This report describes the development and implementation of an in-service program in reading instruction for practising secondary teachers

Harker, W. John

English

ScholarWorks at WMU

Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy and 
Language Arts 
Volume 25 
Issue 2 January 1985 Article 1 
1-1-1985 
A Functional Approach to In-Service for Secondary Content-Area 
Teachers 
W. John Harker 
University of Victoria, British Columbia 
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizons 
 Part of the Education Commons 
Recommended Citation 
Harker, W. J. (1985). A Functional Approach to In-Service for Secondary Content-Area Teachers. Reading 
Horizons: A Journal of Literacy and Language Arts, 25 (2). Retrieved from 
https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizons/vol25/iss2/1 
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by 
the Special Education and Literacy Studies at 
ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion 
in Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy and Language 
Arts by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks at WMU. 
For more information, please contact wmu-
scholarworks@wmich.edu. 
A FUNCTIONAL APPROACH TO 
IN-SERVICE FOR SECONDARY 
CONTENT-AREA TEACHERS 
W. John Harker 
UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA, BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA 
This report describes the development and implementation 
of an in-service program in reading instruction for practising 
secondary teachers. The program to date has been carried out in 
seven locations in the United States and Canada and has involved 
247 teachers. Its development and implementation, and the evalu-
ative data which have come from its use, provide valuable insights 
into secondary teachers' perceptions of reading instruction, and 
the needs of these teachers in an in-service setting. 
Needs Assessment 
Rather than remalnlng satisfied with preconceived notions 
of teachers' specific needs in reading, as a first step in develop-
ing the program, an assessment instrument was designed to detennine 
teachers' own perceptions of their needs. As a result of using 
this instrument, the focus of the program has been sharpened and 
its credibility with teachers has been heightened through the 
initial determination and subsequent recognition of teachers' 
specific needs. 
The Secondary Reading In-service Assessment form which was 
developed is shown below. It is normally completed by teachers 
about two weeks before the scheduling of the in-service program. 
Secondary Reading In-Service Needs Assessment 
As you know, in a few weeks you and your colleagues will be par-
ticipating in an in-service program in secondary reading. 
For this program to be as successful as possible, it would be 
helpful if you would indicate on the questionnaire below those 
topics which you particularly would like to be included. 
Thank you for assisting in this way. We look forward to working 
with you soon. 
( Answers, 1 important, 2 = undecided, and 3 = not important) 
1. Word-attack skills 
2. Comprehension skills 
3. Speed 
4. Locating information 
5. Organizing information 
6. Retention skills 
7. ~3R 
8. The nature of individual differences 
9. Determining students' needs 
10. Specific teaching techniques 
11. Classroom organization strategies 
12. Appropriate instructional materials 
78-rh 
Figure 1 shows the prevailing trends in the accumulated re-
sponses of the two hundred and forty-seven teachers who have used 
the assessment so far. It is clear that the majority of teachers 
are relatively less interested in learning about specific reading 
;mel "tllely "ki 11" t,han they :::Ire concerned with the rrlture and causes 
of the inrlhrirln'11 rliff0r0nr0~ in r0'loinr:. w.,yr nf ript,pnnininp: 
students' particular reading and study skills needs, specific 
teaching techniques, ways of organizing their classrooms to accom-
modate students' reading and study skill demands, and techniques 
for selecting instructional materials--all topics having more 
to do with the process of instruction (the "how" of teaching) 
than the product ("what" to teach). These data suggest the teachers 
believe they already know about skills--their problem is how to 
implement skills instruction in their classrooms. 
Figure 1 
Topic Options 
%'s as determined by Needs Assessment 
10 - 20 30 - 40 - 50 - 60 - 70 - 80 90 
Word 
Attack xx:xxxxxxx 
Compre-
hension xx:xxxxxxxxxx:x 
Speed x 
Locating :x:xxx:xxxxxxxx 
Organi-
zing xx:xxxxxxxxxxxx 
Reten-
tion 
SQ3R 
Indivi-
dual 
Differ. 
Student 
Needs 
Teach. 
Tech-
niques 
Classnn. 
Organiz 
at ion 
Instruc-
tional 
x:x:xxxxxxxxxxx 
xx:xxxxxxx 
Materials xx~oo~xx~oo~xx~oo~xx~oo~xx~oaxxxxKXX 
rh-79 
While our initial reaction to the distinction between teacher' 
expressed need for help with the process as opposed to the product 
of reading instruction was caution ("Do they really know what 
context clues, etc., are?" ), subsequent experience has proven 
the accuracy of this finding. Two factors seem to contribute to 
it. The first is that the emphasis on teaching secondary reading 
in recent years, and the informal discussion among teachers which 
this emphasis has produced, has created a pool of shared informa-
tion among practising teachers about reading skills--teachers 
know what these skills are, but they don't know exactly how to 
go about teaching them in their classrooms. A second related factor 
is the collegial education provided by those relatively few younger 
teachers who have entered the profession in recent years and who 
have had pre-service or in some cases post-graduate courses in 
secondary reading. The expertise of these better-informed teachers 
has to some extent rubbed off on their colleagues. The result 
is that most practising secondary teachers today do know what 
reading and study skills are, but they need help in the process 
of teaching these skills. Moreover, the pattern of response as 
revealed by Figure 1 was almost identical in each of the sever: 
locations where the needs assessment has been administered. 
Program Content 
Space limitations prevent an extensive outline of the specific 
contents of the in-service program which was developed. However, 
the following provides a general overview: 
1. Introduction: Teaching Reading in Content Areas 
A. The range of reading abilities to be expected 
in the typical content area classroom 
B. The specificity of reading abilities in the 
content areas 
2. Assessing Reading Abilities 
A. Standardized Tests 
B. Informal Tests 
3. Determining Instructional Strategies 
A. Questioning Techniques 
B. Study Guides 
4. Organizing the Classroom for Instruction 
5. Selecting Instructional Materials 
I t can be seen that the emphasis of the program is placed on the 
process dimension of reading instruction as opposed to the pro-
duct, this being the required emphasis indicated by the needs 
assessment. 
Program Features 
We believe that equally imrortant with the actual content 
of the program are some of the features we tried to build into 
it. These may be summarized as follows: 
Responsive--The program has a functional emphasis in that 
it is based on teaching reading in content areas and not on teach-
ing reading as a separate subject divorced from the learning of 
specific content-area material. In this way teachers are able 
to see that the in-service program responds directly to their 
8o-rh 
IBIticular instructional needs. To reinforce this linkage, we 
encourage teachers to bring and to use during the program examples 
of the COl!tert-arE~cl j rlstructional rmterial they teach fron: in 
their classrooms. 
Participatory--There is an emphasis on jndl vidual and group 
IBIticipation and the acccrrmodation of teachers' individLal differ-
ences as ttese are evider.ced by the various content-areas and 
grade level teachers teach. In this way we try to roodel effective 
teaching as well as preact it. 
Contributory--We erco1.:rage teachers to talk to one another, 
to compare and sha'e teacr.ing ideas ar,d E,O] utions to mutually 
encountered problems. Besides directing the learning of teachers, 
we interpret our role to be catalysts in erco1.:raging the centribl;-
tory group learning of participants. 
StructLred-·- Sirlce time is limited (usually tc er.E: day), we 
have found that a reasonably structured program is preferable 
to a loosely orgcmized one whicr. threatens to provide little more 
than ar, opportunity to snare misinfonnation. V<i'hile we encourage 
teachers to srare, we also direct what is to be shared ar,d hoy.;. 
Contrary to our initial misgivings about this approad: based on 
our fear that t.,E~lchers would resent this kirlcl of directed activity, 
teachEr; generC'llly seem quite accepting of tUs str·ucturing. 
Follow-Up--The structvre for the progrcm l :i.s provided by the 
booklet which WE deve] oped and whi Cf:, every teacher works UJTough 
during the program. The booklet contains djrections for (-Jctivities 
in which participarts engage ard to y.;hich they cortribute directly 
(e.g., determining alf[.>ropriate reading, study skj]] instructional 
objectives, preparing a 2.tudy guide, planrdng cJaE,sroom organiza-
tiol!, and individualizing instruction). The result is t,l,at Cit 
the conclusion of the program, each teacher takes away a mini-
textbook which he or she has evolved from the program and which 
contains ideas and answers gained from directed activities and 
discussion with other teachers during the program. The philosophy 
here is that by providing sanething tangible to take away, teachers 
are encouraged to review and over time use the information they 
have gained rather than forget it or feel inhibited from applying 
it because of a sense of lost familiarity. 
Evaluation 
The final part of the program is its evaluation. Approximately 
two weeks after the program has been run, each participant is 
asked to complete the Secondary Reading In-service Evaluation 
which is shown below. A two-week interval has the effect of dampen-
ing any unrealistic euphoria generated by the program, and, more 
important, the interval also gives teachers time to apply and 
assess in their own classrooms some of the information and ideas 
which the program provides. 
The results of the evaluation are SUIIlTE.rized in Figure 2. 
As can be seen, teachers have determined most aspects of the pro-
gram to be successful. The one really disappointing element is 
the apparent lack of follow-up in the schools. This is a perennial 
problem with in-service and one which seriously threatens its 
rh-81 
Secondary Reading In-Service Evaluation 
Approxirrately two weeks ago you participated in an in-service 
program in secondary reading. 
It would be helpful if you could now indicate your response to 
the workshop as an aid in your teaching. 
(Answers, 1 = Agree, 2 = undecided, and 3 = disagree) 
1. The content was appropriate 
2. The program was well organized 
3. The program director was sensitive to my needs 
4. The pace was appropriate 
5. The program was about the right length 
6. The objectives were made clear 
7. The content met the objectives 
S. I had adequate opportunity to participate 
9. There has been suitable follow-up in my school 
10. Further in-service is needed 
Appro-
priate 
Content 
Well 
Organized 
Sensitive 
Direction 
Appro-
priate 
Pace 
Appropr. 
Length 
Clear 
Object-
ives 
Object-
ives 
Met 
Adequate 
Particip. 
Suitable 
Follow-up 
Further 
In-Serv. 
Figure 2 
Accumulated In-Service Evaluation 
Percent Agree (N = 247) 
10 - 20 - 30 - 40 - 50 - 60 - 70 - SO - 90 
xxxxxxxxx:x:xxx 
82-rh 
effectiveness. It is also a problem area we plan to address in 
future administrations of the program by requiring school officials 
to quarantee a follow-up series of opportunities for teachers 
to meet and discuss their progress, and to continue to learn from 
une dllulller d::; Lhey gaiIl lllUl't: expertise in the teachir~ ,:,f si?cr.nrl-
Jl'y l\;aJiug. 


A Functional Approach to In-Service for Secondary Content-Area Teachers

Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy andLanguage ArtsVolume 25Issue 2 January 1985 Article 11-1-1985A Functional Approach to In-Service for SecondaryContent-Area TeachersW. John HarkerUniversity of Victoria, British ColumbiaFollow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizonsPart of the Education CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the SpecialEducation and Literacy Studies at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has beenaccepted for inclusion in Reading Horizons: A Journal of Literacy andLanguage Arts by an authorized editor of ScholarWorks at WMU. For moreinformation, please contact maira.bundza@wmich.edu.Recommended CitationHarker, W. J. (1985). A Functional Approach to In-Service for Secondary Content-Area Teachers. Reading Horizons: A Journal ofLiteracy and Language Arts, 25 (2). Retrieved from https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/reading_horizons/vol25/iss2/1A FUNCTIONAL APPROACH TO IN-SERVICE FOR SECONDARY CONTENT-AREA TEACHERS W. John Harker UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA, BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA This report describes the development and implementation of an in-service program in reading instruction for practising secondary teachers. The program to date has been carried out in seven locations in the United States and Canada and has involved 247 teachers. Its development and implementation, and the evalu-ative data which have come from its use, provide valuable insights into secondary teachers' perceptions of reading instruction, and the needs of these teachers in an in-service setting. Needs Assessment Rather than remalnlng satisfied with preconceived notions of teachers' specific needs in reading, as a first step in develop-ing the program, an assessment instrument was designed to detennine teachers' own perceptions of their needs. As a result of using this instrument, the focus of the program has been sharpened and its credibility with teachers has been heightened through the initial determination and subsequent recognition of teachers' specific needs. The Secondary Reading In-service Assessment form which was developed is shown below. It is normally completed by teachers about two weeks before the scheduling of the in-service program. Secondary Reading In-Service Needs Assessment As you know, in a few weeks you and your colleagues will be par-ticipating in an in-service program in secondary reading. For this program to be as successful as possible, it would be helpful if you would indicate on the questionnaire below those topics which you particularly would like to be included. Thank you for assisting in this way. We look forward to working with you soon. ( Answers, 1 important, 2 = undecided, and 3 = not important) 1. Word-attack skills 2. Comprehension skills 3. Speed 4. Locating information 5. Organizing information 6. Retention skills 7. ~3R 8. The nature of individual differences 9. Determining students' needs 10. Specific teaching techniques 11. Classroom organization strategies 12. Appropriate instructional materials 78-rh Figure 1 shows the prevailing trends in the accumulated re-sponses of the two hundred and forty-seven teachers who have used the assessment so far. It is clear that the majority of teachers are relatively less interested in learning about specific reading ;mel "tllely "ki 11" t,han they :::Ire concerned with the rrlture and causes of the inrlhrirln'11 rliff0r0nr0~ in r0'loinr:. w.,yr nf ript,pnnininp: students' particular reading and study skills needs, specific teaching techniques, ways of organizing their classrooms to accom-modate students' reading and study skill demands, and techniques for selecting instructional materials--all topics having more to do with the process of instruction (the "how" of teaching) than the product ("what" to teach). These data suggest the teachers believe they already know about skills--their problem is how to implement skills instruction in their classrooms. Figure 1 Topic Options %'s as determined by Needs Assessment 10 - 20 30 - 40 - 50 - 60 - 70 - 80 90 Word Attack xx:xxxxxxx Compre-hension xx:xxxxxxxxxx:x Speed x Locating :x:xxx:xxxxxxxx Organi-zing xx:xxxxxxxxxxxx Reten-tion SQ3R Indivi-dual Differ. Student Needs Teach. Tech-niques Classnn. Organiz at ion Instruc-tional x:x:xxxxxxxxxxx xx:xxxxxxx Materials xx~oo~xx~oo~xx~oo~xx~oo~xx~oaxxxxKXX rh-79 While our initial reaction to the distinction between teacher' expressed need for help with the process as opposed to the product of reading instruction was caution ("Do they really know what context clues, etc., are?" ), subsequent experience has proven the accuracy of this finding. Two factors seem to contribute to it. The first is that the emphasis on teaching secondary reading in recent years, and the informal discussion among teachers which this emphasis has produced, has created a pool of shared informa-tion among practising teachers about reading skills--teachers know what these skills are, but they don't know exactly how to go about teaching them in their classrooms. A second related factor is the collegial education provided by those relatively few younger teachers who have entered the profession in recent years and who have had pre-service or in some cases post-graduate courses in secondary reading. The expertise of these better-informed teachers has to some extent rubbed off on their colleagues. The result is that most practising secondary teachers today do know what reading and study skills are, but they need help in the process of teaching these skills. Moreover, the pattern of response as revealed by Figure 1 was almost identical in each of the sever: locations where the needs assessment has been administered. Program Content Space limitations prevent an extensive outline of the specific contents of the in-service program which was developed. However, the following provides a general overview: 1. Introduction: Teaching Reading in Content Areas A. The range of reading abilities to be expected in the typical content area classroom B. The specificity of reading abilities in the content areas 2. Assessing Reading Abilities A. Standardized Tests B. Informal Tests 3. Determining Instructional Strategies A. Questioning Techniques B. Study Guides 4. Organizing the Classroom for Instruction 5. Selecting Instructional Materials I t can be seen that the emphasis of the program is placed on the process dimension of reading instruction as opposed to the pro-duct, this being the required emphasis indicated by the needs assessment. Program Features We believe that equally imrortant with the actual content of the program are some of the features we tried to build into it. These may be summarized as follows: Responsive--The program has a functional emphasis in that it is based on teaching reading in content areas and not on teach-ing reading as a separate subject divorced from the learning of specific content-area material. In this way teachers are able to see that the in-service program responds directly to their 8o-rh IBIticular instructional needs. To reinforce this linkage, we encourage teachers to bring and to use during the program examples of the COl!tert-arE~cl j rlstructional rmterial they teach fron: in their classrooms. Participatory--There is an emphasis on jndl vidual and group IBIticipation and the acccrrmodation of teachers' individLal differ-ences as ttese are evider.ced by the various content-areas and grade level teachers teach. In this way we try to roodel effective teaching as well as preact it. Contributory--We erco1.:rage teachers to talk to one another, to compare and sha'e teacr.ing ideas ar,d E,O] utions to mutually encountered problems. Besides directing the learning of teachers, we interpret our role to be catalysts in erco1.:raging the centribl;-tory group learning of participants. StructLred-·- Sirlce time is limited (usually tc er.E: day), we have found that a reasonably structured program is preferable to a loosely orgcmized one whicr. threatens to provide little more than ar, opportunity to snare misinfonnation. V<i'hile we encourage teachers to srare, we also direct what is to be shared ar,d hoy.;. Contrary to our initial misgivings about this approad: based on our fear that t.,E~lchers would resent this kirlcl of directed activity, teachEr; generC'llly seem quite accepting of tUs str·ucturing. Follow-Up--The structvre for the progrcm l :i.s provided by the booklet which WE deve] oped and whi Cf:, every teacher works UJTough during the program. The booklet contains djrections for (-Jctivities in which participarts engage ard to y.;hich they cortribute directly (e.g., determining alf[.>ropriate reading, study skj]] instructional objectives, preparing a 2.tudy guide, planrdng cJaE,sroom organiza-tiol!, and individualizing instruction). The result is t,l,at Cit the conclusion of the program, each teacher takes away a mini-textbook which he or she has evolved from the program and which contains ideas and answers gained from directed activities and discussion with other teachers during the program. The philosophy here is that by providing sanething tangible to take away, teachers are encouraged to review and over time use the information they have gained rather than forget it or feel inhibited from applying it because of a sense of lost familiarity. Evaluation The final part of the program is its evaluation. Approximately two weeks after the program has been run, each participant is asked to complete the Secondary Reading In-service Evaluation which is shown below. A two-week interval has the effect of dampen-ing any unrealistic euphoria generated by the program, and, more important, the interval also gives teachers time to apply and assess in their own classrooms some of the information and ideas which the program provides. The results of the evaluation are SUIIlTE.rized in Figure 2. As can be seen, teachers have determined most aspects of the pro-gram to be successful. The one really disappointing element is the apparent lack of follow-up in the schools. This is a perennial problem with in-service and one which seriously threatens its rh-81 Secondary Reading In-Service Evaluation Approxirrately two weeks ago you participated in an in-service program in secondary reading. It would be helpful if you could now indicate your response to the workshop as an aid in your teaching. (Answers, 1 = Agree, 2 = undecided, and 3 = disagree) 1. The content was appropriate 2. The program was well organized 3. The program director was sensitive to my needs 4. The pace was appropriate 5. The program was about the right length 6. The objectives were made clear 7. The content met the objectives S. I had adequate opportunity to participate 9. There has been suitable follow-up in my school 10. Further in-service is needed Appro-priate Content Well Organized Sensitive Direction Appro-priate Pace Appropr. Length Clear Object-ives Object-ives Met Adequate Particip. Suitable Follow-up Further In-Serv. Figure 2 Accumulated In-Service Evaluation Percent Agree (N = 247) 10 - 20 - 30 - 40 - 50 - 60 - 70 - SO - 90 xxxxxxxxx:x:xxx 82-rh effectiveness. It is also a problem area we plan to address in future administrations of the program by requiring school officials to quarantee a follow-up series of opportunities for teachers to meet and discuss their progress, and to continue to learn from une dllulller d::; Lhey gaiIl lllUl't: expertise in the teachir~ ,:,f si?cr.nrl-Jl'y l\;aJiug. 

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1858&amp;context=reading_horizons

A Functional Approach to In-Service for Secondary Content-Area Teachers

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ScholarWorks at WMU

ScholarWorks at WMU