opportunities for âhands-onâ work (active learning), and is integrated in to the .... to rule out Hawthorne Effects as contributing, at least in part, to the outcomes.
THE EFFECTS OF PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON EARLY READING SKILLS: A COMPARISON OF TWO APPROACHES TO WORD SOLVING
by
Kimberly L. Anderson
A Dissertation Submitted to the University at Albany, State University of New York In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
School of Education Department of Reading 2009
UMI Number: 3365837
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
______________________________________________________________ UMI Microform 3365837 Copyright 2009 by ProQuest LLC All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
_______________________________________________________________ ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
DEDICATION
To Grant, Cary, and Melissa. For your love and your laughter, For always keeping me grounded, And for Friday night chili lights, Numbers, and Chinese food. All my love. XO
ii
Acknowledgements It goes without saying that one does not reach a point such as this without tremendous support and encouragement. While it would not be possible for me to thank everyone who has supported me, and this research effort, in some way, there are some who deserve special recognition. First and foremost, my thanks goes to my husband, Grant, and to my daughters, Cary and Melissa, who not only were there to pitch in with whatever needed to be done while I was busy, but who, more importantly, were there to drag me away from all of this from time to time. They, along with my parents, sisters, brothers, and numerous other family members, always help me to remember what’s really important in life. Many thanks are also due to my second family, my colleagues and friends at the Child Research and Study Center at the University at Albany. Through their willingness to share their knowledge and expertise, their technical assistance, particularly in support of data collection and analysis, and their never-ending encouragement, each has contributed to this project in some way. It is my hope that this dissertation reflects well on the collective work of the Center over the past several decades and contributes in some way to furthering this important line of research. I also thank Jason Bryer, a fellow doctoral student who provided considerable support with some of the statistical analyses. His insights, patient explanations, and helpful feedback are very much appreciated. A project of this scope also requires the time and commitment of those in the larger educational community. From the district administrators who gave their support for the project, to the principals and support staff who helped facilitate the professional
iii
development and data collection, to the parents who allowed their children to participate, to the children themselves, I am deeply indebted and grateful. Most importantly, I am grateful to the teachers who gave so unselfishly of their time throughout this project. I can’t thank them enough; they are, quite simply, the ones who did the work. Lastly, I thank my professors in the School of Education at the University at Albany, particularly those in the Reading Department, who have both challenged and supported me throughout my many years of coursework. Through their scholarship and their mentoring, each of them has influenced my thinking about literacy and has encouraged my interests in research. Most significantly, I thank the members of my committee, Dr. Donna Scanlon, Dr. Lynn Gelzheiser, and Dr. Virginia Goatley, each of whom I have known, worked with, and respected for many years. As a group, they have been a model of respect for one another’s opinions and have demonstrated to me the value of multiple perspectives. Individually, they have given of their time without hesitation, have been honest and supportive in their feedback on multiple revisions of this document, and have been there with encouragement when it was needed most. Their thoughtful and careful mentoring has not only helped to shape this dissertation, but has ultimately changed who I am, both as a researcher and as a person. To Dr. Donna Scanlon, the chair of my committee, I am especially thankful. She has provided expert and patient guidance on every aspect of this project, has given of her time and her talents beyond all reasonable expectations, and has, through her example, inspired me to become the best educator and researcher I can be. To my family, my colleagues and friends, the participants in this study, my professors, my committee, and to all who have gone unmentioned - thank you.
iv
Table of Contents Abstract…………………………………………………………………………….
x
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………...
xii
List of Figures……………………………………………………………………..
xiv
Chapter 1: Introduction……………………………………………………………
1
The Role of Word Solving in Reading Development………………………..
2
The Code and the Context in Word Solving…………………………………
4
The Design and Conduct of the Study……………………………………….
5
Importance of the Study……………………………………………………...
8
Chapter 2: Review of the Literature……………………………………………….
12
The Importance of a Generative Approach to Word Identification………….
12
The Influence of “Scientifically-Based Reading Research”…………………
23
Word Solving and Word Identification Instruction in the Classroom……….
28
Research on the Use of and Instruction in Word Identification Strategies…..
36
Developing Word Solving Skills Within the Context of Multi-Dimensional Interventions in Early Reading……………………………………………….
52
Research on the Interactive Strategies Approach (ISA)……………………...
66
Professional Development Models and Practices……………………………
74
Theory of Action for the Professional Development in this Study…………..
98
Structural Features……………………………………………………...
99
Core Features…………………………………………………………...
100
Research Goals and Questions……………………………………………….
101
Chapter 3: Method………………………………………………………………...
106
v
Brief Overview of the Study…………………………………………………
106
Participants…………………………………………………………………...
107
Recruitment of Districts………………………………………………..
107
Teacher Participants……………………………………………………
109
Student Participants…………………………………………………….
109
Measures……………………………………………………………………...
111
Teacher Measures………………………………………………………
111
Student Measures………………………………………………………
115
Condition-Sensitive and General Reading Measures………………………...
115
General Reading Measures……………………………………………..
116
Condition-Sensitive Measures………………………………………….
118
Procedures……………………………………………………………………
121
Procedures Involving Teachers Prior to Professional Development…...
121
Initial Contacts with Teachers……………………………………
121
Assignment of Teachers to Conditions…………………………..
122
Teacher Characteristics…………………………………………..
123
Teacher knowledge………………………………………...
123
Teacher reported instructional practices…………………...
124
Professional Development……………………………………………...
127
The Professional Development Workshops………………..
128
Professional Development Follow-Up Procedures………...
133
Collection of End of Study Teacher Data……………………………...
136
Student Procedures and Characteristics………………………………..
137
vi
Student Assessment………………………………………………
137
Student Characteristics…………………………………………...
138
Performance on Condition-Sensitive and General Reading Measures……………………………………………………
138
Characteristics of the Students’ Instructional Programs…...
140
Data Analysis………………………………………………………………...
142
Chapter 4: Results…………………………………………………………………
144
Influence of the Professional Development Conditions on Teacher Knowledge, Reported Teacher Practices, and Student Learning…………….
144
Teacher Outcomes……………………………………………………...
144
Effects of the Professional Development Condition on Teacher Knowledge………………………………………………………...
144
Effects of the Professional Development on Teachers’ Reports of Changes in Instructional Practices ……………………………..
148
Student Outcomes………………………………………………………
157
Relationships Between Reading Ability, Phonics Skills, and Word Identification Strategy Knowledge…………………
157
Changes in Student Reading Outcomes: ConditionSensitive Measures.…………………………………………
159
Changes in Student Reading Outcomes: General Reading Measures……………………………………………………
163
Teachers’ Perceptions of the Content, Materials, and Format used for Professional Development……………………………………………………
169
Satisfaction with the Workshop………………………………………...
170
Usefulness of Written Materials………………………………………...
171
Usefulness of Supplementary Materials……………………………….
173
Specific Comments about the Video Demonstrations………………….
177
vii
Specific Comments about the Guides for Teacher Reflection………….
179
Peer Collaboration………………………………………………………
181
Suggestions for Improving the Professional Development……………..
182
Perception of Follow-up Procedures……………………………………
186
Chapter 5: Discussion……………………………………………………………...
189
Differential Effects of the Two Professional Development Conditions on Teacher Knowledge, Reported Teacher Practices, and Student Learning…...
194
Teacher Outcomes……………………………………………………...
194
The Impact of the Professional Development on Teacher Knowledge………………………………………………………...
194
The Impact of the Professional Development on TeacherReported Practice…………………………………………………
197
Student Outcomes……………………………………………………….
201
Relationships between Reading Ability, Phonics Skills, and Word Identification Strategy Knowledge……………………………...
201
Changes in Student Outcomes: Condition-Sensitive Measures…..
203
Changes in Student Outcomes: General Reading Measures……...
207
Teachers’ Perceptions of the Content, Materials, and Format used for Professional Development…………………………………………………….
212
The Professional Development Program………………………………..
212
Core Features of the Professional Development………………….
216
Structure of the Professional Development……………………….
219
Limitations of the Study………………………………………………………
223
Conclusions…………………………………………………………………...
227
Directions for Future Research………………………………………………..
230
viii
References………………………………………………………………………….
233
Appendix A………………………………………………………………………...
248
Teacher Questionnaire………………………………………………………...
249
Appendix B………………………………………………………………………...
252
Teacher Interview Protocol…………………………………………………...
253
Appendix C………………………………………………………………………...
256
On-Line Survey Questions……………………………………………………
257
ix
Abstract This study examined the differential effects of two components of the Interactive Strategies Approach (ISA) professional development program on outcomes related to teacher knowledge, teacher practice, and student reading achievement. The professional development for teachers focused on word solving skill among struggling first grade readers. The study also explored teachers’ perceptions of a delivery system for professional development designed, in part, to reduce the need for extended contact between the teachers and the professional development provider. Results from the study indicated that teachers made gains in their knowledge of early literacy instruction and reported changes in their instructional practices that were consistent with their professional development condition – either Alphabetic Knowledge or Strategic Word Identification. Student gains were also consistent with their teachers’ professional development condition. Further, consistent with the major hypothesis of the study, the instructional approach to word solving that emphasized the combined use of code-based and meaning-based strategies (Strategic Word Identification condition) resulted in higher performance on measures of word and text level reading. However, no differences were found between the groups on a measure of general reading that included comprehension. The reading and special education teachers who participated in the study reported that they found the materials to be useful for planning instruction with their struggling first grade readers. Teachers were, in general, positive in their responses to the format of the professional development, which included a one-day workshop followed by three monthly, “no-contact” follow-ups featuring supplementary materials that were delivered
x
to the teachers’ schools, to be used by them at their convenience. When rating the different supplementary materials, teachers were generally more positive about video demonstrations and “try it out” activities than they were about student assessments or guides for teacher reflection. While teachers were encouraged to collaborate with peers from their building throughout the professional development period, this collaboration did not happen for many of the teachers. In general, teachers who collaborated with their peers had fewer suggestions for changing the professional development delivery system, while several teachers who did not collaborate suggested additional contact time with the professional development provider.
xi
List of Tables
1. Descriptive Information for Participating Schools……………………..
108
2. Teacher Characteristics by Condition………………………………….
124
3. Teachers’ Reported Approach to Phonics Instruction with First Grade Students………………………………………………………………...
126
4. Teachers’ Reported Approach to Word Identification Instruction with First Grade Students……………………………………………………
127
5. Meaning-based and Code-based Strategies Taught in the ISA………...
133
6. Description of Extended Engagement Materials, Set #1……………….
135
7. Project Timeline for Teachers………………………………………….
137
8. Descriptive Statistics for Student Assessments at Pre-test……………..
139
9. Students’ Guided Reading Levels at Pre-Test………………………….
140
10. Descriptive Statistics for Pre-and Post-testing, by Condition, for KOLI Subtests…………………………………………………………………
146
11. Pre-Post Scores on KOLI Subtests by Declarative and Applied Items...
147
12. Percentage of Teachers Reporting Different Degrees of Change in Practices as a Result of Project Participation…………………………..
150
13. Percentages of Teachers Reporting Different Degrees of Influence of Project Participation on Student Learning……………………………..
151
14. Coding System for Face-to-Face Interview, Changes in Teacher Practices………………………………………………………………...
152
15. Percentages of Teachers Reporting Changes in Generalized and Specific Teacher Practices……………………………………………...
155
16. Teacher Comments Regarding Plans to Continue to Use What was Learned in Professional Development the Following Year……………
156
17. Correlations between Decoding and Encoding, Strategy Knowledge, and Text Reading at Pre-test…………………………………………...
158
xii
18. Results from Hierarchical Regression Models, with Benchmark Assessment at Pre-test as Dependent Variable…………………………
159
19. Descriptive Statistics for Pre-Post Testing on Condition-Sensitive Measures………………………………………………………………...
162
20. Descriptive Statistics at Post-test for the Benchmark Assessment and the Multi-Level Passage Word List and Text Reading Measures………
165
21. Descriptive Statistics for Matched Pairs………………………………..
166
22. Percentage of Teachers Reporting Different Levels of Satisfaction with the Workshop…………………………………………………………...
171
23. Percentage of Teachers Reporting Different Degrees of Usefulness of Written Materials………………………………………………………..
172
24. Percentages of Teachers Reporting Different Levels of Usefulness of the Supplementary Materials for Planning Instruction…………………
174
25. Sample Comments Regarding what Teachers Liked and Did Not Like about the Videos………………………………………………………...
178
26. Sample Comments from Teachers Who Used the Guides for Teacher Reflection……………………………………………………………….
179
27. Sample Comments from Teachers Who Did Not Use the Guides for Teacher Reflection……………………………………………………...
180
28. Percentages of Teacher who Reported Different Levels of Helpfulness Regarding Peer Collaboration…………………………………………..
183
29. Teachers’ Sample Comments Regarding Additional Contact Time……
185
30. Sample Responses of Teachers who Responded Positively to Receiving EEMs on a Regular Basis……………………………………
187
xiii
List of Figures 1.
Sample Declarative and Applied KOLI Items
112
2
Pre-Post KOLI Scores by Condition and Subtest
146
xiv
INTRODUCTION While no one would deny that children who are at the beginning stages of learning to read need to have at their disposal strategies for identifying unknown words, little research has been done to study the relationship between the instruction that teachers provide around the use of word solving strategies, students’ knowledge of these strategies, and students’ early reading achievement. Unlike the focus given to the development of comprehension strategies (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development [NICHD], 2000), the use of strategies beyond decoding for figuring out words has been a largely neglected area of the national research agenda. In fact, the research base for word solving strategies other than decoding is remarkably slim (Brown, 2003; Cole, 2006). This is in spite of the ubiquitous use of prompting for strategy use by primary grade teachers (Brown, 2003), and the fact that teachers have expressed the opinion that knowing more about which, and how many, strategies should be taught would be one of the most useful ways to improve primary grade reading instruction (Juel & Minden-Cupp, 2000a). Historically, the research in word identification that has been conducted has focused on either the children’s developing competencies as readers (Biemiller, 1970; Schmitt, 2001; Weber, 1970) or on the kinds of scaffolding teachers provide as they interact with their students around text (Clark, 2004; Cole, 2006). Such research has typically employed observations of children as they read in their natural classroom setting, with post-hoc analyses of reading miscues to infer the sources of information that are being accessed as the children attempt to identify unfamiliar words (Biemiller, 1970; Weber, 1970), or the development of coding schemes to describe the varying kinds of
1
support that teachers offer to students across situations and across their development as readers (Clark, 2004). Less frequently, attempts have been made to categorize the children’s strategic behavior as they read (Schmitt, 2001), or interview procedures have been used to elicit directly from the children their word identification strategies (Juel & Minden-Cupp, 2000a; Tunmer & Chapman, 2002). Both the kinds of instruction in strategy use the children receive and student reading outcomes have rarely been analyzed in the same study (Juel & Minden-Cupp, 2000a). Further, few, if any, studies have attempted to systematically compare the effects on reading achievement of teaching students to use different approaches to word solving when attempting to identify unfamiliar words encountered in text. Such a comparison is one of the major objectives of the current study. The Role of Word Solving in Reading Development In this paper, the term word solving is used to refer to the process children engage in when they encounter unfamiliar words in text. Word identification is used to refer to the short-term goal of word solving, which allows the child to successfully read the word, while word learning refers to the long-term goal, or the point at which the word becomes established as part of the student’s automatic sight vocabulary. According to Stanovich (1986), children must be able to independently identify the many unfamiliar words that will necessarily be encountered in the early stages of learning to read. Theoretically, the child who fails to develop a successful approach to word solving will find himself constantly struggling to figure out unfamiliar words as he reads. This effort will drain his cognitive resources and make it unlikely that he will read with comprehension or enjoyment. This may limit the child’s willingness to read and lead
2
him to read only when he has to and to gain little from his encounters with text. Conversely, the child who employs a successful approach to word solving will develop his sight vocabulary to the point at which the majority of words encountered will be identified automatically. Effortless, automatic identification of most words will free up the cognitive resources necessary for comprehension (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974; Perfetti, 1985), which will, in turn, allow for reading to become an enjoyable and rewarding activity. If it is enjoyable and rewarding, the child is apt to read more, which will serve to develop his background knowledge and vocabulary, and will, in turn, allow for the successful identification of even more sophisticated printed words. In effect, proficiency in word solving may set in motion positive “Matthew Effects,” a term used by Stanovich (1986) to describe the “rich get richer, poor get poorer” phenomenon associated with early reading competency. Because of the sheer speed with which sight vocabulary is typically built and the sheer volume of words that children come to identify automatically, children who fall behind in the early years might have difficulty catching up, even following intensive intervention. Estimates on the number of words the typical third grade child is expected to read automatically run as high as 80,000 (Juel & Minden-Cupp, 2000b). Torgesen (2007) hypothesizes that even “…after problems with reading accuracy have been substantially remediated through intensive instruction, children remain dysfluent readers relative to age peers primarily because there are too many words in grade level passages that they still cannot recognize as sight words”(p. 60). He further asserts that, If children are allowed to fall behind in the development of word reading skills in first, second, and third grade, they miss out on the many thousands of accurate
3
word reading repetitions necessary to sustain normal growth in the size of their sight word vocabulary (Torgesen, 2007, p. 62). The Code and the Context in Word Solving The use of decoding and contextually-based strategies have sometimes been characterized within a “one or the other” framework, particularly within the context of large-scale compilations of research that have been used to inform government policy, the development of curricula, and further research. Adams (1990) emphasized the unreliability of context cues and pointed out that, for the purpose of building sight vocabulary, successful use of context can be a disincentive to examining the alphabetic features of the word and may thereby limit word learning. Snow, Burns and Griffin (1998), while not discounting the use of contextual cues for monitoring word identification, stressed that such cues should not be used as a substitute for the alphabetic information contained in the word, but offered no guidelines for instruction around figuring out words beyond the use of decoding. The Report of the National Reading Panel (NICHD, 2000) fails to even mention the use of contextually-based cues for figuring out words, but includes an entire chapter on phonics instruction. Also missing in these important treatises is what, specifically, teachers should do to support developing readers in figuring out the many words that cannot be successfully identified via an exclusive reliance on alphabetic information. In spite of the admonitions offered by prominent researchers to limit reliance on contextual supports in word solving, many intervention and classroom teachers, nonetheless, expect their developing readers to utilize multiple sources of information when they encounter unknown words in text. These widespread expectations are, no
4
doubt, driven at least in part by the guidance offered by widely adopted, comprehensive approaches to early reading instruction or intervention such as Guided Reading (Fountas & Pinnell, 1996) and Reading Recovery® (Clay, 2005). In these programs, the development of a strategic approach to word identification and the teacher support which facilitates that development are assumed to be key elements of success for students. Similarly, the Interactive Strategies Approach (ISA), developed and tested by Scanlon and Vellutino and their colleagues (Scanlon, Gelzheiser, Vellutino, Schatschneider, & Sweeney, 2008; Scanlon, Vellutino, Small, Fanuele, & Sweeney, 2005; Vellutino & Scanlon, 2002; Vellutino et al., 1996), emphasizes the importance of children learning to use both meaning-based and code-based strategies in interactive and confirmatory ways to support word learning. However, despite empirical evidence of overall efficacy, neither Reading Recovery® nor the ISA have explicitly evaluated the role played by teaching children to use both contextual and code-based strategies in confirmatory ways during the course of word solving. One of the major purposes of the current study is to begin to evaluate the impact of the Strategies component of the ISA on children’s reading achievement. The Design and Conduct of the Study The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate the relative effectiveness of two components (Alphabetic Knowledge and Strategic Word Identification) of the multicomponent ISA professional development program in enabling reading and special education teachers to enhance their first grade students’ literacy learning. The Strategies component teaches teachers an explicit approach to word identification strategy instruction and guides them in using gradual release of responsibility to encourage the
5
children to become active and independent word solvers. This component is contrasted with the Alphabetics component, which places emphasis on helping children to become fluent but flexible in the use of the alphabetic code when attempting to identify and spell words. These two components of the larger professional development program were selected for contrast because they both deal directly with word solving and, when contrasted, the two approaches deal with an important tension in the field of early literacy instruction – whether children should be encouraged or discouraged from relying on both the context and the code in word solving attempts. The Alphabetic Knowledge component was also chosen because there is widespread assertion that decoding ability is critical to successful word learning and word identification (Adams, 1990; NICHD, 2000; Snow et al., 1998) and because of the emphasis that it is currently receiving in classrooms across the country. Additionally, the development of alphabetic knowledge has been an important component of the ISA, as facility with the code is an important foundation for using code-based and meaning-based strategies in an interactive and confirmatory way. A secondary purpose of the study was to explore an alternative approach to providing professional development for in-service teachers. The professional development provided for teachers in this study was consistent with what are currently considered to be “best practices” (Anders, Hoffman & Duffy, 2000; Garet, Porter, Desmoine, Birman & Yoon, 2001; Garet, et al., 2008; Wei, Darling-Hammond, Andree, Richardson & Orphanos, 2009). Specifically, the professional development was focused on content, involved active learning on the part of the participants, and was relevant to the teachers’ day-to-day instruction. Moreover, the professional development was of extended duration, was linked to teacher practices, and encouraged the collective
6
participation of reading and special education teachers who provided supplementary reading instruction to first graders in the same school. Unlike other studies of extended duration, however, the professional development for this study was a combination of a face-to-face workshop approach and several “no contact” follow-ups, which involved the delivery of packets of Extended Engagement Materials (EEMs) to the teachers’ schools. Typically, studies of extended duration have combined an initial workshop phase with continued contact between the teachers and the professional development providers in whole group, small group, or one-to-one contexts. The use of the “no contact” follow-up procedure was considered to have the potential advantages of: providing consistency in the content of the professional development across teachers, allowing flexibility for the teachers with respect to when and how they utilized the professional development materials, promoting collegiality amongst the teachers, limiting the number of expert coaches needed to provide the professional development, and increasing affordability and access to professional development for districts (Anderson, Scanlon, Gelzheiser & Goatley, 2008). To investigate the relative effects of these two components of the ISA on teacher knowledge, teacher practice, and student achievement, special education and reading teachers who were working with struggling first grade readers were recruited from local school districts. Based on data from surveys and questionnaires administered at the outset of the study, two relatively well-matched groups of teachers were formed. The groups were then randomly assigned to either the Alphabetics or Strategies treatment condition. The first grade students of these teachers were also recruited and assessed at the beginning and end of the study on measures of oral reading accuracy and
7
comprehension, phonics skills, and word identification strategy knowledge. Additional information collected from teachers at the end of the study included a survey of teacher knowledge related to the two treatment conditions, teacher reports of how their instruction was impacted by the professional development, and how they felt about the format of the professional development. It was hypothesized that changes in teacher knowledge from pre-test to post-test would align with the professional development condition to which the teachers had been assigned. More importantly, it was hypothesized that when the two components of the ISA professional development program were pitted against one another, children in the Strategies condition would show greater gains in reading than children in the Alphabetics condition, both because their word solving would more often be successful, particularly for irregular words, and because the use of context would allow them to attend more fully to the meaning of what they read and they would, therefore, be more motivated to read and thus read more. Importance of the Study The current study contributes to the research base in early reading development and instruction in three important ways. First, it compares the relative impact of instruction in two approaches to word solving for readers who are struggling at the early stages of reading acquisition. One approach emphasizes the use of alphabetic decoding skills while the other encourages the interactive and confirmatory use of both alphabetic decoding skills and contextual cues for word solving. Comparison of these two conditions is particularly important at this point in time, given the recent influence of the No Child Left Behind Act (2001) and the emphasis that has been placed on the use of
8
scientifically-based reading instruction, particularly as summarized in the Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read (NICHD, 2000) (Pressley, Duke & Boling, 2004). The National Reading Panel advocates explicit and systematic phonics instruction, but does not address the use of meaning-based strategies for figuring out words (NICHD, 2000). Indeed, while the extant research in early reading development clearly supports the notion that alphabetic knowledge is necessary for successful wordsolving and the resultant building of automatic sight vocabulary, whether or not such knowledge is also sufficient has not been systematically addressed through research. Second, this study offers insights into the kinds of instruction around strategies for figuring out words that reading and special education teachers who work with struggling readers in the primary grades are providing and how that instruction might be enhanced. This is particularly relevant given the relative absence of research that focuses on how to effectively and efficiently provide professional development for teachers who work with struggling readers. While school-based intervention models are often based on the assumption that students of greater need should have their instruction provided by teachers with greater expertise, extensive and targeted research as to the kind of professional development that will enhance the knowledge base and improve the instructional effectiveness of the reading and special education teachers who are expected to carry out this important work has yet to be undertaken. According to the 2009 Policy Recommendations of the International Reading Association (International Reading Association, 2008), “Literacy professionals require continuing education to update and refine their knowledge and skills in ways that will increase student motivation and achievement in schools” (p.3).
9
Third, this study explores an approach to professional development for teachers that builds on current thinking regarding “best practices,” but does so in an innovative and cost-efficient way. Through the combined use of an initial one-day workshop and several monthly sets of Extended Engagement Materials (EEMs) that are provided for the teachers, the professional development aims to enhance teacher knowledge, influence teacher practices, and impact student achievement. The monthly EEMs, including reading material, video demonstrations, instructional activities, assessments, and guides for teacher reflection were designed to maintain the teachers’ engagement in the content of the professional development program over time, provide direct connections between the professional development content and the teachers’ daily lives in their classrooms, and facilitate collegial interactions that were focused on student learning. Such follow-up procedures, if effective, have the potential to reduce the need for on-going contact with the providers of professional development following an initial workshop, can provide consistency across settings, allow flexibility among teachers as to when and how they engage in aspects of professional development, reduce the need for multiple coaches with a high level of expertise, and substantially reduce the potential costs of professional development for districts. The approach to professional development taken in this study is consistent with the recommendations of the International Reading Association (2008). …professional development must require more than sitting through a session or “seat time.” … There must be follow-through to practice and implementation and a demonstration of the new knowledge and practices in the classroom. … The International Reading Association believes that when professional development is
10
sustained and focused on academic content and research-based instructional strategies, both teaching practice and student achievement will improve (p.3).
11
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The theoretical framework for this study is informed by research on multiple topics, with each topic contributing, in unique ways, to the conceptualization of the problem, the development of the questions, and the methodology for the research. The primary topics include: the importance of a generative approach to word identification; the influence of scientifically-based reading research on classroom instruction; research on the use of and instruction in word identification strategies; multi-dimensional approaches to early reading instruction and intervention, particularly the Interactive Strategies Approach; and professional development models and practices. In this chapter, each of these topics will be discussed in turn. The theory of action for the professional development will then be detailed, followed by the research questions. The Importance of a Generative Approach to Word Identification The “Great Debate” in reading education has long been characterized by the philosophical differences of proponents of the “whole language” approach versus those of the “phonics” or “skills” approach (Chall, 1996). One important aspect of these differences has been in the type of instruction and guidance students have been given for figuring out unfamiliar words encountered in print. This instruction has typically followed one of two paths, with the primary emphasis being placed on the use of either meaning-based or code-based cues. Historically, students have been directed to either “guess” the word, relying primarily on the contextual support of the text and using minimal phonological or orthographic cues to confirm, or to “sound it out,” using their knowledge of letters and sounds. Each of these approaches has both advantages and disadvantages.
12
The contextual approach to word identification, popularized by Goodman (1967) and Smith (1994), suggests that the semantic, syntactic, and pragmatic information available in the text can be used to identify unfamiliar words (Share, 1995). The advantage of this approach is that it encourages students to focus primarily on the meaning of what they are reading. The disadvantage, however, is that, more often than not, it simply doesn’t work (Finn, 1977- 1978). While contextual guessing may result in a semantically and syntactically acceptable response, and allow the student to continue to make meaning as he reads, it is unlikely to result in identification of the exact word on the page (Gough, 1983). In fact, contextual guessing works especially poorly for the accurate identification of content words, which carry most of the meaning in the text (Finn, 1977-1978). According to Adams (1991, as cited in Tunmer & Chapman, 2003), “Relying on the developing meaning of the sentence or passage to guess unfamiliar words will be of little help because the meaning of text depends disproportionately on the meanings of its least familiar and least predictable words” (p 348). When contextual guessing is combined with checking the print - thinking of a word that would make sense and determining if the expected letters are in the word – the probability of identifying the exact word on the page is, undoubtedly, improved. Even this approach, however, may do little to develop the sight vocabulary of the student, since he may attend to the visual details of the unfamiliar word only to the extent necessary to determine if the word that makes sense is a reasonable “match” for the letters on the page. In many instances, particularly with beginning readers, this might mean looking only at the initial letter or letter cluster. While such superficial analysis may suffice for the purpose of on-line comprehension of the text, it is unlikely to result in the word being
13
stored in memory in such a way that it will eventually become part of the student’s automatic sight vocabulary (Scanlon & Sweeney, 2003; Scanlon, Anderson, Sweeney, Gelzheiser, & Vellutino, 2007). The student, in effect, may gain little long-term benefit in having read the word correctly, and may need to resort to a similar guess-and-check strategy on subsequent encounters with the same word. The “sound it out” or decoding strategy, in contrast, is thought to enable the development of sight vocabulary. The use of decoding as the primary means for figuring out words has been consistently gaining in favor over the past 25 years. In 2006, Pressley stated that “the scientific evidence is simply overwhelming that letter-sound cues are more important in recognizing words (i.e., reading the words) than either semantic or syntactic cues” (p. 21). The “sound it out” strategy encourages the student to look at all of the letters in the word and to apply, systematically, his knowledge of letter-sound relationships. This approach may lead to more effective storage of the word in memory, and, in the long-term, make it more likely that subsequent encounters with the same word will be resolved with less effort. Eventually, the word becomes consolidated in memory and becomes part of the student’s sight vocabulary (Ehri, 2005). Ehri (1997) describes a four-phase process of sight word learning, with each phase being named, “…to reflect the predominant type of connection that links the written forms of sight words to their pronunciations and meanings in memory” (p. 172). In the Pre-Alphabetic Phase, also called visual cue reading, readers form connections between salient visual cues in and around words and their pronunciations or meanings. Readers in this phase are not yet utilizing letter-sound relations in their reading. In the second phase, called the Partial Alphabetic or phonetic cue reading phase, readers begin
14
to form connections between some of the letters in written words and sounds which can be detected in their pronunciations. In many cases, connections are formed between the first and final letters and their associated sounds, since these are often the easiest sounds for beginning readers to detect. With respect to building a sight vocabulary, readers who have advanced to the Partial Alphabetic phase have a distinct advantage over those who remain in the Pre-Alphabetic Phase. “This is because phonetic cue readers have a system they can use to remember words. In contrast, visual cue readers have to remember arbitrary, idiosyncratic connections. This makes the words harder to remember” (Ehri, 1997, p. 175). The third phase described by Ehri is called the Full Alphabetic Phase, and is characterized by the formation of complete connections between letters and phonemes. Readers who represent printed words completely in memory are able to read words much more accurately, because the complete representations eliminate the confusion posed by similarly spelled words. Readers in this phase process words as single units rather than letter-by-letter, as evidenced by the fact that they can read previously encountered whole words as rapidly as they can name digits (Ehri & Wilce, 1985). In the fourth and final phase, the Consolidated Alphabetic Phase, readers become familiar with recurring letter patterns and utilize these patterns to facilitate further sight word learning. When letter patterns or chunks are used rather than single letters, fewer connections need to be formed in order to secure the new words in memory. This is particularly valuable for learning multi-syllabic words (Ehri, 1997). According to Ehri’s theory then, the process of “sounding out” facilitates the complete representation of printed words in memory and, over time, makes it possible for
15
these words to be identified automatically as sight words. Ehri (1997) suggests, however, that it is not the process of solving the word that matters most, but what the child does after the word has been correctly identified. According to Ehri, when the word is pronounced, children need to look carefully through all of the letters in the word and “compute connections” (p. 171) between graphemes and phonemes in order for the written form of the word to be retained in memory. The process of reading words by sight differs from applying the alphabetic principle in that it involves the use of memory to read words which have been previously encountered. According to Ehri and McCormick (1998), the encountering of such words immediately activates their spelling, as well as their pronunciation and meaning in memory. The concept of sight words goes beyond accuracy to include automaticity, or the ability to read the word without conscious attention or effort (LaBerge and Samuels, 1974). Since automaticity frees space in memory for higher level comprehension processes, it is considered to be an important component of text comprehension. Ultimately, the ability to quickly and automatically identify most words encountered while reading should allow for reading to become a more rewarding and enjoyable experience (Perfetti, 1985). Sight word reading, as facilitated by decoding, thus becomes a valuable tool in the reading process, as it allows the reader to focus on the meaning of the text (Ehri & McCormick, 1998). Similar to the use of contextual clues however, building students’ sight vocabulary via the exclusive use of “sound it out” simply fails as an approach to accurate word identification on many occasions due to the fact that English is not a completely transparent orthography (Venesky, 1970). Not only are there many words which cannot
16
be readily sounded out because they do not subscribe to the common “rules” for decoding, but many of the letters and letter combinations are associated with multiple sounds. An exhaustive approach to phonics would require the teaching of over 500 different spelling-sound rules, but even the most comprehensive programs rarely teach over 90 (Juel & Miden-Cupp, 2000a). The child who relies exclusively on “sound it out,” therefore, may be frequently unsuccessful and, perhaps, become frustrated and confused by the whole endeavor. Moreover, an exclusive focus on letters and sounds may distract the student from the meaning-making purpose of reading and could lead the student to see “getting the words right” as more important than understanding and/or enjoying the text (Scanlon, Anderson, Sweeney, Gelzheiser, & Vellutino, 2007). What is important in word solving then, from the standpoint of long-term reading development, is that the approach be generative in nature. That is to say, the approach should not only lead to identification of the exact word in the text, but do so in such a way as to increase the likelihood that the word will be identified with greater ease on each successive encounter. Moreover, what the child learns by virtue of successfully applying the approach to identify a given word should also pay dividends in the form of easier identification of other unfamiliar words. The importance of a generative approach to word solving is highlighted by Clay (1991) in her discussion of the self-extending system. She states that teachers should “… aim to produce independent readers and writers whose reading and writing improve whenever they read and write” (p. 43). Juel and Minden-Cupp (2000a) point out that the number of words children ultimately learn far exceeds the number that are explicitly taught, and suggest that, “the critical question may be how teachers can help children gain enough skill to successfully enter the world
17
of print so that, in a sense, they can then read enough to become their own teachers” (p. 462). Share (1995) refers to this as a “self-teaching mechanism,” and details the important function of phonological recoding (print-to-sound translation) toward this end. According to Share, …the ability to translate printed words independently into their spoken equivalents assumes a central role in reading acquisition. According to the selfteaching hypothesis, each successful decoding encounter with an unfamiliar word provides an opportunity to acquire the word-specific orthographic information that is the foundation of skilled word recognition (p. 155). Share (1995) credits the use of letter-sound relationships to identify unfamiliar words as the primary path toward the attainment of reading proficiency. He argues that beginning readers need to develop a variety of word identification strategies which can, in turn, be used to build their sight vocabularies. While he places primary importance on phonological recoding, Share also acknowledges the significance of context in the word identification process. At the earliest stages of reading development, when children may have only rudimentary letter-sound associations established, information derived from the text can be used in conjunction with partial decoding attempts (Ehri & Wilce, 1985) to determine the exact pronunciation of a word. In later development, contextually-based information can be used to disambiguate the pronunciations of irregularly spelled or “exception” words (Goswami, 1990). Indeed, it is the individual’s sensitivity to the constraints of the text, used in concert with a “…willingness to test multiple alternative pronunciations for ‘goodness of fit’” (Share, 1995, p. 166) that allows for even the partial
18
decoding of unfamiliar words to take on a self-teaching value. By virtue of successful decoding, the child will become familiar with new letter-sound correspondences and patterns, expanding the power of the self-teaching mechanism (Share, 1995). While Share makes a strong case for the importance of a generative approach to word identification, he acknowledges that the self-teaching hypothesis is a psychological theory, not a pedagogical one. His emphasis is on the specific skills which need be acquired for the self-teaching mechanism to function optimally, but he does not address how these skills are to be taught (Share, 1995). A word identification model put forth by Vellutino and Scanlon (1982), like that of Share (1995) and Ehri (1997), places significant import on the reading subskills of phonemic awareness and phonological recoding. Unlike other models, however, Vellutino and Scanlon (2002) give substantial weight to the interactive and mutually supportive roles of both the context and the code, with explicit guidance as to what strategies should be taught, the underlying skills and competencies that need to be in place in order for the strategies to be effectively utilized, and the manner by which teachers might go about teaching for the use of word identification strategies. Because of the complexity of English orthography and the irregularity of lettersound relationships in this orthography, at least from the perspective of the novice reader, we feel that the beginning reader must use context to direct and monitor his or her attempts at decoding (Tunmer, Herriman, & Nesdale, 1988). In doing so, he or she will increase the proportion of words which are accurately identified and, thus, through repeated encounters with such words in text reading as well as in sight word reading, will build a corpus of words that can be identified
19
accurately and automatically, consistent with Share’s (1995) self-teaching model. Such automatic word identification frees cognitive resources so that the reader can devote more attention to comprehending the meaning of the text (Vellutino & Scanlon, 2002, pp. 583-584). Vellutino and Scanlon (2002) describe the acquisition of accurate and automatic word identification as a developmental process characterized by increasingly sophisticated approaches to unfamiliar words. They refer to these approaches as the selective cue approach, the strategic approach, and the automatic approach (Scanlon, et al., 2007). Similar to Ehri’s (1997) pre-alphabetic phase, children just learning to read are said to adopt a selective cue approach to word learning. Children employing this approach generally do not use alphabetic information to aid in word identification, but rather rely on prominent visual features of the word or, perhaps, contextual features which are irrelevant to identifying the word in any other context. Logos for familiar places such as McDonald’s might be remembered more as a contextualized gestalt than as a word made up of individual letters. Children making use of a selective cue approach might be successful reading the word “stop” when it appears on a red sign alongside the road, but would be unable to read the word if encountered in another context. The use of selective cues works initially, as long as only a few, reasonably distinct, words need to be remembered. Children who rely exclusively on a selective cue approach, however, will become quickly overwhelmed by the number of similar looking words they will encounter in learning to read (Scanlon et al., 2007). Scanlon et al. suggest that a more systematic approach is required, one that builds on the child’s emerging understanding of the alphabetic principle and capitalizes on the stability of some letter-
20
sound relationships, particularly the consonants (Share, 1995). The child will begin to use alphabetic knowledge for figuring out new words, but, due to his incomplete knowledge of the code and the aforementioned inconsistencies in English orthography, he will necessarily bolster his word identification attempts through the use of the contextual and pictorial support provided by the text (Perfetti, 1985). He will need to develop, in short, a strategic approach to word identification. When a new word is encountered in the context of a sentence, the child utilizing a strategic approach has alternative and mutually-supportive lines of attack available to him. He might employ an approach whereby he uses his knowledge of the alphabetic code to “sound it out,” or to at least come to a close approximation. He might also use meaning-based cues, including both print and pictures, provided in the story to assist in his decoding attempts. These cues might be used to generate expectations as to words which might appear in the story, and/or to check his decoding attempts and fine-tune his approximations until he arrives at a word that both makes sense and matches the letters on the page. Children at different points in their development will approach this task of “matching” with different degrees of specificity, depending upon their phonemic awareness and their knowledge of letter-sound correspondences. Early on, children might only check to see that the initial sound matches the letter in the word; later they will look to match the ending sound as well; while later still they will be looking at all of the letters in the word (Scanlon, et al., 2007). Consistent with Share (1995), Vellutino and Scanlon (2002) view the development of word identification as item-based rather than stage-based. That is to say, at any one point in development, a child will likely be using more than one approach to
21
word identification. At the onset, the majority of words a child is able to identify may be accessed via a selective cue approach, while partial decoding attempts combined with meaning-based cues move the child toward a more strategic approach. Once the child has developed an appreciation for the alphabetic code, a majority of words will be successfully identified using a strategic approach, which involves the coordinated and confirmatory use of code- and meaning-based cues. Even so, some words will continue to be identified using selective cues, while still others will have become established as part of the child’s sight vocabulary. Even when most of the words encountered are identified automatically, there will always be new words which require a strategic approach (Scanlon et al., 2007). It is these new words which continue to provide opportunities for self-teaching, and which represent, according to Share (1995), the “cutting edge” of reading development. According to Vellutino and Scanlon (2002), many children will progress quite nicely through the process of reading development, while many others will require explicit and expert instruction in order to develop an effective strategic approach. The teacher is seen as key in helping these children to develop flexibility and independence in the use of a strategic approach to word identification. As such, Vellutino and Scanlon (2002) have developed an approach to reading instruction and intervention, the Interactive Strategies Approach (ISA), which is grounded in their theoretical model of strategic word identification. This instructional approach will be returned to and described in some detail later in the chapter.
22
The Influence of “Scientifically-Based Reading Research” Beginning with the influential report, Becoming A Nation of Readers (Anderson, Hiebert, Scott, & Wilkinson, 1985), there has been an ever-increasing push in the United States for the inclusion of scientifically-based reading research as the foundation for reading instruction in the classroom and for interventions designed to address the needs of students who struggle with becoming proficient readers. This push has been informed by three large-scale, federally-funded efforts to compile and interpret the relevant research and was institutionalized through the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The first of these efforts was undertaken in the late 1980’s by researchers affiliated with the Center for the Study of Reading and resulted in what quickly became a “must read” in early literacy research, Beginning to Read (Adams, 1990). The second, undertaken by the National Research Council, resulted in Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). And the third, Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read (NICHD, 2000), was requested by Congress in 1997 for the purpose of evaluating “…the status of research-based knowledge, including the effectiveness of various approaches to teaching children to read” (p. 1-1). Each of these important treatises influenced the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001(Public Law 107-110), which, in turn, has influenced both classroom instruction and intervention in reading across the United States. While a thorough review of these important works is not possible here, each can be analyzed with respect to its contributions to thinking about the process of word identification and building sight vocabulary in general and, more specifically, with
23
respect to the use of a strategic approach to identifying unfamiliar words encountered in text. Of the three, Adams (1990) provides the most detailed information on word identification and sight word learning, yet explicit discussion of the use of word identification strategies is largely absent. With respect to word identification, Adams (1990) asserts, Skilled readers do have and do use knowledge about word patterns, orthographic redundancy, and complete spellings; they can and do normally produce spellingsound translations; and though they seem not to use it to avoid visual processing, they are highly attuned to the semantic and syntactic constraints of text (p. 105). Adams emphasizes the critical contributions of phonological awareness and facility with letter recognition, letter-sound relationships and spelling patterns, and makes a strong case for the development of these competencies within a program of reading instruction that also includes large amounts of time engaged in authentic reading and writing (Adams, 1990). Consistent with Share (1995), Stanovich (1986), and Perfetti (1985), Adams (1990) emphasizes that the overlearning of letter-sound relationships and spelling patterns is not an end in itself, but rather is important to “…enable the written word to flow quickly and effortlessly from print to meaning so that the reader’s active, thoughtful attention can be devoted to the task of comprehension” (p. 409). Facilitation of this process is seen as the purpose of phonics instruction. Adams also recognizes that, at least for younger and less skilled readers, there will be times when phonological recoding efforts will fall short and context will be called upon to play a greater role in word identification. A “context processor” lends speed and facilitation to the decoding process,
24
which, in turn, supports comprehension. This “context processor,” as described by Adams (1990), is likened somewhat to a default mechanism that kicks in when the primary route to word identification fails, rather than as a mechanism which can and should be systematically exploited by the individual on a routine basis, particularly in the earlier stages of learning to read. Adams (1990), as others before her, points out the pitfalls of an over-dependence on context. She emphasizes that contextual cues are often unreliable and that, for the purpose of building sight vocabulary, successful use of context can be a disincentive to examining the alphabetic features of the word. Without a careful examination of the word, the individual loses the opportunity to increase its visual familiarity, and so is no further ahead with respect to learning to read the word by sight. Adams contrasts the use of contextual cues with the process of sounding out, noting that sounding out, by its very nature, requires the individual to attend carefully to the visual representation of the word; she alludes to the “self-teaching mechanism” of Jorm and Share (1983) when she asserts “…every success in sounding out an unfamiliar word is a productive learning trial in visual identification” (p. 217). The role of context in word identification is given much less attention, with the interactive and supportive use of context and the code receiving little consideration at all. This is not to say that Adams considers the use of context to be unimportant in word identification, only that she neglects to explicate its value. In contrast to Beginning to Read (Adams, 1990), Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children (Snow et al., 1998) focuses more on the effectiveness of interventions designed for children at risk of having difficulty learning to read, with greater consideration given to the specifics of what effective instructional programs in reading
25
should include in the primary grades. The editors are careful to point out, however, that while children at high risk for early reading difficulties may require more intensive instructional support, there is little evidence that they need different kinds of support than children at relatively low risk. What all children in the primary grades need, according to the report, is instruction which attends “…to the full array of early reading accomplishments: the alphabetic principle, reading sight words, reading words by mapping speech sounds to parts of words, achieving fluency, and comprehension” (p. 6). With respect to identifying unfamiliar words, primacy is given to the strategy of sounding out. The importance of contextual supports is noted as a tool for monitoring word recognition, with the caveat that this should not be used as a substitute for information provided by the letters in the word. While Snow et al. (1998) do not discuss the “self-teaching mechanism,” they do address the importance of rapid and automatic word identification processes. This automaticity is gained through “‘practice’ at word identification, such as frequent retrievals of word forms and meanings from print” (p. 75). They ascribe to an item-based rather than a stage-based view of word learning, noting that automaticity is a characteristic of words, not readers. Like Adams (1990), they emphasize the development of automaticity and fluency through extensive practice in reading a wide variety of engaging texts and, consistent with earlier reports, point to compromises in comprehension as a consequence of inaccurate or laborious word identification. Snow et al. (1998) make it clear that knowledge of the alphabetic code and an understanding of how that knowledge can be applied to the identification of new words is a necessary but not sufficient condition for word learning. Beyond that, what is required
26
is ample opportunity to practice using the newly acquired skills, so that fluency and automaticity ensue. It is not clear, however, how children come to read the vast number of words which are not directly attainable via the alphabetic code and are not directly taught, and how teachers might go about facilitating this process. The Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read (NICHD, 2000) does little to clarify this issue. It was the explicit mission of the National Reading Panel (NRP) to build upon and expand the work of the National Research Council (NRC) Committee on Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children (Snow et al., 1998). While the NRC report established general requirements for effective reading instruction across the primary grades, it did not address the specifics of how critical skills should be taught. It was the goal of the National Reading Panel to do just that. Based largely on the foundational work conducted by the NRC, the NRP decided on seven topics to study in depth: alphabetics, including phonemic awareness and phonics instruction; fluency; comprehension, including vocabulary instruction, text comprehension instruction, and teacher preparation and comprehension strategies instruction; teacher education; and computer technology. Of these, the topics of phonics instruction and fluency apply most directly to the topic of interest in this paper - strategic word identification and the building of sight vocabulary. Coverage of neither phonics nor fluency in the report, however, attends to the need to develop a strategic approach to word identification or addresses how successful word identification serves to develop the individual’s sight vocabulary and invigorate the self-teaching mechanism. While the report emphasized that phonics instruction is a means to an end and needs to be integrated with other types of reading instruction to
27
create a balanced program, use of phonics is the only strategy discussed for the purpose of figuring out words. Strategies for figuring out the many words encountered in text that are not readily decodable are simply not addressed. With respect to the topic of fluency, the report devotes a great deal of attention to the construct of automaticity in word reading as it relates to comprehension. Practice in reading words with accuracy is portrayed as the vehicle by which automaticity is achieved, yet, again, the mechanism by which the words are correctly identified in the first place is left unexplored, leaving the reader to conclude that systematic instruction in phonics is both necessary and sufficient for accurate word identification to proceed. It is as if one moves directly from phonics to automaticity in word reading, with “practice” being the only mediating variable. The Report of the National Reading Panel (2000), according to Graves, Juel, and Graves (2007), …has had and is very likely to continue to have huge effects on reading instruction. Most notably, a massive federal funding program titled Reading First is specifically designed to promote instruction in each of the five areas endorsed by the report – that is, in phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. The program is having a substantial effect (Center for Educational Policy, 2005). Schools and districts are endorsing the federal agenda, and most basal readers now reflect the NRP and Reading First priorities (p. 47).
Word Solving and Word Identification Instruction in the Classroom While the importance of word solving strategies beyond facility with the code has been largely unaddressed in the recent compilations of scientifically-based reading
28
research, teachers, nonetheless, must, and do, attend to the use of word identification strategies in their instruction, at least with students in the beginning stages of learning to read. How teachers develop the knowledge with which to do this is critical, since the source of the information may ultimately determine the philosophical stance that guides their instruction. Teachers may acquire this knowledge in a number of ways: through their pre-service coursework as they train to become teachers; through self-initiated means such as remaining abreast of the literature by reading journals and attending professional conferences; and/or through in-service, professional development experiences once they are on the job. According to Brown (2003), despite the ubiquitous role of word identification prompts in early reading instruction, little attention has been given to their use in the research, practitioner, and/or teacher-education literature. Word recognition prompts, according to Brown (2003), receive somewhat greater, albeit still limited attention in teachers’ materials. She examined approximately two dozen commercial materials such as methods textbooks, basal-program guides, and manuals, and found that often the topic was not even addressed. When the use of prompts was addressed, it was sometimes in the form of a list of prompts with a description of their potential use, but provided little instructional guidance for the teacher. Other materials included prompts that reflected a particular approach to word identification, emphasizing the use of the code or the context. The treatment of word identification in basal program guides is particularly important, since “Basal programs are used in the majority of first grade classrooms in the United States and thus have substantial influence on both classroom practice and teacher development” (Snow et al.,1998). In 1998, the call was thus for guidelines and
29
procedures to assist teachers in aligning their instructional goals and methods with research (Snow et al., 1998). The Report of the National Reading Panel (NICHD, 2000) aimed to answer this call, and, as mentioned previously, played a significant role in the Reading First provision of the No Child Left Behind Act (2001). Given the timing of Brown’s (2003) article, it is likely that at least some of the materials she reviewed were not yet reflecting the full impact of Reading First on basal reading programs. Since the enactment of No Child Left Behind, many publishers have taken care to see that their core curricula in reading align with the “essential components of reading instruction” as defined by Reading First, which makes it more likely that schools eligible to receive funding through Reading First will choose these basals as their core reading program. In 2002, for example, The Florida Center for Reading Research (FCRR) conducted a formal review of several core reading programs, resulting in a list of programs that were aligned with the basic Reading First standards and were therefore deemed suitable for use by Reading First schools in Florida. Because the FCRR functions as a regional support center for Reading First schools in the Eastern United States, it is important to note that this list, which was periodically updated, was often consulted by states other than Florida, and by schools other than those eligible for Reading First funding. It behooved publishers, therefore, to attend to the “essential components” and to highlight their inclusion, making it likely that many of the basal reading programs currently in place leaned toward a code-based orientation for word identification. A code-based orientation, as discussed previously, assumes that it is the close attention to letter-sound correspondences that leads to successful word solving and, hence, enables word learning in beginning readers. While different programs may word
30
their suggested prompts somewhat differently, the message, according to Brown (2003), is consistent across programs. Blending the sounds in a word together is the recommended approach beginning readers should take upon encountering an unfamiliar word in text. Repeated, accurate identification of words in this manner will serve to establish the word in the reader’s growing sight vocabulary (Brown, 2003). Specific prompts might be suggested, reflecting a decoding element that is the focus of the week’s lesson. For example, if a child is struggling with the word garbage in the sentence “Trucks haul garbage.” the teacher might be encouraged to remind the child of the two sounds of G, asking the child to identify which sound is heard for each of the two Gs in garbage (Scott Foresman, 2004). While item-specific prompts such as these might very well serve the intended purpose of accurate word identification in the specific context, they are less likely to be generative in nature, as they fail to encourage the use of more broadly-based strategies which will work for solving many different words without explicit teacher guidance. Moreover, because many words in English cannot be adequately solved by relying exclusively on the code (e.g., have, was, busy), teachers run the risk of encouraging the application of rules which might not work in other circumstances, thus confusing and frustrating at least some of their students. When use of the context is encouraged, it, again, tends to be word-specific prompting, and reserved for those words for which the “rules” do not apply. For example, in Grade 1 of Scott-Foresman (2004), if a child reads the word “have” with the long A sound, teachers are encouraged to repeat the sentence the way the child read it and then to ask the child if that word makes sense. In the same teacher manual, a couple of weeks later, with respect to the word “shone,” teachers are encouraged to have the child
31
identify the vowel sound of O when it is followed by a consonant and final e. While each of these prompts might support the student in reading the given word, the use of these word-specific strategies will not necessarily move the child toward more independent word-solving in relation to other consonant-vowel-consonant-silent e (CVCe) words. In fact, especially for students who struggle in the early stages of learning to read, the use of teacher prompting in the absence of explicit instruction and practice in the use of word identification strategies may do little to help the child to become more independent in word solving. Brown (2003) notes that the type of prompts teachers use have the potential to influence how students proceed in their word reading attempts when the teacher is not there to support them. According to Brown (2003), students of teachers who consistently encourage the use of picture cues for word identification may conclude that they should look at the picture and make a guess, while the students of teachers who consistently encourage the use of letter-sound knowledge and blending may conclude that they should attempt to “sound out” unfamiliar words encountered when they are reading independently (emphasis added). As Torgesen (2002) reminds us, however, instruction for children who are at-risk for reading difficulties must be more explicit than instruction for children at relatively low risk. “Children who enter first grade with weaknesses in knowledge about letters, letter-sound correspondences, and phonological awareness require explicit and systematic instruction to help them acquire the knowledge and strategies necessary for decoding print” (p. 9). According to Gaskins, Ehri, Cress, O’Hara, and Donnelly (1997), some children do not independently discover what their
32
teachers leave unsaid. It is critical, therefore, to explicitly teach the procedures that children who struggle with word solving should use. Despite their popularity, basal reading programs are not the exclusive vehicle for early reading instruction. In many first grade classrooms, “guided reading” is used as an alternative to, or in conjunction with, a basal program. Guided reading, as defined by Fountas and Pinnell (1996), “…is a context in which a teacher supports each reader’s development of effective strategies for processing novel texts at increasingly challenging levels of difficulty” (p. 2). Its purpose “…is to enable children to use and develop strategies ‘on the run’” and its ultimate goal is, “…to help children learn how to use independent strategies successfully” (p. 2). In their influential book, Guided Reading, Good First Teaching for All Children, Fountas and Pinnell (1996) devote an entire chapter to the topic of “Teaching for Strategies.” They note that, according to Clay (1991), there are many different ways children can solve unknown words they encounter when reading, including using the meaning of the story, rereading and using the sound of the first letter, sounding out parts of the word and then linking the parts to known words, noticing parts of the word that are similar to other words they know, and letter-by letter analysis. They focus on the importance of self-monitoring, self-correcting and crosschecking, and provide an extensive list of prompts which teachers can use to support students’ word solving behaviors. According to Torgesen (2006), The Guided Reading lesson structure provides teachers the opportunities to monitor how well students are applying skills to the reading of text, encourage and support application of skills during text reading (e.g., word level skills and
33
comprehension skills), engage students in thinking about the meaning of text, and build a sense of reading as a meaningful, enjoyable activity (p.33). For students who are still acquiring foundational skills in reading, however, Torgesen (2006) suggests that instruction via a guided reading format alone may be insufficient, since the need for systematic instruction and practice of decoding and word identification skills, with systematic review and an opportunity for attaining mastery is not supported through the guided reading lesson. With respect to the development of a strategic approach to reading, a guided reading approach assumes that students who are repeatedly exposed to reading strategies will begin to use the strategies independently (Manset-Williamson & Nelson, 2005). According to Duffy (2002, cited in MansetWilliamson & Nelson, 2005), however, struggling readers may not benefit from this type of implicit instruction, but need more explicit teaching of strategies if they are to achieve the goal of independent strategy use. Guided reading places an emphasis on the use of teacher prompting, and has an explicit goal of helping the child to develop a self-extending system (Clay, 1991). In this way, the child is expected to learn more about the process of reading through each new encounter with text. The role of the teacher is seen as critical in guided reading, as “Teachers must know how to prompt and guide students as they work to build this selfextending system of reading” (Iaquinta, 2006, p.414). As summarized by Iaquinta (2006), teachers who use guided reading in their classrooms monitor students’ reading and prompt for the use of word identification strategies as necessary. The prompts help the children think about different sources of information that can be used to identify words and to develop a flexible system of strategies that can eventually be used independently.
34
As children read and apply the strategies in increasingly difficult texts, they use information derived from three sources, referred to in the research and teacher-education literature as the three-cueing systems of reading (Iaquinta, 2006). These three sources are clustered into the semantic (meaning), syntactic (language structure), and graphophonemic (visual information) systems. In accord with these three systems, teachers utilize a set of prompts to assist the child in reading unfamiliar words. While the wording might differ somewhat from teacher to teacher or from one time to another, children are essentially asked to consider the following questions: “Does it make sense?” (semantic), “Does it sound right?” (syntactic), and “Does it look right?” (graphophonemic). Additionally, teachers encourage students to cross-check their word reading attempts by using information from more than one of the three systems. The use of the three-cueing system, as described by Adams (2006), is typically represented in teacher-education materials by three overlapping circles resembling a Venn diagram. Adams attests to the logical appeal of this representation, noting that, …by depicting the meaning of a text in the intersection of its semantic, syntactic, and graphophonic cues, the Venn diagram succinctly asserts that the meaning of a text depends on all three; all three of these types of information are necessary, all three must be properly processed, and not one of them can be safely ignored or finessed except at the risk of forfeiting or distorting the meaning of the text (Adams, 2006). She goes on to point out, however, her concerns related to how the schematic is often interpreted. According to Adams, the schematic is sometimes used to minimize the
35
importance of the graphophonic system as a source of information, prioritizing information from semantics and syntax. And, while the latter two sources of information are given prominence, instruction as to how to access information using these systems is “unproductively superficial.” While admittedly being unable to confidently trace the origins of the “three-cueing system” as currently represented to teachers, Adams proposes its original intent and cautions against the evolution of its interpretation.
If the intended message of the three-cueing system was originally that teachers should take care not to overemphasize phonics to the neglect of comprehension, its received message has broadly become that teachers should minimize attention to phonics lest it compete with comprehension. If the original premise of the three-cueing system was that the reason for reading the words is to understand the text, it has since been oddly converted such that, in effect, the reason for understanding the text is in order to figure out the words (Adams, 2006).
Research on the Use of and Instruction in Word Identification Strategies Although drawn from a limited number of studies conducted with first grade readers, a few broad-based generalizations can be made about word identification strategy use and instruction: 1) as children develop in their use of word identification strategies, there is a shift in the balance of their use of the context and the code; the context is relied upon more in the earlier periods, with an increase in reliance on the code over time (or with increasing competence) (Biemiller, 1970; Weber, 1970); 2) for relatively more advanced readers, both the context and the code are used in concert for
36
word identification purposes (Biemiller, 1970; Weber, 1970); 3) as children develop as readers, they progress from inventing text to a self-regulatory role by which they actively monitor their reading for correctness and make changes when they are not satisfied (Schmitt, 2001); 4) at different points in their reading development, children require different types of support from their teachers (Clark, 2004; Cole, 2006.); and 5) teachers can, and do, use what they learn through professional development to change their instructional practices with respect to the use of word identification strategies (Roehrig, Pressley, & Sloup, 2001). There is also some evidence to suggest that differences in the approaches of teachers with respect to word identification strategies are related to differences in student achievement, with greater success, at least for students who enter first grade with minimal reading skill, associated with an emphasis on the use of lettersound and letter pattern knowledge and combining that with what makes sense to identify an unknown word in text (Juel & Minden-Cupp, 2000a). Two studies which have been particularly influential in how we have come to understand the process of children figuring out words as they read were published in 1970. In both of these studies, the focus was on the types of oral reading errors made by first grade students. In one study (Weber, 1970), observations were made of both “good” and “poor” first grade readers in one first grade classroom as they read orally during their small group reading instruction. On the basis of analyzing their oral reading errors, Weber concluded that approximately 90% of their errors were grammatically acceptable when one took into account the preceding context, suggesting that both good and poor readers rely on context to aid their word identification attempts. This study led to some important generalizations. The first was that both good and poor readers bring their own
37
linguistic ability to the task of reading, which serves to influence their attempts at resolving unknown words as they read. The second distinguished between good and poor readers, noting that, while both made similar levels of grammatically acceptable oral reading errors, the errors of good readers were more likely to be graphically similar to the words on the page. Moreover, good readers were more likely than poor readers to self-correct when the word that they read did not make sense given the subsequent context (Weber, 1970). A study by Biemiller (1970) employed a similar methodology, listening to children from two first grades read in their classroom setting and analyzing their errors, to infer the types of information they were using in word solving. While Weber’s study was more interested in making comparisons between good and poor readers, Biemiller was more interested in studying reading errors across the first grade year. As a result of his findings, Biemiller argued for the existence of three “stages” of reading acquisition, characterized by three types of oral reading errors. The first stage was seen to be dominated by contextually constrained errors, defined as errors that made sense both grammatically and semantically, when considering the preceding context (e.g., substituting puppy for dog). In the second stage, the percentage of both graphicallyconstrained and nonresponse errors dramatically increased. Graphically constrained errors were defined as substitution errors in which the written representation of the student’s response approximated the written representation of the word in the text (e.g., substituting horse for house). And in the third, children’s errors were both graphically and contextually constrained.
38
The methodologies employed by Weber (1970) and Biemiller (1970), particularly the observation of children as they read in natural settings and the recording of their oral reading errors, have been employed in a variety of subsequent studies and for a variety of purposes. Listening to children read and recording what they do when they come to a word they cannot immediately identify is, in fact, one of the primary ways teachers assess their students’ ongoing progress as readers. This practice, which typically involves having the child read from an appropriate leveled text, taking a running record, and performing an error analysis, is a cornerstone of Reading Recovery® and has been adopted as an approach to ongoing assessment in many classroom settings. According to Johnston (2000), running records are, “the single most useful technique for documenting early reading processes” (p. ix). When using such an approach, teachers analyze oral reading errors and self-corrections to infer evidence of the sources of information (semantic, syntactic, graphophonic) that the student is using or not using. One study which attempted to go beyond looking at the sources of information children use as they read comes from the vast literature on Reading Recovery®. This study, conducted by Schmitt (2001), described and examined the development of strategic processes for detecting and correcting errors, problem-solving with unfamiliar words, and confirming responses in 27 first graders participating in Reading Recovery®. According to Clay (1991), it is information such as this that can best guide the teacher as she prompts and questions the fledgling reader, as opposed to information that focuses primarily on how many items (i.e., letters, sounds, words, etc.) the child knows. Because all of the children in the study were participating in Reading Recovery®, running records that were collected by their teachers were used as the primary data source. Running
39
records were collected at three points in the study: during initial testing for entrance into the Reading Recovery® program; when the children reached a level 5 in their text reading; and when they reached a level 10. This system was used rather than measurement at distinct intervals, as it was felt that successful reading at these levels typically required identifiable shifts in strategic behavior. According to Schmitt, level 5, “often represents a point where children must shift from using mostly language cues to paying more attention to visual information” (p. 134), while success at level 10 generally requires that children “have all early strategies under control including self-monitoring, cross-checking, searching for information, and self-correcting errors” (pp. 134-135). Analyzing the reading of all students at a particular point in time might mean comparing children with significantly different text reading levels, which would presumably have implications for the strategies that they were successfully employing (Schmitt, 2001). Schmitt examined the behaviors students engaged in as they attempted to confirm or use problem solving strategies to identify an unknown word. “Target” words were identified as any word for which there was “…obvious work to get at the word, even if the work involved a meaningful substitution, indicating the child searched meaning and perhaps structure to render an attempt, or hesitated too long” (p. 135). These outward behaviors were used to make inferences as to what was taking place “inside the head” where the strategies were initiated and carried out (Schmitt, 2001). Hypothesized strategies included were: self-monitoring (e.g., repeating a word, trying another word), cross-checking (e.g., trying a meaning cue against a visual cue), self-correcting (either immediately after an error or during a reread), rereading to confirm, rereading to problem solve, and appealing for help. Findings from the study revealed that, as a group, the
40
children significantly increased their use of all strategies while decreasing their number of unproductive word solving attempts. The greatest gains were evidenced in the use of self-monitoring strategies. In her interpretation of the results, Schmitt states that the results document …dramatically the possibility that during the children’s participation in Reading Recovery® they progress from merely inventing text … to not being satisfied with responses that signal something is wrong or to making confirming checks on correct responses. It suggests active construction and a sense of responsibility on the part of the children: these represent important signals of self-regulation (p. 143). Schmitt was careful to point out that this was only an exploratory study; it was not an experiment and there was no use of a control group; hence, no causal claims could be made. While it is conceivable that Reading Recovery® instruction contributed to the documented changes in strategic processing (Schmitt, 2001), it is also conceivable that the changes reflect more normative patterns as children move from less to more proficiency in reading, and are independent of the instruction provided. Schmitt suggests that the type of analysis conducted in this study, looking at specific behaviors which reveal strategic action, could provide useful information for teachers with respect to the type of strategies that children are employing and the extent of their reliance on teacher support. She contrasts this in-depth analysis with the typical analysis of running records, whereby the teacher focuses on the information sources used by the children in making, noticing, and correcting their errors.
41
Rather than observing children as they read and inferring their word identification strategies, some researchers have relied on the children’s self-report. For example, Tunmer and Chapman (2002) carried out a study with the intent of identifying the relationship between beginning readers’ reported word identification strategies, their reading achievement, reading-related skills, and academic self-perceptions. They identified two broad types of word identification strategies, word-based and text-based, that children might use, and interviewed children who were instructed in whole language classrooms. Word-based strategies, as defined by Tunmer and Chapman (2002), included the use of letter-sound relationships, orthographic analogies, and polyphonic letter patterns, whereby children attempted to use alternative pronunciations for a given word. Text-based strategies included the use of picture cues, semantic and syntactic cues, preceding passage content and prior knowledge. To determine which type of strategies (text-based or word-based) readers used, Tunmer and Chapman (2002) simply asked a group of students who were approaching the end of Year 1 in school, “When you are reading on your own and come across a word that you don’t know, what do you do to try to figure out what the word is?” (p. 348). On the basis of their responses, the children were divided into two groups: a word-based (WB) group (52.1%) and a text-based (TB) group (34.3%). The remainder of the students (13.6%) provided no response. Students in the two groups were then compared on a variety of measures, with the results consistently favoring students in the WB group. Specifically, students in the WB group obtained significantly higher scores than those in the TB group on measures of reading achievement and reading related skills including psuedoword decoding, phoneme segmentation, contextual facilitation, context-free word
42
recognition, reading comprehension, and reading level. Additionally, the WB group reported more positive beliefs in reading self-efficacy and more positive academic selfconcepts (Tunmer and Chapman, 2002). Tunmer and Chapman (2002) attributed the outcomes favoring the WB group to “…the generative power of word identification strategies that are based on letter-sound patterns” (p 354). Due to the correlational nature of the study, however, they could not claim a causal relationship between the children’s word identification strategies, their reading achievement, and their academic self-perceptions. Also, because no attempt was made to observe or influence the instruction the students received, no conclusions could be drawn as to the relationship between instruction and student achievement. In fact, it was assumed in this study that all children were provided with instruction that should have favored the development of a text-based approach. A study undertaken by Juel and Minden-Cupp (2000a) to explore word recognition instruction within the context of four first grade classrooms used a think aloud procedure to facilitate the students’ self-reports. Unlike Tunmer and Chapman (2002), Juel and Minden-Cupp utilized classroom observations to make connections between the strategies that students used and the instructional approaches of teachers in scaffolding word identification. While their focus was on word identification strategies, these researchers were interested in looking at the first grade language arts program as a whole and analyzing which particular instructional practices were associated with better outcomes for students with different learning profiles. For the purpose of the study, strategies were defined as “…what children were told to do or what the teacher modeled doing when encountering an unknown word” (Juel & Minden-Cupp, 2000a, p. 467). No
43
attempts were made to intervene in the instruction the students received. An assessment that incorporated a think aloud procedure was designed for the study and was used to categorize the students’ strategies for figuring out words. Although students described their word solving attempts in a variety of ways, their strategies could be categorized as follows: sound and blend phonemes, sound and blend onsets and rimes, use the word wall, think about what made sense, use a first-letter cue in combination with what made sense, note that it looks like the word, or know it automatically (Juel & Minden-Cupp, 2000a). Findings with respect to word identification instruction revealed differences in the approaches of the teachers; these differences, in turn, were related to differences in student achievement. Within the context of oral reading, Juel and Minden-Cupp (2000a) described word identification instruction in the four classrooms as follows: Classroom 1 – If a child came to an unknown word in a text, she was told to consider the meaning of the text, to predict, to reread, to spell the word, or look at the word wall. Frequently, the teacher told the child the word (pp. 469-470). Classroom 2 – During the Fall, children in the low group were provided with considerable modeling by their teacher about how to chunk words into their component units. They frequently made an analogy between a rime in a key word and lists of unknown words. In the Spring, the teacher was especially insistent on combining what made sense in text with known chunks such as rime units (p. 471). Classroom 3 –During reading groups, Teacher 3 relied on peer coaching to facilitate word recognition. Peer coaching involved other children in the group
44
helping a child who was having difficulty recognizing a word. When a child in a reading group could not identify a word, other children in the group were encouraged to provide a clue. There were suggested clues that had been taught (e.g. reread, sound it out, see if it makes sense, look at the word wall), but the children were encouraged to provide any clues they thought would help (p. 472). Classroom 4 –At the beginning of the year, initial consonants were stressed. The children were encouraged to use the first letter(s) in an unknown word and what made sense to identify an unknown word in text. Rimes were quickly added, and these rimes received heavy emphasis, especially in word sorts. During this time, the teacher modeled segmenting words into onset and rime chunks and encouraged children to find these chunks in an unknown word… As the year progressed, the teacher increasingly modeled and encouraged the children to sound and blend individual letter-sounds to recognize a word. …the teacher modeled, and expected children to combine – what made sense with known letter-sounds to identify an unknown word in text. She frequently asked a child to sound and blend the individual letter sounds in a word and consider what made sense (pp. 474-475). Of particular interest from this study were the findings related to children reading in the lowest reading groups. While there were no differences in the reading skills of students in the lowest reading groups on reading measures administered at the beginning of the study, only students in classrooms 2 and 4 approached the reading levels of their peers by the end of the study, with almost all students in the lowest group in classroom 4 reading at the end-of-first-grade level by May (Juel and Minden-Cupp, 2000a). In
45
analyzing the think aloud procedures, Juel and Minden-Cupp (2000a) noted that the students in the lowest reading group, who were also the least automatic in their word identification, seemed to have the easiest time talking about the strategies they used to figure out words. Results from the strategy analysis revealed that, for the most part, students’ use of strategies reflected the instruction they received in the classroom. The one exception to this finding was in the case of the students in the lowest reading group in Classroom 2. Despite a heavy emphasis on the use of rimes for decoding, these children had difficulty seeing the chunks in words and using those chunks to read new words. Similarly, across classrooms 2, 3, and 4, students who were among the poorest readers seemed to have difficulty noticing the orthographic patterns in words. All of these students attempted to use single-letter decoding, but only the students in classroom 4, who had experienced a heavy instructional emphasis in this approach, were able to do so successfully (Juel and Minden-Cupp, 2000). While the above-mentioned studies have utilized analyses of students’ reading behaviors and self-reports to understand their use of word identification strategies, others have been more concerned with what the teacher does when the child encounters an unfamiliar word, and have put forth various classification schemes as to the kinds of scaffolding (coaching, prompting) teachers provide for their students. While authors use various terms (prompting, coaching, scaffolding) to describe what teachers do, several relatively recent articles in The Reading Teacher focus teachers’ attention on the need to support developing readers in their word identification efforts. In 2003, Brown authored an article in which she encouraged teachers to align their prompts with students’ word reading development. Drawing upon a number of word
46
learning theories including those of Chall (1983), Ehri (1998) and Juel (1991), Brown describes three phases of reading development: Learning About Print, Breaking the Code, and Increasing Fluency. She then goes on to suggest sample word recognition prompts that are appropriate for each of the phases, as well as a few which are appropriate across phases. For example, if a student in the Breaking the Code phase struggles to read a phonetically regular word, Brown suggests targeting successive letters with a pencil point while the student blends the sounds together. If appropriate, she suggests reminding the student to “say it fast,” “bulldoze it,” or “keep your motor running.” Brown’s goal is to assist the child in the accurate identification of words, with the understanding that repeated, accurate word identification will lead to the establishment of the words in memory and, over time, grow the child’s sight vocabulary. Her orientation is clearly toward the use of the code, as she emphasizes the importance of a full and careful analysis of the word to the development of automaticity. While she acknowledges the facilitative effect of context, she attends minimally to its use in her descriptions of teacher prompting. Importantly, Brown notes that teachers should not be forced to choose between a code or a holistic emphasis in their use of word recognition prompts, but rather should develop the knowledge with which to change their prompts in response to the student’s phase of reading development. A second article (Clark, 2004) describes the technique of “coaching” word recognition. Clark briefly reviews the reading process and emphasizes the challenge that successful word recognition presents for many readers. She describes word recognition as a necessary but not sufficient condition for comprehension, and focuses on the concept of coaching and its roots in the work of Clay (2001) and the construction of the self-
47
extending system. Her work draws from case studies of the instructional talk used by teachers identified as most effective in a larger scale study of effective teaching practices. Rather than grouping cues according to the information system accessed, or according to the student’s phase of reading development, Clark describes two broad types of cues that became evident in her analysis of the data. The first general type is described as “General cues to promote thought” (p. 441). These cues encourage the reader to think about the strategies they know and are able to use and to make a decision about how to proceed in identifying an unfamiliar word. Examples of general cues would be asking “What can you do?” or reminding the student to, “Look and think what you need to do.” (p. 442). The second type is referred to as “Cues to prompt specific action” (p. 442). These cues provide more explicit guidance about what the reader should do, and can be further broken down into grapheme-phoneme correspondences (e.g., “The y is acting like an i.”); word-part identification strategies (e.g., “Look for a little word.”); and use of contextual supports (e.g., “Let’s read to the end and see what makes sense.”) (p. 443). Like Brown, Clark (2004) recognizes that reading unfamiliar words relies heavily on graphophonic knowledge and that children read words in qualitatively different ways at different stages of development. Also like Brown, she highlights the importance of teacher knowledge, suggesting that teachers need to monitor and change the prompts they use with students based on both the knowledge sources available in the text and the word reading skills of the particular student(s). Moreover, she recognizes that teachers need to be able to analyze the words in question, in order to craft appropriate prompts. With respect to crafting such cues, Clark notes a number of important factors to consider, including a wide array of alphabetic knowledge and the context in which the word
48
occurs. Like Brown, she emphasizes the importance of teacher prompting that supports students as they move through the developmental phases of word learning. She promotes the use of cues that reflect a more modern understanding of phonics instruction, with a focus on reading words rather than learning rules, and underscores the importance of using phonics first, with semantic and syntactic cues used as a follow-up to the students’ initial approximations. While she does not present any evidence from research, Clark (2004) asserts that the crafting of supportive cues is effective and calls for more of a focus on coaching in university methods courses. I envision instruction in which pre-service teachers in methods courses invoke, build, and make explicit their understanding of our graphophonic system and English orthography, use this understanding to craft cues for words with which their students struggle, and apply these cues as they read one-on-one with students (p. 448). In the third Reading Teacher article, Cole (2006) uses the term scaffolding to describe the behaviors teachers use to support beginning readers, and notes the need for scaffolding to be a research priority. Like the others, she takes a developmental perspective in her analysis of teacher scaffolding, comparing the types and amounts of scaffolding provided to novice and more fluent readers. Drawing upon the work of Vygotsky (1978) and the “zone of proximal development;” that of Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976) and their use of scaffolding as a metaphor for the type of supports that tutors provide, and Clay’s collected works (1985, 1993) on beginning readers, Cole focuses on the importance of “sustaining” scaffolding as opposed to feedback that occurs after a student makes an oral reading error. She asserts that teachers need to have an arsenal of
49
internalized cues available to them as they work with developing readers, lest they come to overuse and abuse particular cues such as “sound it out.’ Based on the video clips of seven first grade teachers scaffolding both novice and fluent readers, Cole describes two sets of overlapping and symbiotic processes which she refers to as micro and macro. The “micro” focuses on smaller units of text such as letters, sounds, and words, while the “macro” focuses on the larger units such as phrases, sentences, paragraphs and complete texts. While noting the importance of both sets of processes, Cole cautions the scaffolder against leading the child too far into the micro, lest he lose touch with the meaning of what he is reading. The final data analysis suggested that teachers utilize a different set of scaffolding behaviors for novices than for fluent readers. “…teachers provide novices more scaffolding time, more touch-the-page finger pointing, more voiced praise and affirmation, and a greater number of interruptions” (Cole, 2006, p. 457). Fluent readers were offered mostly macro processing cues that helped them to read with comprehension. Unlike Brown and Clark, Cole places limited emphasis on the development of alphabetic knowledge and does not address the importance of automaticity in word learning. Like Brown and Clark, however, she emphasizes the role of the teacher as the key variable in effective instruction, noting that, “…teachers must come to the classroom knowing both their craft and the children in their keep so that they can effectively deliver in-flight, scaffolded instruction anytime it is needed” (Cole, 2006, p. 457). All three of these articles from the Reading Teacher serve to focus teachers’ attention on the importance of successful word identification and the teachers’ key role in this process. All three take a developmental perspective, in that they recognize that
50
students at different points in their reading development require different types of support from their teachers. All three, as well, emphasize the importance of teacher expertise, noting that teacher knowledge, with respect to how children learn words, interacts with knowledge of the children themselves as the teacher formulates prompts that will move the children forward in their learning. Brown (2003) and Clark (2004) focus more heavily on phase-based models of word learning and the importance of the alphabetic code for figuring out new words, while Cole (2006) focuses more on meaning-based cues, cautioning teachers against leading their charges too far into the “micro” of letters, sounds, and words when reading connected text. All three are, however, supportive of encouraging children to use information from both the context and the code for solving unfamiliar words encountered in print. Interestingly, all three of these authors note the relative absence of research in scaffolding (prompting, coaching) beginning readers’ word identification attempts. While they provide numerous examples of the kinds of prompts effective teachers use, they offer no evidence that these are indeed better prompts than others that might be used, nor do they offer an explicit pedagogy for assisting children in internalizing these prompts as they develop as readers. In this next section, two successful, multi-dimensional approaches to developing early reading skill, Reading Recovery® and the Interactive Strategies Approach, will be discussed. In both of these, the development of a strategic approach to word solving and the support provided by the teacher to facilitate that development are assumed to be key contributors to student success. The relative importance of the various program components, however, has yet to be researched.
51
Developing Word Solving Skills Within the Context of Multi-Dimensional Interventions in Early Reading Of the many intervention programs that have been developed to remediate early reading difficulties, Reading Recovery®, a one-to-one intervention used with children in first grade, is, perhaps, the best known. The ISA, while primarily used thus far in research, has proven to be a successful approach to developing early reading skills across one-to-one, small group, and classroom settings (see next section of this chapter for a detailed review of research on the ISA), and was the vehicle of instruction utilized in the present study. While these two programs are decidedly different in some respects, they share a common focus on the development of self-regulatory behavior through teacher scaffolding. Both take into account Vygotsky’s (1978) notion of the zone of proximal development, and include, to varying degrees, two important characteristics of instruction designed to promote self-regulatory behavior, these being the verbalization of plans and goals and the systematic lessening of the regulatory role of the teacher (Diaz, Neal, & Amaya-Williams, 1990). Both also assert the importance of responsive teaching and, particularly important in the context of this study, advocate the teaching of context-based strategies for figuring out words (Johnston, 2002). Developed in New Zealand by Marie Clay, Reading Recovery® involves daily one-to-one reading instruction for first grade students for a period of 10 to 20 weeks. Students meet with their teacher for 30-40 minutes a day, with each lesson following a fairly prescribed routine. The typical Reading Recovery® lesson begins with the rereading of familiar books, followed by the rereading of the previous day’s new book, during which time the teacher takes a running record of the student’s oral reading.
52
Depending upon the child’s needs, a brief letter identification or word study activity follows. Students then write a story, rearrange the story after it has been cut up by the teacher, and then read a new book that has been introduced (Clay, 1993). According to Clay, individual variations in the daily plan are allowable, as long as there is a sound rationale, based on the child’s response to instruction, for doing so (Clay, 1993). While the use of diverse research designs and measures have made it a challenge to evaluate the program’s effectiveness, according to Pressley there is, “…substantial reason to believe that Reading Recovery® is effective in promoting the early reading achievement of many struggling readers.” (Pressley, 2006, p. 267). A review by the What Works Clearinghouse (What Works Clearinghouse Intervention Report, http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/beginning_reading/reading_recovery/, retrieved March 20, 2007) recently concluded that Reading Recovery® has positive effects on the alphabetic skills and general reading achievement of first grade students who participated in the intervention. The effects of Reading Recovery® on comprehension and fluency were described by the Clearinghouse report as potentially positive. The training which Reading Recovery® teachers receive focuses extensively on developing the child’s use of strategies including: monitoring whether or not what has been read makes sense, cross-checking on meaning-making processes, searching for cues to meaning from pictures, print, or the language structures of the text, rereading, and selfcorrecting (Pressley, 2006). Reading Recovery® emphasizes the development of strategies as opposed to the learning of discreet items: Attention of teacher and child must be on strategies or operations – mental activities initiated by the child to get messages from a text. If the teacher becomes
53
involved in teaching items rather than strategies … the process of accelerated learning is seriously threatened. Letter-sound correspondences and spelling patterns are learned, but in the course of reading and, especially, writing meaningful texts, RR[Reading Recovery] teachers praise children for generative strategies, not for items learned (Clay & Cazden, 1990, p. 208). Clay gives much attention to how the teacher prompts and questions the student as he attempts to problem-solve an unfamiliar word, and notes that the words the teacher uses direct the child to a particular source of information in the text (meaning, structure, or visual) (Clay, 2005). As the student is reading, the teacher must use her knowledge of the student’s learning history in combination with the challenges of the text to make onthe-spot decisions about what type of strategic processing to encourage (monitoring or searching), what source of information to direct the student’s attention to, and how much support to provide for the student (Schwartz, 2005). The teacher does not present a set of strategies for the child to learn, but rather observes the child to understand what sources of information are being used, and, through questions, prompts, and comments, guides the student to take notice of other important sources. She encourages self-correction by prompting the child to monitor his reading or to search for further information; allows time for the student to make self-corrections independently; and comments positively on the self-corrections that are made (Clay, 2005). With respect to word identification, Clay (1991) argues for the use and coordination of multiple cues. While she acknowledges the importance of decoding, she stresses that this is not enough, noting that a child must have “…a range of different strategies over which he has flexible control.” (Clay, 1991, p. 292). Most of the word
54
work in Reading Recovery® lessons takes place within the context of reading and writing, with a minimal amount of time spent working on words in isolation (Clay, 2005). With respect to the word work that is done (both in isolation and within reading and writing), the teacher’s goal is to help the child to understand the multiple ways that words can be broken into parts, constructed and reconstructed, and how this process of ‘breaking’ words can be helpful in reading new words that are like words that the child already knows (Clay, 2005). Reading Recovery® does not use a particular scope and sequence to guide instruction on decoding skills. Initially, words that are already known to the child are used to help him to understand how words can be broken apart and constructed. Later on, words that the teacher has heard the child using or words from recent lessons are used. The child is guided through a sequence of activities that involve the breaking apart and constructing of spoken and written words. These activities are not designed to teach discreet skills, but are designed to help the child to develop different ways of analyzing words for both reading and writing (Clay, 2005). Reading Recovery® teachers help children to attend to multiple sources of information in the text: sense (meaning), visual cues (letters and letter patterns), sounds, and structure and grammar (Clay, 2005, p.112). In her seminal work, Becoming Literate: The Construction of Inner Control (1991), Clay notes that “There is mounting evidence that sounding out is not enough”(p. 290) and asserts that independent reading results, instead, from strategic control over the reading task. It is through this strategic activity that children are able to construct the self-extending system. When children use strategies, they are able to successfully solve problems presented by increasingly
55
challenging levels of text. Success at each level prepares the child to tackle challenges at the next level, such that slowly, through success, the child builds the capacity to solve new problems on his own. Strategic control, according to Clay (1991), may be the most important factor in the oft-made observation that children who read well get increasingly better at reading (Stanovich, 1986). “It is the successful strategic control called upon by the learner that creates the self-extending system” (Clay, 2005, p. 103). Another multi-dimensional approach to early reading instruction and remediation is the Interactive Strategies Approach (ISA) (Vellutino and Scanlon, 2002), an approach which has been developed, implemented, and validated in several longitudinal studies. Initially developed for the purpose of distinguishing between students whose difficulties in early reading were experientially and/or instructionally based and those whose difficulties were based in poorly developed reading-related cognitive abilities (Vellutino & Scanlon, 2002), the ISA has come to have much broader applications with respect to the prevention and remediation of early reading difficulties. “The ISA is based on the premise that reading is a complex process that involves the orchestration of multiple cognitive processes, types of knowledge, and reading subskills and that most early reading difficulties can be prevented if literacy instruction is comprehensive, responsive to individual student need, and fosters student independence” (Scanlon et al., 2008). According to the theoretical model which underlies the ISA, beginning readers need to: •
understand the connection between written and spoken language;
•
understand and be able to apply the alphabetic principle in their reading and writing;
56
•
acquire multiple strategies, using both meaning-based and code-based cues, that can be used in flexible and complementary ways to identify unfamiliar words encountered in text; and
•
have abundant opportunities to orchestrate the use of such strategies, in both structured tasks and authentic reading situations (Vellutino & Scanlon, 2002).
As a small-group or one-on-one intervention, the ISA sets forth a consistent but flexible intervention plan which incorporates both text-based and code-based (using letter-sound correspondences and patterns) remedial activities into its daily lessons (Vellutino & Scanlon, 2002). The activities are derived from a set of goals for early literacy development which span the domains of phonemic awareness and alphabetic knowledge, strategic word identification and sight word development, and vocabulary and comprehension. As an approach to be used by classroom teachers, the ISA incorporates these same goals into the daily activities of the primary classroom, including read aloud, shared reading, small-group supported reading, independent reading, writing and composition, oral language activities, and the development of foundational skills (Scanlon & Sweeney, 2003). For a detailed description of both the theoretical foundations and the individual components of the ISA, the reader is directed to Vellutino and Scanlon (2002) and Scanlon and Sweeney (2004). For the purposes of this paper, the focus will be on the ISA’s approach to strategic word identification and the development of sight word knowledge. As detailed earlier in this paper, Vellutino & Scanlon (2002) describe the acquisition of accurate and automatic word identification as a developmental process
57
characterized by increasingly sophisticated approaches to unfamiliar words. The theory implies that the successful application of a strategic approach, accomplished by the interactive and confirmatory use of code-based and meaning-based strategies and resulting in repeated, accurate identification of words in context, in effect becomes the vehicle by which words are moved into the individual’s sight vocabulary. Increasing the students’ sight vocabulary is critical, because in order to understand what they read, children need to be able to identify most of the words they encounter with automaticity (LaBerge & Samuels, 1974); it is the effortless identification of most words, which, in turn, frees up the cognitive resources needed for comprehension (Vellutino & Scanlon, 2002). Since most new words are learned by virtue of encountering them in print, rather than being explicitly taught, the ISA focuses its efforts on helping the reader to develop word identification strategies which can be used for figuring out unfamiliar words encountered in text. When a child encounters an unfamiliar word in the context of a sentence, he has options available to him which go beyond the exclusive use of phonological recoding. He can deliberately exploit the meaning-based cues available from the context in the form of thematic structures or pictorial supports, using these cues to generate expectations as to likely words that will appear in the text. These expectations, in turn, help the child to determine whether or not his decoding of the word results in a plausible word, given the context. Also, the child can use comprehensionmonitoring strategies to determine when a word has been misidentified. These meaningbased strategies, when used in combination with the child’s knowledge of code-based strategies, can be employed in a recursive manner to assist the child in approximating the
58
unfamiliar word and, eventually, arriving at the exact, correct response. According to Vellutino and Scanlon (2002), …the child who is learning to use both alphabetically-based and context-based strategies for decoding unfamiliar words has a much better chance of acquiring an adequate sight vocabulary and becoming a functional reader than the child whose approach to word identification is limited to the use of one or the other of these types of strategies (p. 588). While other approaches to early reading development, such as Reading Recovery®, also encourage the child to use multiple sources of information available in the text, the ISA distinguishes itself from others in at least four ways. First, a limited set of specific strategies are taught, with the goal that these strategies will be internalized by the child and employed across words. Second, the strategies that are taught draw from both code- and meaning-based approaches, with children taught to use the two types of strategies in an interactive and mutually supportive way. Third, through a gradual release of responsibility, the children are explicitly instructed and guided toward independence in using the strategies. Fourth, instruction in strategic word identification is situated within a framework of instruction that offers sequential, systematic, and explicit instruction in phonemic awareness and alphabet knowledge, as well as instruction designed to enhance vocabulary and comprehension. The focus on sequential, systematic, and explicit instruction pertaining to the alphabetic code is perhaps one of the ways in which ISA differs most from Reading Recovery®. The ISA teaches the use of four code-based strategies: •
Think of the sounds in the word
59
•
Look for word families or little words you know
•
Try out different pronunciations for some of the letters, especially the vowel(s)
•
Break the word into smaller parts (Scanlon & Sweeney, 2003; Scanlon et al., 2007)
The groundwork for being able to utilize these strategies successfully is laid via explicit and systematic instruction in how the alphabetic code works. Instruction is based on the assumption that, in order to become proficient in using code-based strategies, developing readers must: •
Be sensitive to the individual sounds in spoken words (Phonemic Awareness)
•
Know the names of the letters of the alphabet and their most common sounds.
•
Understand that the letters in printed words represent the sounds in spoken words.
•
Understand how to use the letters in printed words to at least approximate the pronunciation of an unfamiliar word (Scanlon et al., 2007). Each of these accomplishments is addressed systematically, with specific skills
initially taught in isolation and then incorporated into authentic reading and writing activities. The ISA takes a developmental perspective, acknowledging that the specific strategies children will use, and the manner in which they will use them, will vary dependent upon the child’s previous experiences, his level of phonemic awareness and his current understanding of how the alphabetic system works. Teachers use their knowledge of the student’s demonstrated alphabetic/phonological skills in the context of word work to guide their expectations and support the application of those same skills within the context of reading.
60
For example, the goal of the “Think about the sounds in the word” strategy is that children will look all the way through the word and think about the sounds made by each of the letters or letter combinations. While children are encouraged to use as much of the letter-sound information in the word as soon as possible, teacher support and instruction should change across time. For children who can identify some of the letters and their sounds and notice similarities in the beginning sounds of spoken words, the teacher should instruct and encourage them to look at the beginning letters in words for clues to word identification. As children learn many more letter sound correspondences and notice similarities in the beginning and ending sounds of spoken words, the teacher should begin to focus their attention on both the beginning and ending letters in printed words encountered in context. Eventually, children who are able to decode single-syllable words in isolation should be instructed and encouraged to look all the way through the words encountered in text, thinking about the sounds and combining them to make a word that seems to fit the context (Scanlon et al., 2007). Four meaning-based strategies are also explicitly taught in the ISA: •
Check the pictures.
•
Think of words that might make sense.
•
Read past the puzzling word and then come back to it.
•
Go back to the beginning of the sentence and start again. (Scanlon & Sweeney, 2003; Scanlon et al., 2007) In the early grades, the groundwork for establishing active use of meaning-based
strategies is laid through the interactions teachers have with their students during read aloud and shared reading activities. Children’s ability to utilize these strategies is also
61
facilitated through careful book selection and the introductory activities that the teacher uses prior to reading. In order for children to utilize meaning-based strategies effectively, it is important that they: •
Understand that the purpose of print is to communicate.
•
Actively think about the meaning of the text while reading.
•
Have some familiarity with the topic(s) of the text.
•
Have requisite language ability (vocabulary and syntactic knowledge)
•
Be able to readily identify most of the words in the text (Scanlon et al., 2007) As with the code-based strategies, each of these competencies needs to be
carefully attended to by the teacher, so that the child has a realistic opportunity to successfully apply the strategies being taught. For children who do not successfully apply the strategies, this (and the previous) list of competencies can serve as an assessment tool for the teacher, guiding her to think about the pre-requisite skills and knowledge that might still need to be established. While an important goal of the ISA is for children to be able to use code-based and meaning-based strategies in an interactive and confirmatory way, the strategies are initially taught one at a time, with a sequence of clear explanations, think alouds, guided practice, and gradual release of responsibility followed for each strategy. The use of the strategies is cumulative; as each new strategy is introduced the child is provided with focused practice in its use and in the interactive use of all of the previously introduced strategies. This is not a mastery-oriented approach, however. Children are taught to use new strategies as they move into text for which the strategies are appropriate. Since not every strategy will work every time, it is important for the children to build a repertoire
62
of strategies that they can use with increasing independence and flexibility. As the children become conversant with a number of strategies, they are provided with a printed list of the strategies that have been taught. The strategies on the list are reviewed periodically and the children are encouraged to refer to the list as necessary when they are reading (Scanlon & Sweeney, 2004). The flexible and interactive use of both code-based and meaning-based strategies is explicitly promoted by the teacher via the activities carried out before, during, and after the child reads a new text or rereads a familiar one. While the ISA is not a scripted approach, there are many similarities to be found across instructional settings with teachers who use the ISA. What follows is a description of what strategic word identification instruction, using the ISA, ideally looks like. Before reading, the teacher explicitly teaches a new word identification strategy or reviews previously taught strategies, using the aforementioned sequence for effective strategy instruction. She takes care in her selection of the book(s) to be read and prepares the children to read the text. For the purposes of developing strategic word identification, it is important that the texts be at a manageable, but not easy level. Texts that pose little challenge for the student will not require him to be strategic, while texts that contain too many unfamiliar words or too much content that is unfamiliar will be make it unlikely that the student will be able to simultaneously use the strategies for figuring out words and maintain comprehension as he reads. Knowing her students, the teacher chooses texts that pose a good match to both their developing phonological skills and their repertoire of word identification strategies (Scanlon & Sweeney, 2004; Scanlon et al., 2007).
63
While the children are reading, the teacher is careful to allow them enough time to use their developing knowledge of strategies for figuring out unknown words. She also scaffolds the children’s strategy use, taking care to provide only the support necessary for them to be successful. The type and amount of scaffolding will vary for different students, and for the same student with different words. Teachers who use the ISA are taught a number of prompts that they can use with their students, but must decide on a case-by-case basis which level of prompting will be optimal. The prompts range from more explicit (telling the word, to suggesting specific strategies or combinations of strategies, to encouraging use of the strategy list) to less explicit (asking the children to think about the strategies without referring to the list or waiting patiently while the children problem-solve and then reflecting on their accomplishment). Importantly, neither the prompts nor the strategies are word-specific. That is to say, there are a limited number of both prompts and strategies which are used across words and across the children’s development as a reader. Assuming that the teacher has carefully scaffolded the initial strategy instruction and has selected a text which is appropriate to the children’s skill levels, the strategy list itself becomes a scaffold and allows the children to become more and more independent in their word-solving attempts (Scanlon & Sweeney, 2004; Scanlon et al., 2007). After the children read, the teacher helps them to reflect on strategies that they used effectively and compliments them on their use of strategies. She might question the children about which strategies they think they used well, and offer her insights into strategies that she noticed them using. Having the children articulate what strategies they used is intended to lead to internalization, to the point where the children are using the
64
strategies without even thinking about it. Pointing out to the children explicitly what they have done to be successful and complimenting them on their efforts may make it more likely that they will use the same strategy or combination of strategies in the future. From a motivational standpoint, it is important that the children see their success in figuring out words as a consequence of their own effort in applying the strategies that have been taught, rather than as a fortuitous event over which they had little control. In summary, the approach to word identification instruction put forth in the ISA, like that in Reading Recovery®, is indeed a generative approach. Through the interactive and confirmatory use of both code-based and meaning-based strategies, children can develop a means to successfully identify unfamiliar words encountered in text. According to the theory of word learning on which the ISA is based, use of a strategic approach to word identification should lead to the word being identified with greater ease on each successive occasion, until the point at which the word becomes consolidated in memory and part of the readers’ automatic sight vocabulary. Moreover, by successfully applying the strategies that have been taught, children should learn how to approach other unfamiliar words, which then become easier to identify as well. In short, successful use of a strategic approach to word identification can set in motion the self-teaching mechanism (Share, 1995). Similar to the self-extending system proposed by Clay (1991), children who adopt a strategic approach will learn more about reading each and every time they read. Over time, children will come to employ an automatic approach to identify most of the words they encounter in text. This will free up more cognitive resources for comprehension and enjoyment (Perfetti, 1985), the ultimate purpose of reading.
65
Research on the Interactive Strategies Approach (ISA) Across three consecutive 5-year studies over the past 20 years, the ISA has proven to be a successful means of: 1) reducing the numbers of first grade students experiencing significant reading difficulty through one-on-one intervention (Scanlon et al., 2005, 2008, Vellutino et al., 1996); 2) reducing the numbers of kindergartners at-risk for early reading difficulty through small-group, twice weekly intervention (Scanlon et al., 2005; Scanlon et al., 2008); and 3.) improving early literacy outcomes for kindergartners through professional development with classroom teachers (Scanlon et al., 2008). The first two of these studies employed certified teachers who subsequently received professional development in ISA methods to provide either one-on-one or smallgroup intervention, while the third used a combination of classroom teachers working with their own students and study-trained tutors. Taken together, these studies have contributed to the current knowledge base supporting the use of ISA as a multidimensional approach to early reading instruction in the kindergarten classroom, as a preventative measure used for small-group instruction, and as an intensive, one-on-one intervention. Because all of these studies included professional development for the tutors and/or teachers, they also provide important insights into the kind of professional development that can result in positive achievement outcomes for students and, in the case of the classroom intervention, changes in teacher practices that are consistent with researched practices in early literacy. Because all three studies also included initial training and on-going support in all aspects of the approach, however, no claims can be made as to the relative importance of any one component of ISA.
66
All three longitudinal studies have employed an experimental design, with multiple outcome measures used to assess student gains. In the first study (Vellutino et al., 1996), 76 randomly selected first graders who were identified as “struggling readers” were provided with daily one-to-one intervention, using an early version of the Interactive Strategies Approach. Intervention was provided by tutors associated with the project. All tutors participated in a 5-day workshop prior to beginning their work with students. Throughout the school year, they attended bimonthly group meetings at which they discussed student progress and responded to audiotapes of student lessons. The theoretical underpinnings of the approach, as well as the instructional implications, were reinforced throughout these meetings. Additionally, all tutors were observed on-site by a supervisor as they interacted with their students. These observations served a dual purpose as they provided support to the tutors in their efforts to meet the needs of individual students as well as provided information as to the fidelity of implementation of the approach (Vellutino et al., 1996). In the first longitudinal study (Vellutino et al., 1996) intervention was provided in first grade only and lasted for either one or two semesters, depending upon the progress of the individual students. A typical day’s lesson included the following five components: rereading of familiar texts; instruction to develop phonological skills; reading new texts; practice with high frequency words; and language experience stories and writing. A focus on the development and use of multiple strategies for figuring out words occurred during both the rereading and new reading portions of the lesson (Vellutino & Scanlon, 2002). Results from that study indicated that, of the first graders who participated in daily one-to-one tutoring using the Interactive Strategies Approach, almost 70% were brought
67
to within grade level expectations on the Basic Skills Cluster (BSC) of the Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests – Revised after one semester of remediation. That percentage held constant for the students who received one-to-one instruction two or three times a week from a school-based provider, but slipped to just over 50% for students who were provided that instruction in small groups (Vellutino & Scanlon, 2002). The Vellutino and Scanlon (2002) intervention was not successful for all students, with 15% of the students who received daily one-to-one intervention continuing to score below the 15th percentile after one semester of intervention. This was a considerably better outcome than that for the school based interventions however, with 25% of those students remaining below the 15th percentile on the BSC. These findings supported the idea that differing amounts and intensities of intervention might be appropriate, depending upon the needs of the students, with the most severely impaired readers benefiting most from daily one-to-one instruction. It also substantiated the results of other studies indicating that a substantial number of children continue to experience significant reading difficulties in spite of early and intensive remediation (Vellutino & Scanlon, 2002). This last finding led the researchers to pursue ways of reducing the number of students who continued to lag significantly behind their grade-mates at the end of the study. The second longitudinal study of the ISA, therefore, utilized alternative approaches to intervention in an effort to reduce the number of students who continued to struggle even with daily one-to-one intervention. The alternative approaches included a preventative component in kindergarten and two variations of the first grade intervention. The small-group kindergarten intervention emphasized concepts of print, phonemic
68
awareness, knowledge of letters and their associated sounds, and understanding the alphabetic principle – areas that are typically found to be underdeveloped among children who experience difficulty in the earliest stages of learning to read (Snow et al., 1998). The alternative first grade interventions were comprised of the same lesson components as those used in the initial study, but varied in their instructional emphasis. One alternative emphasized phonological processing skills (PSE) and one emphasized supported reading of connected text (TE) (Scanlon, et al., 2005). Like the previous study (Vellutino et al., 1996), this study employed an experimental design using random assignment of students to interventions (Scanlon et al., 2005). Students’ risk status for early reading difficulties was assessed at the beginning of the kindergarten year, with students who were determined to be at increased risk randomly assigned to either the kindergarten small-group intervention or to the comparison group. All children were re-assessed at the end of kindergarten and again at the beginning of first grade, with those students who continued to be at-risk for reading difficulties randomly assigned to one of three conditions for their first grade year: the PSE condition, the TE condition, or the comparison condition, in which students received whatever remediation their schools typically provided to first grade students. As in the previous study, tutors were provided with a 5-day workshop, with follow-up group and one-on-one meetings throughout the year (Scanlon, et al., 2005). The addition of the 2-day-a-week, small-group kindergarten intervention in this study resulted in two positive outcomes: 1) the number of children who were identified as poor readers upon entrance to first grade was substantially reduced, and 2) for those students who were identified as poor readers entering first grade, substantially fewer
69
could be described as having severe reading difficulties at the end of first grade. Thus, the kindergarten intervention served to reduce both the incidence and severity of reading difficulties for first grade students determined, at kindergarten entrance, to be at risk for early reading difficulties (Scanlon, et al., 2005). Of the students who did receive one-to-one intervention during their first grade year, the two approaches (PSE and TE) appeared to work equally well in reducing the number of students who continued to be at risk following intervention. However, the PSE condition appeared to be the most effective for reducing the number of students who could be described as having severe reading difficulties. Moreover, results of a long-term follow-up with these students suggests that the PSE condition may facilitate comprehension better than the TE condition, even though students in the TE condition spent significantly more time reading connected text (Scanlon et al., 2005). The results of this second study (Scanlon et al., 2005), particularly those pertaining to the kindergarten intervention, prompted the researchers to pursue a third line of study, professional development for classroom teachers (Scanlon et al., 2008). The researchers …reasoned that if such a limited intervention was effective in reducing the incidence of early reading difficulties, it might be equally or perhaps more effective to provide classroom teachers with an understanding of the intervention approach so that the type of instruction involved could be integrated into the classroom language arts curriculum (Scanlon et al., 2008, p. 3). This argument was bolstered by a finding in the initial study (Scanlon & Vellutino, 1996; Scanlon & Vellutino, 1997) that some of the students who were
70
determined to be at risk for early reading difficulties upon school entrance did not evidence difficulties when reassessed a year later. This suggested that classroom instruction in kindergarten was an important determinant of outcomes in reading achievement (Scanlon & Vellutino, 1996) and could, in fact, turn the tide for some students who might otherwise struggle in the early years. In this most recent study (Scanlon et al., 2008), therefore, kindergarten teachers were provided with professional development that paralleled the support provided to the tutors in the previous two studies (and in this one as well). The workshop, in fact, covered the same information pertaining to kindergarten instruction and the teachers were provided with the same handbook that the tutors used (the handbook was somewhat modified to include additional activities that might be more appropriate in a classroom than an intervention setting) (Scanlon et al., 2008). The knowledge teachers need in order to fully understand and respond to their students’ needs was the focal point of the workshop. To assist teachers in operationalizing this knowledge in their classrooms, assessments, teaching techniques, and activities to support student learning were also emphasized (Scanlon et al., 2008). An experimental design was used for this study as well, with each participating school randomly assigned to one of three conditions. Teachers in the first condition, Professional Development Only (PDO), participated in the workshop and on-going professional development aspects of the project. Teachers in the second condition, Intervention Only (IO), did not receive professional development (although the workshop was provided at the end of the study), but their students who were determined to be at risk were provided with the small-group intervention that was developed for the previous
71
study. In the third condition, Professional Development plus Intervention (PD+I), the classrooms teachers participated in the professional development aspects and their students who were at-risk for early reading difficulties were provided with the smallgroup intervention. The study included baseline, implementation, and maintenance years, with classroom observations and student achievement data collected all three years (Scanlon et al., 2008). To provide on-going professional development, an Early Literacy Collaborator (ELC) was assigned to each of the PD and PD+I schools. The ELC observed each of the teachers during language arts instruction five times during the implementation year. Each observation was followed up by a conversation between the teacher and the ELC which focused on the goals of the ISA, their implementation in the classroom, and any particular concerns or issues related to the observation that the teacher wished to discuss. The ELC also facilitated monthly group meetings at each of the schools. These meetings were generally held after school and were used to revisit the various components of the ISA and to reflect on teacher practices. Topics for discussion were generated by the ELC and by the teachers (Scanlon et al., 2008). Taken together, the various components of the professional development provided for the teachers reflected current research on in-service teacher development, offering a combination of approaches that have proven successful. Scanlon et al. (2008), in citing the relevant research, delineate the professional development program as including the following: “1) providing information on the theory underlying the inclusion of particular aspects of instruction at the kindergarten level, 2) providing demonstrations of how to evaluate and respond to children’s skills and apparent sources of confusion, 3) providing
72
opportunities to practice analyzing student performance and planning and delivering responsive instruction, 4) giving constructive feedback on the quality of practice, and 5) on-going coaching in the generalization setting (Scanlon et al., 2008). When student achievement data collected during the baseline and maintenance years was compared, findings revealed that all three conditions were effective in substantially reducing the incidence of early reading difficulties (Scanlon et al., 2008). In a trend similar to that seen in the previous study (Scanlon et al., 2005), the number of children considered to be at-risk for early reading difficulties was substantially reduced from the beginning to the end of the kindergarten year, and the achievement outcomes for those students still considered to be at risk were substantially increased. As mentioned, however, the design of these studies does not allow for analyses of the relative influence of any individual component of the ISA. While an emphasis is placed on the development of a strategic approach to word identification, this is within the context of sequential, systematic and explicit instruction in phonemic awareness and alphabet knowledge and is complemented by a focus on the development of vocabulary and comprehension. One might reasonably ask, then, whether or not the specific approach to word identification taken in the ISA plays a determining role in student achievement outcomes or is simply one of many factors that, taken together, contribute to overall student gains. One might also ask what role professional development for teachers might play in the eventual attainment of a strategic approach to word identification, particularly for those students experiencing early reading difficulties. In the next section, the role of professional development and its relationship to student outcomes will be further explored.
73
Professional Development Models and Practices In her discussion of coaching beginning students’ word identification attempts, Clark (2004) notes that all of the teachers in her study learned to coach students through professional development experiences after they became teachers, as opposed to during their pre-service education, and she asserts that this is the rule rather than the exception. Assuming that her description of pre-service coursework is accurate, it might in fact be the case that professional development, or inservice education, is the primary vehicle by which many teachers come to learn about and begin to acquire proficiency in the kinds of word identification instruction that have been described. This has been the case with the Interactive Strategies Approach as well, as it has only been studied thus far with already certified teachers. What this professional development might look like, and how it can be improved upon, will be the focus of this section of the paper. According to the Report of the National Reading Panel (NICHD, 2000), it is necessary to have both teacher and student outcome measures to determine if a teacher education initiative is effective. To be deemed effective, “…teachers must adopt new ways of teaching and students must show appropriate improvement if the results are to be attributed to the new ways of educating teachers” (p. 5-7). In their review of the literature however, the NRP was able to find only 11 studies of in-service education which met this criterion. Despite the lack of research to justify it, professional development for teachers abounds, with opportunities to be found in course offerings developed in-house by school district personnel or in packaged programs available through a wide variety of sources. A quick check of the websites for four popular publishers of teachers’ materials, Heinemann, Stenhouse, Scholastic, and Scott-Foresman, reveals that all four have
74
extensive professional development offerings for teachers; “Googling” the term ‘professional development programs for teachers’ results in over 17 million hits in less than .25 seconds. Despite the weak research base, professional development for teachers is nonetheless desirable, and it can be done well. According to Hughes, Cash, Klingner, and Ahwee (2001), the need for professional development is clear, since it would be unlikely that teachers could acquire all of the skills and competencies they will need throughout their careers through their teacher preparation programs. Others are in agreement that, “…even with the most rigorous and comprehensive teacher preparation program, there is a need for ongoing professional development that enables teachers to build on what they know” (Bean & Morewood, 2007, p. 374). It is necessary for teachers to be life-long learners, and school districts have responded to this need by providing professional development programs for their teachers. Professional development which is of high quality can result in higher reading achievement (Anders, Hoffman, & Duffy, 2000), with teachers who participate in high quality training experiences more likely to use proven instructional practices than those who do not (Darling-Hammond, 2000). Few teachers, however, have the opportunity to participate in the kinds of professional development programs that result in positive and long-term changes in their reading instruction, with commensurate changes in student achievement (Hughes, et al., 2000). Despite what we have learned about “what works,” one-shot workshops that are isolated from the teachers’ everyday work with their colleagues, lack substantive, research-based content, and fail to provide for sustainability continue to predominate (Darling-Hammond, 1996; Hughes et al., 2000; Snow, Griffin & Burns, 1998).
75
In a national survey of district reading directors, Hughes et al. (2000) investigated the content, structure, and context of district-level professional development opportunities provided for teachers, as well as how the districts addressed issues of accountability. Accountability was looked at, in part, because of the amount of money that districts devote to professional development. These expenditures vary from one district to another, but include costs that go well beyond the fee which might be paid to the individual(s) providing the training. Ancillary costs include such things as paying for substitutes to cover teachers’ classes, and stipends or increases in salaries that teachers accrue as a result of their continued education. Most states and districts do not have a definitive accounting of the total cost of professional development, nor do they know whether or not their teachers and their students are benefiting (Hughes et al., 2000). Findings of the Hughes et al. (2000) survey revealed that school districts’ philosophies about reading instruction played an important role in determining the kind of professional development that was made available to their staff. Directors also noted the importance they placed on professional development being research-based. The most common topics presented focused on packaged programs such as Success for All, with specific reading practices such as Making Words (Cunningham & Cunningham, 1992) or Collaborative Strategic Reading (Klingner & Vaughn, 1996) being the second-most common. One-day or half-day workshops accounted for the majority of professional development formats; …the most common resources provided to teachers during the workshops were handouts about the presentation (64%) and supplemental materials (51%) such as charts and activities related to the topic. After attending the professional
76
development teachers were provided with minimal support in most cases” (Hughes et al., 2000, p. 281). It should be noted, however, that multi-day workshops with follow-up support were also used, with about a quarter of the districts indicating that they offered lengthier and more individualized professional development programs (Hughes, et al., 2000). With respect to accountability, only 50% of the districts indicated that they had any procedures in place for determining whether or not practices introduced through professional development were actually implemented or sustained. “Districts reported that they perceived that the majority of teachers implemented some aspect of the information they were presented with, but were unable to provide solid evidence beyond self-report” (Hughes et al., 2000, p. 284). This is not entirely inconsistent with the importance the directors placed on providing research-based professional development, and perhaps reflects the perception that if it is research-based, it must be effective. It is consistent with Killion’s (1998) finding that, for the most part, professional development programs focus on teachers’ satisfaction with the program or on attitudinal changes rather than on actual changes in teacher practices or student performance. In her report on 450 staff development efforts reviewed by the Middle Grades Initiative program, fewer than 10% of the inservice programs offered any evidence at all that their program influenced student achievement. Killion (1998) concedes that “…it is exceedingly difficult to carry out a research study that convincingly links staff development and student achievement (p. 12), and refers to this elusive goal as “the summit of the staff development mountain” (p. 12). Notwithstanding its elusiveness, Killion calls for greater efforts in achieving this goal, stating that evidence of
77
effectiveness “…is critical to establishing the value of staff development programs and the importance of supporting them” (p. 12). Anders, Hoffman, and Duffy (2000) echo this call, placing the burden of proof, at least in part, on the shoulders of those earning a living by providing professional development to teachers. “There is a mismatch between the amount of effort invested in inservice education and the amount of research being reported. Where is the research of those consultants who do this work as a full-time job?” (p. 732). Despite the relative sparseness of research on professional development and the teaching of reading, common elements of successful programs can be ascertained. Anders, Hoffman, and Duffy (2000) offer the following characteristics of quality professional development for inservice teachers: •
Intensive levels of support in the context of practice
•
Opportunities and tools for teachers to use in reflecting upon their changing practices
•
Conversation and discussion
•
Voluntary participation/choice
•
Collaboration between different role groups
An empirical comparison of the relative effectiveness of different professional development characteristics on teachers’ learning, based on a national survey of teachers who had participated in either “traditional” or “reform” types of professional development (Garet, Porter, Desmoine, Birman, and Yoon, 2001), suggests three core features to be considered. These features: focus on content knowledge; opportunities for active learning; and coherence with other learning activities are positively related to
78
increases in knowledge and skills as well as changes in teacher practices, as self-reported by teachers. Garet et al. (2001) define “traditional” professional development experiences as those experiences such as workshops, institutes, courses, and conferences which “…take place outside of the teacher’s school or classroom; and they involve a leader or leaders with special expertise and participants who attend at scheduled times” (p. 920). The workshop is cited as both the most common and the most maligned form of professional development for teachers. “Reform” types of professional development, which have arisen, at least in part, in response to the criticisms of “traditional” types, differ from the latter in several respects. Most notably, “reform” types of professional development often take place as part of the regular school day, sometimes even occurring within the participating teacher’s classroom during times of instruction. Because of their incorporation into the teacher’s regular workday, “reform” type activities are thought to hold more potential for connecting with what the teacher is already doing in the classroom and for being sustained across time. Examples of “reform” types of professional development are mentoring, coaching, local study groups, and schooluniversity partnerships. Garet et al. (2001) categorized the professional development experiences teachers reported as being either “traditional” or “reform” types; additionally, they categorized them by duration and by whether or not they were designed for collective participation. That is to say, they looked at whether or not teachers participated in these experiences as part of a group of teachers with whom they had regular contact at their jobs. Professional development which is designed for groups of teachers who work together has the potential advantages of fostering discussion about what is learned through professional
79
development and problem-solving amongst peers; integration of what is learned into new instructional contexts; and sustainability of the initiative or new learning through a shared culture in which “… teachers in a school or teachers who teach the same grade or subject develop a common understanding of instructional goals, methods, problems, and solutions” (Garet et al., 2001, p. 922). Type of activity, duration, and collective participation were used to categorize the structural features of the professional development experiences. Each experience was then further categorized according to the core features of: focusing on content; promoting active learning; and fostering coherence. According to Garet et al. (2001) there is an emerging consensus that professional development experiences that focus on content knowledge and on how children learn it may be particularly important in changing teacher practices. Kennedy (1998), for example, in studying professional development for teachers of math and science, found that professional development that focused on specific subject knowledge and how children acquire it had stronger positive effects on student achievement than did professional development that focused on more general pedagogy. Opportunities for teachers to become actively engaged in discussion, planning, and practice during professional development are also thought to make a difference. Teachers can be actively engaged by observing and being observed; planning classroom implementation; reviewing student work; and presenting, leading and writing (Garet, et al., 2001). The third core feature of professional development, fostering coherence, was focused on because of the frequent criticism that professional development activities for teachers are often disconnected from one another and do not contribute in a cohesive way to the teachers’ overall learning
80
and development. Garet et al. (2001), therefore, looked at the ways in which professional development opportunities for teachers connected with goals and other activities; aligned with state and district local standards; and contributed to communication with others. The results of the Garet et al. (2001) study give empirical support to much of what has been proposed as “best practices” for professional development. For instance, sustained and intensive experiences are likely to have a greater impact than are experiences of shorter duration. Their results also indicate that, “…professional development that focuses on academic subject matter (content), gives teachers opportunities for “hands-on” work (active learning), and is integrated in to the daily life of the school (coherence), is more likely to enhance knowledge and skills” (p. 935). Their results also expand upon the literature in important ways. For example, the type of professional development, “traditional” or “reform,” appears to be not as important as previously thought. What is more important is the duration of the experience, the collective participation of teachers, and the core features of content, active learning, and coherence. While these results are based on teacher reports related to their professional development experiences, the authors point out that respondents were asked to describe changes in their teaching practices as a result of the professional development, rather than to judge the quality of the professional development. Furthermore, they defend the use of self-reports in this context because, they contend, even if self-reports tend to be positively biased, that bias would extend to all of the professional development experiences, not only those that exemplified current thinking regarding best practices. Garet et al. (2001) place particular emphasis on the finding of the importance of professional development that focuses on content, since much of what has been written
81
about professional development has focused on the process and the delivery system. According to Bean and Morewood (2007), “…professional development must be built on a well-conceptualized in-depth framework of just what teachers need to know about what they are required to teach and how students learn this content” (p. 378). This is consistent with Kennedy’s (1998) review of professional development which found that the most important differences between programs were in the content that was provided to the teachers, rather than in the structures of the programs. …programs whose content focused mainly on teachers’ behaviors demonstrated smaller influences on student learning than did programs whose content focused on teachers’ knowledge of the subject, on the curriculum, or on how students learn the subject. Moreover, the knowledge that these more successful programs provided tended not to be purely about the subject matter …but instead were about how students learn that subject matter. …By focusing on how students learn subject matter, inservice programs help teachers learn both what students should be learning and how to recognize signs of learning and signs of confusion. So teachers leave these programs with very specific ideas about what the subject matter they will teach consists of, what students should be learning about that subject matter, and how to tell whether students are learning or not. This content makes the greatest difference in student learning (p. 17). Effective professional development must go beyond content, however, and also include components designed to promote transfer and sustainability. According to Joyce and Showers (as cited in Bean & Morewood, 2007), professional development should include demonstration, practice, and coaching. Demonstrations may be videos or live,
82
and allow the teachers to see the new strategies they are learning implemented appropriately. Practice sessions provide opportunities for the teachers to try out their newly-learned skills and receive feedback as to their implementation, and coaching moves the new practices into the teachers’ own classrooms. Joyce and Showers (1996) emphasize the importance of teachers working collaboratively toward a common goal, and promote the use of peer coaching, whereby teachers participating in a professional development undertaking serve as coaches for one another. In a departure from the traditional coaching model, however, Joyce and Showers (1996) describe classroom observation arrangements in which the teacher teaching is the coach, and the teacher observing is the coached. Rather than providing feedback to her colleague, the teacher who is observing gets the opportunity to see the new techniques they are using in practice. Peer coaching teams, in this way, offer support for one another as they implement new strategies in their classrooms. A review of the literature on professional development related to early reading achievement reveals several studies which involved professional development for inservice teachers, included both teacher and student outcomes as dependent measures, and were largely consistent with the emerging consensus on “best practices.” Because of the complexity of these studies and the importance of understanding how the various components of professional development were carried out, they will be reviewed in some detail here. Bos and her colleagues (Bos, Mather, Narr & Babur, 1999) undertook a professional development project, project RIME (Reading Instructional Methods of Efficacy), designed to support classroom and special education teachers at the early
83
elementary level in the integration of explicit instruction for children at risk for reading difficulties. Project RIME was comprised of two parts: an interactive course which was taught over the summer and a school collaboration component which was carried out across the subsequent school year. The study compared the attitudes, knowledge, and practices of teachers who participated in the project with those of similar teachers who did not; it also looked at student achievement outcomes for both sets of teachers. The content focus was on “… explicit techniques and instructional strategies for teaching phonological awareness, word recognition, spelling skills, and fluency to children at risk for reading failure” (Bos et al., 2000, p. 228). Thirty-one teachers and related professionals participated voluntarily in the project. The comparison group was comprised of 17 teachers from two schools that were similar to the schools participating in the professional development. The interactive course component of Project RIME took place over a 2 ½ week period in June, with each session lasting 3 ½ hours. The sessions featured videos of teachers implementing the various strategies that were being introduced and students engaged in reading and writing. The videos functioned as demonstration lessons and gave the participants the opportunity to view and analyze the use of the new strategies in action (Bos et al., 2000). Teachers also learned how to administer assessments associated with the various components of the project and, throughout the course, were encouraged to reflect on their own practices and consider how their new learning could be integrated into their current early literacy programs. They left the course with supporting materials including the outline for the course, pertinent readings, handouts, instructional activities, assessment
84
information, a copy of Making Words (Cunningham & Hall, 1994), and a set of magnetic letters (Bos et al., 2000). The school collaboration component of the project consisted of monthly in-class support for each of the participants and monthly professional study and support meetings in each of the participating schools. The in-class support time was always followed up with a meeting to discuss classroom instruction and to plan for future lessons. The monthly meetings were used to share new information, present student case studies, follow-up on previous case studies, and plan for future meetings. Support in both contexts was collaborative in nature, with an emphasis on professional dialogue and the sharing of ideas (Bos et al., 2000). Both quantitative and qualitative measures were used to evaluate the impact of the professional development on the attitudes, knowledge, and practices of the teachers. The Teacher Attitudes of Early Reading and Spelling (Bos 1998) was used to measure the attitudes of teachers toward statements representing either more explicit, structured instructional approaches or more implicit, whole language approaches. A 24-item multiple choice assessment, Structure of Language, was used to assess the teachers’ knowledge of the structure of the English language. A rating of the various aspects of the professional development was obtained from the teachers using a 5-point Likert scale. In addition to these measures, teachers kept reflective journals; collaborators used an observation form to document classroom visits; and follow-up interviews were conducted with selected teachers. Student measures included an informal test of letter-sound knowledge and adaptations of the Spelling, Spelling of Sounds, and Reading Fluency
85
tests from the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement III. The latter three measures were adapted from an individual to a group administration format (Bos et al., 2000). Overall findings of the study revealed that the teachers viewed the professional development as valuable and that they became more positive in their attitudes and more knowledgeable about explicit, structured language instruction and more skilled in integrating that knowledge into their existing classroom programs. Findings for the students revealed that, when compared to the students of teachers in the comparison group, students at all grade levels (K-2) made important gains. Kindergartners made gains in sound identification and in the spelling of real and nonsense words; first graders made gains in spelling real and nonsense words; and second graders made gains across measures of reading and spelling. The authors attributed the success of the project to the orchestration of theory and research with practice and decision-making in the direct teaching of children (Bos et al., 2000). Because the study focused on several aspects of early literacy instruction simultaneously, it is not possible to determine which, if any, individual aspects played a more significant role in the favorable outcomes. Moreover, because the comparison group was essentially a no treatment group, it is also not possible to rule out Hawthorne Effects as contributing, at least in part, to the outcomes. Van Keer and Verhaeghe (2005) took a different approach to the professional development question. This study, based on research-based components of reading instruction and designed to improve the reading comprehension, reading fluency, reading strategy use, and self-efficacy of second- and fifth-grade students, compared two different professional development models. One model provided year-round intensive coaching of teachers, while the other provided a more restricted in-service course. The
86
authors had previously completed research that validated the intensive coaching model, but considered the extent of support provided to the teachers to be a limitation of the study, since it was unlikely that it could be easily and affordably replicated. The approach toward reading comprehension instruction was identical across the two conditions and included a focus on explicit instruction in reading strategies, preparation of student tutors, and weekly peer tutoring sessions (Van Keer & Verhaeghe, 2005). Participants were drawn from a pool of approximately 100 teachers who volunteered for the study on the basis of a recruitment article published in two widespread journals. Volunteers filled out a questionnaire, with selections made on the basis of such factors as teaching orientation, instructional techniques, experience with cooperative learning, gender, mother tongue, and geographic location. Thirty teachers, 14 second-grade and 16-fifth grade, were ultimately selected for participation. Teachers were matched on a variety of factors and then randomly assigned to either the intensive or restricted condition. All students of the participating teachers were also involved in the study (Van Keer & Verhaeghe, 2005). Teachers in the intensive year-round coaching condition were provided with an extensive manual and materials for implementing the innovations. They began their school year with a 3-hour introductory session which featured a video of the peer tutoring to contextualize the new approach. This introductory meeting was followed up by six additional meetings during which supplementary materials were provided, explicit reading strategies instruction was discussed, and videos were viewed. Selected portions of the videos were focused on more extensively, in an effort to stimulate discussion about the teachers’ role in planning for and supporting the peer tutors. Additionally, in-class
87
observations were conducted on a monthly basis during the time when peer tutoring was occurring. These observations were followed by a discussion between the teacher and the observer regarding the implementation of the procedures. Total time for coaching throughout the year was approximately 35 hours (Van Keer & Verhaeghe, 2005). Teachers in the restricted course received the same manual and supplementary student materials. They participated in three 3-hour meetings designed to introduce the approach and provide demonstrations of the strategies to be implemented. As in the intensive condition, the meetings utilized video cases to stimulate discussion and to encourage the teachers to practice coaching the peer tutors. Two 2-hour sessions of inclass observation and follow-up discussion completed the restricted course. Total time for the year was approximately 13.5 hours (Van Keer & Verhaeghe, 2005). Both teachers’ experiences and student outcomes were assessed. The experiences of the teachers were assessed via a 45 item questionnaire with a Likert-type format. Teachers in both conditions were asked to rate their satisfaction with the course, the manual, and the student materials; their perception of the workload they incurred as a result of implementing the recommended strategies; and their appraisal of their students’ progress. Measurement of student outcomes included widely used and valid Dutch tests of reading comprehension and reading fluency; a questionnaire on the use of reading comprehension strategies, and a questionnaire on self-efficacy perceptions and causal attributions. Teachers completed the questionnaire at the end of the study; student measures were completed at the beginning and end of the study and six months after the completion of the study (Van Keer & Verhaeghe, 2005).
88
Results from the teachers’ questionnaires revealed that teachers in both conditions, and in both second and fifth grade, felt positively about the professional development experience, the manual, the student materials, and student achievement. Importantly, however, teachers in the restricted in-service development course reported needing to devote more time to planning for and implementing the innovation in their classrooms. While teachers in the intensive condition actually spent more time engaging in professional development activities, they did not perceive this extra time as adding to their workload. The teachers in the restricted condition, on the other hand, who had to devote more of their own time (outside of the professional development) in order to successfully make changes in their classrooms, saw this as an increase in their workload. No differences were found in reading achievement, use of reading strategies, or selfperception toward reading between students of teachers in the two conditions, with each condition being equally effective in changing student outcomes (Van Keer & Verhaeghe, 2005). Van Keer and Verhaeghe (2005) attributed the success of both models to the collaborative approach of the professional development and the active participation of the teachers, and they contrasted this to the more traditional model of professional development which is separated from the teachers’ daily practice and in which teachers assume a passive role. They identified a combination of characteristics that are likely to lead to post-course implementation, including: …focused presentation of information about the background of the innovative instructional approach, the identification and discussion of the intended instructional practice, the feasible and elaborated manual with lesson
89
scenarios and all necessary teacher and student materials, the demonstration of relevant instructional behaviors to be implemented by means of accurately selected video fragments, the structured opportunities for reflection, and followup sessions with in-class supervised practice, on-site consultation, and performance feedback to the teachers” (Van Keer & Verhaeghe, 2005, p. 559). All of these characteristics were present in both the intensive and the restricted models; therefore, it was not possible to determine which aspects of the professional development, if any, were more influential than others in accounting for the outcomes. In fact, it is important to note, given the lack of difference between the treatment groups and the absence of a control group, it is not possible to confidently attribute the outcomes to the professional development in any way. Baker and Smith (1999) used four principles of professional development as the basis for their work in improving literacy instruction in two kindergarten programs. In this study, the focus of the professional development was on two specific aspects of the kindergarten curriculum – phonemic awareness and alphabetic understanding. Their professional development model was built on the work of Gersten and his colleagues (Gersten & Brengelman, 1996; Marks & Gersten, 1998) and included the following four characteristics: 1) a focus on providing goals which are concrete, realistic, and challenging; 2) inclusion of both conceptual and technical aspects of instruction; 3) encouragement of collegial relationships and provision of a support network for maintaining change; and 4) frequent opportunities to engage in the new practice and observe the effects on student learning (Baker & Smith, 1999).
90
The study took place in two elementary schools over a three year (baseline, implementation, and sustainability) period. The focus of the professional development in both schools was on the development of more extensive and carefully designed instructional activities in phonemic awareness and alphabetic understanding, but the approach to implementation was different for each school. One school chose to implement the changes in the kindergarten classroom, while the other chose to develop a K Plus program to provide an extra hour of daily instruction for those students determined to be at risk of early reading difficulties. School personnel who were associated with the kindergarten programs at each school participated in the professional development (Baker & Smith, 1999). Baker and Smith (1999) do not specifically state how much time was devoted to professional development in the two schools or how that time was spent. For the whole class intervention, they indicate that there were both small and large group project meetings, with the major focus of the professional development on research-based instructional practices designed to promote phonemic awareness and alphabetic understanding. In addition to presenting conceptual information in the two domains, teaching activities were also introduced; in some cases, the teachers used commercially available materials. Professional articles were shared and discussed at meetings. They indicate that monthly meetings were held across both the implementation and sustainability years, for the purposes of planning, evaluating, and refining the intervention (Baker & Smith, 1999). The professional development for the K Plus was somewhat better described, and appears to have been more extensive during the implementation year but less extensive
91
during the sustainability year. At the K Plus school, the researchers held several planning meetings early in the Fall, to establish a conceptual understanding of the important domains to be addressed and to work out the specifics of the program. The researchers focused on helping the teachers to set up a phonemic awareness group and training the teachers to implement instructional procedures and shared research-based, commercially produced materials that could be used for instruction. The teachers selected Sound Foundations (Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley, 1993) as the basis for this part of the K Plus program; the researchers took much of the initial responsibility in preparing the lessons. As with the whole classroom intervention, it is not clear just how much time was devoted to supporting the teachers, although it is noted that the program was regularly observed and that weekly planning meetings were held during the implementation year, with the amount of support considerably reduced during the sustainability year (Baker & Smith, 1999). Several measures of phonemic awareness, alphabetic understanding, and concepts of print were used to assess student response to the interventions, with the findings indicating that the professional development activities resulted in positive changes for students in both the whole classroom and K Plus programs. Teacher measures used to assess the impact of the professional development included formal and informal interviews, fieldnotes from classroom observations and short descriptions of the activities used by teachers, and a rating scale designed to assess teacher satisfaction with various aspects of the program. The authors do not specifically address the findings from these data sources, but use the data to describe how each of the four principles of professional development was successfully operationalized (Baker & Smith, 1999).
92
The professional development focused on realistic expectations, and Baker and Smith (1999) note that they seemed to have struck a good balance between challenge and feasibility. Over time, the practice of “field testing” new ideas in the classroom became commonplace, followed by productive conversations as to what did and did not work. A focus on both conceptual and procedural components led to a deeper understanding of phonemic awareness and alphabetic knowledge instruction, which was demonstrated by the teachers during interviews about their teaching and during observations of their work with students in their classrooms. The establishment of collegiality and support was credited with the sustaining of effective changes. Importantly, the authors note how efforts to promote collegiality and support within a school can lead to the emergence of leaders who will see to it that innovative ideas are maintained beyond the time frame of the research project. They point to the kindergarten teacher as one who assumed responsibility in the whole classroom intervention, and note that the changes in staff in the K Plus program across the two years might jeopardize sustainability over the long term. Finally, the authors address how identifying specific goals of the program (phonemic segmentation skill and fluent knowledge of letter sounds by the end of kindergarten) and measurement of progress toward those goals helped the teachers to see the impact of changes in their teaching, thus validating their efforts. On the basis of these indicators, the authors conclude that both forms of the professional development resulted in positive changes for the kindergarten programs (Baker & Smith, 1999). Like Van Keer and Verhaeghe (2005), however, they express a concern regarding the replicability of their approach. Baker and Smith (1999) cited the intensity of the work between
93
themselves and the teachers, and the efforts the researchers made to meet the specific needs in the two schools as two reasons why bringing the project to scale might be unrealistic. In another study, McCutchen et al. (2002) worked with kindergarten and first grade teachers to develop their knowledge of learning disabilities and explicit instruction, focusing primarily on phonological and orthographic awareness. They addressed three questions in their study: 1) Could they deepen the teachers’ knowledge of phonology and orthography through intensive professional development? 2) Would the teachers then change their instructional practices with their students? and 3) Would the students of these teachers demonstrate more rapid development of skills than their counterparts in comparison group classrooms? (McCutchen et al., 2000). As had been recommended in the report of the National Reading Panel (2000), this study included both teacher and student outcomes to measure the effectiveness of professional development. It is also important to note that, although the focus of the professional development was on phonological and orthographic awareness, this instruction was incorporated into the context of a balanced literacy approach and also included an emphasis on reading comprehension and the reading-writing connection (McCutchen et al., 2000). The participants in this study were 43 teachers who were assigned to either the experimental or the comparison condition on the basis of several factors. First, schools were matched on the basis of SES; one school from each pair was then assigned to each of the two conditions. Rather than a completely random assignment, however, schools from which there was more than one participant were given preference for the experimental condition. Moreover, teachers within one school were never assigned to the
94
two different conditions. The authors reasoned that the interventions that were being introduced were more likely to be sustained if teachers in the same building were able to work with a colleague throughout the year (McCutchen et al., 2000). The intervention for teachers in this study was a combination of a 2-week instructional institute over the summer, three follow-up sessions during the school year, and classroom visitations. Teachers in the experimental group attended the institute at the beginning of the study, while teachers in the comparison group were wait-listed and were invited to attend the following summer. Members of the research team visited all classrooms throughout the year to share students’ assessment information with their teachers. When visiting the classrooms of the experimental group teachers, researchers also consulted about the implementation of strategies discussed during the institute and the follow-up sessions. All teachers received a stipend for their participation in the project (McCutchen et al., 2000). Both teacher and student measures were used in this study. Extensive evidence pertaining to the teachers’ beliefs about effective teaching practices was collected, along with a measure of their knowledge of the structure of language (Moats, 1994). The Cultural Literacy Test (Riverside Publishing, 1989) was also administered, as a measure of more general knowledge. Teachers were also observed in their classrooms throughout the year, with extensive field notes taken and coded. A broad range of assessments was used with the kindergarten and first grade students throughout the year. These assessments were used to measure progress in phonological awareness (K,1), orthographic fluency (K,1), listening comprehension (K), word reading (K), reading comprehension (1), reading vocabulary (1), spelling (1), and composition fluency (1).
95
Kindergartners were assessed four times during the year; first graders were assessed three times (McCutchen et al., 2000). Findings from the study suggest that well-planned, extensive and intensive professional development for teachers can lead to a deepening of teacher knowledge, related changes in teacher practices, and improvements in student achievement. McCutchen et al. (2000), in commenting on their approach to professional development, contrast it to the one-day workshop that so rarely results in lasting change for teachers. While acknowledging the extensiveness of their intervention, they suggest that it is a feasible means of professional development for schools to implement. They are also careful to point out that it is the changes in teacher knowledge that were responsible for the changes in the classroom and, concomitantly, in student achievement. They did not provide teachers with a packaged program that they could go back into their classrooms and follow. Rather, they provided them with the understanding of what it is that children need to learn in order to be successful readers and writers, and then helped them to incorporate that knowledge into their existing literacy practices (Baker & Smith, 1999). The parallels between the four studies detailed in this section (Baker & Smith, 1999; Bos, et al., 2000; McCutchen et al., 2000; Van Keer & Verhaeghe, 2005) and the Scanlon et al. (2008) study are many. All studies used extensive professional development to broaden the knowledge base of teachers, with that professional development including an extended workshop-type component and follow-up observations, teacher feedback and collaboration, and group meetings. All used measures of teacher knowledge and/or practice, and related findings from those measures to student outcomes across a variety of reading and reading-related measures, such that changes in
96
student outcomes could begin to be linked to changes in teacher knowledge and/or teacher practice. The five elements of professional development highlighted in the Scanlon et al. (2008) study – theory, demonstration, practice, feedback, and coaching were present in all of the studies as well. At least two of the studies (Bos, et al., 2000 and Van Keer & Verhaeghe, 2005), in addition to Scanlon et al. (2008) used video demonstrations as a way of sharing information with teachers about specific instructional techniques. And at least two (Baker & Smith, 1999; McCutchen et al., 2002), in addition to Scanlon et al. (2008), took the notion of collegiality and its impact on the sustainability of change into their planning for the professional development. In Scanlon et al. (2008), Early Literacy Collaborators, who were part of the research team, facilitated monthly grade-level meetings with participating classroom teachers in their schools. Importantly, the need for extended professional development for teachers was consistently highlighted across studies, with a focus on the conceptual underpinnings of research-based instruction as well as the procedural aspects. It is important to note here that, for all of these studies, the researchers themselves were conducting the professional development. While the availability of such expertise may prove valuable to teachers, the question arises as to whether the use of professional development providers who are not as familiar with the content would lead to similar outcomes (Baker & Smith, 1999; Putnam & Borko, 2007; Van Keer & Verhaeghe, 2005). If the results are only obtained when those who have developed the professional development program are personally involved in working with the teachers, it becomes questionable as to whether or not the intervention can be brought to scale. When
97
“outside” coaches are trained and utilized, issues related to the expertise of the coaches and fidelity of implementation can complicate interpretations of the findings (Garet et al., 2008; RAND, 2008). For example, Garet et al. (2008), in a study which found a workshop plus coaching approach to professional development to be no more effective than the workshop approach alone on impacting teachers’ instructional practices in reading, the coaches’ knowledge of reading content and pedagogy was considered to be a possible reason for the lack of effect. When administered the same measure of content knowledge administered to the teachers participating in the study, 17 coaches specifically trained for the study scored significantly lower than the experienced professional development providers who had trained them, but significantly higher than a group of control group teachers, when scores on the overall reading scale were analyzed. An examination of the distribution of scores, however, revealed that five of the 17 coaches had lower scores on the knowledge and pedagogy measure than the control group of teachers. When scores on the word-level scale of the reading measure were considered, coaches’ scores, again, were significantly lower than those of the experienced professional development providers, and were not significantly different from the means of the control group teachers. Theory of Action for the Professional Development in this Study The combination of the one-day workshop and the monthly EEMs used for this study is in keeping with the conceptualization put forth by Wei, Darling-Hammond, Andree, Richardson & Orphanos (2009), who describe professional learning as “…a product of both externally-provided and job-embedded activities that increase teachers’
98
knowledge and change their instructional practice in ways that support student learning” (p. 1). The development of the interventions was guided by a theoretical model of professional development consistent with the work of Garet et al. (2008). Specifically, the professional development was conceptualized around three structural features – form, duration, and collective participation – and three core features – content focus, active learning, and coherence - that have been associated with promising professional development efforts. Structural Features The form of the one-day workshop included both the provision of specific information and opportunities for the teachers to apply that information by analyzing student performance via the use of video clips and student work samples. The form of the EEMs, likewise, included specific content-based information for the teachers to read. This information was supported, again, by video clips and/or work samples, with specific suggestions as to how teachers could “try out” what they were learning in their own classrooms. Both the applied workshop activities and the “Try It Out” activities included in the EEMs were designed to build connections between the content of the professional development and the teachers’ own classroom instruction. The duration of the professional development was extended beyond the one-day workshop through the use of the three monthly EEMs. The one-day workshop, held in January, accounted for 6 hours of instruction. Beyond that, teachers were asked to spend a minimum of 2 hours a month continuing to focus on the instructional approaches that were suggested. It was expected that, during February, that time would be spent reviewing and planning to implement approaches from the one-day workshop. In March,
99
April, and May, the expectation was that teachers would review and begin to implement specific suggestions from the EEMs. The feature of collective participation was addressed by grouping the teachers by school before the random assignment to conditions. Teachers attended the one-day workshop with their building-level colleagues. They were encouraged to collaborate with one another to think through assessments of their students, plan instruction, and, if possible, to observe one another as they tried out the lessons they developed. Reminders and specific suggestions for peer collaboration were included with the follow-up materials. Core Features Both the one-day workshop and the EEMs focused on content that has been linked through research with improved outcomes for struggling first grade readers. Within each of the two conditions, the content included a specific focus on what students need to learn and be able to do, and how that might be best accomplished, as well as discussions, when appropriate, of the kinds of confusions that students might demonstrate and how best to respond to and alleviate those confusions. The inclusion of video clips connected to the content in both the one-day workshop and the EEMs provided for modeling of the suggested approaches by expert teachers. While the one-day workshop provided the overall content for each of the two groups, the monthly EEMs provided opportunities to focus in more closely on content-related issues important to instructional decision-making, planning, and implementation. The importance of active learning was addressed through the format of both the one-day workshop and the EEMs, as mentioned above. Specifically, the one-day
100
workshop provided opportunities for the teachers to observe and discuss expert instruction via the use of video clips, as well as opportunities to practice new approaches and receive feedback. These opportunities were enhanced through the EEMs, which provided specific suggestions for implementing the instructional approaches, as well as questions designed to guide teachers in reflecting upon their practices. Coherence was addressed through the focus on content that was both highly relevant and immediately applicable for teachers of struggling first grade readers. Because the professional development program was designed to develop teacher knowledge related to early literacy development and teacher understanding related to the needs of children who struggle with this development, rather than to develop teaching skills related to a specific curriculum, the understanding gained through both the workshops and the EEMs was expected to be applicable across curricula. Research Goals and Questions As detailed in Chapter 1, this study had two primary goals. The first goal was to investigate the differential effects of professional development for teachers in either the Alphabetic Knowledge or Strategic Word Identification components of the Interactive Strategies Approach with respect to changes in teacher knowledge, reported teacher practices, and student learning. The second was to explore an approach to professional development for teachers that is built on best practices, but differs from traditional approaches in the amount of contact time that teachers have with the professional development provider following an initial workshop. In addressing the first goal, this study focused on the building of sight word vocabulary, as facilitated by a strategic approach to word solving. The argument is made
101
that the development of sight word knowledge, which allows children to automatically identify most of the words they encounter in print, should be one of the primary goals of early reading instruction and is a necessary, although not sufficient condition for achievement of the ultimate goal - comprehension and enjoyment. Accurate word identification, which results from successful word solving, is described as the vehicle for word learning and the building of automatic sight vocabulary. Ultimately, the ability to quickly and automatically identify most words encountered while reading should free up more cognitive resources for the purpose of comprehension (Perfetti, 1985), thus allowing for reading to become a more rewarding and enjoyable experience. The study builds on the word learning theories of Ehri (1998, 2005) and Share (1995), with particular emphasis given to Share’s notion of the self-teaching mechanism. The importance of a generative approach to word identification is emphasized, with Vellutino and Scanlon’s (2002) Interactive Strategies Approach (ISA) to reading instruction highlighted as an example of an intervention that fosters this generative approach. With respect to the development of word identification skills and the building of sight word knowledge, this study takes the position that developing readers, particularly those who are at-risk for early reading difficulties, need an approach which utilizes both code-based and meaning-based strategies in an interactive and confirmatory way. This approach is contrasted with approaches that focus primarily on a single strategy, “sound it out,” which is the approach most strongly encouraged under current federal legislation (No Child Left Behind, 2001) and funding initiatives such as Reading First. The proposed study looks at the knowledge that teachers and students might use
102
with regard to the instruction and use of word identification strategies and whether professional development provided for teachers using one particular approach to instruction will result in improved reading outcomes for their students. Additionally, it looks at the effects, in terms of teacher knowledge and reported practices, and student achievement, of a similar level of professional development with respect to alphabetic knowledge. Alphabetic knowledge was chosen as the comparison focus for professional development because there is widespread assertion that decoding ability is critical to successful word identification (Adams, 1990; National Reading Panel, 2000; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998) and because of the emphasis that it is currently receiving in classrooms across the country. Additionally, the development of alphabetic knowledge has always been a key component of the ISA, as facility with the code is an important foundation of using code-based and meaning-based strategies interactively. The following questions were used to address the first goal of the study: 1) Will participation in a professional development program focused on either a strategic approach to word identification or the development of alphabetic knowledge result in changes in teacher knowledge related to the targeted domain? 2) Will reading and special education teachers who participate in such a program report changes in their instructional practices that reflect their new learning? 3) Will the teachers’ participation in a particular treatment condition differentially impact their first grade students’ early literacy knowledge and skills? 4) Will the students of one group of teachers outperform the other on general measures of word- and text-level reading? In addressing the second goal, this study utilized a model of professional
103
development that is consistent with best practices. Specifically, the professional development incorporated a focus on content, opportunities for active learning, and coherence with other aspects of the teachers’ day-to-day work. In support of these core features, the structural features of form, duration, and collective participation were also considered (Garet et al., 2008). Unlike previous studies of extended duration, however, this study employed a unique combination of a face-to-face workshop with several monthly follow-ups that did not involve direct contact between the teachers and the researcher. Rather, sets of Extended Engagement Materials (EEMs) were delivered to the teachers’ schools on a regular basis, with the expectation that, along with their participating colleagues from the building, the teachers would use the materials to revisit, extend, and apply their learning from the workshop. While extending professional development in this manner is not expected to replicate the benefits of expert and responsive coaching, it could nonetheless offer several potential advantages over a faceto-face coaching model for the providers of professional development, for teachers, and for school districts. For the providers of professional development, use of EEMs could provide consistency with respect to the content of the professional development across settings and across teachers and eliminate the need for multiple coaches with high levels of expertise. For teachers, use of EEMs could allow for flexibility as to when they engage in professional development as well as which materials they use. Although teachers need to make time in their busy schedules to use EEMs, they would not need to set aside a particular day or time during the week to do so. Because each teacher is provided with a
104
personal copy of all of the materials, including the video demonstrations, teachers could choose whether or not to use all of the materials, could revisit materials from a previous month, or set certain instructional activities aside for future use, depending upon each teacher’s own level of expertise and the needs of the students with whom they were working. In this way, the EEMs lend themselves to individualization, with the expectation being that each teacher utilizes them according to her own needs. For school districts, the potential advantages of the EEMs include access and affordability. If found to have a positive impact on teacher knowledge, teacher practice, and, ultimately, student learning, professional development which combines both a workshop approach and EEMs could be used to bring research-based professional development into many of the rural and inner-city schools where it is needed the most. The following question was used to address the second goal of the study: 5) Will teachers find the format of the professional development, including a oneday workshop with several no-contact EEMs, useful for improving their instructional practices and influencing student achievement?
105
METHOD Following a brief overview, this chapter details information regarding the participants, measures, procedures, and research design used for the study. Within each section, teacher information is presented first, followed by student information. A detailed description of both the one-day workshops and the follow-up materials used for professional development is included under procedures. Brief Overview of the Study This study involved the participation of reading and special education teachers in one of two professional development conditions focused on the development of word solving skill - either Alphabetic Knowledge (Alphabetics) or Strategic Word Identification (Strategies). First grade students of the participating teachers also participated. The study took place over the second half of the 2007-2008 school year, beginning in January and ending in June. After being assigned to one of the two conditions, teachers attended separate one-day workshops in January. In the months following the workshops, follow-up materials that encouraged the teachers to revisit the workshop content and to apply the suggested instructional approaches with their first grade students were delivered to the teachers’ schools. The purpose of each workshop and the associated follow-up materials was to increase the teachers’ knowledge regarding early literacy instruction as it pertains to the condition to which they were assigned. Changes in knowledge were expected to facilitate changes in the teachers’ instructional practices, and, ultimately, to bring about associated changes in their students’ learning. The teachers’ knowledge of early literacy instruction, in the areas related to the professional development, was assessed at both the beginning and end of the study. Also
106
at the end of the study, a face-to-face interview and an on-line survey were used to gain insights into the teachers’ perspectives regarding changes in their teaching practices and in their students’ learning, as well as their perceptions of the professional development content, materials, and format. To link professional development for teachers with student learning, both condition-sensitive and general reading measures were used to assess students at the beginning and end of the study. Participants Recruitment of Districts Districts were invited to participate in the study through an initial contact letter and project description that was sent to the superintendent or assistant superintendent of school districts local to the research center in upstate New York. Administrators were provided with background information on the ISA and were informed that the purpose of the project was to compare the effectiveness of the strategic word identification and the alphabetic knowledge components of the ISA in developing word solving skill among first graders who were receiving extra help with reading. They were told that the reading and special education teachers who participated would attend one of two one-day professional development workshops in January, 2008, would receive follow-up professional development materials throughout the remaining half of the school year, and would be invited to attend the full 5-day workshop on the ISA during the summer of 2008. All professional development was offered at no cost to the participating districts. It should be noted that the 5-day workshop was offered as a way of thanking the teachers for their participation in the study. Attendance at the summer workshop was not
107
considered to be a part of the study and no data pertaining to participation in it were collected. Four districts agreed to participate in the project. Administrators from each district distributed informational packets about the study and consent forms to reading and special education teachers in their elementary schools. Teachers from 11 different schools were ultimately enrolled in the study. The schools were drawn from relatively similar districts; all schools were in “Good” academic standing, both with regard to their overall student achievement and with regard to student achievement on New York State mandated English Language Arts assessments. Table 1 below presents descriptive information for each of the schools, according to the most recent data available from New York State (New York State Testing and Accountability Reporting Tool, n.d.). Table 1 Descriptive Information for Participating Schools School
Need/resource capacitya
Average class size
School standingb
A B C D E F G H I J K
Average Average Average Average Low Low Low Low Low Low Low
23 23 22 21 24 22 21 23 22 20 22
Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good Good
a
Free/reduced lunch percentage 8/2 9/2 12/4 13/3 5/3 4/2 2/3 4/2 3/2 4/1 ½
Need/Resource Capacity – districts are divided into low, average, and high need categories based on their ability to meet the special needs of their students with local resources. Schools with low or average needs to resource ratios are considered to have adequate resources within the district for meeting the needs of the student population. bSchool Standing – A school in Good standing has not been identified as a School in Need of Improvement, in Corrective Action, planning for restructuring, restructuring, requiring academic progress, or as a School Under Registration Review.
108
Teacher Participants From the 11 schools, a total of 23 reading specialists and/or special education teachers who were providing supplementary reading instruction to low achieving first grade students enrolled in the study. Both reading and special education teachers were included to recognize that, in some districts, special education teachers provide reading instruction to students who do not have Individualized Education Plans (IEPs). Teachers who were interested in participating were asked to complete a consent form and return it to the researcher. All teachers participated on a voluntary basis. All participating teachers were female and all held Masters degrees in reading and/or special education. Student Participants Participating teachers received student recruitment packets, including a Parent Information Letter and a Consent Form, and were asked to send them home with their first grade students. Parents were asked to respond to the recruitment letter within two weeks time. The consent forms contained a yes/no choice, encouraging all parents to return the form whether or not they wished their child to participate. A brief reminder and a second consent form were sent to those parents who had not responded after one week had elapsed. When all consents had been collected, a maximum of three students per teacher were selected for participation. In cases in which more than three students returned consent forms for a given teacher, three students were randomly selected by the researcher. In cases in which three or fewer consents were returned per teacher, all students with signed consents were included in the study. To participate in the study, students needed to be receiving supplemental reading instruction from a participating teacher. With the exception of being included in pre-and
109
post-testing, students who were enrolled in the study were not treated any differently than students who were not. Teachers were encouraged to use what they were learning through professional development with all of their first grade students; three were randomly selected to be representative of the students with whom the teachers worked. It should be noted here that, ultimately, not all teachers had three students included in the study. Two teachers did not have any students who returned consent forms. Those teachers remained in the study, as they were nonetheless working with first graders and were able to utilize the professional development suggestions. Three more teachers had only one student return a consent form. Also, since the study was initiated at mid-year, several schools were in the midst of student assessments at or about the same time that recruitment was underway. As a result of their in-house assessments, some students were re-assigned to different teachers to facilitate more appropriate groupings. Thus, in two schools, the re-assignment of students resulted in one teacher working with only two of the recruited students while another worked with four. Of the fifty-nine students initially enrolled in the study, 52 were available for post-testing. The mid-year assessments resulted in two students being exited from intervention after they had been enrolled in the study. Three students moved during the course of the study, one was out of school during the post-testing period, one was not available for post-testing due to scheduling conflicts, and one was not included in posttesting, as per his expressed wishes. Of the seven students not seen at post-testing, four were from the Alphabetics group and three were from the Strategies group. Only data on those students who were seen at both pre-and post-testing are included in any of the analyses.
110
Measures Teacher Measures Teacher Questionnaire At the beginning of the study, teachers were asked to complete a questionnaire which was used to gather information on their educational backgrounds, teaching experiences, and pedagogical practices. Additional questions addressed the instructional materials the teacher typically used and the structure and intensity of the supplementary reading instruction (1-1, small group; 5 times/wk, 3 times/wk, etc.) she provided. The Teacher Questionnaire is included in Appendix A, page 249. Knowledge of Literacy Instruction (KOLI) Survey (Scanlon, Gelzheiser, Anderson, & Vellutino, 2007) The KOLI is a paper and pencil measure of teachers’ knowledge related to early literacy learning and instructional practices. Items consist of combination of multiple choice, yes/no, and matching questions, and measure both declarative and applied types of knowledge. Items on the KOLI were written to reflect the various domains addressed in the ISA including phonemic awareness, alphabetic knowledge, strategic word identification, high frequency sight word learning, vocabulary and oral language, and comprehension and general knowledge. The declarative items focus heavily on specialized vocabulary. Applied items address specific instructional activities, such as asking the respondent to identify the approach to teaching a certain skill that is likely to be most successful, and/or to focus on student work samples, such as asking the respondent to select the next most reasonable instructional step for a particular student. Teachers participating in the current project completed the entire survey at the beginning
111
of the study, but completed only the alphabetic knowledge and strategic word identification portions at the study’s conclusion. Sample declarative and applied items for the Alphabetic Knowledge and Strategic Word Identification subtests are presented in Figure 1. Figure 1 Sample Declarative and Applied KOLI Items Declarative Items - Multiple Choice (choose one correct answer) Alphabetic Knowledge Item When some consonants appear together in words (e.g. th in the and this), they represent a sound that is different from either of the sounds these consonants represent when they appear alone. These consonant combinations are called: a. Digraphs
b. Diphthongs
c. Stop consonants
d. Blends
Strategic Word Identification Item Approximately how many different words can a capable middle school student read without effort? In other words, about how many words does the average 7th or 8th grader know how to read? a. 1,000
b. 5,000
c. 10,000
d. 50,000
Applied Items - Yes/No (Indicate YES or NO for each choice) Alphabetic Knowledge Item Jordan entered kindergarten able to name only the letters in his name, and unable to tell any of the letter sounds. Jordan will probably make faster progress in learning letter names if the teacher: Y N introduces the upper and lower case versions of each letter at the same time. Y N introduces only the upper case version of a letter at first. Y N introduces the sound at the same time as the printed form of the letter. Y N introduces the letters in Alphabetical order.
112
Figure 1 continued
Strategic Word Identification Item Listed below are some examples of ways that teachers could respond to beginning readers who are unable to identify a word in a book. Which responses are likely to be beneficial to children’s long term reading growth? Y N
The teacher provides a hint by saying “It rhymes with … ” and says a word that rhymes with the word a child is trying to figure out.
Y N
The teacher points to a chart that lists strategies a child could use to figure out the word.
Y N
The teacher provides the word so that a child does not experience frustration.
Y N
The teacher says to the other children in a group, “Who can help by reading this word?”
Test-retest reliability for in-service teachers (pre-and post-ISA workshop) on the KOLI is .89. An initial validation project indicated that the KOLI distinguished between individuals who were expert and novice regarding the ISA; another validation study showed that pre-service and in-service teachers performed differently on the KOLI. (Scanlon, Gelzheiser, Anderson, Goatley, & Vellutino, 2008). A formal validation study linking teacher performance to student gains in reading is currently underway. Teacher Interview A semi-structured, face-to-face interview was conducted at the end of the study. The interview questions were divided into three parts. In part one, teachers were asked about their satisfaction, in general, with their participation in the professional development program. Part two focused on the video demonstrations, student activities, assessments, and teacher reflection guides that were included in the follow-up materials. Teachers were asked questions about their use of and reaction to the various materials and were asked for any suggestions for improving the materials. Part three focused 113
primarily on the format of the professional development. Teachers were asked about their perceptions of the follow-up procedures, about working with colleagues from their building, and about any suggestions they might have for improving the format of the combined workshop/follow-up approach. Data were obtained from the face-to-face interviews via transcription and analysis of the audio recordings. Electronic transcriptions were used, which facilitated the process of reorganizing the interview data as it pertained to individual questions. This reorganization was necessary since teachers’ responses often wandered from the questions asked and/or, in some cases, led to follow-up questions that were not part of the initial interview. As a result, responses relevant to a particular research question might be found in several different places within one teacher’s interview. Through electronic “cutting and pasting,” all responses relevant to a particular question were organized, by teacher condition, prior to analysis. Reorganized responses were then analyzed, first for prominent themes, and then for categories within themes. When appropriate, percentages of responses within categories were calculated. The interview protocol is included in Appendix B, page 253. On-Line Survey Teachers also completed an on-line survey at the end of the study. This survey attempted to capture some of the same information as the interview, but contained more quantitative measures. For example, during the face-to-face interview, teachers were asked to talk about their reactions to the video demonstrations and whether or not they had any suggestions for improving the videos, while the on-line survey asked the teachers to rate the utility of the video demonstrations for planning instruction on a four-point
114
scale from Very Useful to Not Useful at All. Additionally, the on-line survey addressed the teachers’ satisfaction with the workshop portion of the professional development, and asked teachers about changes in their instructional practices and their students’ learning as a result of participation in the professional development. A copy of questions from the on-line survey is included in Appendix C, page 257. Student Measures Student Data Form Each teacher was asked to complete a Student Data Form for her participating students. The form requested a brief description of the student’s reading instruction and materials used in the classroom and intervention settings, the intensity and frequency of the student’s supplemental reading instruction, and whether or not the student received support in reading as a kindergartener or received other supplemental services. Condition-Sensitive and General Reading Measures Both general reading and condition-sensitive measures were used to evaluate the effects of the teachers’ professional development on their students’ reading and reading related skills. Two general reading measures were administered, the Fountas & Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System – Level 1 (Benchmark Assessment, Fountas & Pinnell, 2008) and the Multi-Level Passage Assessment (Scanlon, n.d.). The Multi-Level Passage Assessment is comprised of two parts, the Multi-Level Passage Word List (MLP-WL) and the Multi-Level Passage Text Reading (MLP-TR). The Benchmark Assessment was administered at both pre-test and post-test. The Multi-Level Passage measures were administered at post-test only, as they would likely have been too difficult for the majority of the children in this study at the middle of first grade.
115
The Primary Decoding Test (Scanlon, 1993), the Primary Spelling Test (Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton & Johnston, 2004) and the Phonics Inventory (Gunning, 2008) were used to evaluate changes over time on the students’ skills related to Alphabetic Knowledge, while the Strategic Reading Inventory – Primary (SRI - P; Anderson, Gelzheiser & Scanlon, 2007) was used to evaluate changes in student knowledge related to Strategic Word Identification. All condition-sensitive measures were administered to all students at pre-test, in January, and at post-test, in June. General Reading Measures Fountas & Pinnell Benchmark Assessment System – 1 (Benchmark Assessment; Fountas & Pinnell, 2008). This is an individually-administered assessment comprised of a series of increasingly challenging fiction and non-fiction “little books.” The books are leveled according to the Fountas and Pinnell (1999) leveling system and range from level A through level N, with one fiction and one non-fiction book at each level. The examiner observes and takes notes regarding the child’s reading behaviors as the child reads, then determines an accuracy score for the book. If the child reads with 90% or better accuracy at levels A-K, or at 95% or better at levels L-N, the examiner engages the child in a comprehension conversation about the text. At levels A-K, key understandings focus on thinking within and beyond the text. Thinking about the text is added for levels L-N. The child’s comprehension of the text is scored as excellent, satisfactory, limited, or unsatisfactory. Guidelines for using the accuracy score and the score on the comprehension conversation for determining the child’s instructional level are included in the administration manual (Fountas & Pinnell, 2008). For the purposes of this study, only the fiction texts were used to estimate student reading level. For the purposes of
116
statistical analysis, instructional levels were converted to numerical scores, such that Level A = 1, Level B = 2, etc. A score of zero was assigned in any case where the student did not reach instructional level on the Level A book. Test-retest reliability between fiction and non-fiction books within the assessment system is .97. The correlation of reading accuracy rates between the Fountas and Pinnell system books and texts used for assessment in Reading Recovery ® is .94 for the fiction texts and .93 for non-fiction. Multi-Level Passage Assessment (Scanlon, n. d.).The Multi-Level Passage Assessment consists of two parts. Part one, the Multi-Level Passage Word List (MLPWL), is a list of 20 words which the child is asked to read. The child is given one point for each word read correctly; all children are asked to read the entire list. None of the words on the MLP-WL are entirely decodable (e.g., busy, touch). Part two, Multi-Level Passage Text Reading (MLP-TR), features a four paragraph story, with each successive paragraph written at a more challenging level than the last (paragraphs range from pre-primer to 2nd grade). Students are shown a picture of a boy and a dog and are provided with the prompt, “I’d like you to read this story about this boy and his dog out loud for me.” All students begin at paragraph one, and continue to read the story until it becomes too difficult. Testing is discontinued when the child has made more than 10 errors in one paragraph or when the 4th paragraph has been read. Substitutions, mispronunciations, insertions, and omissions are counted as errors. Eleven points are credited for each paragraph read without error. One point is subtracted for each error, such that the students score for each paragraph equals 11 minus the number of errors. The scores on each paragraph are added to obtain the total score.. Since all
117
students begin reading at the same level, the MLP-TR provides a measure, based on the number of words read correctly, that is directly comparable across instructional levels. Condition-Sensitive Measures The Primary Decoding Test (Scanlon, 1993). The Primary Decoding Test was used to assess students’ ability to apply letter-sound knowledge in the reading of pseudowords. The test is comprised of 30 non-words which are organized into increasingly difficult categories including initial consonant substitution, vowel substitution, and complete decoding of bigrams, trigrams, words with final silent e, and digraphs and diphthongs. Each category includes five non-words for the student to read. If three or more non-words are read correctly, the student progresses to the next category, with the final score representing the total number of non-words the student reads correctly. Primary Spelling Inventory (Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton, & Johnston, 2004). The Primary Spelling Inventory assesses a student’s application of letter-sound knowledge within an invented spelling task. Conducted much like a traditional spelling test, the student is asked to spell words from a list that represents the phonic features typically acquired in grades K-3. The student is given credit for the presence of selected phonic features and for whether or not the word is spelled correctly. For the purposes of this study, the total score represents correct features plus correct words. The Phonics Inventory (Gunning, 2008). The Phonics Inventory is another measure of decoding skill, but uses real words rather than non-words. The test includes five levels of single-syllable word reading, with 10 words at each level. The five levels include: short-vowel patterns (e.g., top, hen, bug); short vowels with consonant clusters (e.g., clap, spill, block); long-vowel patterns (e.g., hope, sail, coat); other vowel patterns
118
(e.g., broom, joy, fault); and r-vowel patterns (e.g., nurse, smart, torn). The student is asked to read down the list, beginning with the first level, with testing discontinued when the student misidentifies 5 words in a row. The final score represents the total number of words read correctly. Strategic Reading Inventory – Primary Level (SRI - P; Anderson, Gelzheiser & Scanlon, 2007). The SRI – P is a measure under development and is adapted from the Strategic Reading Inventory (Gelzheiser, Anderson, Scanlon & Hallgren-Flynn, 2007). The SRI-P assesses the child’s ability to articulate and/or demonstrate the application of word identification strategies across three distinct tasks. Tasks two and three require the use of “little books” which, for this project, were drawn from the Benchmark Assessment (described above). Task 1: The child is asked (and prompted) to talk about what he could do if he is reading and comes to a word he does not know how to read. Task 2: The child is interviewed about the word identification strategies he employed in reading five words from his highest instructional level text on the Benchmark Assessment. Passage words on which the child self-corrected, hesitated, or reread are used. For example, if a sentence in the text read: “I like to play with my doll.” and the child read “I like to play with the doll.” and then self-corrected, the examiner (while pointing to the word in question), would say to the child: “I noticed that when you were reading on this page, you said, ‘I like to play with the doll,’ and then you fixed it and said, ‘I like to play with my doll.’ Why did you decide to change this word?” Only fiction texts were used for this task.
119
Task 3: The child is engaged in a role-playing task, using a non-fiction text at his frustration level. The text was chosen by going up one level from the highest instructional level fiction text the student read on the Benchmark Assessment. For this part of the assessment, the examiner says to the child, “Pretend you are helping me with my reading. I’m going to read to you from this book. If I get stuck on a word, I want you to tell me what I should do to figure it out. Don’t tell me the word. Just tell me what I should do to figure it out.” Each time the examiner comes to a pre-selected word, she attempts to elicit word solving strategies from the student by saying, “Hmmm, I’m not sure what this word is. What can I do to figure out this word?” Words in each text were pre-selected, based on the likelihood that they might elicit certain strategies. For example, the word giraffe might be selected to elicit “look at the picture” from the child, while the word tall might be selected to elicit “look for word families or parts you know.” Scoring for the SRI-P is based on the number of different strategies named on each part, whether or not the student names both code-based and meaning-based strategies, and the total number of different strategies named across all three parts. The correlation between the total score for the SRI-P and Reading Level on the Benchmark Assessment, both administered at pretest, was in the moderate range (r = .61, p < .01). A correlation of this magnitude provides some evidence of the reliability of the SRI-P as an unreliable measure is unlikely to correlate significantly with another measure. The correlation also suggests that the Strategic Reading Inventory - Primary taps a skill that is related to reading skill.
120
Procedures In this section, detailed characteristics of the teacher and student participants, based on data collected at the beginning of the study, are described. This information is included here because it follows logically from the measures and procedures that were used to obtain it. Procedures Involving Teachers Prior to Professional Development Initial Contacts with Teachers As consents were received, teachers were contacted by phone to confirm their participation and were sent a questionnaire to complete. The questionnaire was used to gather information from the teachers prior to their involvement in the study. This information served two purposes. The first was to describe the characteristics of the teacher participants; the second was to provide a means of evaluating pre-existing differences between the treatment groups that were ultimately formed with respect to their instructional practices related to the professional development conditions. All participating teachers attended a half-day introductory session in preparation for the workshop portion of the study. The session was conducted for each of the four districts, so as to accommodate their different school-day schedules. During these sessions, teachers were provided with a brief overview of the Interactive Strategies Approach in general and the research which supports its effectiveness, as well as an overview of the structure and purpose of the current study. They were asked to complete the KOLI survey and, because they would assist in recruiting students to participate in the study, they completed project-specific Human Participants Training. Teachers returned their completed questionnaires and received the recruitment packets for their students
121
during these sessions. Assignment of Teachers to Conditions An experimental design was used, with data collected from Teacher Questionnaires and the knowledge survey (KOLI, Scanlon et al., 2007) used to assign the teachers to one of the two treatment conditions. Participants were first grouped by school, creating teams of teachers who would attend the workshops together (two teachers did not have a colleague from their school in the study). Matched teams of teachers were then created, taking into account the districts in which the teachers worked and the teachers’ scores on the KOLI. The goal of the matching procedure was to create, as closely as possible, two groups of teachers who where similar in their knowledge of early literacy instruction, as measured by their total scores on the KOLI and their scores on the two KOLI subtests that measured knowledge specific to the two conditions of the study - Alphabetic Knowledge and Strategic Word Identification. Moreover, the matching aimed to evenly distribute teachers from the same district across conditions in order to provide some measure of control over such factors as socio-economic status of the students, reading curricula used in classroom and intervention settings, and general district policies regarding the provision of supplementary reading services. To accomplish the matching, teachers’ scores on the KOLI were considered first. School-based teams with similar KOLI profiles were identified and paired. For example, if the team from school A had one teacher with a high KOLI score and one teacher with a low KOLI score, another team with a similar pattern of teacher scores was paired with it. Teams within a pair were randomly assigned to different conditions. Where possible,
122
teacher teams from within the same district were matched first, so that each district would have approximately equal representation in each condition. Because teachers were first grouped by school, all teachers were in the same condition as other teachers from their school. The two teachers who did not have colleagues from their buildings participating in the study were assigned to separate conditions. After completion of the matching, the two groups of teachers were randomly assigned to either the Alphabetic Knowledge Condition (Alphabetics group) or the Strategic Word Identification Condition (Strategies group). Teacher Characteristics In order to evaluate the degree to which the matching procedures resulted in equivalent groups prior to implementation of the professional development programs, the groups were compared on the knowledge survey and on their reported instructional practices. Teacher knowledge. Although there was some variability within conditions, the matching procedure did result in groups of teachers who were, on average, similar in their knowledge of early literacy instruction, as measured by the Knowledge of Literacy Instruction (KOLI) survey. Comparisons of the group means on the total and subtest scores of the KOLI were all non-significant (all t’s were less than 1.67). The two groups of teachers were also similar with respect to certification area and average years of teaching experience. It should be noted however, that all of the teachers in the Alphabetics condition had between 2 and 10 years of teaching experience, while teachers in the Strategies condition were distributed between 1 and 22 years. Table 2 summarizes teacher characteristics.
123
Table 2 Teacher Characteristics by Condition
Condition Characteristics
Alphabetic Knowledge (n = 11)
Strategic Word Identification (n = 12)
M
SD
M
SD
KOLI - Total Score (Maximum = 243)
183.8
13.6
174.6
12.9
KOLI – Alphabetic Knowledge items (Maximum = 53)
33.7
5.7
32.8
4.22
KOLI – Strategic Word Identification items (Maximum = 47)
37.2
4.02
34.9
4.01
Certification – Percentage of Teachers Reading Special Education Dual (Reading/ Special Education)
82 18 0
75 8 17
Years Teaching Experience – Percentage of Teachers 1 Year 2-5 Years 6-10 Years 11-15 Years 16-20 Years 20 + years
0 36 64 0 0 0
25 17 33 8 8 8
Teacher reported instructional practices. Teacher instructional practices relevant to the two conditions were addressed via two items on the questionnaire: 1) Please describe, as specifically as possible, your approach to phonics instruction with your first grade students, and 2) (A two-part question) Please describe, as specifically as possible, your instruction with your first grade students regarding figuring out unfamiliar words 124
when they are reading. What do you expect your first graders to do when they come to a word they don’t know? The teachers’ responses to these two items are summarized in Tables 3 and 4, and, in general, suggest that the two groups of teachers did not differ substantially in their instructional approaches prior to their participation in the study. Some caution should be taken in interpretation, however, since these data reflect only what teachers thought to include in their written responses, and may not accurately reflect their teaching practices on a day-to-day basis. Teachers responded to the question on phonics instruction in varying ways. Some focused on the specific skills they taught throughout the first grade year, often specifying instructional activities and/or materials as well. Others named a specific curriculum that was used to address phonics instruction, but made little mention of what was taught or how. Still others included both types of information. However, the teachers’ responses to this question did not vary substantially across the two conditions. Unlike their responses to the question about phonics instruction, the teachers’ responses to the question about word identification strategy instruction were much more consistent. All teachers named at least a few strategies that they expected their first graders to use, with the vast majority naming both code-based and meaning-based strategies. About a quarter of the teachers in each condition made specific reference to expecting their students to use the two types of strategies in combination. Very few teachers, however, made any mention at all of how the students came to learn the strategies in the first place. In essence, their responses addressed the “What do you expect your students to do….” part of the question, but ignored the “Please describe your instruction…” part.
125
Table 3 Teachers’ Reported Approach to Phonics Instruction with First Grade Students Condition Percentage of teachers mentioning each approach (Sample comment) Based on student needs (e.g., Depending on the student, we are working on…)
Alphabetics 27
Strategies 33
Sequence of skills (e.g., I begin the year by… We then move into…)
45
42
Names specific skills (e.g., Start with short vowels and make basic phonograms.)
73
50
Teaching of specific rules (e.g., Teach silent e rule.)
0
17
Specific program – phonics (e.g., This year I am focusing on the Wilson Fundations Program.)
18
25
Specific program – basal (e.g., Follow sequence of Scott-Foresman.)
18
8
Specific materials (e.g., Use pictures, workbook, insta boards, blackboards, white boards, magnetic letters to reinforce.)
18
8
Specific activities (e.g., I primarily use activities such as Making Words.)
56
42
Application – reading (e.g., Read decodable story which utilizes new phonics sound.)
27
50
Application – writing (e.g., We do a variety of activities with all of these [letter sounds, word families], usually related to the book or writing assignment.)
18
17
Direct instruction and modeling (e.g., I use direct instruction and modeling.)
0
8
Practice (Spiraling program with a great deal of practice built into daily lessons.)
18
25
126
Table 4 Teachers’ Reported Approach to Word Identification Instruction with First Grade Students
Percentage of teachers mentioning each approach (Sample comment) Code-based strategies (e.g., Get their mouth ready to make the first sound.)
Condition Alphabetics Strategies 100
100
Meaning-based strategies (e.g., I ask them to use context cues and monitor for meaning)
82
83
Both code and meaning (e.g., Coded if at least one code-based and one meaning-based strategy was mentioned.)
82
83
Combination (e.g., I expect them to use a combination of strategies.)
27
25
Listed strategies (e.g., 1. Sound it out. 2. Look at picture. 3. What would make sense? 4. Little words within? 5. Skip and reread.)
18
33
Modeling (e.g., I model using strategies by using a big book.)
9
0
Practice (e.g., There are several strategies that I practice with my first grader.)
0
8
Use of a chart (e.g., I encourage students to look at the visual and think about a strategy to try.)
9
17
Encouraging verbalization (e.g., I ask the students to verbalize a strategy they can use.)
9
0
Professional Development Professional development for the teachers consisted of two parts. In January, 2008, teachers participated in a full-day workshop associated with their condition. As a follow-up to the workshops, teachers received three sets of Extended Engagement Materials (EEMs) throughout the semester. The EEMs were designed to enable teachers
127
to revisit and build upon the approaches introduced during the workshops and to support the teachers as they worked to integrate those approaches into their daily instruction. Although the researcher had continued contact with the teachers for the purposes of letting them know when new materials had been delivered and scheduling assessments and interviews for the end of the study, professional development beyond the workshop was limited to what was provided in the EEMs. Descriptions of the professional development workshops and the EEMs are presented below. The Professional Development Workshops The one-day professional development workshops provided in this study are part of a larger professional development program that emphasizes all of the components of the Interactive Strategies Approach and how they work together in a comprehensive approach to early literacy instruction. In this section, the larger professional development program is briefly described first, followed by more detailed descriptions of the structure and content of the Alphabetic Knowledge and Strategic Word Identification workshops. The original ISA workshop. Professional development for the ISA has evolved over the course of several studies (Scanlon et al., 2005; Scanlon et al., 2008; Vellutino et al., 1996; Vellutino & Scanlon, 2002) in which the approach was used in one-to-one, small group, and classroom contexts. In its current form, the professional development is organized around instructional goals that are pursued in a variety of instructional contexts in the primary grades. The program is not tied to a specific curriculum. Rather, it is intended to be applicable across curricula. Thus, the purpose of the professional development program is to develop teacher knowledge related to early literacy development and the characteristics of children who experience difficulties. The purpose
128
of the goal structure is to encourage teachers to view instruction as a goal-oriented activity wherein they work to help children achieve identified goals, using a variety of instructional formats and materials. The workshop for this study. For the purpose of this study, teachers participated in only the portion of the professional development that was specific to their assigned condition; each group of teachers attended a separate one-day workshop, focused on either Alphabetic Knowledge or Strategic Word Identification. While the two workshops varied considerably in specific content, the approach was similar. For each, relevant research related to the goal was reviewed, the relationship between the goal and more general reading and writing processes was discussed, and instructional activities that could be used to help children accomplish the goals were explicitly discussed and modeled. Where relevant, more and less challenging aspects of particular activities were discussed and a sequence of objectives was presented. Formal and informal assessment tools and the need to use assessment to guide grouping decisions and instructional planning were also discussed. The kinds of difficulties children might have, why they have those difficulties, and what teachers could do to alleviate those difficulties were addressed. The discussions around the goals were supported by video clips which provided teachers with the opportunity to analyze student performance and to observe expert instruction. The materials used for presentation were drawn from “The Interactive Strategies Approach in Classroom and Intervention Settings” (Scanlon, Anderson et al., 2007), a set of instructional modules based upon the ISA professional development program offered to in-service teachers in an earlier study (Scanlon, et al., 2008). These modules have been expanded upon as part of a more recent study (Scanlon,
129
Anderson, Sweeney, Gelzheiser, Goatley & Vellutino, 2007) and currently feature more video demonstrations and expanded opportunities for participant involvement. The goals from the ISA professional development workshop that were targeted for this study are briefly described below. Descriptions of the workshops and the goals are drawn from the narrative of a grant proposal submitted by Anderson, Scanlon, Gelzheiser, & Goatley (2008). Alphabet Knowledge Condition – Teachers in this condition learned about the alphabetic knowledge component of the ISA. The development of skill with the alphabetic code was addressed through the discussion of four subgoals: 1. Letter Identification - The child will be able to name, rapidly and accurately, all 26 letters of the alphabet, both upper and lower case versions. In discussing this subgoal, the important contribution of fluency with foundational skills to reading comprehension was discussed. The importance of automaticity with letter identification in order to free up cognitive resources for higher level skills was stressed and, to promote fluency, teachers were reminded of the importance of having the children actually use the letter names. The mnemonic value of letter names for helping children learn letter sounds was focused upon, and the importance of developing sensitivity to this propensity of young children to use letter names to retrieve letter sounds was stressed. Discussion focused on the ways in which understanding this propensity would influence the feedback teachers provide to students. 2. Letter-Sound Association - The child will be able to associate the sounds of the majority of consonants with their printed representations.
130
The relationship between letter names and letter sounds, how to take advantage of that relationship, and how to address the confusions that arise for those letters where the relationship does not hold (i.e., for the consonants h, w, and y and for most of the short vowels) were a continued focus in the discussion of this subgoal. Also discussed was the importance of using keywords to help children remember letter sound correspondences, of using the same keywords across instructional settings, and of explicitly teaching children how to use keywords when reading and writing. 3. Alphabetic Principle - The child will understand that the letters in printed words represent the sounds in spoken words. Further, the child will be able to change consonants at the beginning or end of one-syllable words in accord with requests made by the teacher (e.g., "change mat to bat"). In pursuit of this subgoal, teachers were encouraged to use exercises focused on isolated words including word building, word reading, and writing and to engage the children in applying their understanding of the alphabetic principle in reading and writing texts. In discussing this and the next subgoal, participants were engaged in thinking through how instruction should proceed by considering what makes a decoding task more or less challenging. The purpose of this was to help teachers to become active problem solvers with regard to their instructional decision making. The benefits of guiding children to be strategic in using resources such as the keywords to assist them in decoding and encoding words in and out of context were also stressed. 4. Extending decoding and encoding strategies - The child will develop the
131
ability to use both single letter phonics and a variety of spelling patterns (phonograms, prefixes, and suffixes, etc.) to decode and spell individual words. For this goal, teaching and practicing each new coding skill in isolation prior to providing the opportunity for application in context was stressed. Participants were engaged in discussions designed to help them think through the hierarchy of difficulty related to alphabetic coding principles that should guide their instructional decision making and were reminded that opportunities to apply the skills in context are important. Thus, instructional decision making should be guided in part by the core curriculum in use and the reading opportunities that children have. Strategic Word Learning Condition: Teachers assigned to this condition learned about the Strategic Word Learning goal addressed in the larger ISA professional development program. The goal is that the children will develop flexibility and independence in applying a variety of strategies to facilitate the identification of unfamiliar words encountered in text. In discussing this goal, Share’s (1995) notion of a self-teaching mechanism was addressed and used to guide participants’ thinking about how sight vocabulary (printed words that can be identified effortlessly) develops. The fact that the competent reader automatically identifies many more words than could ever be directly taught was discussed, and it was explained that most sight words are learned through extensive reading, wherein unfamiliar words are identified through the use of a variety of word identification strategies. The focus was on teaching children to use both code-based and meaning-based strategies in an interactive and confirmatory way when puzzling out unfamiliar words encountered in text. Teachers were encouraged to provide instruction
132
on the use of the eight strategies presented in Table 5. Teachers were provided with a list of the strategies that they could use with their students and viewed multiple video demonstrations which illustrated teaching and reinforcing strategic word solving. The importance of teaching strategies explicitly was emphasized, and the teachers were coached in ways to promote children’s spontaneous and independent use of word identification strategies. Table 5 Meaning-based and Code-based Strategies Taught in the ISA Meaning-based strategies
Code-based strategies
Look at the pictures
Think about the sounds in the word
Think of words that might make sense
Look for word families or little parts you know
Read past the puzzling word
Try different pronunciations for some of the letters, especially the vowels
Go back to the beginning of the sentence and start again
Break the word into smaller parts
Professional Development Follow-Up Procedures Participants in each condition were provided with a workshop binder that included a set of handouts corresponding to the PowerPoint presentation and a written description of either the Alphabetic Knowledge or Strategic Word Identification component of the ISA. The latter documents, which resembled book chapters, reiterated and expanded upon the workshop information. Additionally, the written materials presented examples of activities that could be used to promote the respective understandings as well as models for instructional interactions. Teachers were encouraged to read these materials as one way of revisiting the information presented
133
during the workshop. Revisiting was also encouraged through the use of Extended Engagement Materials (EEMs) that were sent to each of the teachers at approximately one-month intervals. The EEMs were intended to be used by the teachers at their own convenience, preferably in collaboration with the other participating teachers in their building. Each month, the EEMs reminded teachers of key concepts associated with their respective condition in the study; featured activities designed to foster the development of proficiency within the two respective areas; and promoted reflection on teacher practices. The EEMs also included assessments, suggestions for documenting student progress, and videos for the teachers to view. Teachers were provided with suggestions for peer collaboration and were encouraged to meet with their peers to review the follow-up materials, view video clips, plan lessons, and so on. Due to the varying content of the two conditions, it was not possible to provide EEMs that were completely parallel. Every effort was made, however, to develop EEMs that were as parallel as possible in format and materials. Table 6 summarizes the content of the first of the three EEMs for teachers in each condition. The second set of EEMs focused on assessment within each of the domains; the third set focused on Extending Encoding and Decoding Skills for the Alphabetics group and Scaffolding Strategy Use and the Gradual Release of Responsibility for the Strategies group.
134
Table 6 Description of Extended Engagement Materials, Set #1
Topic
Condition Alphabetics Strategic Word Identification Processing larger orthographic Teaching for Strategic Word units - a focus on phonograms. Identification – the components of strategy instruction.
Materials:
Video Clips :
Video Clips :
1. Generating Rhyming Words
1. Pictures, Sounds Strategy Lesson – Introduction of a new strategy
2. Building Words with Phonograms – Working with a single word family
Try It Out Activity
2. Makes Sense Strategy – Review of a previously learned strategy
3. Building and Reading Words – Working with a single word family
3. Ending Sound Strategy – Introduction of a new strategy
4. Building and Reading Words – Working with multiple word families
4. Think About the Sounds – Review of a previously learned strategy
5. Writing Words – Working with multiple word families
5. Strategy Review – Practice using multiple strategies to figure out words.
Accompanying Video Viewing Guide and Guide for Teacher Reflection
Accompanying Video Viewing Guide and Guide for Teacher Reflection
Thinking about the skill levels of your students, develop an instructional routine that includes word building, word reading, and written spelling and try it out.
Thinking about the strategies your students have learned so far, develop a lesson for introducing and/or reviewing a strategy (or strategies) and try it out.
135
Table 6 continued
Guide for Teacher Reflection
Sample Questions:
Sample Questions:
Were there some students for whom this activity was too challenging or not challenging enough?
When introducing a new strategy, did I provide a clear and direct explanation, think aloud, and/or guided practice?
What can I do to change the level of challenge?
Did my instruction include the use of a strategy list of some kind?
How did I connect the activity with other instruction in reading and/or writing?
Did I provide an opportunity for my students to apply the strategies in reading a new book?
Collection of End of Study Teacher Data At the end of the project, the Alphabetic Knowledge and Strategic Word Identification subtests of the KOLI were re-administered to all participating teachers by a research assistant. All KOLIs were administered at the teachers’ schools, at a time deemed convenient by the teachers. In most cases, this was done either before or after school; in some cases the KOLI was administered during the school day, during a teacher’s planning time. Face-to-face interviews were scheduled after the teachers completed the KOLI and were conducted, for the most part, by the researcher. The researcher also conducted one interview by phone. Due to time and scheduling constraints, several of the interviews were conducted by the same research assistant who was administering the KOLI. Faceto-face interviews were digitally recorded and were accompanied by hand-written notes; one recording was inadvertently deleted or recorded over, resulting in lost data. All recordings were transcribed by the researcher prior to analysis. Teachers were provided
136
with an electronic link to the on-line survey and were asked to complete it by the end of the school year. Table 7 below presents the project timeline for teachers. Table 7 Project Timeline for Teachers Date
Activity
November, 2007
District/teacher Recruitment
December, 2007
Half-day workshops/KOLI survey
January, 2008
Full-day workshops
February 28, 2008
First EEMs sent
March 27, 2008
Second EEMs sent
May 5, 2008
Third EEMs sent
June, 2008
Abbreviated KOLI / teacher interviews/ on-line survey
Student Procedures and Characteristics Student Assessment In January of 2008, students were seen for pre-testing by an experienced research assistant, who holds a masters degree in reading. The assistant was blind to the condition to which the students were assigned (all students were necessarily assigned to the same condition as their teachers). Most assessments were completed in two assessment blocks, although some students were seen on three occasions due to scheduling issues. All requests from teachers and/or parents regarding when the students could be seen for assessment were honored. Due to scheduling and budgetary constraints, individual portions of several students’ assessments were completed by the researcher. No student’s complete assessment was conducted by the researcher, and no
137
assessments were completed more than one week following the teachers’ participation in the full-day professional development workshop. Students were seen for post-testing in June of 2008, with most students being assessed by the same research assistant that they had worked with in January. A second research assistant (also blind to condition) was trained and utilized in the final week of the study, so that all assessments could be completed by the end of the school year. Nonetheless, due to the many special activities that occur at the end of the school year, scheduling was somewhat challenging and, again, it was necessary for the researcher to administer individual portions of the assessment to several students. As in January, no student’s complete assessment was conducted by the researcher. Student Characteristics Performance on condition-sensitive and general reading measures. Pre-testing conducted with each of the student measures was used to compare the student groups at the beginning of the study with respect to the condition-sensitive measures and in terms of their overall reading ability. A total of five measures were administered at pre-test. ttests were used to compare the means across groups. None of the comparisons resulted in a statistically significant difference between the two groups (all p’s > .20). Perusal of the descriptive statistics (Table 8), however, reveals that the mean scores for the students in the Alphabetics condition were higher across all four condition-sensitive measures, while the mean score for students in the Strategies condition was higher on the overall reading measure, the Benchmark Assessment (Fountas & Pinnell, 2008).
138
Table 8 Descriptive Statistics for Student Assessments at Pre-test
Measures
Condition Alphabetic Knowledge Strategic Word Identification (n = 28) (n = 24) Mean SD Mean SD
Primary Decoding Testa
14.5
5.29
12.88
6.29
Primary Spelling Testb
29.61
6.75
27.08
8.50
Phonics Inventoryc
13.46
7.56
11.75
7.59
Strategic Reading Inventory – Primaryd
9.82
5.57
8.96
4.36
Fountas & Pinnell Benchmark Assessmente 3.50 1.64 4.00 1.96 a b c Scanlon, n.d. Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton, & Johnston, 2004. Gunning, 2008. d Anderson & Gelzheiser, 2007. eFountas & Pinnell, 2008. With respect to their general reading ability mid-way through their first grade year, students’ guided reading levels (Fountas & Pinnell, 1996) on the Benchmark Assessment ranged from below level A to level G, with level D being the modal level. This range highlights the differences both between and within the participating districts with respect to the students who were being provided with supplementary reading instruction. While a student who is not yet reading at level A by mid-first grade would undoubtedly be considered in need of supplementary reading support in virtually any school, provision of extra services for students at level G would be much less likely. The number of students within each condition who scored at each guided reading level is presented in Table 9. As can be seen, a higher percentage of students in the Alphabetics condition scored below the modal level (43% vs. 34%), while a higher percentage of students in the Strategies condition scored above the modal level (34% vs. 21%). Of the
139
students who scored below level D at pre-test, students in the Alphabetics condition were more likely to be receiving 1-to-1 instruction (55% vs. 25%).
Table 9 Students’ Guided Reading Levels at Pre-Test Condition Guided Reading Level Below A A B C D E F G
Alphabetics Frequency Percent 2 7 1 4 4 14 5 18 10 36 2 7 4 14 0 0
Strategies Frequency 1 3 0 4 8 2 3 3
Percent 4 13 0 17 33 8 13 13
Characteristics of the students’ instructional programs. While the matching and random assignment procedure that was used to assign teachers to condition worked reasonably well with respect to the similarity of teacher characteristics and their instructional approaches across conditions, the same cannot be said about the instructional programs of their students. A review of the Student Data Forms, completed by the students’ teachers, revealed considerable variability with respect to the number of times per week students met with their reading or special education teacher for supplemental reading instruction, the size of the supplemental reading groups to which the students were assigned, and the inclusion of the students in support services such as reading intervention in kindergarten and speech/language support, occupational therapy, physical therapy, and English as a Second Language in first grade. For example, instructional intensity and frequency of reading support for students, across conditions, ranged from daily one-to-one instruction in 45 minute sessions to instruction three times
140
a week, in groups of four, in 30 minute sessions. Unfortunately, conclusions about the extensiveness of students’ needs cannot be drawn from these data, since, in many cases, decisions were based as much upon the availability of certain options within a building as they were on students’ needs. For example, one school in the study offered a “Phonological Awareness Support Group” in which selected students met regularly with the Speech/Language therapist, while another school in the same district did not. Some schools within a district offered reading intervention in kindergarten, while others in the same district did not. Similarly, schools within the same district sometimes used a different criterion for assigning students to 1to-1 interventions. In one school, 1-to-1 interventions were reserved for those students with the greatest need, while another school in the same district provided 1-to-1 intervention for those students who seemed most likely to make the quickest and greatest gains. Another complicating factor is that, in some schools, reading teachers provided at least a portion of their participating students’ primary reading instruction, in addition to time considered to be supplementary. It is difficult to compare the instruction of these students to that of students who were only receiving supplemental instruction from the participating teachers, since students in the former group, in general, received less supplementary instruction than the students in the latter group, but received more reading instruction from teachers who were reading specialists and who were participating in the professional development. This instructional arrangement was much more common for students in the Alphabetics condition than it was for students in the Strategies condition (36% vs. 13%), and thus may have put children in the Alphabetics condition at a relative
141
advantage. When looking at the reading provided to the students who only received supplementary instruction from their participating teacher, a clear difference across conditions can be seen with respect to the Instructional Intensity of reading support. Specifically, students in the Alphabetics condition were much more likely to receive 1-1 instructional support in reading than were students in the Strategies condition (43% vs. 8%). Greater consistency was noted across schools within a district with respect to instructional programs. In general, students within a district were instructed using some similar materials in the classroom and in intervention settings. Within instructional materials also, however, differences emerged across conditions. Specifically, more students in the Strategies condition had teachers who were using basal readers for at least part of their instruction in both classroom (96% vs. 54%) and intervention (46% vs. 35%) settings, while more students in the Alphabetics condition had teachers who were using leveled readers for at least part of their instruction in both classroom (69% vs. 54%) and intervention (100% vs. 75%) settings. Explicit phonics programs were used more frequently by the classroom teachers of students in the Strategies condition (25% vs. 0%), but were used similarly across conditions by intervention teachers (23% vs. 23%). Data Analysis This is a mixed methods study that involved comparisons of the relative effects of the two professional development conditions on teacher knowledge, reported teacher practices, and student learning. A combination of quantitative and qualitative methods was used to address the research questions. For the quantitative analyses, treatment condition (Alphabetic Knowledge vs Strategic Word Identification) represented the
142
independent variable and the various measures of teacher knowledge as assessed via the teacher knowledge survey and child performance levels on the general reading and condition sensitive measures served as dependent variables. Multivariate and univariate analyses of variance were used to test the hypotheses regarding treatment effects. Matched pairs t-tests were used to compare students who began the study with similar skills in decoding/encoding and strategy knowledge on measures of general reading. Creating matched pairs of students across conditions provided a way of accounting for pre-existing differences between the groups when measuring outcomes. Effect sizes, when appropriate, were also computed for the teacher and student measures. The standardized mean difference statistic, referred to as d, (Cohen, 1988) was used to calculate effect sizes. Following recommendations by Cohen (1988), effect sizes of .20 were considered to be small, effect sizes of .50 were considered to be moderate, and those of .80 were considered to be large. Descriptive and qualitative methods were used to analyze data derived from the on-line survey and the teacher interview. The majority of the on-line survey questions utilized rating scales with likert-type responses. Percentages of ratings and frequency counts for each item were provided by the on-line survey company. Many of the rating scale questions were also accompanied by items which allowed the respondents to comment on their ratings and/or give specific examples. Where appropriate, comments and examples from the on-line survey were also combined with teachers’ interview responses and used to address the research questions pertaining to reported changes in teacher practices and teachers’ perceptions of the professional development program.
143
RESULTS The first major question of the study was whether effects of professional development focused on either Alphabetic Knowledge or Strategic Word Identification would have a differential effect on teacher knowledge, reported instructional practices, and student reading outcomes. Results pertaining to this question will be presented first, followed by results pertaining to the second major question, which explored teachers’ perceptions of the professional development content, materials, and format. Influence of the Professional Development Conditions on Teacher Knowledge, Reported Teacher Practices, and Student Learning Teacher Outcomes Effects of the Professional Development Condition on Teacher Knowledge The Knowledge of Literacy Instruction (KOLI) survey was used to evaluate the differential effects of the treatment conditions on teacher knowledge. While the complete KOLI, which was administered at pretest, is comprised of subtests that assess many aspects of early literacy instruction, only the subtests related to the treatment conditions were administered at posttest. It was anticipated that, at posttest, teachers in the Strategies condition would have made greater gains on the Strategies subtest items of the KOLI, while teachers in the Alphabetics condition would have made greater gains on the Alphabetics subtest items. A 2 Condition (Alphabetics vs. Strategies) x 2 Time (Pretest vs. Posttest) x 2 Subtest (Alphabetic Knowledge subtest vs. Strategic Word Identification subtest) Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used to test this hypothesis. The main effect of Time was significant (F[1,21] = 13.73, p = .001), as was the main effect for Subtest (F[1,21] = 18.40, p = .000). Table 11 reports the descriptive
144
statistics for these comparisons. These results indicate that, in general, teachers obtained higher scores on the Alphabetic Knowledge and Strategic Word Identification subtests of the KOLI at posttest than at pretest, an anticipated outcome given the professional development. The results also indicate that, in general, teachers obtained higher scores on the Strategies subtest than they did on the Alphabetic Knowledge subtest, regardless of Time or Condition. Since the maximum number of items was less for Strategic Word Identification (47) than it was for Alphabetic Knowledge (53), this indicates that the teachers responded correctly to a higher percentage of the Strategy items. There was no significant interaction between Condition and Time, Subtest and Condition, or Time and Subtest. The three-way interaction between Time, Subtest, and Condition was significant (F[1,21] = 13.88, p = .001), indicating that teachers demonstrated gains in knowledge across time that were consistent with their professional development condition. As can be seen in Table 10, teachers in each group made moderate gains on the subtest associated with their condition, as compared to small gains on the items associated with the other condition. Thus, as hypothesized, changes in teacher knowledge on the KOLI from pre- to posttest were associated with the treatment condition in which the teachers participated. Figure 2 depicts these relationships graphically.
145
Table 10 Descriptive Statistics for Pre-and Post-testing, by Condition, for KOLI Subtests Strategic Word Identification Subtest (max = 47)
Alphabetic Knowledge Subtest (max = 53) Condition
Pre Mean (SD)
Post Mean (SD)
ES
Pre Mean (SD)
Post Mean (SD)
ES
Alphabetics n=11
33.73 (5.71)
37.82 (4.42)
.71
37.18 (4.02)
38.55 (2.80)
.34
Strategies n=12
32.83 (4.22)
33.75 (3.91)
.22
34.92 (4.01)
37.25 (3.08)
.58
Figure 2 Pre-Post KOLI Scores by Condition and Subtest 40
39
38
Number Correct
37
36
Alph Cond Alph Subtest Alph Cond Strat Subtest Strat Cond Alph Subtest Strat Cond Strat Subtest
35
34
33
32
31
30
Pre
Post
An additional analysis of the KOLI results was also conducted, in an effort to understand more specifically the source of the observed changes. Toward this end, each 146
of the two subtests was broken down further by item type, with teachers’ scores on declarative and applied items on each of the two subtests compared. The descriptive statistics for these comparisons are presented in Table 11. Panel A presents the statistics for the Alphabetic Knowledge subtest, while Panel B presents the statistics for the Strategic Word Identification subtest. As can be seen in the table, small to moderate effect sizes were noted across conditions from pre-to post-test on the declarative items. It should be noted here that ceiling effects may have served to reduce the observable gains for teachers in the Alphabetics condition on declarative Alphabetic Knowledge items, as several participants had maximum or near maximum scores. Table 11 Pre-Post Scores on KOLI Subtests by Declarative and Applied Items A. Item types for Alphabetic Knowledge Declarative (max =19 )
Applied (max = 34 )
Condition
Pre Mean (SD)
Post Mean (SD)
ES
Pre Mean (SD)
Post Mean (SD)
ES
Alphabetics n = 11
14.64 (3.53)
15.73 (2.76)
.31
19.09 (2.66)
22.09 (2.59)
1.13
20.17 (2.44)
19.75 (2.67)
-.17
Strategies 12.67 14.00 .39 n = 12 (3.45) (2.56) B. Item Types for Strategic Word Identification Declarative (max = 29 )
Applied (max = 18 )
Condition
Pre Mean SD
Post Mean SD
ES
Pre Mean SD
Post Mean SD
ES
Alphabetics n = 11
21.55 (3.17)
22.64 (2.69)
.34
15.64 (1.36)
15.91 (1.04)
.20
Strategies n = 12
21.08 (2.87)
21.75 (3.08)
.22
13.83 (2.73)
15.50 (1.00)
.61
When applied items were analyzed, however, a different picture emerged. Within
147
each condition, teachers’ pre- to post-testing effect sizes were much larger for the applied items related to their condition than for the declarative items. Thus, teachers in the Alphabetics condition made greater gains on applied Alphabetic Knowledge items, while their effect sizes were approximately equal on the applied and declarative items of the Strategic Word Identification subtest. Conversely, teachers in the Strategies condition made greater gains on applied than on declarative items on the Strategic Word Identification subtest. And, teachers in the Strategies condition demonstrated a small negative effect size on the applied items on the Alphabetic Knowledge subtest and a small to moderate effect size on the declarative items. Given that teacher knowledge tends to develop from declarative to applied forms over time (Snow, Griffin & Burns, 2005), the fact that the professional development effected applied items more strongly is noteworthy. Again, however, it should be noted that there were potential ceiling effects, this time in relation to the applied items on the Strategic Word Identification subtest, which could have reduced the observable gains in either condition. Further, the variability for these items was quite small at posttest and this serves to inflate the effect size. While changes in teacher knowledge are, in and of themselves, a desirable goal in professional development, it is also important to determine whether or not those changes are translated into teacher practices. This question, therefore, is addressed next. Effects of the Professional Development on Teachers’ Reports of Changes in Instructional Practices Teachers were asked to report on changes in their practices through an on-line survey to which 20 of the 23 teachers responded to the survey at the end of the project. Face-to-face interviews also provided some insight into changes in practice. In this
148
section, data from the survey will be presented first, followed by data from the interviews. On-line survey responses to the question, “Overall, how much do you think your teaching practices have changed as a result of participating in this project?” are presented in Table 12, along with representative comments from teachers in each condition. Note that, in this section and throughout the remainder of the document, teacher comments are exact quotations, as transcribed from audio-tapes or taken directly from the on-line survey. On the on-line survey, 83% of teachers indicated that participation in the project resulted in changes in their practices. Teachers in the Strategies group were somewhat more positive about their involvement, as evidenced by the higher percentage of teachers who felt that their teaching practices had changed “Very Much” and the lower percentage who responded “Not Very Much.” Not surprisingly, a similar pattern emerged on a related question which asked about the influence of the project on student learning. Table 13 provides the results for this question. Overall, 88% of the responding teachers reported that their participation in the project had influenced their students’ learning either very much or somewhat. Teachers who participated in the Strategies group were, again, somewhat more positive, as evidenced by the higher percentage of teachers who felt that their students’ learning was influenced “Very Much” as opposed to “Somewhat.”
149
Table 12 Percentage of Teachers Reporting Different Degrees of Change in Practices as a Result of Project Participation. Overall, how much do you think your teaching practices have changed as a result of participating in this project? Condition Alphabetics Strategies Total
Very Much 0.0 37.5 17.6
Somewhat 77.8 50.0 64.7
Not Very Much 22.2 12.5 17.6
Not at All 0 0 0
If you think your teaching practices have changed, please provide some specific examples.
Condition
Examples of reported changes in teacher practices
Alphabetics
I like what I have learned as a result of this project because I know that the students I work with can do more challenging things than I was asking of them before in the area of word work. I learned how to make my instruction more explicit and efficient.
Alphabetics
I have more concrete activities that are applicable in teaching first grade readers. I have incorporated these activities which has helped students make progress.
Strategies
I think I have become more reflective in my practice. I taught my kindergartners specific strategies and introduced them very explicitly. We made strategy bookmarks and students used them at home. With first grade, I made student strategy folders and tried to explicitly teach strategies. I also think I began modeling strategy use much more frequently.
Strategies
My daily interactions with my reading students have changed. I am more aware of the language I use and the time I give my student to decode using her strategies.
150
Table 13 Percentages of Teachers Reporting Different Degrees of Influence of Project Participation on Student Learning How much has student learning been influenced by your participation in the project? Condition Alphabetics Strategies Total
Very Much
Somewhat
Not Very Much
Not at All
11.1 37.5 23.5
77.8 50.0 64.7
11.1 12.5 11.8
0 0 0
If you think your students' learning has changed, please give specific examples of the changes. Condition
Examples of reported changes in student learning
Alphabetics
I have helped create some more "aha moments" on the spot for my students when I could respond in more helpful ways to understand letter name/letter sound confusions. I like to think their growth in reading comes from good instruction so as I build my knowledge, I hope it helps them.
Alphabetics
My student seems more confident with recognizing word families, and uses them when reading texts. He is also more secure with letter sounds, and combining them to form words.
Strategies
As the children learned each strategy and felt comfortable using it they became more confident in their reading abilities. It gave them a concrete way to figure out unknown words versus asking me, skipping it, or just sitting there.
Strategies
They use the strategies more consistently and take responsibility for their learning.
Although teachers were not specifically asked about changes in their teaching practices during the interview, transcripts were analyzed for evidence of such reports. The interview transcripts were analyzed in several steps. First, all of the interviews were
151
compiled into a single electronic document, with teachers’ responses organized by question. The complete document was then read, with any responses related to changes in teacher practices highlighted. Since these responses tended to cluster by question, all questions that contained any highlighting were then reread, with any additional responses relating to changes in teacher practices highlighted as well. All highlighted sections were then cut and pasted into a new document and reread again, with track changes used to track recurring themes and categories of responses. A description for each of the themes and categories was written, and these descriptions were then used to code each of the responses and to chart their occurrences across teachers and conditions. Finally, the same descriptions were used to code the responses to the instructional practices question on the survey, and this information was added to the chart. Two basic themes emerged from the data, one related to generalized teacher practices and one more specific to instructional activities and materials. The coding system used to analyze the interview data related to changes in practices, along with an example of each category, is presented in Table 14. Table 14 Coding System for Face-to-Face Interview, Changes in Teacher Practices Generalized Practices
Examples of reported changes in generalized teacher practices
Broad Changes
Changes in teacher practice that are likely to go beyond specific activities (e.g., “I felt it made me more reflective in my practice.”)
Carry Over
Use of instructional activities and/or assessments with students beyond the scope of the study (e.g., “I started working with kindergarten groups this year, so some of the ideas I have been doing with those groups.”)
Collegial Interaction
Extended interactions with colleagues for the purposes of discussing the content of the professional development, planning and/or assessment (e.g., “…so we’ve done a lot of collaboration after viewing the videos.”)
152
Table 14 continued Specific Practices
Examples of reported changes in specific teacher practices
Specific Instructional Activity/ Materials
Use of specific instructional activities or materials described in professional development materials, in much the same way they are described and/or demonstrated in text or on videos (e.g., “The chart that had the vowels on it for writing the patterns on it – that one I used with the first graders…”)
Specific Assessment
Use of assessments provided and/or suggested (e.g., “I did the coding, I liked that. It was hard at first, you know, because you’re trying to think of all of the different things, yet, I think it was beneficial in the end.”)
Specific Instructional Activity – Modified
Use of specific instructional activities described in the professional development materials, but modified or extended in ways not explicitly suggested (e.g., “…so I was reading to them and when I got to a [word], I would pretend to not know it and asked them, well what should I do now and, to see if they could really do what we had been talking about and they could.”)
Non-Specific Instructional Activity
Use of unspecified ideas from professional development materials or videos (e.g., “I modeled a couple of my lessons after things I saw in the videos.”)
Results from the coding are presented in Table 15. Twenty-two out of 23 teachers made reference to changes in their practices as a result of participation in the project. An examination of the data reveals that all teachers who participated in the Alphabetics condition reported using some specific instructional activities or materials that they learned about through the professional development. Forty-five percent of these teachers also reported broader changes in their instructional practices. By contrast, fewer teachers who participated in the Strategies condition reported using specific instructional activities or materials, but these teachers were more likely to report broader changes in their
153
practice, to be nonspecific in their references to their instruction and/or to report having developed activities or materials that were based on what they learned through the professional development but were not explicitly recommended. A small number of teachers in each group reported using specific assessments that were suggested, using what they were learning through professional development with students other than those targeted by the study, and changes in their collegial interactions that had an impact on their instruction. The teachers’ responses to the interview questions and the on-line survey suggest that nearly everyone felt that their instructional practices changed as a result of participating in the professional development. Although some differences were noted across groups, these differences are understandable, given the varying content of the two conditions. For example, the Strategies condition, with more of a focus on explicit instruction, scaffolding, and the gradual release of responsibility, was more likely to generate reports of changes in teaching style and philosophy, while the Alphabetics condition, with more of a focus on sequences of skills and instructional routines, was more likely to generate reports of trying out specific instructional activities and/or materials.
154
Table 15 Percentages of Teachers Reporting Changes in Generalized and Specific Teacher Practices Condition Overall (n=23)
Alphabetics ( n=11)
Strategies (n=12)
Broad Changes
56
45
75
Carry Over
22
18
25
Collegial Interaction
9
9
8
Specific Instructional Activities and/or Materials Specific Assessment
83
100
75
22
27
17
Specific Instructional Activity – Modified Non-Specific Instructional Activity
26
9
42
35
27
42
Reported changes in teacher practices Generalized Practices
Specific Practices
When asked during the interview whether they would continue to use what they had learned through the professional development with their students the following year, all teachers who reported changes in their instructional practices over the course of the study indicated their intent to continue to utilize things they had learned. Words like “absolutely” and “definitely” were frequently used, with many teachers reporting that they felt they would be better able to utilize the instructional approaches the following year. Sample comments from teachers are included in Table 16.
155
Table 16 Teacher Comments Regarding Plans to Continue to Use What was Learned in Professional Development the Following Year
Condition
Sample Teacher Comments
Alphabetics
These different assessments – we were talking about maybe using some of these starting for next year in the Fall when we start our assessments.
Alphabetics
I’m hoping to have a better fit as to when I introduce things, although this year I just used the things, sometimes, as review of something we had done before, so that worked out OK too, but next year I hope to be able to use it as the introduction piece.
Strategies
I will probably start teaching them earlier on, making a point to really review each one, so that way, as we get kind of half-way through the year, they’re really ready to use those strategies kind of independently. As opposed to starting later in the year.
Strategies
I think I can do a much better job and I know that it worked, so I think if I could give it a little more time, over the summer, and when I start to plan, that I actually would like to use it.
Overall then, data from the on-line survey and the face-to-face interviews indicate that teachers reported changes in their instructional practices and in their students’ learning that were consistent with their professional development condition. Moreover, they expressed an intention to continue using the approaches from the professional development and to integrate the approaches more fully into their overall plans the following year. Whether or not these reported changes in teacher practices were associated with changes in reading outcomes for their students is addressed next.
156
Student Outcomes Relationships between reading ability, phonics skills, and word identification strategy knowledge An underlying assumption of this study is that phonics skills and word identification strategy knowledge would account for unique variance in measures of reading ability. To test this assumption, correlational and regression analyses were conducted using the pretest measures of decoding and encoding skills, strategy knowledge, and the Fountas and Pinnell Benchmark Assessment. Table 17 presents the correlations among these measures. These correlations indicate that each of the condition-sensitive measures correlates significantly with the general reading measure at pretest. Moreover, the three decoding/encoding measures are more highly correlated with one another than they are with the strategies measure. Because the three measures of decoding/encoding skill were fairly highly intercorrelated and because they each correlated at a similar level with the Benchmark Assessment, the scores were combined to form a composite measure of decoding/encoding skill (phonics composite). The phonics composite was computed by converting scores on each measure to z scores using the means and standard deviations for the entire sample, and then averaging each student’s z scores across the three measures. This phonics composite correlated .66 (p < .01) with the Benchmark Assessment and .44 (p < .01) with the Strategic Reading Inventory - Primary
157
Table 17 Correlations between Decoding and Encoding, Strategy Knowledge, and Text Reading at Pre-test Measure
Benchmark Assessment Primary Decoding Test Primary Spelling Inventory
Primary Decoding Test
Primary Spelling Inventory
Phonics Inventory
.50**
.67**
.58**
Strategic Reading Inventory – Primary .61**
__
.68**
.59**
.37**
__
.74**
.40**
__
.39**
Phonics Inventory ** p < .01
To evaluate the extent to which the phonics composite and the strategy measure accounted for unique proportions of the variance in the general reading measure, hierarchical regression analyses were conducted, with instructional reading level (Benchmark Assessment) at pre-test as the dependent variable. Together, these two predictors accounted for 56 % of the variance in scores on the Benchmark Assessment. Results from the two regression models are presented in Table 18. When the phonics composite was the first variable to enter the equation, it accounted for 43 % of the variance. The strategies measure accounted for an additional 13 % of the variance. When the strategies measure was entered into the regression equation first, it accounted for 37 % of the variance in scores on the Benchmark Assessment, with the phonics composite accounting for an additional 19 %. These analyses indicate that both of the predictors
158
accounted for significant and unique variance in instructional reading level on the Benchmark Assessment.
Table 18 Results from Hierarchical Regression Models, with Benchmark Assessment at Pre-test as Dependent Variable
Entered First
Model 1 Predictor Percentage of Variance Accounted For Phonics Composite 44***
Model 2 Predictor Percentage of Variance Accounted For Strategies Measure 37***
Entered Second
Strategies Measure
Phonics Composite
Total R Square *** p < .001
13***
.564***
19***
.564***
Changes in Student Reading Outcomes: Condition-Sensitive Measures To test the hypothesis that students’ achievement would reflect the professional development condition of their teachers, the effects of the two treatment conditions on student outcomes were compared across multiple reading and reading-related, conditionsensitive measures. These measures included the Primary Decoding Test, the Primary Spelling Inventory, the Phonics Inventory, and the Strategic Reading Inventory – Primary level. If the treatment condition for teachers had a differential effect on student achievement, students of teachers in the Alphabetics condition should outperform students of teachers in the Strategies condition on measures of decoding and encoding. Conversely, students of teachers in the Strategies condition should outperform students of
159
teachers in the Alphabetics condition on the measure of strategy knowledge and application. Descriptive statistics for these measures are presented in Table 19. A 2 Condition x 2 Time x 4 Measure Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was used to test the hypothesis that students’ scores on the conditionsensitive measures would be differentially influenced by their teachers’ treatment condition. The main effect of Time was significant (F[1,50] = 545.62, p < .001) and indicated that, when results were collapsed across measures and conditions, students had better outcomes at posttest than at pretest. The main effect for Measure (F[3,48] = 253.86, p < .001) was also significant, which was to be expected, given the varying numbers of items on the different measures. The interaction of Time by Measure (F[3,48] = 68.24, p < .001) was also significant, indicating that, across conditions, students had better outcomes from pre-to posttest, although gains were not equal across the measures. The interactions of Time by Condition and Measure by Condition were not significant, but the three way interaction of Time by Measure by Condition was (F[3,48] = 4.16, p = .011), indicating that, from pre-to posttest, students’ outcomes on the condition-sensitive measures changed differentially, depending upon the professional development condition of their teachers. To further investigate the significant three-way interaction, follow-up univariate ANOVAs were used to isolate the significant interactions for each of the measures. For each of the four condition-sensitive measures, a 2 Condition x 2 Time ANOVA was conducted to compare the pre- and posttest performance of students across conditions. As would be expected for students in the second half of their first grade year, students in both groups gained on all measures from January to June, as indicated by significant
160
main effects for Time on each of the four ANOVAs. The hypothesized Condition by Time interaction approached significance for the Primary Decoding Test (F[1,50] = 2.21, p = .144). It should be noted here that a ceiling effect was observed on the Primary Decoding Test at posttest. This ceiling effect differentially impacted the scores of students from the two conditions, with students from the Alphabetics condition much more likely to be at or close to ceiling; this range restriction may account for the failure to find a significant interaction effect on this measure. No Condition by Time interaction was observed for the Primary Spelling Inventory or the Phonics Inventory. However, a significant interaction was found for Time and Condition for the Strategic Reading Inventory - Primary (F[1,50] = 8.85, p = .005), reflecting that students of teachers in the Strategies condition made greater gains on the measure of strategy knowledge and application than did students of teachers in the Alphabetics condition. Although the statistical tests for the decoding and encoding measures were not significant, a perusal of the pre-post test effect sizes, as presented in Table 19, reveals that, in each case, student outcomes were in the expected direction, with changes from January to June reflecting the emphasis of the teachers’ professional development condition. The largest effect sizes for the decoding and encoding measures were observed among students in the Alphabetics condition, while the effect size for the Strategic Reading Inventory - Primary was larger for students in the Strategies condition. The largest contrasts between groups were seen on the Primary Decoding Test and the Strategic Reading Inventory – Primary level. Specifically, the pre-post effect sizes for the Primary Decoding Test were large for the students in the Alphabetics condition but small to moderate for students in the Strategies condition. Conversely, the pre-post effect sizes
161
for the Strategic Reading Inventory -Primary were large for students in the Strategies condition, but small for students in the Alphabetics condition. The pattern of effect sizes suggests that these measures were sensitive to the professional development condition of the teachers, with students demonstrating growth that was consistent with their teachers’ professional development condition.
Table 19 Descriptive Statistics for Pre-Post Testing on Condition-Sensitive Measures Condition Alphabetics
Strategies
Measure
Pre Mean (SD)
Post Mean (SD)
ES
Pre Mean (SD)
Post Mean (SD)
ES
Primary Decoding Testa
14.57 (5.30)
19.64 (5.78)
.95
12.88 (6.30)
15.83 (6.69)
.47
Primary Spelling Inventoryb
29.61 (6.75)
47.25 (9.76)
2.61
27.08 (8.50)
43.58 (11.84)
1.94
Phonics Inventoryc
13.46 (7.56)
29.18 (9.39)
2.08
11.75 (7.60)
25.96 (9.32)
1.86
Strategic 7.89 9.11 .25 7.21 11.75 1.23 Reading (4.84) (4.18) (3.69) (3.23) Inventory Primaryd a Scanlon, n.d. bBear, Invernizzi, Templeton, & Johnston, 2004. cGunning, 2008. d Anderson & Gelzheiser, 2007.
162
In summary, results from these analyses suggest that the teachers’ participation in a particular treatment condition differentially impacted their students’ outcomes on condition-sensitive reading and reading-related measures. The question of whether or not these condition-sensitive outcomes translated into improved outcomes on more general measures of reading will be considered next. Changes in Student Reading Outcomes: General Reading Measures The general reading measures were the subtests of the Multi-Level Passage Word List and Text Reading Assessment: Word List and Text Reading and the Benchmark Assessment. It was hypothesized that, if a strategic approach to word identification contributes to a “self-teaching” effect, then students in the Strategies condition, when compared to students in the Alphabetics condition, should not only be more strategic in their word solving, but this “strategicness” should translate into improved word and text reading skills. For each of these more general reading measures then, students in the Strategies condition should outperform students in the Alphabetics condition who had similar decoding/encoding skills and similar levels of strategy knowledge at the beginning of the study. Table 20 presents the descriptive statistics on these measures for the entire sample. These descriptive data suggest that there was a tendency for the students in the Strategies group to outperform students in the Alphabetics group. However, because the design of the study precluded random assignment of students to conditions, and because it was anticipated at the outset of the study that the groups might not be well matched on the foundational skills upon which reading development depends, the hypothesis called for evaluating the effects of treatment condition after statistically controlling for pre-
163
existing differences in foundational literacy skills. To accomplish this, a matched pairs procedure was used to equate students across conditions as nearly as possible. Matched pairs t-tests were used to compare student outcomes across treatment groups on the three dependent measures, with separate matches created for each of the variables related to the two conditions. While matched pairs are often used to account for the influence of co-variates on dependent measures, they were thought to be particularly useful in this case, since the important co-variates also represented the treatment conditions and since the treatment conditions might have differential effects, depending upon the pre-intervention levels of the students on each of the treatment measures. Following this line of thinking, matched pairs of students were created across the two treatment groups, using a “nearest neighbor” matching procedure (Ho, Imai, King & Stuart, 2007). This procedure matches by using a specified distance option, selecting the best control matches for each subject in the treatment group. Matching is accomplished for the treatment group subjects one at a time, with the control subject who is not yet matched and is closest to the treatment subject on the distance measure selected. The purpose of the matching procedure is to “approximate blocking prior to random treatment assignment in order to balance covariates between treatment and control groups” (Ho, Imai, King & Stuart, 2007, p. 37). Similar to the use of MANCOVA, this procedure allowed for pre-existing differences in decoding/encoding to be accounted for when examining treatment effects, but did so on a case-by case basis for each of the pairs, rather than by looking at the averages for the total groups.
164
Table 20 Descriptive Statistics at Post-test for the Benchmark Assessment and the Multi-Level Passage Word List and Text Reading Measures Condition Alphabetics N = 28
Strategies N = 24
Measure
Mean (SD)
Mean (SD)
Benchmark Assessment
7.64 (2.30)
7.96 (2.37)
Word List (max = 20)
12.79 (3.69)
13.83 (3.89)
Text Reading (max = 44)
20.50 (8.98)
23.00 (9.82)
Although there were two treatment conditions in this study, the Strategies condition was considered to be the treatment condition for the purpose of matching, with the Alphabetics condition serving as the control. Two sets of matched pairs were created, with one set being matched on the pretest phonics composite and the other being matched on the pretest Strategic Reading Inventory – Primary. Each matching process resulted in 23 matched pairs. t-tests for matched pairs were then used to analyze the differences between the conditions. Three separate analyses were conducted for each set of matched pairs. Gain scores from pre- to post-testing on instructional reading level on the Benchmark Assessment and scores on the Word List and Text Reading were used as the dependent measures. The descriptive statistics, computed on the matched pairs for the three dependent measures, are presented in Table 21, with Panel A representing the
165
matches on the phonics composite and Panel B representing the matches on the strategy measure.
Table 21 Descriptive Statistics for Matched Pairs A. Students matched on Phonics Composite at pre-test Condition Measure Mean Mean Mean Alphabetics Strategies Difference (SD[D]) Benchmark 3.96 4.0 .04 (gain) (2.36)
ES Difference
t
.02
.09
Word List
12.96
14.35
1.39 (3.86)
.36
1.73*
Text Reading
19.91
24.00
4.09 (7.56)
.54
2.59**
B. Students matched on Strategic Reading Inventory - Primary at pre-test Condition Measure Mean Mean Mean ES Alphabetics Strategies Difference Difference (SD[D]) Benchmark 4.09 4.00 -.09 -.03 (gain) (3.04) Word List 12.22 14.35 2.13 .43 (5.01) Text 18.26 24.00 5.74 .52 Reading (11.00)
t
-.14 2.04* 2.51**
* p < .05, ** p < .01
Results from the matched pairs t-tests indicate that students in the Strategies condition outperformed students in the Alphabetics condition on two of the three reading outcome measures. Specifically, when matched on the phonics composite at pre-test, a significant difference in performance between conditions was demonstrated on the Word
166
List (t[22] = 1.73, p < .05) and on the Text Reading measures (t[22] = 2.59, p < .01), with differences in each case favoring the students in the Strategies condition. The difference between conditions on the Benchmark Assessment did not approach significance. When matching was completed on the basis of strategy knowledge at pre-test, the outcomes were very similar. Specifically, a significant between group difference in performance was demonstrated on the Word List (t[22] = 2.04, p < .05) and on the Text Reading measure (t[22] = 2.50, p < .01). Once again, the difference between conditions on the Benchmark Assessment did not approach significance. These results, in general, support the hypothesis that a strategic approach to word identification contributes to a “selfteaching” effect, such that students who are taught to employ such an approach build their sight vocabulary and increase their oral reading accuracy more quickly, both of which should contribute to improved reading comprehension. It was anticipated that a significant advantage for the Strategies condition on the Word List and Text Reading measures would be accompanied by a significant effect on the Benchmark Assessment. There are several possible reasons why this may not have occurred. First, the Benchmark Assessment includes text comprehension in the computation of instructional reading level. Nothing in the strategies condition was specifically targeted at directly influencing comprehension. Nonetheless, it would be anticipated that improvement in word solving that relies, in part, on the use of contextual information would lead to improved text comprehension. This issue will be addressed further in Chapter 5. The lack of a significant effect on the Benchmark Assessment may also be considered from a statistical standpoint. For example, it is important to point out here that
167
the findings may be related to differences in the score ranges on the various measures. While there are many strong reasons for utilizing a benchmark assessment such as the one used in this study, it may not be a sensitive enough measure for detecting small but potentially important differences between two treatment conditions. At post-test, students’ scores on the Benchmark Assessment ranged from a low of 2 (level B) to a high of 13 (level M), with 71% of the scores clustered within just four levels, F through I. For 14 of the 23 matched pairs, when matching on the decoding composite, the differences in gain scores (posttest – pretest) between matched students were one or zero. In contrast, students’ scores on the Text Reading measure ranged from a low of zero to a high of 41, with 27 different scores represented in between. With a greater range and increased variability in scores, the Text Reading measure may be more sensitive to differences between students than the Benchmark Assessment. In summary, results from the matched pairs analyses demonstrate that, when matched to control for pre-existing differences in the treatment sensitive variables at pretest, students of teachers in the Strategies condition outperformed students of teachers in the Alphabetics condition on two of the three reading outcome measures. Specifically, when pre-existing differences in decoding/encoding skills and strategy knowledge were controlled for, students who were taught to utilize both code-based and meaning-based strategies for figuring out words had better outcomes on measures assessing both word and text level reading. However, differences between the conditions on a measure of reading comprehension did not approach significance. Overall, the results of the study indicate that students demonstrated conditionsensitive gains in decoding and encoding or in strategy knowledge aligned with the
168
treatment condition in which their teachers participated. Further, the results are generally consistent with the initial hypotheses and lend support to the argument that instruction designed to support a generative and strategic approach to word solving facilitates the development of a “self-teaching” mechanism, resulting in an increase in sight word knowledge and oral reading accuracy. Moreover, the results indicate that reading and special education teachers demonstrated gains in knowledge that were consistent with their professional development condition and they reported changes in their instructional practices and changes in their students’ learning as a result of participating in the professional development. The importance of these findings will be discussed in Chapter 5. The remainder of this chapter will address teachers’ perceptions of the particular approach to professional development employed in this study. Teachers’ Perceptions of the Content, Materials, and Format used for Professional Development In addition to comparing the differential effects of the two professional development conditions on teacher and student outcomes, a second goal of this study was to explore teacher perceptions of and reactions to an innovative approach to professional development. Data obtained from the face-to-face interviews and the on-line survey, both completed at the end of the study, were used for this purpose. The discussion that follows necessarily moves back and forth between these two data sources, with the source of the information documented in each case. Of primary interest was learning whether or not teachers would find the professional development, including a one-day workshop and several opportunities for independent, extended engagement with the content useful for improving their instructional practices and influencing student achievement.
169
This topic was most directly addressed via the on-line survey. Survey items which were particularly relevant, along with representative responses for each group, are summarized in Tables 22-24 below. Satisfaction with the Workshop With respect to the one-day workshop, 94% of the teachers who responded to this question reported being satisfied with the workshop. However, these responses were not entirely consistent with the teachers’ responses to questions pertaining to changes in their practice and student learning (as discussed previously). Specifically, although teachers in the Strategies condition had reported somewhat greater changes in their teaching practices and in their students’ learning, teachers in the Alphabetics condition were somewhat more positive in their reactions to the workshop, as evidenced by the higher percentage of teachers who reported being “Very Satisfied” as opposed to “Somewhat Satisfied.” One teacher in the Strategies condition reported being “Somewhat Dissatisfied” with the workshop and indicated in her comments, “I thought it was a lot of lecture. I was familiar with a lot of the content already.”
170
Table 22 Percentage of Teachers Reporting Different Levels of Satisfaction with the Workshop How satisfied were you with the workshop overall? Condition Alphabetics Strategies Total
Very Satisfied 70.0 50.0 61.1
Somewhat Satisfied 30.0 37.5 33.3
Somewhat Dissatisfied 0.0 12.5 5.6
Very Dissatisfied 0.0 0.0 0.0
Condition
Sample comments regarding the things teachers LIKED or FOUND USEFUL about the workshop
Alphabetics
The workshop gave much practical knowledge about the teaching of reading and why different methods were more effective than others. I especially liked the practical suggestions of lessons and visuals to use with the students. I also very much liked the research based information.
Alphabetics
There were many practical activities that I could use with my first grade readers.
Strategies
Strategies
I especially liked the clear presentation of the strategies list, and examples of how the students used the list and were able to identify the strategies they use. I left the workshop with plans for implementing strategy use right away. I especially enjoyed watching the work of the teachers delivering intervention on the videos.
Usefulness of Written Materials At the end of the one-day workshop, all teachers received a binder that included handouts of the PowerPoint presentation and written materials that reiterated and expanded upon the content of the workshop. On the on-line survey, teachers were asked if they read the materials that were provided at the end of the workshop. Of the 17 teachers who responded to this question, 88% indicated that they did read the written materials. Teachers were then asked to rate the usefulness of the written materials; 100%
171
of the teachers responded that they found the materials to be “Somewhat” or “Very Useful.” In this case, the teachers in the Strategies condition tended to be somewhat more positive in their reactions, as evidenced by the slightly higher percentage of teachers who found the written materials to be “Very Useful” as opposed to “Somewhat Useful.”
Table 23 Percentage of Teachers Reporting Different Degrees of Usefulness of Written Materials If you read the WRITTEN MATERIALS that were provided, how useful did you find the information? Condition Alphabetics Strategies Total
Very Useful 50.0 57.1 53.3
Somewhat Useful 50.0 42.9 46.7
Not Very Useful
Not Useful at All
0 0 0
0 0 0
Condition
Sample comments regarding the things teachers LIKED or FOUND USEFUL about the written materials.
Alphabetics
I developed a better understanding of instructional sequence based on difficulty of skills as we present them to children; letter name and letter sound knowledge helped me to better analyze miscues and misspellings made by some of my emergent readers. Knowing why they made these types of errors enabled me to be more helpful to them in teaching them and clearing up their misconceptions.
Alphabetics
I liked the different lessons to try with the students and I did use many of the ideas as appropriate for my readers. I liked the way the lessons were presented in a step-by-step format without feeling like you were locked into a scripted program.
Strategies
I liked that the information provided a step by step path to understanding what the strategy was about. It was not only helpful on the first read but also when I was implementing and needed to look back. I also liked the visuals added. The list of strategies, the charts, etc.
Strategies
The clear, “real world” examples that supported the research-based findings. I could immediately apply them.
172
Usefulness of Supplementary Materials Approximately one month after the one-day workshop, teachers received the first packet of Extended Engagement Materials. Two more EEMs were sent, with approximately one month transpiring between each. Depending upon the topics covered, the EEMs included information for the teachers to read on the topic, suggestions for student activities or assessments, and/or video demonstrations. Each set of materials was accompanied by questions to guide teacher reflection. As part of the on-line survey, teachers were asked to rate the usefulness of the supplementary materials for planning instruction. Table 24 summarizes these results, with panels A through D presenting teachers’ responses to the video demonstrations, instructional activities, assessments, and guides for teacher reflection. These data indicate that all of the teachers who responded found the video demonstrations and teacher activities to be at least “somewhat” useful. Teachers in the Alphabetics condition found these to be somewhat more useful than teachers in the Strategies condition, as evidenced by the higher percentage of teachers who rated them as “Very Useful” as opposed to “Somewhat Useful.” Teachers in the Alphabetics condition also reacted more positively to the student assessments. All Alphabetics teachers rated the assessments as “Very Useful” or “Somewhat Useful,” while only 64% of the teachers in the Strategies condition did so. The guides for teacher reflection were rated as being the least useful of the supplementary materials to the teachers for planning instruction although, again, teachers in the Alphabetics condition reported them to be somewhat more useful. One teacher in the Strategies group rated the assessments to be “Not Useful at All”, while one teacher in the Alphabetics group rated the reflection questions to be
173
“Not Useful at All.” Both teachers cited constraints on their time as reasons for not making use of the particular materials.
Table 24 Percentages of Teachers Reporting Different Levels of Usefulness of the Supplementary Materials for Planning Instruction
A. How useful were the Video Demonstrations for planning instruction? Condition
Very Useful
Alphabetics Strategies Total
73 50 63
Somewhat Useful 27 50 37
Not Very Useful
Not Useful at All
0 0 0
0 0 0
B. How useful were the Instructional Activities for planning instruction? Condition
Very Useful
Alphabetics Strategies Total
82 38 63
Somewhat Useful 18 63 37
Not Very Useful
Not Useful at All
0 0 0
0 0 0
C. How useful were the Assessments for planning instruction? Condition
Very Useful
Alphabetics Strategies Total
73 49 61
Somewhat Useful 27 14 22
Not Very Useful
Not Useful at All
0 29 11
0 14 6
D. How useful were the Guides for Teacher Reflection for planning instruction? Condition
Very Useful
Alphabetics Strategies Total
18 14 17
Somewhat Useful 36 43 39
174
Not Very Useful
Not Useful at All
46 29 39
0 14 6
Table 24 continued
Condition
Sample comments regarding the things teachers LIKED or FOUND USEFUL about the supplementary materials.
Alphabetics
Video - was great to be able to actually see the lesson. Student activities were easy to implement. Assessments were clear- didn't use them but next year plan to.
Alphabetics
The student activities and videos were my favorite part.
Strategies
I used the all of the ideas from the video demonstrations as well as many of the student activities. I loved both of these because they helped me to guide my instruction and lead me on the right path. I used some of the student assessments to ensure correct instruction but also relied on my day to day assessments. The questions for teacher reflection helped to keep me on the right path and question how I could make things better…
Strategies
The materials that can immediately be used with students are the most helpful. It is also useful to see teachers demonstrating the strategies with students.
When asked to comment specifically about things they did not like or did not find useful about the supplementary materials, eight of the teachers in the Strategies condition made specific comments. Of these, five teachers noted that time constraints somehow impacted their ability to use the materials, with comments such as:
Time was of the essence, so having to complete any additional work was too difficult.
Unfortunately, due to time constraints I did not do the teacher reflection questions.
175
I was not able to find the time to maximize the use of these materials. I did not get to use them.
One teacher said she would have liked to receive more videos that were new, although she saw how repeating the videos helped her to see the details; another indicated that the videos were too long; and a third simply mentioned that she did not fully use the assessments. Six teachers in the Alphabetics group also made specific comments about things they did not like or did not find useful about the supplementary materials. Of these, only one mentioned time, while several indicated that the materials were not really necessary. For example:
We did not use the "Teacher Reflection" section. It was simply too formal and we did not need it to collaborate on the project. We did have many chats about what we felt, changed, liked, worried about, etc. We both made the same changes to our programs.
I did not administer additional assessments provided, because I decided not to take time away from instruction. Also I had already recently collected data on my students, I knew they were well grouped, and I was confident in my instructional plans for them.
I didn't find the reflective questions necessary. I feel as if I constantly reflect on my teaching, and how I need to modify it to better help my students.
One teacher indicated that she would have used the reflection questions at a workshop, where she would have had the opportunity to discuss them with colleagues, and one
176
mentioned the videos, saying “I would not say that I did not like the videos, but I did not find them that useful.” (This teacher rated the videos as being “somewhat useful.”) Specific Comments About the Video Demonstrations In the face-to-face interviews, teachers were asked to comment specifically on the video demonstrations and reflection guides that were included as part of the follow-up materials for the Professional Development. Of the 23 teachers participating in the study, all but one teacher in the Alphabetics condition indicated that they watched at least some of the video clips that were sent. One teacher in the Strategies condition indicated that she had difficulty viewing the videos on her computer, but that she was able to listen to them. In general, the teachers’ comments during the interview suggested that they found the videos to be a useful tool for professional development. Across the two conditions, teachers’ comments about the video clips reflected the importance of modeling, particularly as a support to the written materials. Consistent with their responses to the on-line survey, teachers in the Strategies condition were more likely to mention things that they did not like about the videos, in addition to things that they found useful, while teachers in the Alphabetics condition were more likely to make only positive comments. Only one teacher in the Alphabetics condition was less than positive in her reaction to the videos. Table 25 includes some sample comments regarding the videos. Panel A addresses aspects of the videos that teachers liked, while Panel B addresses aspects the teachers did not like.
177
Table 25 Sample Comments Regarding what Teachers Liked and Did Not Like about the Videos A. Comments about things teachers LIKED Condition
Sample comments
Alphabetics
I liked having [the videos] along with the written descriptions of what the lessons were about. ..The first one I actually went back to and watched two times, first when I read it and then when I wanted to go back and use those ideas…
Alphabetics
In a couple of situations where I was reading the material first, the video helped to clarify what the materials were saying…it made it very doable and practical. You could actually see this is what this would look like; this is how it would work.
Strategies
It was nice to see the application of things. We read tons all the time, but it’s really hard to get into other people’s classrooms, to other people’s schools, so to have something to look at, for me … helped me.
Strategies
It’s much easier for me to, instead of just reading it, to see someone do it. As when we came for that training, I think that’s very helpful for me to see it being modeled, just like you would for a child, modeling first and then, try it on your own. I think that’s a very effective strategy.
B. Comments about things teachers DID NOT LIKE Condition
Sample comments
Strategies
I felt like the videos were, kind of redundant…but kind of gave me the idea to sit there and write down what they were doing, and then I did it with the kids, where when the first time I watched it, …I didn’t think, alright, maybe I should do this later, so that helped, but I would have liked to see some other ideas as well.
Strategies
They were a lot of the same. I know we were looking at different strategies, different points…
Strategies
… at points, because I work with groups I would say, “Oh, I would just have to supply the word at that point,” because I have two other children sitting there and I could never have someone take such a long time to get through something
Alphabetics
They weren’t anything brand new to learn… None stood out as brand new information.
178
Specific Comments about the Guides for Teacher Reflection With respect to the Guides for Teacher Reflection, teachers across conditions indicated that they did not use the questions in any systematic way, although several in each condition indicated that they “read them” or “looked at them.” All teachers who did so indicated that they thought the questions were a useful tool for helping them to think about their instruction. Sample comments from teachers who used the Guides for Teacher Reflection are included in Table 26.
Table 26 Sample Comments from Teachers Who Used the Guides for Teacher Reflection Condition
Sample comments from teaches who used the Guides for Teacher Reflection
Alphabetics
I think it made me feel better, because I felt like, OK, I did that, I did that, or then you can think, oh, I didn’t even think about that. They were helpful in looking at your own teaching.
Alphabetics
It kind of called into mind…the lesson I had just accomplished. Did I, was I able to do that, or not, and why. So it was nice because it always directed your attention on the elements that needed to be focused on.
Strategies
I think they helped me to think about the materials and think about my own teaching and my own kids…
Strategies
I think that anything that gets you to sit back and look at yourself is great. I mean I think a lot of times, that’s one of the hardest pieces to do, especially when you have so much going on during the day, to kind of sit back and teach yourself, anything that makes you stop and think is beneficial.
Consistently across conditions, teachers who did not make use of the Guides for Teacher Reflection commented on competing demands on their time, their inability to find time to meet with their colleagues, and accountability issues as reasons why. Similar themes were noted when teachers were asked if they had any suggestions for improving
179
the Guides; most made suggestions that had more to do with how the Guides were used than with changing the Guides themselves. In general, the teachers felt that they would have made better use of the Guides for Teacher Reflection if they had met to discuss them on a more regular basis with their colleagues and/or if they were in some way held accountable for doing so. Sample responses from teachers who did not use the Guides for Teacher Reflection are included in Table 27.
Table 27 Sample Comments from Teachers Who Did Not Use the Guides for Teacher Reflection Condition Alphabetics
Sample comments from teachers who did not use the Guides for Teacher Reflection I’d like to use them. I would rather have done more of a collaborative part…but we were pulled in so many directions this year that it didn’t work as well.
Alphabetics
Maybe, in two weeks time, we’re going to get together and talk about this piece, then people know, OK, I have a while, but in two weeks we’re going to get together.
Alphabetics
I tried to do as much as I could, but I guess if, maybe it’s just me, but, if something were required, you know, you tend to do it. You must sit down at least once for 25 minutes with your colleague and plan a lesson. You know. We’re accountable creatures.
Strategies
…just getting the district teachers who are involved for, you know an hour after school, every few months or something like that, to talk about the questions, talk about the teaching they’ve been doing, maybe good ideas they’ve had…I think it might lead to more successful learning for teachers and students.
Strategies
…initiating more time to do it and actually talk about it, those reflections, encouraging us to do it together. I know that you did that, but it’s hard when our schedules are so crazy.
Strategies
I found them [reflection questions] more useful when I did them with a colleague, not so much when I did them by myself…I was not putting as much effort in, by myself, but when I was with my colleague, we actually sat down and,… we actually talked about how we would do that, together, which was much more helpful than by myself.
180
Peer Collaboration The issue of peer collaboration was an important one to explore, since one goal of the professional development was that teachers would work together with the colleagues in their building who were also participating. For this reason, teachers from the same building were always assigned to the same professional development condition. Despite this grouping procedure, however, just over half of the teachers, when responding to the on-line survey, indicated that participating in the professional development with their peers was helpful in implementing the recommended approaches. It should be noted here that, while only two of the participating teachers from the Strategies condition did not have a colleague from their building who was also participating, four of the 8 teachers from the Strategies condition who responded to this question on the survey chose the “Not Applicable” response. For two of these teachers, then, the “Not Helpful at All” response was probably more appropriate, raising the percentage in this category to 37.5% for the Strategies group and 17.6% overall. Teachers’ responses to the on-line survey question regarding peer collaboration are presented in Table 28. As can be seen from the table, teachers in the Alphabetics condition, in general, found participating in the professional development with colleagues from their building to be more helpful than did teachers from the Strategies condition. Of the 17 teachers who responded to this question on the on-line survey, 14 (seven from each group) chose to add a comment regarding this aspect of the professional development. An analysis of these comments reveals that teachers in the Strategies condition were more likely (four out of seven) to explicitly state that they did not have time to meet with their colleagues than were teachers in the Alphabetics condition (two
181
out of seven). For teachers who were able to find the time to meet, then, the collaboration seemed to be a useful tool that enhanced their overall participation in the project. For many teachers, however, without a structure in place to support collaboration, finding the time to meet with their colleagues just wasn’t feasible, or wasn’t a priority, given the number of other demands on their time. This inability to meet with their colleagues was related to the teachers’ suggestions for improving the professional development. Suggestions for Improving the Professional Development When asked during the interview if they had any suggestions for improving the professional development, the most frequent suggestion, across conditions, was for additional face-to-face meeting time, with 38% of the respondents indicating that they would have preferred more contact with the researcher after the initial workshop. When they made a specific suggestion, most teachers felt that a second workshop about midway through the semester would have been helpful, although one suggested meeting every time a new set of EEMs was to be sent. Several teachers suggested that the second workshop could be on-site or limited to teachers from the same district, so that there would be commonalities in terms of the things they were likely to be focusing on with their students at that point. Sample comments regarding additional contact time are included in Table 29.
182
Table 28 Percentages of Teacher who Reported Different Levels of Helpfulness Regarding Peer Collaboration If you participated in the professional development along with one or more colleagues from your building, please indicate how helpful this was in implementing the recommended approaches. Condition Very Helpful Somewhat Not Very Not Helpful Not Helpful Helpful at All Applicable Alphabetics
33.0
33.0
22.0
0.0
11.0
Strategies
13.0
25.0
0.0
13.0 (37.5)
50.0 (25)
Total
23.5
29.4
11.8
5.9(17.6)
29.4
Condition
Sample comments from teachers who found participating in professional development along with a colleague to be helpful
Alphabetics
I love working with a colleague who is always searching for more info for our kids. We feed off each other’s excitement. This project was fun to do together. As mentioned, any changes we made, were done together.
Alphabetics
Since we did not meet with all participants in the study more than twice, it was helpful to speak with a colleague occasionally to help each other keep up with materials that were sent.
Strategies
I think it was very helpful to do it with two other teachers in my building. We could share ideas and go over what the supplemental materials are and make sure we were clear on what was expected.
Strategies
We would discuss what we were doing with our students. I do wish we had watched the videos together and completed the reflection questions.
183
Table 28 continued Condition
Sample comments from teachers who did not find participating in professional development along with a colleague to be helpful
Alphabetics
The idea of completing this type of staff development with colleagues has the potential to be very powerful. However, our district is taking on some new initiatives this year with RtI and Curriculum Mapping that had all of us pulled in many different directions at once. I do not feel as though I did a very good job of collaborating with the other staff members who were participating in this project. I would like to improve on this next year as I feel that it would be a good next step to solidify some of the information that was presented to us.
Alphabetics
We didn't have as much time to get together and talk as we thought we would.
Strategies
We had so much on our plates that we didn't get to meet.
Strategies
My colleague and I do not work together, so we did not implement the recommended approaches as a team. However, I think we have a great base to do so if we have an opportunity next year.
Strategies
We did not have time to sit and discuss, so we often were unaware of what the other was doing in their instructional periods.
184
Table 29 Teachers’ Sample Comments Regarding Additional Contact Time Condition
Sample comments regarding additional contact time
Alphabetics
… it’s nice to hear how everyone else does it.
Alphabetics
I think the on-site conversations are good because you’ve got some people that are almost at the same point of reference and can kind of go from there…it makes it informal enough that people wouldn’t mind sharing.
Strategies
I think it’s helpful to sit and be able to talk, it kind of gives you another wind or motivational piece to continue on.
Strategies
… maybe not the whole big group that met, maybe if it was just all of us from this district that met, and say, this is what I’ve been doing…
Interestingly, none of the six teachers who offered positive comments about collaboration with their peers on the on-line survey suggested that there was a need for more contact time with the researcher throughout the study. Of the eight participants who suggested the need for more contact time, six either did not have a colleague in the study or commented about being unable to collaborate with their colleague(s) in response to the on-line survey. The remaining two did not respond to the survey question regarding peer collaboration. In addition to more contact across time, two teachers indicated that they would have preferred more contact time initially, perhaps with two days of workshop rather than one. These teachers indicated that, with more time, the workshop could have moved less quickly, and more of the follow-up material would have felt like a review rather than new information. In a similar vein, two teachers indicated that they would have liked the workshop to include more time for interacting with their peers than it did, with more
185
hands-on activities and small-group discussion. One teacher suggested that it would be important to have someone within the district or building whose responsibility it was to “keep it going,” particularly with respect to introducing new teachers to the approaches that were learned. Finally, one teacher suggested that the follow-up materials could have been better organized, with an easy-to-follow plan for incorporating them into the original binder of workshop materials. Perception of Follow-up Procedures When teachers were explicitly asked about the follow-up procedures during the face-to-face interview, nearly three-quarters (73%) indicated that they found receiving the EEMs on a regular basis to be a useful way of keeping them engaged in the project and thinking about how the approaches they had learned in the workshop could be implemented with their students across the year. The remaining teachers indicated that they might have made better use of the materials if they had received them all at once, immediately following the one-day workshop. Sample responses of teachers who preferred the monthly EEMs are included in Table 30 below.
186
Table 30 Sample Responses of Teachers who Responded Positively to Receiving EEMs on a Regular Basis Condition
Sample responses of teachers who responded positively to receiving EEMs on a regular basis
Alphabetics
…I think it was like a reminder of, go ahead and read this, and I didn’t always do it right away, but, within a couple of weeks I would get to it, whereas if I got it at the beginning of the semester, I might have read it all right then, and it wouldn’t be as fresh in my mind to try different things at different times. And, then, it didn’t make it as overwhelming, either, because it didn’t make it look like you were looking at a stack of readings to go through.
Alphabetics
Because it really made me stop and, look at, not only the video, but also the instructional manual, it wasn’t overwhelming, and it wasn’t too much, and as a result you were able to really, for instance, I think I reread three or four times to be honest with you, I wanted to be sure I had it straight. And highlighted, and took notes, and went right back to my college years.
Alphabetics
Some people like everything up front, and they like to do it right away, but, I think it may have been too much information all at once, I may not have looked through it. I think it’s a good reminder to have it come once a month, and it really didn’t take that much time if you just broke it up, like monthly, I thought it was good.
Strategies
Because as a teacher, piles grow rapidly, so if you have something fresh, and you know it’s coming, it stays fresh in your head, so it’s there. Definitely, in intervals is helpful, to someone like me.
Strategies
All at once to me is, I don’t know, you don’t soak it up, you have to do it little by little and learn from it, from the previous lessons.
Strategies
Knowing me, I would have watched them all [video clips] at the beginning and got them over with, out of my ‘to do’ list, and then carried on and probably forgotten all about them, but because they did come once a month, it was a good reminder for me to stop, and think about what I was doing, and go back to it, so, I liked it better that way.
187
Results from this survey suggest that a one day, single-topic workshop coupled with three topic- related sets of Extended Engagement Materials had a sizable impact on both teacher practice and student performance. Overall, teachers’ responses to both the content and format of the professional development were generally positive across conditions, although variability was noted with regard to the supplementary materials. Specifically, teachers rated the video demonstrations and instructional activities more positively than they rated the assessments or the guides for teacher reflection. Several teachers, although satisfied with the video demonstrations in general, would have preferred that all of the videos used in the EEMs were new, as opposed to some of them being re-visited from the one-day workshop. In general, teachers reported satisfaction with the format of the professional development (a one-day workshop followed by several monthly EEMs), but when specifically asked to suggest changes, over a third suggested more contact with the researcher throughout the professional development period. Importantly, the desire for increased contact time was inversely related to the teachers’ ability to collaborate with their peers, suggesting that the one-day workshop and follow-up provided through the independent use of EEMs, coupled with peer collaboration, might present a satisfactory alternative to more labor-intensive and expensive professional development models such as on-site coaching.
188
DISCUSSION In this study, reading and special education teachers were provided with professional development on one of two approaches to developing word solving skill among struggling first grade readers – a decoding approach, based on the development of alphabetic knowledge, or a strategic approach, based on the combined and confirmatory use of both code-based and meaning-based strategies. The two approaches represent separate components of the Interactive Strategies Approach (ISA), a comprehensive approach to early reading development and instruction. Across three 5-year studies over the past 15 years, the ISA has proven to be a successful means of: 1) reducing the numbers of first grade students experiencing significant reading difficulty through one-toone intervention (Scanlon et al., 2005; Vellutino et al., 1996; Vellutino & Scanlon, 2002), 2) reducing the numbers of kindergartners at-risk for early reading difficulty through small-group, twice weekly intervention (Scanlon et al., 2005), and 3) improving early literacy outcomes for kindergartners through professional development with classroom teachers (Scanlon et al., 2008). All previous studies that have investigated the efficacy of the ISA have included initial professional development and on-going support in all aspects of the approach, in an effort to help teachers promote the development of expressed goals of the approach: Motivation to Read, Phonological Awareness, Alphabetic Knowledge, Strategic Word Learning, High Frequency Sight Words, Vocabulary and Oral Language, and Comprehension and General Knowledge. As with other multi-component approaches to reading instruction and intervention, no definitive claims can be made as to the relative importance of any one component of the ISA. Anecdotal reports of teachers who have
189
participated in previous projects, however, suggest that the instructional approach used to support developing readers in the use of multiple strategies for figuring out words is one of the more powerful aspects of the professional development. This approach, which introduces four code-based and four meaning-based strategies and includes explicit instruction in the use of multiple strategies in interactive and confirmatory ways, scaffolding to support student learning, and the gradual release of responsibility, is also one of the pieces that sets the ISA apart from other multi-component approaches. Whether or not the Strategic Word Learning component represents the most active ingredient in the ISA, however, is a question to be explored by research. This study had two major purposes. The first was to investigate the differential effects of the two professional development conditions on teacher knowledge, teacher practices, and student learning. The second was to explore teachers’ perceptions of the professional development content, materials, and format, which represented a departure from more traditional professional development with respect to the follow-up procedures used to maintain the teachers’ engagement in the content of the professional development over time and to encourage them to apply the knowledge gained in their teaching The alphabetic knowledge and strategic word learning components of the ISA were selected for study because they represent a critical point of tension in the field of early literacy development, particularly for children who struggle with learning to identify unfamiliar words. The Interactive Strategies Approach has always involved explicit instruction in the combined and confirmatory use of both code-based and meaning-based strategies for word solving, and has also always included explicit teaching about the alphabetic code. However, many researchers argue strongly that skill in the use
190
of the alphabetic code is the major determinant of early literacy success (Foorman & Torgesen, 2001; NICHD, 2000; Share, 1995; Snow et al., 1998; Stanovich, 1986) and suggest that children should not be encouraged to rely on contextual supports (Adams, 1990; Mathes, Denton & Fletcher, 2005; Snow et al., 1998), both because use of such cues is unreliable and because, if their use is successful, it can be a disincentive for students to carefully attend to the letters and sounds in the words, thus lessening the likelihood that the words will become sight words (Adams, 1990). While a primary emphasis of the ISA is on development of the alphabetic knowledge necessary to support the decoding of unfamiliar words, it also takes into account two important factors related to the development of sight vocabulary: 1) most new words are learned through successful encounters with the words in text, as opposed to being explicitly taught, and 2) the application of letter-sound knowledge is not sufficient for figuring out many words,
particularly the irregularly spelled words which
are so
commonplace in the written English. As such, the ISA emphasizes the use of both codebased and meaning-based strategies. Moreover, the ISA provides a structure for promoting the interactive and confirmatory use of both kinds of strategies, with an emphasis on explicit instruction, teacher scaffolding, and the gradual release of responsibility. Consistent with the work of Share (1995) and Ehri (1995, 1998), the theoretical model supporting the word learning elements of the ISA has, at its core, the goal of building the students’ automatic sight vocabulary, and recognizes that, in order to do this, students must attend to the internal structure of new words if they are to be learned as “sight words.” Theoretically, the interactive use of both code- and meaning-based
191
strategies encourages the student to carefully attend to the letters in the word and to think about their associated sounds, while remaining focused on the meaning of the text. Careful attention to the letters, in conjunction with meaning, makes it more likely that a given word will be identified when it is first encountered and that the word will be identified more easily on subsequent occasions. It is this strategic approach to word solving that leads to successful word identification, which, in turn, leads to word learning. Further, it is the ability to readily identify most of the words encountered in text that enables comprehension of the text. The professional development provided for the teachers in this study included separate one-day workshops for teachers in each of the two conditions and three monthly follow-ups that were intended to extend the teachers’ engagement with the content of the workshop. Teachers were encouraged to collaborate with fellow teachers in their schools who were also involved in the project. The professional development was designed in accord with best practices in the field (Garet et al, 2001, 2008; Wei et al, 2009; Anders, Hoffman & Duffy, 2000; Putnam & Borko, 2000). In addition to the extended duration of the professional development across the second half of the school year and the collective participation of teachers from within the same school, it focused on content that is known to be associated with positive outcomes for students in the primary grades and that was relevant for the teachers in their day-to-day interactions with struggling readers. Links to the teachers’ instructional practices were facilitated by the use of video demonstrations, student work samples, and “Try It Out” activities. Unlike most professional development of extended duration, however, contact with the researcher was essentially limited to the one-day workshop. The follow-up materials were delivered to teachers’ schools, with the
192
expectation that teachers would utilize the materials at their convenience. Results from the study suggest that the two professional development conditions were differentially effective in changing teacher knowledge, teacher practices as indicated by self-report, and student learning. Specifically, teachers in both the Alphabetics and the Strategies conditions demonstrated gains on the measure of teacher knowledge and reported changes in their practices that were consistent with the professional development condition in which they participated. Additionally, their students demonstrated gains in condition-sensitive reading and reading related-measures, suggesting that changes in the teachers’ instruction had influenced their students’ learning. Moreover, when matched on pre-intervention levels for skills related to the treatment conditions, students of teachers in the Strategies group outperformed students of teachers in the Alphabetics group on two of three general word and text reading measures. This finding suggests that, consistent with the word learning hypothesis presented above, students who were taught to employ a strategic approach to word solving became relatively more successful at word identification and, subsequently, word learning. This translated to relatively greater success in text reading with respect to oral reading accuracy, but did not result in greater success on the assessment that included a measure of comprehension. In general, teachers’ reactions to the content, materials, and format of the professional development were positive, with teachers from both conditions indicating that the professional development resulted in changes in their practices and in their students’ learning. Teachers’ responses to the unique aspect of the professional development – the monthly Extended Engagement Materials – were generally favorable,
193
although some teachers would have preferred more contact with the researcher throughout the professional development period. Teachers’ desire for more contact time was inversely related to their ability to collaborate with peers in their building, consistent with the literature highlighting the importance of collegial interactions in supporting teacher change (Joyce & Showers, 1996). In the discussion that follows, teacher and student outcomes will be addressed in greater detail, followed by a more in-depth discussion of the teachers’ perceptions of the professional development itself and their suggestions as to how the content, materials and format might be improved upon. Differential Effects of the Two Professional Development Conditions on Teacher Knowledge, Reported Teacher Practices, and Student Learning Teacher Outcomes The Impact of the Professional Development on Teacher Knowledge According to Phelps and Schilling (2004), relatively little is known about the pedagogical knowledge required to teach reading effectively, at least in comparison to other disciplines such as science and mathematics. While a growing knowledge base exists as to the general content that teachers of reading need to know (NICHD, 2000; Snow et al., 1998, 2005) and some efforts have been made toward measuring such knowledge (Moats, 1994; McCutchen et al., 2002), much less is known about the content knowledge involved in the teaching of reading (Phelps & Schilling, 2004). According to Phelps and Schilling (2004), teachers require, “…both an ‘unpacked’ (i.e., detailed) understanding of reading and pedagogically useful knowledge of the content that can equip them to understand student work” (p. 34). Their research suggests that content
194
knowledge for teaching reading includes both topic-specific knowledge, such as knowledge related to phonemic awareness or comprehension, and pedagogical content knowledge, or knowledge that is related to “the work of teaching” (p. 42). The measure of teacher knowledge utilized in this study, the Knowledge of Literacy Instruction (KOLI) survey, is consistent in its design with this conceptualization. Specifically, the KOLI measures early literacy knowledge across multiple domains, two of which, Alphabetic Knowledge and Strategic Word Identification, are addressed in this study. Furthermore, items within each domain are designed to assess either declarative or applied knowledge. Declarative items address topic-specific knowledge and focus on specialized vocabulary, factual information, or the theoretical underpinnings of instruction within a given domain. Applied items address the pedagogical knowledge related to the given domain and require teachers to make decisions related to teaching that reflect their understanding of instructional sequences, student confusions, and the nature of the specific tasks. As Snow et al. (2005) caution, however, applied items can only approximate what a teacher might do, and are, in some ways, measuring a declarative form of applied knowledge. In essence, these items measure what a teacher says she would do in a given situation, but do not necessarily reflect the decision she would make, on-the-spot, in the real world of the classroom. Results discussed in Chapter 4 demonstrated that teachers who participated in the study made gains in knowledge about early literacy development, as measured by the KOLI, that were consistent with their professional development condition. Specifically, teachers in each group made moderate gains on the subtest items associated with their treatment condition, as compared to small gains on the items associated with the other
195
condition. This is an important finding given the accumulating research base in best practices which suggests that the content of professional development is more important than the structure and that programs that emphasize teacher knowledge over teacher behavior have a greater influence on student learning (Kennedy, 1998). According to The Report of the National Reading Panel (NICHD, 2000), when teacher outcomes show significant improvement as a result of professional development, so does student achievement. In addition to content knowledge however, it is also important that teachers have pedagogical knowledge about the subject, or knowledge that is “directly related to the work of teaching” (Phelps & Schilling, 2004). Teachers need to understand the content and understand how students learn the content (Bean & Morewood, 2007; Kennedy 1998). In this study, changes in content and pedagogical knowledge were assessed via the declarative and applied items on the KOLI. Across conditions, teachers demonstrated relatively larger gains on applied items as compared to declarative items associated with their treatment condition. While it seems reasonable to conclude that a professional development experience designed to explicitly link content with practice would result in gains on items designed to assess applied knowledge, it does not necessarily follow that such professional development would not have a similar impact on declarative knowledge, unless, of course, the applied knowledge was in fact privileged throughout the professional development. While the content of the one-day workshops focused on both declarative and applied knowledge, the purpose of the declarative knowledge that was covered was to facilitate instructional decision-making. A greater emphasis was placed on the application of declarative knowledge, since the ultimate goal was to
196
influence student learning. The EEMs were, by design, more focused on application. One potential explanation then, is that through continued engagement with the follow-up materials, the teachers continued to add to their knowledge with respect to applying what was initially introduced during the one-day workshop, leading to greater gains in applied knowledge over time. This explanation is speculative, at best, however, and will need to be explored through future research. The Impact of the Professional Development on Teacher-Reported Practice The impact of the professional development on teacher practice was evaluated through the use of an on-line survey and through a face-to-face interview, both of which were completed at the end of the study. The teachers’ responses in both cases suggest that nearly all of them felt that their instructional practices changed as a result of participating in the professional development. However, teachers in the Strategies condition reported somewhat greater changes in their instructional practices and, relatedly, in their students’ learning. Although the differences were not large, they nonetheless may be meaningful, as they might reflect differences in the content of the two professional development conditions. Specifically, because the content of the professional development for the Alphabetics condition was somewhat more focused on specific skills, it may not have been equally applicable for all of the first graders with whom the teachers were working. While knowledge and instructional activities related to teaching vowel sounds, for example, might have been immediately applicable with some students, other students may have been beyond this point at the time it was encountered in the professional development. The content focused upon in the Strategies condition, on the other hand,
197
was more likely to be applicable for all of the first graders with whom the teachers were working, regardless of the time in the school year or the students’ reading levels. Even with students reading at level A, for example, teachers could immediately begin to work toward interactive use of both code- and meaning-based strategies, through explicit instruction in using the beginning sound and checking the picture to figure out an unknown word. With students at more advanced levels, teachers could plan instruction around such strategies as trying out alternate sounds for some of the letters, or reading past the puzzling word to get a better sense of the context and then returning to the word for another try. Once again, the differences in content between the two conditions probably accounts for at least some of the differences in the kind of changes the teachers reported. For example, teachers in the Alphabetics condition reported using specific instructional activities that were introduced through the professional development more often than did teachers in the Strategies condition. This difference likely reflects the fact that there were more instructional activities associated with that condition than there were with the Strategies condition. While professional development for both conditions sought to foster teachers’ understanding of student learning within the specific domain and encouraged the use of instructional routines designed to enhance that learning, professional development for the Alphabetics condition was certainly more focused on specific skills and, in some cases, developmental sequences, while professional development for the Strategies group was more focused on teaching routines that included explicit instruction, scaffolding, and the gradual release of responsibility for the purpose of helping children to develop independence in word solving.
198
It is important to emphasize here that the two ISA components addressed in this study are part of a more comprehensive approach to early literacy instruction. Alphabetic Knowledge and Strategic Word Identification were never designed to be stand-alone units for professional development, hence the complementary nature of their foci. Further, while one goal of this study was to assess the relative impact of the two components, there was certainly no expectation that participating teachers would focus their instruction solely on the content of their professional development condition. Thus, the teachers were expected to continue to provide instruction that addressed all aspects of early literacy development, with either the phonics or in-text word solving aspects of their instruction informed by what they learned through professional development. As was discussed in Chapter 3, all teachers reported that they were providing instruction in phonics to their first grade readers at the beginning of the study. While the teachers varied in their articulation of their approach to phonics instruction, many described the developmental sequence they followed, the instructional routines and/or materials they used, and/or specifically referred to basals or explicit phonics programs that were in use in their classrooms. Thus, their responses were very focused on their instruction. In contrast, when asked to describe their approach to instruction regarding figuring out unfamiliar words encountered while reading, teachers were much less likely to talk about their instruction and focused instead on what they expected their students to be able to do. All teachers named at least a few strategies that they expected their first graders to use, with the vast majority naming both code-based and meaning-based strategies. About a quarter of the teachers in each condition made specific reference to
199
expecting their students to use the two types of strategies in combination, with only about 10% naming any instructional approaches (i.e., modeling, practice, verbalization, referring to a chart) that might be used to assist their students in learning the strategies that they were expected to use. The differences in how teachers responded to questions regarding their phonics instruction and their instruction related to in-text word solving may shed some light on the differences in their reported changes in practice. It may be the case that, while many of the teachers expected their students to use of variety of strategies for figuring out words, they did not have a clearly defined approach for providing instruction around this important task. Teachers may have been taking a more implicit approach to instruction around word solving, repeatedly exposing their students to strategies and prompting for their use, with the expectation that students would, over time, come to use the strategies independently. The incorporation of an explicit teaching model into instruction around word solving may have been fairly novel for many of the teachers, thus resulting in their increased reports of changes in their instructional practices. When asked during the interview whether they would continue to use what they had learned through the professional development with their students the following year, all teachers who reported changes in their instructional practices over the course of the study indicated their intent to continue to utilize things they had learned. Importantly, the teachers did not seem to think of the professional development as a one-time learning opportunity. Rather, many teachers reported that they felt they would be better able to utilize the instructional approaches the following year. Given that the professional development took place in the second half of the school year, and that teachers received
200
some of the follow-up materials as late as May, it makes sense that they would want an opportunity to integrate the approaches into their instruction from the beginning of the year, with a better sense of what they were trying to accomplish and a systematic approach that would make sense given their particular students and curricular materials. It should be noted here that, as with all data that is derived from self-reports, some caution should be taken in interpretation. It is certainly conceivable that social desirability factors came into play, or that the teachers, having come to know the researcher over the course of the study, felt uncomfortable in making less than favorable comments. Particular caution is called for with the face-to-face interviews, since the researcher was the one who, in all but two cases, conducted the interview. Ideally, teachers would have been observed in their classrooms before, during, and after the professional development period, so that reported changes could be corroborated and could be linked to the professional development. Given the limited budget for the present study, this simply was not feasible. However, since changes in teacher practices should be associated with both changes in teacher knowledge and with changes in student learning, triangulation with other data sources can be used as a means of assessing the likelihood that teachers were responding candidly. Student Outcomes Relationships between Reading Ability, Phonics Skills, and Word Identification Strategy Knowledge Students’ scores at pre-test on the Primary Decoding Test, the Primary Spelling Inventory, the Phonics Inventory, the Strategic Reading Inventory-Primary level, and the Fountas & Pinnell Benchmark Assessment, Level 1, were all moderately to strongly
201
inter-correlated. In fact, the strength of the correlations of the condition sensitive measures with the more comprehensive measure of reading achievement (the Benchmark Assessment) were of similar strength (correlations ranged from .50 to .67, see Table 17). This finding suggests that a beginning reader’s ability to articulate his word solving strategies is at least as predictive of his/her overall reading performance as is the child’s ability to apply phonics skills in isolated tasks. To explore whether measures of phonics skills and the measure of strategy knowledge accounted for unique proportions of variance in the Benchmark Assessment, separate multiple regression analyses were conducted. Identifying the various factors potentially contributing to performance on the Benchmark Assessment was considered to be important not only because it was one of the dependent measures in this study but because, at least in the geographical area in which this study was conducted, assessments similar to this are commonplace in elementary schools, particularly at the primary level. All schools participating in the study, in fact, were currently using either a commercial or district-developed benchmark assessment. Two different regression models were evaluated to determine the extent to which the condition-sensitive variables accounted for unique proportions of the variance on the Benchmark Assessment. For the purposes of conducting the regression analyses, scores on the three decoding/encoding measures were converted to z scores and then averaged to a phonics composite score. Both the phonics component and the strategy measure correlated at similar and modest levels with the Benchmark Assessment. Moreover, they each accounted for substantial and similar portions of unique variance when entered into the regression equations in specified orders. These relationships are particularly
202
noteworthy given the range restriction (a total of eight levels) and lack of variability (35% of the students scored at Level D) on the Benchmark Assessment at pretest. The results support the choice of treatment conditions for this study, as they suggest that, at least at the beginning stages of learning to read, phonics skills and strategy knowledge both account for variability in general reading ability. Moreover, since the contribution of strategy knowledge to general reading ability has not been previously evaluated in this way, the results of the regression analyses contribute significantly to the thinking around multiple paths of instruction for developing and struggling readers. This is in contrast to the body of research that has identified decoding as the single-most important contributor to early reading success and, as such, has contributed to the sometimes exclusionary focus on decoding as the single strategy to teach for word solving purposes. Changes in Student Outcomes: Condition-Sensitive Measures Results for the condition-sensitive student measures indicate that, across time, students’ outcomes changed differentially, depending upon the professional development condition of their teachers. That is, students whose teachers were in the Alphabetics condition made greater gains from pretest to posttest on measures assessing decoding and encoding, while students of teachers in the Strategies condition made greater gains on the strategy measure. The interaction between condition and time was statistically significant only on the Strategy measure, however, although the interaction for the Primary Decoding Test approached significance. There are several possible reasons why the interaction for the Strategic Reading Inventory – Primary may have been significant while the interactions for the decoding/encoding measures were not. First, there is the issue of ceiling effects, which
203
was previously noted in regard to the scores of students of teachers in the Alphabetics condition on the Primary Decoding Test. Of the 28 students in that condition, 6 students (21%) obtained the maximum score possible, while only one student in the other condition obtained the maximum. Given that the interaction on the Primary Decoding Test approached significance (p = .14), it may be that the measure simply did not allow for greater differences between the groups to emerge. A second possibility relates to the instruction that the teachers were already providing prior to the study’s inception. As discussed above, when questioned about their approach to phonics instruction, all teachers indicated that they were providing phonics instruction to their struggling first graders, although some were more explicit than others in their descriptions of what that instruction involved. Descriptions of their instruction around strategic word solving, however, were much more limited, with teachers focusing more on the strategies they expected their students to use rather than on how they taught their students to be strategic in their word solving attempts. If the teacher reports accurately reflect what they were doing in their classrooms, it may be that the professional development provided for the teachers in the Strategies condition led to a greater departure from “business as usual” than the professional development provided for the teachers in the Alphabetics group, thus explaining why students in the Strategies condition made greater gains on the strategies measure than did students in the Alphabetics condition. A third possibility relates to the differences between the three measures used to assess decoding and encoding, and how the theoretical implications of a strategic approach to word solving might be understood in relation to those differences. While all
204
three of the measures required the students to apply their letter-sound knowledge to the reading or spelling of words, the Primary Decoding Task was perhaps the “purest” measure of that knowledge, as it required the students to read nonsense words. These nonsense words were arranged in increasingly difficult groups, with each group requiring knowledge related to a particular skill. For example, words in one group featured short vowel, CVC words, while words in the next featured long vowel, CVCe words. Having no prior encounters with the words to draw upon, and without the ability to confirm that the word they had read was, at least, a real word, students were required to rely exclusively on their phonics skills as they negotiated this task. The Primary Spelling Test and the Phonics Inventory also required the students to use their letter sound knowledge, and, not unlike the Primary Decoding Test, the words were grouped in categories according to particular phonics features of the words. For both assessments, however, the words were likely to be in the spoken vocabulary of most first graders and, more importantly, may have been previously encountered in print. The use of real words provides the potential advantage of allowing the student to “match” the word with one he has previously encountered in print and, in the case of the Phonics Inventory, decide if the word read is at least a real word, if the student is inclined to do so. The fact that both assessments utilized real words, and relatively common words, allows for the possibility that the students may have encountered the words before; for students who have engaged in substantial reading, some of them may have become “sight words.” It is perhaps not coincidental that, among the measures of phonics skills, the only suggestion of an interaction effect between condition and time occurred for the Primary
205
Decoding Test. If a strategic approach to word solving does indeed lead to greater success in word identification and, eventually, word learning, it makes sense that tasks involving real words might be relatively easier for students who have been taught to employ a strategic approach and may have been building their knowledge of real words at a faster pace than students who had not had such instruction. Moreover, students of teachers in the Strategies condition might have been more inclined to monitor their word reading skills by asking themselves “Is that a real word?” Finally, it is possible that a strategic approach to word solving that relies on the interactive and confirmatory use of both code- and meaning-based strategies may, over time, serve to improve the students’ decoding knowledge through the operation of the “self-teaching mechanism” (Share, 1995) or what Clay refers to as the “self-extending system” (Clay, 2001). Through successful word solving, the student may learn more about letter sound associations and patterns, thus making it more likely that he will be able to apply that knowledge in the reading of new (and perhaps even nonsense) words. While none of the possibilities cited above can be confirmed on the basis of this small-scale study, the fact that the students improved in their decoding/encoding skills or their strategy knowledge in ways that were consistent with their teachers’ professional development condition helps to corroborate the reports given by the teachers with respect to changes in their instructional practices. Additionally, the pattern of changes on condition-specific measures lends support to the notion that the changes were, in fact, a partial result of the professional development as opposed to being solely due changes over time that might be otherwise anticipated among first graders. While a control group of teachers who received no professional development would have made for a better
206
comparison group, this particular pattern of outcomes would be unlikely without the differential influence of the professional development. Changes in Student Outcomes: General Reading Measures While the differential influence of the teachers’ professional development condition on the outcomes of their students provides evidence that the professional development influenced child outcomes on condition sensitive measures, equally important in this study was the hypothesis that students of teachers in the Strategies condition would demonstrate stronger performance on more general reading measures. This hypothesis is based on the premise that students who are taught to employ a strategic approach to word solving should experience greater success with word identification, which should, in turn, result in improved word learning, thus building their automatic sight vocabulary. Students who are able to identify more words automatically should read with greater accuracy and, ultimately, greater comprehension. The most appropriate test of this hypothesis would have involved the use of a randomized block design with students first blocked on relevant pre-treatment measures and then, within blocks, randomly assigned to conditions. As it was not possible to randomly assign students to treatment conditions (students were, necessarily, in the same treatment condition as their teachers), a matched pairs design was used instead. Thus, students were matched across conditions on pre-treatment, condition sensitive, measures. This approach simulated a randomized blocking procedure. In separate analyses, both decoding/encoding skills and strategy knowledge were used to form matched pairs. Matched pairs t-tests were used to compare the differences in scores between the paired students on three outcome measures – the Word List and Text Reading subtests of the
207
Multi-Level Passage Reading and the Benchmark Assessment. Because the Benchmark Assessment was also given at pre-test, gain scores from pre- to posttesting were used for this comparison. The two sets of matches resulted in very similar results; as such, they will not be differentiated in this discussion. The outcomes for the matched pairs t-tests were consistent with the hypothesis for two of the three outcome measures. Specifically, when students were matched across conditions on pretests of phonics skills or strategy knowledge, students in the Strategies condition outperformed students in the Alphabetics condition on the Word List and Text Reading measures of the Multi-Level Passage assessment, but not on the Benchmark Assessment. Since one of the main reasons for encouraging a strategic approach to word solving is to enhance students’ abilities to identify words which do not adhere to the typically taught decoding “rules,” student outcomes on the Word List are particularly relevant. Unlike the words on the Phonics Inventory, the Word List is comprised of words that are not fully decodable, given traditional phonics rules (e.g., push, both, busy). It appears then that, when compared to students who began the study with similar levels of phonics skills and strategy knowledge, students in the Strategies condition learned more words than students in the Alphabetics condition. This advantage carried over to the Text Reading measure, as the Strategies students outperformed the Alphabetics students in oral reading accuracy. These outcomes suggest that instruction in a strategic approach to word solving has a facilitative effect on word learning which, as hypothesized, positively influenced text reading accuracy. Results of the matched pairs analyses are particularly noteworthy, in light of the fact that more the students in the Alphabetics group as compared with the Strategies group were receiving one-to-one instruction (43%
208
vs. 8%). Despite this greater intensity of instruction, students in the Alphabetics group did not demonstrate better outcomes and, in the matched pairs analysis, did significantly worse on two of the three general reading measures. This finding could be taken to suggest that the Strategies component was actually more powerful than it appeared to be in this study. The strongest support for the word solving approach advanced in this study would come in the form of improved performance on a measure of text reading with comprehension for the students in the Strategies group, since enhanced comprehension is, of course, the ultimate goal of reading instruction. In this study, the Fountas & Pinnell Benchmark Assessment, Level 1 was the only measure of comprehension. Theoretically, one of the advantages of the strategic approach to word solving is that the reader is encouraged to make use of both the alphabetic code and the context. Use of the code encourages careful attention to the internal structure of words, making it more likely that, after one or more successful encounters, the word will be moved into the readers’ automatic sight vocabulary. Use of the context encourages the reader to continually attend to meaning, using the words in the immediate vicinity of the unknown word, the meaning of the text as a whole, and his knowledge about the topic to predict likely candidates for the word and confirm that the word he has decided upon, based upon the alphabetic information, is a reasonable fit. This continuous focus on meaning, in conjunction with use of the code, makes it less likely that effort devoted to word solving will disrupt comprehension. Contrary to expectations, however, the matched pairs analyses revealed no differences between the groups on the Benchmark Assessment. When students were
209
compared across the matched pairs, students of teachers whose professional development focused on a strategic approach to word solving did no better on a measure of text reading with comprehension than students of teachers whose professional development focused on alphabetic knowledge. This was true even though students in the former group (Strategies) performed significantly better at post-test on a measure of strategy knowledge and application, the Strategic Reading Inventory – Primary level, and performed better at post-test on both the Word List and Text Reading subtests of the Multi-Level Passage Reading assessment. One possible explanation for the failure to find group differences on this measure is that, as discussed in Chapter 4, scaling problems associated with the Benchmark Assessment may have precluded the detection of differences between the groups. The range of scores on the Benchmark Assessment was quite restricted in comparison to the range on the Multi-Level Passage Assessment subtests. Specifically, on the Benchmark Assessment, 71 percent of the students clustered within a four point range at post-test, and the total range for post test scores was only 10 points. In contrast, the score range on the Multi-Level passage assessment was 41 points. Thus, the greater variability on the Multi-Level Assessment may have allowed for greater sensitivity to performances differences. It should be noted here that, while the Multi-Level Passage Reading assessment was designed to be used as a research tool, the Benchmark Assessment was developed to be used as a tool for guiding teachers’ instruction with their students. In its day-to-day use in the classroom, the Benchmark Assessment and other measures similar to it, are used, in part, for grouping students with similar skills. The fact that it does not allow for fine-grained discriminations among students receiving supplementary reading
210
instruction at the end of first grade should not, necessarily, be interpreted as a flaw relative to its intended use. However, the observed range restriction may be problematic for some research applications, particularly those in which the range of student skills is somewhat restricted to begin with. A second possibility is that the nature of the task presented on the Benchmark Assessment requires a complex coordination of abilities and skills, some of which go well beyond the scope of the professional development provided to teachers in this study. There was no explicit focus on comprehension in either of the conditions, although it was certainly the case that teachers in the Strategies condition were encouraged to maintain a focus on meaning with their students, through encouragement to use meaning-based strategies to predict and confirm their decoding attempts. The level of comprehension needed to negotiate a relatively lengthy story and be able to engage in a conversation about it afterward however, is no doubt different from the focus on meaning that allows a child to use contextual information for the purpose of figuring out specific words. Instruction related to comprehension and comprehension strategies is explicitly addressed in another component of the ISA, but was not included in either treatment condition for this study. In considering the regression analysis that was discussed previously, the combination of phonics skills and strategy knowledge accounted for 56 percent of the variance in the Benchmark Assessment at pre-test. While this suggests that both of these characteristics make important contributions to student performance on the Benchmark Assessment, 44 percent of the variance in student performance remained unexplained in these analyses.
211
In summary, results on two of the three general reading outcome measures supported one of the major hypotheses of this study. Specifically, on measures of word and text level reading, students whose teachers engaged in professional development designed to encourage the use of multiple strategies for figuring out words outperformed students of teachers who participated in a similar level of professional development focused on the development of decoding skills. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that an approach to word solving that encourages the use of both code-based and meaning-based strategies leads to greater accuracy in word identification and improved word learning which, in turn, are associated with improvements in text-level reading. This finding is especially important, given the fact that many more of the students in the Alphabetics condition were receiving one-to-one instruction. Possibilities were presented as to why these outcomes on word and text level accuracy did not translate into improved performance on a measure of reading that more closely parallels the kind of reading first graders are likely to do in their classrooms. Further explorations of these possibilities awaits future research. Teachers’ Perceptions of the Content, Materials, and Format used for Professional Development The Professional Development Program In addition to comparing the differential effects of the two professional development conditions on teacher and student outcomes, a second major goal of this study was to explore teacher perceptions of and reactions to an innovative approach to professional development. The particular approach used for this study was informed by the growing consensus on best practices in professional development (Anders, Hoffman
212
& Duffy, 2000; Bean & Morewood, 2007; Garet et al., 2001, 2008; Joyce & Showers, 1996; Kennedy, 1998; Killion, 1998; Snow et al., 2005; Wei, et al., 2009). Specifically, the professional development focused on the content of early literacy instruction and the development of teacher knowledge, involved active learning on the part of the participants, and was designed to contribute in an immediate and meaningful way to the day-to-day work of the teachers. Moreover, the professional development was of extended duration, was linked to the teachers’ instructional and assessment practices, and encouraged collegiality through the collective participation of teachers within individual schools. The professional development program included separate one-day workshops for teachers in each of the conditions, followed by three monthly follow-ups. The innovative piece of the design was that the follow-up professional development did not include any additional face-to-face contact with the researcher/professional development provider. Rather, packets of materials, including reading material, video demonstrations, “Try –it-out” activities, assessments, and guides for teacher reflection were delivered to the teachers’ schools, with the expectation that teachers would utilize them at their convenience. In much of the research that has utilized workshop approaches to professional development, follow-up, when it occurs, has included additional contact time with the provider(s) of the professional development (typically the researcher(s)) or with coaches who have been trained by the researchers. This is typically done on-site, in large-group, small-group, and/or one-to-one arrangements with the teachers. While on-site coaching arrangements may indeed influence teacher’s practices in important ways, there is concern that “having researchers
213
or staff developers spend significant amounts of time working alongside teachers is not practical on a wide-spread basis” (Putnam & Borko, 2007). There were several anticipated advantages to the “no-contact” follow-up approach implemented in this study. The Extended Engagement Materials were designed to provide for consistency in the professional development across sites, while still allowing for flexibility that was site- and teacher-specific. The readings provided content that was considered to be important for all participating teachers to know and understand, while the video demonstrations provided an opportunity for the participants to observe expert teachers as they put the content from the reading materials into practice. All teachers had access to all of the materials associated with their professional development condition, yet, depending upon their level of expertise, they could pick and choose what they wanted to focus on, particularly as the materials related to their students at given points in time. Because each of the teachers received her own copies of the materials, they were able to re-visit them whenever they wished. The “Try it out” activities provided guidance for the teachers as they attempted to implement the approaches with their own students, while the guides for teacher reflection were designed to assist the teachers in looking back on their instruction and making changes when necessary. In comparison to more common approaches to follow-up in professional development, consistency was enhanced through the use of these clearly defined sets of materials. Given the fact that teachers in this study were spread out across 11 different elementary schools, it would have been necessary to have multiple professional development providers, all with similar levels of expertise, if the follow-up professional development was offered in a face-to-face context. In larger-scale studies which have
214
employed follow-up, on-site coaching, the expertise of the coaches has been an issue of concern. For example, when the researchers themselves have provided the professional development, the issues of scalability are related to whether or not utilizing providers with less familiarity with the content would result in similar outcomes (Baker & Smith, 1999; Putnam & Borko, 2007; Van Keer & Verhaeghe, 2005). When “outside” coaches are trained and utilized, issues related to the expertise of the coaches and fidelity of implementation can complicate interpretations of the findings (Garet et al., 2008; RAND, 2008). Coaching expertise aside, bringing face-to-face professional development to scale has the potential to be prohibitively expensive for school districts, especially in times of budget cut-backs and fiscal constraint. Another anticipated advantage of this approach was the potential for building Professional Learning Communities (Wei et al., 2009) within the schools. By not requiring teachers to meet at a particular time, it was anticipated that teachers would be able to arrange their schedules, so that they could meet with colleagues from their buildings who were also participating in the study. With unlimited access to the materials, the teachers could have worked together on multiple occasions, perhaps viewing the video demonstrations, planning for instruction with their students, and then getting back together to reflect on how things went and to support one another in making changes, if necessary. Suggestions for working with their colleagues, including observing one another in their classrooms (Joyce & Showers, 1996), were included in the follow-up materials. According to Snow et al. (2005), such collaboration among peers supports continuous teacher learning. An on-line survey and a face-to-face interview, both conducted at the end of the
215
study, were used to collect information regarding the teachers’ perceptions of the professional development. Results from both sources suggest that, in general, the reading and special education teachers participating in this study found the combination of the one-day workshop and the three sets of EEMs to be a useful way of engaging in professional development. While there were some differences between the responses of teachers across the two treatment conditions, generalities related to the core and structural features of professional development (Garet, et al., 2008) as discussed in Chapter 3, can be derived from the data. Core Features of the Professional Development Content. Reading and special education teachers, regardless of years of experience or background knowledge, were appreciative of the professional development which was geared to their specific needs and which could be immediately applied in their instructional settings. Aside from the highly specialized and intensive professional development provided for teachers through Reading Recovery (Swartz & Klein, 1997), there is a remarkably limited literature base on professional development for reading and special education teachers who provide supplementary reading instruction for struggling readers. The literature on professional development that does focus on reading instruction is geared, primarily, to classroom teachers (although reading and/or special education teachers were sometimes included in these studies). An exception to this would be the growing literature base on the use of literacy coaching. In this case, the literacy specialist is typically the person providing the professional development. Results from the present study indicate that reading teachers learn new information and adapt their teaching
216
practices in ways that will positively impact student learning, when provided with content-focused professional development. Active Learning. The supplementary materials provided in the EEMs were designed to engage the teachers in active learning related to their professional development condition. Teacher responses across conditions were highly favorable toward both the video demonstrations and the “Try It Out” activities, but were less favorable toward the assessments and the guides for teacher reflection. The use of the video demonstrations provided the opportunity for teachers to observe expert teachers as they implemented the recommended instructional activities, as well as the opportunity to analyze student work. The “Try It Out” activities provided opportunities for practice with the recommended approaches with their own students. Teachers responded less favorably to the assessments and the guides for teacher reflections. The assessments were designed to guide teachers in their implementation of the approaches with their students, while the reflection questions were designed to help them to look back on their instruction and make decisions related to the differential responses of their students and how they might go about modifying their instruction. Teachers in the Alphabetics condition, in general, found the assessments to be more useful than teachers in the Strategies condition, perhaps because they were more similar to assessments that they were already using with their students. The strategy assessment, which involved coding students’ oral reading according to the specific strategies that they were observed (or inferred) to be using, required a philosophical shift for some teachers, who were accustomed to the more traditional approach of coding students miscues according to the assumed source of information (meaning, structure, visual). Becoming
217
familiar and comfortable with the Strategy assessment would likely, for most reading and special education teachers already working with first grade readers, take more of an investment of time than the Alphabetic Knowledge assessment. While several teachers indicated that they routinely reflected on their practice, few utilized the reflection questions in any systematic way. Time was definitely a factor with respect to both the assessments and the guides for teacher reflection, and was mentioned frequently as a reason why particular materials were not utilized. Although the teachers’ participation in this study was encouraged by building and district-level administrators, the workshop time was the only time provided to them for participation. Beyond that, teachers needed to find time, on their own, to review the supplementary materials and plan for integrating the approaches into their daily routines. When forced to prioritize, it seems that teachers placed a higher value on those materials that would help them to immediately utilize the approaches. Possibly, if teachers had time set aside for them on a regular basis, specifically for the purpose of focusing on the professional development, they would have been more inclined to utilize all of the materials. Coherence. The teachers’ overall high level of satisfaction with the professional development was likely related to the issue of coherence. Specifically, because the content of the professional development addressed the instructional needs of children at the early stages of learning to read, it was both highly relevant and immediately applicable to this particular group of teachers. Coherence, in its broader sense, however, also includes the degree to which the professional development aligns with building and district level initiatives. The lack of coherence in this respect resulted in frustration for some of the teachers, who were also involved in district-level committees or were
218
simultaneously engaged in other professional development recommended or required by their district. On-going initiatives in the districts in this study included Value-Added Learning, Response to Intervention, Curriculum Mapping, Wilson Language Training, and AIMSweb training. Satisfaction might have been higher if the professional development was a district-level initiative and teachers were not forced to attend to competing priorities for their time. Structure Duration. It is generally agreed that one-day workshops accomplish little to support teachers in their day-to-day interactions with their students (Darling-Hammond, 1996; Hughes et al., 2000; Snow et al., 1998). In this study, the professional development was extended across time to include the three “no-contact” EEMs, scheduled approximately one month apart. Approximately three-quarters of the participating teachers indicated that they found receiving the follow-up materials on a regular basis to be a useful way of keeping them engaged in the project and thinking about how the approaches they had learned in the workshop could be implemented with their students across the year. In general, teachers reported that the follow-up materials reminded them of their commitment to the professional development and prompted them to set aside some time for re-focusing their efforts. Additionally, many teachers indicated that because the materials were spread out over time, they were not overwhelmed and, as a result, were more likely to utilize the materials as they arrived. The provision of professional development across time was intended to allow teachers the time to focus in on specific elements and try them out with their students. Teachers reported that receiving new materials each month served as a motivation for continued engagement,
219
with several indicating that the monthly arrivals prevented the instructional materials from sinking to the bottom of the ever-growing piles on their desks. Importantly, this continued engagement in the professional development was accomplished without further contact with the researcher. While most teachers responded favorably to the monthly EEMs, several reported that they would have made better use of the materials if they had received them all at once, immediately following the one-day workshop. For these teachers, being able to plan ahead was paramount. Additionally, they felt that they may have made better use of some of the materials if they had had them earlier in the school year. It is certainly likely that different timing and spacing of the delivery of the follow-up materials would have worked better for some of the teachers. For example, if the initial professional development had taken place over the summer, with the EEMs provided during the first half of the year, teachers may have been able to utilize the follow-up materials more effectively. This warrants additional investigation. Form of activity. For both the one-day workshops and the monthly EEMs, content was linked to practice through the video demonstrations and the use of student work samples. Additionally, the “Try It Out” activities were included in the EEMs, as a way of connecting the content of the professional development to the teachers’ own instructional situations. As has been discussed already, teachers were, in general, very positive in their reactions to the video demonstrations and the “try it out” activities. Several teachers specifically commented on how the video demonstrations reinforced the content in the reading materials and made implementing the recommended approaches much easier. Teachers also appreciated that the video demonstrations, which were developed primarily
220
from previous intervention studies, featured “real” kids, in “real” classrooms, as opposed to situations that appeared contrived or perfect. Interestingly, although several of the videos depicted instruction in one-to-one instructional situations, which was different from the instructional situations of many of the teachers in the study, only one teacher indicated that she found the videos somewhat frustrating because it was difficult to imagine implementing some of the same instructional approaches with groups of students. Collective participation. To facilitate collective participation, teachers were grouped by school prior to their assignment to one of the two conditions. Within schools, they were encouraged to collaborate with one another throughout the professional development period but, as mentioned, were not provided with any additional time in their schedules or other administrative support toward this end. Teachers who were able to find the time to meet with their colleagues perceived this to be highly useful in supporting their efforts to implement the recommended instructional approaches. They reported learning from one another and appreciated being able to share their ideas with their peers. Many participants, however, had other priorities to attend to, or did not have schedules that allowed for peer collaboration. This was a shortcoming of the project. Without time set aside for meeting with their peers, and with competing demands for their time, the advantages of peer collaboration never materialized for many of the teachers. For these teachers, the combination of the one-day workshop and the extended engagement follow-up materials left them less than completely satisfied, with some of them expressing the desire for increased contact time with the researcher during the
221
professional development period. It is important to note, however, that none of the teachers who reported working collaboratively with their peers expressed a desire for increased contact time with the researcher. Without effective collaboration within the building, however, teachers were more likely to feel the need for outside support. In summary, the design of the professional development for this study, in general, was regarded positively by the reading and special education teachers who participated. Of particular importance were the content-focused nature of the professional development and the various materials that were used to link the content to the teachers’ day-to-day interactions with their students. Additionally, providing the materials in intervals across time, according to most of the teachers, was a more manageable approach than providing everything at once and, for many of them, may have made it more likely that they would utilize the materials they received. Initiating the professional development at mid-year likely posed some difficulties for the project. This timing meant that teachers were restricted in the amount of time and flexibility they had in implementing the recommended approaches. Also, although teachers were enthusiastic about participating in the research, many were already committed to other initiatives within their districts that required time investments above and beyond their instructional day. A related problem was that the project lacked an official standing within the schools and districts where the teachers worked. While the administrators were supportive of the teachers’ participation, there were no formal structures in place for seeing that the teachers had time to collaborate with their peers or to fully utilize the follow-up materials. For teachers who were also involved in other initiatives or
222
professional development that placed demands on their time, continued focus on this project was even more difficult. Of all of the things that can be learned from the teachers’ reports, one of the most important is the reminder that teachers are BUSY PEOPLE. If professional development is to realize its full potential, it needs to take into account the multiple demands on teachers’ time and provide a structure that fully supports teachers as they work together to improve their practice and enhance student learning. Limitations of the Study Before moving on to conclusions, some important limitations of the study should first be considered. The findings that have just been discussed should, in all cases, be interpreted within the context of these limitations. First, and perhaps most importantly, the treatment conditions for this study represent only two components of a multicomponent program of professional development for early literacy teachers. While it is important to attempt to unpack such approaches in order to determine what the most critical elements might be, a focus on only one component of the approach at a time presented challenges for the planning and delivery of the professional development. The Interactive Strategies Approach derives its name, in part, from the underlying assumption that the various components are mutually supportive of the developing reader, and connections between and among the components are emphasized throughout professional development related to the approach as a whole. Although every effort was made to treat each of the professional development conditions as self-contained units of study, boundaries were unavoidably crossed for the purpose of maintaining pedagogical integrity. Teachers in the Alphabetics condition were, for example, encouraged to connect word level work to authentic reading and
223
writing situations and were reminded of the importance of contextually-based information as a support for word solving. Similarly, teachers in the Strategies condition were encouraged to assess their students’ use of both code-based and meaning-based strategies for figuring out words, with the implication that they would provide explicit instruction to support their students in areas of need. Hence, although the two treatment conditions focused on separate components of the Interactive Strategies Approach, these components by no means defined the supplementary support the children received. This is the case because there was unavoidable overlap between the two components and because, by design, the teachers, in most aspects of their instruction, continued to do what they were doing prior to their participation in the professional development. It was expected that the teachers who were participating in the study would continue with the full spectrum of literacy instruction that they were already providing for their students, but that their instruction with respect to alphabetic knowledge or strategic word identification would be influenced by the professional development. Second, it should be emphasized that this study represents a dissertation project and, as such, was limited with respect to funding and, therefore, the amount and type of data that could be collected. With the exception of the teacher and student assessments and a few of the final teacher interviews, all parts of this research, including the one-day workshops, the development of the follow-up materials, the teacher interviews and both the quantitative and qualitative analyses were carried out by the researcher, in consultation with and under the supervision of the dissertation committee. While there is no reason to believe that any biases held by the researcher influenced the reported results, it is nonetheless important to consider the possibility.
224
Third, it should be emphasized that the reading and special education teachers who participated in the study were volunteers. As such, their continued engagement with the professional development across the semester might not be comparable to what would be seen in a group of teachers who were required to participate. Similarly, because they were reading and special education teachers working with first grade struggling readers, the content of the professional development was highly relevant to them and could be immediately applied in their day-to-day teaching. It cannot be assumed that similar outcomes would be realized with classroom teachers, who might have more diverse needs with respect to professional development. It should also be noted that 14 of the 23 teachers who responded to the request for volunteers for the study did so, at least in part, because they had some prior knowledge of the Interactive Strategies Approach and/or prior association with the researcher. Thus, the pool of participants was, in general, somewhat more knowledgeable about the ISA at the outset of the study than a more random pool would have been. Although none of the teachers had previous experience with the professional development in its present form, many had at least some knowledge of the content of each of the two conditions. This may have impacted both the teacher and student scores at pre-test. Familiarity with some of the instructional components of the ISA could have also contributed to increased variability among the students at pre-test, thus impacting the correlations between and among the pre-tests, and the regression analyses. Additionally, the treatment groups cannot be considered “clean,” because some of the teachers were familiar with some of the content from each condition. This may have influenced the ability to detect changes that were solely the result of the professional development.
225
Fourth, although every attempt was made to minimize differences between the groups through the matching procedure for the teachers, there were many variables that could not be controlled for and that may have influenced the outcomes. For example, although teachers from within a district were distributed equally across the two conditions, not all teachers had the same number of students participating. This resulted in an unequal distribution of students from the same district across the two conditions, and, as such, created unavoidable confounds with respect to the reading curricula used in both classroom and intervention settings and in the instructional arrangements for supplementary reading support. This was most notable with respect to one-to-one instruction; 11 students of teachers in the Alphabetics condition were receiving one-toone instruction while only two students of teachers in the Strategies condition were. Fifth, the relatively small number of teacher participants in the study creates a limitation. From a statistical standpoint, the small numbers reduce the power of the study to detect significant differences between the groups. Additionally, the small (and unequal) number of students per teacher precluded statistical analyses such as Hierarchical Linear Modeling that would have properly taken into account the nested structure of the data. Sixth, conclusions drawn from this study are, in many instances, based on the reports of the participating teachers or their students. Particularly for the teachers, this brings into question the notion of social desirability (Kerlinger, 1973). It is certainly conceivable that the teachers may have reported changes in their practices that were aligned with the professional development, whether or not those changes were actually made. While classroom observations of teachers prior to and across the professional
226
development period would have been ideal, this was simply not feasible within the scope of the present study. With respect to the students, measures of strategy knowledge were not corroborated by analysis of the students’ actual word-solving behaviors while reading. It is certainly possible that, at least for some students, the instruction they received around the use of multiple strategies might have resulted in their being better able to talk about strategies, without resulting in any real changes in their word solving approaches. Conclusions In contrast to recent intervention studies, compilations of research, and government initiatives such as Reading First that have focused on the use of alphabetic information for word solving, this study hypothesized that students who are in the early stages of learning to read will derive greater benefits from an approach to instruction that combines the interactive and confirmatory use of both code-based and meaning-based strategies. Theoretically, this strategic approach to word solving leads to successful word identification, which, in turn, leads to word learning. Facilitation of word learning is emphasized, since it is widely agreed that the ability to automatically identify most of the words encountered in text enables comprehension of the text. The theoretical argument for the study builds on the work of Ehri (1995, 1998), Share (1995), and Clay (1986), and is based largely on the research of Scanlon and Vellutino and their colleagues (Scanlon, et al., 2005, 2008; Vellutino & Scanlon, 2002; Vellutino et al., 1996) and the Interactive Strategies Approach to early reading development and instruction. Results of the study were generally consistent with the initial hypotheses. Specifically, when provided with professional development in either Alphabetic
227
Knowledge or Strategic Word Identification, the reading and special education teachers in this study demonstrated changes in their knowledge of literacy instruction and reported changes in their instructional practices that were consistent with their professional development condition. Moreover, their students demonstrated associated changes in reading and reading-related skills, as determined by growth on measures of decoding and encoding and strategy knowledge. Most importantly, when comparisons were made across conditions following a matching procedure designed to equalize the groups on pretreatment characteristics related to the treatment conditions, students whose teachers were in the condition that emphasized the utility of teaching children to employ both codebased and meaning-based strategies outperformed students whose teachers were in the condition that focused more exclusively on alphabetic knowledge. This was true even though the students in the Alphabetics condition were receiving more intensive instructional intervention than were the children in the Strategies condition. However, there were no differences between the groups on a general reading measure that included comprehension. These findings should not be interpreted to suggest that facility with the code is unimportant to early reading development, or that a lack of such facility can be compensated for by a reliance on contextual information. In 1995, Share referred to phonological recoding as the sine qua non of early reading development; nothing in this study refutes that claim. Indeed, the ISA has always included an explicit approach to instruction around decoding and encoding, as the conjoint use of both code-and meaningbased strategies would, necessarily, be impossible without attention to the code. What the findings do suggest, however, is that an instructional approach that provides students with
228
mutually supportive and confirmatory ways for solving unfamiliar words encountered in text may be superior to an approach that relies more heavily on alphabetic information. In addition to studying the differential effects of the two treatment conditions, a second important goal of this study was to explore an approach to professional development designed to reduce the need for extended-duration contact between the teachers and the professional development providers. This is an important goal because extensive face-to-face professional development is costly and time consuming to implement. Data from the teachers’ reports suggest that professional development that focuses on content that is both relevant and immediately applicable, provides opportunities for active learning and peer collaboration, and is of extended duration, can be effective in bringing about changes in teacher knowledge and influencing student achievement outcomes. These findings extend the professional development findings on teachers, in general, to reading and special education teachers, who have been the subject of remarkably little research with respect to professional development. Differential satisfaction of teachers who were able to collaborate with their peers throughout the project, as compared to those who were not, highlights the importance of building Professional Learning Communities (Wei et al., 2009) within schools. Most importantly, the design of the professional development in this study, which replaced traditional faceto-face follow-up with packets of information and activities designed to be directly applicable in the teachers’ instructional setting, opens up new avenues for further study. Given the generally positive reactions of the teachers, as well as the positive outcomes on teacher knowledge, reported teacher practice, and student achievement, it appears that the workshop format, coupled with the Extended Engagement Materials, may be a viable
229
alternative to on-site coaching, the approach most frequently taken for workshop followup. Directions for Future Research This study was undertaken with goals for extending the programmatic research on the Interactive Strategies Approach and on professional development for teachers. While the results from this small-scale study are encouraging, more needs to be known about the relative contributions of the Alphabetic Knowledge and Strategic Word Identification components of the ISA and how they relate to improvements in general reading ability, the specifics of instruction around the use of multiple strategies for figuring out words that lead to student success, and the kind of professional development that will move teachers, and their students, forward in important ways. Since an important premise of this study is that students should have at their disposal both code-based and meaningbased strategies for figuring out words, and should be taught to use those strategies in interactive and confirmatory ways, an appropriate follow-up study would include three conditions; one in which teachers received only the professional development related to Alphabetic Knowledge, one in which they received only the professional development related to Strategic Word Identification, and one in which professional development in both Alphabetic Knowledge and Strategic Word Identification were included. This approach would allow for an exploration of the degree to which the use of multiple strategies contributes to general reading ability, over and above the contribution of alphabetic knowledge alone, as well as the degree to which “strategicness” around word solving might facilitate the development of alphabetic knowledge. Efforts would need to be made to equalize the time allotted for the professional development for each condition.
230
Future studies along this line should include more direct measures of teacher practice and student knowledge. Observations of teachers interacting with their students before, during, and after the professional development period would provide corroboration of teacher reports and would allow for determination of the critical instructional variables associated with student success. Student text reading samples should be analyzed as well, to explore associations between their reports of strategic reading behavior and what they actually appear to be doing as they are reading. To more fully understand the nature of strategy instruction and its development across time, future studies should take place across at least a full academic year, with follow-up observations of the teachers and assessments of the students extended into a maintenance year as well. The professional development workshop for teachers should be offered during the summer months (as it traditionally has been in the ISA), so that teachers would have more time during the school year to implement the recommended approaches. Even so, it should be expected that teachers will need at least one academic year to become familiar with the new approaches and to integrate them into their own instruction. As such, it would be important to follow the teachers’ instruction across two consecutive cohorts of students. With respect to the professional development, it seems clear that teacher collaboration is an important element. Future research should include, as a condition of participation, that districts provide both the time and the structure needed to facilitate collegial interactions. This would include common planning time set aside specifically for focus on the professional development and time for teachers to observe one another in their classrooms. Given the importance that some teachers placed on accountability, one
231
interesting comparison might be between groups of teachers where there is, or is not, an identified facilitator or leader within the school. The purpose of the facilitator would be to support the continued engagement of the teachers across time, which might be accomplished through regularly scheduled meetings, group viewing of and reflection on video demonstrations, or assigned readings or “Try It Out” activities. Finally, if “no-contact” EEMs are to be made more broadly available, future research must include the use of on-line technologies. An on-line approach would reduce the costs of producing and disseminating materials, would provide for more options as to when and for how long the materials were made available to teachers, would allow teachers easy access to the materials at home and at school, and could, eventually, extend the reach of the professional development to well beyond the research institution.
232
References Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Adams, M.J. (2006). The three-cueing system. Education News.Org. Retrieved March 13, 2007 from http://www.educationnews.org/Curriculum/Reading/The_Three_Cueing_System.htm Anders, P., Hoffman, J., & Duffy, G. (2000). Teaching teachers to teach reading: Paradigm shifts, persistent problems, and challenges. In M.L.Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P,D.Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 719-742). Mahwah, NJ: Earlbaum. Anderson, K. L., Gelzheiser, L., & Scanlon, D.M. (2007) Strategic Reading Inventory – Primary. Unpublished instrument. Anderson, K. L., Scanlon, D. M., Gelzheiser, L.M., & Goatley, V. (2008). Enhancing the efficacy and sustaining the effects of professional development for early literacy teachers. Grant proposal submitted to the Institute of Education Sciences, United States Department of Education. Anderson, R. C., Hiebert, E. H., Scott, J.A., & Wilkinson, I.A.G. (1985). Becoming a Nation of Readers: The Report of the Commission on Reading. Washington, DC: National Academy of Education, Commission on Education and Public Policy. Baker, L., & Brown, A. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P.D. Pearson, R. Barr, M.L.Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 1, pp. 353-394). New York: Longman.
233
Baker, S. & Smith, S. (1999). Starting off on the right foot: The influence of four principles of professional development in improving literacy instruction in two kindergarten programs. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14(4), 239-253. Bean, R. & Morewood, A. (2007). Best practices in professional development for improving literacy instruction. In L.B. Gambrell, L.M. Morrow, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Best practices in literacy instruction, 3rd Edition, (pp. 373-394). New York: Guildford Press. Bear, D.R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (2004). Words their way: Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Biemiller, A. (1970). The development of the use of graphic and contextual information as children learn to read. Reading Research Quarterly, 6, 75-96. Bos, C.S. (1998, February). Teachers attitudes, knowledge and receptivity about teaching literacy to young students with reading and spelling difficulties. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Pacific Coast Research Conference, San Diego. Bos, C.S., Mather, N., Narr, R.F., & Babur, N. (1999). Interactive, collaborative professional development in early literacy instruction: Supporting the balancing act. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14(4), 227-238. Brown, K.J. (2003). What do I say when they get stuck on a word? Aligning teachers’ prompts with students’ development. The Reading Teacher, 56(8), 720-733. Byrne, R. & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1993). Sound formations. Anarmon, Australia: Peter Lynden Publishing. Chall, J.S. (1983). Stages of reading development. New York: McGraw-Hill.
234
Chard, D.J. (2004). Toward a science of professional development in early reading instruction. Exceptionality, 12(3), 175-191. Clark, K.F. (2004). What can I say besides “sound it out”? Coaching word recognition in beginning reading. The Reading Teacher, 57(5), 440-449. Clay, M.M. (1985). The early detection of reading difficulties (3rd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Clay, M.M. (1987). Learning to be learning disabled. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 22(2), 155-173. Clay, M.M. (1991). Becoming literate: The construction of inner control. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Clay, M.M. (1993). An observation survey of early literacy achievement. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Clay, M.M. (2001). Change over time in children’s literacy development. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Clay, M.M. (2005). Literacy lessons designed for individuals; Part Two; Teaching procedures. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Clay, M. & Cazden, C.B. (1999). A Vygotskian interpretation of reading recovery. (pp. 206-222). In Moll, L.C. (Ed.)., Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology. Cambridge: University Press. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power for the behavioral sciences, 2nd Edition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Cole, A.D. (2006). Scaffolding beginning readers: Micro and macro cues teachers use during student oral reading. The Reading Teacher, (59)5, 450-459.
235
Cunningham, P.M., & Cunningham, J.W. (1992). Making words: Enhancing the invented spelling-decoding connection. Reading Teacher, 46, 106-115. Darling-Hammond, L. (1996) The quiet revolution: Rethinking teacher development. Educational Leadership, 53(6), 4-10. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1), [On-line]. Retrieved September 1, 2007 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1/ Diaz, R.M., Neal, C.J., & Amaya-Williams, M.(1999). The social origins of selfregulation. (pp 127-154). In Moll, L.C. (Ed.)., Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology. Cambridge: University Press. Ehri, L.C. (1997). Sight word reading in normal readers and dyslexics. In B. Blachman (Ed.), Foundations of reading acquisition and dyslexia: Implications for early intervention (pp. 163-190). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Ehri, L. C. (1998a). Grapheme-phoneme knowledge is essential for learning to read words in English. In J.L. Metsala & L.C. Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning reading (pp.3-40). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Ehri, L.C. (1998b). Research on learning to read and spell: A personal-historical perspective. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2, 97-114. Ehri, L.C. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9(2), 167-188.
236
Ehri, L.C., & McCormick, S. (1998). Phases of word learning: Implications for instruction with delayed and disabled readers. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 14, 135-163. Ehri, L.C. & Wilce, L. (1985). Movement into reading: Is the first stage of printed word learning visual or phonetic? Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 163-179. Finn, P.J. (1977-1978). Word frequency, information theory, and cloze performance: a transfer feature theory of processing in reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 510-537. Foorman, B. & Torgesen, J. (2001). Critical elements of classroom and small group instruction promote reading success in all children. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 16(4), 203-212. Fountas, I.C., & Pinnell, G.S. (1996). Guided reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Fountas, I.C., & Pinnell, G.S. (1999). Matching books to readers: Using leveled books in guided reading, K-3. Portsmouth , NH: Heinemann. Fountas, I.C., & Pinnell, G.S. (2008). Benchmark Assessment System – 1: Grades K-2, Levels A-N. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Garet, M.S., Cronen, S., Eaton, M., Kurki, A., Ludwig, M., Jones, W. et al. (2008) The impact of two professional development interventions on early reading instruction and achievement. Institute of Education Sciences. (No. ED-01-CO-0026/0020). Garet, M.S., Porter, A.C., Desimone, L., Birman, B.F., & Yoon, K.S. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.
237
Gaskins, I.W., Ehri, L.C., Cress, C., O’Hara, C., & Donnelly, K. (1997). Procedures for word learning: Making discoveries about words. Reading Teacher, 50, 312-327. Gelzheiser, L., Anderson, K.L., Scanlon, D.M. & Hallgren-Flynn, L. (2007). Strategic Reading Inventory. Unpublished Instrument. Gersten, R., & Brengelman, S.U. (1996). The quest to translate research into classroom practice: The emerging knowledge base. Remedial and Special Education, 17(2), 6774. Goswami, U. (1990). Phonological priming and orthographic analogies in reading. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 49, 323-340. Gough, P.B. (1983). Context, form, and interaction. In K. Rayner (Ed.), Eye movements in reading (pp. 203-211). New York: Academic Press. Goodman, K.S. (1967). Reading: a psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of the Reading Specialist, 6, 126-135. Graves, M. F., Juel, C., & Graves, B.B. (2007) Teaching Reading in the 21st Century (Fourth Edition). Pearson: Boston. Gunning, T. (2008). Teacher’s guide for word building, second edition. Honesdale, PA: Phoenix Learning Resources. Hall, P.M., Cunningham, D.P. (1994) Making words: Multilevel, hands-on developmentally appropriate spelling and phonics activities Grades 1-3. Good Apple Inc. Ho, D.E., Imai, K., King, G., & Stuart, E. (2007). Matching as nonparametric processing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Political Analysis.
238
Retrieved on February 20, 2009 from http://pan.oxfordjournals.org/egi/content/abstract/mpl013v1 Hughes, M.T., Cash, M.M., Klingner, J., & Ahwee, S. (2001) Professional development programs in reading: A national survey of district directors. National Reading Conference Yearbook, 50, 275-286. Iaquinta, A. (2006). Guided reading: A research-based response to the challenges of early reading instruction. Early Childhood Education Journal, 33(6), 413-418. International Reading Association (2008 – 2009). Keeping our promise to all students. Reading Today, 26(3), 1, 4, 5. Jorm, A.F. & Share, D.L. (1983). Phonological recoding and reading acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 4, 103-147. Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of fifty-four children from first through fourth grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437-447. Juel, C. (1991). Beginning reading. In R. Barr, M.Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 759-778). New York: Longman. Juel, C., & Minden-Cupp, C. (2000a). Learning to read words: Linguistic units and instructional strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 458-492. Juel, C., & Minden-Cupp, C. (2000b). One down and 80,000 to go: Word recognition instruction in the primary grades. The Reading Teacher, 53(4), 332-335. Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1996). The evolution of peer coaching. Educational Leadership, 53, 12-16.
239
Kennedy, M. (1998). Form and substance in inservice teacher education. National Institute for Science Education, Research monograph no. 13. University of Wisconsin-Madison. Kerlinger, F.N. (1993). Foundations of Behavioral Research, 2nd Edition. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.: NY. Killion, J. (1998). Scaling the elusive summit. Journal of Staff Development, 19(4), 1216. Klingner, J.L. & Vaughn, S. (1996). Reciprocal teaching of reading comprehension strategies for students with learning disabilities who use English as a second language. Elementary School Journal, 96, 275-293. LaBerge, D. & Samuels, S.J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293-323. Manset-Williamson, G. & Nelson, J.M. (2005). Balanced, strategic reading instruction for upper-elementary and middle school students with reading disabilities: A comparative study of two approaches. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 59-74. Marks, S.U., & Gersten, R. (1998). Understanding engagement and disengagement between special and general educators: An application of Miles and Huberman’s cross case analysis. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 21, 34-56. Mathes, P.G., Denton, C.A., & Fletcher, J.M. (2005). The effects of theoretically different instruction and student characteristics on the skills of struggling readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(2), 148-182.
240
McCutchen, D., Abbott, R.D., Green, L.B., Beretvas, S.N., Cox, S., Potter, N.S., et al., (2002). Beginning literacy: Links among teacher knowledge, teacher practice, and student learning. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(1), 69-86. Moats, L.C. (1994). The missing foundation in teacher education: Knowledge of the structure of spoken and written language. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 81-102. No Child Left Behind Act (2001), Part B, Reading Skills Improvement Grants. Retrieved July 20, 2007 from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg4.html National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel - Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction, reports of the subgroups. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. New York State Testing and Accountability Reporting Tool (n.d.) New York State School and District Report Cards for School Year 2006-2007. Retrieved January 17, 2009. https://www.nystart.gov/publicweb/Home.do?year=2007 Perfetti, C.A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press. Phelps, G. & Schilling, S. (2004). Developing measures of content knowledge for teaching reading. The Elementary School Journal, 105(1), 31-48. Pressley, M. (2006) Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced literacy. New York: Guilford Press. Pressley, M., Duke, N.K., & Boling, E.C. (2004). The educational science and scientifically based instruction we need: Lessons from reading research and policymaking. Harvard Educational Review, 72(1), 30-61.
241
Pressley, M., Solic, K., Gaskins, I.W., & Collins, S. (2006). A portrait of Benchmark School: How a school produces high achievement in students who previously failed. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(2), 282-306. Putnam, R.T. & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4-15. Riverside Publishing. (1989). Cultural Literacy Test. Chicago, IL: Author. Roehrig, A.D., Pressley, M., & Sloup, M. (2001). Reading strategy instruction in regular primary-level classrooms by teachers trained in Reading Recovery. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 17, 323-348. Scanlon, D.M. (1993). The Primary Decoding Test. Unpublished instrument. Scanlon, D.M. (n.d.). Multi-Level Passage Assessment. Unpublished instrument. Scanlon, D.M., Anderson, K.L., Sweeney, J.M., Gelzheiser, L., Goatley, V. & Vellutino, F.R. (2007). Interactive Strategies Approach (ISA) Professional Development Modules – 2nd Edition. Scanlon, D.M., Gelzheiser, L.M., Anderson, K.L., Goatley, V. & Vellutino, F.R. (June, 2008) Enhancing knowledge related to research-based early literacy instruction among pre-service teachers (an update). Poster presented at the Institute of Education Sciences Principal Investigators Conference, Washington, D.C. Scanlon, D.M., Gelzheiser, L., Vellutino, F.R. & Anderson, K.L. (2007). Knowledge of Literacy Instruction (KOLI). Unpublished instrument. Scanlon, D.M., Gelzheiser, L.M., Vellutino, F.R., Schatschneider, C., & Sweeney, J.M.(2008). Reducing the incidence of early reading difficulties: Professional
242
development for classroom teachers vs. direct interventions for children. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 346-359. Scanlon, D.M. & Sweeney, J.M. (2003). Preventing Reading Difficulties Professional Development Workshop. Scanlon, D.M. & Sweeney, J.M (2004). Supporting Children’s Literacy Development in the Primary Grades. Unpublished manuscript. Scanlon, D.M., Vellutino, F.R., Small, S.G., Fanuele, D.P., & Sweeney, J.M. (2005). Severe reading difficulties – can they be prevented? A comparison of prevention and intervention approaches. Exceptionality, 13(4), 209-227. Scanlon, D.M., & Vellutino, F.R. (1996). Prerequisite skills, early instruction, and success in first-grade reading: Selected results from a longitudinal study. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 2, 54-63. Scanlon, D.M., Vellutino, F.R., Small, S. G., Fanuele, D.P., & Sweeney, J.M. (2005). Severe reading difficulties – can they be prevented? A comparison of prevention and intervention approaches. Exceptionality, 13(4), 209-227. Scarborough, H.S. & Parker, J.D. (2003). Matthew effects in children with learning disabilities: Development of reading, IQ, and psychosocial problems from grade 2 to grade 8. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 47-71. Scarborough, H.S. (1998). Predicting the future achievement of second graders with reading disabilities: Contributions of phonemic awareness, verbal memory, rapid naming, and IQ. Annals of Dyslexia, 48, 115-136. Schmitt, M.C. (2001). The development of children’s strategic processing in Reading Recovery. Reading Psychology, 22, 129-151.
243
Schwartz, R.M. (2005). Decisions, decisions: Responding to primary students during guided reading. The Reading Teacher, 58(5), 436-443. Scott-Foresman Reading: Grade 1. (2004). Glenview, Illinois: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers. Share, D. L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of reading acquisition. Cognition, 55, 151–218. Smith, F. (1994). Understanding reading. (5th ed,). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Snow, C.E., Burns, M.S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Snow, C.E., Burns, M.S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.) (2005). Knowledge to support the teaching of reading: Preparing teachers for a changing world. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons Inc. Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Mathew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–391. Summary Table for FCRR Reports: Comprehensive Core Reading Programs (2002). Florida Center for Reading Research. Retrieved July 28, 2007 from http://www.fcrr.org/FCRRReports/CReports.aspx?rep=core Swartz, S.L. & Klein, A.F. (Eds.). (1997). Research in Reading Recovery. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Torgesen, J.K. (2002). The prevention of reading difficulties. Journal of School Psychology, 40(1), 7-26. Torgesen, J.K. (2006). Overcoming early reading difficulties in Florida: Lessons from research. PowerPoint session presentation. Meetings of the Florida Branch of the
244
International Dyslexia Association. Retrieved August 5, 2007 from http://www.fcrr.org/science/powerpoint/torgesen/FloridaIDA.ppt#261,1,Slide 1 Torgesen, J.K. (2007) Reading Fluency: How does it develop and how can we improve it in children with reading disabilities? PowerPoint session presentation, Meetings of the Houston Branch of the International Dyslexia Association. Retrieved August 5, 2007 from http://www.fcrr.org/science/powerpoint/torgesen/HoustonIDAbreakout.ppt#296 Tunmer, W.E., & Chapman, J.W. (2003). Reading difficulties, reading-related selfperceptions, and strategies for overcoming negative self-beliefs. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19, 5-24. Tunmer, W.E., & Chapman, J.W. (2002). The relation of beginning readers’ reported word identification strategies to reading achievement, reading-related skills, and academic self perceptions. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 15, 341-358. Tunmer, W.E., Herriman, M.L., & Nesdale, A.R. (1988). Metalinguistic abilities and beginning reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 134-148. Van Keer, H. & Verhaeghe, J.P. (2005). Comparing two teacher development programs for innovating reading comprehension instruction with regard to teachers’ experiences and student outcomes. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 543-562. Vellutino, F.R. & Scanlon, D.M. (1982). Verbal processing in poor and normal readers. In C.J. Brainerd & M. Pressley (Eds.), Verbal processes in children.(pp. 189-264). New York: Springer.
245
Vellutino, F.R., & Scanlon, D.M. (2002). The interactive strategies approach to reading intervention. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27, 573-635. Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, D.M., Sipay, E.R., Small, S.G., Pratt, A., Chen, R., & Denckla, M.B. (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, 601-638. Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, D.M., Small, S.G., & Tanzman, M.S. (1991). The linguistic basis of reading ability: Converting written to oral language. Text, 11, 99–133. Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, D.M., & Tanzman, M.S. (1994). Components of reading ability. In G.R. Lyon (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities: New views on measurement issues. Baltimore: Paul H. Brooks. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published in 1934). What Works Clearinghouse (2007). Reading recovery. What works clearinghouse intervention report. Retrieved March 20, 2007 from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/beginning_reading/reading_recovery/ Wasik, B.A., & Slavin, R.E. (1993). Preventing early reading failure with one-to-one tutoring: A review of five programs. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 179-200. Weber, R.M. (1970). A linguistic analysis of first-grade reading errors. Reading Research Quarterly, 5(3), 427-451.
246
Wei, R.C., Darling-Hammond, L., Andree, A., Richardson, N. & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional learning in the learning profession: A status report on teacher development in the U.S. and abroad. Technical report. National Staff Development Council. Wood, D., Bruner, J.S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89-100.
247
Appendix A Teacher Questionnaire
248
TEACHER QUESTIONNAIRE Child Research and Study Center The University at Albany Teacher Name: _________________________ _____ Reading Teacher
_____
Special Education Teacher
BACKGROUND AND EXPERIENCE EDUCATIONAL PREPARATION – In the table below please list all degrees you have earned along with the year in which the degree was awarded and the major or discipline in which you earned the degree. If you are currently working toward a degree, list the degree and discipline and write “in progress” in the Year Awarded column. Degree
Year Awarded
Major/Discipline
How many literacy related college or graduate school courses have you taken beyond what was required to complete your degree(s)? ___________
For Special Education Teachers: How many literacy related courses were you required to take as part of your degree? __________________
TEACHING EXPERIENCE – How many years have you been working as a reading or special education teacher? _________ In the table below please provide information on the grade levels for which you have provided reading instruction and the number of years at each level. We realize that the total number of years across grade levels may be greater than the total number of years you have taught. Grade Level(s) Taught
Number of years at each level
249
DESCRIPTION OF YOUR FIRST GRADE READING PROGRAM 1.) Number of first grade reading groups you are currently teaching. ________
2.) Size of first grade reading groups you are currently teaching. _________ (If not all of your groups are the same size, please place the number of groups of each size on the appropriate line.) One to one _____
2-3 students ______ 4-5 students ______ 6 or more _____
3.) Please describe, as specifically as you can, the instructional materials you are presently using with your first grade students. If you are using a commercial reading program, please name the program and the publisher. If you are using a guided reading approach, please indicate the publisher(s) of the little books that you use frequently. If you use a combination of materials, please describe them as best you can. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ 4.) Please describe, as specifically as you can, the assessments you are using with your first grade students. Please list all measures used, including those used to identify students for participation in your reading program as well as those used to assess their performance at the end of the year. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________
250
5.) Please describe, as specifically as possible, your approach to phonics instruction with your first grade students. ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________
6.) Please describe, as specifically as possible, your instruction with your first grade students regarding figuring out unfamiliar words when they are reading. What do you expect your first graders to do when they come to a word they don’t know? ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________________
251
Appendix B Teacher Interview Protocol
252
Teacher Interview Protocol I’d like to start off by asking you about the workshop that you attended back in January.
Part 1 You were in the (Alphabetic Knowledge or Strategic Word Identification) group. So, I’m curious, when you first learned that you would be randomly assigned to one of the two groups, did you have a preference for one over the other? If yes: Why did you want to participate in _______? Why was (other group) less desirable for you?
So how did you feel about being assigned to ___________?
Having spent the semester involved in the ___________ group, how do you feel about it now?
Part 2
The materials that you received in the mail included video demonstrations, student activities, assessments, and teacher reflection guides. Did you watch the videos that were sent? YES
NO
If YES: Did you watch them on your own or with a colleague? Tell me a little about your reaction to the videos. Do you have any suggestions for improving the videos?
253
If NO: Can you tell me why you did not watch them?
Did you use any of the suggested student activities? YES
NO
If YES: Can you tell me specifically which activities and/or materials you used? How did your students respond to the activities? Do you think you will use any of the activities next year? Do you have any suggestions for improving the activities? Is there anything else you would like to say about the activities?
If NO: Can you tell me why you did not use the activities? Do you have any suggestions for improving the activities?
Did you use the teacher reflection questions? YES NO
If YES: Did you use the questions on your own, or with a colleague? Did you find the (questions) useful in helping you to think about your instruction? YES
NO
If YES: In what ways? Do you have any suggestions for improving the teacher reflection portion of the followups?
If NO: Can you tell me why you did not use them?
254
Part 3 The follow-up materials were sent out to teachers approximately once per month. An alternative way to accomplish this would be to provide all of the materials in the beginning, and ask teachers to use them throughout the semester. Do you think you would have made better use of the materials if they had all been provided in the beginning, or do you think sending materials at regular intervals is a better approach? Why do you think that?
If sending materials is preferable: Is once a month a reasonable time-frame for the follow-up materials, or would you have preferred a different schedule? What would you have preferred?
Another alternative would have been to make the follow-up materials available on-line. Do you think you would have used the materials if you they were available to you via a web-site, or do you think having the hard copies of the materials is a more useful approach?
Were there any barriers to implementing the suggested practices that you can share with us? Are there changes that you would like to suggest that would help us to do this better in the future? Do you have anything you would like to add about the professional development or the materials that we have not covered?
Thank you for taking the time to complete the interview and for participating in the project throughout the semester.
255
Appendix C On-Line Survey Questions
256
257
258
259
260
261
