View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

'Let's Facetime Tonight': Using Digital Tools to Enhance Coaching

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: 'Let's Facetime Tonight': Using Digital Tools to Enhance Coaching
Language: English
Authors: Leighton, Christine M., Ford-Connors, Evelyn, Robertson, Dana A., Wyatt, Jennifer, Wagner, Christopher J., Proctor, C. Patrick, Paratore, Jeanne R.
Source: Reading Teacher. Jul-Aug 2018 72(1):39-49.
Availability: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 11
Publication Date: 2018
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Descriptors: Teacher Collaboration, Elementary School Teachers, Grade 2, College Faculty, Literacy, Coaching (Performance), Teaching Methods, Dialogs (Language), Technology Uses in Education, Interdisciplinary Approach, Problem Solving, Electronic Mail, Social Media, Computer Mediated Communication, Video Technology, Audio Equipment, Language Skills, Multilingualism, Bilingual Students, Elementary School Students
DOI: 10.1002/trtr.1676
ISSN: 0034-0561
Abstract: This article documents a collaboration between a second-grade teacher and a university-based literacy coach to implement dialogic instruction as part of a 14-week cross-disciplinary curriculum unit. The coach-teacher dyad used digital technologies to enhance a problem-solving approach to coaching. The authors describe the coaching interactions, the digital tools used (e.g., e-mail, FaceTime, text messaging, video and audio recordings), the problems that the coach-teacher dyad collaboratively addressed over three phases of the unit, and the student learning that occurred in response. Throughout, the authors highlight how the coach and teacher made flexible use of digital technology to carve out additional time and space for problem solving as they worked to support the language and literacy skills of a group of multilingual second-grade students.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2018
Accession Number: EJ1183290
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFEnSSS22tLU3pddxMUQEpGAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDKqBp7gUJosYqyXlrQIBEICBmwtHwad4DgmvG908eFzX30dGywCrEI_vvgi_6-C9nBZ0TvVfVq2OM4lum3HsStCsPLe9Fdltmy7RUHOGWhWT49FL1ZQVlGxUsdXFdGam4eLGQ8JrtagfWY0C2bslFPrpnO_Omoe3MMm1P43Ica6QKyVFN2rqIOg_GRsMoPizIHVB6s9tMMk0dhNulZheIGXz7Jbm-ElEjMb_MmZ2
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0130362396;ret01jul.18;2018Jun28.09:53;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0130362396-1">“Let's FaceTime Tonight”: Using Digital Tools to Enhance Coaching </title> <p>Abstract: This article documents a collaboration between a second‐grade teacher and a university‐based literacy coach to implement dialogic instruction as part of a 14‐week cross‐disciplinary curriculum unit. The coach–teacher dyad used digital technologies to enhance a problem‐solving approach to coaching. The authors describe the coaching interactions, the digital tools used (e.g., e‐mail, FaceTime, text messaging, video and audio recordings), the problems that the coach–teacher dyad collaboratively addressed over three phases of the unit, and the student learning that occurred in response. Throughout, the authors highlight how the coach and teacher made flexible use of digital technology to carve out additional time and space for problem solving as they worked to support the language and literacy skills of a group of multilingual second‐grade students.</p> <p>Teacher education; professional development; Instructional strategies; methods, and materials; Language learners; Digital/media literacies; English language learners; English learners; English as a second language; English for speakers of other languages < Language learners; Discussion strategies < Strategies, methods, and materials; School based < Teacher education; professional development; Specific media (hypertext, Internet, film, music, etc.) < Digital/media literacies; Information and communication technologies < Digital/media literacies; In‐service < Teacher education; Reflection < Teacher education; 2‐Childhood; 6‐Adult</p> <p>A teacher and a literacy coach used various digital tools and a problem‐solving coaching model to enhance a group of multilingual second‐grade students’ language and literacy skills.</p> <p>How might you more intentionally take a problem‐solving approach in your instruction and/or coaching?</p> <p>How could you make greater use of digital tools to create new and more flexible coaching contexts?</p> <p>How could digital tools maximize your school's existing professional support by connecting like‐minded colleagues to identify and collaboratively search for solutions to a persistent problem of practice?</p> <p>It is February, and an hour‐long professional development (PD) session on dialogic instruction is coming to a close. A team of kindergarten teachers talks over how they will co‐construct lessons and share resources as they implement the ideas discussed. Christine (first author), a university‐based literacy coach, notices that Jen (fourth author), a second‐grade classroom teacher, seems eager to brainstorm. With no other second‐grade teachers involved in this particular PD initiative, the two have partnered since September to coplan instruction. They have successfully collaborated during the year but always seem short on time, and when they schedule extra meetings, last‐minute conflicts often arise.</p> <p>As Jen gathers her materials to return to her students, Christine quickly checks in with her. Jen shares that she is excited about the new ideas related to dialogic teaching and thinks her upcoming Fighting for a Cause unit (Core Knowledge Foundation, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref1">4</reflink>] ) would provide a good place to integrate the approach, but she wants to discuss implementation. Christine inquires more about the curriculum, and Jen agrees to email a copy of the materials to her. They tentatively plan to meet later that week, and at the last minute, they decide that it will be easier to use FaceTime than to squeeze in another face‐to‐face meeting. At the time, they did not realize how these seemingly small decisions to use digital tools to coplan would dramatically change the nature of their collaboration.</p> <p>In this article, we describe how Christine and Jen supported and extended their coaching interactions through digital technologies. Framed within a coaching‐as‐problem‐solving approach (e.g., Toll, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref2">26</reflink>] ), this coach–teacher dyad employed a range of tools, from FaceTime and texting to email and asynchronous video viewing, that expanded available coaching contexts and removed the constraints posed by limited time and proximity. First, we briefly examine the literature on coaching through a problem‐solving approach, and we consider the potential contributions of digital technologies for expanding coaches’ responsiveness and increasing both the flexibility and accessibility with which coaches can support teachers’ professional lives.</p> <hd id="AN0130362396-2">Coaching as Problem Solving</hd> <p>Coaching is widely recognized as an essential component of effective PD (Biancarosa, Bryk, & Dexter, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref3">2</reflink>] ; Darling‐Hammond & Richardson, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref4">5</reflink>] ). Moreover, coaching that is student‐focused, collaborative, and undertaken with a stance of inquiry has proven highly effective for developing teachers’ knowledge and skills and strengthening teachers’ feelings of efficacy relative to students’ learning (Matsumura, Garnier, Correnti, Junker, & Bickel, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref5">12</reflink>] ; Sailors & Price, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref6">22</reflink>] ). This stance of inquiry, or problem solving, between teacher and coach is often at the heart of effective coaching interactions.</p> <p>Although coaching through a problem‐solving approach is not a new idea, it presents an important framework for addressing problems of practice as intellectual and practical challenges to be identified and solved rather than as sources of perceived weakness (Osterman & Kottkamp, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref7">17</reflink>] ). Toll ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref8">26</reflink>] ) explained a problem‐solving coaching model as occurring in a three‐phase process: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref9">1</reflink>) identifying a problem; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref10">2</reflink>) describing it, using careful analysis of student data; and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref11">3</reflink>) deciding on a course of action to try something different after careful goal setting and brainstorming of possible solutions. Within this model, the reflective conversations that occur help teachers see instruction more objectively. Schön ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref12">24</reflink>] ) referred to these interactions as reflection‐on‐action, a systematic and intentional review of one's teaching actions to gain insight. Through reflection, teachers not only identify what is working but also acknowledge aspects of instruction where small changes might lead to greater gains in students’ literacy learning (Ermeling, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref13">9</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Yet, engaging in this type of thoughtful, recursive process of coaching as problem solving takes time and dedicated effort. And time is a precious commodity in schools, where heavy work demands can interfere with even the most carefully planned coaching activities (e.g., Walpole & McKenna, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref14">29</reflink>] ). One potential solution lies in the use of digital technologies to make coaching interactions more flexible and accessible.</p> <hd id="AN0130362396-3">Digital Tools in Professional Learning</hd> <p>Digital technologies are emerging as a way to broaden teachers’ interactions with content and other colleagues in professional learning contexts. For example, Tomassini ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref15">27</reflink>] ) reported that social media platforms such as Facebook, LinkedIn, and Twitter helped teachers forge peer networks that enabled them to share content and pedagogical experience. Similarly, e‐mentoring experiences using internet‐mediated communications such as email supported special educators in refining their planning and instruction (Smith & Israel, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref16">25</reflink>] ). Also, teachers in some rural schools, who had limited access to a broader cohort of experienced teachers because of geographical obstacles, engaged in online mentoring using private messaging and Skype to support their refinement of teaching practices (Sawchuk, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref17">23</reflink>] ). Collectively, digital technologies create additional options for teachers by expanding resources and training mediums to help address obstacles posed by the limits of time or by geographical constraints.</p> <p>Although digital technologies, such as social networks, video, and web‐mediated discussion platforms, have been used in mentoring relationships to strengthen teacher preparation and novice teachers’ transitions to school‐based placements (e.g., Alger & Kopcha, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref18">1</reflink>] ; Israel, Knowlton, Griswold, & Rowland, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref19">10</reflink>] ; Kinchin & Bryant, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref20">11</reflink>] ), their use in PD contexts with inservice teachers is still in its infancy. Yet, results of studies on technology use for inservice PD are promising. For example, Dieker, Hynes, Hughes, Hardin, and Becht ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref21">6</reflink>] ) employed avatars to create recursive opportunities for teachers in rural districts to practice and reflect on simulated school‐based interactions with various constituencies (e.g., teachers, students, administrators, parents). Nickerson, Fredenberg, and Druken ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref22">15</reflink>] ) investigated a hybrid PD model with 80 mathematics teachers across multiple locations that combined face‐to‐face coaching and PD with web‐based resources and online discussion formats; although a relatively small number of teachers used the online format for sustained discussions, a much larger percentage accessed the website for resources and used the site as a place to share students’ responses to new instructional ideas.</p> <p>The most commonly researched digital technology seems to be video as a tool for teachers to examine their own practice and that of others. Video has been shown to anchor teachers’ abilities to critically and objectively examine their own instruction and to consider possible refinements (e.g., Rich & Hannafin, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref23">20</reflink>] ; Tripp & Rich, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref24">28</reflink>] ). Combining video reflection with coaching has prompted significant shifts in language and literacy instructional practices with preschool teachers (e.g., Neuman & Wright, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref25">14</reflink>] ) and has been correlated with improved quality of teachers’ language use during comprehension instruction (Wilkinson, Reninger, & Soter, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref26">30</reflink>] ). Further, video and web‐based tools combined with consultation and feedback from coaches have led to significant changes to teachers’ instructional practices (e.g., Pianta, Mashburn, Downer, Hamre, & Justice, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref27">18</reflink>] ; Powell & Diamond, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref28">19</reflink>] ) when compared with technology use without coaching support.</p> <p>As these findings suggest, technology encompasses a wide range of tools that hold promise for an array of professional learning activities, including coaching. Although the sheer number and ever‐changing nature of technological options leave unanswered many questions about the tools’ overall affordances and limitations, many of these tools may also offer practical solutions to the limitations of time and opportunity that plague teachers and coaches in busy school settings. Supplementing traditional face‐to‐face PD structure with the innovative use of digital tools may allow coaches to carve out chunks of available time during the school day or uncover new, more flexible contexts through which to meet with teachers to solve problems of practice. Such was the case with Christine and Jen.</p> <p>In the following sections, we first situate the coaching model within the schoolwide PD on dialogic teaching. We then describe the coaching interactions, the digital tools used, the problems the coach–teacher dyad collaboratively addressed over three phases of the unit, and the student learning that occurred in response. Throughout, we highlight how the coach and teacher made flexible use of digital technologies to enhance coaching interactions that focused on solving problems of practice related to dialogically based instruction.</p> <hd id="AN0130362396-4">The Coaching Context</hd> <hd id="AN0130362396-5">School–University Partnership</hd> <p>This coach–teacher collaboration was part of a larger PD initiative known as Enhancing Literacy Instruction through Collaboration and Interactive Technology (ELICIT), an ongoing project among university faculty, doctoral students, and teachers from an urban school in the Northeast United States. The intention of the project was to proximally focus teachers’ attention on the important role of language in literacy instruction to influence student literacy outcomes. The multistep initiative combined face‐to‐face and multimodal coaching interactions with an approach we called Dialogic Reasoning (Ossa‐Parra et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref29">16</reflink>] ), which was grounded in other group discussion frameworks such as Collaborative Reasoning (Chinn, Anderson, & Waggoner, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref30">3</reflink>] ) and Accountable Talk (e.g., Michaels, O'Connor, & Hall, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref31">13</reflink>] ).</p> <p>Participating teachers video recorded monthly lessons and uploaded them to an online portal that served as an asynchronous venue for individual coaching with members of the university team. Then, during monthly on‐site meetings, classroom teachers and university coaches used those videos and online conversations as a foundation to further explore problems of practice, share instructional ideas and student artifacts, and coview selected video segments that offered a context for exploring instructional decisions while implementing Dialogic Reasoning.</p> <p>Small‐ and whole‐group classroom discussions were a central coaching focus, with an emphasis on using reading, writing, and talk as pathways toward language development, reasoning abilities, and knowledge building. Dialogic Reasoning occurred within the sequencing of careful reading of high‐interest texts aligned with the school's curriculum and revolving around a text‐based big question. These questions prompted critical thought and co‐construction of arguments and counterarguments that were discussed in small‐ and large‐group formats. As such, literacy tasks were grounded in instructional principles of motivation and engagement, instructional intensity, and cognitive challenge (Robertson, Dougherty, Ford‐Connors, & Paratore, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref32">21</reflink>] ). To learn more about Dialogic Reasoning, see ELICIT Collaborative ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref33">8</reflink>] ).</p> <hd id="AN0130362396-6">The Coaching Dyad</hd> <p>Jen, a second‐grade teacher, was in her third year of teaching. She was licensed in elementary education and English as a second language and had always worked in this school district. Of her 23 students, 15 qualified as English learners, ranging from advanced to intermediate and with multiple languages represented, including English, Spanish, Cape Verdean Creole, and Vietnamese. Christine, an assistant professor of education and a former elementary teacher and ESL coordinator, drew on her background in language and literacy development to support Jen's instructional goals.</p> <hd id="AN0130362396-7">Technology‐Based Coaching: Problem Solving in Action</hd> <p>The coaching interactions comprised three phases (see Figure ) that each enabled Jen and Christine to analyze problems, brainstorm and try out solutions, and then refine these ideas based on classroom interactions. Beyond classroom observations, face‐to‐face meetings, and the technology used by the whole team (e.g., online portal, video recordings), Christine and Jen experimented with additional digital tools (e.g., text messaging, email, FaceTime) to increase the consistency and timeliness of their interactions.</p> <p>Data collection served two purposes. To describe this coaching experience, we examined written field notes from monthly face‐to‐face ELICIT team meetings, email exchanges between Jen and Christine (weekly or biweekly), written notes from three FaceTime meetings (two were also audio recorded), and two sets of text messages between the dyad. To examine the influence of coaching on student learning, we examined six video or audio recorded whole‐class discussions and 10 video or audio recorded small‐group discussions. The video and audio files were uploaded to the project's web portal throughout the unit and were sources of information for coaching sessions (see Figure ). We also examined 18 students’ writing samples (three to five samples each). Although we acknowledge that the writing of one student does not express the nuances of an entire class, we provide Andrea's (all student names are pseudonyms) writing throughout this article as representative of the below‐grade‐level English learner writers who picked up the discussion ideas in writing over the course of the unit.</p> <hd id="AN0130362396-8">Phase 1 Problem Solving (Weeks 1–3)</hd> <p>Jen's unit profiled seven influential leaders in American history: Susan B. Anthony, Eleanor Roosevelt, Mary McLeod Bethune, Jackie Robinson, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr., and Cesar Chavez. After reviewing the unit's readings, Christine and Jen used FaceTime to coplan the 14‐week unit and to identify a common theme to focus the unit.</p> <p>As they conferred, Christine and Jen were drawn to the idea, introduced in the readings, of these historical figures as “troublemakers,” often so labeled in their times because they challenged unfair laws and social norms. Christine and Jen thought second graders would be intrigued by this label, so they crafted an overarching question for discussion: “What is a troublemaker, and is it ever OK to be one?” By asking students to consider this big question, Christine and Jen hoped to connect individual historical figures to a larger theme of social activism so students would understand why some people who lived during these time periods might have considered these changemakers to be troublemakers. During the 14 weeks, Jen included at least one whole‐group Dialogic Reasoning discussion per historical figure (seven in total) with several small‐group discussions looped in throughout the unit. The questions for these small‐group discussions always related to the topic of troublemakers, establishing coherence between the whole‐group and small‐group work, thus helping students make intertextual and broader connections among these historical leaders, their times, and society.</p> <p>Additionally, Jen wanted to incorporate writing across the unit to integrate essential literacy skills. Hence, she included five writing prompts related to the big question to explore how students responded in writing (one prompt as a preassessment and four as postdiscussion assessments). Jen and Christine planned to use students’ responses to provide essential data about how students thought about and processed the information as they read and discussed.</p> <hd id="AN0130362396-9">Phase 1 in Action (Weeks 3–7)</hd> <p>Over four weeks, Jen recorded and uploaded four whole‐class discussions, and Christine and Jen emailed regularly to discuss how the unit was unfolding and to address issues that arose.</p> <p>After the first whole‐class discussion on being a troublemaker, Christine checked in via email. Jen responded immediately to discuss students’ responses to the prediscussion writing prompt and how that related to their group discussion (see Figure ). In reflecting on the second graders’ discussion and writing, Jen wrote,</p> <p>It was really interesting because in the writing prompt, only 2 students said that sometimes it's okay to be a troublemaker if it's for a good cause. But once we started the discussion, more people were agreeing with that statement and bringing up examples of people we had studied/mentioned in this unit. Also, they were caught up on “well if they are doing good things, then they AREN'T troublemakers.” Some of them got really into it!</p> <p>After that first discussion, Jen started noting areas in need of improvement. For example, she said in an email,</p> <p>I'm not sure how much the conversations will change or if I need to tweak the prompt at all, based on their responses. There was a lot of talk last time over whether you even ARE a troublemaker if you “make trouble” for a good cause…. Maybe you can give me your opinion on that, and whether the prompt should stay the same or if I should steer them in another direction?</p> <p>Christine responded,</p> <p>When possible, I would keep coming back to the troublemaker prompt…and the overall idea that when people want to change the way things have always been they can get this label. Second, keep trying to think of additional stance prompts as they seem applicable to each reading. So, if any of the people you read about do go to jail, you could do that prompt is it ever OK to go to jail. Throwing in additional prompts like this can build to your larger idea.</p> <p>After viewing several uploaded videos, Christine wrote to Jen about what she was noticing, starting with positive aspects of the conversation. “There is some really great talk…in the troublemaker discussion the fact that you ask the question and some say yes and some say no shows that it is forcing them to think.” Christine also suggested setting up small‐group discussions with audio recorders, asked Jen for her perspective on students’ engagement during the discussion, and inquired about other ways that she might support Jen.</p> <p>Jen was receptive and excited about Christine's ideas. She wrote, “I like the idea of doing the small‐groups with a microphone in the middle, but would just need that technology!” and she also liked the ideas for additional prompts. With respect to engagement, she noted,</p> <p>I do find a core group of students really engaged in the discussions, then there are students who chime in once in a while, and then of course there are the students that either sit there and seem to space out, or start to be distracted and a little disruptive. I'm not sure how to get them engaged more ‐ even with the ‘turn and talk’ they don't seem as invested as the others. Trying with a small group is another idea, but for some perhaps it's over their head?</p> <p>It was at this point that the two decided FaceTime would allow for better problem solving. During this remote meeting, Jen discussed her concern that “conversations are not really developing the way I want them to develop…I want them to be giving more examples from their readings…and more varied examples.” Because the group discussions were video and audio recorded, they could delve into this issue with more specific examples. Christine noted that some students were successfully making connections. For example, one student observed that “some people think that you're just causing them trouble, but you're actually just doing what's best for you,” and later stated, “But I think some people will say that if he's making the world a better place, that's not a troublemaker.”</p> <p>At the same time, Christine acknowledged that other students did exemplify Jen's concerns about a growing number of off‐topic connections and digressions, leading Jen to step into the discussions more than anticipated to steer students back to the readings. Jen also noted that even though students were saying during discussions that it was sometimes OK to be a troublemaker, this idea was not yet reflected in their writing.</p> <hd id="AN0130362396-10">Phase 2 Problem Solving (Week 8)</hd> <p>At the conclusion of the FaceTime conversation, Jen and Christine agreed on the following steps:</p> <p>Use more explicit teacher talk to encourage students to refer to the readings and to the historical leaders. Incorporate a line into the prompt such as “Let's think about the people we have been learning about.”</p> <p>Include small‐group discussions in addition to the whole‐group format. Break the class into small groups and record conversations to make the pacing more brisk through shorter, more intense conversations that reduce tangents and encourage more productive conversations. The ELICIT team provided digital recorders.</p> <p>Experiment with different, but related, questions in small‐group discussions to maintain engagement with topically related tasks that might prompt different student talk, such as “Is it ever OK to break the rules?” and “Is it ever OK to break the law?”</p> <p>In addition, Jen agreed to present her work to the entire ELICIT team to discuss this problem‐solving process.</p> <hd id="AN0130362396-11">Phase 2 in Action (Weeks 8–13)</hd> <p>Jen implemented these ideas in subsequent weeks. Although Christine and Jen were in touch via email regarding digital recorders and the plan for Jen's presentation during the team meeting, Jen implemented the action steps independently and Christine reviewed recordings remotely (one whole‐class discussion and five small‐group conversations).</p> <p>In reviewing the whole‐group discussion, it was clear that Jen was more explicit about her expectations. The second graders immediately made connections to the leaders when prompted: “Think about the biographies we read and think about…is it OK to break the rules?” One student began the conversation with a general example of what he termed “dumb laws” that are broken for a good reason. The conversation continued as Andrea chimed in with some specifics about the topic of segregation:</p> <p>Jen</p> <p>How can we tell when a rule is important or not or if it's fair or not? Andrea?</p> <p>Andrea</p> <p>You can tell if it's not fair…if somebody couldn't go to the same place or something like that.</p> <p>Jen</p> <p>What was that called?</p> <p>Andrea</p> <p>Injustice—no, discrimination.</p> <p>Jen</p> <p>Well, you could say that it was an injustice, yeah, or discrimination, or what was the word for when people are separate?</p> <p>Students</p> <p>Segregation.</p> <p>As the conversation went on, students contributed ideas and examples from the readings, yet these contributions still resulted largely from Jen's probing. Still, Ana brought up Jackie Robinson's biography and how he broke the color barrier, and Sam made connections to Rosa Parks and Eleanor Roosevelt, demonstrating that students were increasingly thinking across the readings and finding commonalities in the actions of these important people.</p> <p>Jen divided the class into five small groups, each with a digital recorder that allowed Jen and Christine to capture even more about the students’ thinking. She facilitated a student group that benefited from more teacher support, and the other groups were student‐run.</p> <p>In reviewing the small‐group discussions, other insights emerged. The teacher‐run group started out slowly, with general statements about not breaking the law “because you will go to jail.” The conversation gained steam when a student suggested that one should not follow unfair laws. Jen took this opportunity to refer to the reading about Martin Luther King Jr. and his letter from the Birmingham jail. The students chorally read this passage, and doing so directed them back to the text. The following conversation occurred:</p> <p>Kim</p> <p>I think it is OK, because here's an example: Rosa Parks stood up for what is right.</p> <p>Students</p> <p>Yeah.</p> <p>Jen</p> <p>Did she break the law?</p> <p>Students</p> <p>Yes.</p> <p>As the students started to say that it is OK to break the law, Jen challenged them to reconsider their initial point:</p> <p>Jen</p> <p>But then you will go to jail.</p> <p>Adam</p> <p>Yeah, but you will be standing up for what you think is right. That's a good thing.</p> <p>Kevin</p> <p>And other people might agree with you, and you need to try to make that law go away.</p> <p>Here, Jen was able to successfully steer this group's conversation to a point of deeper consideration of the content while students took different stances on the question.</p> <p>After reviewing the recordings, Christine reached out with positive feedback and to see if she could offer Jen any support. Jen responded promptly, suggesting that a FaceTime conversation could help her determine how to end the unit. As they debriefed over FaceTime during week 13, both were impressed by the quality of the students’ talk and the ways these seemingly small changes (i.e., small‐group discussions, additional topically related prompts, brisker pacing) had affected the content that students brought into the conversation and increased their participation.</p> <p>They also discussed students’ writing, and Jen noted, “When they have to write about it, they remember things from the conversation.” For example, Andrea's response to the prompt “Is it ever OK to break the law?” (see Figure ) included specific text‐based examples to bolster her argument. However, Jen went on to say, “I definitely get more detail and depth from them verbally than I do in the writing.”</p> <hd id="AN0130362396-12">Phase 3 Problem Solving (Week 13)</hd> <p>Most of the FaceTime conversation was spent deciding how to end the unit and how to balance small‐ and whole‐group discussion. Jen thought she should return to the initial overarching prompt of whether it is OK to be a troublemaker, but she was concerned that students would revert back to the same personal examples and simple statements about “a troublemaker making trouble.” After brainstorming possibilities, Christine and Jen settled on the following plan:</p> <p>Frame the conversation with explicit talk to remind students of the trajectory of their investigations to help them connect to previous ideas and structure their thinking.</p> <p>Redirect the conversation with a statement such as, “You may disagree with the label, but why were they thought of as troublemakers during this time?” if discussions started to stray off topic. Additionally, refer students back to relevant texts for evidence and support.</p> <p>Create a final prompt with a statement about using the biographies for support.</p> <p>Start with a whole‐group discussion to set the stage, and then follow up with briefer small‐group discussions with related prompts.</p> <hd id="AN0130362396-13">Phase 3 in Action (Weeks 13 and 14)</hd> <p>A week after the FaceTime conversation, Christine received a series of texts from Jen containing students’ writing from the final prompt (see Figure  for Andrea's writing sample). Jen was impressed by the growth she saw in her second graders. She texted, “There is so much good stuff going on from our latest discussion and writing!”</p> <p>The video and audio recordings of the discussions confirmed Jen's positive impression:</p> <p>So, the question we're gonna get thinking about is the very first question we started with in this unit: Is it ever OK to be a troublemaker?…So, we talked about is it OK to be a troublemaker, we talked about is it ever OK to break the rules, we talked about when is it OK to break the rules—because a lot of you said sometimes it's OK to break the rules, sometimes it is not—and we talked about is it ever OK to break the law, which a lot of you said yes, a lot of you said no. And now, using what we know now from all of our discussions…since these people were considered troublemakers, is it OK to be a troublemaker?</p> <p>The group began discussing the leaders and the reasons they were labeled troublemakers. Jen brought up leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr., and students responded that he went to jail 30 times. Ana recalled the threatening calls he received, and Andrea talked about how his house was burned down. As expected, students debated whether the label of these leaders as troublemakers was fair, but this time, students pulled from textual examples to support their positions:</p> <p>Sam</p> <p>In the text…he wasn't really a troublemaker because he was just trying to help all the people get all the human rights.</p> <p>Jen</p> <p>So, Sam brings up an interesting point. He says, well, he doesn't think that these people were troublemakers…. But we have to remember that at the time many people thought he was a troublemaker.</p> <p>The whole‐group conversation then separated into brief (5–6‐minute) small‐group conversations that were run similar to the previous small‐group discussions. In Andrea's small group, Jen still facilitated the conversation, but this time students immediately responded to the prompt by saying it is OK to be a troublemaker if a law is unfair. Students’ comments still did not reference information from the unit as much as Jen had hoped, so she steered them back to the people they studied and asked if they were troublemakers. The following conversation resulted:</p> <p>Adam</p> <p>I think they were troublemakers, but they were good troublemakers.</p> <p>Andrea</p> <p>People thought…the seven people…were troublemakers, but they're really not because they helped the world be a better place.</p> <p>Kevin</p> <p>I agree with Andrea because if you think something is wrong, you should try to fix it.</p> <p>Andrea</p> <p>Say Susan B. Anthony wants women to have the right to vote, but people didn't like what she was saying, but she was just trying to make the world a better place so everything can be fair and equal.</p> <p>In addition to the conclusions that students articulated during their final discussions, the insights that they developed as they explored the unit's big question were exemplified in Andrea's final written response (see Figure ).</p> <hd id="AN0130362396-14">Final Debriefing</hd> <p>When Jen debriefed with Christine during their final FaceTime conversation for this unit, several comments highlighted the success of their multimodal coaching approach. First, Jen's confidence in her instruction increased as she presented for the first time in the whole‐team meeting. When Christine asked Jen how she felt about the presentation, she said it was great and that she felt so proud of her second graders. Jen stated,</p> <p>This type of stuff makes me feel more inspired and passionate about teaching. This is why I want to teach…. The critical thinking, where they are going in depth in a topic but also learning to apply the facts in history to a bigger question. To be able to synthesize the information in the world, in society.</p> <p>She concluded by saying how helpful it was to continually talk out these problems of practice—communication that was made possible by the variety of digital tools they used.</p> <hd id="AN0130362396-15">Conclusion</hd> <p>Coaching is widely recognized as a contributor to effective school‐based professional learning by creating space for teachers to investigate problems of practice, reflect on instruction, and expand their instructional range and repertoire. Yet, productive coaching interactions are often constrained by limitations of time, the structure of the school day, and available resources. The wide array of digital tools now readily available through personal devices allows for coaches and teachers to think innovatively and creatively about how they meet and work together. However, although some web‐based resources and video have gained recognition as coaching tools (e.g., Downer, Kraft‐Sayre, & Pianta, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref34">7</reflink>] ; Neuman & Wright, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref35">14</reflink>] ), research on the use of other digital technologies to enhance coaching remains scarce. In addition, some coach–teacher teams may find that certain technologies better suit their purposes than others, so flexibility and a willingness to experiment with new tools are important for success.</p> <p>The collaboration between Christine and Jen described in this article provides a glimpse into ways that flexible use of multiple digital tools can support high‐quality interactions between coaches and teachers. This authentic implementation employed multimodal coaching and allowed Jen to take full ownership of the instruction, increased her efficacy (e.g., Sailors & Price, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref36">22</reflink>] ) as she considered her points of inquiry opportunities rather than weaknesses (Osterman & Kottkamp, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref37">17</reflink>] ), and empowered her to delve deeply into teaching topics that mattered to her. The flexibility that digital tools offer creates new options for coaching contexts that facilitate instructional problem solving and create space for teachers to reflect and innovate.</p> <hd id="AN0130362396-16">Note</hd> <p>Funding for this research was provided by a Collaborative Fellows research grant to C. Patrick Proctor by the Trustees of Boston College and the Lynch School of Education.</p> <p>Identify a burning question or recurring problem of practice to investigate with a literacy coach or like‐minded colleague. If the two of you are unsure where to start, audio or video record a lesson, review it separately, and then discuss strengths and weaknesses together.</p> <p>If finding time during the school day is a problem, be creative. Think about both the places in your day where you might squeeze a little time to meet to coplan (e.g., before or after school, at lunch) and the meeting tools that might expand your meeting options, including email, FaceTime, or even text messaging.</p> <p>Experiment in phases: Make a well‐thought‐out adjustment to practice, collect more data, observe and debrief, and then plan the next phase.</p> <ref id="AN0130362396-17"> <title>References</title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref9" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext>Alger, C., & Kopcha, T.J. (2010). Technology supported cognitive apprenticeship transforms the student teaching field experience: Improving the student teaching field experience for all triad members. The Teacher Educator, 46(1), 71–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/08878730.2010.529986 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref3" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext>Biancarosa, G., Bryk, A.S., & Dexter, E.R. (2010). Assessing the value‐added effects of literacy collaborative professional development on student learning. The Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 7–34. https://doi.org/10.1086/653468 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref11" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext>Chinn, C.A., Anderson, R.C., & Waggoner, M.A. (2001). Patterns of discourse in two kinds of literature discussion. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(4), 378–411. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.36.4.3 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref1" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext>Core Knowledge Foundation. (2013). Fighting for a cause: Tell it again! Read‐aloud anthology, grade 2 [New York ed.]. Charlottesville, VA: Author. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.engageny.org/file/27616/download/ckla%5fg2%5fd12%5fanth%5fengage.pdf?token=%5ffNZ1oRS">www.engageny.org/file/27616/download/ckla%5fg2%5fd12%5fanth%5fengage.pdf?token=%5ffNZ1oRS</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref4" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext>Darling‐Hammond, L., & Richardson, N. (2009). Teacher learning: What matters? Educational Leadership, 66(5), 46–53. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref21" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext>Dieker, L.A., Hynes, M.C., Hughes, C.E., Hardin, S., & Becht, K. (2015). TLE TeachLivE: Using technology to provide quality professional development in rural schools. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 34(3), 11–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/875687051503400303 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref34" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext>Downer, J.T., Kraft‐Sayre, M.E., & Pianta, R.C. (2009). Ongoing, web‐mediated professional development focused on teacher–child interactions: Early childhood educators’ usage rates and self‐reported satisfaction. Early Education and Development, 20(2), 321–345. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref33" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext>ELICIT Collaborative. (2014). Dialogic Reasoning: Student talk that promotes language development and text comprehension: Practice guide. Chestnut Hill, MA: The Carolyn A. and Peter S. Lynch School of Education, Boston College. Retrieved from https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B1CSmyU5prcZblZMQ25uNlpvMUU </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref13" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext>Ermeling, B.A. (2010). Tracing the effects of teacher inquiry on classroom practice. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(3), 377–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.02.019 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib10" idref="ref19" type="bt">10</bibl> <bibtext>Israel, M., Knowlton, E., Griswold, D., & Rowland, A. (2009). Applications of video‐conferencing technology in special education teacher preparation. Journal of Special Education Technology, 24(1), 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/016264340902400102 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib11" idref="ref20" type="bt">11</bibl> <bibtext>Kinchin, G.D., & Bryant, L.G. (2015). Using social media within physical education teacher education. Strategies, 28(5), 18–21. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib12" idref="ref5" type="bt">12</bibl> <bibtext>Matsumura, L.C., Garnier, H.E., Correnti, R., Junker, B., & Bickel, D.D. (2010). Investigating the effectiveness of a comprehensive literacy coaching program in schools with high teacher mobility. The Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 35–62. https://doi.org/10.1086/653469 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib13" idref="ref31" type="bt">13</bibl> <bibtext>Michaels, S., O'Connor, M.C., & Hall, M.W. (with Resnick, L.B.). (2010). Accountable Talk sourcebook: For classroom conversation that works. Pittsburgh, PA: Institute for Learning, University of Pittsburgh. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib14" idref="ref25" type="bt">14</bibl> <bibtext>Neuman, S.B., & Wright, T.S. (2010). Promoting language and literacy development for early childhood educators: A mixed‐methods study of coursework and coaching. The Elementary School Journal, 111(1), 63–86. https://doi.org/10.1086/653470 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib15" idref="ref22" type="bt">15</bibl> <bibtext>Nickerson, S.D., Fredenberg, M., & Druken, B.K. (2014). Hybrid lesson study: Extending lesson study on‐line. International Journal for Lesson and Learning Studies, 3(2), 152–169. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLLS-06-2013-0037 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib16" idref="ref29" type="bt">16</bibl> <bibtext>Ossa‐Parra, M., Wagner, C.J., Proctor, C.P., Leighton, C.M., Robertson, D.A., Paratore, J.R., & Ford‐Connors, E. (2016). Dialogic Reasoning: Supporting emergent bilingual students’ language and literacy development. In C.P. Proctor, A. Boardman, & E.H. Hiebert (Eds.), Teaching emergent bilingual students: Flexible approaches in an era of new standards (pp. 119–137). New York, NY: Guilford. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib17" idref="ref7" type="bt">17</bibl> <bibtext>Osterman, K.F., & Kottkamp, R.B. (2004). Reflective practice for educators: Professional development to improve student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib18" idref="ref27" type="bt">18</bibl> <bibtext>Pianta, R.C., Mashburn, A.J., Downer, J.T., Hamre, B.K., & Justice, L. (2008). Effects of web‐mediated professional development resources on teacher–child interactions in prekindergarten classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23(4), 431–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2008.02.001 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib19" idref="ref28" type="bt">19</bibl> <bibtext>Powell, D.R., & Diamond, K.E. (2013). Implementation fidelity of a coaching‐based professional development program for improving Head Start teachers’ literacy and language instruction. Journal of Early Intervention, 35(2), 102–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053815113516678 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib20" idref="ref23" type="bt">20</bibl> <bibtext>Rich, P., & Hannafin, M. (2008). Capturing and assessing evidence of student teacher inquiry: A case study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(6), 1426–1440. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2007.11.016 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib21" idref="ref32" type="bt">21</bibl> <bibtext>Robertson, D.A., Dougherty, S., Ford‐Connors, E., & Paratore, J.R. (2014). Re‐envisioning instruction: Mediating complex text for older readers. The Reading Teacher, 67(7), 547–559. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1247 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib22" idref="ref6" type="bt">22</bibl> <bibtext>Sailors, M., & Price, L.R. (2010). Professional development that supports the teaching of cognitive reading strategy instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 110(3), 301–322. https://doi.org/10.1086/648980 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib23" idref="ref17" type="bt">23</bibl> <bibtext>Sawchuk, S. (2013). For rural teachers, mentoring support is just a click away. Education Week, 33(2), 8–9. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib24" idref="ref12" type="bt">24</bibl> <bibtext>Schön, D.A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco, CA: Jossey‐Bass. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib25" idref="ref16" type="bt">25</bibl> <bibtext>Smith, S., & Israel, M. (2010). E‐mentoring: Enhancing special education teacher induction. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 23(1), 30–40. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib26" idref="ref2" type="bt">26</bibl> <bibtext>Toll, C.A. (2017). A problem‐solving model for literacy coaching practice. The Reading Teacher, 70(4), 413–421. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1532 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib27" idref="ref15" type="bt">27</bibl> <bibtext>Tomassini, J. (2013). Teachers seek specialized peer networks. Education Week, 32(15), 1, 19. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib28" idref="ref24" type="bt">28</bibl> <bibtext>Tripp, T.R., & Rich, P.J. (2012). The influence of video analysis on the process of teacher change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(5), 728–739. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2012.01.011 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib29" idref="ref14" type="bt">29</bibl> <bibtext>Walpole, S., & McKenna, M.C. (2013). The literacy coach's handbook: A guide to research‐based practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib30" idref="ref26" type="bt">30</bibl> <bibtext>Wilkinson, I.A.G., Reninger, K.B., & Soter, A.O. (2010). Developing a professional development tool for assessing quality talk about text. In R.T. Jimenez, V.J. Risko, M.K. Hundley, & D.W. Rowe (Eds.), 59th yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 135–153). Oak Creek, WI: National Reading Conference. </bibtext> </blist> </ref> <hd id="AN0130362396-18">More To Explore</hd> <ulist> <item>31 Robertson, D.A., Ford‐Connors, E., & Paratore, J.R. (2014). Coaching teachers’ talk during vocabulary and comprehension instruction. Language Arts, 91(<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref38">6</reflink>), 416–428.</item> <item>32 Stover, K., Kissel, B., Haag, K., & Shoniker, R. (2011). Differentiated coaching: Fostering reflection with teachers. The Reading Teacher, 64(<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref39">7</reflink>), 498–509.</item> <item>33 WordPress (https://wordpress.com): This online platform can be used to build closed web portals for sharing videos and engaging in discussions.</item> <item>34 Zoom (https://www.zoom.us): This web conferencing service is one choice for video communication.</item> </ulist> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Coaching Phases</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Andrea's Prediscussion Writing</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Andrea's Postdiscussion Writing</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Andrea's Final Postdiscussion Writing</p> <aug> <p>By Christine M. Leighton; Evelyn Ford‐Connors; Dana A. Robertson; Jennifer Wyatt; Christopher J. Wagner; C. Patrick Proctor and Jeanne R. Paratore</p> <p></p> <p>Christine M. Leighton is an assistant professor of education in the Department of Education at Emmanuel College, Boston, MA, USA; email leightonc@emmanuel.edu.</p> <p>Evelyn Ford‐Connors is a senior lecturer and the associate director of the Donald D. Durrell Reading and Writing Clinic in the Literacy and Language Program at Boston University, MA, USA; email econnors@bu.edu.</p> <p>Dana A. Robertson is the executive director of the Literacy Research Center and Clinic and an assistant professor in the School of Teacher Education at the University of Wyoming, Laramie, USA; email drober36@uwyo.edu.</p> <p>Jennifer Wyatt is a second‐grade teacher in the Boston Public Schools, MA, USA; email jwyatt@bostonpublicschools.org.</p> <p>Christopher J. Wagner is an assistant professor of early childhood education in the Department of Elementary and Early Childhood Education at Queens College, City University of New York, NY, USA; email christopher.wagner@qc.cuny.edu.</p> <p>C. Patrick Proctor is an associate professor of education in the Lynch School of Education at Boston College, Chestnut Hill, MA, USA; email charles.proctor@bc.edu.</p> <p>Jeanne R. Paratore is a professor of literacy education in the School of Education at Boston University, MA, USA; email jparator@bu.edu.</p> </aug>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1183290
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: 'Let's Facetime Tonight': Using Digital Tools to Enhance Coaching
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Leighton%2C+Christine+M%2E%22">Leighton, Christine M.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ford-Connors%2C+Evelyn%22">Ford-Connors, Evelyn</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Robertson%2C+Dana+A%2E%22">Robertson, Dana A.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Wyatt%2C+Jennifer%22">Wyatt, Jennifer</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Wagner%2C+Christopher+J%2E%22">Wagner, Christopher J.</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Proctor%2C+C%2E+Patrick%22">Proctor, C. Patrick</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Paratore%2C+Jeanne+R%2E%22">Paratore, Jeanne R.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Reading+Teacher%22"><i>Reading Teacher</i></searchLink>. Jul-Aug 2018 72(1):39-49.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 11
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2018
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Collaboration%22">Teacher Collaboration</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Teachers%22">Elementary School Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+2%22">Grade 2</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Faculty%22">College Faculty</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Literacy%22">Literacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Coaching+%28Performance%29%22">Coaching (Performance)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Dialogs+%28Language%29%22">Dialogs (Language)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Technology+Uses+in+Education%22">Technology Uses in Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interdisciplinary+Approach%22">Interdisciplinary Approach</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Problem+Solving%22">Problem Solving</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Electronic+Mail%22">Electronic Mail</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Media%22">Social Media</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Computer+Mediated+Communication%22">Computer Mediated Communication</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Video+Technology%22">Video Technology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Audio+Equipment%22">Audio Equipment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Skills%22">Language Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Multilingualism%22">Multilingualism</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Bilingual+Students%22">Bilingual Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Students%22">Elementary School Students</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/trtr.1676
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0034-0561
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This article documents a collaboration between a second-grade teacher and a university-based literacy coach to implement dialogic instruction as part of a 14-week cross-disciplinary curriculum unit. The coach-teacher dyad used digital technologies to enhance a problem-solving approach to coaching. The authors describe the coaching interactions, the digital tools used (e.g., e-mail, FaceTime, text messaging, video and audio recordings), the problems that the coach-teacher dyad collaboratively addressed over three phases of the unit, and the student learning that occurred in response. Throughout, the authors highlight how the coach and teacher made flexible use of digital technology to carve out additional time and space for problem solving as they worked to support the language and literacy skills of a group of multilingual second-grade students.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2018
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1183290
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1183290
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/trtr.1676
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 11
        StartPage: 39
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Collaboration
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 2
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Faculty
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Literacy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Coaching (Performance)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Dialogs (Language)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Technology Uses in Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interdisciplinary Approach
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Problem Solving
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Electronic Mail
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Media
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Computer Mediated Communication
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Video Technology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Audio Equipment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Multilingualism
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Bilingual Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Students
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: 'Let's Facetime Tonight': Using Digital Tools to Enhance Coaching
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Leighton, Christine M.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ford-Connors, Evelyn
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Robertson, Dana A.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Wyatt, Jennifer
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Wagner, Christopher J.
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Proctor, C. Patrick
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Paratore, Jeanne R.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2018
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0034-0561
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 72
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Reading Teacher
              Type: main
ResultId 1