SUMMARY STRUCTURING EFFECTIVE 1-1 SUPPORT SEE TECHNICAL Guidance on how to structure one-to- GUIDANCE NOTE one support within an in-service teacher professional development program COACH TOOLS AND RESOURCES Coach is the World Bank’s program focused on accelerating student learning by improving in-service teacher professional development around the world. INTRODUCTION Objective Audience To provide explicit guidance for Task Team Leaders • World Bank TTLs looking for technical guidance (TTLs) and project teams on how to structure the during project identification, preparation, appraisal, delivery of ongoing one-to-one (1-1) support to and implementation. teachers. • Policymakers looking for tips on how to structure 1-1 support within an in-service teacher professional development (TPD) program. STRUCTURING EFFECTIVE 1-1 SUPPORT 2 Highly Structured Support HIGHLIGHTS Support Across Programs Pedagogical leaders have fewer specialized skills and are given explicit guidance and resources to increase good practice and help them support teachers. It is important that pedagogical leaders do not Teacher-pedagogical leader ratios of 44:1 are typical simultaneously support teachers and act as their (conditional on expert implementation support), and evaluators. pedagogical leaders provide 20 minutes of 1-1 Pedagogical leaders should visit teachers once per feedback to teachers). month and observe teachers for the equivalent of an entire lesson. Low-Structured Support Effective TPD programs combine ongoing 1-1 support with initial group training that introduces pedagogical Pedagogical leaders are experts and, based on their concepts/skills and associated materials. deep pedagogical expertise, are well-positioned to determine how best to support teachers. Remote Support Teacher-pedagogical leader ratios of 11:1 are typical, Pedagogical leaders should incorporate an initial face- and pedagogical leaders provide 35 minutes of 1-1 to-face interaction to build a trusting relationship with feedback to teachers. the teachers they support. STRUCTURING EFFECTIVE 1-1 SUPPORT 3 How can countries set the structural SCOPE foundations for an evidence-based, in-service TPD program that includes 1-1 support? WHAT WE MEAN BY “STRUCTURE” WHAT WE DO NOT MEAN How pedagogical leader should conduct Profile of pedagogical leader classroom observations Ratio of pedagogical leader : teachers What peagogical leaders should do and say during feedback sessions with teachers Frequency of 1-1 visits Consistency and length of observation sessions Consistency and length of feedback sessions For guidance on how to improve the quality of support that pedagogical leaders give to teachers, see the Implementing Effective 1-1 Support Technical Guidance Note which is part of the suite of Coach Tools and Resources. STRUCTURING EFFECTIVE 1-1 SUPPORT 4 PROBLEM SOLUTION Evidence suggests that teachers in In-service teacher professional low- and middle-income countries development programs can exhibit poor content knowledge remedy this skills gap and and pedagogical skills. (World Bank 2018) improve student learning. (Darling-Hammond and others 2017) These two factors directly affect students because Effective in-service professional development teachers are the most important school-based programs are characterized by being tailored, factor for student learning. practical, focused, and ongoing. (Hanushek and Rivkin 2010; Snilstveit and others 2016) STRUCTURING EFFECTIVE 1-1 SUPPORT 5 The evidence base for how to improve in-service TPD programs in low- and middle-income countries is limited, but growing. Brazil Chile Kenya Kenya Malawi Ceará Teacher Un Buen Primary Math Tusome Read Feedback and Comienzo and Reading Early Grade Malawi Coaching Initiative Reading Program Activity Nigeria Peru South South South Nigeria Reading Acompañamiento Africa Africa Africa and Access Pedagogico Early Grade Early Grade Primary Research Multigrado Reading Study Reading Study Science Activity (EGRS I) (EGRS II) Program This evidence base is part of a larger effort to expand our knowledge base of “what works” to improve in-service TPD. Click to access the peer-reviewed paper associated with each program. STRUCTURING EFFECTIVE 1-1 SUPPORT 6 METHODOLOGY • The team reviewed a sample of 10 evaluated coaching programs in low- and middle-income countries. These programs satisfied the inclusion criteria of being a K-12 coaching intervention in a low- or middle-income country that reported impacts on student test scores and/or teacher practices. • The findings presented in this guide were contextualized by qualitative interviews with programs that have not been rigorously evaluated but are operating within government systems and/or at scale. For a comprehensive list of programs and their features, see table 2, p.4 of the accompanying technical guidance note. STRUCTURING EFFECTIVE 1-1 SUPPORT 7 Consider the profile of the average STEP 1 pedagogical leader before determining which structure best fits the context. What is a “pedagogical leader”? A pedagogical leader refers to any individual who provides ongoing support to teachers. Individuals with varied backgrounds can fulfill the role of pedagogical leader: • Coach • Master trainers • Researchers • Principals • Head teachers • Pedagogical advisors • School support officers (Darling-Hammond and others 2017) STRUCTURING EFFECTIVE 1-1 SUPPORT 8 After identifying the profile of the pedagogical STEP 2 leader, determine which structure best fits the context. Highly Structured Support Low-Structured Support to Assist Pedagogical for Autonomous Pedagogical Leaders Leaders The evolution of structure based on context. Education systems with a limited supply of highly skilled pedagogical leaders often start at the more structured end of Pedagogical leaders have less Pedagogical leaders are experts and the continuum and move specialized skills and are given are well positioned to determine how toward increasingly explicit guidance and resources to to best support teachers based on autonomous and tailored increase good practice and help their deep pedagogical expertise. models. them support teachers. STRUCTURING EFFECTIVE 1-1 SUPPORT 9 No matter the level of support, provide pedagogical STEP 3 leaders with a clear role and structured guidance on how to interact with teachers. BEST PRACTICE IMPLEMENTATION TIP Role Pedagogical leaders should not Policymakers and TTLs must push for support teachers and act as reforms that operationalize the evaluators. distinction between these two roles. Observation Pedagogical leaders should observe Pedagogical leaders should use an Length teachers for a full lesson (minimum 30 observation tool, which may vary in minutes). form depending on the structure of the program. Frequency Pedagogical leaders should visit Pedagogical leaders should of Visits teachers 1x per month and provide keep records of observation and feedback on the same day as the feedback sessions with teachers. observation. STRUCTURING EFFECTIVE 1-1 SUPPORT 10 HIGHLY STRUCTURED SUPPORT PROGRAMS PROFILE RATIO FEEDBACK Pedagogical leaders have Teacher-pedagogical leader Pedagogical leaders provide less specialized skills. They ratios of 44:1 are common, 20 minutes of 1-1 feedback to conduct observations to verify conditional on technical teachers. that the teacher is delivering implementation support. the scripted lesson and provide brief feedback. Quick Tip: Which materials are needed? The effectiveness of this model lies in the quality of the materials available to pedagogical leaders and teachers. These materials sometimes are developed in partnership with an implementation firm. STRUCTURING EFFECTIVE 1-1 SUPPORT 11 HIGHLY STRUCTURED SUPPORT PROGRAMS Case Study: Tusome Early Grade Reading Activity • Country: Kenya • Scale: National • Pedagogical leader profile: Government instructional support officers • Ratio: 63 : 1 • Frequency of visits: 1/month • Observation length: 30 min • Feedback length: 10-15 min • Impact: 0.23 SDs in English G1, 0.34 SDs in English G2, 0.39 SDs in Kiswahili G1, and 0.30 SDs in Kiswahili G2 (Piper and others 2018) STRUCTURING EFFECTIVE 1-1 SUPPORT 12 LOW-STRUCTURED SUPPORT PROGRAMS PROFILE RATIO FEEDBACK Pedagogical leaders are Teacher-pedagogical leader Pedagogical leader experts. They conduct ratios of 11:1 are common. provides 35 minutes of observations to understand 1-1 feedback to teachers. teacher behavior and provide detailed feedback and modeling. • In-depth knowledge of content/pedagogy Quick Tip: What does it mean to be an expert? • Content and grade-specific teaching experience • Experience modeling practices for teachers STRUCTURING EFFECTIVE 1-1 SUPPORT 13 LOW-STRUCTURED SUPPORT PROGRAMS Case Study: Acompañamiento Pedagogico Multigrado • Country: Peru • Scale: National • Pedagogical leader profile: Government district-level employees with 5 years’ teaching experience • Ratio: 10-12 : 1 • Frequency of visits: 1/month • Observation length: 5 hours • Feedback length: 60 min • Impact: 0.25 SDs in reading comprehension and 0.38 SDs in mathematics (Castro and others 2019; Majerowicz and Montero 2018) STRUCTURING EFFECTIVE 1-1 SUPPORT 14 REMOTE SUPPORT FREQUENCY RESOURCES SUPPORT Pedagogical leaders do not Common resources include Pedagogical leaders conduct classroom high-speed broadband, must incorporate an observation. Teachers may electricity, technological initial face-to-face submit videos. Pedagogical devices, server/application interaction to build a leaders meet with teachers maintenance. trusting relationship. remotely (via phone or video call) 2x per month. Quick Tip: Are remote programs cost effective? Not necessarily. Virtual programs have high up-front costs and tend to be not as effective as in- person coaching, making them less cost effective. STRUCTURING EFFECTIVE 1-1 SUPPORT 15 REMOTE SUPPORT Case Study: South Africa Virtual Coaching Intervention • Country: South Africa • Scale: Pilot • Pedagogical leader profile: NGO-hired with at least a Bachelor’s degree and previous experiences as a teacher/coach • Ratio: 85 : 1 • Frequency of visits: 1-3/month • Feedback length: 15 min • Impact: 0.12 SDs in English oral language proficiency; no statistically detectable impact onreading proficiency. This impact estimate only includes reporting on the virtual treatment arm of EGRS II. (Cilliers and others 2021) STRUCTURING EFFECTIVE 1-1 SUPPORT 16 Governments must be committed to institutionalize UNDERLYING these “structural” aspects of a 1-1 in-service TPD ASSUMPTION program as part of their larger TPD systems. At a minimum, governments must ensure that: • The system has instructional • Pedagogical leaders have specific coherence. To improve learning, the roles within the system that are curriculum, teacher support (pre- and distinct from, but complement, the in-service training), assessment, and inspectors’ role. monitoring and accountability are aligned. • Pedagogical leaders are given the • All actors are given consistent time and resources to perform their messaging of what is required from roles. the pedagogical leaders and the teachers. STRUCTURING EFFECTIVE 1-1 SUPPORT 17 Additional Reading This summary is based on the accompanying Structuring Effective 1-1 Support: A Technical Guidance Note. The guidance note adds details to these highlights and features the programs included in this analysis that have shown promising effects on changing teaching practices and student learning outcomes. Citation: Wilichowski, Tracy, and Anna Popova. 2021. "Structuring Effective 1-1 Support: Technical Guidance Summary." Coach Series, World Bank, Washington, DC. License: Creative Commons Attribution CC BY 4.0 IGO.. STRUCTURING EFFECTIVE 1-1 SUPPORT 18 References Allen, Joseph, Robert Pianta, Anne Gregory, Amori Mikami, and Janetta Lun. 2011. “An Interaction-Based Approach to Enhancing Secondary School Instruction and Student Achievement.” Science 333 (6045): 1034–37. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1207998. Bold, Tessa, Deon Filmer, Gayle Martin, Ezequiel Molina, Brian Stacy, Christophe Rockmore, Jakob Svensson, and Waly Wane. 2017. “Enrollment without Learning: Teacher Effort, Knowledge, and Skill in Primary Schools in Africa.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 314: 185–204. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.31.4.185. Bruns, Barbara, Leandro Costa, and Nina Cunha. 2018. “Through the Looking Glass: Can Classroom Observation and Coaching Improve Teacher Performance in Brazil?” Economics of Education Review 64: 214–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2018.03.003. Campbell, Patricia F., and Nathaniel N. Malkus. 2011. “The Impact of Elementary Mathematics Coaches on Student Achievement.” The Elementary School Journal 111 (3): 430–54. https://doi.org/10.1086/657654. Castro, Juan F., Paul Glewwe, and Ricardo Montero. 2019. “Work with What You’ve Got: Improving Teachers’ Pedagogical Skills at Scale in Rural Peru.” Working Paper 158. Peruvian Economic Association, Lima, Peru http://perueconomics.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/WP-158.pdf. Cilliers, Jacobus, Brahm Fleisch, Cas Prinsloo, and Stephen Taylor. 2019. “How to Improve Teaching Practice? Experimental Comparison of Centralized Training and In-Classroom Coaching.” The Journal of Human Resources February. https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.55.3.0618-9538R1. Cilliers, Jacobus, Brahm Fleisch, Janeli Kotze, Nompumelelo Mohohlwane, Stephen Taylor, and Tshegofatso Thulare. 2021. “Can Virtual Replace In-Person Coaching? Experimental Evidence on Teacher Professional Development and Student Learning.” RISE Working Paper Series. 20/050. https://doi.org/10.35489/BSG-RISE-WP_2020/050. Darling-Hammond, Linda, and Nikole Richardson. 2009. “Teacher Learning: What Matters? (Research Review) (Survey).” Educational Leadership 66 (5): 46–53. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287590851_Teacher_Learning_What_Matters. STRUCTURING EFFECTIVE 1-1 SUPPORT 19 Darling-Hammond, Linda, and Nikole Richardson. 2009. “Teacher Learning: What Matters? (Research Review) (Survey).” Educational Leadership 66 (5): 46–53. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287590851_Teacher_Learning_What_Matters. Darling-Hammond, Linda, and Marge Scherer. 2012. “The Challenges of Supporting New Teachers.” Educational Leadership 69 (8a): 18–23. http://pi-34.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/56517230/The%20Challenges%20of%20 Supporting%20New%20Teachers.pdf. Darling-Hammond, Linda, Maria E. Hyler, and Madelyn Gardner. 2017. “Effective Teacher Professional Development.” Learning Policy Institute, Washington, DC. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/effective-teacher-professional-development-report. Desimone, Laura M. 2009. “Improving Impact Studies of Teachers’ Professional Development: Toward Better Conceptualizations and Measures.” Educational Researcher 38 (3): 181–99. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x08331140. Desimone, Laura M., and Michael S. Garet. 2015. “Best Practices in Teachers’ Professional Development in the United States.” Psychology, Society, and Education 7 (3): 252. https://doi.org/10.25115/psye.v7i3.515. Duhigg, Charles. 2014. The Power of Habit: Why We Do What We Do in Life and Business. New York: Random HouseTrade Paperbacks. https://charlesduhigg.com/the-power-of-habit/. Frost, Sharon, and Rita Bean. 2006. “Qualifications for Literacy Coaches: Achieving the Gold Standard.” National Council of Teachers of English, Urbana, IL. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED530335.pdf. Harden, Karon, Alison Pflepsen, and Simon King. 2018. “Relationships between Coach Support and Teachers’ Adoption of New Instructional Practices: Findings from the Nigeria Reading and Access Research Activity (RARA).” Cultivating Dynamic Educators: Case Studies in Teacher Behavior Change in Africa and Asia. Durham, NC: RTI Press (Research Triangle Institute International): 169–204. https://doi.org/10.3768/rtipress.2018.bk.0022.1809.6. Harvey, Stephen. 1999. “The Impact of Coaching in South African Primary Science In-SET (In-Service Education andTraining).” International Journal of Educational Development 19 (3): 191–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0738- 0593(99)00012-7. STRUCTURING EFFECTIVE 1-1 SUPPORT 20 Herman, Joan L., and Eva L. Baker. 2009. “Assessment Policy: Making Sense of the Babel.” In Handbook of Educational Policy Research, edited by Timothy G. Ford, David N. Plank, Barbara L. Schneider, and Gary Sykes. New York: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203880968. Hussain, Rana, and Sajid Ali. 2010. “Improving Public School Teachers in Pakistan: Challenges and Opportunities.” Improving Schools 13 (1): 70–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480209352404. Kane, Thomas J., and Douglas O. Staiger. 2012. “Gathering Feedback on Teaching: Combining High-Quality Observations with Student Surveys and Achievement Gains.” Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, WA. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED540960.pdf. Kerwin, Jason, and Rebecca L. Thornton. 2020. “Making the Grade: The Sensitivity of Education Program Effectiveness to Input Choices and Outcome Measures.” SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3002723. Kotze, Janeli, Brahm Fleisch, and Stephen Taylor. 2019. “Alternative Forms of Early Grade Instructional Coaching: Emerging Evidence from Field Experiments in South Africa.” International Journal of Educational Development 66: 203–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2018.09.004. Kraft, Matthew A., and Allison F. Gilmour. 2016. “Can Principals Promote Teacher Development as Evaluators? A Case Study of Principals’ Views and Experiences.” Educational Administration Quarterly 52 (5): 711–53. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x16653445. Kraft, Matthew A., David Blazar, and Dylan Hogan. 2018. “The Effect of Teacher Coaching on Instruction and Achievement: A Meta-Analysis of the Causal Evidence.” Review of Educational Research 88 (4): 547–88. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318759268. Landry, Susan H., Jason L. Anthony, Paul R. Swank, and Pauline Monseque-Bailey. 2009. “‘Effectiveness of Comprehensive Professional Development for Teachers of at-Risk Preschoolers’: Correction.” Journal of Educational Psychology 101 (3): 739–39. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016746. Leyva, Diana, Christina Weiland, M. Barata, Hirokazu Yoshikawa, Catherine Snow, Ernesto Treviño, and Andrea Rolla. 2015. “Teacher-Child Interactions in Chile and Their Associations with Prekindergarten Outcomes.” Child Development 86 (3): 781–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12342. STRUCTURING EFFECTIVE 1-1 SUPPORT 21 Loureiro, Andre, and Louisee Cruz. 2020. “Achieving World-Class Education in Adverse Socioeconomic Conditions: The Case of Sobral in Brazil.” World Bank, Washington, DC. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/34150 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO. Majerowicz, Stephanie, and Ricardo Montero. 2018. “Can Teaching Be Taught? Experimental Evidence from a Teacher Coaching Program in Peru.” Working Paper. Job Market Paper, Cambridge, MA. https://scholar.harvard.edu/smajerowicz/publications/job-market-paper-can-teaching-be-taught-experimental- evidence- teacher Mbiti, Isaac M. 2016. “The Need for Accountability in Education in Developing Countries.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 30 (3): 109-32. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.30.3.109. Piper, Benjamin, and Stephanie Simmons Zuilkowski. 2015. “Teacher Coaching in Kenya: Examining Instructional Support in Public and Nonformal Schools.” Teaching and Teacher Education 47: 173–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2015.01.001. Piper, Benjamin, Joseph Destefano, Esther M. Kinyanjui, and Salome Ong’Ele. 2018. “Scaling up Successfully: Lessons from Kenya’s Tusome National Literacy Program.” Journal of Educational Change 19 (3): 293–321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-018-9325-4. Popova, Anna, David K. Evans, Mary E. Breeding, and Violeta Arancibia. 2019. “Teacher Professional Development around the World: The Gap between Evidence and Practice.” Working Paper. Center for Global Development, Washington, DC. https://www.cgdev.org/publication/teacher-professional-development-around-world-gap- between-evidence-and-practice. Powell, Douglas R., Karen E. Diamond, Margaret R. Burchinal, and Matthew J. Koehler. 2010. “Effects of an Early Literacy Professional Development Intervention on Head Start Teachers and Children.” Journal of Educational Psychology 102 (2): 299–312. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017763. Rizvi, Meher, and Philip Nagy. 2015. “The Effects of Cluster-Based Mentoring Programme on Classroom Teaching Practices: Lessons from Pakistan.” Research Papers in Education 31 (2): 159–82. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2015.1029962. STRUCTURING EFFECTIVE 1-1 SUPPORT 22 RTI (Research Triangle Institute International). 2016. Nigeria Reading and Access Research Activity (RARA): Results of an Approach to Improve Early Grade Reading in Hausa in Bauchi and Sokoto States. Prepared for USAID under the EdData II project, Task Order no. AID-620-BC-14–00002 (RTI Task 26). Research Triangle Park, NC https://shared.rti.org/content/nigeria-reading-and-access-research-activity-rara-results-approach-improve-early-grade. Sailors, Misty, and Nancy L. Shanklin. 2010. “Introduction: Growing Evidence to Support Coaching in Literacy and Mathematics.” The Elementary School Journal 111 (1): 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1086/653467. Sailors, Misty, James V. Hoffman, P. David Pearson, Nicola Mcclung, Jaran Shin, Liveness Mwale Phiri, and Tionge Saka. 2014. “Supporting Change in Literacy Instruction in Malawi.” Reading Research Quarterly 49 (2): 209-31. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.70. Snilstveit, Birte, Jennifer Stevenson, Radhika Menon, Daniel Phillips, Emma Gallagher, Maisie Geleen, Hannah Jobse, Tanja Schmidt, and Emmanuel Jimenez. 2016. “The Impact of Education Programmes on Learning and School Participation in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review. Summary Report.” Systematic Review Summary 7, International Initiative for Impact Evaluation, London. https://www.3ieimpact.org/evidence-hub/publications/systematic- review-summaries/impact-education- programmes-learning-school-participation-low-and-middle-income-countries. Strong, Michael, John Gargani, and Özge Hacifazlioğlu. 2011. “Do We Know a Successful Teacher When We See One? Experiments in the Identification of Effective Teachers.” Journal of Teacher Education 62 (4): 367–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487110390221. STRUCTURING EFFECTIVE 1-1 SUPPORT 23 Contact us at coach@worldbank.org and visit us at www.worldbank.org/coach