Beginning Reading Instruction in Massachusetts Public Schools: Research, Policy, and Teachers\u27 Knowledge and Beliefs

Research on reading acquisition and instruction has identified the incorporation of an explicit, systematic code-based approach into a comprehensive reading curriculum as most successful in teaching beginning readers, including those who are reading disabled (e.g., Adams, 1990; National Reading Panel, 2000; Pressley, 2002; Rayner, Foorman, Perfetti, Pesetsky, & Seidenberg, 2001). Yet, 70% of 4th grade students nationwide and 60% of such students in Massachusetts are not reading at proficient levels (National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2003), statistics which raise questions about how well the research is translated into educational policies and classroom practices. Over the course of my Fenwick year, I have investigated the process by which research may influence educational decisions regarding early reading instruction in Massachusetts public schools, through a review of the relevant literature and state and national policies (e.g., Massachusetts Education Reform Act, 1993; Massachusetts English/Language Arts Curriculum Framework, 2001; No Child Left Behind, 2001), a set of semi-structured interviews with policymakers, school administrators, and teachers (n=58), and a statewide teacher survey (n=112). Although educational policies are aligned with instructional methods supported by research, the degree to which individual districts or schools utilize these policies or the research itself to guide decisions varies. Furthermore, teachers tend to overestimate their own knowledge of reading research and/or devalue the worth of this knowledge for guiding classroom practices. Teachers\u27 lack of motivation to become more familiar with research findings is compounded by a lack of access to such findings. Nor do teachers generally have the prerequisite knowledge to implement the code-based approach which is supported by research, as found on the Teacher Knowledge Assessment: Structure of Language (Bos, Mather, Dickson, Podhajski, & Chard, 2002). A more concerted effort by all professionals involved in the educational system, including educators, policymakers, and researchers, is required to better translate reading research into educational practice

Various Measures of Socioeconomic Status as Predictors of Formal and Informal Home Literacy Environments

Individual differences in literacy during early childhood are important predictors of later reading ability (Sénéchal & LeFevre, 2002) and cognitive achievements (Downer & Pianta 2006). These differences in early literacy have been shown to be associated with various forms of literacy opportunities in the home, collectively known as the home literacy environment (HLE; Sénéchal & LeFevre, 2002). HLE includes both an informal aspect, which involves “those [activities] for which the primary goal is the message contained in the print,” and a formal aspect, which entails “those [activities] for which parent and child focus on the print” (Sénéchal & LeFevre, 2002, p. 1). Each aspect of HLE is correlated with different aspects of future literacy. HLE, however, does not exist in a vacuum; it is associated with multiple family-level variables, most notably socioeconomic status (SES). Like HLE, SES can be conceptualized in many ways. The researchers hypothesized that different aspects of SES would be differentially related to HLE, and that Informal HLE would be more strongly predicted by income-related measures, whereas Formal HLE would be more strongly predicted by education-related measures. To disentangle this complex association between SES and HLE, the researchers administered surveys to the parents of 393 preschool-aged children in Columbus to document their Informal HLE, Formal HLE, and multiple aspects of their SES, including income, income-to-needs ratio, and parental education. Multiple regression was used to predict Informal and Formal HLE from the various SES measures. Results indicated that income (β=.182, p=.010), income to needs ratio (β=.179, p=.014), and maternal education (β=.207, p=.013) are unique, significant predictors of Informal HLE. No measures of SES were significant predictors of Formal HLE. The results suggest that SES plays a role in Informal HLE, but also suggest that SES is not a catch-all predictor of HLE and that factors not explored in this study may predict both Informal and Formal HLE. Although the results do not fully support hypotheses, they suggest the existence of complex associations between SES and HLE that must be understood in order to develop initiatives that address the underlying causes of disparities in early childhood literacy.U.S. Department of EducationAcademic Major: PsychologyAcademic Major: Public Affair

Teachers’ Perspectives on Year Two Implementation of a Kindergarten Readiness Assessment

In this study we examined teachers’ perspectives regarding the second year of implementing a Kindergarten Readiness Assessment (KRA). Using a mixed-methods approach, we focused on the administration process, the perceived benefits of the assessment, and how teachers used the assessment to inform instruction. We also investigated whether these differed by teacher and district characteristics and how KRA experiences were different in the second year of implementation. Research Findings: Teachers generally did not view the KRA as beneficial for instruction or for students, reporting administration difficulties, inadequate KRA content, and limited utility of KRA data for supporting instruction as ongoing barriers to KRA use. Although the administration process seemed to be easier in the second year, teachers still reported it as burdensome, cutting into important beginning of kindergarten activities. Notably, teacher training and experience were associated with perceptions. Practice or Policy: Reasons for perceived lack of utility have important implications for future KRA design and implementation. These include better integration of KRAs into existing assessment systems, recognizing the added burden of KRAs to teachers (particularly at the beginning of kindergarten), and the role that additional training may have in supporting use of KRAs at the local level

Teachers’ experiences with a state-mandated kindergarten readiness assessment

This study used an embedded mixed method design to examine teachers’ experiences with a state-mandated kindergarten readiness assessment during its inaugural year. Participants were 143 kindergarten teachers from one county in a Midwestern state. In general, teachers did not perceive the Kindergarten Readiness Assessment as useful for one of its intended purposes of guiding instruction. Our findings did not indicate an adversity to assessment in general. Rather, perceptions that the new KRA was less useful for practice seemed to stem from administration issues, problems with the content assessed by the KRA, and participants’ misunderstandings regarding the purpose of the KRA. Furthermore, participants reported that the KRA took away valuable time needed to help students adjust to their first time in formal schooling and needed to create a classroom community. Implications for creating and implementing kindergarten readiness and other assessments as well as preparing teachers to use readiness assessments are discussed

How Do Differing Stakeholders Perceive Instances of Literacy Instruction?

In this study, we investigated how early childhood teachers’ perspectives on their enacted literacy instruction aligned with the perspectives of observers of that same instruction. Two master teachers and two researchers, all with early childhood expertise, observed and reported their perspectives of 45 instances of literacy instruction. These were examined for alignment across each other and with teachers’ descriptions of their thinking during the instruction. Participants’ perceptions of instruction tended to align, yet there were notable differences in perceptions about context and goals. Although we often found common ground among participants regarding the purpose of instruction, there were interesting variations across participants that highlighted the complexity of classroom processes, the value of teachers’ contextual knowledge and the multiple perspectives brought to bear on the same instance of instruction

Teachers’ perspectives on the Kindergarten Readiness Assessment in year 2: Easier to administer but what role can it play in instruction?

In this white paper, we present the results of a survey completed by teachers from across Ohio concerning their perceptions of Ohio’s Kindergarten Readiness Assessment (KRA). We examined teachers’ perceptions during year 2 of KRA implementation and compared those results to findings from a similar survey completed in year 1 of the assessment implementation. Over 3,000 Ohio public school kindergarten teachers were invited to complete the survey; of which 841 responded. In year 2, teachers reported that administering the KRA was easier, compared to year 1. However, they expressed concerns that the assessment took too long to administer, distracted from creating a classroom community, and decreased instructional time. Similar to findings from year 1, teachers reported that the assessment was not useful for guiding instruction or otherwise benefiting students; yet, teachers did report an increase in using the KRA to identify students at risk for later academic problems. In contrast to year 1, teachers seemed to better understand the purposes of the assessment although there were still some remaining misconceptions. Overall, despite some changes in perceptions, teachers continued to express concerns with the KRA’s implementation and remained unclear as to its role in improving instruction or outcomes for students

Using the new Kindergarten Readiness Assessment: What do teachers and principals think?

This white paper presents the results of a survey completed by teachers and principals in central Ohio concerning their perceptions of Ohio’s new Kindergarten Readiness Assessment (KRA) during its inaugural implementation year. All kindergarten teachers and principals in Franklin County public elementary schools were invited to complete the survey; 150 responded. Although teachers and principals generally reported using assessments, including the previous state-mandated KRA-L screening tool, to guide their instructional decisions, the majority of participants did not perceive that the KRA, in particular, was useful for guiding instruction. Moreover, teachers reported that administering the KRA took away valuable time needed to help students adjust to learning in a formal school setting and create a classroom community. Administration issues, lack of access to the data, redundancy or incompleteness of KRA data, and misconceptions about the purpose of the KRA all seemed to contribute to participants’ dissatisfaction with the KRA. Overall, it seems that teachers are not using the KRA as intended. Our findings do not indicate an adversity to assessment in general. Rather, negative perceptions and/or lack of use seem to be tied to a misunderstanding of the purpose of the KRA and administration issues

What Happens During Language and Literacy Coaching? Coaches’ Reports of Their Interactions With Educators

Research Findings: This study investigated coaches’ interactions with educators in the context of a large-scale, state-implemented literacy professional development (PD). We examined log data and open-comment reports to understand what coaches found salient about their interactions with educators as well as how those reports aligned with the initial design of the PD. Coaches reported spending a large proportion of their interactions with educators completing administrative tasks. Our findings also indicate that coaches disproportionally targeted instructional content from the PD while also adding unrelated instructional content to their coaching. Although coaches reported focusing on relationship building, they reported using less efficacious coaching strategies (e.g., observation and discussion) more frequently than coaching strategies demonstrated to be more efficacious (e.g., modeling and co-teaching). Practice or Policy: Our findings suggest an explanation for the mixed evidence around coaching, as coaches in the study seemed to move beyond the specifications of the PD in their coaching interactions. This work has implications for the design of PD for both improving coach training and allowing some flexibility to meet educators’ learning needs that may be secondary to the content of the PD. Findings also support the need for more nuanced mechanisms for investing in coaching and coaching outcomes

What Happens During Language and Literacy Coaching? Coaches’ Reports of Their Interactions With Educators

Research Findings: This study investigated coaches’ interactions with educators in the context of a large-scale, state-implemented literacy professional development (PD). We examined log data and open-comment reports to understand what coaches found salient about their interactions with educators as well as how those reports aligned with the initial design of the PD. Coaches reported spending a large proportion of their interactions with educators completing administrative tasks. Our findings also indicate that coaches disproportionally targeted instructional content from the PD while also adding unrelated instructional content to their coaching. Although coaches reported focusing on relationship building, they reported using less efficacious coaching strategies (e.g., observation and discussion) more frequently than coaching strategies demonstrated to be more efficacious (e.g., modeling and co-teaching). Practice or Policy: Our findings suggest an explanation for the mixed evidence around coaching, as coaches in the study seemed to move beyond the specifications of the PD in their coaching interactions. This work has implications for the design of PD for both improving coach training and allowing some flexibility to meet educators’ learning needs that may be secondary to the content of the PD. Findings also support the need for more nuanced mechanisms for investing in coaching and coaching outcomes

What Happens During Language and Literacy Coaching? Coaches’ Reports of Their Interactions With Educators

Research Findings: This study investigated coaches’ interactions with educators in the context of a large-scale, state-implemented literacy professional development (PD). We examined log data and open-comment reports to understand what coaches found salient about their interactions with educators as well as how those reports aligned with the initial design of the PD. Coaches reported spending a large proportion of their interactions with educators completing administrative tasks. Our findings also indicate that coaches disproportionally targeted instructional content from the PD while also adding unrelated instructional content to their coaching. Although coaches reported focusing on relationship building, they reported using less efficacious coaching strategies (e.g., observation and discussion) more frequently than coaching strategies demonstrated to be more efficacious (e.g., modeling and co-teaching). Practice or Policy: Our findings suggest an explanation for the mixed evidence around coaching, as coaches in the study seemed to move beyond the specifications of the PD in their coaching interactions. This work has implications for the design of PD for both improving coach training and allowing some flexibility to meet educators’ learning needs that may be secondary to the content of the PD. Findings also support the need for more nuanced mechanisms for investing in coaching and coaching outcomes