2017 Research Grant Results

View Results

Name: John Elwood Romig, Ph.D.

Title: Evaluating a Multimedia Professional Development Package for Improving Implementation of Evidence-Based Instructional Practices

Research Proposal: Explicit modeling is an effective instructional strategy in a wide spectrum of academic and behavioral skills (Hughes, Morris, Therrien, & Benson, 2017).  Specifically, in the area of writing instruction, modeling is widely regarded as an evidence-based instructional strategy to improve students’ achievement (Troia, 2014).  However, teachers rarely use modeling or other high quality instructional practices during writing instruction (Graham, Capizzi, Harris, Hebert, & Morphy, 2014; Gillespie, Graham, Kiuhara, & Hebert, 2014; Grisham & Wolsey, 2011).

The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of a professional development package designed using cognitive apprenticeship (i.e., Collins, Brown, & Newman, 1989) as a guiding framework. This professional development package, Content Acquisition Podcast – Professional Development (CAP-PD), consisted of modeling videos, performance feedback, and instructional scaffolds in the form of customizable curricular materials. To determine the effectiveness of this package, I conducted a single case multiple baseline across participants experiment.

Research Questions: Two primary research questions guided this study: (1) What are the effects of CAP-PD on teachers’ modeling of writing skills as defined by the Classroom Teaching Scan? (2) What are teachers’ perceptions of social validity for CAP-PD?

Summary: Three 8th grade English teachers participated in this single-case multiple baseline experiment. These teachers were observed daily during classes that were inclusive to students with disabilities. Observations were conducted using the Classroom Teaching Scan (www.classroomteachingscan.com/ctscan/). Within the Classroom Teaching Scan, a checklist of quality indicators for modeling was the primary dependent variable. Additionally, observations were scored using the Protocol for Language Arts Teaching Observations (PLATO, 2017). Participating students responded to curriculum-based measurement writing prompts throughout the study.

During the baseline phase, teachers demonstrated very few quality indicators of modeling. Upon receiving the intervention, all three teachers demonstrated a substantial, immediate increase in the level of performance on the quality indicator checklist. During the intervention phase, there was no overlap with baseline performance for any of the teachers. In the maintenance phase, teachers no longer had access to the modeling videos or the performance feedback. However, access to the curricular materials could not be revoked. During this phase, teachers largely maintained the improved performance demonstrated in the intervention phase. There was no overlap between the generalization phase and the baseline phase for any teacher.

Minor changes in performance on the PLATO and CBM measures were demonstrated. However, these measures were descriptive in nature, not experimental. Therefore, more research over a sustained period of time is necessary to determine the effect of this professional development package on distal measures of teacher quality and student outcomes.



Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive apprenticeship: Teaching the crafts of reading, writing, and mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glasser(453-494). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 

Gillespie, A., Graham, S., Kiuhara, S., & Hebert, M. (2014). High school teachers use of writing to support students’ learning: A national survey. Reading and Writing, 27, 1043–1072. doi:10.1007/s11145-013-9494-8

Graham, S., Capizzi, A., Harris, K., Hebert, M., & Morphy, P. (2014). Teaching writing to middle school students: A national survey. Reading and Writing, 27, 1015–1042. doi:10.1007/s11145-013-9495-7

Grisham, D. L., & Wolsey, T. D. (2011). Writing instruction for teacher candidates: Strengthening a weak area. Literacy Research and Instruction, 50, 348-364. doi:10.1080/19388071.2010.532581

 Hughes, C. A., Morris, J. A., Therrien, W. J., & Benson, S. K. (2017). Explicit instruction: Historical and contemporary contexts. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1111/ldrp.12142

Kennedy, M. J., Rodgers, W. J., & Romig, J. E. (2017). Classroom teaching scan [Computer software]. Retrieved from www.classroomteachingscan.com/ctscan

PLATO 5.0: Protocol for language arts teaching observations. (2017). Stanford: Center to Support Excellence in Teaching.

Troia, G. (2014). Evidence-based practices for writing instruction (Document No. IC-5). Retrieved from University of Florida, Collaboration for Effective Educator, Development, Accountability, and Reform Center website: http://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/tools/innovation-configuration/