This study reports the results of a survey of a representative sample of 1,206 K-6 classroom and 7-12 English Language Arts teachers in Oregon to learn 1) what reading instructional materials are currently being used, 2) what reading instructional materials teachers would prefer, 3) what reading instructional materials teachers wanted to have included on the state approved materials list, and 4) what instructional practices teachers use. Results indicated that in grades K-6 basal/core reading programs were the predominant material in use, but that these teachers preferred to use trade books. The majority of grades 7-12 English Language Arts teachers reported mainly using trade books for reading instruction. Teachers wanted to use their professional judgment to make decisions about materials. When asked about revisions to the Oregon Statute 337 and the Oregon Administrative Rule 581 Division 11, only 4.5% of Oregon K-12 teachers wanted their choice limited to basal/core reading programs. All others wanted flexibility in selecting instructional materials. Overall teacher preferences for the approved instructional materials were not associated with teacher type, grade level, school context, or school Title I status

Davis, Dennis

Landon-Hays, Melanie

Larson, Mindy Legard

Lauritzen, Carol

LeJeune, Marie

Lenski, Sue

McElhone, Dot

Villagómez, Amanda

Yeigh, Maika

English

Name not available

Oregon Reading Instructional Materials and Practices Statewide Survey Executive Summary

DigitalCommons@Linfield

Linfield College DigitalCommons@Linfield Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship & Creative Works 11-2015 Oregon Reading Instructional Materials and Practices Statewide Survey Executive Summary Sue Lenski Portland State University Dot McElhone Portland State Universtiy Mindy Legard Larson Linfield College Maika Yeigh Portland State University Carol Lauritzen Eastern Oregon University See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.linfield.edu/educfac_pubs  Part of the Curriculum and Instruction Commons, Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Research Commons, Educational Methods Commons, Elementary Education and Teaching Commons, Reading and Language Commons, and the Secondary Education and Teaching Commons This Published Version is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It is brought to you for free via open access, courtesy of DigitalCommons@Linfield, with permission from the rights-holder(s). Your use of this Published Version must comply with the Terms of Use for material posted in DigitalCommons@Linfield, or with other stated terms (such as a Creative Commons license) indicated in the record and/or on the work itself. For more information, or if you have questions about permitted uses, please contact digitalcommons@linfield.edu. Authors Sue Lenski, Dot McElhone, Mindy Legard Larson, Maika Yeigh, Carol Lauritzen, Amanda Villagómez, Dennis Davis, Marie LeJeune, and Melanie Landon-Hays DigitalCommons@Linfield Citation Lenski, Sue; McElhone, Dot; Larson, Mindy Legard; Yeigh, Maika; Lauritzen, Carol; Villagómez, Amanda; Davis, Dennis; LeJeune, Marie; and Landon-Hays, Melanie, "Oregon Reading Instructional Materials and Practices Statewide Survey Executive Summary" (2015). Faculty Publications. Published Version. Submission 11. https://digitalcommons.linfield.edu/educfac_pubs/11 This published version is available at DigitalCommons@Linfield: https://digitalcommons.linfield.edu/educfac_pubs/11     OREGON READING INSTRUCTIONAL MATERIALS  AND PRACTICES  STATEWIDE SURVEY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY    SUE LENSKI  DOT MCELHONE  MINDY LEGARD LARSON  MAIKA YEIGH  CAROL LAURITZEN  AMANDA VILLAGÓMEZ  DENNIS DAVIS  MARIE LEJEUNE  MELANIE LANDON-HAYS      O R E G O N  T E A C H E R S  O F  T E A C H E R S  O F  L I T E R A C Y  N O V E M B E R  2 0 1 5    2  SURVEY CONDUCTED BY OREGON TEACHERS  OF TEACHERS OF LITERACY  Susan Lenski, Portland State University Mindy Legard Larson, Linfield College Dot McElhone, Portland State University Dennis S. Davis, University of Texas at San Antonio Carol Lauritzen, Eastern Oregon University Amanda Villagómez, Eastern Oregon University Maika Yeigh, Portland State University Melanie Landon-Hays, Western Oregon University Marie LeJeune, Western Oregon University Kimberly Ilovsay, University of Portland W. David Scales, Western Carolina University Ken Winograd, Oregon State University Donna Kalmbach Phillips, Pacific University Jennifer Schulze, Western Oregon University Beth LaForce, George Fox University Katy Turpen, George Fox University Aimee Alexander-Shea, Eastern Oregon University Carol Brazo, George Fox University Kris Molitor, George Fox University Ruth Shagoury, Lewis & Clark College David Ward, Lewis & Clark Kathryn Ciechanowski, Oregon State University Margaret Perrow, Southern Oregon University Rebecca Olien, Southern Oregon University Peter Thacker, University of Portland Audrey Lucero, University of Oregon Jill Bryant, Portland Community College Rita Moore, Willamette University Tracy Smiles, Western Oregon University Erin Wilder, Southern Oregon University Amy Lutz, George Fox University Susanna Steeg, George Fox University Karren Timmermans, Pacific University Catherine Kim, Pacific University Robert Nava, Warner Pacific University Sarri Gibson, Linfield College Kathy Porterfield, Concordia University   OREGON TEACHERS OF TEACHERS  OF LITERACY  This study was conducted by a group of literacy teacher educators from across Oregon called Teachers of Teachers of Literacy (ToTL). In 2012 teacher educators in Oregon saw the need for statewide networking and a small group reached out to all of the state’s teacher educators to develop a networking group. Currently, there are 35 ToTL members that represent 15 teacher preparation institutions in the state, plus an additional two members from outside the state that contributed statistical analyses. The state has a total of 20 teacher preparation institutions, so the ToTL membership represents 75 percent of the total number of colleges and universities that prepare teachers. ToTL has members from each geographical region of the state.    2  O R E G O N  R E A D I N G  I N S T R U C T I O N A L  M A T E R I A L S  A N D  P R A C T I C E S  S T A T E W I D E  S U R V E Y  E X E C U T I V E  S U M M A R Y   ABSTRACT  This study reports the results of a survey of a representative sample of 1,206 K-6 classroom and 7-12 English Language Arts teachers in Oregon to learn 1) what reading instructional materials are currently being used, 2) what reading instructional materials teachers would prefer, 3) what reading instructional materials teachers wanted to have included on the state approved materials list, and 4) what instructional practices teachers use. Results indicated that in grades K-6 basal/core reading programs were the predominant material in use, but that these teachers preferred to use trade books. The majority of grades 7-12 English Language Arts teachers reported mainly using trade books for reading instruction. Teachers wanted to use their professional judgment to make decisions about materials. When asked about revisions to the Oregon Statute 337 and the Oregon Administrative Rule 581 Division 11, only 4.5% of Oregon K-12 teachers wanted their choice limited to basal/core reading programs.  All others wanted flexibility in selecting instructional materials. Overall teacher preferences for the approved instructional materials were not associated with teacher type, grade level, school context, or school Title I status.           3 O R E G O N  R E A D I N G  I N S T R U C T I O N A L  M A T E R I A L S  A N D  P R A C T I C E S  S T A T E W I D E  S U R V E Y  E X E C U T I V E  S U M M A R Y   Background  The educational policies of the past decade, especially Reading First, have had an impact on reading instruction across the country (Long & Selden, 2011). By 2007 Reading First grants impacted 10% of the public school population across the United States (USDOE, 2009). In our region, 202 schools received Reading First funds which created a “paradigm shift in reading instruction” by mandating core reading programs1 and influencing non-Reading First schools to adopt core reading programs (Oregon State Department of Education, 2007).  According to The Center on Education Policy (2006), “Reading First has affected schools and districts that [did] not participate directly in Reading First. Many districts . . . expanded Reading First instructional programs and assessment systems to non-Reading First schools” (p. 1). Although the Reading First grant program ended in 2009, the core reading programs adopted with Reading First money are still prevalent in schools. According to Dewitz, Leahy, Jones, and Sullivan (2010), core reading programs are “a staple of instruction in U.S. schools today” (p. 10).  Oregon adopted the Common Core State Standards (NGA Center for Best Practices & CCSSO, 2010) in 2012, and the direction of reading instruction began to change. Some of the shifts necessitated by the CCSS were increased amounts of informational text, reading texts with increased text complexity, and pedagogical movements towards close reading and textual analysis.  Existing core reading program adoptions in districts often did not align to the CCSS and did not include sufficient informational texts, nor were there sufficient levels of text complexity and/or alignment to                                                       1 The term “basal” and “core reading program” are used interchangeably in this survey. “Basal reading programs were rebranded in the early 2000s into ‘core reading programs…’” (Dewitz & Jones, 2013, pp. 392-393). “Core reading programs” is the term used most often by textbook companies and the US Department of Education, yet the Oregon Revised Statute 337 and the Oregon Administrative Rule 581 Division 11 regarding textbook adoptions still use the term “basals.”    4 the new CCSS. As a result, teachers began to recognize that the core reading programs were insufficient to support students’ attainment of CCSS goals.  Schools are currently in a transitional period between the influences of Reading First and the CCSS. Therefore, we wanted to systematically learn what reading materials are predominantly used in the state, and what instructional reading materials teachers preferred to teach from.  Research Questions This study reports the results of the survey of teachers in Oregon and answers the following research questions: 1. What instructional materials do teachers report using to teach reading? 2. What instructional materials would teachers prefer to use to teach reading if given options? 3. What materials do teachers want to have included on the approved state instructional materials adoption list? 4. What instructional practices do teachers report using to teach reading? Data Collection Survey collection began on September 24, 2014 and continued until November 2, 2014 for a total of 42 days. ToTL members contacted district administrators, reading specialists, and classroom teachers through email. Since some of the districts did not have websites, we asked Educational Service Districts (ESD) to contact teachers in these districts. We also asked the Oregon Reading Association to ask local councils to distribute the survey, and we posted the survey on the Oregon Council of Teachers of English’s Facebook page. We contacted teachers that we knew in our regions, and we asked the classroom teachers to share the survey with their colleagues.  1395 surveys were submitted electronically, but 189 of them were left blank, meaning the respondent clicked through the survey, but did not select responses. 1,206 surveys were usable which was 6.81 percent of the total number of teachers who would be using reading or ELA   5 materials in the state. Of the total number of participants, 60.3% taught in grades K-4 and 39.6% taught in grades 5-12. We were able to get responses from 162 of the 196 school districts, or 82.6%. The final survey question provided participants with an opportunity to share, “Any comments you have about reading materials.”  We received 365 individual responses. At the end of the survey, we asked if the participants would be interested in participating in a follow-up telephone interview. Thirty-four teachers contacted us to be interviewed. Of the 34 interview participants, 12 taught in urban areas, 12 taught in small towns, and 10 taught in rural schools. The number of years the teachers had taught ranged from 2 to 34. Teachers of all grade levels, Title 1 teachers and reading specialists were represented.  Data Analysis Surveys were completed online and the data was imported directly into Excel data files by SurveyMonkey, which prevented data entry errors. We calculated descriptive statistics and frequencies for each item.  Then we ran cross-tabulations to identify statistically significant relationships between teacher variables (e.g., grade level, Title I status of school) and responses to items related to instructional materials and practices used and preferred instructional materials.  Where at least 10% of cells in a table had expected counts less than 5, we used Fisher’s exact test to verify the significance of the contrast. In all cases where a significant difference was found from the chi-square test, the Fisher’s exact test also yielded a p-value below the significance threshold, so we report the chi-square values and corresponding p-values in the tables. To investigate the strength of statistically significant associations between teacher variables and materials used, practices used, and preferred materials, we used Cramér’s V.       6 Findings Research Question #1: What materials do teachers report using to teach reading? The majority (53.9%) of K-6 teachers reported using basal/core reading programs.  A relationship exists between the status of the school as a Title I school and the instructional materials used. Nearly 59% of teachers in Title I schools report predominately using core reading programs or other packaged programs as their primary instructional materials in reading, as compared to 36.5% of teachers in non-Title I schools.     7 The majority of grades 7-12 teachers (56%) reported mainly using teacher or student selected trade books as the predominant instructional materials for reading.  Fifty-eight percent of K-12 teachers used trade books to supplement their reading instructional materials. K-6 teachers were most likely to supplement their reading instruction with leveled books (64.2%), followed by trade books (chapter books/novels/informational texts) (57.2%).  Grades 7-12 teachers were most likely to supplement their reading instruction with trade books (61.1%), followed by Internet texts (58.1%). Research Question #2: What materials would teachers prefer to use to teach reading if given options? K-12 teachers preferred using books, novels, and informational texts they selected (33.8%) or trade books with supplemental packaged materials (35.7%) when given options for selecting instructional materials. Few teachers prefer primarily using a core program (4.6%) or literature anthology (2.2%) for their reading instruction.    8 Only 5.6% of K-6 teachers reported wanting to teach primarily from a basal/core reading program. K-6 teachers reported a preference for using trade books with supplemental packaged materials (37.8%), and teacher-selected books, novels, and informational texts (30%) when given options for selecting instructional reading materials.  Only 2.2% of grades 7-12 teachers reported wanting to teach primarily from a literature anthology. Grades 7-12 teachers preferred teaching from teacher-selected books/novels/informational texts (33.8%) and trade books/novels/texts with a supplemental packaged program (35.7%) when given options for selecting instructional reading materials.   9  Research Question #3: What materials do teachers want to have included on the approved state instructional materials adoption list? Overall teachers want access to a variety of instructional materials. Only 8.3% want the Oregon Revised Statute 337 and the Oregon Administrative Rule 581 Division 11 governing the approved state textbook adoption instructional materials list to continue allowing only basal/core reading programs. 82.7% want to allow supplemental materials (digital and/or print). 66.0% want to allow intervention programs. 52.7% want to allow Open Educational Resources (OER) (free digital texts). 62.6% want to allow new materials developed between review cycles.  Research Question #4: What instructional practices do teachers report using to teach reading? Teachers use research-based practices either daily or almost daily. Overall, the practices that occur daily or almost daily by teachers in the sample were students reading books/texts they understand (91.6%), students listening to an adult read aloud (82.8%), students spending more time reading connected texts than on   10 reading-related activities (81.8%), independent reading time for students (79.8%), and students reading self-selected materials (77.2%). Students talk with their peers about their reading daily or almost daily in 70.7% of classrooms. Most teachers (65.9%) indicated that they use picture books, novels, or informational texts in their teaching daily or almost daily.     11        12       13      14 Recommendations 1. Teachers should have agency to access a variety of instructional materials based on their classroom context. 2. Teachers should use their professional expertise to select and implement instructional materials. 3. The Oregon Revised Statute 337 and the Oregon Administrative Rule 581 Division 11 should reflect the important role of teacher expertise in employing instructional materials. The new process of selection of instructional materials should encourage the adoption of additional materials including digital materials, open educational materials and materials created by schools, districts and states; minimize and/or remove barriers to publishers to encourage maximum participation of material submissions; create a new process to identify high quality instructional materials; and create new review criteria for Oregon districts.  References  Center on Education Policy. (2006). Keeping watch on Reading First. Washington D.C.  Retrieved from http://www.cep-dc.org/displayDocument.cfm?DocumentID=225 Dewitz, P. & Jones, J. (2013). Using basal readers: From dutiful fidelity to intelligent  decision making. The Reading Teacher, 66(5), 391-400. Dewitz, P., Leahy, S. B., Jones, J., & Maslin Sullivan, P. (2010). The essential guide to  selecting and using core reading programs. Newark, DE: International Reading  Association. Long, R.M., & Selden, R. (2011). How reading research and federal policy on reading  instruction have interrelated over the past 35 year. In S.J. Samuels & A.E.  Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (4th ed.) (pp. 448-461). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.  National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State  School Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards. Washington, DC:  Authors. Oregon State Department of Education. (2007).  United States Department of Education. (2009). Reading First impact study final report.  (NCEE: 2009-4038). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 

https://digitalcommons.linfield.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&amp;context=educfac_pubs

Oregon Reading Instructional Materials and Practices Statewide Survey Executive Summary

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Name not available

DigitalCommons@Linfield