1 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING The Effects of Self-Assessment and Coaching on Teacher Implementation of High Leverage Practices by Eva Salazar A project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF EDUCATION IN CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY Ogden, Utah May 13, 2025 Approved _________________________________ Natalie A. Williams Ph.D. _________________________________ Kurt Ward Ph.D. _________________________________ Melina Alexander Ph.D. 2 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING Acknowledgements Words cannot adequately express my gratitude for my Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ for listening and answering my prayers. I have felt Their love and guidance throughout this journey. I could not have completed this journey without my husband Juan, because of the enormous amount of support, encouragement and endless love given to me while I completed this project. He never let me give up and was always encouraging me to keep going. To my children who always believed in me, supported me and were so patient with me. I want to thank my mother who called me every day and supported me through the miles that separate us. My late father and sister, whose presence I have felt during this journey. I know they were with me every step of the way. I would like to express my deepest appreciation to Dr. Natalie Williams for being my committee chair and guiding me to finish this master’s degree. She has been an absolute beacon of guidance and support throughout this work. To my committee members, Dr. Ward and Dr. Alexander, for their invaluable instruction, guidance and illuminating feedback on my research paper. I would like to extend my sincere gratitude to all my Weber professors that taught me so much and were a big part of my road to graduation. 3 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING Table of Contents THE PROBLEM………………………………………………………………………………….8 Literature Review………………………………………………………………………...10 Importance of Reading…………………………………………………………...10 Importance of Identifying Struggling Readers…………………………………...11 Response To Intervention………………………………………………………...13 Using Data to Inform Instruction………………………………………………...15 High Leverage Practices………………………………………………………....16 Coaching with Verbal Feedback…………………………………………………20 PURPOSE………………………………………………………………………………………..22 METHOD………………………………………………………………………………………..23 Research Design………………………………………………………………………….23 Participant………………………………………………………………………………..25 Setting……………………………………………………………………………………25 Independent Variable ……………………………………................................................26 Dependent Variable ……………………………………………………………………...26 Data Collection…….…………………………………………………………………….27 Conditions………………………………………………………………………………..27 Procedure………………………………………………………………………………...29 RESULTS………………………………………………………………………………………..30 Indicator 1: Relatable Examples…………………………………………………………32 Indicator 2: Culturally Inclusive Pedagogies and Practices (CIPP)………………..……33 Indicator 3: Teacher-Directed, Peer-Assisted and Student-Led Strategies………………35 4 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING Indicator 4: Opportunities To Respond (OTR)…………………………………………..37 Indicator 5: Student Engagement………………………………………………………...39 Indicator 6: Positive and Corrective Feedback…………………………………………..41 Indicator 7: Multimedia Platform Used………………………………………………….42 DISCUSSION……………………………………………………………………………………46 Implications………………………………………………………………………………56 Limitations……………………………………………………………………………… 57 Future Work…..………………………………………………………………………….59 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………….60 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS………………………………………………………………..60 REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………………..62 APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………………………...71 Appendix A: HLP 18 Checklist………………………………………………………….72 Appendix B: Glossary of Terms…………………………………………………………73 Appendix C: Subject Letter of Consent for Participation………………………………..75 Appendix D: Institutional Review Board Approval……………………………………..78 5 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING List of Tables Table 1. Observation and Intervention Phases Across Study Timeline .......……………………24 Table 2. CIPP Communication Styles for Each Lesson…………………………………………. Table 3: Participant’s Pre-Treatment Probe and Baseline Live Observations (Averaged)……...43 Table 4. Classroom Observations and Self-Assessments Across Days 4-6……………………..44 6 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING List of Figures Figure 1. Number of Relatable Examples……………………………………………………….32 Figure 2. Number of CIPP totals of Verbal, Non-Verbal and Written communication styles…..33 Figure 3. Minutes engaged in each lesson delivery type………………………………………...35 Figure 4. Number of students response opportunities across lessons…………………………...37 Figure 5. Number of Response opportunities taken……………………………………………..39 Figure 6. Rate of Positive and Corrective feedback……………………………………………..41 7 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING Abstract Reading instruction is a fundamental component of a student’s education and is widely acknowledged as critical to their long-term academic success. Despite the well-documented importance of reading curricula, educators frequently encounter difficulties in sustaining student engagement, supporting learners who struggle with reading, and effectively implementing evidence-based instructional strategies. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of self-assessment and coaching accompanied by verbal feedback on the implementation of HighLeverage Practice 18 (HLP 18), Use Strategies to Promote Active Student Engagement, in order to evaluate their impact on teacher instructional behavior and, ultimately, on students’ reading skill development. High-leverage practices (HLPs) offer a research-supported framework for promoting active student engagement in reading instruction. An ABC single-subject research design was used to evaluate the effects of self-assessment and coaching with verbal feedback across three distinct phases: baseline, self-assessment, and coaching. The findings indicated a positive progression in teacher behavior following the implementation of each intervention phase, with the coaching condition yielding the most substantial improvement in the use of highleverage practices. 8 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING The Effects of Self-Assessment and Coaching on teacher implementation of High Leverage Practices Professional educators aspire to be effective in teaching and provide quality instruction to their students. An important component to teaching is providing quality instruction when implementing high-leverage strategies within an educational setting. This instruction includes maintaining student engagement, providing frequent opportunities to respond, offering individualized feedback, monitoring learning progress, and managing classroom behavior (Ball, Thames, & Phelps, 2008). High-leverage practices can be used to improve academic results for students. These practices assist teachers in providing quality data-driven and comprehensive lessons for students who are struggling to read. When implemented consistently, these instructional practices lead to improved student outcomes, particularly in reading achievement, as they directly support skill acquisition, engagement, and comprehension development (Hattie, 2009). These practices are especially beneficial for struggling readers, as they help close learning gaps and promote equity across diverse student populations. However, Lamb (2014) explains that obstacles like ineffective whole-class instruction, inconsistent use of effective high leverage strategies, poor data collection and interpretation make it difficult for effective decisions to be made for educational improvement. Inconsistent implementation of instructional practices and strategies accompanied by poor professional development for teachers can lead to ineffective results and decision-making. Bianco (2010) argues that there will not be improvements in reading results for children unless proper professional development and coaching with actionable feedback is provided to teachers. Unless staff are instructed in collecting, interpreting data, making-driven instruction, and choosing strategies for effective implementation, there will not be improvements to educational results. 9 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING Proper and consistent data collection, analysis, and explicit instruction in intensive literacy skills are all integral within the educational setting. Lodge and Corrin (2017) explain that data and analytics can guide effective learning by identifying impactful teaching strategies. Recording which pedagogical practices positively impact learner outcomes is beneficial to both teacher and student. The student’s response to interventions allows for informed decisions within the educational matrix. Teachers are constantly needing to re-evaluate their teaching strategies to reflect the needs of their students. Correct implementation of strategies help closes the gap between students who are on grade level and those who are performing below grade level. The possibility of closing the reading performance gap leads to a need for additional and refined training for teachers to be able to implement proper interventions in the classrooms. Lamb (2014) states that a student’s academic improvement has several levels. First is the need for early identification and monitoring of at-risk students in reading. Second is the need for quality whole-class instruction using high-leverage practices. Third is the need for diversification to educate all students, particularly those whose reading difficulties stem from cultural and linguistic differences. Consistent efforts by school staff to implement timely and professional development can increase student improvement and detect early struggles in reading. Many schools are implementing portions of these essential elements but must address the obstacles that interfere with successful high-leverage practice delivery. Literature Review This literature review examines key components of highly effective teaching practices and their influence on classroom instruction, with a particular focus on how these practices contribute to improved student reading outcomes. 10 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING The first section will review the importance of reading and identifying struggling readers. The second section will explain Response to Intervention (RTI) as an intense intervention that addresses the needs of struggling readers. Additionally, it will discuss highleverage practices that can be used to teach students effective reading skills. The third section will focus on the importance of the effects of coaching as a support system to improve teacher practice and learner outcomes. Importance of Reading Reading is an important skill for both personal and intellectual growth. Children who have not learned foundational reading skills by the end of first grade are more likely to experience reading difficulties in the higher grades (Moats & Tolman, 2019). Students who have not received remedial reading instruction required to enhance the acquisition of reading by third grade have a more difficult path to becoming good readers. This explains why it is important to provide readers with intensive support when progress monitoring data indicates a student is not making progress in reading (National Center on Improving Literacy, 2023). A child’s inability to read can have long-term consequences for motivation and selfconfidence. Reading accountability has become more common in recent years, implying that teachers and administrators bear a great responsibility in supporting students’ reading, especially students who are struggling to read (Coyne et al., 2004). In the last few decades, a significant amount of research has been done on the science of reading and reading disabilities (RD), resulting in substantial research and scientific knowledge about early reading (Adams, 1990; National Reading Panel, 2000; National Research Council, 1998). Considering this, researchers have concentrated on the prevention of reading challenges and focusing on early intervention to address these challenges before they develop into chronic 11 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING RD. Consequently, intervening early with effective reading interventions has become progressively more effective in increasing the reading abilities of young students identified as at risk for RD (Foorman, Francis, Fletcher, Schatschneider, & Mehta, 1998; Simmons et al., 2001; Torgesen et al., 1999). The gap between students with reading difficulties and their peers who are not at risk can be reduced by taking early and systematic action (Torgesen et al., 1999). Intensive teaching practices should be focused on students that have not shown enough progress despite receiving intense, high-quality interventions, or for those that are significantly behind their grade-level expectations and require more than just supplemental reading support. The focus of intensification is to enhance the learning for students who have difficulty with reading so they can reach grade level and close the reading gap with their peers (National Center on Improving Literacy, 2023). Early intervention that is strategic, intensive, and timely may prevent further reading difficulties for many at-risk children (Vellutino et al., 1996). Importance of Identifying Struggling Readers The identification of struggling readers is an important first step in helping those students achieve academic success. Regular education teachers and parents are one of the first to detect struggling readers. Kreitz (2016) stated that detection is one of the first things educators do to be able to provide the proper support to help children read successfully. Bateman (2024) points out that distinguishing between a struggling student and one with a disability involves asking important questions about the student’s progress in reading and how persistent those problems have been. Donovan & Cross (2002) affirm that many factors affect a student’s ability to learn reading, math, and writing. These include having limited English skills, growing up in lowincome settings, experiencing emotional challenges, and insufficient educational support. According to the U.S. Department of Education (2021), the number of students ages six through 12 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING 21 served under the Individuals with Disability Education Act, Part B, has increased from 8.4% in 2012 to 9.6% in 2021. This statistic shows the number of students being served under IDEA has risen over 10+ years. Educators must be effective in identifying students in need of intensive reading support and differentiating whether this need is caused by a learning disability or any of the abovementioned factors. A considerable amount of emphasis has recently been placed on using RTI within the school environment. Studies have shown that struggling readers who are not successful in Tiers 1 & 2 are more likely to need more intensive support available in the Tier 3 level of instruction. Scaffolding struggling readers at the Tier 3 intensive level can provide specific instruction in areas of deficit (Ruffini et al. 2016) In some cases, students may need remedial intervention in the areas of phonics, phonemic awareness, fluency and accuracy, comprehension, vocabulary, spelling, and phonological awareness. Schmitter & Brod (2021) indicated that an accurate identification of struggling readers is necessary to implement effective interventions. Identifying low-performing readers has many components. Bradley, Danielson, & Hallahan (2002), suggested that three criteria are important; (1) the student’s response to the instruction, assessed through progress monitoring and fidelity of implementation of the interventions; (2) assessment of low achievement through norm-referenced achievement tests; and (c) the application of exclusionary criteria (e.g. another cognitive disability or limited English proficiency). Proper analysis of these data will lead to the correct identification of students with reading weaknesses. Another method to predict a student’s reading success is to assess what is familiar to the student. For example, the non-alphanumeric rapid naming test when naming familiar objects can be used to determine if early supplemental literacy is needed (Kruk, Mayer, & Funk, 2014). 13 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING Kreitz (2016) explained that if a student has difficulty in rapidly naming numbers, letters, colors, and objects they may also struggle to name letters and sounds, indicating the inability to decode, read quickly, and have difficulty with comprehension. It is critical to look at the needs of each student individually, especially those with learning disabilities. McLeskey et al. (2019) explains that students with disabilities may be referred to an Individualized Education Plan for further intervention and detailed planning. Initial eligibility for special education is decided upon an interpretation of assessments are made, determining how the student is responding to curriculum-based interventions. Careful consideration is given to the interpretation of assessment data to determine an important accurate representation of the knowledge and skills of the student. Elementary schools have made progress towards identifying and providing effective interventions to struggling readers. Typical approaches to these interventions include smaller group sizes, one-to-one teaching, longer service times and more intense teaching to the individual student (Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009). After completing the diagnostic process and hypothesizing the nature of a student's struggle, the team moves on to plan adaptations to better meet their individual needs. The plan often identifies a clear focus, i.e., addressing barriers to intervention fidelity such as absences or addressing an 'isn’t doing,' a 'trouble doing,' or a 'can’t do' hypothesis. (Peterson, Danielson, & Fuchs, 2019). Response To Intervention RTI is a preventative, three-tiered system that was developed to facilitate the inclusion of students with exceptionalities into the classroom but later evolved into an instructional and intervention structure to meet the needs of all students (Gilbert et al., 2013; Sugai & Horner, 2009). Bianco (2010) explains that there are three basic features of RTI. The first is to match high-quality research-based interventions to the student’s academic and behavioral needs. 14 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING Second is using the data collected through progress monitoring if there are any needs for modifying instruction or goals for the student(s). Lastly, the data collected informs the decisions on which tier the student belongs to, as well as their specific reading needs. These are the steps that are taken when a student is referred to for the RTI process of interventions. This model provides schools with a pathway for improving educational results for students. Lamb (2014) explained that RTI implements ongoing progress monitoring, early detection of students with reading difficulties, and detailed interventions to address the needs of every student. Gartland and Strosnider (2005) explain the multifaceted nature of RTI including (1) the use of curriculum-based interventions within general education; (2) interpreting the data of their response to these interventions; (3) utilizing the RTI data to direct instruction. Tiered instruction can be very beneficial to students who have academic needs that are not met in the general education classroom. The application of scientific-based research in pedagogical interventions used within this system is targeted to the student’s individual needs. Algozinne et al. (2012) noted a beneficial learning environment is critical in the application of a tiered system that stresses quality whole-class instruction to promote successful interventions. Evidence of the effectiveness of RTI includes homogeneous grouping. Placing students with similar reading deficits together allows for more intense individualized instruction given to students that are working on similar reading skills (Lewis, 2016). Approximately 30 minutes of small group instruction each day (3-5 days per week) is highly effective for students who are struggling to learn to read (Baker, Fein & Baker, 2010). Teachers can target specific learning needs with more intensive instruction if done with precise planning. Students with reading difficulties spend most of their day in the general educational classrooms. 15 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING For this reason, it is imperative that teachers have differentiated high-leverage instructional strategies to meet the needs of all learners in the classroom (Bender, 2008). Benchmark testing and progress monitoring are evidence-based practices that are an essential component of RTI in which school personnel collect and interpret data on the implementation and effectiveness of intense interventions (Hill et al. 2012). Having a baseline score directs the educator in making data-based decisions on instructional strategies for the student. Evidence-based intervention selection is just the first step in ensuring that students have access to the most efficient teaching in a productive education (Senetti & Kratochwill, 2009). Using Data to Inform Instruction. Further efforts are now being made by teachers to go beyond just teaching a lesson and move on to the next lesson without analyzing data. Data can be collected daily and with varying degrees of frequency. It is beneficial for teachers to gather pre-and post-test data, analyze and note student progress, and then determine what is needed for further improvement and design lessons based on those evaluations (Bianco, 2010). Teachers can use summative assessments given at the end of an instructional period to analyze the data from these tests to evaluate student learning and change or implement effective strategies and those that are not in their daily lessons. The National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities explained that student progress is monitored frequently to determine the effectiveness of intervention and to modify any necessary changes. Progress monitoring data is used to keep track of the student’s progress as well as to let the teacher know what areas the students are struggling with. Assessment data can also inform the teacher what strategies are effective, and which ones need to be adjusted. Teachers can monitor students’ progress over time and compare 16 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING the baseline data with present-level scores to identify any lack in the student’s progress. This monitoring in turn can inform more effective pedagogical strategies. The National Center for Response to Intervention indicated that a reliable method of determining the efficacy of the core curriculum and behavioral and instructional strategies, in whether it meets the needs of the students, is by combining and analyzing both screening and progress monitoring data (NCRI, 2010). Teachers need to be proficient in interpreting data consistently and accurately so that students may be monitored properly. With this monitoring progress information, students can be given specially designed instructions to help target their gaps in skills and locate deficit areas in their reading abilities. Once these deficits are determined, focus can be made on skill instruction with specific dosage, alignment, comprehensiveness, and explicit instruction of reading skills. High Leverage Practices High-leverage practices are a fundamental component in the daily classroom for regular and special education teachers. These practices are used to leverage student learning across a variety of content areas, grade levels, and student abilities (Council for Exceptional Children, 2024). Teaching a whole class, a small group, or even just one student, presents several challenges, namely: maintaining students’ attention, providing frequent opportunities for student responses, offering individualized feedback, continuously monitoring student learning, and implementing strategies to prevent and address disruptive behavior. A lesson is successful when the teacher can deliver the lesson without disruption and students have successfully met the intended objective. Teachers often express how difficult it can be to deliver effective lessons when students display disruptive behaviors (Twyman & Heward, 2018). Many school systems 17 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING implement an integrated academic/behavioral approach to teaching to facilitate both areas of need (Mellard et al., 2011). Educators can provide students with effective and intense interventions using highleverage practices to reduce disruptive behaviors and reduce deficit reading skills. Educators must keep in mind the pressing need and significance of closing the gap between readers and non-readers in their classrooms (Kreitz, 2016). Choosing the appropriate reading instruction and strategies can be challenging because of the differing needs of each student. Teaching struggling readers using explicit instruction with opportunities for repetition to increase automaticity is essential. Teacher feedback is part of the learning process for the student and is another highleverage practice. Students learn when given performance feedback after completing a task. In receiving feedback from the teacher, the student learns the correct information. Giving student feedback is communicating to the students what they are doing correctly and what is not correct. Essentially, the focus should be on what the student is doing correctly and is most beneficial for the students when they are given feedback about what is accurate and inaccurate about their work (Reynolds, 2022). Providing feedback to students highlights their strengths and targets areas for improvement. Fostering student motivation and engagement is equally crucial for their academic progress. Active Student Responding (ASR) is a technique focused on involving all students, no matter what the size of the class. With ASR, students do not go unnoticed since every student is given the chance to participate, including the low achievers as well as the high achievers. ASR methods include response cards, choral responses, whiteboards, and guided notes (Cleaver et al., 2019). ASR not only reinforces the feedback given by teachers but also ensures that students are actively participating in their learning process by responding frequently during lessons. By 18 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING implementing strategies that promote active engagement, educators can create a more dynamic classroom environment where students are motivated to respond and demonstrate their understanding (Twyman and Heward, 2018). When ASR is properly implemented, each tactic enables all students in the class to respond frequently throughout the lesson, incorporates feedback to students, gives the teacher an ongoing assessment of students’ understanding of the lesson, encourages on-task behavior, and promotes learning. (Twyman & Heward, 2018). It allows opportunities for active engagement in the classroom which can be critical for the success of each student. ASR is an antecedent intervention that allows teachers to see if their students are responding to the lessons. There are many strategies that teachers can use to incorporate active student responses in the classroom. When ASR is implemented, all students respond actively in unison, as opposed to just one student at a time. ASR has shown a correlation between academic engagement and academic achievement (ASR, Heward, 1994). Additionally, Twyman & Heward (2018), explained that ASR uses evidence-based strategies to support student engagement during group instruction. ASR provides the teacher with immediate information regarding student understanding, and they can quickly determine which students understand the content and those who need additional instruction. ASR strategies are “low-tech” applications that can be easily applied within the classroom. Ebbinghaus (2013); Smith et al. (2016) explained, ASR provides intervention to decrease disruptive and off-task behaviors. The increased number of opportunities students are given to practice, the higher the likelihood they are to gain and retain knowledge. The Special Learning Autism Webcast (2013) showed that when teachers apply the ASR techniques in the classroom, disruptive behaviors are 19 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING diminished. ASR promotes engagement in the classroom and allows all students to participate, not just those that are willing to participate. Heward (1994) explained that guided notes are teacher-prepared handouts with partially filled notes and spaces for the student to fill in key information during a lesson. This diminishes the need for the student to become frustrated while trying to keep up with the lesson and allows improved retention of the material being taught. Heward et al. (1996) discussed how another strategy called response cards is used so that students can actively participate in whole-class instruction. Response cards are used by all students at once to show the teacher their answers to teacher-posed questions. All students show their answers to questions by using various materials like whiteboards or sheets of paper to display their answers. By using this approach, all students are engaged rather than just one student as you typically see with hand raising. Twyman & Heward (2018) shared how a study conducted in a fifth-grade science classroom used RCs and students responded an average of 21.8 times in a 30-minute lesson, compared with a mean of 1.5 responses when the teacher called on students individually. Teachers using RCs instead of hand raising will significantly increase participation and learning compared to just hand raising and calling on students one at a time. Another significantly effective strategy is choral responding. Heward et al. (1996) outlined choral responses as all students participate in answering questions together in unison. Choral responses allow them to learn the correct answer right away because the correct answer is verified by the teacher after the answers are called out. Twyman & Heward (2018) explained that choral responses can be used to preload students’ background knowledge of the content being taught and is the fastest and simplest way to encourage student participation. Special Learning Autism Webcast (2013) showed that an important variable in this methodology is having students 20 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING acquire knowledge and skills across curricula and educational settings. When teachers can employ strategic high-leverage practices within their classrooms, student learning outcomes increase. For strategies to be effective, there needs to be a fidelity component in the delivery. Moncher & Prinz (1991) and Yeaton & Sechrest (1982) explained that fidelity of implementation can be defined as “the degree to which a treatment/intervention is implemented as intended.” Fidelity of implementation of high leverage from teachers is essential and requires providing instruction and progress monitoring that is research-based (Bianco, 2010). Specific interventions need to be consistent and implemented with fidelity. Researchers urge administrators to set expectations for teachers, provide adequate resources, and support the use of procedures that ensure fidelity of implementation (Bianco, 2010). Demonstrating adequate fidelity ensures that interventions are being implemented correctly (Bradshaw et al.,2012). In the educational setting, interventions and treatments are usually multifaceted; consideration is taken of how long and how well a strategy is taught. Many domains of fidelity are considered in the educational setting. Fidelity shows the researcher not only what skills are being implemented during the intervention but also how well they are being taught. Within the same context, data is taken on how the practice impacts learning and student performance and not on trying to maintain the validity of the intervention (Harn et al., 2013). Fidelity is critical when analyzing the implementation of intervention; if it is not properly analyzed, it may block the replication of important interventions (Bianco 2010). Only when interventions are delivered correctly, and fidelity can the student’s response to the interventions be assessed correctly (Sanetti & Kratochwill, 2009). Educators need ongoing professional development with an opportunity to practice the interventions so that fidelity can be achieved. Coaching with Verbal Feedback 21 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING The following coaching practices are linked to improved teacher performance and enhanced learner outcomes that include continuous observation, providing verbal feedback and employing strategies for building alliances (Pierce, 2015). ● Observations are directed towards watching the teacher and their interactions with the students and taking notes of how the teacher is implementing the high leverage practices. ● Providing performance feedback to the teacher on their performance of the practices that are observed can be a very powerful tool. Sharing this data can inform descriptive feedback including student rationale. ● Alliance building strategies are used by the coach to build a relationship with the teacher. These strategies are highly effective tools for coaches to use that build an alliance with the teacher. Interpersonal Skills, Collaboration and Expertise are strategies used for effective communication, building trust, conveying teamwork, and refer to effective teaching practices that convey deep content-area knowledge, and explain complex concepts succinctly (Pierce, 2015, p. 138). Pierce (2015) states that these are key areas that should be recognized and steps that should be taken when coaching is used as a pathway toward improving teacher practice and learner outcomes. Teachers who are coached using these strategies have a better outcome of teaching successfully because of the scaffolding they receive (Pierce, 2015). Coaching can be used to observe the practitioner and report on the percentage of fidelity with which the interventions are used. Rather than simply determining if the intervention occurred or if a component was delivered, observers attempt to rate how well or to what degree the intervention or component is delivered (Harn et al., 2013). 22 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING Additionally, committed mentoring should always adhere to effective practices such as observing, modeling, providing performance feedback, and utilizing strategies to build strong alliances. Furthermore, coaching sessions should be conducted regularly and for enough time to ensure that teachers are actively engaged, and their needs are met. To effectively support teachers, high-quality coaching is imperative (Pierce, 2015). Just like any other educational innovation, the coaching of teachers needs to be implemented consistently to achieve the desired outcomes. Fidelity not only refers to following the "key ingredients" of innovation but also encompasses factors like the quality and responsiveness of the participants, such as the coach being attentive to the needs of the teachers (Pierce, 2015). Purpose Some pathways guide teachers to provide quality data-driven decisions and comprehensive support for interventions. One such pathway is using highly effective educational practices. According to a study conducted in southeastern Georgia on the fidelity of implementation of effective interventions, it was determined that teachers need to be given professional development that will enable them to implement effective strategies and practices to educate the students in their classrooms (Brown, 2018). For these low-performing students, academic progress can be made if teachers implement high-leverage practices with fidelity (Fletcher et al., 2009). For this reason, students may not achieve grade level in reading unless given specific direct instruction in the areas where they need intense instruction. Inadequate implementation of instructional high-leverage practices by classroom teachers and staff, inconsistent progress monitoring and data collection and not interpreting data correctly can lead to ineffective 23 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING decision-making and results (Lamb, 2014). Unless proper professional development is provided to teachers and staff in collecting, interpreting data, making data-driven instructional decisions, and implementing high leverage strategies for effective implementation, academic gains may be limited (Bianco, 2010). One important component is that teaching needs to be high quality, allowing all students to achieve their full potential (Connor, 2017). The purpose of this study is to observe and report teacher use of high-leverage practices and offer effective coaching that will further increase the use of high-leverage practices. Additionally, the researcher will seek to determine if observation, self-assessment and coaching will increase the teacher’s use of effective strategies within their classrooms. The research questions to be addressed in this project are: 1. To what extent do baseline live observations vary compared to the participant's selfassessment, use of high-leverage practices for elementary teachers? 2. To what extent does self-assessment impact the use of high leverage practices? 3. To what extent does 1:1 coaching impact the use of high leverage practices in an elementary teacher? Method Research Design A single-subject ABC design was used to conduct this study on the efficacy of selfassessments and coaching to increase teacher use of high leverage practices. This study is an approximate replication of the study conducted by Carbine (2019). This research study measured the dependent variable repeatedly over three phases: Baseline, Self-Assessment and Coaching 24 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING with Verbal Feedback. Frequency counting was used for some of the phases of this study and data collected on each of the seven aspects of the HLP 18 checklist (Appendix A). Data from these three phases were graphed to visually assess the effects of each intervention. With a single subject, ABC design, the participant serves as her own control for the study. The participants’ patterns of behaviors are compared to themselves and not to a group. In ABC design, the baseline data is recorded and compared to the B- intervention and Cintervention data to assess if the interventions had any effect on the participants’ behavior. A good attribute of this design is that there is a comparative assessment of different interventions across phases. In this study, the sole participant served as the control and the treatment group. Table 1 depicts the treatments across all phases of this study. Table 1 Observation and Intervention Phases Across Study Timeline ______________________________________________________________________________ Phase Description Video Reference Phase 1: Baseline Baseline Observation Baseline Observation Baseline Observation Pre-Treatment Probe Video #1 Video #2 Video #3 Phase 2: Self-Assessment Self-Assessment #1 Self-Assessment #2 Self-Assessment #3 Video #4 Video #5 Video #6 Phase 3: Coaching and Verbal Feedback Live Recording Coaching and Verbal Feedback Live Recording Coaching and Verbal Feedback Live Recording Coaching and Verbal Feedback Video #7 Video #8 Video #9 _____________________________________________________________________________________________ 25 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING Note. This table illustrates the sequence of recordings and treatments implemented during each phase of the study. Live recordings correspond to 25-minute classroom lessons, with coaching and verbal feedback delivered after each lesson. A pre-treatment probe was administered during the baseline phase of the study to establish baseline conditions perceived by the participant before treatments were administered. The use and implementation of high-leverage practices in daily classroom instruction were the dependent variables across all three phases of the study. The researcher conducted baseline observations, administered self-assessments, and delivered coaching as part of the treatment components of the research study. Participant The participant in this research project was a first-grade classroom teacher. The participant has been teaching for three years in a regular classroom. She holds an Elementary Professional License and teaches in a charter school located in the Layton city area. This participant worked with Tier 3 students in her classroom and delivered 30 minutes of intense reading interventions daily. The classroom teacher delivers a regular education curriculum during the school day with 30-minute intervals of reading and math interventions at different times. Setting The location where the study took place was a regular education classroom with 24 first grade students. The classroom was part of a charter school in a suburban area in northern Utah. The schools’ student to teacher ratio is 20:1 with 50% male and 50% female students in attendance. The school employs 48 fulltime teachers and 1 fulltime counselor. There are 26 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING currently 103 first grade students with 50.7% minority enrollment for the entire school. Elementary students proficient in reading (district average) is 32% (U.S. News & World Report, n.d.). Curriculum The curriculum used by the participant in her lessons was a scripted language arts program called Core Knowledge Language Arts (CKLA). It is a K-5 core literacy program. This program offers explicit, systematic foundational skills instruction and a knowledge-building sequence. The participant uses this program to plan her daily lessons. Independent Variable The independent variables for this research study were self-assessments and coaching with verbal feedback sessions. These sessions were designed to support the teacher with targeted feedback and strategies to improve the use of high-leverage practices. They were also used to tracking any changes or adjustments the participant made to her teaching practices after coaching and providing the participant with the teacher’s perceived vs. actual implementation of the highlevel practices. The researcher and participant discussed where further adjustments were needed. Dependent Variable The dependent variable for this research study was the implementation of HLP 18 indicators. The following were the seven indicators used to complete the HLP 18 checklist. ▪ Indicator 1: Relatable experiences ▪ Indicator 2: The Range of Culturally Inclusive Pedagogies and Practices (CIPP) ▪ Indicator 3: Teacher-Directed, Peer-Assisted and Student-Led Strategies 27 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING ▪ Indicator 4: Opportunities To Respond ▪ Indicator 5: Student Engagement ▪ Indicator 6: Positive and Corrective Feedback ▪ Indicator 7: Multimedia Platform Used Measures The following was measured using these seven indicators: ▪ Discrepancies between the actual observed implementation of the high leverage practices and the self-assessments collected from the teacher for each phase: Baseline, Self-Assessment, Coaching with Verbal Feedback. ▪ The teachers observed implementations of high leverage practices through live observations and video recordings during each phase. This study utilized a checklist that was adapted by the researcher from the book, High Leverage Practices for Students with Disabilities (Aceves et al., 2024). HLP18 (Appendix A) was used in creating the checklist. The researcher created a Terms Glossary (Appendix B), that included words and phrases from the checklist to clarify terminology that may be confusing or not clearly understood. The checklist contains seven important indicators from HLP 18: Use strategies to promote active student engagement. The measurements used in the checklist included tally marks, percentages, yes/no answers, time lapses, and rates obtained by dividing the recorded frequency by 25 (the total amount of minutes for each recording). Data Collection The checklist and glossary were used to record data of the teacher implementation of the strategies during the live observations. Each observation conducted was recorded and analyzed using Appendix A and Appendix B. The researcher’s recorded data from the checklists was used 28 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING for comparison across phases. The data collected was used to explain the fidelity of how the participant implemented the HLP 18 elements in her daily lessons for each of the phases. Data was collected for the following phases: Baseline, Self-Assessment and Coaching with Verbal Feedback. The data collected was used by the participant to inform her pedagogy decisions such as teaching methods with accompanying frequency and duration of strategies. Procedure Data were collected across all phases of the five-week study, which included weekly video recordings and coaching sessions during the final week. Phase 1: Baseline (Week 1), in the first week, baseline data were collected using the HLP 18 checklist. Three video recordings were captured in a general education classroom to document typical instructional practices. Following the baseline recordings, a pre-treatment probe was conducted to introduce the participant to the checklist and familiarize her with the seven indicators. Phase 2: SelfAssessment (Weeks 2–3), during Weeks 2 and 3, the participant engaged in a self-assessment phase. The researcher recorded three additional live classroom sessions. The participant reviewed these recordings and completed the HLP 18 checklist while observing her own instructional behaviors. This phase aimed to promote reflective practice and increase the participant’s awareness of high-leverage instructional strategies. Phase 3: Coaching and Feedback (Weeks 4–5), in the final two weeks, three additional classroom sessions were recorded. On each of these days, the participant received individualized coaching and verbal feedback following the instructional session. During the coaching sessions, when presented with the observation data, this data was compared to a standard developed for each indicator to establish how effective the implementation of these practices was and where adjustments were needed. The specific practices found in HLP 18 and how they aligned with the needs of the 29 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING students were also discussed. These observations enabled a comparative analysis of the participant’s instructional practices across the baseline, self-assessment, and coaching phases. A single-subject ABC research design enabled the researcher to collect data and determine if self-assessments and one-to-one coaching were effective for teacher implementation of high-leverage practices. The ABC design allowed for comparison across conditions/treatments, comparing multiple conditions against each other with the same participant which reduced the variability between groups. It allowed the researcher to explore how different interventions may be controlled without compromising the research. It allowed the recording of sequence effects and their impact on the behavior of the participant. Including only one participant helped strengthen the internal validity of the study by minimizing variability and reducing the potential for confounding factors. The ABC singlesubject research design was well-suited for this purpose, as it allowed for the implementation of multiple treatment phases while providing a clear structure to measure changes in the dependent variable over time. The coaching sessions provided the participant with an in-depth look at their teaching practices as well as coaching on the implementation of high-leverage practices. When teachers are coached effectively, students show academic improvement. Using coaching as a tool for professional development spans decades, especially in the field of reading and literacy (Desimone, & Pak, 2017). The researcher took note of any trends, patterns, and discrepancies in the data across all phases. The role of the researcher is to provide performance feedback to support teachers and assist them in developing their skills. According to Fallon et al. (2015), descriptive performance feedback is specific, positive, timely, and correct when needed. The participant was given a chance to discuss clarifying questions about the feedback they receive. 30 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING Results One of the important objectives of this study was to compare baseline conditions with treatment phases and note any changes in the participant’s behavior. Data were collected from live video recordings, self-assessments, and one-on-one coaching sessions on the participant’s implementation of HLP 18. The analysis of behavior data of the participant was used to answer the research questions of this study. The following questions were the focus of this project: 1. To what extent do baseline live observations vary compared to the participants’ selfassessment use of high leverage practices? 2. To what extent does self-assessment impact the use of high-leverage practices? 3. To what extent does 1:1 coaching impact the use of high-leverage practices in an elementary teacher? The HLP 18 checklist guided the researcher through the evaluation of the participant’s performances in each of the phases and through a total of nine live video recordings. The researcher analyzed these checklists to assess the participants' self-perception of her performance of high-leverage practices during the observed lessons. In High Leverage Practice 18 Use strategies to promote students’ engagement, there are seven different indicators targeted for data collection. Each of these are discussed independently in this section. Indicator 1: Relatable Examples Figure 1 Number of Relatable Examples: 31 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING Multiple Examples Used (4+) Minimal Examples Used (<4) 7 Number of Examples Self-Assessment Baseline 6 Coaching 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Lesson # Figure 1 illustrates the number of examples that were relevant to the students’ lives used by the participant in her lessons across phases. The baseline phase depicts data collected over a 1week baseline period with data collected on three different days. For Baseline phase, the number of examples the participant used in her teaching showed a disconnected pattern of four the first day, three the second day and four the third day. During the self-assessment phase, the participant incorporated three examples following the first self-assessment (Day 4), two examples after the second self-assessment (Day 5), and two examples after the third self-assessment (Day 6). This suggests a decrease in the dependent variable after the self-assessment checklist treatment was introduced across this phase possibly meaning that self-awareness was not strong enough to produce a change in behavior. In the coaching phase, however, we see an increase in the dependent variable during each day she was coached. Following the first coaching session, the number of examples used were 32 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING three (Day 7), after the second coaching session, the number of examples used was five (Day 8), after the final coaching session, the number of examples used was six (Day 9). The one-to-one coaching has a positive effect on teacher behavior. Indicator 2: Culturally Inclusive Pedagogies and Practices (CIPP) Table 2 Communication Styles (Verbal, Non-Verbal, Written) ________________________________________________________________________ Style Baseline Self-Assessment Coaching Verbal L1, L2, L3 L4, L5, L6 L7, L8, L9 L1, L3 L5 L7, L8, L9 L1, L2, L3 L6 Non-Verbal Written __________________________________________________________________________ Note. L= Lesson. CIPP= Culturally Inclusive Pedagogies and Practices. Verbal communication indicates answering and participating out loud, Non-Verbal communication indicates hand gestures, body language and eye contact, Written communication indicates using handouts, assignments, and reading materials that represent a range of cultural global perspectives. In Figure 2, the data showed the use of three communication styles used by the teacher in her lessons. The data indicates that the teacher primarily encouraged verbal communication over non-verbal or written forms of expression among the students. Non-verbal communication was used during six lessons across phases, and written communication was used the least during five lessons across phases. Further explanation of including the presence of culturally relevant 33 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING pedagogy in communication styles in her teaching will be discussed in the Discussion section of this paper. The baseline phase depicts data collected over a one-week baseline period with data collected on three different days. For the baseline phase, the number of communications styles used were equal during all three days for verbal and non-verbal communication styles (each were used in daily lessons) with exception of written used only in two of the lessons. This phase was absent from any treatments. In the Self-Assessment phase, after the first self-assessment, she continued to use verbal communication, but did not use non-verbal and written communication styles. After the second self-assessment, she used verbal and non-verbal communication, but no written communication styles. After the third self- assessment, she used both verbal and written communication but not non-verbal communication. This suggests a decrease in the dependent variable after the selfassessment checklist treatment was introduced across this phase. In the coaching phase, however, we see the consistent use of verbal, non-verbal and written communication styles after each coaching session in this phase. The coaching sessions were conducted during the same day, after each video recording. During the coaching sessions, the researcher encouraged oral storytelling and dialogue that reflect students’ cultural backgrounds, being attentive to culturally specific nonverbal cues, and valuing multiple forms of written expression. By incorporating literature and writing tasks that draw from students lived experiences, teachers validate identity and promote authentic engagement. Indicator 3: Teacher-directed, Peer-Assisted, and Student-Led Strategies Figure 3 34 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING Minutes engaged in each lesson delivery type: 30 Baseline Coaching Self-Assessment 25 25 25 25 Minutes 20 20 20 20 Teacher Directed 15 20 20 5 5 17 Peer-Assisted 10 8 Student-Led 5 5 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 Lesson # Figure 3 illustrates the time engaged in each type of lesson delivery used across all phases. The baseline phase observations depict that all three lessons observed during this phase were teacher-directed for the entire 25-minute live recording. There was no peer-assisted strategy used, and no student-led strategy used. The dependent variable was highest during the baseline phase when teacher-directed strategies were primarily used, and it progressively decreased across the treatment phases, reaching its lowest point during the coaching phase. Over the course of the study, the teacher decreased the amount of time spent in teacher-directed lessons and increased the amount of time spent in either peer-assisted or student-led components during the lesson. After the first self-assessment, the teacher-directed strategy dropped down to twenty minutes and peer-assisted increased to five minutes during lesson #4. After the second selfassessment, the participant dropped down to twenty minutes of teacher-directed and increased to five minutes of the student-led strategy for lesson #5. After the third self-assessment, the 35 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING participant dropped down to twenty minutes of teacher-directed and increased to five minutes of student-led strategy in lesson #6. These numbers indicate an increase in desired behavior for this phase. During the coaching phase, the amount of time spent in teacher-led instruction decreased to the lowest time across all phases of the study (seventeen minutes). After the first treatment of coaching with verbal feedback, the peer-assisted strategy increased to 8 minutes, and the studentled strategy decreased to 0 minutes. After the participant’s second coaching session, the dependent variable decreased to 20 minutes of teacher-directed and increased to 5 minutes of student-led with 0 minutes of peer-assisted strategy. Following the third coaching session, the dependent variable decreased to 20 minutes of teacher-directed, increased to 5 minutes of peerassisted and stayed at 0 minutes for student-led. The decrease and increase in numbers indicate a change which depicts that the treatment had an effect during this phase. 36 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING Indicator 4: Opportunities to Respond Figure 4 # of Responses Number of Student Response Opportunities across lessons 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Baseline 1 2 Self-Assessment 3 4 Choral Responses 5 Lesson # 6 Coaching 7 8 9 Response Cards In Figure 4, the number of choral responses without treatments was high with a total of 38 choral responses for the first lesson then decreased sharply for lesson two with a total of 8 choral responses. The number of choral responses increased after the 3rd live observation to a high of 45 (lesson 4) and a low of 14 (lesson 7). In the self-assessment phase (lessons 4-6), the number of choral responses increased (lesson 4) and then sharply decreased from lessons five to seven. During the coaching and verbal feedback phase, the number of choral responses increased again for lessons 8 and 9. The response card strategy is not used as much as the choral response strategy. The teacher used response cards the most in lesson 4 (12 response cards) and the least in lesson 1 (0 37 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING response cards). In lessons 2, 3 and 6 through 9, we see some use of response cards, with numbers ranging from two to five cards used per lesson. There were no lessons during the study that used either guided notes or adapted worksheets. Indicator 5: Student Engagement Figure 5 Number of Response Opportunities Taken Baseline Self-Assessment Coaching 4 7 Response Opportunity Taken 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 1 2 3 Cognitive Engagement 5 6 Lesson # Affective Engagement 8 9 Intersectional Experiences Figure 5 illustrates the number of opportunities taken for cognitive engagement, affective engagement, and intersectional experiences by the participant during each phase of this study. Cognitive engagement was recorded when the teacher recognized a student showing persistence and/or motivation during tasks. Affective engagement was recorded when students demonstrated excitement, eager participation, and active involvement during the lessons. Intersectional 38 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING experiences were recorded when the teacher acknowledged any discrimination in the form of students disrupting each other by being in their personal space, name calling, bugging another with any part of their body or making fun of cultural differences. The baseline phase depicts data collected over a one-week baseline period with data collected on three different days. For the baseline phase, the number of occurrences of cognitive engagement varied between three and seven. The number of occurrences of affective engagement was 11 on Day 1, decreased to two on Day 2, and then increased to four on Day 3. The number of occurrences of intersectional engagement was two on Day 1, decreased to one on Day 2, and then increased to two on Day 3. In the Self-Assessment phase, the number of occurrences of cognitive engagement after the first self-assessment increased to 12 on Day 4, increased to 13 on Day 5 and decreased to nine on Day 6. Each of these changes are above baseline scores for affective engagement indicating a change after treatment. The number of occurrences of affective engagement increased to seven on Day 4, decreased to four4n Day 5 and decreased to two on Day 6. The number of occurrences of intersectional engagement increased to four on Day 4, decreased to zero on Day 5 and decreased to 0 on day 6. The self-assessments given were the treatment for this phase. In the coaching phase, the number of occurrences of cognitive engagement increased to 10 on Day 7, increased to eight on Day 8, and increased to 17 on Day 9. Each of the cognitive engagement scores for this phase were above the baseline scores indicating a change in behavior. The number of occurrences of affective engagement increased to four on Day 7, stayed at four for Day 8, and then increased to 17 on Day 9. The number of occurrences of intersectional engagement was two on Day 7, decreased to one on Day 8, and then increased to nine on Day 3. 39 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING Each of these intersectional scores were below the baseline scores, indicating a change in behavior. The one-to-one coaching was the treatment used in this phase. Indicator 6: Positive and Corrective Feedback Figure 6 Rates of Positive and Corrective Feedback. Baseline Self-Assessment Coaching 1.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 Rate of Feedbacks 1 0.2 0 1 2 Positve Feedback 3 4 Corrective Feedack 5 6 7 8 9 Lesson # Figure 6 illustrates the percentage of positive and corrective feedback the teacher gave the students during each lesson across phases. Positive feedback refers to specific and constructive comments and praise offered following the performance of a task. Corrective feedback refers to constructive comments that help students improve their performance and receive correct answers. During the baseline phase, there were similar percentages of corrective feedback across all lessons, with an average of 77% and a range of 76-77. These scores were consistent and 40 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING varied little across the phase. For positive feedback, there was an average occurrence of 82%, and a range of 79-86%. The rates of corrective and positive feedback were consistent across all three lessons during this phase. During the self-assessment phase, the percentages increased for corrective feedback with scores at 78% for Lesson 4 after the first self-assessment, 78% for Lesson 5 after the second selfassessment, and 88% for Lesson 6 after the third self-assessment. Positive feedback decreased from baseline percentages in lesson 4 (55%) after the first self-assessment, lesson 5 (48%) after the second self-assessment but increased significantly in lesson 6 (88%) after the third selfassessment. During the coaching phase, corrective feedback percentages showed a fluctuation in scores with increasing and decreasing scores for each lesson. After the first coaching session, Lesson 7 decreased in score to 63%, increased to 82% for Lesson 8, then decreased to 65% for Lesson 9. There were observed fluctuations in score for this phase indicating changes in behavior of the participant. Similar effects were recorded for positive feedback percentages during this phase. Positive feedback percentages decreased from lesson 6 (88%) to lesson 7 (41%). This percentage increased from lesson 8 (59%) to lesson 9 (69%). There were increases in percentage of positive feedback after self-assessment and coaching treatments. Indicator 7: Multimedia Platforms used for instruction The teacher used multimedia platforms in all the observed lessons across all phases of the study. The multimedia used was a projector that was synced to her laptop and showed the lessons projected onto the whiteboard in front of the class. Every student in the class had the opportunity to learn from these lessons that were projected onto the whiteboard. 41 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING Table 3 Participant’s Pre-Treatment Probe and Baseline Live Observations (Averaged) ____________________________________________________________________________ Self-Assessment Live Observation (Avg.) Relatable Experiences 3 4 ______________________________________________________________________________ CIPP Verbal 1 2 Non-Verbal 1 2 Written 1 2 ______________________________________________________________________________ CIPP (Percentage) Teacher Directed 100 100 Peer-Assisted 0 0 Student-Led 0 0 ______________________________________________________________________________ OTR Choral Responses 5 26 Response Cards 2 28 ______________________________________________________________________________ Student Engagement Cognitive Engagement 2 5 Affective Engagement 1 6 Intersectional Experiences 0 2 ______________________________________________________________________________ Positive & Corrective Feedback Positive Feedback .16 .70 Corrective Feedback .08 .55 ______________________________________________________________________________ Media Uses Multi-Media Platforms Yes Yes ______________________________________________________________________________ Note. CIPP = Culturally Inclusive Pedagogies and Practices; OTR = Opportunities to Respond. Table 2 summarizes the comparison between the participant’s Pre-Treatment Probe data and the average Baseline Phase data. Multiple instructional indicators depict discrepancies and alignments of data. The average Baseline scores are substantially higher frequencies in the 42 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING Opportunities To Respond, Student Engagement and Positive and Corrective feedback. Similar and equal scores were reported for both data sets for Relatable Experiences, Culturally Inclusive Pedagogies and Practices and Mult-Media use. Further analysis can be found in the Discussion section of the study. Table 4 Classroom Observations and Self-Assessments Across Days 4–6 Indicator Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Relatable Example- Teacher Relatable Example-Researcher 1 3 7 2 4 2 CIPP Verbal-Teacher Verbal-Researcher Present Present Present Present Present Present Non-Verbal-Teacher Non-Verbal-Researcher None None Present Present Present None Written-Teacher Written-Researcher None None Present None Present Present CIPP Teacher Directed (%)-Teacher Teacher Directed (%)-Researcher 100 80 80 80 100 80 Peer Assisted (%)- Teacher Peer Assisted (%)-Researcher 0 20 0 0 0 20 Student-Led (%)-Teacher Student-Led (%)-Researcher 0 0 20 20 0 0 OTR Choral Responses-Teacher Choral Responses-Researcher 28 45 26 45 26 22 Response Cards-Teacher Response Cards-Researcher 3 17 3 0 26 4 Student Engagement 43 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING Table 3 (continued) Cognitive -Teacher Cognitive -Researcher 3 12 10 13 13 2 Affective- Teacher Affective-Researcher 3 7 1 4 5 2 Intersectional Exp.-Teacher Intersectional Exp.-Researcher 2 4 0 0 0 0 Positive and Corrective Positive Feedback-Teacher Positive Feedback-Researcher .52 0.4 .64 .52 .76 .60 Corrective Feedback-Teacher Corrective Feedback-Researcher .32 .88 .32 1 .72 .64 Multimedia Use-Teacher Multimedia Use-Researcher Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Note. CIPP = Culturally Inclusive Pedagogies and Practices; OTR = Opportunities to Respond. Table 3 summarizes the comparison data between the teachers’ self-assessments and the live observations recorded by the researcher across multiple indicators on Days 4, 5 and 6. The intended goal was to report discrepancies or alignments in the data. The indicators depicted in this table were derived from the HLP 18 checklist created and used for this study. The indicators that reported similar frequencies for both data sources were found in the use of verbal, nonverbal and written CIPP Strategies and the Multimedia Platform indicators. Conversely, there was a noticeable gap in the other indicators of this data set. These discrepancies in the data are found in the areas of relatable experiences, student engagement and positive and corrective feedback. As an example, the observer reported a higher score of cognitive engagement and a lower score of positive feedback than the teacher. Similarly, the 44 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING teacher reported lower scores for days four and five in choral responses as well as corrective feedback. These discrepancies will be further analyzed in the Discussion section of this study to discuss potential causes and implications. Discussion The findings from this study highlight the effectiveness of self-assessment and coaching with verbal feedback of high leverage practices in daily reading lessons. The purpose of this study was to observe and report the effects of treatments across phases during reading lessons in an elementary first grade classroom. Question 1: To what degree do baseline live observations vary when compared to the participants’ self-assessment use of high leverage practices? As indicated in Table 2, some of the participants’ self-assessment data from the pre-treatment probe differed from the data collected by the researcher. The three indicators where the researchers noted a greater difference included Opportunities to Respond, Student Engagement, and Positive and Corrective feedback. The other indicators, Relatable experiences, CIPP (Verbal, Non-Verbal and Written), CIPP (TeacherDirected, Peer-Assisted, Student-Led), and Multimedia Use, were similar or slightly below the observed live observations. Indicator 1: Relatable Examples The teacher underreported her use of relatable examples compared to the observer data. This suggests limited self-awareness and a focus on the impact of relating examples in the lesson to the student’s real-life experiences. Indicator 2: Communication Styles (Verbal, Non-Verbal, Written) 45 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING Verbal communication was consistently observed and reported by the researcher in every lesson indicating a strong preference for this communication style. There were discrepancies in each communication style as noted in the data, verbal, non-verbal and written communication were all underreported by the teacher. The researcher reported more use than was reported by the teacher, indicating possible misunderstandings or difficulty recognizing these strategies in practice. Indicator 3: Teacher-Directed, Peer-Assisted and Student-Led Strategies During baseline observations, on Days 1-3, both observer and teacher agreed the lesson was fully teacher-led. This indicates again a strong preference for teacher-led whole-class instruction with minimal student-led and peer-assisted opportunities during the lessons. Indicator 4: Opportunities to Respond (OTR) Significant differences in reported numbers existed between observed and self-reported OTRs. The teacher underreported choral responses and response cards used on her selfassessment during baseline phase. The observer reported an increased amount of choral responses and response cards above those reported by the teacher. This may indicate a lack of self-awareness in practices by the participant. The lessons involved a lot of participation from the students in answering questions which led to a high number of responses. Indicator 5: Student Engagement Cognitive, affective and intersectional engagement were consistently reported present in the lessons with higher numbers by the observer than the teacher across all lessons. The teacher recorded no intersectional engagement, with only one reported instance of affective engagement and two cognitive engagements observed, suggesting a need for further support in recognizing and integrating culturally responsive practices. 46 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING Indicator 6: Positive and Corrective Feedback Positive and corrective feedback were measured using criteria decided upon before the study began and shared with the participant. The data reported on these indicators depicted that positive feedback slightly exceeded the corrective in the observed data compared to the teacher self-assessment. This data suggests the teacher focused more on supportive feedback to encourage good behavior and a positive environment. Question 2: To what extent does teacher self-assessment influence the implementation of high-leverage practices? Table 3 presents self-assessment and live observation data which allows for a comparison of similarities and differences in the data. The second phase of the study included three opportunities for the participant to view a video recording of herself and complete the checklist. These data show a discrepancy in scores between the self-assessment data and the observer data. Indicator 1: Relatable Examples The teacher’s self-assessment data showed higher reported use of relatable examples than observed, particularly on Days 5 and 6 but not on Day 4 where she reported one example and the observer reported three. These discrepancies suggested an increased awareness on Day 5. After the pre-treatment probe and the first self -assessment, the number of relatable examples increased from one on Day 4 to seven on Day 5. Day 6 decreased indicating a possibility of limited awareness of what qualifies as a relatable example, but repeated self-assessment may have encouraged increased use overtime. Indicator 2: Communication Styles (Verbal, Non-Verbal, Written) 47 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING Both data sets indicated consistent verbal communication across all lessons during the self-assessment phase indicating a preferred method of teaching her lessons. The only two discrepancies in this indicator were for non-verbal on Day 6 and written on Day 5. Both data sets indicate an overreported use of communication styles by the participant while the observer reported none used. These inconsistencies suggest confusion or under recognition of these strategies during instruction. Indicator 3: Teacher-Directed, Peer-Assisted and Student-Led Strategies Agreement between teacher and observer was found only on Day 5, where instruction was student-led for 20% of the lesson and teacher-led for 80% of the lesson. On Days 4 and 6, the observer noted 20% peer-assisted instruction, while the teacher reported none. This suggested the teacher may not have identified informal student participation (e.g., students explaining content and buddy reading) as peer-assisted strategy use. However, the participant used more peer-assisted and student-led strategies after being exposed to the self-assessments which was the first treatment introduced in the study. This suggests an increased recognition of student involvement as an instructional support. Indicator 4: Opportunities to Respond (OTR) There were notable discrepancies in OTR data for choral responses between observer and participant. On Day 4, the observer recorded 45 choral responses, and 17 response card uses, while the teacher reported only 28 choral responses and three non-verbal cues. On Day 6, the teacher reported 26 uses of response cards, compared to only four noted by the observer. These gaps may reflect misunderstandings of what counts as an OTR or difficulty recognizing student response types in real time. The observer counted students using their fingers to answer 48 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING questions on how many syllables are in a word. This lead to a high number of response cards reported. Indicator 5: Student Engagement Cognitive engagement was consistently rated higher than affective or intersectional engagement by both the teacher and observer. The teacher reported higher numbers for cognitive engagements for Days 5 and 6, after the first self-assessment indicating a change in behavior. The teacher reported underreported and overreported in several data points when compared to the observer data. These discrepancies may indicate a lack of experience in reporting these indicators. This may suggest a focus on academic participation, with limited attention to emotional or cultural responsiveness during instruction. Indicator 6: Positive and Corrective Feedback The feedback was balanced, although the numbers reported by the researcher and the teacher were slightly different for each rating. Lesson 5 shows a big difference in scores. The teacher underreported herself for corrective feedback indicating a lack of knowledge in instructional corrections. In other lessons, positive feedback slightly exceeded corrective. These findings suggest a conscious effort by the teacher to provide both encouragement and constructive teaching, possibly influenced by increased reflection through self-assessment. Question 3: To what extent does individualize instructional coaching impact the behavior and implementation of high-leverage practices in classroom settings? Across the study, coaching proved to be the most influential intervention, particularly in promoting shifts from teacherdirected to more peer- and student-led instruction, increasing response opportunities, and improving both cognitive and affective engagement. Self-assessment alone generated more 49 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING modest improvements, often limited by the participant’s underestimation of her own practices. In terms of culturally inclusive pedagogy and relatable examples, the coaching sessions appeared to enhance awareness and intentional use of these strategies. Feedback quality also improved, though inconsistently, with the participant showing stronger gains in positive reinforcement after targeted coaching. Use of multimedia remained constant across all phases. The coaching sessions conducted by the researcher were highly personalized and structured to establish trust and collaboration. The teacher responded positively to receiving actionable and individualized strategies and included a pedagogical review, as well as suggestions for improvement. This coaching phase aimed to support the teacher’s professional growth while promoting the consistent application of high-leverage teaching practices. The primary treatment during this phase was the one-on-one coaching and analysis of the participant’s use of HLP’s in her lessons. A review of that day's video was used to explain the teaching behaviors that aligned with the High Leverage Practice indicators and a candid conversation of what the teacher felt needed improvement. As this final phase was unfolding, the researcher noticed the extensive amount of effort made during each lesson by the participant to manage behaviors, engagement and deliver curriculum all at the same time. In speaking to the participant, it was apparent the amount of emotional effort needed to conduct daily lessons. Using the seven indicators on each of the days during this phase yielded different results from the researcher and the teacher. This may be due to different understanding of the definitions of this study or lack of self-assessment knowledge and judgment of one’s own behaviors. Indicator 1: Relatable Examples 50 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING During the coaching phase, the teacher’s use of relatable examples increased initially-two on Day 6, three on Day 7, and five on Day 8. However, no examples were used in the final session due to a lack of focus on this strategy. The researcher coached the teacher on the importance of using relatable examples to enhance student connection to content, which the teacher received positively. Indicator 2: Communication Styles (Verbal, Non-Verbal, Written) The coaching session for this indicator addressed communication styles—verbal, nonverbal, and written. The teacher primarily relied on verbal and non-verbal cues (e.g., gestures like thumbs up/down, fingers held up to indicate number of syllables in a word) with minimal written communication opportunities. Verbal communication may be effective for many students but can be limiting the accessibility for students that were not proficient in English. The researcher recommended integrating more written and non-verbal supports to better reach diverse learners. The teacher acknowledged this recommendation and showed openness to adjustment. Indicator 3: Teacher-Directed, Peer-Assisted and Student-Led Strategies Instructional time shifted from entirely teacher-led during baseline phase to 68% teacher-led and 32% student-led for Day 7 and 80% teacher-led and 20% peer-assisted for Days 8 and 9, indicating an adherence to coaching of student-centered strategies. During the coaching sessions in this phase, the teacher expressed the need to keep the lessons flowing but giving the students a chance to lead the lessons has proven to be beneficial for all students in the classroom. suggesting an increased recognition of peer involvement as instructional support. 51 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING Indicator 4: Opportunities to Respond (OTR) OTR varied across days: • Day 7: 22 choral, 4 response cards • Day 8: 24 choral, 4 response cards • Day 9: 25 choral, 5 response cards The teacher preferred choral responses due to their ease with younger students, using thumbs up/down as a substitute for response cards. Both choral responses and response cards were reported as a steady increase in data points which demonstrated the positive effectives of coaching on the participant for this indicator. Much emphasis was put on the need for effective implementation of these strategies in each daily lesson. Coaching emphasized balancing strategies for engagement and checking for understanding. Indicator 5: Student Engagement Again, the data shows an increase in data for the coaching phase. Student engagement increased positively during this phase which shows an upward direction in the graphs indicating the effectiveness of coaching. Engagement was monitored via verbal praise and non-verbal cues (e.g., hand-raising, smiling) and correct answers to questions during the lessons. Coaching included guidance on incorporating intersectional and culturally inclusive practices, though the teacher initially struggled to implement them. Indicator 6: Positive and Corrective Feedback Positive and corrective feedback was reported as a rate (instances per 25 minutes). There were fluctuations in these scores which showed a change in the participant’s implementation of 52 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING positive and corrective feedback behaviors. The teacher increased her use of feedback following each coaching session, particularly after the seventh lesson, indicating sustained improvement and responsiveness to coaching. Lesson nine showed a decrease in both these feedback but was still higher rate than the self-assessment phase. Coaching proved to be significant in the implementation of high leverage strategies in each of these indicators across all phases. Indicator 7: Multimedia Use Multimedia was used throughout to enhance presentation and engagement. Coaching emphasized making content visually accessible and interactive to support various learning needs and maintaining student attention during lessons. Implications These findings highlight the importance of integrating external observations into reflective teaching practices, as they can reveal patterns that may not be readily apparent through self-assessment alone. Increasing awareness of these high-leverage strategies may support the teacher in intentionally sustaining and expanding their use to promote greater student engagement. Based on these findings, it is recommended that administration incorporate and expand high-impact teaching strategies, supported by professional development and adequate resources for educators. Teachers need an increased opportunity to be exposed to and given proper instruction and coaching on highly effective strategies. This may result in improved pedagogy in their classroom. As observed in this study, teachers often underestimate the effectiveness of their teaching because they are simply unaware of how they are teaching. After being observed, the teacher was coached on how she did and how she can improve. With coaching strategies, self- 53 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING monitoring opportunities and targeted skills management, teachers can improve their effectiveness in daily instruction. Limitations There were several limiting factors in this study. Even though the teacher was given a glossary to explain unknown or confusing terms in the checklist, the teacher may have interpreted the checklist items differently than the researcher. This misinterpretation may have led to the discrepancy between the researcher and the teacher's self-assessment scores. ABC single subject designs are limited due to there being only one participant for the study. There was a limited sample size of one teacher that taught in a first-grade classroom with limited academic strategies and only 3 years of teaching experience. A study with more than one participant would be more trustworthy and consistent. The representativeness of the sample size can increase the validity of the scores through comparison data. The Opportunities to Respond (OTR) indicator, which included choral responses and response cards, was adapted in this study to better suit the developmental needs of a first-grade classroom. While traditional response cards typically involve students holding up written or visual aids to indicate their answers, the teacher in this study utilized nonverbal hand signals— such as thumbs up/down and finger counting for syllable identification—as substitutes. Although these gestures were not technically response cards, the teacher counted them as such, due to contextual constraints. Given that reading instruction primarily occurred with students seated on the classroom rug, she determined that distributing and collecting physical response cards would disrupt the instructional flow. As a result, these methods allowed for active student participation while maintaining classroom management and instructional flow. 54 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING Another limitation that may have affected the outcome of the study is the High Leverage Practice chosen for the checklist to be used as a self-assessment and by the observer. The HLP 18 encompasses student engagement as means to help students that are “at risk” in reading be able to access the general reading curriculum through strategies incorporated by the teacher in daily lessons. If a different HLP was used, there may have been different outcomes for the teacher to implement strategies in daily instruction. Another limitation of this research was the amount of time required for the IRB process. It took 4 weeks to get approval which delayed the ability to begin the research in a timely manner. Given that there were changes to the IRB process in general, this delayed my consent to start my research. After approval was granted, the research was completed after four weeks. The classroom teacher was open to being observed for her reading lessons, however, the video recordings took place after lunch which is typically a restless time for students in general. This may have affected the results, specifically the students’ participation in the lessons and how the teacher decided to conduct the lessons. There was also a possibility of carry-over effects of multiple treatment conditions. Phase one was when the first treatment was administered through exposure to the checklist. The impact and self-realization of what she was being observed on could have carried over to phase two. This carry over effect could have affected the outcome of the study. The same with the coaching session in phase three. Future Work This research raised the need for further implications and practices. A multiple baseline design across phases while including more than one teacher could increase the validity of the 55 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING research. Continual research on the implementation of high leverage practices over time can help improve achievement outcomes for students. An additional implication that emerged from this study is the potential value of incorporating a fourth phase focused on modeling high-leverage practices. This phase would be designed to address specific areas in which the participant expressed a need for further support. By including a modeling component, the research could be extended to provide the participant with a live demonstration of how targeted HLPs are effectively implemented within the context of a reading lesson. This approach would not only allow the researcher to model precise instructional actions but would also offer the teacher an opportunity to observe best practices in action, receive scaffolding, and clarify any uncertainties through guided reflection. Such a phase could strengthen the overall impact of coaching by bridging the gap between theory and practice. Although this study specifically focused on High-Leverage Practice (HLP) 18, the methodology and coaching framework utilized could be effectively applied to any of the HLPs. Each HLP offers meaningful benefits to general education teachers seeking to enhance instructional quality and student outcomes. To utilize the best of these practices, it is essential that educators advocate for continual professional development opportunities that include individualized coaching, real-time verbal feedback, and instructional modeling. These components are critical for deepening teacher understanding and for supporting the effective implementation of evidence-based intervention strategies in diverse classroom settings. Conclusion The findings in this study support the idea that when teachers intentionally incorporate accessible high leverage practices into their daily lessons, student participation, engagement, and 56 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING academic reading performance will improve. The teacher improved her observed scores for several indicators after every treatment introduced within each phase. The data suggests that the self-assessment and coaching treatments did produce a change in behaviors for the teacher as she implemented high leverage practices throughout each phase. The high leverage practices included in this research study indicate a positive impact on the lesson delivery in the language arts class used in this study. High Leverage practices should be used in every classroom to increase the chances of adequate progress in reading skills across all grades. The participant in this research study filled out the self-assessment checklist and became self-aware of highly effective strategies to use in her classroom instruction. She also increased her instructional strategies as each coaching phase was completed. Providing teachers with professional development like self-assessments and oneto-one coaching is beneficial for the teacher as well as increased reading outcomes for students. Through coaching sessions on high leverage practices, teachers can be equipped with specific practices they could use in the classroom by building their knowledge and skill in applied domains (Grossman et. al., 2009). Ethical Considerations Ethical considerations for children in an educational setting include gaining permission to have access to private academic data. According to (Hicks 2004), Subpart D Limitation on the Use of Exemptions with Children: the application of exemption criteria to research in schools, my study “involves commonly accepted educational practices in a commonly accepted educational setting and is therefore eligible for exemption.” The research checklists and 57 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING coaching sessions will be accompanied by a disclosure that states voluntary participation with an option to stop participating at any time. 58 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING References Aceves, T. C. and Kennedy, M. J. (Eds.) (2024, February). High-leverage practices for students with disabilities. 2nd edition. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children and CEEDAR Center. Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Algozzine, B., Wang, C., White, R., Cooke, N., Marr, M. B., Algozzine, K., & Helf, S. S. (2012). Effects of multi-tier academic and behavior instruction on difficult-to-teach students. Exceptional Children, 79(1), 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291207900103 Baker, S. K., Fien, H., & Baker, D. L. (2010). Robust reading instruction in the early grades: Conceptual and practical issues in the integration and evaluation of tier 1 and tier 2 instructional supports. Focus on Exceptional Children, 42(9). https://doi.org/10.17161/foec.v42i9.6693 Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content knowledge for teaching: What makes it special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324554 Bateman, D. (2024, July 30). The Process of Eligibility for Special Education and Related Services [Power point slides]. Utah Special Education Law Conference. https://media.socio.events/medium/8/1722275186-6064-david-bateman-t.pdf Bender, W. N. (2008). Differentiating instruction for students with learning disabilities: Best teaching practices for general and special educators (2nd ed.). Corwin Press. 59 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING Bianco, S. D. (2010). Improving student outcomes: Data-driven instruction and fidelity of implementation in a response to intervention (RTI) model. Teaching Exceptional Children Plus, 6(5), Article 1 http://escholarship.bc.edu/education/tecplus/vol6/iss2/art2 Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Hallahan, D. P. (Eds.). (2002). Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Bradshaw, C. P., Waasdorp, T. E., & Leaf, P. J. (2012). Effects of school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports on child behavior problems. Pediatrics, 130(5), doi:e1136–e1145. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2012-0243 Brown, Denisha, “Teacher and Administrator Perceptions on the Fidelity of Implementing the Response to Intervention Framework” (2018). Walden Dissertations and Doctoral Studies. 4840. https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/dissertations/4840 Carbine, (2019). The effects of self-assessment and coaching on the implementation of effective classroom management practices. [Unpublished Master’s Proposal]. Weber State University. Cleaver, S., Detrich, R., & States, J. (2019). Overview of performance feedback. The Wing Institute. https://www.winginstitute.org/teacher-evaluation-feedback Connor, C. M. (2017). Commentary on the special issue on instructional coaching models: common elements of effective coaching models. Theory Into Practice, 56(1), 78–83. https://doi-org/10.1080/00405841.2016.1274575 Council for Exceptional Children & CEEDAR Center. (2024). High-leverage practices in special education. Council for Exceptional Children. https://highleveragepractices.org 60 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING Coyne, M. D., McCoach, D. B., Kapp, S., & Keely, S. (2004). Beginning reading intervention as inoculation or insulin: First grade reading performance of strong responders to kindergarten intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(2), 90-104. ProQuest. Web. 11 Oct. 2024. Desimone, L. M., & Pak, K. (2017). Instructional coaching as a high-quality professional development. Theory Into Practice, 56(1), 3–12. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26155874 Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. National Research Council Committee on Minority Representation in Special Education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Ebbinghaus, H. (2013). Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology. Annals of Neurosciences, 20(4), 155–156. Fallon, L. M., Collier-Meek, M. A., Maggin, D. M., Sanetti, L. M. H., & Johnson, A. H. (2015). Is performance feedback for educators an evidence-based practice? A systematic review and evaluation based on single-case research. Exceptional Children, 81(2), 227–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402914551738 Fletcher, J. M., & Vaughn, S. (2009). Response to intervention: Preventing and remediating academic difficulties. Child Development Perspectives, 3(1), 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2008.00072.x Foorman, B. R., Francis, D.J., Fletcher, J. M., Schatschneider, C., & Mehta, P. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 37-55. Gartland, D. G., & Strosnider, R. S. (2005, June). Responsiveness to intervention and learning 61 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING disabilities. National Joint Committee on Learning Disability. Retrieved April 30, 2024, from https://www.ldonline.org/ld-topics/special-education/responsiveness-interventionand-learning-disabilities Gilbert, J. K., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Bouton, B., Barquero, L. A., & Cho, E. (2013). Efficacy of a first-grade responsiveness-to-intervention prevention model for struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(2), 135-154. doi:10.102/rrq.45 Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rrq.45/pdf Grossman, P., Hammerness, K., & McDonald, M. (2009). Redefining teaching, re‐imagining teacher education. Teachers and Teaching, 15(2), 273–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540600902875340 Harn, B., Parisi, D. & Stoolmiller, M. (2013). Balancing fidelity with flexibility and fit: What do we really know about fidelity of implementation in schools. Exceptional Children. 79. 181-193. DOI:10.1177/001440291307900204 Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge. Heward, W. L. (1994). Three low-tech strategies for increasing the frequency of active student response during group instruction. In R Gardner III, Sainato, D., Cooper, J. O., Heron, T., Heward, W. L., Eshleman, J., & T. A. Grossi. (Eds.) Behavior analysis in education: Focus on measurable superior instruction (pp. 283-320). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Heward, W. L., Gardner, R., III, Cavanaugh, R. A., Courson, F. H., Grossi, T. A., & Barbetta, 62 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING P.M. (1996). Everyone participates in this class: Using response cards to increase active student response. Teaching Exceptional Children, 28(2), 4-11. doi:10.1177/004005999602800201 Hicks, L. (2004, March). Collaborative Institutional training initiative. CITI. https://www.citiprogram.org/members/index.cfm?pageID=665&ce=1# Hill, D. R., King, S. A., Lemons, C. J., & Partanen, J. N. (2012). Fidelity of implementation and instructional alignment in response to intervention research. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 27(3), 116. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2012.00357.x Kolar, D., Funder, D., Colvin, C. (1996). Comparing the accuracy of personality judgments by the self and knowledgeable others. Journal of Personality, 64, 311–337. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1996.tb00513.x Kreitz, J., (2016). Identifying and supporting struggling readers. BU Journal of Graduate Studies in Education, 8(1), 25-28. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1230489.pdf Kruk, R. S., Mayer, J., & Funk, L. (2014). The predictive relations between non-alphanumeric rapid naming and growth in regular and irregular word decoding in at-risk readers. Journal of Research in Reading, 37(1), 17-35. doi:10.1111/jrir.12005 Lamb, V. (2014). Obstacles in the implementation of response to intervention. BU Journal of Graduate Studies in Education, 6(2), 27-31. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1230746.pdf Leising, D., Rehbein, D., & Sporberg, D. (2006). Does a fish see the water in which it swims? A study of the ability to correctly judge one's own interpersonal behavior. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25(9), 963–974. 63 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING Lewis, B. (2016). Homogeneous groups. http://k6educators.about.com/od/educationglossary/g/ghomogeneous.htm Lodge, J. M., & Corrin, L. (2017). What data and analytics can do and say about effective learning. NPJ Science of Learning, 2, Article 5. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-017-0006-5 McLeskey, L., Maheady, L., Billinglsey, B., Brownell, M. T., & Lewis, T. J. (2019). High leverage practices for inclusive classrooms. Routledge. file:///C:/Users/esalazar/Downloads/High_Leverage_Practices_for_Inclusive_Classrooms .pdf Mellard, D. F., Stern, A., & Woods, K. (2011). RTI school-based practices and evidence-based models. Focus on Exceptional Children, 43(6). https://doi.org/10.17161/foec.v43i6.6910 Moats, L., & Tolman, C. (2019). LETRS (3rd ed., Vol. 1). Voyager Sopris Learning, Inc. Moncher, Frank & Prinz, Ronald. (1991). Treatment fidelity in outcome studies. Clinical Psychology Review. 11. 247–266. 10.1016/0272-7358(91)90103-2. National Center on Improving Literacy. (2025). Intensifying Reading Instruction for Students Who Are Not Making Desired Progress. https://www.improvingliteracy.org/post/intensifying-reading-instruction-for-studentswho-are-not-making-desired-progress National Center on Response to Intervention (March 2010). Essential Components of RTI – A Closer Look at Response to Intervention. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, National Center on Response to Intervention. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the 64 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development/National Institutes of Health. National Research Council. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Peterson, Danielson, & Fuchs. (2019) Essentials of intensive intervention. (2019, July). ProtoView. https://link-galecom.hal.weber.edu/apps/doc/A593469357/AONE?u=ogde72764&sid=summon&xid=173 04ab9 Pierce, J. D. (2015). Teacher-coach alliance as a critical component of coaching: Effects of feedback and analysis on teacher practice (Doctoral dissertation, University of Washington). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1773/33786 Ruffini, S. J., Lindsay, J., McInerney, M., Waite, W., & Miskell, R. (2016). Measuring the implementation fidelity of the Response to Intervention framework in Milwaukee Public Schools (REL 2017–192). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Midwest. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs. Sanetti, L. M. H., & Kratochwill, T. R. (2009). Toward developing a science of treatment integrity: Introduction to the special series. School Psychology Review, 38(4), 445-459. https://hal.weber.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/towarddeveloping-science-treatment-integrity/docview/219656532/se-2 Simmons, D. C., Kame'enui, E. J., Harn, B. A., Edwards, L. A., Coyne, M. D., Thomas-Beck, C., 65 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING et al. (2001). The effects of instructional emphasis and specificity on early reading and vocabulary development of kindergarten children. Manuscript submitted for publication. Schmitterer, A. M. A., & Brod, G. (2021). Which data do elementary school teachers use to determine reading difficulties in their students? Journal of learning disabilities, 54(5), 349–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219420981990 Smith, A. M., Floerke, V. A., & Thomas, A. K. (2016). Retrieval practice protects memory against acute stress. Science, 354(6315), 1046–1048. Special Learning Autism Webcast. (2013, January 11). Active Student Responding: Increasing Learner’s Motivation and Self-Monitoring [Video]. Special Learning. Retrieved April 5, 2024, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPsImigirl0 Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2009). Responsiveness-to-intervention and school-wide positive behavior supports: Integration of multi-tiered system approaches. Exceptionality, (17)4, 223-237. doi:10.1080/09362830903235375 Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Rose, E., Lindamood, P., Conway, T., et al. (1999). Preventing reading failure in young children with phonological processing disabilities: Group and individual responses to instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 579-593. Twyman, J. S., Heward, W.L. (2018). How to improve student learning in every classroom now. International Journal of Educational Research, (87), 78-90. 0883-0355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2016.05.007. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office 66 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING of Special Education Programs, 45th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2023, Washington, D.C. 2024. U.S. News & World Report. (n.d.). North Davis Preparatory Academy. U.S. News & World Report. https://www.usnews.com/education/k12/utah/north-davis-preparatory-academy231154 Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E. R., Small, S. G., Pratt, A., Chen, R., et al. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601638. Yeaton, W. & Sechrest, L. (1981). Critical dimensions in the choice and maintenance of successful treatments: Strength, integrity, and effectiveness. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 49. 156-167. 10.1037/0022-006X.49.2.156. (2024, January 30). Tier 3 Overview: Academic - Social Emotional - Behavioral. Bridge-RI. Retrieved October 6, 2024, from https://www.mtssri.org/mod/page/view.php?id=404 67 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING APPENDICES Appendix A: HLP 18 Checklist Appendix B: Glossary of Terms Appendix C: Subject Letter of Consent for Participation Appendix D: Institutional Review Board Approval 68 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING Appendix A High Leverage Practice Checklist High Leverage Practice #18: Use strategies to promote active student engagement. I use multiple examples that are relevant to students’ lives (4+) Number of relatable examples used: (Tally Marks) I use a variety of culturally inclusive pedagogies and practices (CIPP) when communicating with students during my lessons. The teacher adapts lessons and provides culturally diverse communication styles: Please see Glossary Term Definitions for assigning a level for this section. I use a variety of Teacher led Opportunities To Respond (OTR) Choral Responses (Tally Marks) I monitor student engagement The teacher monitors cognitive engagement by acknowledging it through responses (tally marks) Level 1 Teacher-Directed (Time Lapse) I provide positive and corrective feedback to sustain performance. I use multimedia platforms to teach lessons Level 2 No examples used (0): Level 3 Level 4 Peer-Assisted (Time Lapse) Student-Led (Time Lapse) Response Cards (Tally Marks) The teacher monitors affective engagement by acknowledging it through responses (tally marks) Provides Positive feedback (tally marks) Positive Corrective Feedback (tally marks) The teacher uses multimedia devices during lessons: Yes No The teacher is mindful of student intersectional experiences by acknowledging them during lessons (tally marks) 69 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING Appendix B Glossary of Terms Term Definition Reference/Resource Examples that are relevant to students’ lives The educator tries to explain content in a manner that students can understand it and will result in more effective learning. Students can make personal connections with the content. Culturally Inclusive Pedagogies and Practices (CIPP) Level Description High Leverage Practices for Students with Disabilities Aceves, T. C. and Kennedy, M. J. (Eds.) (2024, February) Rubric: 4 Teacher consistently uses culturally relevant language Danielson Framework’s and examples, incorporating students' home languages Domain 3 rubric (Danielson, 2013) and cultural references. Communication is clear, inclusive, and adapts to students' diverse communication styles(verbal, non-verbal, and written) Teacher communicates clearly and respectfully, occasionally integrating students' cultural backgrounds and communication preferences. 3 2 Teacher's communication is generally clear but lacks consideration of students' cultural backgrounds and communication styles. 1 Teacher's communication is unclear or dismissive of students' cultural backgrounds, hindering understanding and engagement. Teacher-Directed The teacher delivers the content, manages the classroom and guides the learning process. The IRIS Center (2005, p.1) Peer-Assisted A student with a higher achievement/skill rating is paired with a student who has a low or average score. The pairing is put into place to encourage students to learn from each other through teaching and practicing. Students take a more active role in teaching the lesson and the teacher becomes the facilitator and support to the student. Professional Learning Board (2025) All students participate in answering questions together in unison. Choral responses allow them to learn the correct answer right away because the correct answer is validated by the teacher after the answers are called out. Response cards are used by all students at once to show the teacher their answer to teacher-posed questions. All students show their answers to questions by using various materials like whiteboards or sheets of paper to display their answers. Heward, et.al. (1996) Student-Led Choral Responses Response Cards My own definition Heward, et.al. (1996) 70 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING Guided Notes/Adapted Worksheets “A strategic note taking method in which teachers provide their students an outline containing the main ideas and related concepts in order to help guide the student through a lecture.” The IRIS Center (n.d.) Cognitive behavior The student shows persistence and motivation to complete difficult High Leverage Practices tasks during instruction at least 90% of the time during the lesson. for Students with Disabilities Aceves, T. C. and Kennedy, M. J. (Eds.) (2024, February) Affective Students demonstrate their belonging and self-value through High Leverage Practices Engagement expressing excitement, smiling, participating excitedly, active for Students with involvement and feeling comfortable in the classroom. Disabilities Aceves, T. C. and Kennedy, M. J. (Eds.) (2024, February) Intersectional Related to the way in which different types of discrimination Cambridge University Engagement (unfair treatment because of a person's sex, race, etc.) are Press & Assessment connected to and affect each other. (2025) Behavioral Engagement Student is participating in classroom and school activities as directed by the classroom teacher without disrupting others. High Leverage Practices for Students with Disabilities Aceves, T. C. and Kennedy, M. J. (Eds.) (2024, February) The IRIS Center Glossary Positive Feedback Specific and constructive comments offered following the performance of a task to help an individual improve their understanding or skill. Corrective Feedback Constructive comments provided as soon as possible following the implementation of an activity to help an individual improve his or her performance. Archer & Hughes (2011) Multimedia Platforms “Any device or instrument that exists in a classroom and that teachers use for the purpose of day-to-day instruction; such devices, when assigned to an individual student through an IEP, are known as assistive technology.” The IRIS Center (n.d.) 71 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING Appendix C IRB STUDY #AY24-25-247 WEBER STATE UNIVERSITY INFORMED CONSENT High impact educational strategies for teachers that help improve learner outcomes You are invited to participate in a research study of high impact strategies. You were selected as a possible subject because of your volunteering to participate. We ask that you read this form and ask any questions you may have before agreeing to be in the study. The study is being conducted by Eva Salazar a master's student at Weber State University. STUDY PURPOSE The purpose of this study is to observe, coach and report the implementation of high leverage practices in the regular education classroom to increase learner outcome. This study will help teachers learn how to implement critical educational practices to keep students engaged in the lesson and increase their learning. NUMBER OF PEOPLE TAKING PART IN THE STUDY: If you agree to participate, you will be one of three subjects who will be participating in this research. PROCEDURES FOR THE STUDY: If you agree to be in the study, you will do the following things: RISKS OF TAKING PART IN THE STUDY: For face-to-face research, the risks include the possibility of being infected by the novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID- 1 9) or other communicable diseases. There may be risks that are currently unforeseeable as a result in taking part in this study. Examples of possible risks include: The risks of possible loss of confidentiality 72 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING The risks of feeling uncomfortable with repeated recordings of you teaching in the regular education classroom. The risks of feeling stressed out or anxious when receiving coaching and verbal feedback from the researcher. BENEFITS OF TAKING PART IN THE STUDY You will not receive payment for taking part in this study. You will receive coaching and verbal feedback resulting in improved implementation of high leverage practices. ALTERNATIVES TO TAKING PART IN THE STUDY: Instead of being in the study, you have these options: • Not participating in the study. Version Date (if appropriate) COSTS/ COMPENSATION FOR INJURY There will be no cost to you for participating in this study. CONFIDENTIALITY Efforts will be made to keep your personal information confidential. We cannot guarantee absolute confidentiality. Your personal information may be disclosed if required by law. Your identity will be held in confidence in reports in which the study may be published including video recordings of you teaching in the regular education classroom. These video recording will be destroyed after the research study has been approved and accepted by Weber State University. Organizations that may inspect and/or copy your research records for quality assurance and data analysis include groups such as the study investigator and his/her research associates, the Weber State University Institutional Review Board or its designees, the study sponsor, and (as allowed by law) state or federal agencies, specifically the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) [for FDA-regulated research and research involving positron-emission scanning], the National Cancer Institute (NCI) [for research funded or supported by NCI], the National Institutes of Health (NIH) [for research funded or supported by NIH], etc., who may need to access your medical and/or research records. 73 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING CONTACTS FOR QUESTIONS OR PROBLEMS For questions about the study, contact the researcher Eva Salazar at 401-347-3349 or the researcher's mentor Natalie Williams at 435-840-4057. For questions about your rights as a research participant or to discuss problems, complaints or concerns about a research study, or to obtain information, or offer input, contact the Chair of the IRB Committee IRB(@weber.edu. VOLUNTARY NATURE OF STUDY Taking part in this study is voluntary. You may choose not to take part or may leave the study at any time. Leaving the study will not result in any penalty or loss of benefits to which you are entitled, Your decision whether or not to participate in this study will not affect your current or future relations-with North Davis Preparatory Academy. SUBJECT'S CONSENT In consideration of all of the above, I give my consent to participate in this research study. I will be given a copy of this informed consent document to keep for my records. I agree to take part in this study. Subject's Printed Name: Subject's Signature: Printed Name of Person Obtaining Signature of Person Obtaining If the study involves children who will be providing their assent on this consent document, rather than on a separate assent document, use the following signatures: Printed Name of Parent: Signature of Parent: Version Date (if appropriate) Date: 74 SELF-ASSESSMENT AND COACHING Appendix D February 26, 2025 Natalie Williams College of Education Weber State University Re: Expedited Review - Initial - IRB-AY24-25-247 High impact educational strategies for teachers that help improve learner outcomes Dear Dr. Williams: Weber State Institutional Review Board has rendered the decision below for "High impact educational strategies for teachers that help improve learner outcomes." Decision: Approved Selected Category: Expedited Findings: The proposal and consent documents are classified as having no more than minimal risk to subjects. You may proceed at this time. Federal regulations require that after the committee has approved your study, you may not make any changes without prior committee approval except where necessary to eliminate apparent immediate hazards to the subjects. Further, you must report to the committee any changes that you make and any unanticipated problems involving risks to subjects or others that arise. If you have any question, please contact your review committee chair or irb@weber.edu. Sincerely, Weber State Institutional Review Board