Approaching Literacy Instruction without a Textbook: A Qualitative Study of Elementary Literacy Instruction PDF Free Download
1 / 220
/220
100%
University of Nevada, Reno
Approaching Literacy Instruction without a Textbook:
A Qualitative Study of Elementary Literacy Instruction
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy of
Education
by
Andrea C. Morency
Dr. Diane Barone/Dissertation Advisor
May, 2016
ii
i
ABSTRACT
This investigation examined teacher-directed, rather than program-directed,
literacy instruction in elementary classrooms in a school where no comprehensive or core
reading program was adopted or implemented. Observations, interviews, and artifacts
were the data collected and analyzed over a six month period from four teachers during a
single school year. The findings provide a description of how elementary teachers teach
literacy without a textbook, and the following conclusions were drawn from the findings:
1. Teachers employed a variety of instructional practices in the absence of an
adopted comprehensive reading program. Both literature-based instructional
practices such as literature circles and independent reading, along with
instructional practices that are more skill and strategy based, such as word study
and comprehension strategy instruction, were utilized.
2. Teachers made decisions about what and how to implement instructional practices
based on adopted state standards, student need, and student interest while teaching
literacy without a comprehensive program. Professional Learning Communities
(PLC) and school-wide instructional foci also influenced teachers’ instructional
practice decisions.
3. Teachers used a variety of authentic texts and materials to teach literacy without a
comprehensive program, including leveled texts, texts selected by students or
based on students’ interests, trade books, and informational texts. Teachers
gathered text and materials from local sources like the school library, from online
sources, and created texts and materials themselves.
ii
4. In the absence of a comprehensive reading program, teachers selected texts and
materials to support literacy instruction based on student need and level, student
interest, and that aligned with learning outcome goals. The learning outcome
goals that guided text and material selection were set by teachers to meet the
needs of their students and with the support of professional books.
5. Teachers used a wide range of both summative and formative assessments to
monitor students’ progress. Summative measures included end of unit projects
and formal assessments. Formative measures included observational notes,
teacher created interim assessments, rubrics, checklists, and teacher discretion.
Keywords: literacy, elementary education, literature-based, reading, writing
iii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my husband, Wyatt, my mother, Marilee, and my
children, Courtland, Easton, Harper, and Austen. Thank you for your constant
encouragement, belief in my capacity to finish when I wanted to quit, and celebration of
the milestones along the way. I would never have been able to accomplish this goal
without your flexibility, love, and support!
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMNTS
There are many people to whom I am grateful for their help and encouragement as
I completed my program. I am particularly indebted to my committee members who
challenged and encouraged me throughout this process. I am especially grateful for my
Committee Chair, Diane Barone. Dr. Barone has championed for me throughout, and I
especially appreciate her support in the development of this dissertation. Through her
guidance with methodology and writing, I have gained knowledge and insight that will
shape my career indefinitely.
Additionally, I am grateful for my staff and Board of Directors who supported me
through the completion of this program. I appreciate their willingness to offer me the
time and space necessary to prioritize this work even when it wasn’t convenient or ideal.
This would not have been possible without your flexibility and support.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter I: Introduction…………………...………………………………………………..1
Chapter II: Review of Literature………..…………………………………………..……..4
Textbooks in American Education………………………………………………...4
History of Textbooks in American Education………………………….....4
Textbooks in Modern American Education……………..………………...7
Best Practices in Literacy Instruction……………………………………………10
Vocabulary Instruction…………………………………………………...10
Comprehension Instruction………………………………………………16
Fluency Instruction………………………………………………………22
Writing Instruction……………………………………………………….24
Assessment……………………………………………………………….26
Comprehensive Literacy Instruction……………………………………..30
Conclusion……………………………………………………………….33
Chapter III: Methodology ……………………………………………………………….35
Philosophical Foundation………………………………………………………...36
Site Selection…………………………………………………………………….38
Role of the Researcher…………………………………………………………...41
Participants……………………………………………………………………….42
Data Sources……………………………………………………………………..45
Observations……………………………………………………………..45
Interviews………………………………………………………………..46
Artifacts………………………………………………………………….48
Data Management and Analysis…………………………………………………48
Research Steps …………………………………………………………………..50
Trustworthiness…………………………………………………………………..52
Limitations…………………………………………………………………….....53
vi
Chapter IV: Findings……………………………………………………………………..55
Educational Philosophies on Reading Instruction…………....………………….55
What Instructional Practices Do Teachers Employ to Teach Literacy Without a
Textbook or Comprehensive Program? …………………………………………59
Strategy Instruction………………………………………………………60
Modeling.....…………….………………………………………………..62
Class Discussions.....…………….……………………………………….65
Word Study.....…………….……………………………………………..70
Writer’s Workshop.....…………….……………………………………...76
Read Aloud.....…………….……………………………………………..83
Literature Circles.....…………….…………………………………….....87
Opportunities to Read.....…………….………………………………......93
Reading Buddies.....…………….………………………………………100
How Do Teachers Decide Which Instructional Practices to Employ to Teach
Literacy Without a Textbook or Comprehensive Program? ……….…………..106
Group Lesson Planning and Professional Learning Communities .……106
Standards ……………………………………………………………….110
School-wide Units of Study ……….......……………………………….114
Student Level and Need ………………………………………………..119
Student Interest.....…………….………………………………………..127
What Texts Do Teachers Use When Teaching Literacy Without a Textbook or
Comprehensive Program?………………………………………………………132
Leveled Text ….………………………………………………………..133
Trade Books ……………………………………………………………134
Award Winning Books…………………………………………...…….135
Informational Text.....…………….…………………………………….137
Internet Resources………………………....……………………………138
Self or Group Created Materials………………………………………..142
vii
How Do Teachers Decide What Texts to Use When Teaching Literacy Without
Textbook or Comprehensive Program? ………………………………………..146
Student Choice and Student Interest……………………………………146
Student Level and Need………………………………………………...149
Professional Books ……………………………………………………..149
How Do Teachers Monitor Students’ Progress When Teaching Literacy Without a
Textbook or Comprehensive Program?……………………………………...…152
Observational Notes ……………………………………………………152
Teacher Created Interim, Rubrics, and Checklists ……………………..156
Formal Assessments…………………………………………………….161
End of Unit Projects…………………………………………………….164
Teacher Discretion……………………………………………………...166
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………...…168
Chapter V: Discussion……………..…………………………………………………...171
Implications for Educators……………………………………………….……..176
Implications for Researchers……………………………………………………176
Further Research……………………………………………………………..…177
References……………………………………………………………………….……...178
Appendices…………………………………………………………………….………..203
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Displays of literacy strategies taught in two classrooms
Figure 2. Annotation guided displayed when modeling annotating
Figure 3. Las Posadas anchor chart created through classroom discussion
Figure 4. Partner discussion
Figure 5. Anchor chart created through classroom discussion
Figure 6. Weekly word study homework
Figure 7. Word study groups based on QSI data
Figure 8. Word study group sorting
Figure 9. Word study expectation anchor chart
Figure 10. Informational writing baseline
Figure 11. Student writing with teacher feedback
Figure 12. Writing expectation anchor charts in two classrooms
Figure 13. Observed classroom read alouds
Figure 14. Books previewed using post-it strategy during literature circles
Figure 15. Literature circle expectations anchor chart
Figure 16. Connector worksheet used during literature circles
Figure 17. Student reading in front of classroom library
Figure 18. Students reading independently from book bags
Figure 19. Independent reading anchor charts
Figure 20. Texts available to students for independent reading
Figure 21. Text I observed students reading independently
Figure 22. Reading Buddies lesson plan
ix
Figure 23. Reading Buddies lesson plan reflection
Figure 24. Reading Buddies in action
Figure 25. Elementary PLC meeting note
Figure 26. Group planning notes
Figure 27. Literacy standards posted during instruction
Figure 28. Sample literacy lesson plan
Figure 29. Winter solstice fluency poem
Figure 30. Books about Diwali read by small groups
Figure 31. Teacher created text about Hopi Tribe
Figure 32. Las Posadas read aloud text
Figure 33. Guided reading and developmental spelling level tracking document
Figure 34. EasyCBM reading passage fluency measure sample
Figure 35. Elementary QSI scoring sheet
Figure 36. RigbyPM comprehension measure sample
Figure 37. Sample literacy exit ticket
Figure 38. Teacher notes taken during Reading Buddies
Figure 39. Daily 5 student rotation choice record
Figure 40. Writing topic suggestions for choice writing
Figure 41. Students accessing leveled texts from book bags during instruction
Figure 42. Award nominated picture books read aloud to students
Figure 43. Octopus informational text accessed from a web-source
Figure 44. Walt Disney informational text accessed from web-source
Figure 45. Jamie Oliver’s informational text accessed from web-source
x
Figure 46. Sample anchor charts posted in classrooms
Figure 47. Teacher created tracker for literacy instruction
Figure 48. Library collection organization
Figure 49. Bring one take one books located in school hallways
Figure 50. Rubric from A Guide to Writers Workshop (Calkins, 2006)
Figure 51. Teacher making observational notes during instruction
Figure 52. Teacher observational notes taken during word study
Figure 53. CCSS reading standard rubric
Figure 54. Writing checklist classroom environmental print
Figure 55. EasyCBM report
Figure 56. Student created end of unit project
1
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION
Literacy, the ability to read and write, is tied to all aspects of modern life. It is
connected in social situations as well as in school and work lives. Being literate allows
someone to participate fully in society (Allington, 2002; Lind, 2008). Literacy instruction
in the elementary grades is prioritized because a solid foundation in literacy has a
dramatic impact on students’ future learning and success in school and provides a means
to social and political capital into adulthood (Freire & Macedo, 2005), and research has
linked proficient literacy skills to higher self-esteem (Galbraith & Alexander, 2005),
better health (DeWalt, Berkman, Sheridan, Lohr, & Pignone, 2004), better jobs, and
higher wages (Lind, 2008). Because literacy instruction is prioritized, elementary literacy
blocks take up a large portion of instructional minutes in the school day. Typical literacy
blocks range from fifty minutes daily to 210 minutes a day, with the average falling
around ninety minutes a day, meaning more time is dedicated to literacy instruction than
any other subject in modern U.S. schools (Boushey & Moser, 2006). In a position
statement on adolescent literacy by the International Literacy Association Moore,
Thomas, Bean, Birdyshaw, and James (1999) explain:
Adolescents entering the adult world in the 21st century will read and write more
than at any other time in human history. They will read advanced levels of
literacy to perform their jobs, run their households, act as citizens, and conduct
their personal lives. They will need literacy to cope with the flood of information
they will find everywhere they turn. They will need literacy to feed their
imaginations so they can create a world of the future. In a complex and sometimes
even dangerous world, their ability to read will be crucial (p. 100).
2
Literacy instruction is happening on a daily basis in schools around the U.S., and
according to fall 2013 survey of the elementary reading market by Education Market
Research (EMR) seventy-three percent of educators surveyed still have a core/basal
reading series. This percentage is higher in western states at eighty-four percent
(Education Market Research, 2013). While comprehensive programs still dominate the
approach to literacy instruction in the U.S., there are data to support teachers shifting
away from such programs (Education Market Research, 2013). While eighty percent of
principals were strong advocates for core reading series, only sixty-eight percent of
English Language Arts (ELA) teachers advocate for such programs (Education Market
Research, 2013). While a majority of teachers report using some sort of core or basal
reading program, twenty-seven percent of teachers indicated they do not use a core
reading series (Education Market Research, 2013). The number of teachers not using a
core program has significantly increased compared to eighteen percent reported in 2000
(Education Market Research, 2013).
A trend away from core reading programs poses the question for teachers not
using a core program, how is literacy taught to students in their classroom? The purpose
of this study is to describe how teachers teach literacy in the absence of a core reading
program. Research suggests teachers and teacher expertise matter more than the reading
series selected or if a reading series is implemented at all, and expert teachers produce
readers regardless of the program they are required to use (Allington, 2002; Pressley,
Allington, Wharton-McDonald, Collins-Block, & Morrow, 2001). This study looks at
elementary teachers in a school that has no adopted reading program and calls on teachers
to make all instructional decisions in their approach to literacy instruction. This study
3
extends the research base on literacy instruction by describing the practice in elementary
classrooms where teachers are fully responsible to determine the approach to literacy
instruction and seek out instructional materials. The nature of effective literacy teaching
is complex and based on the in-the-moment decision making of expert teachers who can
identify and meet the needs of their students (Allington, 2002). This investigation also
fills a gap in the literature by describing a teacher-directed rather than program-directed
comprehensive approach to literacy instruction. Prior research has described teacher-
directed practice in literacy instruction linked to a specific approach such as writers’
workshop, readers’ workshop, read aloud, and literature circles (Atwell, 1987; Atwell,
2002; Calkins, 2000; Calkins, 2006; Calkins, 2014; Daniels, 2002; Jacobs, Morrison, &
Swinyard, 2000; Leland, Lewison, & Harste, 2012; Lenters, 2014; Morrow & Brittain,
2003). This description of how elementary teachers approach literacy instruction extends
the knowledge base of teacher-directed literacy instruction.
4
CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW
This section discusses the role reading programs have played in historic American
education along with a discussion of contemporary reading programs’ role in modern
education. Additionally, best practices in literacy instruction are examined and discussed.
The review of best practices addressed here serves as a foundation on which to discuss
how teachers teach without a comprehensive reading program.
Textbooks in American Education
Comprehensive programs including textbooks dominate the way in which literacy
is taught in American schools with adoption in over seventy percent of elementary
classrooms (Education Market Research, 2013). As an educational artifact, textbooks
have played a major role in the U.S. education system for decades (Smith, 2002).
History of Textbooks in American Education
Early reading instruction in America was heavily rooted in the English Protestant
ideology that prioritized reading ability as a way for citizens to access the scriptures of
the Bible (Smith, 2002). The first reading materials used for instruction in colonial
classrooms, such as the Hornbook and The ABC, were imported from England (Smith,
2002). There was a shift in focus from religion to more post-Revolutionary War
American ideals of nationalism and morality with the popularity of the McGuffey
Reader, first published by Truman and Smith in America in 1825 (Smith, 2002). Over
120 million copies of the McGuffey Reader were sold between 1836 and 1960
(Westerhoff, 1982). The primary purpose of the McGuffey Reader to teach reading
expanded from a religious focus to a means of purifying the American English language,
5
a way to spread national ideologies, and a means to develop good and moral citizens
(Smith, 2002). Another example of a popular moralistic and nationalist reader of the time
was Noah Webster’s Blue-Back Speller, which included moralistic stories, patriotic
speeches, and historical and geographical information about the United States (Smith,
2002).
Another shift in focus took place in the 1920s as reading and reading instruction
became the focus of research and seen as a cultural asset (Smith, 2002). The materials in
readers for students shifted from a moralistic and a nationalist focus to more child-
centered readings such as the Mother Goose Nursery Rhymes and folktales (Smith,
2002). The Beacon Primer by James Herman Fassett, published in 1912, used a highly
systematic method of phonics as the primary means of teaching students to read (Miller,
1971). Counter to the phonics method, a group of authors bolstered the word, sentence,
and story method. Following George Farnham’s instructional manual entitled The
Sentence Method, several reading programs adopted the approach, and it is during this
time that specific information about methods written for teachers began to be included in
reading programs (Smith, 2002). Another important shift of the time was the focus from
oral reading to silent reading. Several research reports of the time described the
differences in the processes of learning and engaging in oral and silent reading (Smith,
2002). In the early 1920s, professional books addressed the importance of and methods
for teaching silent reading with an emphasis on speed (Smith, 2002).
While reading research surged during the 1920s and 1930s, the national priorities
shifted with the onset of the World Wars. Between July 1943 to June 1944, only fifty-
6
four reports of research were published (Smith, 2002). After the war, however, a
resurgence in focus on teaching reading in the United States emerged following the
Russian launch of Sputnik, and the U.S. government took an interest in supporting
education for the masses extending reading instruction to youth and adults not attending
school (Smith, 2002). Along with the interest of the U.S. government came federal
funding for educational initiatives in the amount of 1.3 billion dollars (Smith, 2002).
Substantial changes in basal readers also happened at this time. Basal programs began to
focus on skills instruction, specifically comprehension, and improved the approach to
literacy instruction by addressing the individual needs of students learning to read (Smith,
2002).
In the mid-1960s, the release of Jeanne Chall’s book Learning to Read: The Great
Debate along with the publication of the First-Grade Studies, criticized the popular look-
say approach to reading instruction found in the majority of basal readers of the time
(Pearson, 2002). Basal programs produced after the Chall’s book and the First-Grade
Studies report differed greatly from predecessors by including analytical phonics
instruction along with providing a much wider array of stories and characters, and
increasing exposure to challenging vocabulary in basal texts (Pearson, 2002).
As reading pedagogy moved away from strict control of vocabulary, literature-
based reading instruction found a place in school reading instruction (Pearson, 2002). By
the mid to late 1980s, the California Reading Framework introduced policy promoting
the literature-based approach to reading instruction (Pearson, 2002). Whole Language
instruction also emerged during this time, and continued to challenge the basal approach
7
to reading instruction (Pearson, 2002). The Whole Language approach was not
universally accepted and was criticized for producing unskilled readers (Jeynes & Littell,
2000; Shaw, 1991; Vacca, Vacca, Grove, Burkey, Lenhart, & McKeon, 2003). By the
1990s a resurgence in experimental research prompted the pendulum of reading
instruction pedagogy to swing away from the Whole Language back to skills and strategy
instruction (Pearson, 2002).
Textbooks in Modern American Education
Today, literacy instruction in America is dominated by comprehensive programs
including basal readers. Reading instruction and the basal readers to support literacy
instruction change based on the concepts of reading and are market driven (Dewitz &
Jones, 2012). Contemporary federal policy and federal and state initiatives, which are
often tied to funding, heavily influence contemporary reading programs (Allington,
2002). While reading programs have been in existence throughout American history,
their popularity and prominence as the mandated approach to literacy instruction in
classrooms increased with the 1983 Reading Recovery initiative, and later with No Child
Left Behind (NCLB) as a way for schools to improve reading achievement by ensuring
that teachers employed scientifically based reading methods (Milosovic, 2007; Wyatt,
2014).
Comprehensive reading programs are usually a grade-level based series of
textbooks produced by an education publisher to be used as the primary if not sole
approach to literacy instruction in the classroom (Duncan-Owens, 2009). In addition to
textbooks, the reading program may include supplemental texts to enrich lessons or
8
differentiate instruction, manipulatives (i.e., letter and word tiles, flip charts, and sound
cubes), digital resources, and workbooks for students to complete independently, and
often include comprehensive guidance for the teacher. Comprehensive programs provide
a pre-set standardized curriculum that may make lesson planning easier for teachers, and
ensure consistency among teachers delivering curriculum across the same grade level and
vertical alignment as students move through grade levels (Duncan-Owens, 2009).
Comprehensive programs often provide training for teachers when the program is
implemented (Garan, 2004), and may benefit novice or ineffective teachers because of
the highly structured approach (Duncan-Owens, 2009).
Although there are benefits to adopting a comprehensive program, there are also
issues to consider. Program developers often commission research of their products and
report the effectiveness; however, these reports are reviewed skeptically because they are
commissioned and may not be objective and have not been through the rigorous process
of peer-review (Duncan-Owens, 2009). Additionally, Garan (2004) reports mandating
fidelity to a program can be especially frustrating for teachers who have been highly
effective in teaching reading without a comprehensive program. Additionally, programs
can de-skill teachers by asking them to deliver content rather than develop content to
meet the needs of their students (Coles, 2001; Rice, 2006). Information and instruction in
comprehensive programs is often designed to be presented in a specific sequence that
does not consider the nuances among roles a reader must play and the differing degree of
explicit instruction that is needed for each student (Freebody & Luke, 1990).
9
Even in light of the issues with adopting a comprehensive literacy program,
policy development and governmental funding tied to experimental quantitative research
has continued to drive the way reading instruction happens in contemporary American
education. In 1998, Congress formed the National Reading Panel (NRP) to survey
quantitative research and generate a report identifying how best to teach reading
(Shanahan, 2003). Since the publication of the NRP report in 2000, the findings have
served as the foundation for most comprehensive reading programs adopted in schools
which include instruction in areas the NRP identified as essential to literacy instruction
comprehension, vocabulary, fluency, phonics, and phonemic awareness (Duncan-Owens,
2009).
Comprehensive reading programs establish a precedent as to how reading
instruction will take place for all students; however, although the programs include the
five essential components of literacy instruction as identified by the NRP Report,
programs have been criticized for not adhering to best practices in literacy instruction
when addressing the components of comprehension, vocabulary, fluency, phonics, and
phonemic awareness. Dewitz, Jones, and Leahy (2009) note the lack of explicit
instruction in basal programs, and Miller and Blumenfeld (1993) report a lack of
metacognitive emphasis. Chambliss and Calfee (1998) assert basal programs do not
promote reading independence because they rely on repeated routines and do not
appropriately release control gradually to students to build expertise. Basal programs
have also been shown to lack the opportunity for students to appropriately build
background knowledge (Dewitz, Leahy, Jones, & Sullivan, 2010; Walsh, 2003), provide
10
poorly crafted guided reading questions (McKeown, Beck, & Blake, 2009), and present
an insufficient volume of text to build fluency (Brenner & Hiebert, 2010).
Best Practices in Literacy Instruction
Best-practices in literacy instruction are evidence-based classroom practices for
practitioners to implement to improve the literacy skills and knowledge of their students.
The review of best practices in literacy instruction presented here is organized by the
literacy domains for vocabulary, comprehension, fluency, writing, assessment, and
comprehensive literacy instruction. For the purpose of this review, I focused on the
elements of elementary literacy instruction excluding the early reading instruction in
phonics and phonemic awareness which fall outside of the scope of this investigation.
Best Practices in Vocabulary Instruction
Vocabulary instruction is one of the core components of teaching literacy as
identified by the National Reading Panel (2000). The field agrees that vocabulary
instruction is important, and there is a wide range of approaches to teaching vocabulary
in the classroom (Beck, McKeown, Kucan, 2013). Blachowicz and Fisher (2015) identify
the essential components of quality vocabulary instruction as engaging students in rich
and varied exposures to language, teaching both general academic language and domain
specific academic language, developing students’ independent word-learning strategies,
and instruction that develop word consciousness. To do this, teachers encourage wide
reading, read alouds and discussions of literature, expose students to general and content
specific academic language and text, develop word consciousness, and present high-
quality literature paired with discussion and classroom activities that engage students in
11
independent word learning. Exposing students to language, an essential component of
quality vocabulary instruction, can be accomplished by students frequently engaging with
a wide range of texts. Wide reading can be accomplished in classrooms by allowing
students access to books in the school library, school book rooms, access to magazines
and series books, and building and displaying classroom libraries. Through wide reading,
students gain new vocabulary from text and develop concepts through repeated exposure
(Worthy, Moorman, & Turner, 1999). The volume of students’ reading is closely related
to vocabulary knowledge (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1991; Fielding, Wilson, &
Anderson, 1986). While some argue that any reading can be beneficial to students
(Kelley & Clausen-Grace, 2006; Krashen, 2004; Worthy, Moorman, & Turner, 1999),
strategic text selection that exposes students to enough new vocabulary without too many
unfamiliar words is the most efficient way to promote vocabulary acquisition through
wide reading (Carver, 1994; Carver & Leibert, 1995; Jacobs & Renandya, 2015;
Schaffner, Schiefele, Ulferts, 2013; Shefelbine, 1990). Wide reading presents students the
opportunity to be exposed to a wide-range of print on a regular basis.
Another way to expose students to language is through high quality oral language
in the classroom through read alouds and classroom discussion. Children benefit from
seeing and hearing fluent reading (Calkins, 2000; Fox, 2001; Rasinski, 2004). Gee (2004)
suggests that frequent read alouds in the classroom setting offer students the opportunity
to “observe masters at work. Masters model behaviour accompanied by talk that helps
learners know what to pay attention to” (p. 12). As students are read aloud to, they hear
proficient reading, prosody, and meaning-making inflection, and when read alouds are
followed up by classroom discussion, students are provided the opportunity to practice
12
using new language and vocabulary (Gambrell & Almasi, 1998; Hadjioannou &
Townsend, 2015; Stahl, Richek, & Vandevier, 1991).
Academic language, another component of quality vocabulary instruction,
requires explicit instruction in the classroom as it is abstract because it is a unique
register designed to describe concepts that are not necessarily concrete, and lack of day-
to-day utility (Zwiers, 2008). There is considerable empirical research linking the explicit
study of academic vocabulary and success in school (Lesaux, Kieffer, Faller, & Kelley,
2010; Nagy, Berninger, & Abbott, 2006; Nagy & Townsend, 2012; Townsend, 2009;
Townsend & Collins, 2008; Townsend, Filippini, Collins, &Biancarosa, 2012, Zwiers,
2007). Academic language is part of functional, oral and written discourse of school
(Townsend, Filippini, Collins, & Biancarosa, 2012), and is often hard for students to
access because it is complex, dense, and abstract (Fang, Schleppegrell, & Cox, 2006;
Zwiers, 2006).
The complexity of academic language is necessary to describe relationships and
ideas as clearly and succinctly as possible (Schleppegrell, 2004). Nominalization, a
feature of academic grammar, causes academic texts to be very dense. That is to say, the
language of academic text is carefully constructed to distill a lot of both new and
referential information into one nominal clause (Fang, Schleppegrell, & Cox, 2006).
Unpacking the language to extract all of the new information, while recognizing
referential information, is particularly problematic for struggling readers and requires
specific instruction in the classroom (Beers, 2003). Academic language is comprised of
two types of academic words, content-specific academic words, and general academic
13
words. Content-specific academic words have technical meanings that are specific to the
discipline. Examples of content-specific academic words include: exponent,
photosynthesis, alliteration. General academic words occur frequently across disciples,
and are outside of West’s (1953) General Service List (GSL) of the two thousand most
frequently occurring English words (Coxhead, 2000). The Academic Word List (AWL),
developed by Coxhead (2000), lists 570 words meeting the above definition that cover
10% of cross-disciplinary academic texts. Examples of general academic words found in
the AWL include: conclude, anticipate, summary. Academic language appears more
frequently in text than it does in oral communication (Corson, 1997).
Groups of students who have less access to academic texts; therefore, less
repeated exposure to academic language, are disadvantaged when it comes to negotiating
the linguistic demands of academic text (Zwiers, 2008). Groups of students who often
lack repeated exposure to academic text outside of school include English language
learners and the socioeconomically underprivileged (Corson, 1997; Snow & Kim, 2007).
The nature of academic language perpetuates the Matthew Effect of reading (Stanovich,
1986) whereby students with more access to academic text become more proficient in
academic language while students with limited exposure to academic language do not
develop proficiency, resulting in a lack the linguistic capital valued in school resulting in
continued marginalization (Gee, 2011). Consequently, teachers’ classroom instruction
should go beyond basic word recognition and provide students multiple exposures to both
print and oral academic language to support the language demands of academic
discourse.
14
Independent word-learning strategies are important techniques for teachers to
teach and model as students learn most new words incidentally through wide reading
(Craver, 1994; Craver & Leibert, 1995; Gardner, 2004; Shefelbine, 1990; Stutz,
Schaffner, & Schiefele, 2016). Key word learning strategies include efficient dictionary
use, the use of word parts such as prefixes, suffixes, roots, and compounds used to
uncover word meaning, and the use of context clues. Dictionary use that asks students to
simply look up words, record the definition, and use the word in the sentences is a
common classroom practice, but is not an effective way to teach students to use a
dictionary in strategic independent word-learning. This is not to say, however that
dictionaries, both print and digital, are not powerful tools to aid in word and meaning
learning. To teach students to use a dictionary strategically, teachers should explicitly
teach students how to look up an entry of an unknown word in either a print or digital
source, think-aloud about the different definitions presented, and think-aloud about which
is the most appropriate definition in a particular context (Graves, 2000). A classroom
activity that can help students conceptualize definitions is Definition Mapping. In this
practice, students use graphic displays to show three common elements of a dictionary
definition 1) category to which the word belongs; 2) characteristics of the word; and 3) a
specific example and specific non-example of the word. After going through this
exercise, teachers model developing a definition and provide guided practice until
students are able to create accurate definitions using the concept map independently
(Archer & Hughes, 2011; Schwartz & Raphael, 1985; Stahl & Nagy, 2007).
Another key strategy for teachers to bolster independent word learning is teaching
students to use information about word parts to understand word meaning through word
15
study and morphology (Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton, & Johnston, 2015; Templeton, Bear,
Invernizzi, Johnston, Flanigan, Townsend, Helman, & Hayes, 2015). Explicit instruction
on how to use context has been suggested as a major instructional technique for students
to develop vocabulary independently through wide reading (Anderson & Nagy, 1991;
Papadopoulou, 2007; Stahl & Nagy, 2007). Context clues are clues to the meaning of
words contained in the text that surrounds the word. These clues can include examples,
definitions, and re-statements. A student learns a new word by making connections
between the word and the text surrounding the word. This initial connection is stretched
by confirming meaning in other contexts with repeated exposure to the word. Similar to
other strategy instruction, teaching students to use context clues requires a gradual release
of control, whereby, teachers model the strategy, provide explicit explanation as to how
and why to employ the strategy, provide guided practice, and gradually hold students
accountable for independently using the strategy (Boushey & Moser, 2009).
The final component of quality vocabulary instruction is building a sense of word
consciousness in the classroom. Word consciousness refers to the knowledge and
dispositions students need to learn, appreciate, and effectively use words (Scott & Nagy,
2009). Scott and Nagy (2009) describe the teachers’ role in developing word
consciousness as a four-dimensional process that is reciprocal at all levels. The first
dimension is reading good literature. Quality literature can be read aloud or accessed
independently by students in the classroom. The literature presented should be varied,
authentic, and appeal to the reader. Secondly, teachers need to help students identify
words in context. Words can be identified for their literary contribution, uniqueness, as
metaphors, or for alliteration qualities. Once students are made aware of words in
16
context, the next dimension calls teachers to talk about the language used by good
authors. These conversations should be explicit and draw attention to the words authors
choose and how word choice enhances the reading experience. Finally, teachers should
provide scaffolded opportunities for students to experiment with language as authors.
Experimenting with language should be done in a way where students feel safe to
experiment with their writing and word choice. Encouraging students to play with words
can further develop their interest in knowing more about words and promote independent
word learning and use.
Best Practices in Comprehension Instruction
Explicit comprehension instruction, as an essential component of effective
literacy instruction as defined by the National Reading Panel (2000), challenges the long-
held belief in automaticity theory (Fleisher, Jenins, & Pany, 1979) which posits decoding
is, in large part, sufficient to achieve high levels of comprehension. Although this
position has been challenged for decades, it is still seen in contemporary classrooms.
While important to the reading process, word recognition and automaticity are not the
only skills necessary for proficient reading. Research and practitioner experiences
included several examples of students that are able to read fluently and accurately and
still struggle with comprehension (Leach, Scarborough, & Rescorla, 2003; Riddle &
Valencia, 2002). Riddle and Valencia (2002) profiled students who fail state reading
assessments, and reported nearly twenty percent of the students participating in their
research had weak comprehension, but were able to read fluently and decode accurately.
Similarly, Leach, Scarborough, and Rescorla (2003) described half of fourth grade
17
student participants as having late emerging comprehension difficulties, developing after
third grade, despite being able to read fluently and accurately. Such reports of research,
which quickly followed the NRP Report (2000), clearly emphasized that although word
recognition and fluency are important components of successful reading, and important to
comprehension, decoding alone does not guarantee comprehension. Interestingly,
legislation and programs following the NRP Report (2000), to a great extent, ignored this
evidence and focused primarily on phonics, phonemic awareness, and fluency, especially
in early grades. For example, many state research-based reading instructional plans, tied
to the Reading First initiative, focused primarily on instructional practices that relied
heavily on phonics, phonemic awareness, and fluency instruction. Ultimately, final
reports on the Reading First impacts confirmed that these code-based interventions had
no impact on grade one, two, and three students’ reading comprehension; however, there
was a positive correlation between time spent on reading instruction and comprehension
(Gamse, Jacob, Horst, Bulay, & Unlu, 2008).
While the field has concluded that decoding and fluency instruction alone do not
ensure comprehension, contemporary conversations have revolved around the role
content knowledge and process knowledge play in comprehension. Some experts in the
field contend that having relative content knowledge is critical to comprehension (Hirsch,
2006; McKeown, Beck, & Blake, 2009; Neuman, 2006) while others (Duke & Pearson,
2008-2009; Pressley, 2000) assert process knowledge on what comprehension strategy to
employ is key. Almasi and Hart (2015) explain:
18
the relevant question here is, does a reader have difficulty comprehending because
he or she lacks knowledge of the words and concepts in the text, or does he or she
lack knowledge of the process of knowing when/how to access that knowledge?
(p.226).
Content knowledge as the key to comprehension has gained popularity, although
the approach lacks substantial evidence of its effectiveness (Almasi & Hart, 2015). The
gain in popularity may be related to the widespread recent adoption of the Common Core
State Standards Initiative (CCSS). This initiative set out a collection of standards that
focus on preparing students to be college and career ready. The CCSS do not provide any
specific language about comprehension strategy instruction (Rodde & McHugh, 2013).
Although overlooked in the CCSS, strategy instruction has been included in
governmental reports on research-based practices to promote comprehension since the
NRP Report (2000), and there is strong evidence for explicitly teaching comprehension
strategies to students at all levels (Baumann, 1984; Brown, Pressley, Van Meter, &
Schuder, 1995; Duffy, 1993; Gambrell & Koskinen, 2002; Kamil, Borman, Dole, Kral,
Salinger, & Torgesen, 2008; Shanahan, Callison, Carriere, Duke, Pearson, &
Schatschneider, 2010; Sinatra, Brown, & Reynolds, 2002; Stahl, 2003). Proponents of
strategy instruction do not propose that content knowledge is not important, but rather
that strategy instruction provides readers a collection of tools to make sense of text that
can be used by independent, self-regulating readers who are able to learn content through
the process of reading (Palincsar & Schultz, 2011).
19
The goal of best-practice strategy-based comprehension instruction is to make
students strategic readers rather than simply providing them a list of isolated strategies to
employ (Almasi & Hart, 2015). To do this, teachers must allow students to make
decisions on their own rather than tell them the specific strategy to use. Strategic readers
command seven practices while reading, comprehension monitoring, constructing mental
images, identifying story grammar components, generating questions while reading,
making inferences, and summarizing (National Reading Panel, 2000). Effective
comprehension strategy instruction takes these foundational practices and breaks them
down into specific strategies, such as, activating background knowledge, making
predictions, identifying the main idea, checking for understanding, rereading, making
inferences, using text features, retelling the story, summarizing, and recognizing literary
elements (Boushey & Moser, 2009). Students can use these strategies to make meaning
of text and promote comprehension.
Explicit instruction and gradual release of responsibility are the cornerstones to
effective comprehension strategy instruction. An effective model for explicit strategy
instruction is transactional strategy instruction (TSI) (Klapwijk, 2015; McKeough,
Lupart, & Marini, 2013; Pressley, El-Dinary, Gaskins, Schuder, Bergman, Almasi, &
Brown, 1992). The goal of TSI is for students to use multiple comprehension strategies
flexibly and interactively around text to improve self-regulated strategy use (Pressley et
al., 1992). To do this, the teacher begins by modeling use of comprehension strategies
using a read/think aloud with authentic text to demonstrate how and when to apply
strategies in text. The read aloud has been shown to be an effective instructional practice
with both narrative and informational text (Kraemer, McCabe, & Sinatra, 2012). Next,
20
teacher and students share the responsibility of engaging in thoughtful discussion around
a common text, and students are expected to explain their use of strategies and
communicate their reflective responses to what they have read. The goal of TSI is to have
students use comprehension strategies independently as they read text (Brown, 2008).
Within the TSI model, the gradual release of control from teacher to student happens
relatively naturally, but sometimes, and often with struggling readers, more deliberate
attention to the release of control must be facilitated through teacher scaffolding (Almasi
& Hart, 2015).
For careful consideration of scaffolding, Almasi and Fullerton (2012) propose a
strategy instruction model in which two dimensions of scaffold support are considered 1)
the amount of cognitive effort a reader must expend and 2) the nature of the instructional
task and the text being used. By considering these two dimensions of support, teachers
can scaffold to reduce the cognitive effort of a reading task by grouping students with a
partner or in a small group, or scaffold by adjusting the text to be less demanding when
first introducing a comprehension strategy. Discussions, pre-reading activities, and visual
aids are research-supported instructional scaffolds that teachers can use to reduce the
cognitive demand on students when introducing a concept or strategy that may be
difficult for students.
A meta-analysis of research on classroom discussions around texts concluded that
classroom discussions improve students’ ability to comprehend, improve metacognition,
and critical thinking along with improving students’ ability to state and support the main
idea of a text (Murphy, Wilkinson, Soter, & Hennessey, 2009). Pre-reading activities are
21
used to prepare students for reading, and can be used with both narrative and
informational text to support comprehension, and visual aids are concrete tools that can
be used while reading to guide students to create a mental image to organize the
information they are reading (Armbruster, Anderson, & Meyer, 1991; Kim, Vaughn,
Wanzek, & Wei, 2004; Sam & Rajan, 2013).
There was also evidence that students who are asked to read authentic texts for
authentic purposes during literacy instruction have accelerated comprehension
development (Purcell-Gates, Duke, & Martineau, 2007). Authentic reading experiences
occured when students engage in text that can be found outside of the learning-to-read
context for a meaningful purpose (Purcell-Gates, 2013). In the TEXT study, Purcell-
Gates, Duke, and Martineau (2007) linked students’ informational text comprehension
development to authentic reading and writing tasks for second and third graders
independent of students’ socioeconomic status, explicit text-feature instruction, and time
spent reading and writing in the classroom. Purcell-Gates (2013) suggested four essential
elements of authentic literacy lessons in the classroom. The first consideration was to
learn the literacy practices in the lives of students. To do this, teachers should get to know
about their students’ lives and interests along with finding out what literacy practices
their students engage in outside of school on a regular basis. Secondly, teachers must
create the necessary authentic context in the classroom by considering the social context
in which the lesson will take place and which will call for reading and/or writing. Third,
teachers’ material and task selection should be carefully considered. Real-life texts
should be selected for students to read and teachers should set real-life purposes to
engage in reading and writing tasks. Lastly, teachers should explicitly teach the skills and
22
strategies students need to access and comprehend text and assess students’ learning
throughout the process.
Best Practices in Fluency Instruction
The CCSS supports the NRP’s assertion that fluency is a foundational reading
skill, and that students across grade levels, should read with sufficient fluency to support
comprehension; however, Kuhn and Rasinski (2015) explain that recent trends in fluency
instruction have focused too heavily on how many words students can read in a minute as
a measure of fluency while ignoring what reading fluency is and how it contributes to the
reading process. Fluency is a two dimensional literacy process involving word
recognition and prosody. Minute-read tests of fluency only measure the word recognition
component, while ignoring prosody (Kuhn & Rasinski, 2015). Kuhn and Rasinski (2015)
assert best-practice fluency instruction should include four components: 1) the
opportunity for students to listen to reading regularly; 2) direct support for students while
they read aloud; 3) a focus on phrasing; and 4) ample opportunity to read. While there are
many approaches to fluency instruction, the three approaches presented here meet the
best-practice recommendations and can be easily incorporated into classroom practice:
Fluency Development Lessons (Rasinski, Padak, Linek, & Sturtevant, 1994), Fluency
Oriented Reading Instruction (Kuhn & Schwanenflugel, 2008), and poetry/Readers
Theater (Young & Rasinski, 2009).
The Fluency Development Lesson (FDL) asks students to engage in repeated
readings of familiar passages such as poems, story segments, or other familiar texts over
a short period of time (Rasinski, Padak, Linek, & Sturtevant, 1994). The format of a FDL
23
lesson is the teacher first reading the passage aloud and then having students read the
selection chorally with them. Next, students are asked to read and reread the passage
three times in partnership. Lastly, students perform their reading for the class or other
audience (Rasinski, 2003).
Fluency Oriented Reading Instruction (Kuhn & Schwanenflugel, 2008), a
component of a larger literacy curriculum, is a supplemental approach that is particularly
designed to boost students’ oral reading when needed (Stahl & Heubach, 2005). Within
the approach, students engage in a specific task with a single piece of text throughout a
week of instruction. The approach includes five foundational home and school
components with four additional optional components. The foundational components are
reading the story to the class, discussing the story, students rereading the story at home,
students partner reading the story, and students forming a journal response or worksheet
in pairs or as a class. Optionally, students can echo read the story before reading it at
home, may learn one selection of the text and/or engage in repeated reading at home, and
students may read the story as a play prior to journaling. While students engage in an
extension activity, the teacher may take a running record as a fluency assessment with
individual students. In a two-year study, students made significantly greater than
expected growth in reading achievement in fourteen classes implementing the approach
(Stahl & Heubach, 2005).
Readers Theater asks students to perform a written script focusing on delivering
meaning to the audience (Young & Rasinski, 2009). Prior to performing the written
script, students engage in repeated readings of the written script first with significant
24
teacher support, and with a gradual release of control from teacher to students as
accuracy, automaticity, and prosody improves. Readers Theater improves reading
performance and is engaging and motivating for students (Griffith & Rasinski, 2004;
Martinez, Roser, & Strecker, 1998/1999).
The approaches presented here incorporate the elements and principles of
effective fluency instruction including modeling fluent reading, teacher assisted reading,
and repeated reading within an authentic and purposeful context. Classroom-based
research posits the importance of wide and repeated reading, a mostly independent task;
however, the teacher plays an important role in each of the approaches discussed. The
specific role of the teacher within fluency instruction has yet to be looked at closely, and
may be an important direction for future research (Kuhn & Rasinski, 2015).
Best Practices in Teaching Writing
Students learn to write through effective writing instruction when they are
surrounded by quality models through mentor texts (Dorfman & Cappelli, 2007; Duke,
Caughlan, Juzwik, & Martin, 2012), provided with clear expectations (Calkins, 2006;
Calkins, 2014), are provided specific strategy instruction through strategic-mini lessons
(Calkins, 2014; Graham & Harris, 2013), are allowed the freedom to make choice and
mistakes, are given feedback (Cunningham & Cunningham, 2010), and given the
opportunity to practice in authentic ways (Bromley, 2015). Writers’ workshop (Atwell,
2002; Calkins, 2006; Fletcher & Portaluppi, 2001; Graham & Perrin, 2007) provides a
structure for teachers to follow to ensure that all of the recommended components of
quality writing instruction are included. Writers’ workshop is a coaching model where
25
teachers guide students through the writing process to be able to write for a variety of
purposes and audiences (Calkins, 2006).
The structure of writer’s workshop begins with a mini-lesson where specific
writing strategy instruction is given to students. Often, the strategy instruction will
include an example from a mentor text. After the mini-lesson, students are given time to
write independently. During this time, the teacher may pull small groups to address
specific writing techniques or correct misconceptions or errors present in students’
writing through writing conferences. Lastly, there is time set aside to share student work
(Calkins, 2006; Calkins, 2014). Calkins (2006) has described conferring as, “the heart of
our teaching” (p. 189). Conferences take place when students are actively writing, are
short, and are specific to something that student needs to focus on in his or her writing.
Teachers should record conferring with each student when they meet by making
anecdotal notes to be able to monitor students’ growth as a writer over time (Calkins,
2006).
The role of grammar, spelling, and other conventions in writing instruction are an
important consideration for teachers when planning classroom writing instruction.
Traditional approaches to writing instruction have included explicit instruction and
repeated practice of conventional grammar exercises; however, this practice has been
shown to negatively impact students’ writing (Hillocks, 1987; Routman, 1996). Citing
this evidence, the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) have provided
guidance through a position statement on how to appropriately address grammar in
writing instruction (Brozo, 2003; NCTE, 2002). NCTE asserts that grammar is important
26
and is included in the NCTE/International Literacy Association (ILA) standards for
English Language Arts, and guides teachers to incorporate grammar instruction in
authentic writing instruction rather than pulled out through isolated grammar exercises
(NCTE, 2002). NCTE also encourages teachers to tailor grammar instruction to the
specific needs of individual students and address grammatical errors directly in their
writing or other authentic texts rather than having them arbitrarily find errors in
selections of writing created for a specific grammar task (NCTE, 2002). This approach to
grammar instruction can be incorporated in the writers’ workshop framework through
mini-lesson and conferring with students.
Best Practices in Literacy Assessment
Afflerbach, Cho, Crassas, and Kim (2015) assert that a theoretical and practical
understanding of literacy development and contributing factors poise the field of
education to have reading assessment address some of the current imbalances in reading
assessment practice. Factors influencing reading development that have been largely
ignored in contemporary reading assessment include motivation and engagement, self-
efficacy, epistemic beliefs, and agency (Afflerbach, Cho, Kim, Carssas, & Doyle, 2013).
To address these concerns, Afflerbach, Cho, Crassas, and Kim (2015) posit the key to
successful reading assessment is to balance in reading process vs. reading product,
reading skills and strategies vs. higher-order thinking, single reading vs. multiple sources,
digital literacy vs. traditional print sources, synthesizing text vs. basic recall, summative
vs. formative, and assessment done to students vs. assessment done with and by students.
27
Balancing reading process and reading product in reading assessment requires
teachers to focus on students’ skills, strategies, and performance on a task as those skills
and strategies are used, process, and what students are able to produce by reading,
product. Afflerbach, Cho, Crassas, and Kim (2015) argue that contemporary reading
assessments focus too much on reading product, while largely ignoring the reading
process, and that this imbalance is perpetuated in the CCSS. It is important to assess both
product and process, because each assessment provides different information that is
useful for teachers. Process assessment, such as miscue analysis, observational guides,
and annotation analysis, can help a teacher pin-point a problem a student is experiencing
in the reading process and adjust instruction to meet the needs of that student and
improve teaching and learning (Filkin, 2012). This type of assessment should be done
regularly throughout a larger unit of study with specific identified reading goals. Product
assessment should happen at the end of a large unit of study to measure student
achievement in relation to the unit’s identified reading goals. Examples of product
assessments are quizzes, tests, sets of comprehension questions tied to a specific reading
task, or criterion referenced tests. Even with the repeal of the No Child Left Behind Act,
it is not likely that state testing and accountability measures will go away anytime soon.
Afflerbach, Cho, Crassas, and Kim (2015) encourage teachers to not let accountability
measures only rely on product reading assessments, and assert that effective process
reading assessment can provide the information necessary to meet the individual needs of
students rather and eliminate the need to teach to the test.
An important balance within process reading assessment is balancing reading
skills and strategies vs. higher-order thinking. Higher-order thinking assumes that
28
students have the knowledge and comprehension to be able to apply information within a
unique setting without prompting (Bloom, 1956). It is important to understand within the
hierarchy of higher-order thinking, lower levels serve as the basis of higher levels;
therefore, balancing assessment is important to paint a complete picture of what students
can do (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Students’ ability to engage in higher-order
thinking in reading is a skill necessary to be successful in future college courses, a focus
of the CCSS (Hess, Jones, Carlock, & Walkup, 2009). There are two widely accepted
models for describing higher-order thinking in classroom instruction and assessment,
Bloom’s Taxonomy (1956) and Webb’s Depth-of-Knowledge (DOK) (2002). Bloom’s
taxonomy categorizes tasks that students engage in into a hierarchy of thinking levels
(e.g., knowing, understanding, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and evaluating) while
Webb’s DOK focuses more on the cognitive thinking process and the cognitive level at
which the teacher is teaching. Afflerbach, Cho, Crassas, and Kim (2015) argue that many
reading comprehension assessments that rely on multiple-choice questions to measure
students’ understanding of a text do not effectively measure strategy nor higher-order
thinking, and suggest having students create and answer critical questions by identifying
main idea, determining author intention, and think critically about text to create and
answer questions as a superior way to assess both strategy and higher-order thinking in
reading assessment. This approach also addresses the suggested balance between
synthesizing text and basic recall (Rouet, 2006).
Reading assessment should balance opportunities for students to engage in single
reading and reading and synthesizing across multiple sources (Afflerbach, Cho, Crassas,
& Kim, 2015). This notion is especially important as digital resources become
29
increasingly more common and easily accessible in classrooms. Cho (2013) identifies the
complexities of Internet reading and the strategies students must access to accomplish
Internet reading of multiple sources as identifying potential texts, learning the
information presented in the digital text, evaluating the text, and monitoring and
managing reading throughout the process. Cho (2013) further explains that students must
be able to interact with each of these strategies for assessment of reading in multiple
digital resources to be informative. When planning reading assessments where students
are asked to access multiple digital sources, it is important for teachers to acknowledge
that students must have the digital reading skills to be able to measure reading. Without
proficient skills, the assessment may not be a valid measure of reading.
The balance of summative and formative assessment is not a new concept nor is it
specific to assessing reading. A comprehensive assessment plan should include both
formative assessment, to monitor students’ learning, and formative, to evaluate students’
understanding (Herman, Osmundson, Ayala, Schneider, & Timms, 2006). A critique of
both summative and formative reading assessments is that they are often done to and for
students in school, and students do not understand the purpose or what can be learned
from assessing reading (Black & William, 1998). Afflerbach, Cho, Crassas, and Kim
(2015) assert classroom-based reading assessment should empower students to eventually
take responsibility for self-assessing their literacy ability, and make changes or seek more
information to improve their literacy skills when necessary. To do this, teachers should
balance assessments where they seek and determine ability by measuring students’ skills
and times where students engage in self-assessment. Self-assessment requires teachers to
confer with students after and explicitly help students understand what they can learn
30
from the self-assessment (Afflerbach, Cho, Crassas, & Kim, 2015). Teachers begin by
making the practice explicit, and as students engage in this practice, they are able to
become independent over time.
In addition to reading assessment, teachers must carefully consider and plan how
to assess students’ writing in the classroom. Best-practice in writing assessment consists
of several components including, portfolios, rubrics, and checklists (Bromley, 2007).
Checklists and rubrics can serve as formative assessments that teachers and students can
use throughout the writing process to guide students to creating a well written piece for a
specific audience. Portfolios are an effective summative assessment where students may
present artifacts from throughout the writing process or may include several final pieces
of writing for a variety of purposes. With both the formative and summative assessment
measures, it is important that students and teachers both assess the writing, and confer
throughout the process.
Best Practices for Comprehensive Literacy Instruction
Gambrell, Malloy, Marinak, and Mazzoni (2015) offer ten guiding principles for
developing a comprehensive approach to literacy instruction that incorporate all of the
evidence-based practices discussed in this chapter: 1) classroom culture that bolsters
motivation through choice, collaboration, and relevance; 2) scaffolded instruction in all
areas of literacy instruction to support comprehension gradual release of control; 3)
students engage with a wide range of narrative and informational text; 4) students engage
in close reading to promote deep comprehension with text worthy of close reading; 5)
provide access to appropriately leveled texts; 6) incorporate literacy across content areas
31
for authentic purposes and consider literacy demands while planning across content
areas; 7) balance teacher-led and student-led discussions; 8) use formative and
summative assessment to inform instruction; 9) promote independence by providing time
for self-selected reading and writing; and 10) integrate technologies to link and expand
concepts.
The classroom culture can bolster motivation through choice, collaboration, and
relevance. Choice is an important component of motivation, especially book selection
when reading (Edmunds & Bauserman, 2006). Teachers can increase motivation by
allowing students to self-select what they read from a wide variety of books that appeal to
the interests of their students (Edmunds & Bauserman, 2006; Hall, Hendrick, &
Williams, 2014). Collaboration among peers, especially with limited interruptions from
teachers, have been shown to create interactions among students around texts that are
sustained and make connections between other texts and topics and result in increased
motivation and deeper understanding (Almasi, O’Flahavan, & Arya, 2001; Guthrie, Van
Meter, Hancock, Alao, Anderson, & McCann,1998). Similarly, relevance and authentic
learning experiences support accountability to community and content, increase strategy
use, and bolster motivation (Gambrell, Hughes, Calvert, Malloy, & Igo, 2011; Guthrie,
McRae, Klauda, 2007; Malloy & Gambrell, 2011; Teale & Gambrell, 2007). In addition
to providing students authentic experiences, it is important to promote independence by
providing time for self-selected reading and writing (Allington, 2009; Cunningham &
Allington, 2011; Gambrell, 2009; Heibert & Martin, 2009).
32
Literacy instruction to support comprehension should be scaffolded to meet the
needs of students with a gradual release of control (Graham & Harris, 1996; Harris &
Graham, 1994), especially when students are presented with rigorous text. Providing
students access to rigorous text is emphasized in the CCSS for all grade levels; however,
grades two through five have seen the greatest increase in text complexity with the
adoption of CCSS (Hiebert & Mesmer, 2013). Providing students access to rigorous text
is not sufficient to improve students’ literacy skills, teachers need to consider how they
will support students in accessing more rigorous text, especially if students cannot access
the text independently. Scaffolding instruction allows students with a wide range of
abilities to access texts in the classroom. It is also important that students engage with a
wide range of narrative and informational text (Duke, 2004), which may need to be
scaffolded depending on student ability and cognitive demand. A gradual release of
control is also important to ensure that students are able to transfer skills to different texts
and situations. A task that may require teachers to scaffold is students engaging in close
reading to promote deep comprehension (Robb. 2013). Often, texts that are worthy of
close reading and deep thinking are too difficult for students to access and digest
independently.
The range of informational text students are exposed to in lower grades is primary
focused on life science, and is often only accessed through read alouds (Yopp & Yopp,
2012). In providing comprehensive literacy instruction, it is important that informational
text is included in all grade levels (Duke, 2000). Exposing students to informational text
and providing explicit instruction on how to access informational text prepares students
to access the informational text they will need to access independently in higher grades
33
(Duke, 2004). The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Reading
Framework recommends a 50/50 balance of informational and literary text in fourth
grade, 50/45 balance favoring informational text by eighth grade, and 70/30 by twelfth
grade (National Assessment Governing Board, 2009, p.11).
Frey and Fisher (2013) posit the importance of close reading, and assert close
reading should begin in kindergarten. Students should be given time to read and reread,
and be asked to provide evidence of understanding by engaging in discussion (Frey &
Fisher, 2013). Close reading in texts that may be beyond students’ independent reading
levels should be balanced with appropriately leveled texts (Fountas & Pinnell, 2000)
which students can access on his or her own or with instructional support from his or her
teachers. Appropriately leveled text should also present students with a wide range of
narrative and informational text (Duke, 2004).
Comprehensive literacy instruction requires teachers to reach literacy across
content areas for authentic purposes (Hattie, 2009). Teachers should be aware of the
literacy demands students will face across content areas, and should plan and support
students appropriately (Calkins, Ehrenworth, & Lehman, 2012). Technologies should be
integrated to link and expand concepts (Pressley, 2007). Across content areas,
comprehensive literacy instruction calls for a balance between teacher-led and student-led
discussions (Mercer & Littleton, 2007; Reznitskaya, 2012).
Conclusion
Comprehensive literacy instruction provides a framework for teachers to include
the best-practices in literacy instruction presented in this chapter. Effective
34
comprehensive literacy instruction requires teachers to be flexible and respond to the
needs of their students. Often, comprehensive reading programs lack coherence with
research-based best practice and do not provide teachers the flexibility to respond to their
students’ unique needs by scaffolding instruction. Dewitz, Jones, and Leahy (2009) found
comprehensive reading programs establish a precedent as to how reading instruction will
take place, and fidelity is prioritized, with fifty-four percent of principals surveyed
reporting that they require teachers to follow reading programs “very closely” (Education
Market Research, 2013) where groups of students, which may include low achievers,
average students, gifted students, and English language learners receive the same
instruction, use the same materials, and are assessed uniformly to produce predictable
outcomes for most students. The adherence for fidelity is encouraged by program
publishers who suggest if the program is used in its entirety, that students will not fail
(Dewitz & Jones, 2012). Gambrell and Morrow (2015) explain that there is “no one way
to cut an onion” when it comes to best-practices in literacy instruction; however,
comprehensive reading programs do prescribe the one way to cut an onion for groups of
students, which often leaves little room for the differentiation based on students’
individual needs that best practices in literacy instruction clearly call for. Even knowing
the disconnect between reading programs and best-practices, comprehensive reading
programs dominate the way in which students are taught literacy in schools today
(Education Market Research, 2013).
35
CHAPTER III: METHODOLOGY
Qualitative research is described as “a situated activity that locates the observer in
the world” and “consists of a set of interpretive, material practices that make the world
visible” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2011, p.3). This investigation required studying teachers in
their natural setting, using a range of interpretive practices to better understand how
teachers teach literacy without a textbook or comprehensive program materials. For this
reason, qualitative inquiry was the most appropriate approach to guide this investigation.
Within the qualitative approach, there are many strategies of inquiry that may be
employed. According to Yin (2003), a case study design should be considered when: (a)
the study aims to answer “how” and/or “why” questions; (b) you will not manipulate the
behavior of the participants in anyway; (c) you believe context is relevant to the case or
phenomenon being studied; (d) the boundaries between context and phenomenon are not
clear. This study is a descriptive, single-case study with embedded units (Merriam, 1998;
Yin, 2009). Descriptive theory is most appropriate for this case study because the
methods employed lead to a rich description of the case under study; elementary teachers
teaching literacy without a textbook or comprehensive program materials. This study is
an example of a single-case with embedded units because, although I describe the case
holistically, I examine the subunits of each classroom. I analyze the data within the
subunits, across all subunits, and between subunits (Yin, 2009) through open and focused
coding of data from each teacher (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Identified codes and themes
are then used to do cross-case analysis to see how each participant talks about a certain
concept. This process allows for the identification of main ideas and themes shared
36
among all of the participants. Looking at the data set holistically, I use narratives to build
theory about how teachers teach.
In this study, the case included teachers in elementary grades teaching literacy
without a textbook or comprehensive program. For the purpose of this investigation, I
defined second, third, fourth, and fifth grades as elementary. These grades were selected
to include literacy instruction of students who are reading, and not in the process of
gaining initial literacy learning. Emergent literacy instruction without a textbook falls
outside the focus of this investigation. This case cannot be considered without the context
of the school and the elementary classrooms, because I would not be able to have a
holistic picture of how teachers teach literacy without a textbook or comprehensive
program without considering the context in which it occurred.
The central questions for this inquiry were: “What instructional practices do
teachers employ to teach literacy without a textbook or comprehensive program?” How
do teachers decide which instructional practices to employ to teach literacy without a
textbook or comprehensive program?” “What texts do teachers use when teaching
literacy without textbooks or a comprehensive program?” “How do teachers decide what
texts to use when teaching literacy without a textbook or comprehensive program?” and
“How do teachers monitor students’ progress when teaching literacy without a textbook
or comprehensive program?”
Philosophical Foundation
The epistemological approach for this research is constructivism, which asserts
that individuals’ construction of meaning is varied, even when experiencing the same
37
event (Crotty, 1998; Lincoln & Guba, 2000). Stake (1995) describes the role of the
researcher as a gatherer and interpreter, who constructs knowledge rather than discovers
it. Constructivism, as a philosophical framework for research, supports the belief that
knowledge is made up largely of social interpretations rather than awareness of social
reality (Stake, 1995).
Crotty (1998) identified several assumptions of constructivism that guided this
investigation. The first assumption of constructivism guiding this investigation was that
qualitative research tends to ask open-ended questions so that participants can share their
views and meaning they have constructed as they engage and interpret the world around
them. The questions guiding this research and the questions posed in teacher interviews
were carefully crafted to not be dichotomous so that they cannot be answered with a
simple yes or no response. The second assumption guiding this investigation asserted
qualitative researchers use their personal experience in the setting to shape their own
experience and understand the context participants engage. I brought my personal
experience as a teacher and principal to the research to understand the classroom context
where I observed literacy instruction. This personal experience promoted a better
understanding of participants’ historical and social perspectives. The last assumption of
constructivism guiding this investigation was that the basic generation of meaning is
always social and develops through interaction between and among people. To this end,
the investigation was inductive in nature, whereby I generated meaning from the data
collected rather than testing an established theory and hypothesis.
38
I interact and engage in social interactions with teachers at the Academy, the
school selected, on a daily basis. My social interactions with participants did not
significantly change because of their involvement in the investigation. I continued to
interact with them through social conversations, school related-conversations, email,
meetings, professional development, and daily walkthrough feedback. In addition to
general daily interactions with all teachers, participating teachers and I interacted socially
through interviews and engaged in the member-checking process as they reviewed
interview transcripts.
Site Selection
Site selection is essential to this project. Few schools allow teachers to develop
their own curriculum totally removed from the guidance of an adopted comprehensive
literacy program. To answer the guiding questions, the site had to allow teachers to make
the instructional calls on how they teach literacy and what materials they use.
The school where I conducted my investigation is located in a western state, in an
urban setting. I refer to this school throughout the project as the Academy. The Academy
is a state-sponsored charter school meaning that the school is funded directly by the State
Department of Education. The school is monitored by a governor appointed body that
oversees operation and fiscal compliance. The school is currently in its fourth year of
operation, and will be evaluated on academics, fiscal management, and organizational
management in order to obtain reauthorization after its sixth year of operation.
The school serves approximately 200 students in grades kindergarten through
eighth grade. Students at the Academy are referred to by teachers and administration as
39
scholars. The student ethnicity is predominantly white, eighty-nine percent, which is
much higher than the state average of thirty-seven percent and a neighboring district
average of sixty-three percent. The school population can also be described as relatively
affluent compared to other schools in the state, with a free and reduced lunch (FRL)
population of only eighteen percent while the state averages a FRL population of fifty-
four percent. Additionally, the school has a very small percentage of students identified
as English Language Learners (ELL) with only four students, less than three percent. The
school’s ELL population is far below the state average of nineteen percent. The largest
identified sub-population at the school is in Special Education. Twenty-one percent of
students served are identified as Special Education. This percentage is almost double the
state, twelve percent, and district, ten percent, averages. The continuum of Special
Education identifications served at the school include speech, occupational therapy,
specific learning disabled, developmental delay, and Autism Spectrum Disorder. The
school also serves a student in transition population. This population can be attributed to
the school’s downtown location amongst several transitional living communities. The
school is the only charter school in the state with an identified student in transition
population.
The Academy employs a highly educated and experienced staff. Sixty-seven
percent of the teaching staff at the Academy holds a Master’s degree or higher in
education. The teaching staff’s years of experience range from first year teacher to over
twenty-five years experience, with the average falling at approximately ten years of
teaching experience. The state and district do not publish comparative data for degree
attainment nor teachers’ years of experience. The Academy negotiates pay individually
40
with each teacher, and offers salaries higher than what each teacher would earn on the
school district pay-scale. The Academy believes that it is essential to have highly
effective teachers for their model to be successful.
The Academy was founded to provide a different approach to teaching and
learning that is more student and teacher driven than traditional models. There are no
adopted textbooks or comprehensive literacy programs. Teachers are asked to design
their curriculum guided by the adopted state standards and student needs and interest. The
school offers a variety of resources for teachers to pull from and gives teachers large
classroom budgets to purchase the materials they need for instruction. The school culture
is founded on creating life-long readers, and the school environment can be described as
rich in text. Authentic texts are available to students in the school’s library, on shelves in
each hallway, and in every classroom. There are fifty six titles for every one student in
the catalogued library collection at the school. In addition to the library collection, each
classroom has a classroom library, and there is a bring-one-take-one program at the
school, and books are available in all of the hallways for students to take at any time.
Students are provided several opportunities throughout the day to engage in free-choice
reading during and outside of the literacy block. The school library is available to
students, as well as their families, before, during, and after school. There are no limits on
the number of books students may check-out at any given time, and book selection is not
monitored by reading level. In addition to the wide range of authentic literature available
throughout the school, teachers also have access to an extensive guided reading library
with over three thousand titles. There are few school-wide instructional expectations
adopted. The school-wide adopted instructional expectations for literacy instruction
41
require teachers to design an approach to literacy instruction that includes time for whole
group instruction, small group instruction, one-on-one conferring, and word study daily.
The differences in the student and teacher population, approach to curriculum, and school
culture represented at the Academy compared to the state and neighboring district is
important when considering the reported findings.
Role of the Researcher
Qualitative methods allowed for the researcher to play an active role in the study
(Creswell, 2005). For this investigation, I was a key instrument in data collection and
analysis (Stake, 1995). I was also uniquely positioned as an active member of the school
community. As a founder of the school and a current employee, I have been heavily
involved from the conception of the school, through the opening, and now into the day-
to-day operations. Through the investigation, I continued to fill my role as the Executive
Director and Principal while engaging in the research.
My embeddedness in the context of the study provided many benefits, and also
presented some challenges. As a member of the school staff, I was familiar with how the
school operated on a daily basis. My presence in the building and classrooms was a part
of standard operating procedures, and did not greatly disrupt the learning environment. I
have rapport and trust as an instructional leader and expert in the field already built with
the teachers that participated in the investigation, and am familiar with the mission and
vision of the school. Because of my supervisory role in the school, special care and
consideration was taken to prevent teachers from feeling coerced into participating in the
study. Additionally, I considered my position as a teacher evaluator while designing this
42
investigation. It was important that teachers did not feel as though participation in this
investigation may impact their formal professional evaluation in anyway. I have
addressed this by having both the data collection and investigation happen after formal
professional evaluations for English Language Arts (ELA) have been completed and
finalized for the school year.
Participants
After obtaining Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval for the research, I
identified potential participants through purposeful sampling in order to identify a sample
from which I can gather information related to my question (Maxwell, 2005). The
participants for this inquiry came from a pool of general education teachers teaching ELA
content at the selected school site. Data was collected from all teachers at the school
under my direct supervision as a part of general school practice. For the purpose of this
investigation, I only considered data from teachers teaching second, third, fourth, and
fifth grade content.
Erikson (1986) cautions against having too large a group to study because there
can be too much information to monitor, and it can be difficult to zero in on information
that is significant to the question. Five participants were invited to participate in the
investigation, each teaching elementary level ELA content in the general education
setting at the Academy.
After data was collected from all teachers, the five teachers meeting the selection
criteria for this investigation were contacted by email. The initial email summarized the
purpose of the work, included the steps to the research, identified the anticipated time
43
commitment to participate, included an invitation to respond to the email with any
questions they may have had, and a consent waiver was attached to the email (Appendix
A). Teachers were directed to complete the consent waiver and submit it to a neutral staff
member within the school that does not meet the selection criteria by March 18, 2016 if
they were willing to participate. Once the consent waivers were collected, they were
placed in an envelope that remained sealed until all data had been collected. Once data
collection was complete, the consent waivers envelope was opened, and only data from
teachers who agreed to participate was included in the investigation. Four of the five
invited to participate agreed to participate and are included in this report. Teachers at the
Academy go by first names. The participants in this study are Ms. Zoe (pseudonym), Ms.
Stacy (pseudonym), Ms. Clarice (pseudonym), and Ms. Kathy (pseudonym).
Ms. Zoe. Zoe Hart is in her early twenties and is currently in her first year
teaching. She graduated Magna Cum Laude with a Bachelor's Degree in Elementary and
Special Education, has an endorsement in teaching English as a Second Language, and a
minor in Spanish Language in 2015. During her undergraduate career, Zoe spent time in
Costa Rica teaching English to native Spanish speakers, and her student teaching
experiences took place at a public charter school as well as a district school out of state.
She teaches fifth grade curriculum for literacy and math, and also has experience teaching
Science Technology Engineering Art and Math (STEAM) and Spanish classes. All of her
licensed teaching experience has taken place at a public charter school where a specific
curriculum was not supplied, but rather teams of teachers took on the creation of that
curriculum. These curricula were based upon the Common Core, Next Generation
Science, and other research-based methods. In addition to her teaching duties, based upon
44
her experience and licensure working with special student populations, Zoe is the 504 and
foster plan coordinator at the school where she works.
Ms. Stacy. Stacy Smith graduated with a Bachelor’s of Science in Human
Relations, a suggested degree for those interested in teaching. In 2000 she began her
teacher education program and continued on to earn her Master’s Degree in Elementary
Education. Stacy began her teaching career in 2001 at a Title I school teaching third
grade. She has spent numerous years teaching at Title I schools, kindergarten, first, and
third grades. She has spent the past three years teaching primarily third grade content at a
public charter school along with serving as a member of the School Improvement Team
and as the teacher representative to the Board of Directors. She is between the ages of
thirty and forty, and has two children that attend the school where she currently teaches.
Ms. Clarice. Clarice Rogers graduated in 2012 with a Bachelor of Science, in
Elementary Education, with an endorsement to Teach English as a Second Language. She
started working at the Academy before the school was open prior to beginning her first
year teaching. Since the school has opened, she has taught fourth grade content, and has
acted at the ELL Coordinator and the Student Government Coordinator. She has worked
with other teachers to develop a curriculum for the school based on student needs and the
Common Core Standards. Before working at the Academy, Clarice worked with students
ages five to thirteen to help them develop their reading and literacy skills in a clinic
setting. She is between twenty and thirty years old.
Ms. Kathy. Kathy Mattox is currently in her first year of teaching, and covers
second grade content at the Academy. She holds a Master’s Degree in Education with an
45
emphasis in Multi-Cultural Education and a Bachelor’s Degree of Science in
Anthropology. Prior to entering the teaching field, Kathy Mattox worked as an
archeologist. She serves as the Social Studies Lead, and facilitates multi-cultural
education and events at the school. She is between the ages of thirty and forty and has
one child attending the Academy.
Data Sources
Creswell (2007) described case study as “a qualitative approach where the
researcher explores a bounded system, employing detailed, in-depth data collection such
as observations, interviews, audiovisual material, documents, and reports” (p.73). I had
three sources of data within this case study: observation, individual focused interviews,
and artifacts. Denzin and Lincoln (2011) posited no observation is purely objective,
because each observation is situated in the social context of the observer and the
observed. By gathering and analyzing three data sources, I was able to better capture the
nuances among the experiences of the participants, which, in turn helped me better
describe how teachers teach literacy without a textbook.
Observations
As a part of standard practice, I observed each teacher in a natural setting, their
classroom, during literacy instruction a total of two times over a two-month period. Each
observation lasted the time that was scheduled for literacy instruction (ninety minutes).
After participants were identified, I observed their literacy instruction a third and final
time. This allowed for multiple opportunities for me to observe each teacher and literacy
46
instruction in the classroom. As an observer, I strived to be as unobtrusive as possible and
tried to not disrupt normal classroom proceedings.
Lichtman (2013) explained the difficulty of conducting an observation without
first establishing what it is you will be looking for. She suggested identifying three to five
areas to examine. To focus my initial observation with each participant, I created an
observation worksheet (Appendix B). During the initial observation, my focus was on
describing the space and the people who operate in that space. The worksheet included
room to sketch the surroundings. Next, there was space to describe the people who
operate in the previously described surroundings. This may include the teacher, students,
aides, and parent volunteers. This investigation primarily focused on teachers, so the
teacher(s) were the main focus of my description. The worksheet also included a list of
best practices in literacy instruction suggested by Morrow, Gambrell, and Pressley
(2003). Using this checklist, I recorded observations of the teacher(s) engaging in literacy
instruction. A place to record field notes and a place to summarize after the observation
were included. This worksheet was used for the first observation with each teacher. Using
the information gleaned from the first round of observations, the observation worksheets
was altered to capture less information about the physical make-up of the classroom, and
focus more on teaching, text and materials used, and instructional practices witnessed.
Interviews
Interviews were conducted with all teachers as a part of general practice. I met
with each teacher before and after each of the two standard observations (four total), and
the interview was audiotaped and transcribed. Interviews lasted between ten and twenty
47
minutes. The interviews were in-depth, semi-structured interviews and followed an
Interview Protocol (Appendix C). Yin (2009) described an in-depth interview as one that
may last over several sittings and where the interviewee is asked to give his or her
opinion about an event and, at times, give insight into certain occurrences. The interview
questions were selected to focus the conversation on how the teacher approached literacy
instruction without a textbook, but were open-ended to allow the participant to discuss
occurrences during the observation and other topics for the purpose of gathering more
relevant data (Corbin & Strauss, 2008).
I conducted a fifth in-depth interview with investigation participants where the
participants became informants rather than responders by proposing their own insight
into the classroom occurrences. The participant interview was less structured and was
conversational in nature, whereby the participants and I asked questions and answered
open-ended questions allowing for a freer exchange between interviewer and interviewee
(Esterberg, 2002). This interview lasted between twenty and forty minutes. The interview
was audiotaped, transcribed, and made available to the participant for member-checking
(Creswell, 2007).
To engage participants in the interview conversation, I began each interview with
a question that allowed participants to describe their practice. The initial question for the
pre-observation interview asked participants to describe what I would see in their
classroom during the observation, and the first question of the post-observation interview
asks participants to describe the literacy practices students engaged in during the lesson.
48
Artifacts
Although interviews and observations served as my primary method of data
collection, I also collected and reviewed classroom artifacts. Artifacts were used to
clarify or substantiate observational notes or participants’ statements and provided a thick
description and complete picture of the case (Esterberg, 2002; Merriam, 2002). All
artifacts were produced and collected as part of general school practice. Only artifacts
related to participants were included in the review. The following artifact data were
reviewed:
1. Whole class literacy lesson plans. Whole class literacy lesson plans are drafted
weekly by each teacher and are posted to their classroom website.
2. Small group literacy lesson plans. In addition to whole group lesson planning,
each teacher plans for small group literacy instruction weekly.
3. Small group and one-on-one conferring notes. Teachers record small group
and one-on-one instruction with students on a digital platform. These
recording are available to other teachers, Special Education case managers,
learning strategist, and school administrators.
4. Teacher created classroom environmental print. This included anchor charts,
posters, digital presentations, pictures, decorations, and vocabulary/word
walls.
Data Management and Analysis
Observational notes, interview notes and transcription, along with the artifacts
yielded an abundant amount of data. Yin (2009) recommended a database be created to
49
store the collected data. I used an electronic database to store and code data. The data was
loaded onto a laptop that is password protected. Observational notes were uploaded to the
software immediately after the observation. Interview audio files were uploaded
immediately, and timely transcription of the audio files promoted early familiarity with
data. Each participant was asked to create a pseudonym to protect their anonymity, and
all electronically stored data was de-identified using their pseudonym. Hard copies of the
original data sources were stored in a locked filing cabinet in my office.
This case study followed replication logic, whereby the same process was
repeated for each participant (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Data was analyzed using a
grounded theory approach which aims to build theory from the data by comparing social
patterns and structures within the data. This process allowed the researcher to
conceptualize structures and patterns to develop theory (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). In this
study, a grounded theory approach led to a theoretical explanation of how teachers in
elementary grades teach literacy without a textbook.
Analysis of the data was ongoing throughout the study. First, I read data without
coding to support holistic understanding and to allow me to become “intimate with the
data” (Esterberg, 2002, p. 157) prior to more focused coding. Next, I used open coding to
identify the main idea in each line to define concepts within the raw data (Corbin &
Strauss, 2008). After open coding, more focused coding was conducted to identify
common ideas and themes which informed a final list of codes and themes. Identified
codes and themes were then used to do cross-case analysis to see how each participant
talked about a certain concept.
50
Interview transcripts and observational notes were first read line-by-line, and
notes were made in the margin summarizing the information presented in each line of the
data. Next, I coded openly by highlighting each example of instructional practice, texts,
decision making process, and assessment discussed in each line of the raw data. Once all
examples were identified, I listed each instructional practice, text type, decision process,
and assessment. Once a complete list was generated, I grouped like instructional
practices, text types, decisions processes, and assessments, and recorded the number of
times each had been represented in the data, the data source where it appeared, and the
participant that data was generated from. Examples that were identified in the data more
than once and by more than one participant made up the list of themes I used for more
focused coding. Once I had coded the data again using the focused themes, I extracted the
examples from the raw data and created a database organized by each theme. Using this
database, I did cross-case analysis to see how each participant talked about a certain
concept, and to see how that theme was represented in different data sources. Finally, I
organized the collected artifacts by theme, and added digital copies to the database. If an
artifacts showed more than one theme, it was duplicated in the database, and was
included with all applicable themes.
I employed pattern matching and explanation building as analytical strategies to
maintain credibility through the data analysis process (Yin, 2009). To pattern match, I
drew from literature that describes best-practices in literacy instruction with print-based
text. I looked for patterns between reported best practices and similar practices used by
teachers. Through explanation building, I used narratives to build theory about how
teachers teach literacy without textbooks through the following process:
51
Making an initial theoretical statement or an initial proposition about policy or
social behavior, comparing the findings of an initial case against such a statement
or proposition, revising the statement or proposition, comparing other details for
the case against the revisions, comparing their version to the facts of the second,
third, and more case, repeating this process as many times as needed (Yin, 2009,
p. 143).
This process allowed me to propose ideas about how teachers teach literacy without
textbooks, and use data to support or refute my proposition.
Research Steps
The research for this investigation blends with general school practice, and was
conducted following a uniform protocol to ensure that the data collected from all teachers
met the needs for practical school use, and that the data collected from teachers choosing
to participate was consistent with the study’s goals. The timeline and protocol is
presented here:
1. November 2015: Initial pre-observation interviews, observations, and post-
observation interviews were conducted (general school practice).
2. November 2015: Initial interview audio recordings were transcribed and
transcripts and observation notes were loaded into the database (research
specific).
3. December 2015-February 2016: Second pre-observation interviews,
observations, and post-observation interviews were conducted (general
school practice).
52
4. December 2015- February 2016: Second interview audio recordings were
transcribed and transcripts and observation notes were loaded into the
database (research specific; however, all data were included until
participants are identified).
5. November 2015-March 2106: Artifacts were collected from teacher
websites, conferring notebooks, and classroom environments (general
school practice).
6. By February 29, 2016: All observations and interviews of teachers were
complete (general school practice).
7. March 15, 2016: IRB approval was obtained.
8. March 15, 2016: Teachers meeting the selection criteria were invited by
email to participate in the study by the researcher, and were informed of the
risks involved (research specific).
9. March 18, 2016: Teachers willing to participate submitted consent waivers
to identified non-participating staff member (research specific).
10. March 18, 2016: Consent waivers were accessed by the researcher, and
participants were identified (research specific).
11. March 19, 2016: Non-participant data was removed from the database, and
participant data was de-identified using each participants’ selected
pseudonym (research specific).
12. March 19, 2016: All interview transcripts and observation logs were
provided to participants for member-checking (research specific).
53
13. March 19, 2016: Artifacts related to participants were uploaded into a
database (research specific).
14. March 2016: Final participant interviews were conducted, and audio
recordings were transcribed and uploaded into a database (research
specific).
15. March 2016- April 2016: Research specific data analysis was conducted
with participant data (research specific).
16. April 2016: Final participant observations were conducted (research
specific).
17. April 2016: Findings were presented to participants for member-checking
(research specific).
Trustworthiness
Yin (2009) asserts the importance of reviewing in qualitative research to bolster
credibility and trustworthiness. Credibility allows an external observer to follow the
research from the derivation of the research question to the findings and conclusions
(Yin, 2009). To enhance the credibility of this study, I maintained a chain of evidence to
ensure that the data reported is the same as the data collected, and that the data is linked
to the original research question and findings.
Case study falls within the social constructivist paradigm (Denzin & Lincoln,
2011); therefore, I strove for crystallization rather than triangulation to enhance the
trustworthiness of my findings. This study embodies many of the characteristics which
Ellingson (2009) suggests engages crystallization: (a) provide a full and rich description
54
and complex and meaningful interpretation of the phenomena or group; (b) utilize more
than one genre of writing and or other medium, (c) include a significant degree of
reflexivity from the researcher on their role in the research design and process, (d)
embrace knowledge as situated, partial, and constructed rather than the positivist
understanding of identifiable truth (p.10). Unlike with triangulation, my study’s
trustworthiness was not measured on my ability to use multiple sources to get closer to
the one truth. Instead, through crystallization, I used the data sources to more accurately
represent multiple truths co-constructed with my participants.
Limitations
This study is limited by only including an insider researcher perspective.
Including an outside researcher’s perspective would enrich the overall description of how
teachers teach literacy without a textbook. The teachers represented in this study are a
homogenous group. All are female, white, and range in age from mid-twenties to late-
thirties. A more heterogeneous group of teachers may have yielded different findings.
Additionally, the school population of the site selected does not match that of the
neighboring school district nor state, which limits the findings to the context of the school
and the teaching staff employed. This investigation was merely a snapshot of three days
of literacy instruction throughout an entire school year, and all observations were
scheduled with the teachers.
55
CHAPTER IV: FINDINGS
Five research questions guided this study: (a) What instructional practices do
teachers employ to teach literacy without a textbook or comprehensive program? (b) How
do teachers decide which instructional practices to employ to teach literacy without a
textbook or comprehensive program? (c) What texts do teachers use when teaching
literacy without textbook or comprehensive program? (d) How do teachers decide what
texts to use when teaching literacy without a textbook or comprehensive program? and
(e) How do teachers monitor students’ progress when teaching literacy without a
textbook or comprehensive program? The findings are reported in this chapter. The
findings begin with an overview of each teacher’s educational philosophy of reading
instruction. The following sections target each of the research questions. Findings were
drawn primarily from descriptive classroom observation narrative and teacher interviews
with examples artifacts included to support claims.
Educational Philosophies on Reading Instruction
It is important to understand the educational philosophy guiding each teacher as
he or she makes instructional decisions regarding literacy instruction in his or her
classroom. To contextualize the findings in the lived experiences and philosophies of the
teachers, I provide a brief description of each teacher’s educational philosophy on
reading before discussing findings related to each of the research questions.
Zoe Hart described her educational philosophy of reading instruction as follows:
56
I believe that teaching reading requires many facilitated and credible learning
experiences. In order to create the most rigorous yet authentic experience,
teaching reading should include a balanced combination of word study, writing,
and guiding reading opportunities. Students should be given many experiences
with whole group learning where grade-level standards are covered, and several
chances to practice those standards where teacher and peer guidance are provided.
It is also important to have individualized reading opportunities with one-on-one
teacher/student learning time while working on those grade-level standards.
Additionally, recognizing that students placed in a fifth grade classroom have
very different academic needs, small group learning experiences should be used
most frequently. These should include homogeneous, leveled groupings for word
study, and reading groups (literature circles) based upon data collected on student
needs. These groups should be fluid, and ever-changing. Students who are not yet
proficient readers benefit from a more guided-type reading approach. However,
students who are proficient readers need the opportunity to read challenging
books and have chances for discussion of critical thinking, synthesis, and analysis
of ideas presented in literature and beyond.
Stacy Smith described her educational philosophy of reading instruction as
follows:
My reading philosophy is based on a balanced approach of word study,
writing, and guided reading with an emphasis on the gradual release of
responsibility to students. Students are provided ample opportunities to
57
learn in authentic situations and with standard based lessons and work.
Learning takes place in whole group, small group, and individualized
instruction based on standards and academic needs.
Clarice Rogers described her educational philosophy of reading instruction as
follows:
When teaching reading I feel that you need a balance to make sure all parts of
reading are developed and given the chance to flourish. Word study, reading
strategies, vocabulary, fluency, comprehension among other strategies are all
important factors to consider when thinking about teaching reading. I also believe
that teaching reading small group and whole class are both important and making
sure to have a balance of them that fits the needs of your class. Teaching reading
should be data driven in order to help students’ reading grow and develop further.
Students should have the opportunity to read grade level text with others in their
class and have discussions based on standards and personal experiences and
ideologies. They should also have opportunities to explore reading experiences at
their developmental level with other scholars working at the same level. No
matter what level students are reading at they should be encouraged to have rich
discussions based on the text they are reading and their own personal experiences
so that they are able to connect to others and a text on multiple levels while
helping others see multiple perspectives of the world. When deciding on what is
being read, students’ interests should be taken into account but they should also
be encouraged to explore multiple genres and text types. I believe that both
58
student choice and teacher choice are important and should never overshadow
each other but be discussed and considered. I believe that having opportunities to
discuss is an important part of the reading experiences. I also believe that as a
teacher it is my role to make sure my students have plenty of opportunities to
experience a range of text and text styles and teach them the tools they need to
successfully access, explore, discuss, and grow from books and other forms of
text.
Kathy Mattox described her educational philosophy of reading instruction as
follows:
Teaching is not telling, teaching is strategic guiding. In order to build lifelong
learners students need to feel invested in their education and should be consulted
with. I feel that students should be able to make choices about their learning. I am
very passionate about introducing my students to multiculturalism and ideas of
diversity. Student backgrounds are diverse and should be reflected in classroom
learning. Students need to see themselves and others in lessons and units to create
more authentic learning experiences. I strive to include a variety of Social Studies
topics in literacy instruction. The goal of education is to create effective citizens
who can wholly participate in the democratic process of our nation. I feel that
incorporating diversity and multiculturalism in the classroom helps prepare my
students for that eventual time, being able to understand others’ points of views;
helping them become respectful, thoughtful, and understanding citizens.
59
While each teacher brought her own perspective and experience to her
educational philosophy of teaching, there were commonalities among their philosophies.
Balancing the components of literacy instruction, including word study, writing, fluency,
and opportunities to read was important to each teacher. Teachers also emphasized the
importance of multiple and flexible groupings to meet the needs of students and the needs
of the content as important to reading instruction. Lastly, teachers articulated the
importance of providing students the opportunity to read for authentic purposes and
enjoyment as foundational in their reading philosophies. Ms. Kathy’s philosophy of
reading instruction differed from the other three in that her philosophy of reading
instruction is deeply rooted in using literacy as a vehicle to incorporate diversity and
multiculturalism into the classroom.
What Instructional Practices Do Teachers Employ to Teach Literacy Without a
Textbook or Comprehensive Program?
Although there was no adopted program that teachers were required to use for
literacy instruction at the Academy, there were several consistencies noted in the data
among instructional practices teachers and students engage in. Each teacher indicated
strategy instruction, word study, writer’s workshop, literature circles, read aloud,
discussion and class meetings, opportunities for students to read independently, Reading
Buddies, and teacher modeling as important instructional practices used to approach
literacy instruction.
60
Strategy Instruction
Teachers reported and were observed using strategy instruction in whole group,
with small groups, and working one-on-one with students. Ms. Kathy explained:
In whole group we focus on a large, overarching strategy at least three times a
week. In small groups, I try to meet with each group at least twice a week to
discuss specific strategies. For example: in whole group we discussed inferring
within text. My small group instruction focuses more on decoding words,
comprehension strategies, and being able to retell stories with more detail. Groups
are made based on strategy needed and not necessarily reading level.
Each teacher reported using whole group strategy instruction, especially when
addressing comprehension strategies tied to grade-level standards. Ms. Zoe described an
example of how she used strategy instruction during whole group instruction:
Strategy instruction typically takes place as a whole class lesson. An idea is
presented, scholars have a few minutes to grapple with it (employing background
knowledge), and then we discuss it. I use models or mentor texts to show the
strategy explicitly a few times. Then I do a lot of partner talk, where scholars
work with someone close to them to practice the strategy together and then share
out ideas, and finally the whole group is released and they get the chance to
practice independently. For example, at the beginning of the year we were
working on story mapping. I read aloud The Lorax, once all the way through, and
then again, stopping at designated points. I showed the typical story map
mountain, we talked about, then we worked through it. Students had a cut out that
61
was glued into their literacy notebooks where we completed the graphic of the
map. First we did some together, then they worked in small groups with my
support when needed, and then the last few stages were on their own.
Several examples of small-group strategy instruction were noted during
observations. Often, while the rest of the class worked independently on literacy tasks
(i.e., reading independently, reading with a partner, listening to reading, working on
writing, or word work), the teacher pulled a small group for specific strategy instruction.
Teachers described this approach as the primary way to directly teach word study
features weekly with word study groups. I also observed teachers engaging in small
group strategy instruction with comprehension strategy instruction. Figure 1 shows
examples from two classrooms displaying the different reading strategies that had been
taught in the class.
Figure 1. Displays of literacy strategies taught in two classrooms
62
Teachers also described and were observed using strategy instruction one-on-one
with students. Ms. Zoe used this approach with students engaged in the writing process.
She said:
Based on the feedback I’ve given them, I have a list of scholars I need to pull in a
group and individually just do a little more conferencing and give a little more
guidance on a final draft. You’ll see a mini-lesson in the beginning just about
what it looks like to write a final draft, how it should be neat, it should be
readable, just the overall professionalism of what a final draft looks like.
Teachers used strategy instruction in whole group, small groups, and one-on-one
with students. Specific strategy instruction in small group and one-on-one with students
met learning objectives specific to the students’ needs. Strategy instruction presented as a
part of whole group instruction met larger class-wide objectives. Strategy instruction was
a widely-used instructional practice for teachers teaching literacy with this approach.
Each teacher indicated that she used strategy instruction, and it was observed in each
classroom.
Modeling
Along with strategy instruction, teachers used modeling in whole group, small
group, and with students one-on-one. Ms. Clarice frequently used modeling in her
classroom during observation and explained the benefits she sees for her students:
I use teacher modeling in literacy in many ways. I most often use it to teach
reading, writing, and word study strategies. When modeling reading strategies I
will pick an appropriate read aloud and model the strategy by “thinking aloud” or
63
having a class discussion. When modeling writing I will have it projected on the
white board and will work through the writing content we are working on or
create a story together with me modeling other aspects of writing such as
grammar. I will also model in a way that allows scholars to be the content
holder…It allows students to see how someone that is proficient with the content
might do it and if it is done in conjunction with class discussion it can also allow
students to model other ideas and strategies that I might not have considered.
Ms. Stacy was also observed using modeling as she introduced a new style of
writing to her class. She explained that she often models as part of her writing instruction:
I use teacher modeling especially in writing to demonstrate various aspects of
writing such as, writing an introduction, modeling an informative writing piece or
using transition words. I also use teacher modeling by reading aloud to
demonstrate fluent reading… I think scholars benefit from teacher modeling by
having an example and in building expectations.
I observed Ms. Zoe model how to annotate for her class. She displayed an
annotation guide, and modeled how to correctly annotate for her students on the digital
whiteboard. After watching her, students then annotated in small groups and eventually
on their own. Figure 2 shows the annotation guide Ms. Zoe displayed for her class as she
modeled annotating.
64
Figure 2. Annotation guided displayed when modeling annotating
Modeling is an important part of the gradual release of control teachers work
toward with students in their approach to literacy instruction. Teachers were often
observed modeling as they introduced new concepts or skills. As lessons went on,
students were then provided guided opportunities to practice what had been modeled for
them. Teachers explained that after modeling and guided practice, students were expected
to perform on their own, still using the model as a guide.
65
Class Discussions
Classroom and partner discussions were another instructional practice that
teachers indicated using during literacy instruction and were observed in each of the
classrooms. Ms. Clarice described how she used classroom discussions:
Class discussions are used in every class on a daily basis. Some of the main ways
are to introduce and review standards we are working on (such as what they are,
questions they have about them, and how we are doing with learning/mastering
them), to discuss new concepts and strategies, to generate ideas, and to review
new and past concepts/strategies. Class discussions are used in a range of ways in
my classroom. Sometimes it is small group, partner talk, but most often it will
lead to whole class sharing out of the discussions.
Ms. Zoe noted less frequent use of classroom discussion in her classroom, but still
identified it as an important component of her literacy instruction:
Class discussions take place on a weekly basis. Often, this is how literacy
instruction is taught. Lessons are a collaboration of teacher questioning, student
ideas, and teacher clarification. It is important to create shared meaning and
understanding about new concepts and give students a space to express their ideas
and questions. This goes for both academic and social contexts.
Ms. Zoe, Ms. Kathy, and Ms. Clarice also discussed the benefits of including
classroom discussions as part of their approach to literacy instruction. Ms. Clarice stated:
66
Class discussions benefit scholars by giving them the opportunity to share ideas
and gain confidence with a partner before sharing with the whole class. It also
allows scholars to share their ideas and teach others allowing them to be the
owner of the content. It also allows scholars a voice in their education which is
vital.
Ms. Kathy indicated:
I think that class discussions help the students understand that they are in charge
of their learning. They have to take ownership of what they are doing. They are
empowered by discussing and making suggestions about the course of study.
Ms. Zoe thought:
Students benefit from class discussions in many ways. They feel more invested in
the learning topic because their ideas and opinions are valued, and therefore they
are more apt to continue to put in effort into the learning process after the
discussion is over.
While observing, I noted each teacher using class discussions during literacy
instruction. The class discussions I observed typically started with the teacher introducing
concepts, often through reading aloud some form of text. For example, Ms. Stacy read a
portion of a book about Las Posadas aloud to the class. A few pages into the book, she
stopped and asked a question of the class. Ms. Stacy asked, “What is something you have
learned about Las Posadas so far?” She took responses from some students, and then
asked each to turn and talk to their elbow partner. After students had a few minutes to
67
discuss the question, Ms. Stacy called on some to share out what their partner had said.
The student shared “It started in Spain, then moved to Mexico, and then to parts of the
United States.” Ms. Stacy recorded the student’s response on an anchor chart about Las
Posadas (see Figure 3).
Figure 3. Las Posadas anchor chart created through classroom discussion
This type of discussion was noted throughout several observations. Figure 4
shows two students engaged in a discussion about a piece of text they were reading
together.
68
Figure 4. Partner discussion
I also noted a class discussion in Ms. Kathy’s class while learning about winter
solstice as part of their school-wide holiday unit. Ms. Kathy used a globe and a flashlight
to demonstrate the difference in the Earth’s position at different times of the year. She
then prompted her class to discuss what they knew about winter solstice, and how this
new information played into what they already knew about the celebration. After students
had a few minutes to talk to a partner near them, Ms. Kathy asked for responses, and
recorded them on an anchor chart they were creating as a class with information they had
gathered about winter solstice.
Class discussions and whole group discussions were also evident in some of the
environmental print around the room. Teachers had created anchor charts about
expectations during literacy activities through classroom discussion. Each student that
had contributed an idea in the discussion had their name added next to the idea on the
anchor chart (see Figure 5).
69
Figure 5. Anchor chart created through classroom discussion
Classroom discussion was a regular classroom practice and was observed in all
classes across instruction in different literacy domains including reading, writing, and
word study. Teachers often had students turn and talk to a partner about the discussion
topic and then had students share out either what they had said or what their partner had
said. Students were very comfortable with this process and moved easily in and out of
discussion, making this an effective instructional practice for teachers to employ.
70
Word Study
All teachers identified word study as a major component of their approach to
literacy instruction, and word study was observed in each of the classrooms. Word study
implementation was relatively consistent from classroom to classroom. Each teacher
described introducing the word study target feature in small group to each of their word
study groups, providing students the opportunity to sort the words and engage in other
word study activities, and assessing their mastery of the feature before moving on. An
example of a week of word study was provided by Ms. Stacy:
Mondays, scholars cut out words and sort the way they think they should be
sorted, I meet with each group, we discuss the word study features and how to
sort them, clarify any confusion, scholars read the words to me individually and
explain why they sorted them the way they did. Tuesday through Thursday, I
meet with each of my word study groups, they sort their words, discuss features,
and clarify any confusion. As part of Daily 5, scholars work with their word study
words doing various things, such as, playing word study games, sorting their
words, writing their words. On Friday, scholars glue their words in their word
study journal under each header, which is used later as a reference. I give an
assessment every Friday, by reading ten words with the features that have been
focused on that week and the scholars write the words under the correct header.
Scholars have various activities to complete with their word study words as part
of their weekly homework.
71
Figure 6 is an example of weekly word study homework.
Figure 6. Weekly word study homework
Most teachers reported that they had four identified word study groups that were
formed using the Qualitative Spelling Inventory (QSI) (Bear, Invernezzi, Templeton, &
Johnston, 2015), and that the groups changed quarterly based on the QSI. Figure 7 is Ms.
Clarice’s word study groupings based on QSI assessment.
72
Figure 7. Word study groups based on QSI data
73
I observed Ms. Zoe introducing new word study sorts to her students. She met
with two groups at a time, and went back and forth between the two groups. She
described her practice as follows:
This morning you will see word study groups. We start those every Monday.
They had their word assessment on Friday, and based on that assessment data they
are ready to move to the next words. So I have four word study groups. You’ll see
two groups going at one time. So I’ll get them started, give them some guidance
on the sort they need to be doing and give them some discussion questions to have
with their group. And then I’ll go back and forth between those two groups
checking in with them and kind of going through the whole word study process
with them, once one group is finished, I’ll release them to do word work in their
groups, whether that's the basic sort or from the list of options that they can do.
Then I’ll meet with the other two groups, so you’ll see groups probably about
thirty to forty minutes depending on how they’re doing with the sort and how
they’re grasping and comprehending it.
74
Figure 8 shows students engaged in sorting and recording their words during word
study small group.
Figure 8. Word study group sorting
An anchor chart displayed in the classroom showed that teachers and students had
an agreed upon list of expectations to be met when students engaged in word study
independently. Figure 9 shows the teacher and student expectations during word study.
75
Figure 9. Word study expectation anchor chart
All of the teachers reported their students benefited from engaging in word study
regularly. Ms. Kathy commented:
76
My students benefit greatly from using word study. I have seen an improvement
in spelling, writing, and their ability to sound out words. They see the patterns in
language and can then apply those patterns when encountering unfamiliar words.
And Ms. Clarice explained:
Word study allows scholars to work with words and spelling features in multiple
ways and allows them to interact with others who need the same instruction.
Word study requires scholars to learn features that they then can apply to other
words. By doing this they can then decode and learn to spell a greater range of
words than they would be able to if we did it the more traditional way of giving
them a list to memorize.
Word study, a school-wide expected instructional practice, was demonstrated as
an important part of literacy instruction across classes. Teachers were observed direct
teaching word study to small groups regularly, and students were observed engaging with
sorts both in small group and independently in class. The implementations of word study
was consistent across classrooms, and included direct word feature instruction,
opportunities for students to practice with the words, and an assessment component.
Although this practice was a school expectation, teachers described the benefits of word
study for students as a motivator to include it as a regular instructional practice.
Writer’s Workshop
Each teacher identified writer’s workshop as a component of their literacy
instruction. Teachers’ implementations of writer’s workshop varied among classrooms,
77
but each described the major components of gathering base-line data, providing direct
instruction, studying mentor texts, providing students the opportunity to write over
several days and several drafts, and scoring writing based on a rubric or checklist.
I observed Ms. Stacy introduce informative writing with her class through writer’s
workshop. She began the unit by gathering a baseline of students’ writing. Figure 10
shows an example of baseline informational writing from Ms. Stacy’s class.
78
Figure 10. Informational writing baseline
79
Ms. Zoe described her implementation of writer’s workshop as follows:
Writer’s workshop usually begins with a mentor text to introduce the component
of writing we will work on during the mini-lesson. Then, a brief mini-lesson is
given to the whole class. After that, scholars are released to work on their writing.
Students work on whichever stage of the writing process they are in – it varies. I
will pull a small group to work on a specific strategy with, based on data
presented in their writing I have reviewed, or I will check in with individuals on a
strategy I know they are working on independently. Sometimes, workshop is very
structured, especially in the beginning of a writing unit. However, as the unit
progresses and students find their pace, it becomes a more fluid process that takes
its own shape depending upon the needs of students.
I observed Ms. Zoe engage in writer’s workshop with her students. Students had
worked on a writing piece over a period of time through writer’s workshop, and were
getting ready to write final drafts. Ms. Zoe provided each student feedback on his or her
most recent draft. Based on the feedback, Ms. Zoe met with small groups and one-on-one
with students to provide direct strategy instruction to improve the writing. Figure 11 is an
example of a student’s writer’s notebook and Ms. Zoe’s feedback.
80
Figure 11. Student writing with teacher feedback
81
Ms. Zoe also explained the benefits of writer’s workshop for her students:
Writer’s workshop is beneficial to students because they are given the opportunity
to write in a variety of ways. Students are given the confidence to take risks with
writing supported by mini-lessons and small group meetings, and they are also
given the freedom to take their ideas and run with them, within the limits of the
project. Additionally, writer’s workshop offers many opportunities for feedback,
both verbal and written, so students are able to continuously grow their writing
during workshop time.
How often teachers and students engaged in writer’s workshop also varied across
classrooms. Ms. Zoe and Ms. Stacy indicated that their classes engage in writer’s
workshop three to four times a week. Ms. Clarice stated her class participates in writer’s
workshop, on average, twice a week, while Ms. Kathy stated that she tries to include
writer’s workshop once to twice a week. Although Ms. Kathy’s students engaged in
writer’s workshop less frequently than other classes, she still noted noticeable
improvement in their writing. She said:
My scholars are improving. I have seen vast improvements from beginning of the
year writing samples. They also enjoy being able to write about a topic of their
choosing, though sometimes they have writer’s block and I help guide them.
Anchor charts in classrooms demonstrated that teachers and students have an
agreed upon set of expectations to meet when students engaged independently in writer’s
workshop. Figure 12 is the expectations for students and teachers during writer’s
workshop in two different classrooms.
82
Figure 12. Writing expectation anchor charts in two classrooms
83
Although writer’s workshop was not a school-wide expected practice, all teachers
reported that they use writer’s workshop as the primary approach to teaching writing.
Most teachers were observed providing whole group writing instruction, and some were
observed providing small group, and one-on-one writing instruction. Teachers believed
that their students benefited from the writer’s workshop model.
Read Aloud
Reading aloud to students was another identified staple of literacy instruction for
all teachers’ approaches to literacy instruction. Ms. Clarice explained:
I use read alouds in a range of ways in my classroom. When I use a read aloud in
my classroom I first consider what standards I will be teaching and why and how
it connects with the big picture. For example when I am introducing our Writing
Pal from Alaska I will do a non-fiction read aloud about Alaska or if I am
teaching figurative language I will pick a book that I know skillfully uses
figurative language and have scholars help me identify it.
Most teachers stated that they read aloud daily in their classrooms across content
areas, and use a variety of text including fiction and non-fiction. I observed Ms. Stacy
reading a biography piece about Walt Disney to her students, a book about Las Posadas,
and picture books that had been nominated for a state award. I also observed Ms. Clarice
read picture books which were nominated for a state-award aloud to her class. Also in
Ms. Clarice’s class, I observed author David Michael Slater read his book, Jacque and
Spock, aloud to students during an author visit. I observed Ms. Kathy read When Marian
84
Sang by Pam Munoz Ryan aloud to students during a literacy and social studies lesson,
and I observed Ms. Zoe read a self-created text about the Hopi Tribe when modeling
annotation for her students.
Several teachers also noted the perceived benefits of reading aloud to their
students. Ms. Zoe stated:
Scholars benefit from all kinds of read alouds. They get an explicit model of what
a fluent reader sounds like, and they also get explicit thinking models. Read
alouds often include think-alouds, so scholars get to practice metacognition and
understand what strategies they can apply during reading and how they work.
Figure 13 are examples of the variety of text I observed read aloud to students
during classroom observations.
85
Figure 13. Observed classroom read alouds
86
Ms. Clarice and Ms. Stacy agreed that reading aloud benefited students.
Ms. Clarice said:
I think there are many benefits from reading aloud to scholars. One benefit is
modeling strategies proficient readers use as well as modeling fluency. Depending
on the book being read it also gives them access to books/texts above their
reading level. If used right read alouds can also be an engaging way to teach the
standards and engage scholars in rich discussions not only about the book but also
about the standards and content the lesson is aimed at teaching. Read aloud can
also be a great way to model writing styles and strategies. I also think that it gives
scholars exposure to many different art forms when reading poems and picture
books.
Ms. Stacy said:
I think students benefit from reading aloud tremendously. It is a time when
scholars can listen to a fluent reader, interact with books above their independent
reading level, be exposed to vocabulary and topics.
I observed each of the teachers reading aloud to their students from a variety of
text types. Reading aloud to students was a common practice in each teachers’ approach
to literacy instruction. Teachers noted the benefits of reading aloud to students as an
opportunity to hear fluent reading, an opportunity to see reading strategies modeled, and
because it is enjoyable.
87
Literature Circles
Literature circles were another instructional practice that each of the teachers used
as a component of their approach to literacy instruction. Ms. Stacy described literature
circles as “fluid groups of scholars that discuss and interact with the same book.” Each
teacher implemented literature circles slightly differently based on their students and the
level of support needed to run literature circles. Ms. Zoe, the teacher of the oldest
students represented in the study, described her approach to literature circles:
Literature circles run twice a week. They are student-led, and three groups are
working on their assigned day. When scholars choose new books, they go through
with their groups and decide on a reading calendar for how far they need to
prepare before their next meeting. Scholars are given “loose” jobs (not the same
every week, no specific questions to answer, but a guideline. For example, literary
luminary finds and explains figurative language, plot profiler maps out the plot,
etc.) but scholars are each able to bring parts of each job to the discussion. They
prepare for the discussion in a variety of ways, taking notes on sticky notes is a
very popular one.
All teachers noted that student choice in the book they read is an important
component of literature circles in their classrooms; however, this choice was balanced by
teachers placing students into groups based on their reading developmental level.
Both Ms. Zoe and Ms. Clarice explained how she balanced the components of
student choice along with making sure the text was accessible to all members of the
group.
88
Ms. Zoe said:
So I formed their groups based on reading level, but I gave them choice by letting
them search through the library catalog and find a couple of choices and said
these are good fit books for you, choose from these. So there’s still an element of
choice, and then today they get to come and do their own little book walks and
then check out for themselves and really decide.
Ms. Clarice stated:
I will be giving them like two or three different option of books to pick from
based on assessments, and then talking with them about how to navigate picking a
book within the literature circle.
I observed groups selecting their books in Ms. Zoe’s class using the post-it
strategy from the book Mini-Lessons for Literature Circles by Harvey Daniels (2004).
During this lesson, Ms. Zoe modeled the post-it strategy for the group and then had each
group participate with their selection of books. Each student had two minutes to read a
section of the book, and make notes about the book on a post-it. After two minutes, the
books would go clockwise around the table, so each student had a new book to preview
and make notes on. This process was repeated until each student had the opportunity to
read and make notes on each of the books. Afterward, students used their notes to discuss
the different books, and come to a consensus on which they wanted to read in their
literature circle. Figure 14 are the four texts that students in the group read and applied
the post-it strategy with to determine what book they would read in their literature circle.
89
Figure 14. Books previewed using post-it strategy during literature circles
I observed Ms. Stacy introducing literature circles to her class. The introduction
included a class discussion and generating an anchor chart about expectations during
literature circles (see Figure 15).
90
Figure 15. Literature circle expectations anchor chart
During the observation, she also introduced one of the different roles students
play when engaging in literature circles. She introduced the connector role, and students
practiced the connector role in small groups and with partners while completing a
worksheet to record the connections (see Figure 16).
91
Figure 16. Connector worksheet used during literature circles
92
I did not observe literature circles in Ms. Clarice’s class or Ms. Kathy’s class;
however, both described literature circle practice. Ms. Clarice explained:
Literature Circles are based on scholars reading levels which are based on reading
assessments. Scholars are then given the chance to pick a book for their group
based on interest, level, and content we are currently working on. Depending on
the level scholars will meet independently or with me. Groups that meet
independently set goals (guided by me) on how much of the book they should
have read by their next meeting. When they meet they discuss what they have
read and what their reaction was to the book (section they read). Sometimes they
have teacher guided questions other times the discussion is more open to go
where the students feel it needs to go. Each member has one or two leadership
roles which change each meeting so that every student has the opportunity to hold
each leadership role.
Ms. Kathy stated:
Literature circles are grouped on similarity in reading ability. I try to gather
leveled books for each group based on either student interest or classroom subject.
Students engage with each other after reading the book to discuss its contents.
Students also make notes and read the book to each other. Post-it notes can be
found in various places in the classroom for student use. They use the sticky notes
to write down important information or terms they may not know. I try to have
students help each other learn new terms and data.
I observed literature circles in two of the four classrooms, and all teachers
described implementing literature circles as a part of literacy instruction. Literature
93
circles were organized around students’ reading levels, and texts were selected using
leveled text and based on student choice. Literature circles required students to access
text independently, and engage in discussions around the text with their small groups.
The level of teacher involvement in literature circle discussions was at the discretion of
the teacher.
Opportunities to Read
In their approach to literacy instruction, teachers indicated that students are
provided opportunities to read independently on a daily basis, and independent reading
was observed in all of the classrooms during observations. Students engaged in
independent reading around the room on the floor, in beanbags, in chairs, and at tables.
Figure 17 is a student engaged in independent reading on a beanbag next to the classroom
library.
94
Figure 17. Student reading in front of classroom library
Ms. Zoe explained students in her class have the opportunity to read at least twice
daily during literacy instruction. Opportunities to read extended beyond literacy
instruction, and were incorporated into school culture, routines, and procedures. Ms.
Clarice stated:
The expectation throughout the school is that when they come into class, they
read to self.
When reading independently, students had a variety of texts from which to chose.
Teachers indicated that students may read books of their own choosing based on interest,
books checked out from the library, books from their book boxes (collections of books
95
selected for each student by the teacher based on developmental reading level), or books
specific to a task or project. Ms. Clarice explained:
Scholars have a great deal of freedom of choice when reading independently.
They have a mix of books they have picked and a book I have picked for them at
their level (usually I take interest into account as well) in their book bags.
And Ms. Kathy contributed:
I often choose the leveled readers based on their Rigby level. I try to choose
books I know that they would like or something that ties in with our unit of study.
I also have a classroom library that students can choose books from. We go to the
library each week and students can borrow books from there as well. From these
options they choose which book they would like to read during independent
reading time.
Figure 18 is students reading from their book bags which include books selected
by the teacher and also self-selected books.
96
Figure 18. Students reading independently from book bags
Classrooms displayed anchor charts showing the expectations for teachers and
students when engaging in independent reading (see Figure 19).
97
Figure 19. Independent reading anchor charts
98
Students had access to several texts when choosing to read independently. Figure
20 are examples of book boxes, classroom libraries, the school library, and the book
exchange program, all of which were available to students reading independently.
Figure 20. Texts available to students for independent reading
Teachers cited several benefits to having time for students to read independently
during and outside of literacy instruction. Ms. Kathy described a specific example of a
student benefiting from opportunities to read independently:
I do not think I can say enough about the benefits of having choice in the books
when they read independently. I had many reluctant readers at the beginning of
the year. But having choice has been instrumental in them “buying-in” to reading.
99
Every single one of my scholars have made improvements in reading. I also read
independently sometimes, to model choosing good fit books and loving to learn
new things.
Ms. Zoe also described benefits she has seen in her classroom because students
are provided the opportunity to read regularly:
Scholars benefit tremendously from independent reading opportunities. First and
foremost, this gives them a love of learning and reading. Additionally, it gives
them time to practice the metacognitive reading strategies we have modeled in
class and to become more fluent using those. Any independent reading time helps
scholars grow as readers.
While observing, I noted several students engaged in reading independently
throughout the literacy block. Students moved effortlessly into reading independently
without prompting or clarification of expectations from the teacher. During observations,
I noted a wide range of texts students were accessing while reading independently
including, trade books, chapter books and picture books, magazines, non-fiction books,
and poems. Figure 21 are examples of texts students were observed reading
100
independently during literacy instruction.
Figure 21. Text I observed students reading independently
Students were provided several opportunities to read throughout the literacy block
in each classroom. Independent reading was also built into classroom routines and
procedures. Students moved quickly and efficiently in and out of independent reading.
There were a variety of texts available to students to access during independent reading
time, making it an effective instructional practice.
Reading Buddies
Reading Buddies was a school-wide component of literacy instruction at the
Academy, and was identified by teachers as important to their approach to literacy
instruction. Reading Buddies was also observed during observations with most of the
teachers. Clarice described Reading Buddies as follows:
101
At our school Reading Buddies is a school wide program that takes place once a
week on Tuesdays. Classes are partnered up based on content levels at the
beginning of the year. Teachers then strategically partner students together. When
buddies are meeting they are expected to do a read aloud, practice a fluency
poem, and work on word study together.
Each older buddy created a lesson plan including a read aloud, fluency activity,
and word study activity to complete with his or her buddy that week (see Figure 22).
102
Figure 22. Reading Buddies lesson plan
During Reading Buddies, older students took notes about their lesson to inform
their reflection after the lesson was over and they have returned to class (see Figure 23).
103
Figure 23. Reading Buddies lesson plan reflection
Ms. Kathy’s and Ms. Stacy’s students were the younger buddies in the pairing,
while Ms. Zoe’s and Ms. Clarice’s students were older buddies in the pairing. All
teachers indicated that they feel this aspect of their literacy instruction was worthwhile
and benefited both the younger and the older reading buddies. Ms. Zoe explained how her
students that served as the older buddies benefited:
I believe they benefit from Reading Buddies because being that model of what a
good reader sounds like gives them a lot of confidence in their own capabilities as
readers. I model for them how good readers sound, and then they get to practice.
104
During buddy time, the roles are switched and they get to apply what we have
been working on and get to teach that to someone else. Instructing someone else
in using these strategies also helps solidify how to use them for the older scholars,
and gives them an authentic space to use them.
Ms. Kathy explained how her students that serve as the younger buddies benefited
as well:
My scholars bring word sorts, and books with them to reading buddies. Our
buddies are in seventh grade. The older scholars love to help the younger ones
read, sort, and work on writing. The middle schoolers know what we are focusing
on and what their buddies need help in. The big kids feel successful and my
scholars get taught important techniques and strategies by someone other than the
teacher (me).
There were also benefits on school culture noted by Ms. Clarice:
Students benefit from Reading Buddies because it gives older scholars the
opportunity to be the teacher and help other scholars learn. My scholars also learn
to write and implement lesson plans they create for their Reading Buddy. Reading
Buddies also creates and fosters positive interactions between the younger
scholars at the school and the older ones.
105
Figure 24 is students engaged in Reading Buddies.
Figure 24. Reading Buddies in action
Reading Buddies was a school-wide activity that brought together younger and
older students to engage in literacy practices together. Older students were able to
practice and teach concepts that they had previously mastered, reinforcing skills, while
younger students got one-on-one developmental instruction. Teachers indicated that both
younger and older scholars benefited from this reciprocal literacy instruction.
When teaching literacy without an adopted comprehensive program, teachers
employed a variety of instructional practices in the absence of an adopted comprehensive
reading program. Both literature-based instructional practices such as literature circles
and independent reading, along with instructional practices that are more skill and
strategy based, such as word study and comprehension strategy instruction, were utilized.
106
How Do Teachers Decide Which Instructional Practices to Employ to Teach
Literacy Without a Textbook or Comprehensive Program?
Without the guidance of an adopted reading program, teachers at the Academy
were responsible for making all instructional decisions regarding how to approach
literacy instruction in their classrooms. The teachers represented identified group
planning and Professional Learning Communities (PLC), state adopted standards, school-
wide units of study, student level and student need, and student interest as the driving
forces behind instructional decision making in regard to literacy instruction.
Group Lesson Planning and Professional Learning Communities
Teachers reported planning regularly together with their grade-band professional
learning communities (PLC). Ms. Kathy explained:
My PLC group is amazing, my fellow teachers are a great resource. We bounce
ideas and plan units together, though the units differ based on student ability and
grade level. I also use teachers outside my PLC group for ideas as well. They
have more experience than I do, and I know I can go to them for help or ideas. My
administrator also often comes in and offers advice and guidance. As a first year
teacher I was at first worried to ask for help from my administrator, fellow
teachers, and librarian- now I know that I can rely on them to help me when
needed.
Ms. Clarice emphasized how essential group planning was in her approach to
literacy instruction and assessment:
107
PLC groups are vital to our school and planning. We plan many of our units
together and share and develop ideas together. In PLC groups we also create and
design assessments together. After implementing the assessments we also get
back together to grade and analyze the results in order to make decisions on what
we need to teach next.
As a first year teacher, Ms. Zoe reported that she is sometimes unsure of the
instructional decisions she is making in her classroom, and questions whether she is
making the best choices for her students. She explained:
Being a first year teacher the hardest part is not knowing what works, because if I
was given a basal or something at least its research based, right? It’s validated to
say that, yes, if you do this in the right way, you know, 80% of your kids will
learn, you know. You’re not meeting the needs of all learners, but for the most
part, you know, at least I know I’m doing something that works. And I’m always,
I just don’t have enough confidence in my ability yet to know that what I’m doing
is the most effective. That’s what makes me the most nervous is, yes, they’re
learning and that’s great, but am I teaching them the most effective, where they
can grow the very most, I don’t know.
She later explained that planning with her PLC group alleviated some of this
concern, because they are more experienced than she, and have ideas that they have tried
and know work:
108
I also planned with another teacher here at our school and we spent some time
together, just kind of bouncing ideas back and forth off of each other, so having a
more veteran teacher to do that with has been helpful for me.
Even more veteran teachers explained that engaging in co-planning strengthened
their instruction.
I use other teachers and PLC groups to help with the planning of thematic unit
and lessons by finding and creating materials and for sharing and collaborating
ideas.
Figure 25 shows a collection of PLC notes from the elementary PLC group over
several meetings.
109
Figure 25. Elementary PLC meeting note
110
Figure 26 is another example of group planning notes.
Figure 26. Group planning notes
Having opportunities to co-plan was identified as an important component of
planning literacy instruction. Teachers used this time to discuss instructional foci and
look at student data to inform instruction. Teachers new to the profession especially
appreciated the co-planning time as a chance to vet ideas and learn from more
experienced teachers.
Standards
Teachers reported standards to be the primary tool used in planning literacy
instruction within the approach. For example, Ms. Stacy stated:
All of my literacy instruction is chosen and revolves around the standards,
Ms. Clarice specified:
111
I use the Common Core standards to plan my lessons and to guide me in what
students are expected to know.
Figure 27 shows focus standards displayed in Ms. Clarice’s class during literacy
instruction.
Figure 27. Literacy standards posted during instruction
Ms. Zoe and Ms. Kathy both described how they used standards from several
different content areas to plan their literacy instruction across disciplines. Ms. Zoe
explained:
So the first thing I do is look at the standards, and because we’re doing the
holiday units at school, we’re moving towards the informational text standards.
So those are the standards I pull from so I looked and I said here are the things
fifth graders need to be able to do, so how can I incorporate my holiday unit and
have these standards hit at the same time?
112
Ms. Kathy stated:
I try to base my instruction on a mix of ELA and Social Studies standards. I try to
see how I can most effectively combine the two. I really want my scholars to learn
that differences are okay and to appreciate the beauty that is other people and
cultures. I want them to be thankful for the variety of life, but also be able to
express it in reading and writing. They need to learn the value of understanding
view points and being able to disagree politely while not letting it degrade their
own ideas. The standards help me tailor my instruction within these realms.
Figure 28 is a sample literacy lesson plan, posted to teachers’ website. Focus
standards are recorded under the Objectives column.
113
Figure 28. Sample literacy lesson plan
114
Standards guided literacy planning for teachers. Teachers used the state-adopted
standards for a starting point when planning lessons, and as a way to track content and
student progress. Teachers indicated that at times, they used more than one set of
standards when planning cross-content lessons.
School-wide Units of Study
Along with incorporating several different standards in literacy instruction, the
school-wide units provided teachers an opportunity to break down content barriers and
incorporate multiple disciplines into their literacy instruction. Ms. Clarice described
school-wide units as follows:
As a school we decide each year what our school wide units will be for each
quarter. For example the second quarter is always our school’s holiday unit.
Based on this I plan lessons based on writing and informational text standards. As
the quarter goes on the teachers discuss and decide on a final project that will
allow scholars to present all that they have learned and in a way that makes them
the owner of the content. After this is decided I use the standards to help scholars
design their presentation.
Ms. Kathy described how she implemented the second quarter school-wide unit
into her literacy instruction, and how it allowed her to draw from different disciplines,
and positioned her second grade students as experts with older students in the school:
School-wide units are a fun and creative way for all of the students to learn about
new topics and ideas from each other. For example, during the winter quarter my
115
scholars learned about the Pagan Winter Solstice. We talked about it in literacy,
reading and writing about the varied aspects of pagan faith. We became the
experts and then were able to share that knowledge with the other grade levels.
My scholars loved being the experts. They also liked sharing that knowledge. We
then learned about what the other classes had become the experts in. It was a great
bonding experience for all the scholars in the school.
Figure 29 provides an example of how Ms. Kathy included her class’s holiday
unit focus, Winter Solstice, into literacy instruction with a group fluency poem.
Figure 29. Winter solstice fluency poem
Teacher observations supported that the school-wide unit focus was often
included in their literacy instruction. I observed Ms. Clarice’s class during literacy as
116
they looked at several books about Diwali. During the observation, students were
grouped in small groups and each group had a picture book about Diwali. Some of the
books were fictional stories based on the holiday, and others were informational text
about the holiday with several pictures to support the text. Each group was reading the
book and analyzing the text to gather information about Diwali. Each group recorded
their findings on a graphic organizer, where they were required to cite the text (see Figure
30).
Figure 30. Books about Diwali read by small groups
I also observed Ms. Zoe’s class reading a teacher-created text about the Hopi tribe
and their winter celebration. The class read the text together, and then analyzed the text
using a document that provided explicit instruction on how to annotate text. Ms. Zoe
117
began by modeling how to use the annotating strategy, and then students practiced
independently (see Figure 31).
Figure 31. Teacher created text about Hopi Tribe
118
The school-wide unit also provided a way for teachers to bring in authentic text
and real-world connections. Ms. Stacy explained:
How our school-wide units play into my literacy instruction depends on what the
theme is, I always include various read alouds into my instruction based on the
theme.
Ms. Stacy was observed reading aloud a book about Las Posadas to her students,
and she engaged them in content-based questions as well as comprehension strategy
based questions throughout the read aloud (see Figure 32 and Figure 3).
Figure 32. Las Posadas read aloud text
119
The school-wide unit changed each quarter. I observed teachers’ lessons
incorporating the school-wide holiday unit and the school-wide poetry unit over the
second and third quarters of the school year. Teachers explained that the school-wide
units provided an opportunity to incorporate different content areas into their literacy
instruction. Teachers used and created a variety of texts to meet literacy and unit
objectives.
Student Level and Need
Student level and need were identified by teachers throughout this investigation as
important factors playing into their planning and instruction. Teachers described
assessing student need and planning instruction to meet whole group, small group, and
individual needs throughout all aspects of their literacy instruction. Ms. Stacy explained:
So when planning a unit, I think a lot about my students and their needs, whether
that’s from various testing or reading assessments and what they are needing to
move them forward to the next level, rather than a basal text that lays that out
without knowing your students.
Teachers accessed and updated a shared document that recorded students’ guiding
reading level and developmental spelling level. This document was available to all
teachers when planning instruction based on student level and need (see Figure 33).
120
Figure 33. Guided reading and developmental spelling level tracking document
Student level and need were also taken into consideration when measuring
students’ progress towards standards. Ms. Zoe provided an example of how she considers
student level along with grade-level expectations:
Student level and need drive literacy instruction. Fifth grade standards are
presented to the whole class, but the level at which the standards are to be
achieved varies based upon student levels and need. For example, all scholars are
121
expected to compare and contrast stories or characters, but that doesn’t mean it
has to be done all with 5th grade text. Some scholars may use lower level text, and
some may use more difficult text. The scholars who need more time with
comprehension to compare and contrast will get this targeted instruction in a
small group setting, and the scholars who are ready for analyzation of the
comparing and contrasting get the opportunity to do so at the same time.
Ms. Kathy also discussed how student level and need impacted her grouping and
planning, and how she did not anticipate this impact as a first year teacher:
I have found that my most challenging children have been the extremely bright
ones. If they get bored they will act out in class. It might be the naiveté of a first
year teacher, but I wasn’t expecting it. I have to plan extra for those kiddos. I do
try to plan my lessons around student levels. Student individual needs are,
typically, met in small group instruction. I also meet with scholars one-on-one to
discuss strategies or to confer. Levels and needs somewhat play into planning. I
need to make sure that I differentiate the lesson and expectations based on student
ability. I know that what my student working at a fourth grade level and my
student working at a first grade level will produce are different though both will
work to the best of their ability.
Student level and need were assessed both formally and informally. Formal
measures of reading and spelling included progress monitoring assessments with
EasyCBM, quarterly QSIs, and quarterly running records using RigbyPM (see Figures
34, 35, and 36).
122
Figure 34. EasyCBM reading passage fluency measure sample
123
Figure 35. Elementary QSI scoring sheet
124
Figure 36. RigbyPM comprehension measure sample
Teachers grouped students with similar needs in groups for strategy and word
study instruction (see Figure 7). Teachers indicated that they used more formal
assessment measures in initial group formation and large unit planning, and used less
125
formal assessment measures throughout a unit of study to adjust pace and determine
when re-teaching was necessary.
Informal measures I observed were exit tickets and teacher notes (see Figures 37
and 38).
Figure 37. Sample literacy exit ticket
126
Figure 38. Teacher notes taken during Reading Buddies
Teachers indicated that student need and level influenced their literacy instruction
planning. Students were observed working in leveled groups for strategy instruction,
word study, and literature circles. Observation and artifact analysis substantiated
teachers’ claims. I observed teachers informally assessing students’ level during
classroom instruction. I also observed examples of formal reading assessment when
teachers administered the EasyCBM passage fluency measure, and RigbyPM running
record and comprehension measure.
127
Student Interest
Student interest was also identified by teachers throughout this investigation as an
important factor playing into their planning and instruction. Ms. Clarice explained:
I want and need students to be interested in literacy and the lessons I teach
therefore when I can, incorporate student interest into my lessons. I also try to
consider student interest when planning projects they will be doing and when
picking instructional books for them.
Ms. Zoe also explained the role student choice played in her approach to literacy
instruction:
Student interest and choice are very important to literacy instruction. Scholars
choose books that interest them for literature circles, and with the Daily 5 model,
students are given choice each day for which order they want to work in.
Additionally, there is choice within Daily 5. When choosing word study, students
have a variety of options to do so, as well as a variety of writing genres when
choosing work on writing. Also, as mentioned above, schoolwide unit projects are
also based upon student interest and choice. Finally, typically my writing units
also incorporate a sense of choice. Narrative writing could be on any personal
topic, explanatory writing was about the American Revolution, but scholars
choose two specific topics they were interested in exploring, and the upcoming
opinion writing unit allows scholars to choose a side to support on the topic.
128
Ms. Kathy also described how she attended to student interest and choice in her
classroom:
I took a survey at the beginning of the year on students’ interest. I’ve tried to
tailor some instruction based on their interest. I feel the more interested they are
in a subject the more they will engage and make it an authentic learning
opportunity. I’ve often found that my scholars really like learning about other
people. They seem to enjoy non-fiction the most.
I observed students making choices based on interest during literacy instruction.
When transitioning from whole group instruction to independent literacy activities, I
observed each teacher ask each student what activity they were choosing to do. Some
teachers recorded those choices, while others did not. Figure 39 is Ms. Kathy’s record of
students’ independent activity choices during literacy instruction
129
Figure 39. Daily 5 student rotation choice record
I also observed students engaged in choice writing in their writing journals as an
independent work choice during literacy instruction. Figure 40 is an anchor chart
130
displayed in a classroom with writing ideas for students to refer to when they were
choosing a topic based on interest rather than assigned.
Figure 40. Writing topic suggestions for choice writing
Student choice drove teachers’ planning of instruction for their students, but it
also was considered in moment-to-moment decision making in the classroom. Ms. Kathy
described a time where unanticipated students’ interest in a topic changed her plan for
teaching to explore the topic more deeply:
131
So like last week with our little side-view of Abraham Lincoln we ended up with
quite a long class meeting just because they had so much stuff they wanted to talk
about it, and they had all these questions. So then we got on the Internet and
looked up more about him and then we read a couple more books.
Teachers used students’ interest when planning lessons, and incorporated
opportunities for students to make choices based on interest. Teachers’ comments and
observed practice indicated that they balanced both student interest and student need and
level when planning and implementing literacy instruction.
Although literature circle texts were selected based on students’ reading level, an
element of student choice and interest was still incorporated. Ms. Clarice and Ms. Zoe
explained how student interest was considered when selecting texts for literature circles.
Ms Zoe said:
Every group had the opportunity to read every book choice that was possible for
them and chance to discuss with their group and come to a consensus on which
book they wanted to read for literature circles starting next week.
And Ms. Clarice explained:
I’m going to use the feedback I got from my small group and what books they like
to bring in more books so that can actually select and inform their literature
circles.
When teaching literacy without an adopted comprehensive program, teachers
made decisions about what and how to implement instructional practices based on
adopted state standards, student need, and student interest while teaching literacy without
132
a comprehensive program. Professional Learning Communities (PLC) and school-wide
instructional foci also influenced teachers’ instructional practice decisions.
What Texts Do Teachers Use When Teaching Literacy Without a Textbook or
Comprehensive Program?
In addition to deciding on instructional practices to employ, teachers at the
Academy were also responsible for selecting texts for their students to access and to
support their literacy instruction. The text types teachers identified as included most in
their literacy instruction were leveled text based on assessment, informational text, trade
books, and texts reflecting student choice and interest (both informational text and trade
books).
Teachers described the text types they used during literacy instruction. Ms.
Clarice stated:
Level based assessment is used to see how scholars are progressing and growing
at their content level or at their development level and to assess them on how they
are doing with the standards. Student choice is used during independent reading
time and during certain projects. Informational text is used to teach content such
teaching the class about our holiday unit and to teach informational text standards.
Authentic literature is used to teach standards and other concepts. Both authentic
and informational text can be used to model different writing styles and forms.
133
Leveled Text
Teachers used assessments to determine students’ guided reading levels, and used
that information when selecting text for literature circles, guided reading, and to include
in their book boxes to access during independent reading opportunities. See Figure 33
for an example of how teachers recorded students’ reading levels. The school has a large
guided reading library with over 3,000 titles that teachers access for leveled texts. Texts
from the leveled library were also trade books, so when observing, it was unclear if a
student was reading it based on the level. See Figure 21 for examples of texts I observed
students reading. I observed students accessing leveled texts from individual book boxes
when reading independently, and also getting specific leveled text from their book boxes
when meeting with the teacher for strategy instruction. See Figure 41 for an example of
students accessing leveled texts from their book bags while working with the teacher
during small group instruction.
Figure 41. Students accessing leveled texts from book bags during instruction
134
Trade Books
Most of the books in the guided reading library and the school library were trade
books. Figure 20 shows examples of trade books available to students in classrooms,
through the give-one take-one program, from the leveled library, and in the school
library. Teachers also identified trade books as the text selected for classroom read
alouds. See Figure 21 for examples of trade books I observed students reading in class. I
observed teachers reading both picture and chapter trade books aloud to students
regularly. See Figure 13 for examples of trade books I observed teachers reading aloud in
class. Teachers indicated that trade books were also used as mentor texts in writer’s
workshop focusing on narrative writing; however, I did not overserve this practice.
Ms. Zoe explained how different text-types are used in her classroom:
Leveled books are used independently and during small group time, mostly for
literature circles. Books that students choose based on interest are used during
independent Daily 5 choice time. Informational texts are often used for writing
projects, and are also used in literature circles. Trade books are shared as mentor
texts when introducing and working with new concepts.
Teachers presented students with a variety of trade books to meet the lesson
objectives. At times, teachers used trade books that were selected based on students’
reading levels. Other times, students’ choice influenced the trade books that were used
for literacy instruction.
135
Award Winning Books
Teachers across several classrooms were observed reading award winning
literature. Specifically, Ms. Zoe, Ms. Clarice, and Ms. Stacy were observed reading
several nominees for a state-level book award to their classes. Ms. Clarice reminded her
class before the read aloud:
Remember we are reading all of the nominated books in class. Then, you will pick
the one you think should win, and you’ll write an opinion piece about why you
think they should be the winner.
Similarly, Ms. Stacy introduced the read aloud by stating:
Yesterday we read My Teacher is a Monster, today we will be reading Middi’s
Fridge. Both of these books are nominated in the picture book category. Once we
have read them all, you will write a piece to convince other people to vote for the
book you think should win.
Teachers used award winning books to read aloud to students, and also linked
reading and writing literacy lessons. See Figure 42 for the collection of award nominee
picture books read aloud to students in class.
136
Figure 42. Award nominated picture books read aloud to students
Examples of award winning literature were observed in both classrooms and in
the library. The Academy focused on a specific state-award where students
recommended titles for nomination, and then voted to choose a winner from the
nominated text. Teachers read aloud the nominated titles to students, and connected the
read aloud to writing by planning to have students write an opinion piece about which
book should win the award and why.
137
Informational Text
Teachers also identified informational texts as an important component of their
literacy instruction. Teachers explained that informational texts often served as a bridge
between content areas, and were a way for them to bring other academic disciplines and
real-world connections into literacy instruction. Ms. Zoe said of her inclusion of fiction
and information texts:
I would say it is about fifty percent literature and fifty percent nonfiction.
The practice of including fifty percent fiction and fifty percent nonfiction text in
literacy instruction is a practice aligned with the expectations of the Common Core State
Standards (CCSS). Ms. Kathy explained that informational text was an asset in her
classroom, and often served as a catalyst for future learning and investigation of a topic:
Most of my classroom actually seems to enjoy the nonfiction, informational kind
of thing. They really seem to pick up on that and want to learn more about it. So
like last week with our little side-view of Abraham Lincoln we ended up with
quite a long class meeting just because they had so much stuff they wanted to talk
about it, and they had all these questions. So then we got on the Internet and
looked up more about him and then we read a couple more books.
I observed several examples of informational text in the classroom used as a part
of direct instruction, such as Ms. Clarice’s class using informational text about Diwali to
plan their holiday-unit presentation, and also checked out from the library based on
student choice. I also noted informational text used during read alouds in all classrooms.
138
Internet Resources
Teachers identified several Internet sources they used to get text and materials to
support their literacy instruction. The websites that were specifically cited by teachers as
regular sources of materials were www.teacherspayteachers.com,
www.superteacherworksheets.com, www.pinterest.com, www.commonlit.com, and
www.edutopia.com. I observed teachers and students accessing materials and texts from
online resources during literacy instruction. Ms. Stacy used an informational article about
octopuses that she accessed through www.teacherspayteachers (see Figure 43).
139
Figure 43. Octopus informational text accessed from a web-source
141
Ms. Zoe used an informational text produced for teachers’ classroom use by the
Jamie Oliver Food Foundation, and available as free-access on the website. Students read
the text, and annotated for claims they could use to support an argument in their writing
(see Figure 45).
Figure 45. Jamie Oliver’s informational text accessed from web-source
142
Ms. Kathy also talked about following educational blogs, which inform her
teaching at times. She said:
I follow some education blogs, especially on multicultural teaching. I get some
ideas on incorporating those concepts into literacy from those sources.
Teachers indicated that they used a variety of online resources when identifying
materials to use during literacy instruction. Examples of online resources observed in
instruction were accessed through free or paid websites and were informational text.
Online resources provided teachers with text that differed from texts available in the
school library, leveled library, or classroom libraries.
Self or Group Created Materials
Several examples of teachers creating materials to support their literacy
instruction were noted in teacher interviews, observations, and artifact analysis. Ms.
Clarice explained:
Sometimes the resources out their just don’t fit into our model and in that case I
like to create my own resource rather than trying to adapt one that just doesn’t
work for our model.
Each classroom had several teacher-created anchor charts displaying content or routines
and procedures (see Figure 46).
143
Figure 46. Sample anchor charts posted in classrooms
Teachers explained that these materials were created with their classes during
instruction to serve as a resource for students after the lesson was taught. In addition to
environmental print, I gathered several examples of teacher created materials for artifact
analysis, including a Reading Buddies lesson plan template created by Ms. Clarice and
144
another teacher at the school (see Figure 22), informational reading piece on the Hopi
tribe used as part of Ms. Zoe’s holiday unit instruction (see Figure 31), the tracking
template used by Ms. Clarice, Ms. Zoe, and Ms. Stacy’s students to record independent
work, and a word-study game created by Ms. Kathy (see Figure 47).
Figure 47. Teacher created tracker for literacy instruction
145
Both Ms. Stacy and Ms. Zoe mentioned that creating materials for their students
takes time, Ms. Zoe explained:
One of the challenges is that it obviously takes more time, more creativity, but
also that is a strength. It is more creative and it meets their needs more than a
scripted type of program, and they don’t all learn the same, so it can be changed
and tweaked developmentally and to different one’s levels.
Ms. Clarice added:
I think one of the challenges is it does feel like it takes more time. And sometimes
you’ll be questioning, is this the best possible resource, or is it a personal bias, I
like this so I’m using it.
Although teachers indicated that creating materials to deliver the desired literacy
instruction takes time, it appeared to be necessary in this approach to literacy instruction.
Unlike with an adopted comprehensive reading program, materials are not all gathered in
one place to reference and use within this approach. Teachers were responsible for
gathering and creating those materials as needed, and teacher created materials were
observed in a variety of formats in all classrooms.
In this approach to literacy instruction, teachers used a variety of authentic texts
and materials to teach literacy without a comprehensive program, including leveled texts,
texts selected by students or based on students’ interests, trade books, and informational
texts. Teachers gathered text and materials from local sources like the school library,
from online sources, and created texts and materials themselves.
146
How Do Teachers Decide What Texts to Use When Teaching Literacy Without a
Textbook or Comprehensive Program?
Teachers sought out texts and materials to support and guide literacy instruction
in the absence of a comprehensive program. Teachers reported students’ choice and
interest, student need and level, and professional books, as the primary elements
influencing the decisions on what text and materials to include to support literacy
instruction in their classrooms.
Student Choice and Student Interest
Students also had access to books of their choosing or selected by the teacher
based on interest. Each class had scheduled library time each week, where they were able
to go and check out books. The library was organized by topic rather than reading level,
and there are no restrictions on what books students may chose and checkout. Figure 48
shows how the library collection was organized and accessed by students.
147
Figure 48. Library collection organization
Students were also able to go to the library to check out books before school and
during some recesses. In addition to the library, the students accessed texts they chose
through the school’s bring-one take-one program (see Figure 49).
148
Figure 49. Bring one take one books located in school hallways
Books that were a part of this program were on shelves in each of the hallways of
the school, and were free to take for any student.
149
Student Need and Level
Teachers selected text and materials for their students based on their reading level
need for both small group strategy instruction and for opportunities for students to read
independently. Ms. Kathy explained:
I often choose the leveled readers based on their Rigby level. I try to choose
books I know that they would like or something that ties in with our unit of study.
I also have a classroom library that students can choose books from. We go to the
library each week and students can borrow books from there as well.
Ms. Stacy also described how she used leveled text based on students’ needs:
I use leveled based books for scholars to read independently and in small groups.
All literacy teachers recorded their students’ guided reading levels and word study
levels in a shared document that was available to all teachers to use when selecting
appropriately leveled text and materials across teachers and content areas (see Figure 33).
Professional Books
Teachers identified several professional books written for practitioners that guide
their text and material selection for literacy instruction. Words Their Way: Word Study
for Phonics, Vocabulary, and Spelling Instruction (Bear, Invernezzi, Templeton, &
Johnston, 2015) was an important professional book all teachers used to implement word
study into their literacy instruction. Ms. Clarice said:
On Mondays I introduce a sort/feature to each of the groups and we go over the
rule or use the suggested lesson outlined by Words Their Way.
150
All teachers also identified Lucy Calkins (2006) A Guide to Writing Workshop,
Grades 3-5 as an important professional book used to facilitate writer’s workshop, and
writing instruction by providing lessons and suggested mentor texts. Ms. Kathy stated:
I use Words Their Way for word study instruction and ideas. We use Lucy
Calkins writing strategies/ mini lessons and schedule for writer’s workshop.
Several teachers mentioned using The Daily 5 (Boushey & Moser, 2006)
approach to literacy instruction to organize their ninety minute literacy block along with
the CAFÉ book (Boushey & Moser, 2009) as a resource for strategy instruction. Ms.
Clarice clarified:
I use professional books to help me plan and implement longer and bigger units
such as using Lucy Calkins to help plan my writing units or for school wide
programs like Daily Five, Words Their Way and CAFÉ.
Some teachers also cited Daniels (2004) Mini-Lessons for Literature Circles as a
resource for implementing literature circles and planning literature circle mini-lessons,
and I observed Ms. Zoe use the post-it strategy from Daniels’ (2004) book.
Students were observed manipulating word study chips from Words Their Way
(Bear, Invernezzi, Templeton, & Johnson, 2015), and the approach was consistent with
instructional recommendations for teachers in the text. I also collected rubrics from Lucy
Calkins’ (2006) A Guide to Writers Workshop that teachers used to score students’
writing in writer’s workshop (see Figure 50).
151
Figure 50. Rubric from A Guide to Writers Workshop (Calkins, 2006)
152
Although I did not observe teachers accessing professional books, I did see
lessons and instructional practices implemented during literacy instruction guided by
professional books. Teachers indicated and classroom observations supported that
teachers use professional books to inform literacy instruction within this approach to
literacy instruction.
How Do Teachers Monitor Students’ Progress When Teaching Literacy Without a
Textbook or Comprehensive Program?
Data specified several ways in which Academy teachers measured and monitored
student progress. Formal assessment measures were used to monitor progress and inform
instruction along with observational notes, teacher created interim
assessments/rubrics/checklists, end of unit projects, and teacher discretion.
Observational Notes
Teachers regularly observed students engaged in a literacy task, and took notes to
inform their future instruction. Ms. Stacy explained:
I use observation and notes to see how scholars are progressing towards mastering
standards and base my instruction on assisting scholars in mastering the standards.
Some teachers described recording their observational notes in their pensieve. The
term came from The Daily 5 by Gale Boushey and Joan Moser (2006), while other
teachers just noted observations in a notebook or a document on their computer. Ms.
Kathy described how she takes and uses observational notes:
153
Both my aide and I make notes about what the scholars are doing during class. I
also keep a checklist of the choices made during Daily 5. If a scholar never
chooses Write to Self, I may suggest that they pull out their writing journal. I keep
sticky notes on scholars that I meet with and jot down notes about their
performance. I try to make sure that I put that same data into the online pensieve.
If I notice that none of my students are using a specific strategy taught I will
repeat the Mini Lesson with a different technique… I do make notes on post-its.
That is so later I can put it into my pensieve, but it is easier for me to not drag
around my computer, so I take a page out of a notebook and I just make post-it
notes with the groups I am meeting with. I write down their names on that post-it
note and fill out the post-it note as I go along. It’s just easier to do it that way,
although my notebook is full of post-its, but it works.
Figure 51 shows Ms. Kathy’s notes taken during instruction that will be added to
her digital pensieve after instruction.
154
Figure 51. Teacher making observational notes during instruction
Ms. Clarice used Reading Buddies as a time to observe her students read and
make notes to inform future instruction:
I walked around and observed them and took notes so I can meet with them either
in small group or one on one and talk about how they taught it, so that they can
apply that to their lesson.
Figure 38 shows a teacher’s notes taken during Reading Buddies.
Ms. Zoe used observational notes to record student observations while they were
engaged in word study. She described the practice:
155
So I take notes on the pensieve group set up for word study, and I also type in
what feature they’re working on, who the group is and the strategy that I plan on
using with them and then I go back and type in exactly how they did and if the
strategy worked. Figure 52 shows a teacher’s notes taken during word study
instruction.
Figure 52. Teacher observational notes taken during word study
156
While observing in classrooms, I noted examples of most teachers taking
observational notes during instruction. Teachers used observational notes taken during
instruction to make adjustments to teaching, plan instruction, and group students based on
observed need.
Teacher Created Interim Assessments, Rubrics, and Checklists
Teachers reported monitoring students’ progress throughout unit instruction using
rubrics, checklists, and teacher-created interim assessments. Ms. Clarice explained:
These guide me in knowing what my students are showing mastery of and what
they still need more practice with.
Teachers cited several sources for the rubrics that they used. The school had a
collection of rubrics associated with each of the standards that were used in measuring
progress towards mastery. Figure 53 is an example of a school created rubric for the third
grade reading CCSS standard RL 3.3.
157
Figure 53. CCSS reading standard rubric
158
Ms. Kathy also described how students are engaged in the process:
I also enlist the help of my scholars to create rubrics, just one more way for them
to really participate in their education. A student’s score on the rubric does help
small group instruction. I use those scores to help target small group work.
Teachers identified rubrics and checklists as essential to informing their writing
instruction. Ms. Zoe explained:
Rubrics and checklists are utilized often for writing projects. These are shared
with students during the beginning of a unit, and students are scored on them
throughout the unit to show growth and progress. They are also used as
summative assessment tools to show overall growth from the pre-assessment to
final project stage.
Figure 54 is a checklist for writing, and was observed as environmental print in a
classroom.
159
Figure 54. Writing checklist classroom environmental print
Ms. Stacy also discussed how she incorporated rubrics and checklists to monitor
student progress. She added:
Lucy Calkins has a rubric that I am going to use to score it, and then use that as
kind of a guideline for my instruction. If I see a lot of scholars are missing a
certain component, I will obviously spend more time heavily weighted in that
area.
Figure 50 is a rubric used in writer’s workshop.
Teachers also described several interim assessments that they created either
individually or in their PLC groups to monitor instruction and progress towards mastery.
160
Ms. Clarice described a tracker that the elementary teachers used to hold students
accountable for their independent work time during literacy instruction and also served as
an example of authentic writing to assess spelling feature use:
I use the tracker and it’s actually for grades three through five, and they all use it
to inform us what they are doing when they are not with us and meeting with us
as the teacher. So, I’ll know who is doing word study, what they’re doing, what
they need help with, or what they are working on in writing, what piece they are
working on. So the tracker kind of informs us about their entire week and gives us
a good picture. The fifth grade teacher and I recently made a rubric. The rubric
scores them on their spelling as far as what features they should be able to spell so
if they don’t know that feature we don’t hold it against them. It gives us good
feedback that is kind of authentic on what features they are using.
Figure 47 is a teacher created tracker.
Ms. Zoe described another way she uses teacher created interim assessments to
inform instruction regularly:
Often, teacher-created interim assessments happen as exit tickets to mini-lessons.
These inform me of student progress on the specific topics covered during that
class period, and help me make small adjustments to the plans for the following
day, based on need expressed in the data collected from the assessments.
Figure 37 is a sample exit ticket.
While observing in classrooms, I noted examples of rubrics used for writing
instruction. I also saw anchor charts hung on the walls with writing checklists. I saw
161
students completing the trackers described by Ms. Clarice in her classroom as well as in
Ms. Zoe’s classroom, and saw examples of teacher created exit tickets in Ms. Kathy and
Ms. Stacy’s classrooms. Teachers indicated and observation supported that teachers used
interim assessments, rubrics, and checklists to formatively monitor students’ progress
during literacy instruction.
Formal Assessments
The formal assessments teachers used to assess literacy in the approach to literacy
instruction are the Qualitative Spelling Inventory (QSI), (see Figure 33), RibgyPM (see
Figure 34) or Analytical Reading Inventory (ARI) (Moe & Woods, 2007), and EasyCBM
(see Figure 32). Teachers reported administering the QSI quarterly to track students’
spelling features, determined progress, and used results to place in word study groups.
The RigbyPM and ARI assessments were administered as needed, but at least quarterly,
to determine students’ guided reading level and comprehension level to inform guided
reading instruction and literature circle placement. The EasyCBM assessment were
administered three times yearly school-wide. This measure was a computer-based
criterion referenced and normed test that measures comprehension and fluency for ELA.
Student percentile and risk analysis data from EasyCBM was used for Response to
Intervention (RTI), Special Education, and Gifted and Talented program placement as
well as intervention supports. Teachers compared data from administration to
administration to monitor students’ progress towards grade-level expectations. Figure 55
is a comparative analysis of elementary class ELA scores from winter to spring
administrations.
162
Figure 55. EasyCBM score comparison chart
163
Each of the formal measures were school-wide assessments that teachers are
required to administer. Teachers reported mixed feelings about their usefulness. Ms.
Kathy said that she feels a sense of satisfaction and like she is “actually doing something”
based on the changes in their scores on formal assessments throughout the year, while
Ms. Zoe stated:
Formal assessments are used less frequently because, in my opinion, they do not
inform instruction as much as interim assessments. These will inform me of
progress students are making with a particular writing or literacy concept, and I
can make adjustments to my teaching based off of the results, but they are not as
efficient as the exit tickets. However, they do give me a good idea of student
growth and their level of achievement based on the standard we are working on.
I observed Ms. Zoe and Ms. Clarice administer formal assessment measures in
their classrooms. Ms. Zoe assessed and recorded students’ EasyCBM passage reading
fluency by pulling students one-on-one during literacy instruction. I also observed Ms.
Clarice administer RigbyPM running record and comprehension measure one-on-one
with her students during literacy instruction.
The formal literacy assessments reported by teachers and observed in some
classrooms were summative measures of students’ mastery of literacy skills. Teachers
indicated that they used summative, along with formative, assessment data when
planning and providing literacy instruction within this approach.
164
End of Unit Projects
All teachers indicated that they used end of unit projects as a means of assessing
students’ mastery of concepts within a unit; however, the frequency and perceived
usefulness varied among teachers. End of unit projects were a staple for Ms. Zoe’s class:
End of unit projects are the main way that I assess student growth and whether or
not they are meeting the standards. These require more critical thinking skills, and
often inform about a variety of skills rather than just one, as formal assessments
often do. I use these at least quarterly, or whenever a unit is complete, both in
writing and reading units.
Students in Ms. Stacy’s class used Prezi presentations as an end of unit project for
their biography unit of study. Each student researched a famous person, and became the
expert on that person. After researching, students created and presented Prezi
presentations to the class and parents. Figure 56 is a student’s biography Prezi
presentation.
165
Figure 56. Student created end of unit project
Ms. Kathy indicated that she had not used end of unit projects frequently with her
students:
I have used the project only twice in my instruction. The projects started as
student generated ideas. They started as ideas, moved to sketches, rough drafts,
edits, and then finals. The students really engaged with these projects and I will
use the idea again in the future.
End of unit projects, like formal assessments, are a summative measure of student
knowledge rather than a formative approach. Ms. Stacy explained that she used end of
unit projects to assess learning, but that they did not inform her instruction in most cases:
166
I use end of unit projects to assess student learning, but not really to inform
instruction. If the majority of the class was not successful on an end of unit
project I would use it to inform instruction to reteach the areas needed.
I did not observe final projects being implemented in any of the classrooms;
however, I did observe Ms. Stacy telling her students about a final project they would
complete for their informational writing unit. She explained to students that they would
spend several weeks learning how to plan and execute an informational writing piece, and
at the end of the unit, they would draft an information text which would include chapters
and a table of contents.
Teachers used end of unit projects as a summative measure of students’ concept
mastery. Teachers that indicated that they used end of unit projects regularly asserted that
this type of assessment required more critical thinking and application than traditional
summative assessments such as a multiple-choice test. Teachers who did not use the
practice regularly, expressed that they would like to incorporate more end of unit projects
to their practice because students enjoyed them, and they were an authentic way to
determine mastery of a concept.
Teacher Discretion
Teacher discretion also played an important role in how teachers made
instructional decisions for their students in the approach to literacy instruction described
in this study. Without a guide or script, teachers were called on to make several in-the-
moment decisions about their instruction to meet the needs of their students. Ms. Stacy
167
described a time she changed her approach mid-lesson when it wasn’t going according to
plan based on teacher discretion:
So mid-lesson I revamped and they either read it independently or with a partner
and there was a couple that I went around that I knew would struggle, so I asked
their partner to read it to them, and have them follow along so they would still
have access.
Ms. Zoe also described changing her plan and routine with word study instruction
based on teacher discretion:
Normally my word study groups, I only have structured meetings with them on
Mondays, and then I kind of check in throughout the week. But tomorrow, I know
I’ll need to have a structured check in with that specific group based on their
needs from today… I feel like if it’s time spent on a teachable moment, something
that is necessary for that instruction for those scholars to learn, then I am okay
spending a little extra time.
Teachers indicated that teacher discretion was not only important when making
in-the-moment instructional decisions, but also when thinking about a specific student
and his or her progress towards mastery of content. Ms. Clarice explained:
Knowing your students is an important part of teaching. If a student didn’t
perform well on an assessment but I know that they are capable of accessing the
content and in the past have shown mastery of the content I will use that
knowledge to decide which small group would be more appropriate than the one
the assessment shows they should be in.
168
Teachers used a wide range of both summative and formative assessments to
monitor students’ progress. Summative measures included end of unit projects and formal
assessments. Formative measures included observational notes, teacher created interim
assessments, rubrics, checklists, and teacher discretion.
Conclusion
The findings of this study are a description of literacy instruction in elementary
grades absent of a core or comprehensive reading program. It is important to note that
this study depicts one point in time at a single school, in effect, a snapshot of elementary
literacy instruction during the 2015-2016 school year at the Academy. A central tenet of
constructivism is that the knowledge gained through this investigation would not be the
same again on different days, in another year, with another researcher, or with another
group of teachers because the knowledge is context specific and constructed between the
participants and the researcher. The data from this study confirms the dynamic nature of
the instructional process and of teachers’ individual implementation.
The research questions for this study were: (1) What instructional practices do
teachers employ to teach literacy without a textbook or comprehensive program? (2) How
do teachers decide which instructional practices to employ to teach literacy without a
textbook or comprehensive program? (3) What texts do teachers use when teaching
literacy without a textbook or comprehensive program? (4) How do teachers decide what
texts to use when teaching literacy without a textbook or comprehensive program? and
(5) How do teachers monitor students’ progress when teaching literacy without a
169
textbook or comprehensive program? Based on the data collected in this study, the
following general conclusions are derived from the findings.
1. Teachers employed a variety of instructional practices in the absence of an
adopted comprehensive reading program. Both literature-based instructional
practices such as literature circles and independent reading, along with
instructional practices that are more skill and strategy based, such as word study
and comprehension strategy instruction, were utilized.
2. Teachers made decisions about what and how to implement instructional practices
based on adopted state standards, student need, and student interest while teaching
literacy without a comprehensive program. Professional Learning Communities
(PLC) and school-wide instructional foci also influenced teachers’ instructional
practice decisions.
3. Teachers used a variety of authentic texts and materials to teach literacy without a
comprehensive program, including leveled texts, texts selected by students or
based on students’ interests, trade books, and informational texts. Teachers
gathered text and materials from local sources like the school library, from online
sources, and created texts and materials themselves.
4. In the absence of a comprehensive reading program, teachers selected texts and
materials to support literacy instruction based on student need and level, student
interest, and that aligned with learning outcome goals. The learning outcome
goals that guided text and material selection were set by teachers to meet the
needs of their students and with the support of professional books.
170
5. Teachers used a wide range of both summative and formative assessments to
monitor students’ progress. Summative measures included end of unit projects
and formal assessments. Formative measures included observational notes,
teacher created interim assessments, rubrics, checklists, and teacher discretion.
171
CHAPTER V: DISCUSSION
Operating outside of a program that encourages pacing and fidelity of
implementation allows teachers to make instructional decisions about what and how to
teach literacy to their students. The findings presented here are that teachers employing a
teacher-directed rather than program-directed approach to literacy instruction made
instructional decisions before, during, and after teaching. They relied on several strategies
to disseminate content and measure student learning, as well as used a variety of text in
the classroom. Teachers using this approach relied heavily on each other to plan and
interpret student data, and worked closely together to meet mastery goals across grade
levels.
Best-practices in literacy instruction are evidence-based classroom practices for
practitioners to implement to improve the literacy skills and knowledge of their students.
The description of a teacher-directed rather than program-directed approach to literacy
instruction presented in this study aligned with best-practice in several ways. There are
also considerations discussed to strengthen best-practice alignment within the approach to
literacy instruction described in this investigation. The discussion presented here is
organized by the literacy domains for vocabulary, comprehension, fluency, writing,
assessment, and comprehensive literacy instruction.
Blachowicz and Fisher (2015) described the essential components of quality
vocabulary instruction as engaging students in rich and varied exposures to language,
teaching both general academic language and domain-specific academic language,
developing students’ independent word-learning strategies, and instruction that develop
172
word consciousness. Findings presented here aligned with many of these practices and
pointed to areas in which vocabulary instruction could be strengthened. In the description
of literacy instruction provided in this study, students engaged in rich and varied
exposures to reading through wide reading (Worthy, Moorman, & Turner, 1999) and
frequent read alouds with both narrative and informational text (Calkins, 2000; Fox,
2001; Rasinski, 2004). Several examples of opportunities for students to engage in
classroom discussions were also noted (Gambrell & Almasi, 1998; Hadjioannou &
Townsend, 2015; Stahl, Richek, & Vandevier, 1991).
Best-practice also calls for teaching both general academic language and domain-
specific academic language, developing students’ independent word-learning strategies,
and instruction that develops word consciousness. These aspects of instruction were not
found to be regularly included in this description of literacy instruction. To align more
closely with best-practices teachers may have provided more direct instruction in
morphology as a part of regular word study instruction (Bear, Invernizzi, Templeton, &
Johnston, 2015; Templeton, Bear, Invernizzi, Johnston, Flanigan, Townsend, Helman, &
Hayes, 2015). Additionally, direct instruction of context clues promoting independent
word learning could be incorporated in read alouds and strategy instruction. The
foundational components of word consciousness, reading quality literature and providing
students the opportunity to be read to and access text independently were included
throughout the description of literacy instruction; however, few examples of developing
word consciousness by identifying words in context and engaging in conversations
around word choice were noted. Vocabulary instruction within the described approach to
173
literacy instruction could be strengthened by this more deliberate approach to word
consciousness.
The approach to literacy instruction described here aligned very closely to best-
practices in comprehension instruction. The description of school-wide units and group-
planned instructional foci showed teachers engaged in the best-practices of connecting
reading instruction to content knowledge in other academic domains such as social
studies, science, and the arts (Hirsch, 2006; McKeown, Beck, & Blake, 2009; Neuman,
2006), strategy instruction (Almasi & Hart, 2015), and reading authentic texts for
authentic purposes (Purcell-Gates, Duke, & Martineau, 2007). Strategy instruction was a
central tenet of this approach to literacy instruction and was noted in several domains of
literacy instruction, especially comprehension strategy instruction based on student need
(Almasi & Hart, 20015). Along with strategy instruction, the best-practice of gradual
release of responsibility where teachers provided direct instruction, gave opportunities for
guided practice, and monitored students’ self-regulated strategy use is described within
the approach (Almasi & Fullerton, 2012).
Fluency instruction aligned with best-practice should include four components: 1)
the opportunity for students to listen to reading regularly; 2) direct support for students
while they read aloud; 3) a focus on phrasing; and 4) ample opportunity to read (Rasinski,
2015). The description of the approach to literacy instruction in the investigation
provided examples of students listening to reading regularly and having ample
opportunities to read; however, direct support for students while reading aloud and a
focus on phrasing were not noted as a part of regular classroom practice. Teachers may
174
have considered incorporating The Fluency Development Lesson (FDL) (Rasinski,
Padak, Linek, & Sturtevant, 1994), Fluency Oriented Reading Instruction (Kuhn &
Schwanenflugel, 2008), or Readers Theater (Young & Rasinski, 2009) to bolster fluency
instruction.
The description of writing instruction in this investigation relied heavily on a
writer’s workshop model. Writer’s workshop aligned to best-practice, and included a
description of students surrounded by quality models through mentor text (Dorfman &
Cappelli, 2007; Duke, Caughlan, Juzwik, & Martin, 2012), clear expectations through
rubrics, checklists and teacher modeling (Calkins, 2006; Calkins, 2014), specific strategy
instruction through strategic mini-lessons (Calkins, 2014; Graham & Harris, 2013),
allowing students the freedom to make choices and mistakes, give feedback
(Cunningham & Cunningham, 2010), and students are given the opportunity to practice
authentic writing through end-of-unit projects such as students constructing an
information book as an end-of-unit project (Bromley, 2015).
The description of literacy assessment in this investigation also closely aligned to
best-practice. Teachers described how the balanced assessing reading process through
small group and one-on-one conferring (Filkin, 2012) and reading product through formal
reading measures and end of unit projects (Afflerbach, Cho, Crassas, & Kim, 2015). The
description also captured single reading assessment where students were asked to
synthesize across several texts in their presentation of the holiday units and study of
Abraham Lincoln, Marian Anderson, and Alaskan fairytales (Afflerbach, Cho, Crassas, &
Kim, 2015). A balance of summative and formative reading assessments were also
175
captured. Teachers described formative measures such as observational notes, teacher
discretion, teacher created interim measures, and trackers along with formative measures
such as RigbyPM, QSI, and EasyCBM. The description of writing assessment also
aligned closely with best-practice by including portfolios, rubrics, and checklists
(Bromley, 2007).
The description of literacy instruction in this investigation closely followed
Gambrell, Malloy, Marinak, and Mazzoni’s (2015) ten principles of comprehensive
literacy instruction. Teachers reported that this approach to literacy instruction helped
develop a classroom culture that bolstered motivation through choice, collaboration, and
relevance by engaging students with a wide range of both narrative and informational text
considering both reading level and student interest. Additionally, the description of
literacy instruction provided several examples of scaffolded instruction in many areas of
literacy instruction and a gradual release of control from teacher to students. Teachers
attributed the reading culture at the school to an approach to literacy instruction that
valued student interest and choice while supporting the individual needs of students.
They asserted that through the flexibility of teacher-directed rather than program-directed
literacy instruction a life-long love for learning can be promoted.
The approach to literacy instruction presented in this study is an example of a
teacher-directed approach where a comprehensive reading program is not implemented.
This approach aligned closely to best-practices in literacy instruction; however, there are
areas in which this approach may be more closely aligned.
176
Implications for Educators
Teachers teaching without an adopted reading program may find this holistic
description of an approach to literacy instruction without an adopted reading program
useful in designing their own instruction. There may also be applications for teachers
teaching in a school that does have an adopted reading program. While seventy-three
percent of educators surveyed still have a core/basal reading series, only sixty-four
percent reported solely implementing the adopted core/basal reading program and doing
so with strict fidelity (Education Market Research, 2013). This percentage indicates that
even with an adopted reading program, there may be space for teachers to implement
aspects of the approach to literacy instruction described in this investigation. Teachers
could consider implementing some of the instructional practices presented in this
description of literacy instruction to supplement their reading program or align more
closely to best-practice.
Implications for Researchers
Troyer and Yopp (1990) expressed concern that research is not disseminated to
teachers effectively or in a timely manner. This concern appears to still be valid based on
the influences cited by the teachers in this study. Although several of the instructional
practices teachers in this study employed are aligned with best-practice and supported by
educational research, no teacher cited research as an influence on their practice. While
teachers received some results of research through indirect methods such as professional
development and practitioner focused professional books, none indicated they ever read
professional journals or other reports of research. Educational researchers, it would seem,
177
need to find a means to directly inform teachers of their findings through diverse
methods. A more direct report to teachers may facilitate research implementation into
practice, and a better understanding of how teachers’ practice was influenced by
educational research.
Further Research
Further research should be conducted to see how teachers in primary grades and
middle school approach literacy without a textbook. Additionally, similar research at all
grade levels should be conducted at several school sites to further develop the knowledge
base presented here. Longer term studies would illuminate a much broader picture of
literacy instruction without a textbook, and would benefit from both insider and outsider
researcher perspectives.
178
References
Afflerbach, P., Cho, B., Crassas, M. & Kim, J. (2015). Best practices in reading
assessment. In L. Gambrell, & L. Morrow (Eds.), Best practcies in literacy
instruction (5th ed.) (pp. 315-342). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Afflerbach, P., Cho, B., Kim, J., Crassas, M., & Doyle, B. (2013). Reading: What else
matters besides strategies and skills? The Reading Teacher, 66(6), 440-448.
Allington, R. (2002). Big brother and the national reading curriculum: How ideology
trumped evidence. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Allington, R. (2009). If they don’t read much…30 years later. In E. Hiebert (Ed.),
Reading more, reading better (pp. 30-54). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Almasi, J., & Fullerton, S. (2012) Teaching strategic processes in reading (2nd ed.)
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Almasi, J., & Hart, S. (2015). Best practices in narrative text comprehension instruction.
In L.Gambrell, & L.Morrow (Eds.), Best practcies in literacy instruction (5th ed.)
(pp. 223-248). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Almasi, J., O’Flahavan, J., & Arya, P. (2001). A comparative analysis of student and
teacher development in more proficient and less proficient peer discussions of
literature. Reading Research Quarterly, 23(3), 523-535.
Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching and assessing:
A revision of Bloom’s taxonomy of educational objectives. New York, NY:
Addison, Wesley Longman.
179
Archer, A., & Hughes, C. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient
teaching. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Armbruster, B., Anderson, T., & Meyer, J. (1991). Improving content-area reading using
instructional graphics. Reading Research Quarterly, 26(4), 393-416.
Atwell, N. (1987). In the middle: Writing, reading, and learning with adolescents.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann Educational Books.
Atwell, N. (2002). Lessons that change writers. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton Cook.
Baumann, J. (1984). The effectiveness of a direct instruction paradigm for teaching
main idea comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 20(1), 93-117.
Bear, D., Invernezzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (2015). Words their way: Word
study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction (6th ed.). Upper Saddle
River: NJ: Pearson.
Beck, I., McKeown, M., & Kucan, L. (2013). Bringing words to life: Robust
vocabulary instruction. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Beers, K. (2003). When kids can’t read, what teachers can do: A guide for teachers, 6-
12. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Blachowicz, C., & Fisher, P.(2015). Best practices in vocabulary instruction. In L.
Gambrell, & L. Morrow (Eds.), Best practcies in literacy instruction (5th ed.) (pp.
195-222). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
180
Black, P., & William, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Education
Assessment: Principles, Policy, and Practice, 5(1), 7-74.
Boushey, G., & Moser, J. (2006). The Daily 5. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
Boushey, G., & Moser, J. (2009). The CAFÉ book. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
Brenner, D., & Hiebert, E. (2010). If I follow the teachers/ editions, isn’t that enough?
Analyzing reading volume in six core reading programs. The Elementary School
Journal, 110(3), 347-363.
Bromley, K. (2007). Assessing student writing. In J. Paratore & R. McCormack (Eds.),
Classroom literacy assessment: Making sens of what students know and do (pp.
210-226). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Bromley, K. (2015). Best practices in teaching writing. In L.Gambrell, & L. Morrow
(Eds.), Best practcies in literacy instruction (5th ed.) (pp. 288-314). New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Brown, R. (2008). The road not yet taken: A transactional strategy approach to reading
comprehension instruction. The Reading Teacher, 61(7), 538-547.
Brown, R., Pressley, M., Van Meter, P., & Schuder, T. (1995). A quasi-experimental
validation of transactional strategies instruction with previously low-achieving
second-grade readers (Reading Research Rep. No. 33) Athens, GA: National
Reading Research Center.
Brozo, W. (2003). Literacy licenses. Voices from the Middle, 10(3), 43-45.
181
Calkins, L. (2000). Let the words work their magic. Instructor (1999), 110(3), 25-28.
Calkins, L. (2006). A guide to writing workshop, grades 3-5. Portsmouth, NH: First
Hand.
Calkins, L. (2014). Writing pathways: Performance assessments and progressions,
grades K-8. Portsmouth, HN: Heinemann.
Calkins, L., Ehrenworth, M., & Lehman, C. (2012). Pathways to the Common Core:
Accelerating achievement. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Carver, R. (1994). Percentage of unknown vocabulary words in text as a function of
the relative difficulty of the text: Implications for instruction. Journal of Reading
Behavior, 26(4), 413-437.
Carver, R., & Leibert, R. (1995). The effects reading library books at different levels of
difficulty upon gain in reading ability. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(1), 8-25.
Chambliss, M., & Calfee, R. (1998). Textbooks for learning: Nurturing children’s
minds. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Cho, B. (2013). Adolescents’ constructively responsive reading strategy use in a critical
internet reading task. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(4), 329-332.
Coles, G. (2001). Reading taught to the tune of the scientific hickory stick. Phi Delta
Kappan, 83(3), 204-212.
182
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Corson, D. (1997). The learning and use of academic English words. Language Learning,
47(4), 671-718.
Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 34(2), 213-238.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundation of social research; Meaning and perspective in the
research process. London: SAGE.
Creswell, J. (2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Creswell, J. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among the five
approaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Cunningham, P., & Allington, R. (2011). Classrooms that work: They can all read
and write. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Cunningham, P., & Cunningham, J. (2010). What really matters in writing:
Research-based practices across the elementary curriculum. Boston, MA: Allyn
& Bacon.
Cunningham, A., & Stanovich, K.(1991). Tracking the unique effects of print
exposure in children: Associations with vocabulary, general knowledge, and
spelling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(2), 264-274.
183
Daniels, H. (2002). Literature circles: Voice and choice in book clubs and reading
groups. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
Daniels, H. (2004). Mini-lessons for literature circles. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2011). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative
research. In N. Denzin, & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative
research (pp. 1-19). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE .
DeWalt, D., Berkman, N., Sheridan, S., Lohr, K., & Pigone, M. (2004). Literacy and
health outcomes. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 19(12), 1228-1239.
Dewitz, P., & Jones, J. (2012). Using basal readers: From dutiful fidelity to intelligent
decision `making. The Reading Teacher, 66(5), 391-400.
Dewitz, P., Jones, J., & Leahy, S. (2009). Comprehension strategy instruction in core
reading programs. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(2), 102-126.
Dewitz, P., Leahy, S., Jones, & Sullivan, P. (2010). The essential guide to selecting
and using core reading programs. Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Dorfman, L., & Cappelli, R. (2007). Mentor texts: Teaching writing through
children’s literature, K-6. Portland, ME: Stenhouse.
Duffy, G. (1993). Rethinking strategy instruction: Four teachers’ development and their
low achievers’ understanding. The Elementary School Journal, 93(3), 231-247.
184
Duke, N. (2004). The case for informational text. Educational Leadership, 61(6), 40-
44.
Duke, N., Caughlan, S., Juzwik, M., & Martin, N. (2012). Reading and writing genre
with purpose in K-8 classrooms. Portsmouth, HN: Heinemann.
Duke, N., & Pearson, P., (2008-2009). Effective practices for developing reading
comprehension. Journal of Education, 189(1-2), 107-122.
Duncan-Owens, D. (2009). Scripted reading programs: Fishing for success. Principal,
88(3), 26-29.
Edmunds, K., & Bauserman, K. (2006). What teachers can learn about reading and
motivation through conversations with children. The Reading Teacher, 59(5),
414-424.
Education Market Research (2013). The current role of the core reading textbook.
Retrieved from http://www.simbainformation.com/article/2014-02/Current-Role-
Core-Reading-Textbook.
Ellingson, L. (2009). Engaging crystalization in qualitative research: An introduction.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Erikson, F. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching reading. In M. Wittrock.
(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching: A project of the American Educational
Association (3rd ed.) (pp. 119-161). New York, NY: Collier-Macmillian.
Esterberg, K. (2002). Qualitative methods in social research. Boston, MA: McGraw-
Hill.
185
Fang, Z., Schleppegrell, M., & Cox, B.(2006).Understanding the language demands of
schooling : Nouns in academic registers. Journal of Literacy Research, 38(3), 247-
273.
Fielding, L., Wilson, P., & Anderson, R. (1986). A new focus on free reading: The role of
trade books in reading instruction. In T. Raphael & R. E. Reynolds (Eds.), The
context of school-based literacy (pp. 149-160). New York, NY: Random House.
Filkins, S. (2012). Beyond standardized truth: Improving teaching and learning through
inquiry-based reading assessment. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Fleisher, L., Jenkins, J., & Pany, D. (1979) Effects on poor readers’ comprehension
of training in rapid decoding. Reading Research Quarterly, 15(1), 30-48.
Fletcher, R., & Portaluppi, J. (2001). Writing workshop: The essential guide. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Fox, M. (2001). Reading magic: Why reading aloud to our children will change their
lives forever. Orlando, FL: Harcourt.
Fountas, I., & Pinnell, G.(2000). Guiding readers and writers. Portsmouth: NH:
Heinemann.
Freebody, P., & Luke, A. (1990). ‘Literacies’ programs: Debates and demands.
Prospect: Australian Journal of TESOL, 5(7), 7-16.
Frey, N., & Fisher, D. (2013). Rigorous reading. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
186
Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (2005). Literacy: Reading the word and the world. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Galbraith, A., & Alexander, J. (2005). Literacy, self-esteem and locus of control. Support
for Learning, 20(1), 28-34.
Gambrell, L. (2009). Creating opportunities to read more so that students read better.
In E. Hiebert (Ed.), Reading more, reading better (pp. 251-266). New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Gambrell, L., Malloy, J., Marinak, B., Mazzoni, S., (2015). Evidence-based best practices
for comprehensive literacy instruction in the age of the Common Core Standards.
In L.Gambrell, & L. Morrow (Eds), Best practcies in literacy instruction (5th ed.)
(pp .3-36). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Gambrell, L., Hughes, E., Calvert, W., Malloy, J., & Igo, B. (2011). Authentic
reading, writing, and discussion: An exploratory study of a pen pal project.
Elementary School Jounal, 112(2), 234-258.
Gambrell, L., & Jawitz, P. (2002). Imagery: A strategy for enhancing
comprehension. In C. Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction:
Research-based practices (pp. 305-318). New York: Guilford.
Gambrell, L., & Almasi, J. (1996). Lively discussions! Fostering engaged reading.
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Gamse, B., Jacobs, R., Horst, M., Boulay, B., & Unlu, F. (2008). Reading First impact
study final report executive summary (NCEE 2009-4039). Washington, DC:
187
National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute
of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Garan, E. (2004). In defense of our children: When politics, profit, and education collide.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Gardner, D. (2004). Vocabulary input through extensive reading: A comparison of words
found in children’s narrative and expository reading materials. Applied
Linguistics, 25(1), 1-37.
Gee, J. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique of traditional schooling.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Gee, J. (2011). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (3rd ed.). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. (2013). Designing an effective writing program. In S.
Graham, C. MacArthur, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Best practices in writing
instruction. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Graham, S., & Harris, K. (1996). Making the writing process work: Strategies for
composition and self-regulation. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Graham, S., & Perrin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of
adolescents in middle and high schools. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation.
Graves, M. (2000). A vocabulary program to complement and bolster a middle-grade
comprehension program. In B. Taylor, M. Graves, & P. van den Broek (Eds.),
188
Reading for meaning: Fostering comprehension in middle grades (pp. 116-135).
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Griffith, L., & Rasinski, T. (2004). A focus on fluency: How one teacher incorporated
fluency with her reading curriculum. The Reading Teacher, 58(2), 126-137.
Guthrie, J., McRae, A., & Klauda, S. (2007). Contribution of concept-oriented reading
instruction to knowledge and intervention for motivations in reading.
Educational Psychologist, 42(4), 237-250.
Guthrie, J., Van Meter, P., Hancock, G., Alao, S., Anderson, E., & McCann, A. (1998).
Does concept-oriented reading instruction increase strategy use and conceptual
learning from text? Journal of Education Psychology, 90(2), 261-278.
Hadjioannou, X., & Townsend, J. (2015). Examining booktalks to shed light on
authentic classroom discussion. Classroom Discourse, 6(3), 198-220.
Hall, K., Hendrick, W., & Williams, L. (2014). Every day we’re shufflin’: Empowering
students during in-school independent reading. Childhood Education, 90(2), 91-
98.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 8000 meta-analyses relating to
achievement. New York, NY: Routledge.
Hiebert, E., & Martin, L. (2009). Opportunity to read: A critical but neglected
construct in reading instruction. In E. Hiebert (Ed.), Reading more, reading
better (pp. 3-29). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
189
Harris, K., & Graham, S. (1994). Constructivism: Principles, paradigms, and
integration. Journal of Special Education, 28(3), 233-247.
Herman, J., Osmundson, E., Ayala, C., Schneider, S., & Timms, M. (2006). The nature
and impact of teachers’ formative assessment practices. CSW Technical Report
(#703). National Center for Research Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing
(CRESST). Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED495850.
Hess, K., Jones, B., Carlock, D., & Walkup, J. (2009). Cognitive rigor: Blending the
strengths of Blooms Taxonomy and Webb’s Depth of Knowledge to enhance
classroom-level processes. ERIC Document, (ERIC # ED517804). Retrieved
from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED517804.
Hiebert, E., & Mesmer, H. (2013). Upping the ante of text complexity in the
Common Core State Standards: Examining the potential impacts on young
readers. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 44-51.
Hillocks, G. (1987). Synthesis of research in teaching writing. Educational Leadership,
44(8), 71-82.
Hirsch, E. (2006). Building knowledge: The case for bringing content into the language
arts block and for a knowledge-rich curriculum core for all children. American
Educator, 30(1), 8-17.
Jacobs, J., Morrison, T., & Swinyard, W. (2000). Reading aloud to students: A
national probability study of classroom reading practices of elementary school
teachers. Reading Psychology, 21(3), 171-193.
190
Jacobs, G., & Renandya, W. (2015). Making extensive reading even more student
centered. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 102-112.
Jeynes, W., & Littell, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of studies examining the effects of
whole language instruction on the literacy of low-SES students. Elementary
School Journal, 101(1), 21-33.
Kamil, M., Borman, G., Dole, J., Kral, C., Salinger, T., & Torgesen, J. (2008).
Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices: A
practice guide (NCEE No. 2008-4027). Washington, DC: National Center for
Educational Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences,
U.S. Department of Education.
Kelley, M., & Clausen-Grace, N. (2006). R5: The sustained silent reading makeover that
transformed readers. The Reading Teacher, 60(2), 148-156.
Kim, A., Vaugh, S., Wanzek, J., & Wei, S. (2004) Graphic organizers and their effects
on reading comprehension of students with LD: A synthesis of research. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 37(2), 105.-118.
Klapwijk, N. (2015). EMC2= comprehension: A reading strategy instruction
framework for all teachers. South African Journal of Education, 35(1), 01-10.
Kraemer, L., McCabe, P., & Sinatra, R. (2012). The effects of read-alouds of expository
text on first graders’ listening comprehension and book choice. Literacy Research
and Instruction, 51(2), 165-178.
191
Krashen, S. (2004). The power of reading: Insights from research (2nd ed.). Portsmouth,
NH: Heinamann.
Kuhn, M., & Rasinski, T. (2015). Best practices in fluency instruction. In L.
Gambrell, & L. Morrow (Eds.), Best practcies in literacy instruction (5th ed.) (pp.
268-287). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Kuhn, M., & Schwanenflugel, P. (2008). Fluency in the classroom. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Kuhn, M., Schwanenflugel, P., Morris, R., Morrow, L., Woo, D., Meisinger, E., …&
Stahl, S. (2006). Teaching children to become fluent and automatic readers.
Journal of Literacy Research, 38(4), 357-387.
Leach, J.M., Scarborough, H.S., & Rescorla, L. (2003). Late-emerging reading
disabilities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 211-224.
Leland, C., Lewison, M., & Harste, J. (2012). Teaching children’s literature: It’s critical!
Routledge.
Lenters, K. (2014). Just doing our jobs: A case study of literacy-in-action in a fifth grade
literature circle. Language & Literacy: A Canadian Educational E-Journal, 16(1),
53-70.
Lesaux, N., Kieffer, M., Faller, S., & Kelley, J. (2010). The effectiveness and ease
vocabulary intervention for linguistically diverse students in urban middle schools.
Reading Research Quarterly, 45(2), 196-228.
192
Lichtman, M. (2013). Qualitative research in education: A user's guide. Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and
emerging confluences. In N.K. Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), The handbook of
qualitative research (2nd ed., pp.163-188). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Lind, A. (2008). Literacy for all: Making a difference (Vol. 89). Paris: United Nations
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.
Malloy, J., & Gambrell, L. (2011). Motivation to read. In R. Flippo (Ed.), Reading
research in search of common ground (2nd ed., pp. 154-169). Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Martinez, M., Roser, N., & Strecker, S. (1998/1999). “I never thought I could be a
star”: A Readers Theater ticket to fluency. The Reading Teacher, 52(4), 326-334.
Maxwell, J. (2005). Qualitative research design. An interactive approach. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
McKeough, A., Lupart, J., & Marini, A. (2013). Teaching for transfer: Fostering
generalization in learning. New York, NY: Routledge.
McKeown, M., Beck, I., & Blake, G. (2009). Rethinking reading comprehension
instruction: A comparison of instruction for strategies and content approaches.
Reading Research Quarterly, 44(3), 218-253.
193
Mercer, N., & Littleton, K. (2007). Dialogue and the development of children’s thinking:
A sociocultural approach. London: Routledge.
Merriam, S. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S. (2002). Qualitative research in practice: Examples for discussion and
analysis. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miller, W. (1971). The first r: Elementary reading today. New York, NY: Holt,
Rinehart, and Wilson.
Miller, S., & Blumefield, P. (1993). Characteristics of tasks used for skills instruction in
two basal reader series. The Elementary School Journal, 94(1), 33- 47.
Milosovic, S. (2007). Building a case against scripted reading programs. Education
Digest: Essential Readings Condensed for Quick Review, 73(1), 27-30.
Moore, D., Bean, T., Birdyshaw, D., & Rycik, J. (1999). Adolescent literacy: A position
statement. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 43(1), 97-112.
Morrow, L., & Brittain, R. (2003). The nature of storybook reading in the elementary
school: Current practices. In A. Van Kleeck, S. Stahl, & E. Bauer (Eds.), On
reading books to children: Parents and teachers (pp. 140-158). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Morrow, L., Gambrell, L., & Pressley, M. (2003). Best practices in literacy instruction.
New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
194
Murphy, P., Wilkinson, I., Soter, A., & Hennessey, M. (2009). Examining the effects of
classroom discussion on students’ comprehension of text: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Education Psychology, 101(3), 740-764.
Nagy, W., Berninger, V., & Abbott, R. (2006).Contributions of morphology beyond
phonology to literacy outcomes of upper elementary and middle-school students.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 134-147.
Nagy, W., & Townsend, D. (2012). Words as tools: Learning academic vocabulary as
language acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(1), 91-108.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2013). Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/.
National Reading Panel (US), National Institute of Child Health, & Human Development
(US). (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.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of
Health. NCTE’s Assembly for the Teachers of English Grammar. (2002).
Guideline on some questions and answers about grammar. National Council of
Teachers of English. Retrieved from
http://www.ncte.org/positions/statements/qandaaboutgrammar
195
Neuman, S. (2006). How we neglect knowledge and why. American Educator, 30(1),
24-27.
Palincsar, A., & Schultz, K. (2011). Reconnecting strategy instruction with its
theoretical roots. Theory into Practice, 50(2), 85-92.
Papadopoulou, E. (2007). The impact of vocabulary instruction on the vocabulary
knowledge and writing performance of third grade students. Retrieved from
ProQuest Dissertations & Thesis.
Pearson, D. (2002). American reading instruction since 1967. In N. Smith (Ed.),
American Reading Instruction (pp. 419-486). Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Pressley, M. (2000). What should comprehension instruction be the instruction of? In M.
L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading
research (Vol. 3, pp. 545-561). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pressley, M. (2007). Achieving best practices. In L. Gambrell, L. Morrow, & M.
Pressley (Eds.), Best practices in literacy instruction (pp. 397-404). New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Pressley, M., El-Dinary, P., Schuder, T., Bergmann, J., Almasi, J., & Brown, R. (1992).
Beyond direct explanation: Transactional strategy instruction for reading
comprehension strategies. The Elementary School Journal, 92(5), 513-555.
196
Pressley, M., Allington, R., Wharton-MacDonald, R., Collins-Block, C., & Morrow, L.
(2001). Learning to read: Lesson from exemplary first-grade classrooms. New
York, NY: Guilford.
Purcell-Gates, V. (2013). Real-life literacy instruction, K-3: A handbook for teachers.
Vancouver, B.C.: The Cultural Practices of Literacy Instruction.
Purcell-Gates, V., Duke, N., & Martineau, J. (2007). Learning to read and write genre-
specific text: Roles of authentic experience and explicit teaching. Reading
Research Quarterly, 42(1), 8-45.
Rasinski, T. (2003). The fluent reader: Oral reading strategies for building word
recognition, fluency, and comprehension. New York, NY: Scholastic Inc.
Rasinski, T. (2004). Creating fluent readers. Educational Leadership, 61(6), 46-51.
Rasinski, T., Padak, N., Linek, W., & Sturtevant, E. (1994). Effects of fluency
development on urban second-grade readers. Journal of Educational Research,
87(3), 158-165.
Reutzel, D., & Cooter, Jr., R.(2005). The essentials of teaching children to read: What
every teacher needs to know. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Reznitskaya, A. (2012). Dialogic teaching: Rethinking language use during literature
discussions. The Reading Teacher, 65(7), 446-456.
Rice, L. (2006). Countering the voices of scripted curriculum: Strategies for developing
English language art curriculum in the age of standards. NCTE SLATE Newsletter,
Article #115817. Retrieved from www.ncte.org/about/issues/slate/115817.
197
Riddle, B., & Valencia, S. (2002). Below the bar: Profiles of students who fail
state reading assessments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(3),
219-239.
Robb, L. (2013). Unlocking complex texts. New York, NY: Scholastic.
Rodde, A., & McHugh, L. (2013) Building the missing link between the Common
Core and improved learning. Collaborating to Accelerate Social Impact.
Retrieved from http://www.bridgespan.org/getattachment/fe6c7850-084a-4923-
a9ef-fcf9c80f0f7b/Building-the-Missing-Link.aspx.
Rouet, J. (2006). The skills of document use: From text comprehension to web-based
learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Routman, R. (1996). Literacy at the crossroads: Critical talk about reading, writing and
other teaching dilemmas. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Sam, P., & Rajan, P. (2013). Using graphic organizers to improve reading
comprehension skills for the middle school ESL students. English Language
Teaching, 6(2), 155- 107.
Schaffner, E., Schiefele, U., & Ulferts, H. (2013). Reading amount as a mediator of the
effects of intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation on reading comprehension.
Reading Research Quarterly, 48(4), 369-385.
Schleppegrell, M. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistic. A
perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
198
Schwartz, R., & Raphael, T. (1985). Concept of definition: A key to improving
students’ vocabulary. The Reading Teacher, 39(2), 198-205.
Scott, J.., & Nagy, W. (2009). Developing word consciousness. In M. Graves (Ed.).
Essential readings on vocabulary instruction. (pp. 106-117) Newark, DE:
International Reading Association.
Shanahan, T. (2003) Research-based reading instruction: Myths about the National
Reading Panel report. The Reading Teacher, 56(7), 646-655.
Shanahan, T., Callison, K., Carriere, C., Duke, N., Pearson, P., Schatschneider, C.,
& Torgesen, J. (2010). Improving reading comprehension in kindergarten
through 3rd grade: A practice guide (NCEE No. 2010-4038). Washington, DC:
National Center for Educational Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of
Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Shaw, P. (1991). A selected review of research on whole language. Journal of the
Wisconsin State Reading Association, 35(1), 3-17.
Shefelbine, J. (1990). Student factors related to variability in learning word meanings
from context. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22(1), 71-97.
Smith, N., (2002). American reading instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading
Association.
Snow, C., & Kim, Y. (2007). Large problem spaces: The challenge of vocabulary for
English language learners. In R. Wagner, A. Muse, & K. Tannenbaum (Eds.),
199
Vocabulary acquisition: Implications for reading comprehension (pp. 123-139).
New York, NY: Guilford.
Stahl, S., & Heubach, K. (2005). Fluency-oriented reading instruction. Journal of
Literacy Research, 37(1), 25-60.
Stahl, S., & Nagy, W. (2007). Teaching word meaning. New York, NY: Routledge.
Stahl, S., Richek, M., & Vandevier, R. (1991). Learning word meanings through
listening: A sixth grade replication. In J. Zutell & S. McCormick (Ed.) Learning
Factors/teacher factors: Issues in literacy research. Fortieth Yearbook of the
National Reading Conference (pp. 185-192). Chicago, IL: National Reading
Conference.
Stake, R. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Stanovich, K. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual
differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360–407.
Stuz, F., Schaffner, E., & Schiefele, U. (2016). Relations among reading motivation,
reading amount, and reading comprehension in early elementary grades. Learning
and Individual Differences, 45(1), 101-113.
Taele, W., & Gambrell, L. (2007). Raising urban students’ literacy achievement by
engaging in authentic, challenging work. The Reading Teacher, 60(8), 728-739.
200
Templeton, S., Bear, D., Invernizzi, M., Johnston, F., Flanigan, K., Townsend, D.,
Helman, L., & Hayes, L. (2015). Vocabulary their way: Word study with middle
school and secondary students. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Townsend, D. (2009). Building academic vocabulary in after-school settings: Games for
growth with middle school. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 53(3), 242-251.
Townsend, D., & Collins, P. (2008). Academic vocabulary and middle school English
learners: an intervention study. Reading and Writing, 22(9), 993-1019.
Townsend, D., Filippini, A., Collins, P., & Biancarosa, G. (2012).Evidence for the
importance of academic word knowledge for academic achievement of diverse
middle school students. The Elementary School Journal, 112(3), 497-518.
Troyer, S., & Yopp, H. (1990). Kindergarten teachers’ knowledge of emergent literacy
concepts. Reading Improvement, 27(1), 34-40.
Vacca, J., Vacca, R., Grove, M., Burkey, L., Lenhart, L., & McKeon, C. (2003). Reading
and learning to read. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Walsh, K. (2003). Basal readers: The lost opportunity to build the knowledge that propels
comprehension. American Educator, 27(1), 24-27.
Webb, N. (2002). Depth-of-knowledge levels for four content areas. Retrieved from
http://ossucurr.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/49691156/Norm%20web%20dok%20by%
20subject%20area.pdf.
201
West, M. (1953). A general service list of English words. London, UK: Longman, Green
and Co.
Westerhoff, J. (1982). McGuffey and his readers: Piety, morality, and education in the
nineteenth-century America. Fenton, MI: Mott Media.
Woods, M. L., & Moe, A. J. (2007). Analytical reading inventory: Comprehensive
standards-based assessment for all students including gifted and remedial. Upper
Saddle River, N.J: Pearson/Merrill Prentice-Hall.
Worthy, J., Moorman, M., & Turner, M. (1999). What Johnny likes to read is hard to find
in schools. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(1), 12-27.
Wyatt, T. (2014). Teaching across the lines: Adapting scripted programs with culturally
relevant/responsive teaching. Pedagogy, Culture, & Society, 22(3), 447-469.
Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Yin, R. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications.
Young, C., & Rasinski, T. (2009) Implementing readers theater as an approach to
classroom fluency instruction. The Reading Teacher, 63(1), 4-13.
202
Zwiers, J. (2006). Integrating academic language, thinking, and content: Learning
scaffolds for non-native speakers in the middle grades. Journal of English for
Academic Purposes, 5(4), 317-332.
Zwiers, J. (2007). Teacher practices and perspectives for developing academic language.
International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 17(1), 93–116.
Zwiers, J. (2008). Building academic language: Essential practices for content
classrooms. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
203
Appendix A
TITLE OF STUDY
Approaching Literacy Instruction without a Textbook: A Qualitative Study of Elementary
Literacy Instruction
RESEARCHER
Andi Morency
Amorency07@aol.com
775-313-5105
PURPOSE OF STUDY
You are being asked to take part in a research study. Before you decide to participate in
this study, it is important that you understand why the research is being done and what it
will involve. Please read the following information carefully. The purpose of this study is
to describe how teachers teach literacy in the absence of a core reading program. Please
ask the researcher if there is anything that is not clear or if you need more information.
STUDY PROCEDURES The research for this investigation blends with
general school practice, and will be conducted following a uniform protocol to ensure
that the data collected from all teachers meets the needs for practical school use, and that
the data collected from teachers choosing to participate is consistent with the study’s
goals. The timeline and protocol is presented here:
1. November 2015: Initial pre-observation interviews, observations, and post-
observation interviews will be conducted (general school practice).
2. November 2015: Initial interview audio recordings will be transcribed and
transcripts and observation notes will loaded into database, and (research
specific; however, all data will be included until participants are identified).
3. December 2015-February 2016: Second pre-observation interviews,
observations, and post-observation interviews will be conducted (general
school practice).
4. December 2015- February 2016: Second interview audio recordings will be
transcribed and transcripts and observation notes will loaded into database
(research specific; however, all data will be included until participants are
identified).
5. November 2015-March 2106: Artifacts will be collected from teacher
websites, conferring notebooks, and classroom environments (general
school practice).
6. March 11, 2016: Teachers meeting the selection criteria will be invited by
email to participate in the study by the researcher, and are informed of the
risks involved (research specific).
7. March 14, 2016: Teachers willing to participate will submit consent
waivers to identified non-participating teacher (research specific).
204
8. By February 29, 2016: All observations and interviews of teachers will be
complete (general school practice).
9. March 15, 2016: Consent waivers will be accessed but the researcher, and
participants will be identified (research specific).
10. March 2016: Non-participant data will be removed from database, and
participant data will be de-identified using each participants’ selected
pseudonym (research specific).
11. March 2016: Final participant interviews and observations will be
conducted, and audio recordings will be transcribed and uploaded into
database (research specific).
12. March 2016: All interview transcripts will be provided to participants for
member-checking (research specific).
13. March 2016: Artifacts related to participants will be uploaded into database
(research specific).
14. March 2016- April 2016: Research specific data analysis will be conducted
with participant data (research specific).
15. April 2016: Findings will be presented to participants for member-checking
(research specific).
RISKS
There are minimal risks to participating in this investigation. Involvement in the study
will take approximately one and a half hours of time outside of general school practice to
for the interview and to review interview transcripts for accuracy. You may decline to
answer any or all questions and you may terminate your involvement at any time if you
choose.
BENEFITS
Findings from this investigation and a synthesis of research in best practices in literacy
instruction will be shared with participants at the end of this investigation and may
inform your teaching practice.
CONFIDENTIALITY Your information and comments will be
anonymous. Please do not write any identifying information on artifacts. Every effort will
be made by the researcher to preserve your confidentiality including the following:
Pseudonyms for participants that will be used on all research notes and documents
All artifacts will have any identifying information removed before loading into
the database.
Keeping hard copies notes, interview transcriptions, and any other identifying
participant information in a locked file cabinet in the personal possession of the
researcher.
205
CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions at any time about this study, or you experience adverse effects as
the result of participating in this study, you may contact the researcher whose contact
information is provided on the first page.
VOLUNTARY PARTICIPATION
Your participation in this study is voluntary. It is up to you to decide whether or not to
take part in this study. If you decide to take part in this study, you will be asked to sign a
consent form. After you sign the consent form, you are still free to withdraw at any time
and without giving a reason. Withdrawing from this study will not affect the relationship
you have with the researcher.
CONSENT
I have read and I understand the provided information and have had the opportunity to
ask questions. I understand that my participation is voluntary and that I am free to
withdraw at any time, without giving a reason and without cost. I understand that I will
be given a copy of this consent form. I voluntarily agree to take part in this study.
_____ I elect to have my final observation unscheduled
_____ I elect to have my final observation scheduled
Participant's signature ______________________________ Date __________
Researcher’s signature _____________________________
206
Appendix B
Observation Worksheet
Observation # ________ Participant: ________________
Time: _________ Date: ______________
Physical Space
People
Notes:
207
Best-Practices Checklist
Observed
Notes
Authentic meaning-making experiences
High-quality literature
Integrated word study
Multiple texts to expand and link concepts
Balanced student-led and teacher-led discussions
Build background knowledge
Small group instruction
Direct strategy instruction
Time to read in class
Assessment to inform instruction
Adapted from Morrow et al., 2003
Field Notes:
Summary:
208
Appendix C
Interview Protocol
Questions for Pre-Observation Interviews:
1. What will I be observing in your class?
2. Tell me about how you planned for this lesson.
3. What materials will you and students be using during the class?
4. What instructional practices will you use during the class?
5. Is there anything else I should know about what I will see during the lesson?
Questions for Post-Observation Interviews:
1. How were students in your class engaged in literacy practices?
2. What systems are in place to support students engaged in literacy practices?
3. What instructional practices did you use to teach literacy?
4. How did the lesson meet you planning and expectations?
5. How did the lesson differ from your planning and expectations?
6. How did you measure and record students’ learning?
