Advertisement

Reading and Writing

, Volume 30, Issue 6, pp 1231–1249 | Cite as

Does teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge affect their fluency instruction?

  • H. T. G. Van den Hurk
  • A. A. M. Houtveen
  • W. J. C. M. Van de Grift
Article
First Online:

Abstract

The relation is studied between teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of reading and the quality of their subsequent classroom behaviour in teaching fluent reading. A confirmatory factor analysis model with two latent variables is tested and shows adequate goodness-of-fit indices. Contrary to our expectations, the results of structural equation modelling reveal a small but significant γ-value of .29, indicating that only 8% of the variance in teachers’ classroom behaviour in teaching fluent reading is accounted for by teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of reading. Presumably teacher knowledge is not as stable and conclusive as one might think. More research is needed in determining the factors that work restricting for teachers in putting their knowledge into classroom practice. It is recommended that preservice and in-service teacher training should not be limited to transfer of knowledge, but should also assist teachers in designing and performing effective fluent reading instruction.

Keywords

Pedagogical content knowledge Reading fluency Structural equation modeling Primary education Teacher training 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Allington, R. L. (1983). Fluency: The neglected reading goal. The Reading Teacher, 36(6), 556–561.Google Scholar
  2. Allington, R. L. (2009). If they don’t read much … 30 years later. In E. H. Hiebert (Ed.), Reading more, reading better (pp. 30–54). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, R. C., Hiebert, E. H., Scott, J. A., & Wilkinson, A. G. (1985). Becoming a nation of readers. Washington, DC: The National Institute of Education.Google Scholar
  4. Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.Google Scholar
  5. Barrett, P. (2007). Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 815–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bos, C., Mather, N., Dickson, S., Podhajski, B., & Chard, D. (2001). Perceptions and knowledge of preservice and in-service educators about early reading instruction. Annals of Dyslexia, 51(1), 97–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brady, S., Gillis, M., Smith, T., Lavalette, M., Liss-Bronstein, L., Lowe, E., et al. (2009). First grade teachers’ knowledge of phonological awareness and code concepts: Examining gains from an intensive form of professional development and corresponding teacher attitudes. Reading and Writing, 22(4), 425–455. doi: 10.1007/s11145-009-9166-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brownell, M. T., Bishop, A. G., Gersten, R., Klingner, J. K., Penfield, R. D., Dimino, J., et al. (2009). The role of domain expertise in beginning special education teacher quality. Exceptional Children, 75(4), 391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  11. Callahan, M., Benson-Griffo, V., & Pearson, P. D. (2009). Teacher knowledge and teaching reading. In F. Falk-Ross, S. Szabo, M. B. Sampson, & M. M. Foote (Eds.), Literacy issues during changing times: A call to action, 30th yearbook of the College Reading Association (pp. 37–62). Logan, UT: College Reading Association.Google Scholar
  12. Carlisle, J. F., Correnti, R., Phelps, G., & Zeng, J. (2009). Exploration of the contribution of teachers’ knowledge about reading to their students’ improvement in reading. Reading and Writing, 22(4), 457–486. doi: 10.1007/s11145-009-9165-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chard, D. J., Pikulsky, J. J., & McDonagh, S. H. (2012). Fluency: The link between decoding and comprehension for struggling readers. In T. Rasinski, C. Blachowitz, & K. Lems (Eds.), Fluency instruction: Research-based best practices (2nd ed., pp. 90–113). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  14. Chard, D. J., Vaughn, S., & Tyler, B. J. (2002). A synthesis of research on effective interventions for building reading fluency with elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(5), 386–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cheesman, E. A., McGuire, J. M., Shankweiler, D., & Coyne, M. (2009). First-year teacher knowledge of phonemic awareness and its instruction. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 32(3), 270–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cunningham, A. E., Perry, K. E., Stanovich, K. E., & Stanovich, P. J. (2004). Disciplinary knowledge of K-3 teachers and their knowledge calibration in the domain of early literacy. Annals of Dyslexia, 54(1), 139–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1998). What reading does for the mind. American Educator, 22(1/2), 8–15.Google Scholar
  18. Cunningham, A. E., Zibulsky, J., Stanovich, K. E., & Stanovich, P. J. (2009). How teachers would spend their time teaching language arts: The mismatch between self-reported and best practices. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(5), 418–430. doi: 10.1177/0022219409339063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dunlap, W. P., Burke, M. J., & Greer, T. (1995). The effect of skew on the magnitude of product-moment correlations. The Journal of General Psychology, 122(4), 365–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (5th ed., Vol. III, pp. 1017–1095). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  21. Fielding-Barnsley, R. (2010). Australian pre-service teachers’ knowledge of phonemic awareness and phonics in the process of learning to read. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 15(1), 99–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Fielding-Barnsley, R., & Purdie, N. (2005). Teachers’ attitude to and knowledge of metalinguistics in the process of learning to read. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 33(1), 65–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gottfried, A. E., Fleming, J. S., & Gottfried, A. W. (2001). Continuity of academic intrinsic motivation from childhood through late adolescence: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Guthrie, J. (2011). Best practices in motivating students to read. In L. M. Morrow & L. B. Gambrell (Eds.), Best practices in literacy instruction (4th ed., pp. 177–198). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  25. Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. A. (2006). Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable assessment tool for reading teachers. The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 636–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Houtveen, A. A. M., & Booij, N. (1994). Het meten van integrale leerlingzorg: Adaptief onderwijs en schoolontwikkeling. [Measuring integrated student counseling: Adaptive educationand school development]. Utrecht: ISOR.Google Scholar
  27. Houtveen, T., & Van de Grift, W. (2012). Improving readingachievements of struggling learners. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23(1), 71–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Houtveen, A. A. M., Brokamp, S. K., & Smits, A. E. H. (2012). Lezen, lezen, lezen. Achtergrond en evaluatie van het LeesInterventie-project voor Scholen met een Totaalaanpak (LIST). [Reading, Reading, Reading. Background and evaluation of a reading intervention project]. Utrecht: Kenniscentrum Educatie.Google Scholar
  29. Hox, J. J., & Bechger, T. M. (1998). An introduction to structural equation modelling. Family Science Review, 11, 354–373.Google Scholar
  30. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: a Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Mooresville, IL: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
  32. Kelly, D., Nord, C. W., Jenkins, F., Chan, J. Y., & Kastberg, D. (2013). Performance of US 15-year-old students in mathematics, science, and reading literacy in an international context. First look at PISA 2012 (Report No. NCES 2014–024). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.Google Scholar
  33. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  34. Kordes, J., Bolsinova, M., Limpens, G., & Stolwijk, R. (2013). Resultaten PISA-2012: Praktische kennis en vaardigheden van 15-jarigen [Results PISA-2012: Practical knowledge and skills of 15-year olds]. Arnhem: CITO.Google Scholar
  35. Krashen, S. D. (2004). The power of reading: Insights from the research. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.Google Scholar
  36. Kuhn, M. R., Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Meisinger, E. B. (2010). Aligning theory and assessment of reading fluency: Automaticity, prosody, and definitions of fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(2), 230–251. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.45.2.4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lane, H. B., Hudson, R. F., Leite, W. L., Kosanovich, M. L., Strout, M. T., Fenty, N. S., et al. (2008). Teacher knowledge about reading fluency and indicators of students’ fluency growth in Reading First Schools. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 25(1), 57–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lyon, G. R., & Weiser, B. (2009). Teacher knowledge, instructional expertise, and the development of reading proficiency. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(5), 475–480. doi: 10.1177/0022219409338741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mather, N., Bos, C., & Babur, N. (2001). Perceptions and knowledge of preservice and inservice teachers about early literacy instruction. Journal of learning disabilities, 34(5), 472–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McCallum, R. S., Sharp, S., Bell, S. M., & George, T. (2004). Silent versus oral reading comprehension and efficiency. Psychology in the Schools, 41(2), 241–246. doi: 10.1002/pits.10152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McCutchen, D., Abbott, R. D., Green, L. B., Beretvas, S. N., Cox, S., Potter, N. S., et al. (2002a). Beginning literacy: Links among teacher knowledge, teacher practice, and student learning. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(1), 69–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. McCutchen, D., Green, L., Abbott, R. D., & Sanders, E. A. (2009). Further evidence for teacher knowledge: Supporting struggling readers in grades three through five. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 22(4), 401–423. doi: 10.1007/s11145-009-9163-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. McCutchen, D., Harry, D. R., Cunningham, A. E., Cox, S., Sidman, S., & Covill, A. E. (2002b). Reading teachers’ knowledge of children’s literature and English phonology. Annals of Dyslexia, 52(1), 205–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M. H. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 64–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Moats, L. C. (1994). The missing foundation in teacher education: Knowledge of the structure of spoken and written language. Annals of Dyslexia, 44(1), 81–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Moats, L. (2009). Knowledge foundations for teaching reading and spelling. Reading and Writing, 22(4), 379–399. doi: 10.1007/s11145-009-9162-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Moats, L. C., & Foorman, B. R. (2003). Measuring teachers’ content knowledge of language and reading. Annals of Dyslexia, 53(1), 23–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nathan, R. G., & Stanovich, K. E. (1991). The causes and consequences of differences in reading fluency. Theory into Practice, 30(3), 176–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 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 (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  50. Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15(5), 625–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Piasta, S. B., McDonald-Connor, C., Fishman, B. J., & Morrison, F. J. (2009). Teachers’ knowledge of literacy concepts, classroom practices, and student reading growth. Scientific Studies of Reading, 13(3), 224–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pikulski, J., & Chard, J. (2005). Fluency: The Bridge from Decoding to Reading Comprenhension. Reading Teacher, 58(6), 510–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pinnell, G. S., Pikulski, J. J., Wixson, K. K., Campbell, J. R., Gough, P. B., & Beatty, A. S. (1995). Listening to children read aloud: Data from NAEP’s integrated reading performance record at Grade 4 (Report No. 23-FR-04). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  54. Rasinski, T. V. (2003). The fluent reader: Oral reading strategies for building word recognition, fluency, and comprehension. New York: Scholastic Inc.Google Scholar
  55. Rasinski, T. V. (2010). The fluent reader: Oral and silent reading strategies for building word recognition, fluency, and comprehension (2nd ed.). New York: Scholastic.Google Scholar
  56. Rasinski, T. V., & Hoffman, J. V. (2003). Oral reading in the school literacy curriculum. Reading Research Quarterly, 38(4), 510–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Reutzel, D. R., Fawson, P. C., & Smith, J. A. (2008). Reconsidering silent sustained reading: An exploratory study of scaffolded silent reading. The Journal of Educational Research, 102(1), 37–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Reutzel, D. R., Petscher, Y., & Spichtig, A. N. (2012). Exploring the value added of a guided, silent reading intervention: Effects on struggling third-grade readers’ achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 105(6), 404–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Samuels, S. J. (2006). Toward a model of reading fluency. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about fluency instruction (pp. 24–46). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  60. Samuels, S. J. (2012). Reading fluency: Its past, present, and future. In T. Rasinski, C. Blachowicz, & K. Lems (Eds.), Fluency instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 3–16). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  61. Samuels, S. J., & Farstrup, A. E. (2006). What research has to say about fluency instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  62. Schunk, D. H., & Rice, J. M. (1993). Strategy fading and progress feedback: Effects on self-efficacy and comprehension among students receiving remedial reading services. Journal of Special Education, 27(3), 257–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Developing self-efficacious readers and writers: The role of social and self-regulatory processes. In J. T. Guthrie & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Reading engagement: Motivating readers through integrated instruction (pp. 43–50). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Google Scholar
  64. Shevlin, M., & Miles, J. N. (1998). Effects of sample size, model specification and factor loadings on the GFI in confirmatory factor analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 25(1), 85–90. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00055-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.Google Scholar
  66. Spear-Swerling, L., & Brucker, P. O. (2003). Teachers’ acquisition of knowledge about English word structure. Annals of Dyslexia, 53(1), 72–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Spear-Swerling, L., Brucker, P. O., & Alfano, M. P. (2005). Teachers’ literacy-related knowledge an self-perceptions in relation to preparation and experience. Annals of Dyslexia, 55(2), 226–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Spear-Swerling, L., & Zibulsky, J. (2014). Making time for literacy: Teacher knowledge and time allocation in instructional planning. Reading and Writing, 27(8), 1353–1378. doi: 10.1007/s11145-013-9491-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). New York: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  71. Van den Hurk, H. T. G., Houtveen, A. A. M., & Van de Grift, W. J. C. M. (2012). Kennis van leerkrachten over het leesproces [Teachers’ knowledge of reading]. Pedagogische Studiën, 89(4), 191–206.Google Scholar
  72. Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2002). The development of competence beliefs and values from childhood through adolescence. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 92–120). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  73. Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. Handbook of reading research, 3, 403–422.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • H. T. G. Van den Hurk
    • 1
  • A. A. M. Houtveen
    • 1
  • W. J. C. M. Van de Grift
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Literacy, Faculty of EducationUtrecht University of Applied SciencesUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Teacher Education, Faculty of Behavioural and Social SciencesGroningen UniversityGroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options