. New sources of innovation are needed to address these classic challenges in improving educational outcomes and break through a history of underwhelming results. Learning Forward's What Matters Now Network is designed to address these challenges using an innovative structure for collaboration and continuous improvement. The network focuses on classroom- and school level rapid-cycle testing of innovative strategies so that promising practices that lead to positive changes in one classroom or one school can be scaled up to include others and can inform and impact statewide policy at the same time. The What Matters Now Network aims to build knowledge at two levels: across and within states. The network as a whole is focused on the shared goal of accelerating the improvement of job-embedded professional learning focused on selecting and implementing high quality curricula and instructional materials. The ultimate goal of the What Matters Now Network is to design a more coherent set of policies and programs to advance job-embedded professional learning that improves educators' ability to select and implement high-quality curricula and instructional materials. This goal can only be realized through teams learning, collaborating, and problem-solving together around this critical issue.

The meta-analysis addressed three research questions: (1) What is the causal effect of teacher coaching programs on classroom instruction and student achievement?; (2) Are specific coaching program design elements associated with larger effects?; and (3) Do changes in teacher practice from coaching programs translate into improvements in student achievement? Results found large positive effects of coaching on teachers' instructional practices. In addition, teacher coaching had an independent, positive effect on student achievement, as indicated by performance on standardized tests. Pairing coaching with group training was found to be associated with a larger effect on instruction and on achievement. There was no clear evidence that more hours of coaching were associated with larger impacts, suggesting that the quality and focus of the coaching may be more important than the actual number of contact hours. [This article is a research review of: Kraft, M., Blazar, D., & Hogan, D. (2018, August). "The effect of teacher coaching on instruction and achievement: A meta-analysis of the causal evidence." "Review of Educational Research," 88(4), 547-588 (see EJ1185488).]

Coaching is a popular and promising form of professional learning, with research evidence of its effectiveness for teachers and students. Surprisingly little is known, however, about the current landscape of coaching. To close this knowledge gap, Learning Forward recently partnered with Digital Promise to survey more than 1,000 U.S. educators about their experiences with coaching. Overall, 83% of respondents reported being engaged in coaching in a school or district, either in a coaching capacity or as a coachee. The majority of respondents in the analysis are coaches, followed by administrators, educators, and "other," which included curriculum coordinators, instructional specialists, and special education support staff. This article discusses findings regarding the following: (1) coaches' workloads; (2) frequency and duration; (3) funding; (4) satisfaction with coaching; and (5) coaches' professional learning. Overall, the results present a mixed picture of how well respondents' coaching experiences align with the Standards for Professional Learning.

A recent study by Debra McKeown and colleagues is described by author Eliabeth Foster as important not only because it highlights professional learning about a model of writing instruction of interest to many educators, but also because it examines teachers' reflections about their experiences in professional learning. Building on a larger quantitative study, this qualitative study elicited teachers' insights about the elements of the professional learning they found beneficial for instruction and student outcomes. McKeown and colleagues looked at how 2nd- and 3rd-grade teachers in three rural schools experienced and responded to professional development related to a writing instruction method called self-regulated strategy development (SRSD). SRSD is a complex instructional approach that includes "active, discourse-based, scaffolded, and explicit learning of: strategies for genre-specific and general writing employed across the writing process" (p. 757). SRSD instruction includes as core principles engaging students as active collaborators, attention to social and emotional learning, and a commitment to teacher adaptations. The SRSD strategy is well-researched and recognized by the What Works Clearinghouse as an evidence-based practice. More than 100 studies by multiple research teams have found that SRSD achieves significantly higher effect sizes than other instructional approaches in writing.

Jessica Lynne Pearson, The Colonial Politics of Global Health: France and the United Nations in Postwar Africa (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2018). Jessica Pearson's Colonial Politics of Global Health [...]

As campuses become more culturally diverse, instruction librarians must work toward developing cultural competence. While the library science literature has discussed cultural competence, no scholars have directly connected it to instruction librarians' teaching. This article discusses literature, models, and best practices from related disciplines and applies them to a customized workflow grounded in reflective practice, the process of thinking about and reflecting on what you do. The workflow identifies opportunities for intentional preparation, instructional design and delivery, assessment, and reflection. By considering cultural competence at each stage of the teaching process, instruction librarians will be better prepared to connect with and teach students from a variety of backgrounds.

Professional learning strategies often rely on the belief that teaching and learning outcomes are best when teachers have a clear understanding of students' thinking. This may seem like common sense -- after all, students are active participants in the learning process, so their thinking impacts the outcome. But does research support the assumption that teachers' knowledge of students' thinking matters? Researchers Heather C. Hill and Mark Chin address this issue in a study, "Connections between teachers' knowledge of students, instruction, and achievement outcomes," recently published in the "American Educational Research Journal." The study's findings have important implications for professional learning directors, coaches, and school leaders as these professionals consider how to incorporate students' development and learning needs into strategies to make the most of curriculum and materials.

Engaging with materials can shape the teaching experience, teachers' practices and mindsets, and, ultimately, students' learning experiences. This issue of "Learning Professional" looks at an area of emerging interest: curriculum materials and the role they play in the daily work of educators and leaders. Educators, researchers, and policymakers are interested in what materials schools and districts use and how best to develop and share them in order to understand and support improved teacher practice and student learning. In this Research Review column, the author examines a recent research study that looks at how curriculum materials impact teaching practice and student learning. The study offers general design principles for educative curriculum materials. [For the study reviewed in this article, "Educative Curriculum Materials: Uptake, Impact, and Implications for Research and Design," see EJ1153282.]

BackgroundSexual and gender minority youth (SGMY; eg, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth) are at greater risk than their cisgender heterosexual peers for adolescent relationship abuse (ARA; physical, sexual, or psychological abuse in a romantic relationship). However, there is a dearth of efficacious interventions for reducing ARA among SGMY. To address this intervention gap, we designed a novel web-based methodology leveraging the field of human-centered design to generate multiple ARA intervention concepts with SGMY. ObjectiveThis paper aims to describe study procedures for a pilot study to rigorously test the feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of using web-based human-centered design methods with SGMY to create novel, stakeholder-driven ARA intervention concepts. MethodsWe are conducting a longitudinal, web-based human-centered design study with 45-60 SGMY (aged between 14 and 18 years) recruited via social media from across the United States. Using MURAL (a collaborative, visual web-based workspace) and Zoom (a videoconferencing platform), the SGMY will participate in four group-based sessions (1.5 hours each). In session 1, the SGMY will use rose-thorn-bud to individually document their ideas about healthy and unhealthy relationship characteristics and then use affinity clustering as a group to categorize their self-reported ideas based on similarities and differences. In session 2, the SGMY will use rose-thorn-bud to individually critique a universal evidence-based intervention to reduce ARA and affinity clustering to aggregate their ideas as a group. In session 3, the SGMY will use a creative matrix to generate intervention ideas for reducing ARA among them and force-rank the intervention ideas based on their potential ease of implementation and potential impact using an importance-difficulty matrix. In session 4, the SGMY will generate and refine intervention concepts (from session 3 ideations) to reduce ARA using round robin (for rapid iteration) and concept poster (for fleshing out ideas more fully). We will use content analyses to document the intervention concepts. In a follow-up survey, the SGMY will complete validated measures about the feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of the web-based human-centered design methods (a priori benchmarks for success: means >3.75 on each 5-point scale). ResultsThis study was funded in February 2020. Data collection began in August 2020 and will be completed by April 2021. ConclusionsThrough rigorous testing of the feasibility of our web-based human-centered design methodology, our study may help demonstrate the use of human-centered design methods to engage harder-to-reach stakeholders and actively involve them in the co-creation of relevant interventions. Successful completion of this project also has the potential to catalyze intervention research to address ARA inequities for SGMY. Finally, our approach may be transferable to other populations and health topics, thereby advancing prevention science and health equity. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)DERR1-10.2196/26554