Advertisement

Etiology of teacher knowledge and instructional skills for literacy at the upper elementary grades

  • Kausalai (Kay) WijekumarEmail author
  • Andrea L. Beerwinkle
  • Karen R. Harris
  • Steve Graham
Article

Abstract

The purpose of this research was to study the etiology of teacher knowledge about and factors that influence implementation of evidence-based reading and writing interventions at the upper elementary grade levels. Five data sources are used in this study: first, we used teacher surveys about their pre-service preparation on reading comprehension and literacy practices gathered during a recent cluster randomized control trial on a reading comprehension intervention conducted with 280 fourth and fifth-grade teachers and their classroom students. We also conducted focus group interviews with 43% of the teachers and observed 90% of the teachers once during the implementation years. For writing, we used data collected from 32 teachers during a 3-year design project for a teacher-led computer-supported writing intervention. We also collected data from groups of school administrators using structured interviews during both studies. Finally, we conducted an artifact review of school curricula and posted professional development (PD) plans. Our results show that in both reading comprehension and writing, all teachers reported not receiving sound evidence-based pre-service preparation and they were not currently employing any evidence-based approaches. Most teachers reported using the basal reading series with very little variation from the lesson scope and sequence. Teachers and administrators frequently reported that skills were being taught in isolation (e.g., skill of the week is summarizing) and that writing was neglected. The interviews showed very interesting patterns of curricula decision-making by school administrators and these findings were further confirmed through the artifact reviews. Based on these results, we recommend that any review of teacher practices focus also on administrator decision-making and school level factors that are driving what happens in the classrooms. The review showed that the teachers themselves do not feel empowered to learn and deliver evidence-based literacy practices and feel constrained by the system.

Keywords

Elementary literacy Instruction Reading Teacher knowledge Writing 

Notes

References

  1. Aaron, P. G., Joshi, R. M., Gooden, R., & Bentum, K. E. (2008). Diagnosis and treatment of reading disabilities based on the component model of reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 67–84.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219407310838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Afflerbach, P., Blachowicz, C., Boyd, C.D., Izquierdo, E., Juel, C., Kame’enui, E., . . . Wixson, K. (2011a). Reading street (grade 5) (vol. 1). Glenview, Illinois: Pearson.Google Scholar
  3. Afflerbach, P., Blachowicz, C., Boyd, C.D., Izquierdo, E., Juel, C., Kame’enui, E., . . . Wixson, K. (2011b). Reading street (grade 5) (vol. 2). Glenview, Illinois: Pearson.Google Scholar
  4. Baker, S. K., Chard, D. J., Ketterlin-Geller, L. R., Apichatabutra, C., & Doabler, C. (2009). Teaching writing to at-risk students: The quality of evidence for self-regulated strategy development. Exceptional Children, 75, 303–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baumann, J.F., Chard, D.J., Cooks, J., Cooper, J.D., Gersten, R., Lipson, M., . . . Vogt, M. (2011). Texas journeys (grade 5). Orlando: HoughtonGoogle Scholar
  6. Binks-Cantrell, E., Washburn, E.K., Joshi, R. M., & Hougen, M. (2012). Peter effect in the preparation of reading teachers. Scientific Studies of Reading, 16, 526–536.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2011.601434 .
  7. Beerwinkle, A.L., Wijekumar, K., Walpole, S., Aguis, R. (2018). An analysis of the ecological components within a text structure intervention, Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 31, 2041–2064.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-018-9870-5
  8. Brindle, M., Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Hebert, M. (2016). Third and fourth grade teacher’s classroom practices in writing: A national survey. Reading and Writing, 29(5), 929–954.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9604-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Collins, J. (2018). Collins writing approach, Available at http://collinsed.com/free-resources/on July 1, 2017.
  10. Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C. Andree, A., Richardson, N., Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional Learning in the Learning Profession: A Status Report on Teacher Development in the United States and Abroad. Published by the National Staff Development Council and The School Redesign Network at Stanford University as part of their multi-year study, The Status of Professional Development in the United States.Google Scholar
  11. Fleishman, E. B. (2008). Adolescent literacy: A national reading crisis. Scholastic Professional Paper. https://www.scholastic.com/dodea/pdfs/Paper_Literacy_Crisis.pdf
  12. Gough, P., & Tunmer, W. (1986). Decoding, reading and reading disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7(1), 6–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Graham, S., Harris, K.R., & McKeown, D. (2015). The writing of students with LD and a meta-analysis of SRSD writing intervention studies: Redux. In L. Swanson, K.R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (2nd Edition). MY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  14. Graham, S., & Perrin, D. (2007). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 445–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Mason, L. H., & Friedlander, B. (2008). Powerful writing strategies for all students. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.Google Scholar
  16. Hoover, W., & Gough, P. (1990). The simple view of reading. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 127–160.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00401799.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Joshi, R. M., Binks, E., Graham, L., Ocker-Dean, E., Smith, D. L., & Boulware-Gooden, R. (2009). Do textbooks used in university reading education courses conform to the instructional recommendations of the National Reading Panel? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 458–463.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219409338739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McKenna, M., & Stahl, S. (2009). Assessment for reading instruction (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  19. McKenna, J. W., & Parenti, M. (2017). Fidelity assessment to improve teacher instruction and school decision making. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 33(4), 331–346.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2017.1316334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Meyer, B. J. F., Wijekumar, K., Middlemiss, W., Higley, K., Lei, P., Meier, C., & Spielvogel, J. (2010). Web-based tutoring of the structure strategy with or without elaborated feedback or choice for fifth- and seventh-grade readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 62–92.  https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.1.4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 2015. Available at http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2015/#reading?grade=4 on April 27, 2017.
  22. National Reading Panel (U.S.) & National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (U.S.). (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, D.C.: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health.Google Scholar
  23. Piasta, S. B., Connor, C. M., Fishman, B. J., & Morrison, F. J. (2009). Teacher’s knowledge of literacy concepts, classroom practices, and student reading growth. Scientific Studies of Reading, 13, 224–248.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430902851364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pressley, M., Wharton-McDonald, R., Mistretta-Hampston, J., & Echevarria, M. (1998). Literacy instruction in 10 fourth- and fifth-grade classrooms in upstate New York. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2, 159–194.  https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532799xssr0202_4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wijekumar, K. Harris, K., Graham, S., & Meyer, B.J.F. (2016). We-write: A teacher and technology supported persuasive writing tutor for upper elementary students. In S. Crossley & D. S. McNamara (Eds.) Adaptive educational technologies for literacy instruction. New York, NY: Routledge Publishers – Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
  26. Wijekumar, K. K., Meyer, B. J. F., & Lei, P. (2012). Large-scale randomized control trial with 4th graders using intelligent tutoring of the structure strategy to improve nonfiction reading comprehension. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60, 986–1013.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-012-9263-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wijekumar, K., Meyer, B. J. F., & Lei, P.-W. (2013). High-fidelity implementation of web-based intelligent tutoring system improves fourth and fifth graders content area reading comprehension. Computers & Education, 68, 366–379.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.05.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wijekumar, K. K, Meyer, B. J. F., Lei, P. (2017). Web-based text structure strategy instruction improves seventh graders’ content area reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, Advance online publication.  https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000168 , 109, 741, 760.
  29. Wijekumar, K., Meyer, B. J. F., Lei, P., Lin, Y., Johnson, L. A., Spielvogel, J. A., & Cook, M. (2014). Multisite randomized controlled trial examining intelligent tutoring of structure strategy for 5th-grade readers. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 7, 331–357.  https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2013.853333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Dyslexia Association 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kausalai (Kay) Wijekumar
    • 1
    Email author
  • Andrea L. Beerwinkle
    • 2
  • Karen R. Harris
    • 3
  • Steve Graham
    • 3
  1. 1.Center for Urban School PartnershipsTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  2. 2.Texas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  3. 3.Mary Emily Warner Professor of EducationArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations