Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Developing readers at a high-poverty elementary school: a study of factors that influence teacher performance
(USC Thesis Other)
Developing readers at a high-poverty elementary school: a study of factors that influence teacher performance
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Running head: DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY 1
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL:
A STUDY OF FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE TEACHER PERFORMANCE
by
Joel Isaac Tapia Mascareño
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
May 2018
Copyright 2018 Joel I. Tapia
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 2
DEDICATION
Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, I am unworthy. I thank you for loving me. I thank you for
always helping me. Apart from you, I can do nothing. I dedicate this labor of love to you.
Caleb, my beautiful baby boy. You forever changed my life on April 1, 2016. You have
taught me what it means to love as a father. May our Lord Jesus Christ light your heart, mind,
and hands for beautiful leadership service. I know that you will continue to make me proud in
all your ways, learning and growing spiritually, in all truth, knowledge, and action. Papa, thank
you for being patient with me as my attention was shared while completing my dissertation. The
next time we go to Paris, France, I promise to put my Macbook away! I love you!
Priscilla, my ever precious and loving wife. Thank you for staying the course with me on
this difficult journey. You know me better than anyone else, and I appreciate you from the
bottom of my heart because of your support and love. You complete me. You take such good
care of us and make our house a home. Your special touch and care has enabled me to focus on
accomplishing this dream. I love you, Chiquita!
Carlos, my big brother. You are still smarter than me! Thank you for refining me all these
years with debates and searches for the truth. I admire your honesty and courage.
Momma, my pillar and heart. You have seen me at my best and worst, and you are living
proof that love never abandons or quits on people. You have given me the best example of what
it means to be a faithful Christian and a clear-headed adult. You are the best mother in the world.
I love you forever, Mami, and our “quelemucho” will never end!
Dad, I built on the “foundation” that you always talked to me about. I love you for being
a dreamer, Dad. Your dreams have become my dreams. Today, our dreams have been our reality.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I stand on the shoulders of giants, of great individuals who help me to grow. Dr.
Crawford, during the grueling process of writing this dissertation, you inspired me at all the right
times with your wise direction, quick wit, positivity, and constant support. Dr. Rodriguez, you
were the first scholar I met who genuinely cared about issues of diversity. Even today, I can
think of no greater advocate of social justice. Thank you for pushing me to maintain a critical,
transformative lens. Dr. Carbone, your passion for teacher education encouraged me and your
keen eye for analysis helped me to refine my thinking in this study. Together, the three of you
have contributed to my growth more than you know.
To my staff, the mighty Dragons, you are the best colleagues and educators a school
leader could ask for. Daily, you overcome insurmountable challenges, all for our kids. You don’t
run away from the call to serve our students. Instead, you find creative and transformative ways
to give our students an opportunity to succeed. You are my heroes. You have restored my faith
in public education. You invited me into your hearts and showed me your strength of character.
I could not have completed my doctorate without your support, voice, and experiences.
To my past staff and colleagues, to those I have failed and to those I have inspired, thank
you for shaping me into the educator and person that I am today.
To my OCL Cohort 2, Team Get It Done!, Friday night and Saturday morning crews, you
inspire me. Our group has seen babies be born, careers change, loved ones go and grow. You
have all been leaders to me. When I doubted, your perseverance encouraged me to move
forward. I wish I could have done more for you, like you did for me. Thank you for reminding
me that I am not alone on this journey to influence others for good in the world.
To all my students I have had the honor of teaching, thank you for changing the world!
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication 2
Acknowledgements 3
List of Tables 8
List of Figures 10
List of Appendices Tables 12
List of Appendices Figures 13
Abstract 14
Chapter One: Introduction 15
Introduction to the Problem of Practice 15
Organizational Context and Mission 16
Organizational Performance Status 18
Organizational Goal 20
Related Literature 20
Importance of Addressing the Problem 22
Description of Stakeholder Groups 24
Stakeholders’ Performance Goals 25
Stakeholder Group for the Study 26
Researcher of the Study 26
Purpose of the Project and Questions 27
Conceptual and Methodological Framework 28
Definition of Terms 28
Organization of the Study 30
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 5
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature 31
Critical Analysis of Explanations for Student Achievement Differences 31
Major Contributing Factors to the Achievement Gap 36
Key Strategies for Improving Teacher Performance 53
Clark and Estes’ Gap Analysis Framework 57
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Factors 58
Conceptual Framework: Influencing Teacher Performance 87
Chapter Summary 89
Chapter Three: Methodology 90
Study Site and Rationale 90
Participating Stakeholders and Rationale 91
Data Collection and Instrumentation 95
Data Analysis 103
Credibility and Trustworthiness 112
Validity and Reliability 114
Ethics 117
Limitations and Delimitations 119
Chapter Summary 120
Chapter Four: Results and Findings 121
Overview of the Purpose and Questions 121
Study Site 122
Study Participants 122
Definition of Validation of Assumed Influences 128
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 6
Interpreting Teacher Responses on Surveys 129
Research Question One 130
Synthesis of Results and Findings for Research Question One 204
Discussion for Research Question One 212
Research Question Two 213
Discussion for Research Question Two 236
Chapter Summary 237
Chapter Five: Solutions, Implementation, and Evaluation 238
Answers to Research Questions and Summary of the Findings 238
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences 239
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan 242
Chapter Summary 256
Future Research 257
Conclusion 257
References 259
Appendices 293
Appendix A: Study Information Sheet 293
Appendix B: Recruitment Letter: Teacher Survey 297
Appendix C: Survey Protocol & Instrument 298
Appendix D: Recruitment Letter: Teacher Interview 308
Appendix E: Interview Protocol & Instrument 309
Appendix F: Evaluation Instrument for Immediate Use 312
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 7
Appendix G: Evaluation Instrument for Delayed Use 313
Appendix H: Key Indicators for Conceptual Framework Constructs 314
Appendix I: 14 Influencing Factors from the Literature 315
Appendix J: Factor Analysis of 47 Variables to Latent Factors 316
Appendix K: Statistical Analysis of SC Factors and Correlations – Tables 317
Appendix L: Statistical Analysis of SC Factors and Correlations – Chart 318
Appendix M: Internal Consistency of Survey Instrument – Tables 319
Appendix N: Internal Consistency of Survey Instrument – Charts 322
Appendix O: Summary Statistics of Survey Items 13-59 326
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 8
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Evidence of AES’ Achievement Gaps by CAASPP Results, 2015-2016
Table 2. AES’ Organizational Mission, Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Table 3. KMO Factors Assumed to Influence Teacher Performance
Table 4. Assumed Knowledge Influences on Teacher Performance
Table 5. Assumed Motivation Influences on Teacher Performance
Table 6. Assumed Organization Influences on Teacher Performance
Table 7. Summary of Assumed KMO and SC Factor Influences on Teacher Performance
Table 8. Demographic Characteristics of Participating AES Teachers, N=24
Table 9. Types of Data Collected and Analyzed During the Study
Table 10. Factors that Influence Teacher Performance, Matched to Survey Questions
Table 11. Codebook: Categorical “A Priori” Analytic Codes as Represented in Study
Table 12. Interview Participant Background Information, n=4
Table 13. Measuring Teacher Group Perceptions About Factor Influences Using Survey Data
Table 14. Teacher Responses to Influences of Social Context Factors, N=24
Table 15. Results and Wording for Survey Questions 23, 25, 26
Table 16. Teacher Responses to Influences of KMO Factors, N=24
Table 17. Teacher Responses to Teacher Knowledge Influences, N=24
Table 18. Results and Wording for Survey Questions 34, 41
Table 19. Teacher Responses to Influences of Teacher Motivational Beliefs, N=24
Table 20. Results and Wording for Survey Questions 44, 47, 48, 50
Table 21. Responses to School Organization Influences, N=24
Table 22. Results and Wording for Survey Questions 55, 59
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 9
Table 23. Ranked Summary of Teacher Perceptions of Factor Influences on Teacher
Performance
Table 24. Frequencies of Coding for SC Factors Across Teacher Interview Transcripts
Table 25. Frequencies of Coding for KMO Factors Across Teacher Interview Transcripts
Table 26. Comparison of Survey Results, Frequencies of Codes, and Topics of Conversations
Table 27. Answer to Research Question One and Major Survey Results
Table 28. Answer to Research Question One and Major Interview Findings
Table 29. Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Table 30. Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Table 31. Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Teachers
Table 32. Required Drivers to Support Teachers’ Critical Behaviors
Table 33. Components of Learning for the Program
Table 34. Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 10
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Conceptual framework for understanding and improving teacher performance.
Figure 2. Convergent design, mixed methods approach used in the study.
Figure 3. Teacher responses to survey question 12, N=24.
Figure 4. Teacher responses to survey question 11, N=24.
Figure 5. Ranked results of average teacher responses about influences of social context factors,
N=24.
Figure 6. Teacher responses to influence of the child factor, by item and average, N=24.
Figure 7. Teacher responses to survey questions 23, 25, 26, N=24.
Figure 8. Ranked results of average teacher responses about influences of KMO factors, N=24.
Figure 9. Teacher reported influences of teacher knowledge, by sub-factors, N=24
Figure 10. Teacher responses to influence of declarative knowledge, by item and average, N=24.
Figure 11. Teacher disagreeing responses to survey items 34, 41, N=24
Figure 12. Average teacher responses to influences of teacher motivational beliefs, by sub-
factors, N=24
Figure 13. Results of the influence of motivation expectancy utility-value, by item and average
result, N=24
Figure 14. Teacher disagreeing responses to survey items 44, 47, 48, 50, N=24
Figure 15. Average teacher responses to influences of school organization, by sub-factors, N=24
Figure 16. Results of the influence of cultural model of learning orientation, by item and
average result, N=24
Figure 17. Teacher disagreeing responses to survey items 55, 59, N=24
Figure 18. Summary of total counts of analytic codes used on interview transcripts about topics
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 11
of conversation related to factors.
Figure 19. Ranked sum of frequency counts of analytic codes for topics of conversation related
to individual sub-factors.
Figure 20. A new model suggesting how teachers perceive factor influences at AES.
Figure 21. The New World Kirkpatrick Model used to guide the implementation and evaluation
package.
Figure 22. Reading achievement dashboard for monitoring Level 4 results.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 12
LIST OF APPENDICES TABLES
Table K1. Summary Statistics of Quantitative Data, N=24
Table K2. Spearman Correlation Matrix, N=24
Table M. Correlations Between Variables (Survey Items) and Factors (Constructs)
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 13
LIST OF APPENDICES FIGURES
Figure J1. Factor analysis eigenvalues.
Figure J2. Scree plots of eigenvalues (factor analysis).
Figure L. Correlations among the five social context factors.
Figure N1. Correlations between survey items and the society factor.
Figure N2. Correlations between survey items and factor of parents and the home environment.
Figure N3. Correlations between survey items and factor of the child factor.
Figure N4. Correlations between survey items and factor of the teacher.
Figure N5. Correlations between survey items and factor of the school and education system.
Figure N6. Correlations between survey items and factor of declarative knowledge.
Figure N7. Correlations between survey items and factor of procedural knowledge.
Figure N8. Correlations between survey items and factor of metacognitive knowledge.
Figure N9. Correlations between survey items and factor of self-efficacy.
Figure N10. Correlations between survey items and factor of utility-value.
Figure N11. Correlations between survey items and factor of attributions.
Figure N12. Correlations between survey items and factor of organizational model of learning
orientation.
Figure N13. Correlations between survey items and factor of organizational setting of resources
and materials.
Figure N14. Correlations between survey items and factor of organizational setting of work
processes.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 14
ABSTRACT
Reading achievement gaps for diverse students in high-poverty schools is a persistent
problem nationally (Berliner, 2017; Carter & Welner, 2013; Darling-Hammond, 2010; Milner,
2010a; National Center for Education Statistics, 2009;) and at the site of study. To better
understand this phenomenon at Aspiring Elementary School, using the purposeful-convenient
strategy, the target population of 24 general education classroom teachers were selected for
participation in a mixed methods study. Teachers completed a survey of 60 questions that was
developed by the researcher using the literature. The maximum-variation strategy was used to
select a sample of four teachers for a one time, semi-structured, personal interview discussing 13
questions that were also developed by the researcher. The results of the mixed methods case
study suggest that all (14) social context and knowledge, motivation, and organization factors
proposed by the researcher do influence teacher performance at AES related to the goal of
developing proficient readers. Results of the Spearman correlation test on survey data also
suggest that a statistically significant relationship at p < 0.05 exists among the factors, sorting
them into two broad and distinct groups: (1) relating to the child and home environment, and (2)
relating to the teacher, school, and society. Although teachers reportedly espoused strong beliefs
about the value of teaching in culturally responsive ways, interviews with teachers revealed that
they actually enacted individual practices, not necessarily a set of shared culturally relevant
practices, in the face of constraints to be transformative for student learning. An implementation
and evaluation plan for teachers proposes actions for closing the gap between espoused beliefs
and enacted culturally relevant practices with the goal of improving student reading outcomes.
Keywords: achievement gap; culturally relevant teaching; organizational learning;
reading achievement; school factors; teacher performance
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 15
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Introduction to the Problem of Practice
The United States has failed to provide a quality education to all students (Darling-
Hammond, 2010). Forty years of National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data has
revealed that the achievement gap between groups of students—by differences in race, family
income, primary language spoken at home, and gender—continues to be a real and persistent
problem (National Center for Education Statistics, 2009; 2011;2011a; 2011b; 2011c; 2012).
2007 NAEP data showed that in 4
th
grade reading, African-American students scored, on
average, 27 points below that of Anglos, and Latino/a students scored, on average, 26 points
lower than Anglos (Planty et al., 2008). In 2005, NAEP data showed that 4
th
grade mathematics
scores related to school poverty levels—the higher the percentage of students classified as low-
socioeconomic status (SES) within the school, the lower the average NAEP score for 4
th
graders
at the school (Lutkus, Grigg, & Donohue, 2007). Results of NAEP scores from 2005 revealed
that 46% of English Learners (ELs) in 4
th
grade scored at the lowest level, "Below Basic", in
mathematics, and 73% scored "Below Basic" in reading (Fry, 2007). An analysis of
mathematics achievement and attitudes per gender on NAEP data from 1990 to 2003 found that
gender gaps favored males and had not diminished throughout the reporting years (McGraw,
Lubienski, & Strutchens, 2006). Additionally, female students' self-concepts and attitudes
related to mathematics were found to be more negative than that of male counterparts (McGraw
et al., 2006).
The achievement gap has received great attention in the public and political world. In
2008, Congress passed the Higher Education Opportunity Act, and directed the U.S. Department
of Education to produce a special report documenting the gaps in access to and completion of
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 16
higher education by ethnically diverse and underserved students and to outline specific policies
that could help address these gaps (Ross et al., 2012). The resulting recommendations have yet
to translate into improvement. Former President Barack Obama, during an important campaign
speech, referred to the act of accepting the status quo on the nation's class- and race-based
achievement gaps as "morally unacceptable and economically untenable" (Obama, 2009). 15
million children are living in poverty in America today, and the trajectory of the country is
moving towards becoming a "majority of minorities" by 2044 (Frey, 2014). Thus, the challenge
of providing an equal opportunity for a quality education to all students will only become more
difficult (Kuh, Kinzie, Buckley, Bridges, & Hayek, 2006). Furthermore, had the United States
closed its educational achievement gaps by 1998, its Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2008
could have been $1.3 trillion to $2.3 trillion higher (Auguste, Hancock, & Laboissière, 2009).
This study intends on narrowing the achievement gap for Aspiring Elementary School
(pseudonym) through critical praxis or the application of research-based knowledge to practice
(Jarvis, 1999; Rodriguez, Zozakiewicz, & Yerrick, 2005). Similarly, teacher craft knowledge or
the accumulated wisdom derived from teachers (Barth, 2002; Grimmett & Mackinnon, 1992;
Leinhardt, 1990; Russell, 2015) will complement the use of research-based knowledge to inform
how to best support all teacher performance related to closing reading achievement gaps for
traditionally underserved students.
Organizational Context and Mission
Aspiring Elementary School (AES), established in 1971, is a TK-3 public school serving
675 predominantly Latino/a students in the southwestern area of the United States, near the
international border with Mexico (School Accountability Report Card, 2014-2015, published in
2015-16). It is one of seven schools in the Rising Star School District (RSSD) (pseudonym),
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 17
which includes 5 elementary schools and two middle schools. RSSD also has a childhood
development center that offers partial-day programs for preschoolers. The school district serves
over 5,000 diverse students, grades PreK-8, of which at least 40% are homeless. RSSD is unique
in that it serves a community with close familial and cultural ties on both sides of the US-Mexico
international border. Per current local real estate reports, the median value of single homes in
AES' neighborhood is $408,000—that is $141,000 less than the county average (Zillow, 2016).
The largest racial-ethnic group at AES is Latino/a (96%), followed by African (1.6%),
Anglo (1.3%), Filipino (0.6%), Asian (0.1%), Pacific Islander (0.1%), and a blend of two or
more major racial groups (0.3%) (SARC, 2014-2015, published in 2015-16). Additionally, other
important student subgroups are those classified as low-SES (84.1%), ELs (79.7%), Students
with Disabilities (SWD) (9.1%), and Foster Youth (FY) (1.4%). There are a greater number of
students who are male (56%) than female (44%).
There are numerous staff at AES, a total of 84, that support school operations and student
learning. In terms of teaching staff, there are 29 certificated teachers. Five of those teachers are
dedicated to teaching special education, and another one serves as the Resource Specialist
Program (RSP) teacher. AES also has two certificated academic intervention teachers: a site
dedicated full-time bilingual resource teacher and a district shared part-time Teacher on Special
Assignment (TOSA) who serves as a data coordinator. The average annual teacher salary at
AES is $62,486, about $6,600 less than the annual average teacher salary across the state of
California (SARC, 2014-2015, published in 2015-16).
In addition to certificated staff, there is a large classified support staff in place for
instructional and/or operational support, including two full-time speech and language
pathologists, one full-time psychologist, and 15 instructional assistants serving in classrooms. To
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 18
help with administrative duties, AES has one secretary, two office clerks, one health clerk, a
librarian, and two outreach consultants. To handle student supervision, AES has seven student
supervisors and one security guard. Two custodians maintain the school facility. Six staff
operate the food service department. AES has an enrichment program staff consisting of seven
part-time employees (third-party contracted by the school district) to provide students with
learning opportunities through games, athletics, tutoring, science instruction, and visual and
performing arts before, during, and after school.
The school staff's own racial/ethnic composition closely resembles that of the study body:
95.2% are Latino/a, 3.5% are Anglo, and 0.01% are African. 91.6% of all staff members are
female and 8.4% are male. (SARC, 2014-2015, published in 2015-16). Also, more than half of
the staff live near the school community.
AES has a long-standing tradition of striving for academic success and for teaching a
quality, standards-based curriculum. Due to its efforts, it is one of the few schools in the district
that is not in Program Improvement (PI) status.
Organizational Performance Status
AES is experiencing the significant problem of an achievement gap for students. Table 1
shows these gaps in academic achievement for students by subgroups, both internally and
compared to peer groups at other school sites.
Table 1
Evidence of AES Achievement Gaps by CAASPP Results, 2015-2016
ELA – Percent Met & Exceeded MATH – Percent Met & Exceeded
Student
Subgroup
AES County
Avg.
State
Avg.
Nearby
School
District
AES County
Avg.
State
Avg.
Nearby
School
District
Anglo N/A* 66% 60% 74% N/A* 68% 63% 70%
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 19
Latino/a 25% 38% 30% 51% 31% 38% 34% 49%
Low-SES 26% 36% 29% 46% 32% 38% 32% 45%
Higher-
SES
N/A* 69% 64% 70% N/A* 70% 66% 68%
English
Learner
15% 26% 17% 37% 26% 31% 25% 37%
English
Only
41% 59% 50% 65% 39% 60% 51% 63%
*Number of students is not significant per state testing guidelines and therefore do not report
Disparities in academic proficiency levels for AES students are 25% to 35% between students
who are Latino/a and Anglo, low- and high-SES, and EL and English-only speakers, as measured
by California Assessment for Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP). Thus, three major
achievement gaps exist by ethnicity, income, and language.
Related to the ethnicity achievement gaps, in ELA, the differences between AES'
Latinos/as and Anglos at the county, state, and neighboring school district levels were 41%,
35%, and 49%, respectively. In mathematics, the gaps were 37%, 32%, and 39%, respectively.
Related to the income achievement gaps, in ELA, the differences between AES' low-SES
students and higher-SES students at the county, state, and neighboring school district levels were
43%, 38%, and 44%, respectively. In mathematics, the gaps were 38%, 34%, and 36%,
respectively. Related to the language achievement gaps, in ELA, the difference between AES'
EL students and EO students at the county, state, and neighboring school district levels were
44%, 35%, and 50%, respectively. In mathematics, the gaps were 34%, 25%, and 37%,
respectively.
To fulfill its mission of providing a quality education for all students, AES must close
these gaps in student achievement. Failure to do so will result in a broken promise to the school
community. The community trusts the school to prepare all students with the foundational and
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 20
critical knowledge and skills needed for full participation and success in both the American and
global society of the 21
st
century.
Organizational Goal
AES' organizational goal is that by June 2018, 50% of AES students will achieve a score
of meets or exceeds in ELA as measured by CAASPP. The school principal determined this goal
after systematically reviewing 2015-16 CAASPP results and consulting Clark and Estes' (2008)
recommendations on goal setting. Clark and Estes (2008) argue that it is a misconception that
team members must be involved in the formation of their performance goals if they are to
achieve them. An important consideration, however, is to engage employees in discussions
about how to best meet assigned work goals (Locke & Latham, 1990).
Related Literature
Most recently, scholars have argued that an obsessive focus on achievement gaps on the
part of policy makers, educators, and education advocates has failed to generate the desired
change because it has ignored the valuable inputs, processes, and various forms of capital,
operating in and outside of schools, needed to raise achievement for diverse students (Milner,
2010a; Rodriguez, 2001). Scholars have begun to reframe the problem of practice of
achievement gaps to include the influence of opportunity gaps. Opportunity gaps are the ways in
which multiple non-school and school-related factors compound, perpetuate and/or contribute to
lower educational attainment for certain groups of students, particularly for the underserved and
underrepresented (Carter & Welner, 2013; Milner, 2010a; Schwartz, 2001; Tallaferro, 2011; U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, 2001). Although many factors related to opportunity
and achievement gaps originate and/or operate outside of schools (Berliner, 2009; 2017), there
are ways in which in-school systems and elements influence the problem. Milner (2012)
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 21
asserted that when teachers fail to recognize issues related to diversity and opportunity to learn in
schools, they may teach in ways that prevent students from learning at high levels. Milner
(2010a) explained that incongruence and conflict between teachers and students might arise from
different cultural ways of knowing, which can create tensions that impact student learning. He
offered his diversity and opportunity gaps explanatory framework as a tool to assist educators in
working with children and youth of color.
Investing in early childhood education has helped to close opportunity and achievement
gaps. Longitudinal studies have shown that quality early childhood education that invites family
engagement may help to decrease gaps in learning for diverse students, highlighting the need for
more policies that promote family involvement in schools (Chatterji, 2006; Dearing, Kreider,
Simkins, & Weiss, 2006). For example, Chatterji (2006) examined longitudinal data for 281
students from 21 sites across the United States, from kindergarten to 5
th
grade, and focused on
family involvement as related to literacy performance for students. They found that student
literacy increased commensurate to family involvement for students of culturally diverse and
low-income backgrounds.
School interventions and programs occurring before and after school and during summer
breaks can help reduce summer slides, increase opportunities for learning, and help literacy
achievement for at-risk students (Berliner, 2009; 2017; Lauer, Akiba, Wilkerson, Apthrop,
Snow, & Martin-Glenn, 2006). Lauer et al. (2006) conducted meta-analyses of 35 out-of-school-
time (OST) programs and found significant positive effects of OST programs on reading and
mathematics achievement, and even larger positive effects for reading when programs had
specific tutoring programs.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 22
Studies also show that culturally responsive school systems, policies, and educational
practices are necessary for increasing student engagement and reducing opportunity and
achievement gaps (Aronson & Laughter, 2016; Cleary, 2008; Phillips, McNaughton &
MacDonald, 2004). In an in-depth interview study of 120 First Nations students, researchers
found that students reported greater literacy motivation when teaching and learning considered
their personal life experiences and sense of identity (Cleary, 2008).
The research literature suggested that opportunity and achievement gaps are reduced in
schools through organizational efforts that include strong leadership, efforts to build teacher
capacity, examination of educational practices as they relate to diversity and equity, and the
long-term application of evidence-based strategies connected to schools' specific needs
(Achinstein, Ogawa, & Spiegelman, 2004; Gehsmann & Woodside-Jiron, 2005; Milner, 2010a;
Taylor, Pearson, Peterson & Rodriguez, 2005). The influence of school systems, however, can
also go towards widening gaps. For instance, Achinstein et al. (2004) conducted a 2-year study
and examined how policy, local school conditions, teachers' characteristics, and teachers' beliefs
and practices interacted to create a system of tracking that perpetuated inequalities. They
concluded that a system had developed that created two classes of teachers for two classes of
students, with lower track students being the recipient of teachers who were less qualified and
provided with fewer resources to teach their students.
Importance of Addressing the Problem
It is critical to raise performance and to close the opportunity gaps affecting the
achievement of AES students. English-only students outperformed English learners at AES in
ELA and mathematics by 26% and 13%, respectively. This underperformance of AES students is
a social injustice because students are already facing challenging circumstances at home and in
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 23
the neighborhood. All students at AES deserve the opportunity to succeed in their own
neighborhood and community school.
AES must provide students with the ability to compete globally. Wagner (2008), the co-
director of the Change Leadership Group at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and
author of The Global Achievement Gap, argued that today's students are no longer in simple
competition with peers “next door” for future jobs and prosperity. He wrote: "In short, our
young people are now in direct competition with youth from developing countries for many of
what traditionally have been considered our "good middle-class white-collar" jobs" (Wagner,
2008, preface xv). As this is now the case, AES must make every effort to solve the problem of
student underachievement.
AES must create a strong, resilient community that can withstand unexpected trials and
remove barriers in the service of students. When student achievement is low, school morale and
school climate suffers for all, which impacts student learning (Thapa, Cohen, Guffey, & Higgins-
D’Alessandro, 2013). Staff become stressed when students do not perform well, as it appears to
reflect on them. It is not uncommon, then, for staff to state their dissatisfaction with the school
climate at AES, sometimes unwillingly attributing blame to students and families. This is a
problem because studies show that educators who possess deficit mindsets may act out on their
negative biases or perceptions towards their underserved students (Farkas, Grobe, Sheehan, &
Shuan, 1990). Teachers can act as gatekeepers of rewards— and use that imbalance of power to
engage in biased treatment of certain children who do not reflect the desired characteristics that
they as adult-educators prefer. This situation can turn into an oppressive form of middle-class
hegemony in high-poverty schools (Farkas et al., 1990; Jenkins, 2009).
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 24
AES must address teacher work conditions and undermining mental models. Some
teachers at AES feel frustrated about their work performance related to teaching diverse students.
They cite the lack of parent support or inappropriate student behavior. This is a problem because
studies show that there is a higher incidence of teachers quitting teaching during first five years
of their careers if the school culture is unsupportive. Newly minted, enthusiastic teachers often
choose to leave the school or leave the teaching profession altogether (Goldring, Taie, &
Riddles, 2014; Kukla-Acevedo, 2009).
AES is struggling to achieve its mission of providing an equitable education and bright
future to all students. It must work diligently to avoid the reinforcement of hegemonic structures
in the school system that could further widen opportunity gaps for student learning (Kuh et al.,
2006). AES's mission statement explicitly states the importance of all stakeholders working
together on behalf of the school’s children. However, based on achievement data and qualitative
evidence, AES must take greater actions to accomplish its mission.
Description of Stakeholder Groups
Many stakeholders contribute to and benefit from the improved performance of AES
students, including the superintendent, the principal, teachers, and students. The superintendent
of schools leads RSSD and is accountable to the Board of Education and the community for
student success. He develops a strategic Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) that guides
the district’s resources and performance. The AES principal is personally accountable to the
superintendent and community for student achievement. He develops a yearly Single Plan for
Student Achievement (SPSA) in concert with multiple stakeholders: parents, community
members, teachers, and classified staff. AES teachers are primarily accountable to the principal,
parent community, and to students for their performance and student-achievement related
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 25
outcomes. They also share the responsibility of supporting colleagues. AES students are
accountable to their teachers and parents for showing good behavior and learning to the best of
their abilities.
Stakeholders’ Performance Goals
Clark and Estes (2008) pointed out the importance of linking organizational performance
goals to specific team and individual performance goals, so in the following sections, AES
stakeholders and their performance goals are presented.
Table 2
AES’ Organizational Mission, Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
Aspiring Elementary School believes that all students deserve the opportunity to achieve at high
levels. All members of our learning community will work together to provide an environment
that fosters achievement, personal and interpersonal growth, and character development.
Organizational Performance Goal
By June 2018, 50% of participating general education students will score meets or exceeds in
ELA as measured by CAASPP.
Stakeholder Performance Goals
Rising Star School
District
Superintendent
Aspiring Elementary
School Principal
Aspiring Elementary
School Teachers
Aspiring Elementary
School Students
By June 2017, the
Superintendent will
provide AES
(Principal and
teachers) with the
needed training and
resources to
implement the
district's instructional
By June 2017, the
Principal will
organize a task force
of key stakeholders
(5-8 members) who
will lead the school's
efforts at raising
achievement and
reducing the
By June 2018, K-3
teachers will
implement research-
based reading
instructional practices
using culturally
relevant teaching
practices to ensure
that 75% of general
By December 2018,
100% of students will—
with the assistance of
their teachers—create,
monitor, and adjust
personal learning goals
for improved
performance. They will
self-monitor their
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 26
model. achievement gap. education students
meet the end-of-year
reading proficiency
targets.
progress on a weekly
basis.
Stakeholder Group for the Study
A complete analysis of reading proficiency at AES would have included a thorough
review of the ways that all stakeholders contribute to the achievement of the school’s identified
performance goals. However, for reasons of practicality, focus, and significance to the study,
general education classroom teachers were selected as the key stakeholders or unit of analysis.
Teachers spend up to six-hours-a-day, 180-days-a-year in direct contact with students. Research
shows that teachers make a significant impact on student achievement (Darling-Hammond &
Youngs, 2002; Ferguson, 1991; Odden, Borman, & Fermanich, 2004; Rivkin, Hanushek, &
Kain, 2005), and that investing in teacher quality is what matters most to improving our schools
(Darling-Hammond, 1997).
Researcher of the Study
The researcher of this study has unique positionality related to the study’s problem of
practice and to the continuous goal of improved educational outcomes for all students. He is a
young, male Latino school principal who can relate to the life and school experiences of many
traditionally underserved students in the United States. His parents immigrated to California
from Mexico, and the family experienced the harsh realities of being foreigners-turned-
Americans trying to make it in a land where culture, customs, systems, and networks often favor
the more-established and dominant subsets of Americans in society. The researcher’s native
language was Spanish, and his language of instruction in school was English. Having little
educational guidance yet high expectations at home, the researcher of the study became a
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 27
bilingual teacher at the age of 22, then a school principal at the age of 29. He has witnessed
firsthand the challenges of teaching students, building communities, and leading staff in an
educational system that is diseased by social injustices, inefficiencies, and politics that detour
schooling from its mission of empowering citizens for full participation in a democratic society.
Through these experiences, the researcher-practitioner has learned and believes that collaborative
leadership and culturally relevant and responsive teaching practices are critical for ensuring that
all students, including those from traditionally underserved backgrounds, are provided with
access to a high-quality education.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project was to conduct a knowledge and skills, motivation, and
organizational factors (KMO) gap analysis to better understand and ultimately strengthen teacher
performance related to developing proficient readers. The long-term performance goal for AES
teachers is to support and develop all students into proficient readers; the short-term goals are the
following: (1) By June 2018, 50% of participating general education students will score meets or
exceeds in ELA as measured by CAASPP, and (2) By June 2018, K-3 teachers will implement
research-based reading instructional practices using culturally relevant teaching practices to
ensure that 75% of general education students meet end-of-year reading proficiency targets.
The following research questions guided this study:
1. Are social context factors and knowledge, motivation, and organization factors
influencing teachers’ performance related to developing proficient readers at AES?
To what extent do the qualitative results confirm quantitative results?
2. How do the factors influence teachers’ experiences of working to develop proficient
readers at AES?
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 28
3. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organization implementation
solutions for teachers at AES?
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
The improvement model undergirding this dissertation study was based on Clark and
Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework. The gap analysis model helps an organization to meet its
goals by strengthening employee performance through the application of knowledge, motivation,
and organization solutions. The methodological framework was a mixed methods case study,
convergent parallel design, using descriptive and inferential statistics and qualitative research
techniques. The study drew upon theoretical learning and motivation literature, empirical
studies, and personal knowledge to generate a list of construct factors assumed to be potentially
influencing teachers’ performance related to developing proficient readers at AES. Furthermore,
the scholarly thinking of Alberto J. Rodriguez (1998; 2001), Lee Shulman (1986; 1987), Geneva
Gay (2010), Gloria Ladson-Billings (1994), Richard Milner (2010a; 2010b; 2015), Peter Senge
(2006; 2012), and Edgar Schein (2010) helped the researcher to shape a theoretical and
conceptual lens for understanding how Social Context (SC) factors and KMO factors might be
influencing teachers’ efforts and actions in service of diverse, underserved students and families.
The potential influence of these construct factors upon teacher performance were then assessed
through the analysis of data gathered from a survey and personal interviews with classroom
teachers at AES.
Definition of Terms
The following definitions ensure understanding of the terms used throughout the study.
Achievement Gaps. Disparate student achievement outcomes between groups of students,
typically by ethnicity, class, income, gender, and language (Carter & Welner, 2013).
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 29
Anglo-European. Instead of using labels that draw attention to superficial physical
differences or untenable social constructs like race, the term Anglo or Anglo-European is used
instead of White to describe individuals of Anglo-European ethnicity and/or cultural heritage
(Rodriguez, 1998).
African-American. The term African-American will is used instead of Black to describe
individuals of African ethnicity and/or cultural heritage in America (Rodriguez, 1998).
Culturally Relevant Education. A way of structuring and enacting teaching and learning
that honors the diversity of students and empowers students to learn at high levels. Pedagogy
and teaching practices are research-based and responsive, relevant, and inclusive of students'
lives. Thus, it encompasses teaching for diversity and understanding. Students have rich
opportunities to learn as their funds of knowledge connect to cognitive and social learning
processes that undergird positive classroom experiences (Aronson & Laughter, 2016).
Diverse Students. Students from traditionally underserved backgrounds that could
demonstrate differences of ethnicity, color, culture, religion, socioeconomic status, and
linguistics/language compared to dominant or mainstream groups (Milner, 2010a).
First Nations. The term First Nations will be used instead of Native American to
describe individuals living in the Americas before the first arrival of Europeans (Rodriguez,
1998).
Latino/a. The terms Latino/a is used instead of Hispanic to describe individuals of Latin
ethnic and cultural heritage, including those of mixed First Nations and European backgrounds
(Rodriguez, 1998).
Opportunity Gaps. The ways in which ethnicity, language, socioeconomic status,
community wealth, familial situations, societal influences including hegemonic structures and
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 30
elements, school systems including personnel, personal beliefs, and other factors, interact and
compound to perpetuate and/or contribute to the lower educational achievement, aspirations, and
attainment for certain groups of students who are traditionally underserved by mainstream or
dominant groups of people. Factors operate in and outside of schools and complicate the
education mission of schools of matriculating all students with the necessary dispositions, habits,
and abilities to be successful in life (Milner, 2010a).
Reading Proficiency. The developmental and/or grade appropriate ability to read—
silently or aloud—printed material with evidence of understanding (Connors-Tadros, 2014).
Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter One provided the reader with the key
concepts, terminologies, and a brief related literature review about the achievement gap in US
public schools. It also introduced AES’ organizational context and mission, goals, stakeholders,
as well as the initial theoretical and methodological concepts undergirding the dissertation
study/project. Chapter Two provides a critical review of the literature that includes an analysis
of the explanations offered for achievement differences between groups of people. It also
introduces Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework, which guides the remainder of the
literature review focused on the KMO factors that are assumed to influence the teacher
stakeholder group. The chapter ends with the conceptual framework. Chapter Three outlines the
methodology for the study including the choice of participants and the means for data collection
and analysis. Chapter Four provides details of the study’s results and findings. Chapter Five
uses the study’s results and findings to propose an integrated implementation and evaluation plan
for teachers that helps to close the gap between espoused beliefs and actions related to enacting
culturally relevant teaching practices for improving student reading achievement outcomes.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 31
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This chapter begins with a critical and categorical review of the literature related to
study’s problem of practice: the achievement gap. It serves two purposes. First, it analyzes the
evolution of explanatory reasons given over time for the phenomenon. Second, it provides a
detailed categorization of the multiple factors, in and out of schools, that are believed to
influence student achievement. Next, a brief section presents key strategies from the literature
that can serve to improve teacher performance. The last sections of the chapter include a brief
overview of Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework, which guides the remainder of the
literature review related to KMO influences on the teacher stakeholder group. The chapter ends
with the presentation of the conceptual framework that was developed by the researcher.
Critical Analysis of Explanations for Student Achievement Differences
A critical review of the achievement gap literature resulted in five themes that provide an
analysis of the explanations that have been provided for observed achievement differences
between groups of students. The first theme is that pre-1960s, the major reason used to explain
differences in achievement between groups of people, such as between Anglos and Latinos, was
a genetic explanation (Jensen, 1968; 1969; Rushton & Jensen, 2005; Herrnstein & Murray,
2010). This view held that some groups of people were genetically inferior and therefore
performed at lower levels than peer groups with more potential. Jensen was a powerful voice for
the endogenous causal explanation, which posits that intrinsic characteristics of groups,
including genetic endowment of intelligence, are the primary cause for the mean difference in
achievement (Gottfredson, 1997; Jensen, 1968; 1969; Rushton & Jensen, 2005). This view
served the interests of the dominant group in the US at the time: Anglos, and specifically, Anglo
men of influence (McIntosh, 1988). It is not coincidence that Jensen (1968; 1969) was an Anglo
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 32
scholar. And while that is not proof of his intentions, extensive research on motivations show
that people tend to hold expectancy and attributional beliefs that serve one’s self-interest
(Atkinson, 1957; Eccles, 2005; Heider, 1958; Higgins, 2007; Lewin, 1938; Pajares, 1997;
Pintrich, 2003; Tolman, 1932; Weiner, 1985; 1992; Wigfield & Cambria, 2010). The advent of
the civil rights movement and emerging changes in public ethos pushed back on this genetically-
based causal explanation.
The second theme is that a well-intended cultural deficit explanation emerged around the
time of the civil rights movement, and it borrowed the concept of inheritable physical
characteristics and applied it to cultural characteristics of groups of people (Das, 1973;
Reissman, 1962). This view explained differences in group achievement between people as
being attributed to some groups having an inferior culture—that is, they had inherited inferior
cultural characteristics that depressed their ability to achieve at the same level as individuals
from the dominant group in US society (Reissman, 1962). The Coleman Report and its findings
was also an imminent voice that further cemented in the dominant group’s mind that the cause
for underperformance in schools was the culture, parents, and home life of those students, not the
schools or its staff (Coleman, J. S., & Department of Health USA. 1966). Another powerful
voice for the cultural deprivation explanation was a well-intended progressive group of social
scientists who wrote an important book that spread this view far and wide, Compensatory
Education for Cultural Deprivation (Bloom, Davis, Hess, & Silverman, 1965). This view served
the interests of Anglo social scientists who alleviated their cognitive dissonance by no longer
allowing themselves to stand idle while other highly esteemed scholars published their racist
views in the Harvard Education Letter (Jensen, 1969) that denigrated underrepresented
Americans. On the surface, to blame diverse people’s culture instead of their innate
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 33
characteristics is one degree less hurtful. Fighting for social justice was also part of the spirit of
the times for liberal-minded people in 1965, and it was easier for Bloom et al., (1965) to publish
their book in that era than in the 1940s under different social times. Power was shifting in the
1960s towards greater equality for diverse people (Spring, 2016).
The third theme is that cultural differences, the mismatch between the dominant and non-
dominant cultural groups, was the cause of observed differences in group performance between
people (Gay, 2010). This view was an exogenous causal explanation because it no longer
attributed achievement differences to inferior heritable traits, biological or cultural (Mckown &
Strambler, 2008). In the 1980s, this wave of cultural difference theorists emerged in force; they
researched extensively and developed sophisticated pedagogical and teaching frameworks to
help schools show greater educational responsiveness to underserved students (Au, 1993; Delpit,
1988; 2006; Irvine, 2003; Ladson-Billings, 1994; Milner, 2010a; Nieto, 2015). In addition to
serving the interests of schools and diverse students, the cultural difference scholars argued that
the culture of underserved groups was not the problem. Their culture was strong, valuable,
praiseworthy, and effective in supporting the development of its cultural group members—it was
the hegemonic structures that pervaded US schools that were undermining the achievement of
diverse students (Banks, 2006; Gay, 2010). The interests represented by this explanation was
also self-serving to the extent that many of the scholars now articulating these explanations,
arguments, and related theories were themselves of underrepresented and diverse backgrounds,
such as Geneva Gay (1975; 2002; 2010; 2013). The diverse scholars promoting these
explanatory views not only wanted to develop theoretical frameworks that could be respected in
academia, they also wished to transform public education and practices in the classroom that
would benefit students of similar backgrounds to them (Gay, 2010).
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 34
The fourth theme is that a very personal ‘blame game’ began to be used to explain causes
for and differences in achievement for students. This explanatory view began to evolve after the
production and dissemination of the watershed report, A Nation at Risk (1983). The explanation
became that all stakeholders were to be blamed and held responsible for their contributions to
low American student achievement. If the title of the report alone does not convey urgency, an
opening line from the report’s introduction will: “Our once unchallenged preeminence in
commerce, industry, science, and technological innovation is being overtaken by competitors
throughout the world” (Gardner, Larsen, Baker, Campbell, & Crosby, 1983, p. 112). The report
goes on to plea its case to stakeholders, and gives direct advice to schools, parents, and students.
A section from the conclusion offers recommendations, and is important to review because it
uses the loaded word “reform”, launching an activity that continues today in the spirit of trying
to fix schools.
In light of the urgent need for improvement, both immediate and long term, this
Commission has agreed on a set of recommendations that the American people can begin
to act on now, that can be implemented over the next several years, and that promise
lasting reform.
Those “next several years” have not come to an end. The report attributed the nation’s decline to
each stakeholder in specific ways. Schools are told to have “more rigorous and measurable
standards, and higher expectations, for academic performance and student conduct” (Gardner et
al., 1983, p. 125). Parents are told to “be a living example of what you expect your children to
honor and to emulate” (Gardner et al.,1983, p. 129). Students are told, “When you give only the
minimum to learning, you receive only the minimum in return” (Gardner et al., 1983, p. 129). It
does not take much extrapolation to discover where the ‘blame game’ began—it is inferred that
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 35
the US is a nation at risk because schools need to be better schools, parents need to better
parents, and students need to be better students. Thus, beginning with A Nation at Risk, and the
resulting standards and intensified testing movement, the explanation for low student
achievement changed. Inferior biology or deficit culture explanations have taken a back seat to
the equally damaging but more socially acceptable explanation that poor student achievement is
the result of different parties failing to do their job. And this ‘blame game’ continues today in
public discourse. Parents blame the ‘failing schools’ and ‘ineffective teachers’, and schools
blame the ‘unengaged parents’ and ‘unmotivated students’, and the negative feedback loop
continues (Berliner & Glass, 2014; Ravitch, 2016; Ryan, 1976).
The fifth theme is that a new explanatory perspective is emerging that has not completely
caught on—because it does not have its origin in academia or in the world of education. In
reviewing the literature on organizational culture, it was found that Senge’s (2006) and Senge’s
et al.’s (2012) ‘systems theory’ of a learning organization is starting to be applied to the context
of the education system (Schlechty, 2011). In the book, Schools that learn: A fifth discipline
fieldbook for educators, parents, and everyone who cares about education, the authors explain
that low student achievement is the outcome of disunity among all stakeholders. Instead of
continuing the ‘blame game’ used to explain low achievement, they reverse the thinking on it
and provide the learning organization as an antidote to the divergent, adaptive problems faced by
schools, students, and families.
How do people think and interact in your school system? Can they hold productive
conversations, or do they advocate their views so strongly that others cannot be heard?
Do they blame others for problems, or do they look at problems from the perspective of
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 36
the system as a whole, recognizing the no one is individually to blame because all actions
are interrelated? (Senge et al., 2012).
Senge et al. (2012) provide an explanation that does not put the cause of low achievement on
inferior biology or culture, or on the simple mismatch between dominant and non-dominant
culture in schools, or on a single individual as a “blame”; instead, they provide a more
sophisticated yet understandably simple explanation: “no one is individually to blame because all
actions are interrelated”. And if all actions are interrelated, then the implications of this causal
explanation are that all stakeholders need to redirect their interrelated energy on working and
learning together, issue by issue, to improve achievement for all students. This explanatory view
serves the interests of the authors because their ideas and theories are being marketed and sold
through their books. However, if the implications of their explanations mean that the problem of
practice of low student achievement can be solved through the concerted efforts of joint-agency
from all stakeholders within a system, then the rewards of that success would also have to be
shared by not only a few heroic individuals, but rather by all persons within that system or
community.
Major Contributing Factors to the Achievement Gap
After an extensive review of the literature, the variables/factors suggested as contributing
to the achievement gap for underserved students have been categorized to better understand their
potential relationships and influences to teaching efforts. Many factors appear to contribute to
the achievement gap for underserved students—for children who are ethnically, culturally,
linguistically, and/or socioeconomically diverse. Some factors are argued as primarily
originating and operating outside of schools, while others inside of schools (Berliner, 2009;
2017). Furthermore, scholars argue that these factors interact in complex ways that have not
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 37
been fully studied or understood; this illusiveness is what sustains the ongoing debate about what
exactly it is about teachers and/or their characteristics that are responsible for causing student
achievement results (Hanushek & Rivkin, 2010).
Out-of-School Factors
Out-of-school factors contribute to the performance of students (Berliner, 2009; Wang,
Haertel, & Walberg, 1993; Wang & Gordon, 1994). After reviewing the literature, the major
influencers have been categorically organized as 1) The American society, 2) The parents and
the home environment, and 3) The child.
The American society. The American society is known as a melting pot because it
reflects a nation consisting of diverse people, beliefs, religions, histories, and cultures (Spring,
2016). Yet, differences along class, social, and economic lines have been used to separate
people (Freire, 2000), and these social constructions influence academic performance (Gay,
2010; 2013; Perlmann, 1989).
Ethnic and cultural hegemony. Those in power within American society have
historically maneuvered people of diverse backgrounds. For example, Anglo-European men
enslaved hundreds of thousands of Africans during the 18
th
-19
th
centuries (Berlin & Hoffman,
1983), and the Naturalization Act of 1790 barred all non-Anglos, including the First Nations
people, from American citizenship (Spring, 2016).
This problem of power dominance has created social and psychological forces that shape
the mindsets of Anglos and underserved people. For example, studies have shown how African
youth in American schools have been vulnerable to “stereotype threat” or the fear of confirming,
as self-characteristic, a negative stereotype about one's group (Steele & Aronson, 1995). In some
cases, this has influenced African students to make less effort, avoid greater learning, and to
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 38
reject behaving in so-called socially acceptable ways out of fear that in doing so, they will be
perceived as trying to “act White” (Fordham & Ogbu, 1986). A study that examined the
achievement-related attitudes and behaviors of 166 gifted African-American 5
th
-12
th
grade
students found that many of the gifted African students attributed “acting White” to school
achievement, intelligence, positive attitudes and behaviors; in contrast, most attributed “acting
Black” to low intelligence, poor attitudes and behaviors, and negative school achievement (Ford,
Grantham, & Whiting, 2008). This power imbalance is contributing to the persistent difference
in academic achievement for groups of students (Gay, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 1994; Nieto,
2005).
The United States of America is universally known as a superpower among the world’s
nations and has held that status for more than a century (1898: The Birth of a Superpower, n.d.).
In the process, it has solidified its powerful hegemony at home and abroad (Artz & Murphy,
2000). Being a powerful society—a capitalistic one—the American society has shaped, sorted,
and largely maintained its people within different social and economic classes (Lears, 1985), and
these conditions continue today (Ladson-Billings, 2006).
Theory explaining American institutionalization. Social cognitive and sociocultural
theories both support the notion that a society functions as a powerful force that shapes human
thinking and behavior (Bandura, 2001; John-Steiner & Mahn, 1996). Bandura (2001) explained
that a person learns, develops, and exercises agency within a society or broad network of
sociostructural influences. Sociologists Berger and Luckmann (1991) argued that humans lack
the necessary biological means to provide stability for human conduct, and thus, out of necessity
and to create social order, humans externalize themselves in habitual activity which leads to
institutionalization— the outcome being that different types of actors (i.e. those more powerful,
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 39
those less powerful) are expected to act in certain ways (i.e. dominate, cooperate, be dominated).
In the context of American society, racism, sexism, gender discrimination, religious intolerance
and even anti-immigrant sentiment have become institutionalized to the detriment of students
from diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds, and for females (Gay, 2010; Spring, 2016).
The parents and home environment. Differences among parents and home
environments in the United States have been used to explain why and how some children and
youth have more opportunities to learn than others do, and how these disparities contribute to the
achievement gap (Parcel & Dufur, 2001; Rodriguez, Collins-Parks, & Garza, 2013; Scarr &
Weinberg, 1976).
SES and student achievement. Sirin (2005) conducted a meta-analysis of the literature
examining the relationship between socio-economic status (SES) and academic achievement.
The extensive study used journal articles spanning 10 years, from 1990-2,000, and included a
sample of 128 school districts, 6,871 schools, and 101,157 students gathered from 74
independent samples. The results indicated a strong to medium SES-achievement relation (Sirin,
2005).
SES and ethnicity. The literature shows how SES and ethnicity have been closely linked
with inequitable effects for underserved ethnic groups. For example, the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services (2001) reported that twice as many African families lived below the
poverty line than families of other ethnic groups. Denton and Massey (1988) found that Africans
were the most highly segregated underserved group. Among 60 U.S. Metropolitan areas,
Africans were the most residentially segregated group from “nonwhites” and were deprived of
many community capital resources. Latinos and Asians were also segregated and underserved,
but mostly at the lower SES levels—as they increased in wealth, they integrated more readily
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 40
than Africans did with Anglos and moved into more so-called socially desired neighborhoods
with better quality schools that had greater access to resources (Denton & Massey, 1988).
SES and mental health. Research has found a strong relationship between family SES
and many critical areas of functioning, like health (Adler et al., 1994). For example, research has
examined low-SES as both a cause and consequence of family and personal mental illnesses by
investigating the mutual influence of educational achievement and mental disorders (Miech,
Caspi, Moffitt, Wright, & Silva, 1999). The study found a strong relationship between SES and
(1) conduct disorder and (2) attention deficit disorder. The findings suggested that students from
low-SES home environments are more likely to have impaired learning. The implications
reported were possible less future life opportunities due to higher incidences of mental disorders
that affect achievement and overall functioning (Miech et al., 1999). This study also supported
previous research indicating that the lower social strata in society are overrepresented with
mental disorders (Dohrenwend & Levav, 1992; Kessler, 1979).
Supporting the healthy development of children. Parents and the home environment
play a major role in the healthy development of children, which supports learning in school
(Chatterji, 2006; Dearing et al., 2006).
Supporting cognitive development. Lee and Burkam (2002) conducted an analysis of the
U.S. Department of Education’s Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Cohort, and
found that inequalities in children’s cognitive abilities are substantial from early on, with
children from poor and diverse backgrounds starting kindergarten with significantly lower
exhibited cognitive skills than their more prepared peers. The research also found that the
students who exhibited lower cognitive skills at the start of kindergarten typically began school
in systematically lower-quality elementary schools, magnifying the initial inequality. Berliner’s
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 41
(2009; 2017) research on out-of-school factors shed light as to the possible causes for cognitive
discrepancies found among children, before schooling, from poor backgrounds.
Countering poverty-induced problems. Berliner (2009) found six out-of-school factors
typical among the poor that significantly affect the learning opportunities and health of children,
and he argued they limited what schools could do on their own: (1) low birth-weight and non-
genetic prenatal influences on children; (2) inadequate medical, dental, and vision care, often a
result of inadequate or no medical insurance; (3) food insecurity; (4) environmental pollutants;
(5) family relations and family stress; and (6) neighborhood characteristics. In his special policy
brief to the Education Public Interest Center (EPIC), Berliner (2009) further explained that these
factors were related to a host of poverty-induced psychological, physical, and social problems
that children brought to school, including but not limited to linguistic underdevelopment,
neurological damage, attention disorders, excessive absenteeism, and oppositional behavior
(2009; 2017). Recommendations made by Berliner (2009) to mitigate some of the harm caused
by the six out-of-school factors included for schools to extend learning activities before and after
school and during summer breaks. For all stakeholders interested in the welfare of children,
including parents, support for the following interventions were recommended:
• Reduce the rate of low birth weight children among African Americans
• Reduce drug and alcohol abuse
• Reduce pollutants in our cites and move people away from toxic sites
• Provide universal and free medical care for all citizens
• Insure that no one suffers from food insecurity
• Reduce the rates of family violence in low-income households
• Improve mental health services among the poor
• More equitably distribute low-income housing throughout communities
• Reduce both the mobility and absenteeism rates of children
• Provide high-quality preschools for all children (Berliner, 2009, p. 2).
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 42
Strong effects on performance. Brooks-Gunn, Klebanov, and Duncan (1996) conducted
a study examining the differences in intelligence test scores of African and Anglo 5- year-olds.
483 children were included in the data set and were followed from birth; rich information was
gathered on the families of the children about their neighborhoods, family incomes, family
structures, maternal characteristics, and home environment over the first 5 years of life. The
study found that differences in IQ scores, about 1 standard deviation, were almost all but
eliminated between African and Anglo students when adjustments were made for the differences
in families’ social transactions and economic status. Specifically, controlling for the home
environment reduced the cognitive performance gap by 28% (Brooks-Gunn et al., 1996).
Moore (1986) conducted a study that examined the response styles and mean IQ test
performance scores among 23 African-American children (ages 7-10 years old) adopted by
middle-class Anglo-European families and 23 age-matched African-American children adopted
by middle-class African-American families. The findings indicated that the children adopted
transnationally—by the Anglo families—showed almost 1 standard deviation Full-Scale Scoring
advantage over their peers who received normal IQ scores and were adopted traditionally into
African-American families. The researchers argued that the results showed that difference in
mean IQ performance could not be attributed to SES or ethnicity—which were the same in both
environments. They conceptualized that Anglo mothers’ helping behaviors with their children at
home on academic problem-solving tasks translated into better performance on standardized
tests. This highlights the great influence that parents and the home environment have in
contributing to cognitive development and academic performance.
Parenting styles. Studies have been mixed on the relationship between parenting styles
and student academic achievement, and a correlation has largely depended on the context. For
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 43
example, in one study that included 7,836 students, the researchers found no relationship
between parenting style and achievement among African-Americans (Dornbusch, Ritter,
Leiderman, & Roberts, 1987). Yet, two other studies showed a positive relationship in certain
contexts. Gonzales, Cauce, Friedman, and Mason (1996) found that restrictive maternal control
was related to higher achievement only in high-risk neighborhoods. Baldwin, Baldwin, and Cole
(1990) found similar results for high-risk neighborhoods, but lower maternal control to be
associated with higher academics in low-risk neighborhoods.
Quality of family relationships. Cowan, Johnson, Measelle, Cowan, and Ablow (2005)
conducted a prevention study—a randomized controlled trial with longitudinal follow-ups—
involving 100 families. The study found that the interventions intended to improve the quality of
marriages at two important times—before the birth of a first child and at a first child’s entry into
school—had a significant and lasting positive influence on academics. The study results support
the notion that the quality of family relationships is related to children’s academic development.
Religious faith. Jeynes (2010) conducted a research synthesis that included a review of
the literature, three meta-analyses, and supplemental analyses investigating the relationship
between personal faith and reductions in the achievement gap. Personal faith included belief and
commitment to any religion. The results of the study yielded three major findings: (1) attending
religious school decreased the achievement gap by 25%, (2) personal religious devotion reduced
the achievement gap by 50%, and (3) If an African-American student was a person of faith and
grew up with an intact family, the achievement gap disappeared completely. This study
confirmed prior studies that showed the value of religious faith in improving outcomes for
underserved students, in that: (1) African and Latino children performed better on most academic
measures than peers who were less religious, even when controlling for gender, socioeconomic
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 44
status, and whether the student attended a private religious school (Jeynes, 1999), and (2)
Students in the experiment group who attended revival services showed a greater rate of
improvement in school behavior (e.g. less alcohol and drug consumption), reported family
interactions that were improved, and felt better quality of life experiences in general than peers in
the control group (Jeynes, 2005).
These studies show how the achievement gap is partially influenced by the major out-of-
school factor of the family and the home environment, and as such, schools must share the
responsibility with families for reducing achievement disparities (Berliner, 2009; 2017).
The child. Differences in individual student characteristics and behaviors may account
for differences in achievement outcomes among students (O’Brennan, Bradshaw, & Furlong,
2014).
Inattentive-withdrawn and disruptive behaviors. Finn, Pannozzo, and Voelkl (1995)
investigated the relationship between teachers’ ratings of the classroom behavior of 1,013 fourth
graders and student achievement. The results indicated that inattentive-withdrawn and disruptive
behaviors were associated with depressed academic performance. The implications of the results
for educators are the following: (1) Teachers must pay just as much attention to non-participating
students, even if they are not disruptive or seeking attention, because they are vulnerable to
academic underperformance, and (2) Teachers are responsible for providing high-interest
curriculum and learning experiences that engage all students, celebrating their backgrounds. In
addition, the study confirms the generally accepted knowledge of the association between not
paying attention or being off-task and learning.
Personality differences. Laidra, Pullmann, and Allik (2007) conducted a study with
3,618 Estonian students (1,746 boys and 1872 girls) attending grades 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, and 12,
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 45
to examine if personality and intelligence were good predictors of academic achievement. The
personality test taken by students in grades 2 to 4 was the Big Five Questionnaire for Children
and for students in grades 6 to 12 was the NEO Five Factor Inventory. All students took the
Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices to measure intelligence. The results showed that of the
Big 5 personality traits, Openness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness correlated positively
and Neuroticism correlated negatively with academic achievement in almost every grade. After
all variables were entered together in a regression model, intelligence was the strongest
predictor, followed by Agreeableness for grades 2 to 4 and Conscientiousness in grades 6 to 12.
The results of the study imply that students who are strong on the Neuroticism
personality trait may experience academic underperformance; in contrast, students who exhibit
the personality traits of Agreeableness and Conscientiousness may have greater personal access
to learning. These findings are supported by a longitudinal study conducted by Chamorro-
Premuzic and Furnham (2003), whose results suggested that Neuroticism might impair academic
performance whereas Conscientiousness may lead to higher academic achievement.
Findings from both studies support the generally accepted notion among educators that
behaviors associated with the Neuroticism trait—anxiety, hostility, depression, self-
consciousness, impulsiveness, vulnerability—and those associated with Conscientiousness—
competence, order, dutifulness, achievement striving, self-discipline, deliberation—as defined by
John and Srivastava (1999), influence learning in divergent ways.
In-School Factors
In addition to external factors that influence student learning, many in-school factors
contribute to the achievement gap (Carter & Welner, 2013). This includes the following: 1) The
school and education system, and 2) The classroom teacher.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 46
The school and education system. Schools and education systems are powerful factors
that contribute to the achievement gap, able to reduce or magnify the initial inequalities
experienced by children before they enter school (Aronson & Laughter, 2016; Milner, 2010a).
Schools focused on the core business of teaching and learning. Robinson, Lloyd, and
Rowe (2008) conducted two meta-analysis using 27 published studies on the relationship
between school leadership and student outcomes. Their results indicated that the average effect
of instructional leadership on student outcomes was three to four times that of transformational
leadership. Also, they found (1) strong average effects for the leadership dimension of
participating in and promoting teacher learning and development, and (2) moderate effects for
the leadership dimensions concerned with goal setting, coordinating, planning, and evaluating
teaching and the curriculum. The implications of the meta-analysis are that schools and their
leaders can make a greater impact on reducing the achievement gap by focusing on the core
business of teaching and learning.
School leadership setting the right tone. Hays (2013) conducted a qualitative study
exploring the success of four urban charter public high schools in Boston, Massachusetts, in
reducing the achievement gap. All four schools served high-poverty and ethnically diverse
students who significantly outperformed similar district school peers. The results indicated that
the school’s leadership was instrumental to this success and identified three achievement gap
reducing dimensions of leadership: (1) high expectations for all student outcomes (2) safe and
orderly learning environment; and (3) an all-school adherence to leadership’s vision in the
context of the school’s mission.
School policy reforms focused on educational inputs. Harris and Herrington (2006)
provided a historical review and analysis of policy reforms as they relate to achievement gap
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 47
trends. They argued that over the last 50 years, the achievement gap has either decreased or
increased in concert with the policy reforms in place: the 1950s to the 1980s saw large decreases
in the achievement gap because policy levers focused on providing greater exposure to, and
resources in support of, teaching content and standards, which improved educational conditions
for underserved students.
In contrast, the authors explained that the period of the 1990s onward has been shaped by
policy focused on accountability: its form has evolved from government-based (i.e. school
takeovers, greater federal government oversight of local schools) to market-based (i.e. vouchers,
charters). Harris and Herrington (2006) cited multiple studies (Card & Krueger, 1992; Chaney,
Burgdorf, & Atash, 1997; Dee, 2003; Hofferth & Sanberg, 2001; Lee & Bryk, 1988; Lee,
Croninger, & Smith, 1997; Oakes, 1985; Roth et al., 2000; Schmidt et al 2001; Smith, 1998;
Teitelbaum, 2003) that showed how a focus on educational inputs during the 1950s to 1980s—
for example, greater number of days in school year, longer school days, more rigorous
coursework, among other factors—influenced higher academic achievement for underserved
students.
The classroom teacher. Research suggests that classroom teachers have great influence
on student achievement (Darling-Hammond, 2000) and hence are instrumental to closing
opportunity and achievement gaps for underserved students. There is much debate about which
teacher qualities are causally responsible for student achievement, but research has provided
strong support for the existence of considerable differences in overall teacher effectiveness, both
within and across schools (Hanushek & Rivkin, 2010; Kane, McCaffrey, Miller, & Staiger,
2013). Many scholars argue that a teacher who increases student engagement through various
means like employing cultural responsiveness and relevance (Gay, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 1994),
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 48
teaching for diversity and understanding (Rodriguez, 1998), and by using certain instructional
strategies (Marzano, Pickering, & Pollock, 2001) makes for a quality teacher who reduces the
achievement gap for diverse students.
Teacher preparation. The research is mixed on the effects of teacher characteristics on
student achievement (Darling-Hammond & Youngs, 2002). Darling-Hammond (2000)
conducted a study into teacher quality using data from a 50-state survey of policies, state case
study analyses, the 1993-94 Schools and Staffing Surveys (SASS), and the National Assessment
of Educational Progress (NAEP), and found that among all school-related inputs, measures of
teacher preparation and certification were by far the strongest correlates of student achievement,
before and after controlling for student language status and poverty. However, other researchers
have found that type of university degree, post-graduate schooling, and licensing examination
scores have limited effects on student achievement (Wayne & Youngs, 2003), and appear to
explain very little of the variation in teacher quality (Hanushek & Rivkin, 2010). These smaller
effects have been argued to have an indirect influence on instruction (Smith, Desimone, & Ueno,
2005).
Value-added measures of teacher quality. Rivkin et al. (2005) conducted a study to
measure the influence of teachers on student achievement, paying special attention to the
potential problems of mismeasured or omitted school and student variables. Using data from
UTD Texas Schools Project, the researchers found that teachers have powerful effects on
mathematics and reading achievement. For example, the value-added effect of a teacher one
standard deviation higher than the average-teacher-in-quality produced greater achievement for
students than the costly alternative of reducing class size by 10 students (Rivkin et al., 2005). In
addition, the researchers found that compared to an “average” teacher at the mean of quality
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 49
distribution, a “good” teacher (i.e. at the 84
th
percentile or 1 SD higher than the average)
produced an annual student achievement growth of 0.11 standard deviation in mathematics and
0.15 standard deviation growth in reading in grades 4-7.
Hanushek (2009) conducted a study using estimates of variation in teacher quality by
value-added measures and found that eliminating 6-10 percent of the lowest performing teachers
(as measured by standardized testing outcomes) would have a significant impact on student
achievement, even if “average” teachers replaced that bottom tier of teachers permanently.
Use of effective instructional strategies. In response to more rigorous educational
research methods and a larger body of experimental and quasi-experimental studies, Beesley and
Apthorp (2010) conducted a series of studies and literature reviews to update and extend the
meta-analysis research previously conducted by Marzano et al. (2001) into effective instructional
strategies for improving student academic achievement. They presented nine instructional
strategies along with a summary of the related literature and the corresponding achievement
gains using Hedge’s g measure of effect size.
Identifying similarities and differences. The researchers conducted a meta-analysis of 12
studies (American and international) that included elementary, middle, and high school students
working in the content areas of reading, math, science, and social studies, and the overall mean
effect size for using the strategy was 0.66. The researchers found that the most effective use of
the strategy involved teachers (1) connecting the strategy across multiple days of instruction by
activating prior knowledge, introducing new knowledge, helping students make connections
between prior and new knowledge, and asking students to apply or demonstrate their
understanding (Chen, 1999), and (2) orchestrating student or peer self-assessment (Bransford,
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 50
Brown, & Cocking, 2000). The findings supported that this is a robust strategy for teachers to
use to close the achievement gap.
Summarizing and note-taking. Using a meta-analysis involving approximately 3,000
students across multiple grades and subject areas, the composite effect size in student
achievement gains when teachers used the strategy of summarizing was 0.90 (an average gain of
32 percentile points) and for note-taking, it was 0.32 (an average gain of 13 percentile points).
The findings supported that this is a robust strategy for teachers to use to raise student
achievement. Also, the evidence suggested the following: (1) guided notetaking appears to be
more effective than notetaking that is unstructured (Hamilton, Seibert, Gardner, & Talbert-
Johnson, 2000) and (2) evidence is mixed about what structure is more effective, linear (e.g.
outlines) or non-linear note-taking (e.g. concept mapping, webbing) (Arslan, 2006).
Reinforcing effort and providing recognition. Across outcomes of various studies, the
researchers found that the effect of this strategy was small and often indistinguishable from
control variables. The literature did suggest, however, that teachers should (1) foster mastery
orientation among students (Bouffard, Boisvert, Vezeau, & Larouche, 1995) and (2) be specific
in praise that aligned to expected performance and behavior (Henderlong & Lepper, 2002). The
empirical research suggested that reinforcing effort and providing recognition has a direct
influence on fostering students’ socio-emotional wellbeing, which may have an indirect
influence on learning.
Homework and practice. The studies included in the meta-analysis suggested a small but
positive relationship between the parts of the homework completed by students and achievement,
a 0.13 effect size for homework and 0.42 effect size for practice (specifically test-enhanced
practice). The researchers suggested, in line with the literature, that when teachers assign
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 51
homework, they should (1) realize that the time spent on homework and academic achievement
is stronger for middle and high schoolers than for elementary students (Cooper, Lindsay, Nye, &
Greathouse, 1998), (2) realize that the quality of the homework assignments may be more
important than the amount of time spent doing it (Hong, 2001), and (3) not use class time to
check homework because it was not found to be associated with higher achievement (Cooper,
Robinson, & Patall, 2006)
Nonlinguistic representations. A meta-analysis involving 5,000 students across multiple
grades and subject areas found a composite effect size of 0.49 for nonlinguistic representations
(an average gain of 19 percentile points). In addition, the literature review supported the
following conclusions: (1) picture animations are more effective to use than static images
(Marbach-Ad, Rotbain, & Stavy, 2008), and (2) nonlinguistic representations can effectively be
combined with other teaching strategies like summarizing (De Romero & Dwyer, 2005). The
findings supported that this is a robust strategy for teachers to use to raise academic achievement.
Cooperative learning. A meta-analysis of over 2,000 students across multiple grades and
subject areas (mostly science and mathematics) found a composite effect size of 0.44 (an average
gain of 19 percentile points). The researchers also discovered that effective cooperative
instruction involves (1) positive interdependence (Acar & Tarhan, 2008) and (2) individual
accountability (Antil, Jenking, Wayne, & Vadasy, 1998). Findings supported that this is a robust
strategy for teachers to use to close the achievement gap.
Setting objectives and providing feedback. A meta-analysis of 717 students across
multiple grades and subject areas found a composite effect size of 0.31 for setting objectives (an
average gain of 12 percentile points) and 0.76 for providing feedback (an average gain of 28
percentile points). Findings supported that these two robust strategies increase student
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 52
achievement. The researchers suggested that teachers take the following into consideration with
regards to feedback: (1) it should be instructive, but should not take the place of instruction
(Hattie & Timperley, 2007), (2) it should be timely in the context of the learning task (i.e.
delayed when students are in discovery learning) (Clariana & Koul, 2006), (3) it should be task-
descriptive and not evaluative of the student (Shirbagi, 2007), and (4) it should support students
in self-assessment (Glaser & Brunstein, 2007).
Generating and testing hypotheses. A meta-analysis involving 15 studies demonstrated a
positive overall effect for using this strategy, but an even stronger effect size was noted for the
11 studies that utilized a treatment and control design (effect size of 0.58). The research showed
that students in the experiment group were better at transferring knowledge to new situations
(Rivet & Krajcik, 2004), had a clearer understanding of concepts in the lessons (Hsu, 2008), and
could make better connections between content and other situations (Ward & Lee, 2004).
Cues, questions, and advance organizers. The researchers’ analysis found evidence for
the effectiveness of the strategies, but the strongest effect was for advanced organizers
(composite effective size of 0.74). This may be because only two studies were found on cues
and questioning, whereas for advanced organizers five samples were analyzed from four
identified studies. The largest effect size (2.03) was found in an advanced organizer study,
where worked examples and cognitive strategies were used during instruction (Chung & Tam,
2005).
Conclusion. The problem of opportunity and achievement gaps is complex and is
influenced by multiple compounding factors that operate and interact in and out of schools. It is
also amazing that even though so much research has been conducted on the topic of the
achievement gap, there continues to be observed gaps in learning for groups of students. Solving
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 53
this problem requires a multipronged approach that leverages the contributions of various
stakeholders (Senge, Cambron-McCabe, Lucas, Smith, and Dutton, 2012).
Key Strategies for Improving Teacher Performance
Across the education, psychology, and business/entrepreneur literature, recommendations
have been made about how human performance, including teacher performance, could be
improved in organizational systems like schools. Schools systems and their teachers can benefit
from applying the combined abundance of theoretical and empirical knowledge gained from
multiple research perspectives. Innovators and disrupters have become effective in changing the
landscape and solving problems within and across their industries by employing an outsider
perspective—like the popular Apple slogan, they “Think Different” and associate seemingly
unrelated ideas and concepts to produce novel approaches to solving a problem (Christensen,
Horn & Johnson, 2011; Dyer, Gregersen, & Christensen, 2013). The following is three key
recommendations from the literature that, combined, may positively influence the problem of
practice. These recommendations have been integrated within the design of the conceptual
framework described in detail at the end of the chapter.
Educational Strategies to Strengthen Teacher Performance
Development of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). Shulman's (1986; 1987)
major contribution to the field of education was advocating for the combining of two knowledge
fields, teachers' subject knowledge (content) and knowledge of instructional methods
(pedagogy). This notion became known as pedagogical content knowledge (Hlas &
Hilderbrandt, 2010). To Shulman, PCK represents the essence of what differentiates a scientist
from a science teacher (Gudmundsdottir, 1987). The science teacher, for instance, should have
the unique ability to transform rigorous subject matter into meaningful lessons for students by
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 54
taking into consideration how diverse students learn best. Cochran, DeRuiter, and King (1993)
revised Shulman's original PCK construct to include two additional knowledge domains
necessary for a teacher to be more than a subject matter expert: (1) knowledge of students'
characteristics, and (2) knowledge of learning environments including the political, sociocultural,
and physical makeup.
Enactment of a culturally relevant education (CRE). Aronson and Laughter (2016)
reviewed the culturally responsive and relevant theoretical and empirical literature in response to
a few scholars (Sleeters, 2012) who were casting doubts about its empirically-based relationship
to student success. The researchers suggested that with regards to teaching diverse students, two
primary strands within educational research—teacher posture and paradigm (culturally relevant
pedagogy) and teacher practice (culturally responsive teaching)—dovetailed to form an inclusive
framework they and others (Dover, 2013) have labeled culturally relevant education (CRE).
Gay (1975; 2010) has been the most prominent scholarly force behind culturally
responsive teaching (CRT). Gay defined culturally relevant teaching as "using the cultural
knowledge, prior experiences, frames of reference, and performing styles of ethnically diverse
student to make learning encounters more relevant to and effective for them” (Gay, 2010, p. 31).
Further, there are six dimensions to culturally relevant teaching: (1) social and academic
empowerment by setting high expectations (2) engaging in multidimensional perspectives (3)
instructing in ways that validate each student's culture (4) being socially, emotionally, and
politically comprehensive (5) promoting transformation of schools and societies, and (6)
emancipation and liberation from oppressive educational practices and ideologies. Gay (2013)
also believes that four actions are essential to educators implementing culturally relevant
teaching: (1) replacing deficit mindsets about students and communities, (2) understanding
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 55
critics so they are more confident about their implementation, (3) understanding the role of
culture and difference as essential ideology to humanity, and (4) making explicit pedagogical
connections within the teaching environment.
Ladson-Billings (1994) has been the preeminent scholar for culturally responsive
pedagogy (CRP). She asserts that students' knowledge, skills, and attitudes must be developed
using cultural referents and that they must be empowered intellectually, socially, emotionally,
and politically. Three components regarding teacher posture that govern a culturally responsive
pedagogy include (1) thinking about long-term academic achievement, (2) promoting cultural
competence, meaning honoring students' experiences while also giving access to wider ways of
knowing, and, (3) fostering sociopolitical consciousness, which involves teaching students to
critique social inequalities (Ladson-Billings, 1994).
In their synthesis of research across 40 studies from varying journals and the
mathematics, language arts, science, and social studies disciplines, Aronson and Laughter (2016)
found a strong relationship between enacting CRE in the classroom and positive student
outcomes—ranging from higher academic achievement to increased motivation and feelings of
agency and empowerment for students.
Developing teachers’ PCK and their ability to enact CRE is a strengths-based approach to
honoring and inclusively meeting diverse students’ cognitive, academic, cultural, and socio-
emotional needs.
Innovator Strategy to Disrupt and Enhance Teacher Performance
Learning organization (LO). Senge et al. (2012) argued that effective schools operate
as learning organizations (LO). They believe that by adopting a “learning orientation”, schools
can produce viable, sustainable solutions to the complex problem's facing our nation's schools.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 56
Senge (2006) defines learning organizations as "organizations where people continually expand
their capacity to create the results they truly desire, where new and expansive patterns of
thinking are nurtured, where collective aspiration is set free, and where people are continually
learning how to learn together" (p. 3). When schools act as learning organizations, they bring
together various stakeholders who traditionally have been suspicious of one another—teachers
and parents, union members and administrators—and they learn and work together on behalf of
the future of their community (Senge el al., 2012).
Learning organizations are grounded in five principles or "learning disciplines" for
transforming the way people think and act—personal mastery, working with mental models,
building shared vision, team learning, and systems thinking (Senge, 2006). The five learning
disciplines are grouped into three categories: (1) Personal Mastery and Shared Vision
(articulating individual and collective aspirations in service of setting direction), (2) Mental
Models and Team Learning (practicing reflective thinking and generative conversation), and (3)
Systems Thinking (recognizing and managing complexity in the environment) (Senge et al.,
2012). For schools to become learning organizations where participants perform well, all three
interconnected levels or systems of nested activity must experience change: the classroom (e.g.
teachers, students, and parents), the school system (e.g. superintendents, principals, and school
board members), and the community (e.g. community residents, business leaders, other
educational professionals) (Senge et al., 2012).
Dyer el al. (2013) suggested in their book The Innovator’s DNA that effective disrupters
associate seemingly unrelated ideas to produce novel solutions. As such, the combined effect of
developing teachers’ PCK and training teachers to enact CRE within the supportive context of a
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 57
LO school might make the difference in raising achievement and reducing the learning and
participation gap for traditionally underserved students.
The next sections explains the framework that was used to more closely examine teacher
performance and will transition the literature review from a general achievement gap perspective
to a stakeholder-specific lens and analysis.
Clark and Estes’ Gap Analysis Framework
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis is a systematic framework that was designed to
lead organizations to meet goals and outcomes through KMO adjustments. This is valuable
because an organization moves closer to fulfilling its mission when it attains desired outcomes
(Altrichter & Moosbrugger, 2015). The gap analysis model served this dissertation project by
helping the researcher to examine teacher performance in the context of student achievement
outcomes. It was learned that the goal was for 50% of students to read proficiently by the end
of the school year at each grade level. Teachers were not meeting their performance goals
because less than 30% of students were proficient readers by end of year, a difference of 20%.
To close this 20% gap between actual and desired student achievement, a gap analysis was
conducted to identify the knowledge, motivation, and organization factors that were impeding
and facilitating effective teacher performance. Root causes to teacher performance were first
explored by review of the literature and surveying the field were teachers worked. Assumed
KMO influences on teacher performance were then validated through data collection and
analysis. In the following sections of the literature review, Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis
framework is used to guide the identification of assumed KMO influences on teacher
performance related to developing proficient readers.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 58
Stakeholder Knowledge, Motivation, and Organization Factors
In this section, the purpose of the literature review was to examine the following nine
KMO factors that are assumed to influence teachers’ performance at AES related to the goal of
developing all students into proficient readers. Table 3 presents this information.
Table 3
KMO Factors Assumed to Influence Teacher Performance
KMO Factors
Knowledge Factors
Motivation Factors
Organization Factors
Knowledge of subject matter,
methods, and learners
Believing in the benefits of
teaching for diversity
Embracing a learning
orientation
Knowledge of how to teach
for diversity and
understanding
Believing that teacher
performance explains student
outcomes
Having resources and
materials to enhance teaching
and learning
Knowledge of critical
reflection and socio-political
consciousness
Believing in one's ability as a
teacher to achieve a goal
Having data-driven decision-
making frameworks and
processes
The knowledge factors will first be discussed, followed by those of motivation and the
organization, with respect to their influence on teacher performance. The teachers’ stakeholder
performance goals are that (1) By June 2018, 50% of students will score meets or exceeds in
ELA as measured by CAASPP, and (2) By June 2018, K-3 teachers will implement research-
based reading instructional practices using culturally relevant teaching practices to ensure that
75% of general education students meet the end-of-year reading proficiency targets.
The literature review that follows will be done in the context of learning, motivation, and
organizational theory and related literature for the teacher stakeholder group. After reviewing
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 59
each set of knowledge, motivation, and organization factors, a summary table will include a brief
description of the approach to assessing the related influences.
Knowledge and Skills
Research suggests that the knowledge and skills a teacher possesses affects his or her
performance towards developing proficient student readers (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1999;
Darling-Hammond, 1997; 2000). In this section of the literature review, education knowledge
will be discussed along with studies related to teacher performance.
General theory of knowledge. Clark and Estes (2008) argued that peoples combined
knowledge and skills are one of the three big causes of employee performance gaps. But what is
knowledge? According to Anderson et al. (2001), there are four types of knowledge: factual,
conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. Factual knowledge can be described as the basic
elements one must know to become familiar with a given discipline—it includes knowledge of
terminologies and specific details (Krathwohl, 2002). Conceptual knowledge is knowledge of
categories, generalizations, classifications, and other ideas pertinent to a discipline (Anderson et
al., 2001). Rueda (2011) explains that factual and conceptual knowledge are related
subcategories of propositional or declarative knowledge. Procedural knowledge refers to
knowing the “how” or the steps involved in completing a task, and can include techniques and
specific methodologies (Anderson et al., 2001). Pintrich (2002) explained that metacognitive
knowledge is the awareness an individual has of his or her own beliefs, values, thinking, and
behaviors. A thorough comprehension of the four knowledge types is critical for understanding
how individuals think, act, learn, and apply themselves to meet their performance goals
(Krathwohl, 2002). The following section examines the stakeholder-specific research literature
related to the knowledge that teachers need to meet their performance goals.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 60
Knowledge of subject matter, methods, and learners. Teachers must accurately know
the factual and conceptual details of the subject matter or content they teach as well as how
learners cognitively approach learning the material (Shulman, 1987; 1988; Hill, Ball, &
Schilling, 2008).
Knowledge of reading fluency. In a study that examined students’ fluency growth, results
indicated that a classroom teacher’s knowledge about reading fluency was a strong predictor of
first grade students’ development with decoding and second-grade students’ oral reading fluency
growth (Lane et al., 2008). Thus, the more robust and accurate a teacher’s knowledge about
reading fluency was, the more accurately and fluently students read (Lane et al., 2008).
Reproduction of own content knowledge. In a study that analyzed 200 concept maps that
were created by prospective elementary teachers, it was found that the factual knowledge they
needed to design concept maps was limited (Subramaniam & Esprívalo Harrell, 2015). Due to
this finding, the researchers hypothesized that these prospective teachers would poorly and
inaccurately instruct students on how to execute a proper concept map. Research has shown that
concept mapping is an effective high-leverage instructional strategy across curricular areas
(Derbentseva, Safayeni, & Cañas, 2007; Hattie, 2012), and this study showed how student
performance might be botched by poorly executed teacher lessons based on self-limited teacher
content knowledge.
Knowledge of spoken and written language. In a survey study of 52 experienced teachers
of language arts, results indicated that most teachers lacked the necessary factual knowledge of
the structure of spoken and written language—particularly about phonemes and phonics—that
they were responsible for directly teaching (Moats, 1994). For example, only about 20% of
surveyed teachers could consistently identify consonant blends in written words (Moats, 1994).
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 61
The results indicated that even the most experienced and motivated teachers understood little
about the written and spoken language structure to provide the necessary instruction in these
areas (Moats, 1994).
Knowledge of spelling and phonics. Another study involving K-3 teachers showed how
teachers' own spelling skills, specifically their factual knowledge of phoneme-grapheme
relationships, was related to student outcomes in spelling (Kroese, Mather, & Sammons, 2006).
The students in classrooms where the teachers had the least factual knowledge about spelling
rules made the least advancement in spelling development (Kroese et al., 2006). These studies
highlight the importance of teachers possessing the necessary factual knowledge in the subject
matter or content they teach.
Knowledge of students through assessment literacy. Teachers must also know the
concepts involved in diagnosing learners’ needs through assessments. Popham (2011) argued
that there is a need for teachers to be assessment literate because teacher training programs have
neglected this very important skill set. Many teachers in the United States have reported feeling
inadequately equipped with the knowledge and skills to assess their students' present academic
levels (Merlter, 1999; Stiggins, 1995). Research indicated that many teacher candidates also
reported low self-efficacy about assessment literacy during their teacher preparation programs
(Volante & Fazio, 2007), and felt only slightly improved in assessment competency after being
on-the-job as a teacher (Mertler, 1999). At the same time, the current educational climate of
accountability continues to demand more of schools, teachers, and students by way of
assessment and differentiated instruction.
In a descriptive study that was conducted in the state of Ohio to examine the assessment
practices of 625 K-12 teachers, the results showed that teachers did not spend much time
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 62
conducting analyses of their assessment data (Mertler, 1999). Results from a national survey in
the United States found that 70% of teachers had reported having some exposure to assessment
training, but for the majority, it had been longer than 6 years since that time (Plake, 1993).
However, a study involving a two-week intensive workshop for teachers on assessment practices
showed promise for improving participants’ understanding of learners and assessment concepts
(Mertler, 2009). In that study, each teacher's pre-test to post-test scores on the Assessment
Literacy Inventory (ALI) increased significantly as well as did the overall mean score for the
group (Mertler, 2009). The time spent, even if for a short intense period, helped build teachers'
assessment knowledge.
Another study involving fourth and fifth grade English, science, and math teachers
indicated that spending in-depth time learning about assessment literacy, in a sustained ongoing
manner with direct application and practice of those concepts, was more successful than short-
term trainings (Koh, 2011). The participants' knowledge of assessment concepts increased
significantly in the second year of professional development and especially in understanding
authentic student assessments (Koh, 2011). These findings highlight the importance of actively
addressing the teacher stakeholder group's conceptual knowledge related to learners and
assessment literacy.
Knowledge of how to teach for diversity and understanding. Teachers who value a
culturally responsive pedagogy often lack the procedural knowledge of how to turn beliefs and
values into relevant teaching practices for diverse students (Neumann, 2013; Rodriguez, 1998).
Sociotransformative Constructivism. Rodriguez (1998) offered a theoretical framework
as a response to this conundrum: Sociotransformative constructivism (sTc). This framework
merges the principles of multicultural education (Banks, 2006) with social constructivism—
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 63
drawing from the works of Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky (1980) and Russian literary critic
and philosopher Mikhail Bakhtin (1981; 1986). sTc is way to engage in hands-on, minds-on
learning through natural social transactions that include all participants within a learning
community. The framework is organized into four interrelated elements: (1) the dialogic
conversation, (2) authentic activity, (3) metacognition, and (4) reflexivity.
According to Rodriguez (1998), dialogic conversation is mediated by trust, and is about
people engaging in conversation within spaces that are contextually-relevant; it seeks to
understand speakers’ reasons for saying what they say. It involves listening intently and
patiently to the interests, values, and experiences represented by all communicators. In the
classroom, it is a way for teachers and students, who often hold different hierarchical and
sociocultural locations, to come together and have honest conversations that lead to mutual
understanding and even transformation. Authentic activity includes hands-on, minds-on
activities, but Rodriguez (1998) argued that it goes beyond that and creates “opportunities for
students to observe, engage in, and critique the common practices and the discourses typical of
the community of practice they were studying” (p. 1022). Metacognition means more than self-
awareness; it stirs a sense of agency within and drives questioning like “Why am I learning about
this topic?” and “Why am I learning these concepts in this way?” Lastly, reflexivity is a critical
process through which people can examine how their social (e.g. socio-cultural and economic),
ideological (e.g. values and worldviews) and academic location (e.g. education attained)
influence what is considered important to learn.
Knowledge of critical reflection and socio-political consciousness. Teachers must have
critical reflection knowledge about self and students in addition to knowledge of context,
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 64
content, assessment, and methods to plan lessons that are accessible to diverse students (Gay &
Kirkland, 2003; Howard, 2003; Milner, 2010a; 2010b)
This metacognitive knowledge (Howard, 2003) interacts with teachers' pedagogical
content knowledge (Shulman, 1987) within the environmental context (Cochran et al., 1993) to
positively influence student achievement (Aronson & Laughter, 2016).
The Johari Window is a model for thinking about one's own thinking and behavior in
relation to others (Luft & Ingham, 1961). The model’s four quadrants represent intersections
between what is known-to-others, not-known-to-others, known-to-self, not-known-to-self (Luft
& Ingham, 1961). The known-to-self and not-known-to-self areas concern the metacognitive
window of self-knowledge. A critical friend (i.e. a trusted advisor) can help a teacher to improve
his or her metacognition and instructional behaviors and practices by asking provocative
questions and offering helpful critiques (Costa & Kallick, 1993).
Milner (2010a) provided a powerful tool for teachers—a diversity, opportunity gap
explanatory framework. It can be used to increase metacognitive knowledge, especially that of
self-knowledge, with positive impacts on equity and socio-political consciousness (Gay, 2010).
Milner's research and experiences have lead him to believe that all educators can develop a
metacognitive mindset consistent with equitable thinking and practices. Doing so can help
teachers acknowledge the existence of cultural conflicts. His framework offered five areas
related to teaching diverse students: color-blindness, cultural conflicts, myth of meritocracy,
deficit conceptions, and expectations (Milner, 2010b).
Table 4 reveals how the literature may be applied to this dissertation’s problem of
practice, particularly to the identification of knowledge factors that are potentially influencing
the performance of the teacher stakeholder group at AES. Column one identifies the influence.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 65
Column two lists the type of knowledge as per Anderson et al.’s (2002) classification. Column
three describes how the influence will be assessed in terms of data collection.
Table 4
Assumed Knowledge Influences on AES Teacher Performance
Knowledge Influence Knowledge
Type
Knowledge Influence Assessment
1. Knowledge of
subject matter,
methods, and
learners
Declarative
(Factual and
Conceptual)
Written Survey Items #33
“The teacher's domain knowledge in the subject
area of reading/ language arts ”
strongly disagree/disagree/agree/strongly agree
Interview Item #1
“Tell me about a typical day of teaching reading
to your students.”
2. Knowledge of how
to teach for diversity
and understanding
Procedural Written Survey Item #34
“The teacher’s knowledge of how to
incorporate students' culture into lessons”
strongly disagree/disagree/agree/strongly agree
Interview Item #2
“How do you prepare for teaching a reading
lesson?”
3. Knowledge of
critical reflection
and socio-political
consciousness
Metacognitive Written Survey Item #35
“The teacher’s awareness of the cultural
differences at play in the classroom setting”
strongly disagree/disagree/agree/strongly agree
Interview Item #6
“In what ways do you think your upbringing,
culture, and experiences influence the way you
teach students to read?”
Motivation
Research suggests that the motivation a teacher possesses affects his or her performance
towards developing proficient student readers (Pintrich, 2002). In this section of the literature
review, a brief overview of achievement-oriented motivation is provided. The theories of
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 66
expectancy-value, attributions, and self-efficacy will be discussed along with studies related to
teacher performance.
General theory of motivation. Motivation is "the reason or reasons one has for acting
or behaving in a particular way; the general desire or willingness of someone to do something"
("Motivation", 2010). Within the context of achievement, motivation can be defined as an
internal state that initiates and maintains goal-directed behavior (Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece,
2009). Three indicators describe motivation: active choice, persistence, and mental effort
(Mayer, 2011). Active choice refers to how action replaces an intention to pursue a goal;
persistence refers to how an action continues despite distractions; and, mental effort refers to the
level of mental work needed to accomplish a goal (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Mayer's (2011) description of motivation describes four similar components in that
motivation is personal, because it occurs within a person; activating, because it prompts
behavior; energizing, because it promotes intensity and persistence; and directing, because it sets
a course fixed on a goal. Recent scholarship has acknowledged that affective, cognitive, cultural,
social, and environmental factors are equally important in the instigation and maintenance of
motivation (Rueda, 2011). The following three motivational theories may help explain teacher
behavior directed towards performance achievement: expectancy utility-value, attributions, and
self-efficacy.
Expectancy-value theory. Value is "the regard that something is held to deserve; the
importance, worth, or usefulness of something" ("Value", 2010). In early writings of motivation,
Lewin (1938) argued how the value of an activity influenced whether an
individual would engage in the activity. Tolman (1932) examined how peoples’ expectancies for
success influenced subsequent actions. Upon these two ideas, Atkinson (1957) developed his
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 67
expectancy-value model of achievement motivation. He explicated the relationship between the
need for achievement, expectancies, and values with behaviors of choice and persistence. Eccles
(2005) expanded the model to focus on children's development, and since then, the theory has
grown into other fields with respect to analyzing generalized performance. More recently,
Higgins (2007) defined value in terms of the proportional worth of the activity and the
psychological experience of being drawn to or repelled away from the activity.
Utility-value. Utility-value is a belief construct within the expectancy-value model.
Utility-value or “usefulness” refers to how the task fits into an individual’s plan of expected
future outcomes (Wigfield & Cambria, 2010). Utility-value theory frames the first potential
motivation influence for teacher performance.
Believing in the benefits of teaching for diversity. Teachers benefit from believing that
teaching for diversity is important for promoting equity and social justice, and for influencing
positive student outcomes (Darling-Hammond, 2010). The literature shows that having this
value is useful for affirming teacher professionalism, addressing the affective dimension of
learning, facilitating school and classroom reform, and increasing student achievement through
enhanced engagement (Danielson, 2011; Gay, 2002).
Affirming teacher professionalism. Charlotte Danielson's (2011) comprehensive and
research-based framework for teaching classifies the entire scope of a teacher's professional
practice into four domains— Domain 1: Planning and Preparation; Domain 2: The Classroom
Environment; Domain 3: Instruction; and, Domain 4: Professional Responsibilities (Danielson,
2011). Teaching for diversity supports the professional work of teachers within Domain 1,
Planning and Preparation, because the “Distinguished” indicator under the category of
Component 1b: Demonstrating Knowledge of Students, Knowledge of students’ interests and
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 68
cultural heritage, states: “Teacher recognizes the value of understanding students’ interests and
cultural heritage and displays this knowledge for individual students” (Danielson, 2011, p. 50).
When teachers plan and teach for diversity, it brings them into distinguished professional
practice.
Shulman (1987) was a chief advocate and architect behind the creation of national
teaching standards in America. The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (1991)
described how quality teachers should know and be able to plan curriculum and lessons beyond
the content standards, to include the material of diverse students' lives.
Addressing the affective dimension of learning. Shulman (2012), in a keynote address at
Oregon State University, reflected on 25 years of research and practice on PCK, and admitted
that the initial framework (a major influence behind the national standards) drew too heavily
from cognitive learning theory. Shulman (2012) believes that the original framework failed to
address the affective dimensions of learners. Learning is both a cognitive and social process
(Bandura, 2001; Rueda, 2011), and as such, studies have shown that teaching for diversity
incorporates cognitive-based teaching strategies (Rodriguez, 1998), but additionally helps to
create an inclusive learning environment through rich sociocultural interactions (Beecher &
Sweeny, 2008; Yeager, Walton, & Cohen, 2013).
Yeager et al. (2013) conducted a study and found that teaching for diversity positively
improves student psychology and learning. His research suggested that when combined with
academic strategies, social-psychological interventions, like providing diverse students with the
time and opportunity to explicitly write about their fears in school, positively changed diverse
students’ psychology and even boosted their academic performance for years (Yeager et al.,
2013).
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 69
Facilitating school and classroom reform. City, Elmore, Fiarman, and Teitel (2009)
argued that teachers' professional practice and education reform must focus on the "Instructional
Core,” that is, the space where the teacher, student, and content intersect. Beecher and Sweeny
(2008) documented such a school’s success story at reform. After an 8-year journey, Central
Elementary School closed the achievement gap by focusing on the instructional core through
curriculum enrichment and differentiation. Beecher and Sweeny (2008) wrote:
Enrichment and differentiation were chosen as the methods to improve the learning
environment based on evidence that engagement in learning is enhanced when students’
interests and choices are considered, and the need to provide learning experiences that
were responsive to the learning characteristics of a diverse student population. (p. 503)
This research study showed how teaching for diversity can be useful to increase student
engagement, raise achievement, and close achievement gaps.
Facilitating increased learning through enhanced engagement. Utility-value theory
suggests that teachers will be motivated to make certain choices about instructional planning if
they deem them valuable towards accomplishing end-goals (Ryan & Deci, 2009). The end-goal
in the age of educational accountability is high levels of student engagement and achievement,
especially for subgroups such as Latino/as and English Learners (Crocco & Costigan, 2007).
Instructional practices in American schools have failed to educate diverse students well—the
curriculum and content mostly reflect Anglo-European culture, leaving diverse students to often
feel disconnected, disengaged, and underserved (Milner, 2015). Although teaching for diversity
requires additional thoughtfulness and planning (Rodriguez, 1998), teachers can stretch
themselves if they see the value of using culturally responsive teaching for supporting rigorous
learning. Gay (2002) defines culturally responsive teaching in the following way:
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 70
As using the cultural characteristics, experiences, and perspectives of ethnically diverse
students as conduits for teaching them more effectively. It is based on the assumption
that when academic knowledge and skills are situated within the lived experiences and
frames of reference of students, they are more personally meaningful, have higher interest
appeal, and are learned more easily and thoroughly. (p. 106)
When culturally responsive behaviors like caring and reflexivity are demonstrated to students,
student motivation, interest, and engagement increases, resulting in greater learning outcomes
(Aronson & Laughter, 2016; Ladson-Billings, 1995). For example, a study of elementary,
middle, and high schools using longitudinal data sets collected by the Institute for Research and
Reform in Education demonstrated that relationships between teachers and students matter for
engagement and achievement (Klem & Connell, 2004). The next potential motivation influence
on teacher performance to be discussed is attributions.
Attributions. Attribution theory as a field started with Fritz Heider's publication of The
Psychology of Interpersonal Relations (Heider, 1958). Weiner's (1985) model expanded the
theory and elaborated on processes behind the causal beliefs formed by individuals. He
formulated the idea that the characteristics of attributions can be classified along three
dimensions: stability (temporary vs permanent), locus (internally or externally related), and
control (inside vs outside one's control) (Weiner, 2005). An important claim of attribution
theory is that learning and motivation are enhanced when individuals attribute successes or
failures to effort rather than ability, and empirical research supports this argument (Dweck, 1975;
1986; 2008). Individuals are motivated by adaptive attributions and control beliefs (Pintrich,
2003), especially those that encourage leveraging self-control for performance purposes (Pajares,
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 71
1997; Sharp, Cutler, & Penrod, 1988). Attribution theory frames the second potential motivation
influence for teacher performance.
Believing that teacher performance explains student outcomes. Teachers who believe
that student achievement outcomes are largely influenced by their own efforts at instruction
rather than students' characteristics, backgrounds, or other factors exhibit greater teaching effort
(Brophy, 1985; Clark & Peterson, 1986; Guskey, 1982; Tschannen-Moran, Hoy, & Hoy, 1998).
This can be a difficult conclusion for educators to arrive at because research has shown that the
reasons people typically give for outcomes are influenced by social norms and prior performance
history (Kelley, 1973). After years of experiencing the achievement gap, teachers may develop
unconsciously fixed beliefs, as happens when culture develops over time (Schein, 2010). The
literature demonstrated that attributing student outcomes to effort is useful as a tool for triggering
achievement-promoting affect.
Triggering achievement-promoting affect. The research is clear about teachers’ affective
and reactional state—and the effort they give—when they attribute a student’s success or failure
to ability or effort. In a study that examined teacher attributions of student failure and teacher
behavior toward the failing student, researchers found that teachers’ behaviors indicated more
pity (or sympathy) and less anger towards students when they believed that the cause of low
achievement was low abilities (Georgiou, Christou, Stavrinides, & Panaoura, 2002). The
teachers exhibited more anger and less pity when they perceived the cause of low student
achievement to be due to low student effort; in these circumstances, the teachers often gave up
their efforts to help the student to improve (Georgious et al., 2002).
Research has shown that teachers’ attributions are important because they send a message
to students—learners gain information about the perceived causes of successes and failures from
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 72
the affective display of teachers (Graham, 1990), and even shape their own attributional thinking
as a result (Fennema, Peterson, Carpenter, & Lubinski, 1990). When teachers express to
students pity or sympathy and provide them with continuous extra help, studies have shown that
students psychologically internalize this to mean that they must have less ability, and therefore
they might develop lower self-efficacy and give less effort (Prawat, Byers, & Anderson, 1983).
This is the reason why tracking students by group abilities is so detrimental to lower performing
students—they judge themselves as inferior to higher-group peers. In contrast, when teachers
express anger at students for low achievement, students internalize this cue to mean that they
must have higher ability (or else why would the teacher be upset) and therefore they work harder
to prove the perception true (Butler, 1994).
The literature on teacher attributions recommends that teachers must believe that lower
student achievement is because of effort; and, teachers must not let anger be a reason to abandon
helping a student (Georgiou et al., 2002). The teachers must also pay special attention to their
affective demonstrations towards students related to performance as it affects students’ sense of
efficacy on subsequent efforts (Graham, 1990). The next potential motivation influence to be
discussed for teacher performance is self-efficacy.
Self-efficacy. Self-efficacy can be defined as a person's self-perceived abilities for
performance or learning (Bandura, 1997). High self-efficacy has been shown to positively
influence motivation (Schunk & Pajares, 2005). Feedback and modeling has also demonstrated
increased self-efficacy for receiving individuals (Sharp, Cutler, & Penrod, 1988). Learning and
motivation are enhanced when learners have positive expectancies for personal success (Pajares,
1997). Self-efficacy is an important theory to understand because it serves as one of the key
influences of human motivation (Bandura, 1997). Also, research has shown that individuals with
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 73
higher self-efficacy work harder, participate more readily, show greater interest in learning, are
better at persisting, and attain higher achievement levels (Bandura, 1997; Schunk & Usher,
2012). Self-efficacy theory frames the third potential motivation influence for teacher
performance.
Believing in one's ability as a teacher to achieve a goal. Teacher self-efficacy is
suggested to effect positive outcomes, higher student achievement, closer teacher-student
relationships, and stronger teacher performance (Bandura, 1997; Pajares, 1997).
Triggering positive school outcomes. A meta-analysis by Zee and Koomen (2016)
covering 40 years of research on teacher self-efficacy found positive connections to student
academics, teacher practices related to classroom quality, and factors underlying teachers’
psychological well-being, including personal accomplishment, job satisfaction, and commitment.
In addition, low teacher self-efficacy was found to be related to higher teacher burnout (Zee &
Koomen, 2016).
Influencing higher student achievement. In a study of over 2,000 teachers in 75 junior
high schools examining the role of teacher self-efficacy to job satisfaction and student
achievement, through structural equation modeling analyses it was found that teachers' personal
efficacy beliefs positively affected students’ academic achievement, even after controlling for
past levels of academic success (Caprara, Barbaranelli, Steca, & Malone, 2006).
Creating a closer teacher-student relationship. A study that examined students’
perceptions of the quality of the teacher-student relationship showed that higher teacher self-
efficacy predicted students’ closeness to the teacher from the start and throughout the entire
school year (Summers, Davis, & Hoy, 2017).
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 74
Strengthening teacher performance. Klassen and Tze (2014) conducted a meta-analysis
study involving 43 studies representing 9,216 participants that systematically analyzed the
relationship between the psychological characteristics of self-efficacy and teaching performance
related to student achievement, and they found a significant effect size for self-efficacy, 0.28.
Klassen and Tze (2014) described the policy implications of the study’s findings: “Building an
understanding of the psychological profiles of effective teaching may help with selection,
training, and professional development of new and experienced teachers” (p. 73).
Table 5 reveals how the literature may be applied to this dissertation’s problem of
practice, particularly to the identification of motivation factors that are assumed to be influencing
the performance of the teacher stakeholder group at AES. Column one identifies the influence.
Column two lists the type of motivation influence from among those described in the literature.
Column three describes how the influence will be assessed in terms of data collection.
Table 5
Assumed Motivation Influences on Teacher Performance
Motivation Influence Motivation
Type
Motivation Influence Assessment
1. Believing in the
benefits of teaching
for diversity and
understanding
Expectancy
Utility-Value
Written Survey Item #43
“The teacher's belief in culturally responsive
reading lessons for increasing student
engagement”
strongly disagree/disagree/agree/strongly agree
Interview Item #8
“Can you think of an example of a time when it
benefited a student to bring his or her culture
and experiences explicitly into the reading
lesson?”
2. Believing that
teacher
performance
explains student
outcomes
Attributions Written Survey Items #44
“The teacher's belief about who is most
responsible for the student's reading
scores/outcomes”
strongly disagree/disagree/agree/strongly agree
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 75
Interview Item #10
“Why do you think that some students do not
reach the expected reading proficiency level by
end of the school year?”
3. Believing in one’s
personal ability as a
teacher to achieve a
goal
Self-Efficacy Written Survey Item #45
“The teacher's belief in her/his ability to
successfully bring low-readers up to grade-
level ”
strongly disagree/disagree/agree/strongly agree
Interview Item #7
“What are you able to do for a struggling reader
to help him or her get caught up?”
Organization
Research suggests that a school organization influences teacher performance towards
developing proficient readers (Boudett, Murnane, City, & Moody, 2005). According to Clark
and Estes (2008), an organization is more likely to meet its performance goals when the culture
is focused on reflecting and advancing the values and mission of the organization; resources are
available, accessible, and aligned to accomplishing goals; and, work processes are in place to
accomplish the work. In this section of the literature review, a brief overview of organization
theory will be provided. Theories of organization culture will be discussed along with studies
related to the influence of organizations on employees, with attention placed on teacher
performance.
General organization theory. The literature shows that organization culture and
context, including the invisible and visible qualities, influence its stakeholders’ abilities to meet
performance goals (Schein, 2010; Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Individuals and groups of
people within organizations develop modes of thinking and behaviors that become solidified and
that are difficult to change afterwards (Senge, 2006). Oftentimes, the process occurs
unconsciously because of the repeated consistencies people experience in their work
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 76
environment (Schein, 2010). The result is that these culturally reinforced mental models can
positively or negatively influence goal-oriented performance (Clark and Estes, 2010; Schneider,
Brief, & Guzzo, 1996).
According to Schein (2010), organizational culture is an abstract concept that requires
deeper explanation. He conceptualizes that organizations, then, can be understood by their
cultural settings—such as the observed regularities, work processes and activities of the people,
their physical symbols, ceremonies, shared traditions, resources, and the group norms—as well
as by their cultural models— the espoused values, formal philosophy, informal rules of the
game, climate, habits of thinking, mental models, and shared meanings (Schein, 2010). He also
makes the case, as do others (Deal & Peterson, 2016; Gronn, 2003; Leithwood & Riehl, 2003;
Senge et al., 2012), that leadership is important to facilitating and shaping the desired
organizational culture.
The following are school organization cultural models and cultural settings that may be
potentially influencing teachers’ performance towards developing proficient readers: embracing
a learning orientation within a learning organization, having appropriate resources, and being
guided by systematic, data-driven work processes.
Embracing a learning orientation as an organization. Senge (2006) wrote that mental
models “are the deeply ingrained assumptions, generalizations, or even pictures or images that
influence how we understand the world and how we take action” (p. 8). Embracing a learning
orientation represents a shift in mental models, and Senge (2006) provided a framework
consisting of five disciplines that described how an organization can develop a learning
orientation by engaging in the cultivation of personal mastery, mental models, shared vision,
team learning, and systems thinking. Studies suggest that when individuals and groups in the
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 77
organization are collectively oriented towards continuous learning, a culture develops that
supports goal-oriented performance (Anderson, Leithwood, & Strauss, 2010).
Personal mastery. Senge (2006) defines personal mastery as “the discipline of
continually clarifying and deepening our personal vision, of focusing our energies, of developing
patience, and of seeing reality objectively” (p. 7). Fullan (1993) eloquently reflected in an article
he wrote for Educational Leadership on the puzzling phenomenon of how teachers eagerly enter
the teaching profession ablaze in moral purpose, only to lose it during their career or due to work
burnout. He pointed to research conducted by Stiegelbauer (1992), where a random sample of
1,100 student teachers demonstrated that the most important reason why people entered the
teaching profession was "to make a difference in the lives of students” (p. 6). Fullan theorized
that moral purpose—which he defined as “making a difference”—was about creating
improvements, and as such, one of the key qualities that facilitated this change agentry within
teachers was personal mastery (1993). Thus, school organizations can support both the
successful tenure of teachers and their effectiveness in bringing about desired change in their
students’ educational lives by fostering in teachers the discipline of personal mastery.
Mental models. Within Senge’s (2006) framework, mental models function similarly to
metacognitive knowledge as understood in this study. He wrote: “The discipline of working
with mental models starts with turning the mirror inward; learning to unearth our internal
pictures of the world, to bring them to the surface and hold them rigorously to scrutiny” (Senge,
2006, p. 9). A learning organization is concerned with all its members developing this habit of
mind, and to do so would facilitate the ability of teachers to adopt a culturally responsive
pedagogy or posture (Howard, 2003), as advocated by Ladson-Billings (1994). Studies in
cognitive psychology and cultural sociology have shown that people’s mental models are heavily
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 78
influenced by culture and operate as a sort of toolkit that they implicitly draw upon to guide their
daily behavior (Carley & Palmquist, 1992; DiMaggio, 1997; Swidler, 1986). Research has
shown that teachers’ mental models are influenced both by the local school microculture and as
well as the larger macroculture of the teaching profession, which could include the development
of teachers’ images of what constitutes good pedagogy, ways of explaining student outcomes, or
even the biases they hold (Abrahamson & Fombrun, 1994; Spillane, Reiser, & Reimer, 2002).
Thus, a learning organization has the potential to support teacher performance related to
developing proficient readers by creating a culture that supports mental models that facilitate
student-centered pedagogy and practices.
Shared vision. Senge el al. (2012) described the discipline of shared vision as the set of
tools and techniques for bringing the aspirations, multiple goals, and varied perspectives of
school stakeholders into alignment for common purposes. Margaret Wheatley, in Leadership
and the New Science, captured both the spirit and intention of shared vision within an
organization: “We need to be able to trust that something as simple as a clear core of values and
vision, kept in motion through dialogue, can lead to order” (1992, p. 147). Louis and Miles
(1990) conducted a study into management and leadership skills using five large high school
case-studies and a national survey of 178 urban high school principals, whose schools had been
involved in four years of concentrated improvement efforts. A major finding was that a key
feature of effective school improvement is having a shared vision of what the school is striving
to become. Lambert (2002) argued of the necessity of a shared vision for creating coherent
school programs and for guiding the adoption of aligned instructional practices. As evidence,
Lambert (2002) noted how a Kansas City school staff successfully created a Vision Team to
implement their school improvement plan. Through the fostering of shared vision, a school
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 79
organization can guide teachers’ instructional performance by connecting their practices to a
collective set of student-centered beliefs and values.
Team learning. Senge et al. (2012) defined the discipline of team learning simply as
“practices designed, over time, to get the people on a team thinking and acting together” (p. 115).
Research shows that this is accomplished through the construction of a joint space for authentic
interaction and dialogue (Brooks, 1994a; 1994b; Decuyper, Dochy, & Van den Bossche, 2010;
Rowe, 2008), and that feedback, framing, reframing, negotiation, and confrontation are all
imperative communicative actions for team learning (Dechant, Marsick, & Kasl, 1993;
Edmondson, 1999). The National Superintendent’s Roundtable is an example of effective team
learning among a national group of school superintendents—they dialogue, probe one another,
compare notes, and return to their respective educational systems and influence their
administrative teams and school boards to build innovative capacity for organizational learning
(Senge et al., 2012). These same behaviors apply to school teams for creating productive and
innovative solutions to work problems.
Systems thinking. Senge et al. (2012) argued that the discipline of systems thinking
involves “a different way of looking at problems and goals—not as isolated events but as
components of larger but less visible structures that affect each other” (p. 123). Systems
thinking is relevant to education because, as Ron Heifez explains in Leadership Without Easy
Answers, schools are filled with “adaptive” problems that cannot be solved with simple, specific,
straightforward, or technical responses (1994). It is here where systems thinking provides the
thinking capital for appropriate solutions because leaders “learn to recognize and respond to the
“nonlinear” aspects of… those situations in which cause and effect do not occur in the way that
most people expect them to” (Senge et al., 2012, p. 124). Systems thinking applies
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 80
Schön’s (1987) conceptualization of “1987) conceptualization ofhich cause and effect do not
occur iities to problem-solve, learn-by-doing, and develop lifelong learning habits. Instead of
casting blame on others—on the school, the leadership, the parents, the government, the local
community, the businesses, and so onship, the parents, the governme first ask themselves what
part they contributed to the condition of concern (Senge et al., 2012).
Stone (2010), senior editor of Center for Ecoliteracy in Berkeley, California, has worked
with thousands of educators from all types of K-12 schools on implementing a radical vision for
education— teaching the whole child in the context of sustainable living. Cornerstone to this
movement is a systems approach to teaching and learning, and as a result, the Center for
Ecoliteracy has developed a set of core competencies: of heart (emotional), head (cognitive),
hands (active), and spirit (connectional). These competencies help prepare young people for
sustainable living in an uncertain future. This is a promising practice of systems thinking in
education because scholars have argued that since the 1990s, the achievement gap has increased
for diverse students because the curriculum has been severely narrowed due to intensified testing
and accountability measures (Berliner, 2011; Crocco & Costigan, 2007; Harris and Herrington,
2006; Ryan & Shepard, 2010; Yeh, 2005). By adopting a systems approach to education, school
organizations may reverse this trend by again teaching a broader and richer curriculum, like that
promoted by the Center for Ecoliteracy, that addresses the needs and aspirations of the whole
child.
Having resources and materials to enhance teaching and learning. Although the
research is mixed about the effects of resources on student achievement (Coleman et al., 1966;
Greenwald, Hedges, & Laine, 1996; Hanushek, 1996), the literature suggests that when teachers
are provided with the appropriate resources “that encourage better performance and recognize
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 81
differences of students, teachers, and schools” (Hanushek, 1997, p. 141), they are better prepared
to close achievement gaps and raise achievement (Darden & Cavendish, 2012).
Increased spending may support increased learning. Greenwald et al. (1996) conducted
a meta-analysis of 60 primary research studies that examined the effects of a variety of school
resource inputs on student achievement. Their analysis found that student outcomes were
positively related to a broad range of resources expended, with effect sizes substantially large
enough to suggest student achievement could be increased by providing moderate increases in
spending. It is important to ensure that appropriate expenditures support teaching and learning,
especially given that studies have found that schools with larger populations of low-SES students
have fewer teaching resources (Betts, Reuben, & Danenberg, 2000; Smith, Trygstad, &
Banilower, 2016).
Materials to support teachers and reading development. An exhaustive review of
research on teaching reading found that this process is a complex matter, and as such, the degree
of success for teachers was largely dependent upon multiple factors, including having
appropriate curriculum and materials resources (Grabe & Stoller, 2004). According to the
literature, the curriculum and materials must support the development of the following
component abilities of learners:
1. Ensure word recognition fluency.
2. Emphasize vocabulary learning and create a vocabulary-rich environment.
3. Activate background knowledge in appropriate ways.
4. Ensure effective language knowledge and general comprehension skills.
5. Teach text structures and discourse organization.
6. Promote the strategic reader rather than teach individual strategies.
7. Build reading fluency and rate.
8. Promote extensive reading.
9. Develop intrinsic motivation for reading.
10. Plan a coherent curriculum for student learning (Grabe & Stoller, 2004, p. 46).
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 82
Multiple elements are needed to implement a comprehensive reading program for
students. It is no surprise, then, that many teachers who do not receive the right resource support
from the school organization to accomplish such a task leave the profession within the first five
years of teaching (Smith & Ingersoll, 2004), and only survive to share stories of having been
overwhelmed and exhausted as a teacher (Schaefer, Downey, & Clandinin, 2014).
Moving towards digital resources. In addition to the importance of having and using
traditional resources and materials to support the development of proficient readers, studies have
shown that digital technologies including digital texts (ICTS) can be used by teachers to plan
exciting and innovative literacy activities that support learning (Dowdall, 2006; Honan, 2008;
Lankshear et al., 1997). Furthermore, schools that acquire and utilize digital texts to support
literacy development help close the divide between students’ experiences with digital
technologies in their daily lives—engagement in digital spaces like social networking sites,
mobile phones and websites (Hull, 2003; Pahl & Rowsell, 2005)—and the practice of schooling
(Honan, 2008). In a study that examined the barriers that teachers experience when
incorporating digital text into their literacy lessons, teachers expressed that the lack of mobile
devices and the extra time spent with students navigating and troubleshooting the digital
technologies were resource problems (Honan, 2008).
Providing extensive professional development. Hart and Lee (2003) conducted a study
that examined the impact of a 3-year professional development program on 53 third- and fourth-
grade teachers at six elementary schools in a large school district with a highly diverse student
population. The researchers found at the end of the first year that teachers expressed more
elaborate and coherent conceptions of literacy and provided more effective linguistic scaffolding.
The results suggested that teachers benefit from sustained professional development support, not
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 83
brief and sporadic and trainings, to be able to transform their practices to promote the literacy
achievement of diverse students (Hart & Lee, 2003). These findings are supported by Cheung
and Slavin’s (2012) literature review and synthesis on English reading outcomes, of all types of
programs, for Spanish-dominant English language learners (ELLs) in elementary schools. What
Cheung and Slavin (2012) found was common across the most effective interventions was
extensive professional development and coaching for teachers. Sustained professional
development is an effective provision of the school organization that supports teaching and
learning; guiding teachers with the use of data also strengthens practice.
Having data driven decision-making frameworks and processes. In the current context
of educational accountability and continuous organizational improvement (Anderson et al.,
2010), teachers are expected to use systematically collected sources of evidence to pinpoint
learning problems, assess the status of those problems, and to implement plans moving forward
(Hawley & Sykes, 2007; Goldring & Berends, 2009; Zmuda, Kuklis, & Kline, 2004). The
school organization must support these efforts through the provision of specific work processes
geared towards guiding the use of data to improve teaching and learning.
Frameworks for data-use capacity building. Marsh and Farrell (2015) developed a
framework for schoolwide data-driven decision making (DDDM) that informs teachers’ use of
data and builds their collective capacity for assessment literacy, drawing on sociocultural
learning theory and empirical research. The researchers found that the presence of data alone did
not ensure its use, confirming the findings from previous studies (Crone et al., 2016; Mandinach
& Honey, 2008; Marsh, Pane, & Hamilton, 2006). Instead, teacher understanding and expertise
must be combined with a systematic process of converting raw data into information by means of
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 84
collecting, analyzing, and organizing the evidence for instructional purposes (Marsh & Farrell,
2015).
Capacity building processes. Marsh and Farrell (2015) conducted a study that examined
teacher capacity to use data to improve literacy instruction using data from a year-long
comparative case study in six low-SES schools, in four districts, across the USA. They found
that when implementing capacity building interventions (CBI) around data use, the most fitting
unit of interaction was fluid and based on the setting and needs of the teachers. The context and
purpose of the data meetings determined whether a one-on-one data session (like a novice-
mentor relationship) or groups of teachers working together was better suited to support
teachers’ efforts to analyze data and plan instructional responses (Marsh & Farrell, 2015).
Related to data practices, assessing teacher needs, modeling the use of data, observing the uses
of data (e.g. lesson study based on evidence), providing feedback and sharing expertise, dialogue
and questioning, and brokering the divide between understanding data and application, all
supported teachers’ abilities to improve their instruction (Marsh & Farrell, 2015). Lastly,
regarding artifacts and conditions, the researchers found that teachers must understand the
purpose behind data analysis tools and routines and trust the data-supporting personnel (e.g. data
coach) if they are to experience “buy-in” and move beyond superficial implementation (Marsh &
Farrell, 2015).
Norms and agreements. Datnow (2011) found that there is a subtle but important
difference between teacher collaboration and contrived collegiality around data use. In a study
that examined two school systems that integrated teacher collaboration to best use data to drive
instruction, the researchers found that having and adhering to norms and agreements made the
difference towards promoting authentic collaboration (Datnow, 2011).
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 85
Making sense of data. Henning (2006) conducted a study of 24 elementary and middle
school teachers’ approach to using data to drive instruction. They found that four different
approaches were predominately used to make sense of achievement data: comparing to the norm,
analyzing trends, correlating data, and disaggregating data (Henning, 2006). An important
finding was that without the proper systems for the storage and organization of data, meaningful
analysis of data was less likely to happen to the detriment of deliberate teacher practice and
student learning (Henning, 2006).
Table 6 reveals how the literature may be applied to this dissertation’s problem of
practice, particularly to the identification of organization factors that are assumed to be
influencing the performance of the teacher stakeholder group at AES. Column one identifies the
influence. Column two lists the type of organization influence from among those described in the
literature. Column three describes how the influence will be assessed in terms of data collection.
Table 6
Assumed Organization Influences on Teacher Performance
Organization Influence Organization
Type
Organization Influence Assessment
1. Embracing a learning
orientation as an
organization
Cultural
Model
Written Survey Item #54
“The eagerness of the teacher's colleagues to
share personal experiences about what does and
doesn't work related to teaching reading”
strongly disagree/disagree/agree/strongly agree
Interview Item #5
“How adaptable do you think you and your
colleagues are about learning new ways to teach
reading?”
2. Having resources and
materials to enhance
teaching and learning
Cultural
Setting
Written Survey Item #52
“The school's reading resources/materials that
the teacher receives ”
strongly disagree/disagree/agree/strongly agree
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 86
Interview Item #4
“How equipped do you feel you and your
colleagues are to support your students’ reading
development?”
3. Having data-driven
decision-making
frameworks and
processes
Cultural
Setting
Written Survey Item #56
“The systems (e.g. structures, protocols,
routines, forms) provided by the school's
leadership about how to use student data to
teach reading lessons ”
strongly disagree/disagree/agree/strongly agree
Interview Item #9
“How do you know if you are using data
correctly to guide your reading instruction?”
Table 7 captures the range of 14 factors from the literature review assumed to be
influencing teacher performance related to developing proficient readers (See Appendix I).
Table 7
Summary of Assumed KMO and SC Factor Influences on Teacher Performance
Knowledge Factors
Motivation Factors
Organization Factors
Learning and
Motivation Theory
(1) Knowledge of
subject matter,
methods, and learners
(4) Believing in the
benefits of teaching
for diversity
(7) Embracing a
learning orientation as
an organization
(2) Knowledge of
how to teach for
diversity and
understanding
(5) Believing that
teacher performance
explains student
outcomes
(8) Having resources
and materials to
enhance teaching and
learning
(3) Knowledge of
critical reflection and
socio-political
consciousness
(6) Believing in one's
ability as a teacher to
achieve a goal
(9) Having data-driven
decision-making
frameworks and
processes
Social Context Factors
Related Literature (10) The Society (11) The Parents and
Home Environment
(13) The School and
Education System
(12) The Child (14) The Teacher
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 87
Conceptual Framework: Influencing Teacher Performance
Teachers have a monumental task of teaching students in the complex, demanding, and
challenging context of globalism and diversity (Beutel, 2010). The development and use of
theory in such a study related to a complex topic has been recognized as being a challenge for
researchers (Maxwell, 2013). Thus, a device called a conceptual framework has been developed
to make the representation of theory in a study accessible and understood (Miles & Huberman,
1994). In this study, the conceptual framework has been developed and used according to
Maxwell’s (2013) recommendations, using the research literature and personal experiences to
inform the research design, to assist the process of answering the research questions, and to
demonstrate how the researcher understands the interactions among the people, setting, and
issues. A tool known as a concept map (Maxwell, 2013) has also been utilized by the principal
researcher in this study to create a visual of the conceptual framework, and to describe concepts
and the relationships among them by using color-coded boxes, circles, arrows, and other
graphics.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 88
Figure 1. Conceptual framework for understanding and improving teacher performance.
In Figure 1, the concept map depicts the various influences on teacher performance. It is
expected that mission- and goal-oriented teacher performance, as shown by the orange arrows,
occurs in the setting and under the influence of SC factors, as shown by the encompassing red
box. More specifically, the interacting blue arrows show the expected influence among the
factors of teacher knowledge, teacher motivation, and the school organization, which are
expected to influence teacher mindset and actions. Based on the literature, it is hypothesized that
teacher KMO factors (and thus teacher mindset and actions) are positively influenced by the
school organization’s effective implementation of the following transformative, reflective
practices: PCK (Cochran et al., 1993; Shulman, 1987; 1988), CRE (Gay, 2010; Ladson-Billings,
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 89
1996; Milner, 2010; Rodriguez, 1998), and LO (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Senge, 2006;
Senge et al., 2012).
Chapter Summary
The literature provided evolving explanations for differences in student achievement, and
the explanations appeared to consistently the serve the interests of those promoting them.
However, the view that gaps and/or differences in human performance are attributable to social
experiences that can be improved, not innate human qualities, best supports the mission of
schools. The literature revealed five social context factors that appear to influence teacher
performance and student outcomes, conceptually categorized as in- and out-of-school factors.
Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis methodological framework informed the teacher
stakeholder-specific literature review of nine KMO factors. A conceptual framework was
developed by the researcher using the literature, KMO framework, and personal knowledge of
the problem of practice. It was used to design a study of the factors that influence teacher
performance related to developing proficient readers. The next chapter details the study’s
methodology.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 90
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
In this study, to improve organizational outcomes related to developing proficient
readers, factors were examined that were assumed to influence the performance of teachers at
Aspiring Elementary School. This chapter explains the methodology used by this research study
to accomplish that goal. It includes the procedures for data collection and data analysis.
Ultimately, the study aimed to answer the following research questions:
1. Are social context factors and knowledge, motivation, and organization factors
influencing teachers’ performance related to developing proficient readers at AES?
To what extent do the qualitative results confirm quantitative results?
2. How do the factors influence teachers’ experiences of working to develop proficient
readers at AES?
3. What are the recommended knowledge, motivation, and organization implementation
solutions for teachers at AES?
This chapter also explains the choice of the study site and participants, and the
instruments and methods that were used to collect and analyze data. Also, sections on credibility
and trustworthiness, validity and reliability, and ethics, all function to discuss how the researcher
ensured that quality research was conducted according to best practices. Lastly, the chapter ends
with the limitations and delimitations of the study.
Study Site and Rationale
The study was conducted at AES, a TK-3 public school serving 675 predominantly
Latino/a students in the southwestern area of the United States. The site met the purposive-
convenience sampling criteria because it was a non-random sample that reflected the
characteristics of the larger population related to the objective of the study (Christensen,
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 91
Johnson, & Turner, 2011). For the researcher, AES facilitated accessibility, geographical
proximity, availability at the times needed, and a willingness of site personnel to participate in
the study, which made for convenient sampling (Etikan, Musa, & Alkassim, 2016).
Rationale
There is abundant evidence that AES was an appropriate site for the study. First, the
school is experiencing persistent achievement gaps (see Table 1), which is the topic of this
dissertation study. About 70-80% percent of all AES students are struggling to read proficiently
by 3
rd
grade. This is alarming for a few reasons. First, it puts AES students at a higher risk for
dropping out of high school compared to peers who are Anglo-European or affluent (Fiester,
2010). Secondly, it shows the potential adverse consequences waiting for AES students because
low reading achievement in primary school has been correlated with fewer future economic
opportunities and earnings for individuals (Auguste et al., 2009). Finally, AES was an
appropriate site for the study because the researcher had already established a positive
relationship with the school. He is the school site administrator and is in good standing with
district- and site-level staff. This situation helped to facilitate greater access to permissions and
participants, needed resources such as time and space in the school facility, all of which are
important when conducting a study (Creswell, 2014b). As a result, the independent data
collector could easily follow-up and member-check the accuracy of transcripts with interview
participants and check teachers’ perceptions of proposed research findings.
Participating Stakeholders and Rationale
The key stakeholders for the study were K-3 general education classroom teachers at
AES. This group of 24 teachers comprised the target population, from which four teachers were
selected for a personal interview, conducted by the independent data collector.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 92
Target Population
According to Lavrakas (2008), a target population functions in two important ways.
First, for a survey, it represents the total unit for which the survey data are to be used to make
inferences. Secondly, it defines the unit for whom the results of the survey are meant to
generalize. Since the target population at AES was a small number, 24 teachers, and all were
agreeable to participate in the study, there was no need to use a sample population. Lavrakas
(2008) recommended that a detailed description be provided of the target population used in a
study, so the following highlights the characteristics of this group at AES.
Description. The demographic characteristics of the target population of participating
AES teachers are presented in Table 8.
Table 8
Demographic Characteristics of Participating AES Teachers, N=24
Characteristics N %
Gender
Male 2 8
Female 22 92
Other 0 0.00
Years of Teaching Experience
1-5 Years 2 8
6-10 Years 2 8
11-15 Years 8 33
16-20 Years 8 33
21-25 Years 2 8
26-30 Years 0 0
30+ Years 2 8
Experience in Grades Taught (multiple choices)
Kindergarten 15 63
First Grade 14 58
Second Grade 13 54
Third Grade 15 63
Fourth Grade 6 25
Fifth Grade 3 13
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 93
Sixth Grade 2 8
Teach in Dual-Language Program
Yes 8 33
No 16 67
Have Taught Only in This School District
Yes 19 79
No 5 21
Languages Spoken Fluently (multiple choices)
English 24 100
Spanish 21 87
Other 2 8
Consider Self to be Multicultural
Yes 23 96
No 1 4
Have Specialized Training in Multicultural Education
Yes 23 96
No 1 4
Have Specialized Training in Reading Instruction
Yes 14 58
No 10 42
Have a Master’s Degree in Education
Yes 18 75
No 6 25
The target population consisted of 92% females (22 of 24 teachers). The ethnicity of
teachers was mostly Latino/a (88%). Teachers taught in four grade levels, K-3, each represented
by six classroom teachers. The teachers possessed a range of teaching experience, with most in
the 11-20 yrs. range (66%). Thirty-three percent of teachers belonged to the Dual-Language
(English/Spanish) program. Most teachers had only taught in the RS School District (79%). All
but one teacher was fluent in both English and Spanish. Also, most teachers were trained
previously by the school district in specific reading program methods, such as Reading First.
Two general education transitional-kindergarten teachers were excluded from the study
because they did not formally teach reading to students as part of their curriculum. Special
education teachers were also excluded from participation because aside from the factors under
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 94
examination in the study, specific learning disabilities or other health impairments of students
largely explained student performance levels.
Rationale. The following is the rationale for having selected the target population at
AES. Creswell (2014b) recommended that to make meaning of the central phenomenon being
explored, the right group of participants needed to be studied. In this case, the specific group of
AES teachers previously described fit the need because they could best help the researcher to
understand why it is so challenging for classroom teachers at this high-poverty school to develop
proficient readers. Also, they were situated well to explain how some classroom teachers
successfully find ways to enact practices to meet this challenge head-on.
The target population also provided a representative voice to key stakeholders who are
often unfairly blamed by the US public for poor test scores. Many critics of American teachers
point to Asian or European nations’ superior results, on average, on international tests, like PISA
(Berliner & Glass, 2014). In addition, the target population was representative of those that
research and experience shows have the most consequential daily and direct interactions with
students (Berliner, 2017; Darling-Hammond, 2000). Furthermore, of all relevant stakeholders,
the target population is primarily responsible for creating suitable learning environments for
students and are the main providers of reading instruction to students.
In summary, to best answer the research questions, the entire target population at AES
was asked to participate in the study, specifically in taking a survey. The sampling selection
used for the study site and participants was purposive-convenient. Additionally, by using the
sampling strategy of purposive-maximum variation, four teachers were selected from the target
population to participate in personal interviews. This will be discussed in more detail in the next
section.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 95
Data Collection and Instrumentation
To best answer the research questions 1-3, this study employed the convergent parallel
design, mixed methods approach (Creswell, 2014b).
Figure 2. Convergent design, mixed methods approach used in the study.
Following the convergent design, in phase one, separately, the researcher collected and
analyzed closed-ended quantitative survey data and open-ended qualitative interview data. In
phase two, the researcher then merged the results of the survey data with the findings of the
interview data, with the goal of comparison. This helped the researcher to best answer the
research questions because the process led to stronger interpretation of the results and findings
by minimizing the weaknesses and maximizing the strengths of each separate approach
(Creswell, 2014b; Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). According to Maxwell (2013),
this approach is an effective method for studying the phenomenon under consideration because
the common variables/construct factors can be studied from multiple perspectives. It allows for
rich information to be gathered about participants’ attitudes, beliefs, values, and experiences.
Triangulation of methods and data allowed the researcher to test one set of results for
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 96
confirmation against the other, which is a goal of the mixed methods approach (Creswell,
2014b). Chapter Five of this study used the interpretation of the results to present an integrated
implementation and evaluation package and improvement plan at AES.
Answering the research questions required collecting and analyzing different type of data.
This information is presented in Table 9.
Table 9
Types of Data Collected and Analyzed During the Study
Research Question Seeks to Identify What
Factors Teachers
Perceive to Influence
Their Performance
Seeks to Understand How the Factors Influence
Teachers’ Experiences Related to Performance
(i.e. constraints, transformative practices)
1 Yes Yes
2 Yes Yes
3 Yes Yes
Data Collection
Instrument
Survey Yes No*
Interviews Yes Yes
*A text box for each item for explanatory comments was used by 29% of participants
Answering the first research question required data to be collected and analyzed from
both survey and interviews, but mostly with regards to identifying the factors that influenced
teacher performance. Answering research question two required data to be collected and
analyzed predominately from the interviews, with a view towards understanding the interactions
between and among influencing factors and teacher performance. Answering research question
three required the use of both survey and interview data, mostly using the interpretation of results
and findings to inform the implementation and evaluation improvement plan.
Survey Instrument
The survey instrument was created using Qualtrics, which allowed the data to be
collected automatically and stored/organized in a database with various options for exporting,
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 97
reporting, and analysis. The survey instrument consisted of 60 questions, most of which were
forced-choice, 4-point Likert response format items (i.e. strongly disagree, disagree, agree,
strongly agree) (See Appendix C). The first part of the survey, questions 1-12, intended to
capture general teacher demographic data such as gender, years of teaching experience, and post-
graduate education, to name a few. The second part of the survey, questions 13-59, intended to
capture the degree to which participants agreed/disagreed about the influence of specific
variables on teaching students to read proficiently. Each survey item contained a comment box
immediately following the response options so that the participants could add text to clarify or
explain their thinking/responses. The third part of the survey, question 60, was a ranking
exercise where participants numbered and ranked eight construct factors from greatest influence
(8) to least influence (1) on teacher performance.
The survey instrument was specifically designed by the researcher by referencing the
literature, the conceptual framework (Figure 1), and the research questions. It intended to
measure the teacher-perceived influence of 47 variables (each represented by a survey item)
believed by the researcher to measure SC and KMO construct factors on teacher performance
related to reading outcomes (See Table 10). The 14-individual construct factors were also
theoretically believed to be nested as five SC factors, with the KM factors nesting under the
teacher and the O factor nesting under the school and education system. Lastly, the factors were
conceptually categorized as correlating to two broader latent factors: in-school and out-of-school
factors. Table 10 lists these factors and the survey items that intended to collect respective data.
Table 10
Factors that Influence Teacher Performance, Matched to Survey Questions
Influencing Factors
Type of Factor
Survey Items
(Each measuring a
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 98
simple variable)
OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL (3) Broader Latent Factor
13, 19, 25, 31
15, 18, 26, 28
17, 20, 27, 32
Social Context Factors (5) Related Constructs
13, 19, 25, 31
15, 18, 26, 28
17, 20, 27, 32
14, 22, 24, 30
16, 21, 23, 29
The Society Construct 13, 19, 25, 31
The Parents and Home Environment Construct 15, 18, 26, 28
The Child Construct 17, 20, 27, 32
INSIDE OF SCHOOL (2) Broader Latent Factor
14, 22, 24, 30
16, 21, 23, 29
The School and Education System Construct 14, 22, 24, 30
The Teacher Construct 16, 21, 23, 29
KMO Factors (9) Related Constructs
33, 36, 39
34, 37, 40
35, 38, 41
42, 45, 49
43, 46, 50
44, 47, 48
51, 54, 57
52, 55, 58
53, 56, 59
Knowledge (3) Broader Construct
33, 36, 39
34, 37, 40
35, 38, 41
Declarative Knowledge Construct, Sub-factor of K 33, 36, 39
Procedural Knowledge Construct, Sub-factor of K 34, 37, 40
Metacognitive Knowledge Construct, Sub-factor of K 35, 38, 41
Motivation (3) Broader Construct
42, 45, 49
43, 46, 50
44, 47, 48
Self-Efficacy Construct, Sub-factor of M 42, 45, 49
Expectancy Utility-Value Construct, Sub-factor of M 43, 46, 50
Attributions Construct, Sub-factor of M 44, 47, 48
Organization (3) Broader Construct
51, 54, 57
52, 55, 58
53, 56, 59
Learning Orientation Construct, Sub-factor of O 51, 54, 57
Resources and Materials Construct, Sub-factor of O 52, 55, 58
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 99
Work Processes Construct, Sub-factor of O 53, 56, 59
For this study, the analysis of survey data facilitated the ability to answer research
questions specifically related to the target population of 24 teachers at AES. Also, the researcher
created a new survey for this study that contained items designed to potentially measure the
influence of hypothesized construct factors/variables on teacher performance. Inferential
statistics showed some statistically significant correlational relationships that provide partial
evidence in support of the researcher’s hypotheses (see APPENDICES J-M). The results of this
study, however, using the current survey instrument, should not be generalized to a larger
population beyond AES. Further psychometric testing and refining of the survey instrument may
provide the ability to administer it to a larger teacher population in the future.
Survey Protocol. A protocol was established for the administration of the survey
(Appendix C). The survey was accessed anonymously by participants online using a link. The
survey began with a brief introduction of the purpose of the study. It also explained how the
survey responses would contribute to improving the problem of practice at the site. It stated that
participants would have anonymity related to their responses and that they would be able to
choose whether to answer any item or to complete the survey. The protocol explained that
participants would also have the option of adding explanatory text inside a comment box
following each survey item. The survey also guided participants to completion by using
explanatory headers and “next” buttons. Participants clicked on radio buttons or checked boxes
to record their responses. The survey was administered only one time and no opportunities were
provided for post-survey editing of responses by participants.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 100
Interviews
Interviews are an important method for gathering data because they help bring
understanding to things that cannot be observed like thoughts, feelings, events in the past, and
how people construct their realities (Merriam & Tisdell, 2015). The interviews intended to
undercover deeper understanding of how, if at all, the SC and KMO factors were influencing
teacher performance related to developing proficient readers. Patton (2015) argued that good
interview questions stimulate better responses. He provided a framework consisting of six
question types. These involve (1) experience and behavior, (2) opinions and values, (3)
feelings, (4) knowledge, (5) sensory information, and (6) background/demographics. The
interview questions in this study closely followed Patton's (2015) recommendations for asking
the six types of questions. At least one question was asked for each of Patton's six types for a
total of ten interview questions being asked per participant. This was in addition to the three
open-ended demographic questions.
Interview Protocol. Creswell (2014b) recommended using an interview protocol when
conducting qualitative research. As such, a protocol was designed for this study (see Appendix
E). It was used by the researcher’s independent data collector while conducting the four
individual, semi-structured interviews. The principal researcher discussed and reviewed the
interview protocol thoroughly with the independent data collector prior to the scheduled
interviews.
The timing of the interviews took place during the first part of the school year, when
teachers are generally more relaxed because state testing is still a few months away. Merriam
and Tisdell (2015) recommended creating a safe psychological space for interview participants,
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 101
so a private room free from distractions at the study site was used. The interviews were
conducted in English. One teacher intermittently spoke in Spanish.
Each interview took approximately 35 minutes to one-hour in duration, and the four
interviews were successfully accomplished in one day. Each interview was conducted by the
independent data collector, which provided the participants with greater anonymity and
confidence related to their responses. The interviews took place one time, individually, face-to-
face, to deeply understand participants' experiences, feelings, descriptions and explanations. The
interview started with the data collector stating the lead-in introduction, followed by asking each
brief demographic question. After that, the ten prepared interview questions were asked one at a
time, and the interviewer provided the participants with sufficient time and opportunity to
dialogue during each response. He gently prompted, questioned, and sought clarification about
the responses using the prepared follow-up questions included in the interview protocol. The
interview transcripts showed that rapport was built quickly between the interviewer and
interviewee. Many moments of laughter and cross-talk were captured in the transcripts. The
order of the questions asked followed the interview protocol script generally but at times
deviated based on the flow of the conversation, as was to be expected of semi-structured
interviews. The independent data collector debriefed with the principal investigator post-
interviews and shared his notes and experiences with interviewing the teachers, including his
intuition and observations about body language, tone, and pitch.
Interview Sampling Criterion 1. The sampling strategy employed for the interviews
was purposive sampling, which fit with the convergent design (Creswell, 2014b). Purposive
sampling is a non-random approach to selecting participants who can best help the researcher to
understand the central phenomenon that is being explored (Creswell, 2014b). The sample of
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 102
participants for the qualitative portion of data collection came from the target population who
participated in taking the survey.
Interview Sampling Criterion 2. Maximum variation sampling was used as the strategy
to provide for heterogeneity of participants. The four interview participants were selected
because they reflected the varied demographics and characteristics of the target population. This
approach allowed researchers to better understand the phenomenon of interest from multiple
perspectives (Creswell, 2014b; Etikan, Musa, & Alkassim, 2016).
Interview Sampling Criterion 3. Of the four teachers interviewed, one classroom
teacher was selected to participate from each grade level, K-3. Teaching reading at different
grade levels involves different developmental milestones, strategies and challenges. Thus, it was
important to learn about the different influences experienced by grade-level teachers.
Interview Sampling Criterion 4. The study included female and male teachers. It was
important to understand and compare teachers’ experiences from gender perspectives.
Interview Sampling Criterion 5. The study included teachers from the two major
instructional programs of Dual-language (English/Spanish) and Mainstream English. In the past,
the Dual-Language program at AES had been considered as having more prepared and better-
behaved students than those learning in the English-only classrooms. It was important to learn if
teachers truly felt there was an advantage/disadvantage related to teaching in either of the
instructional programs.
Interview Sampling Criterion 6. The study included teachers of varied years of
teaching experience. It was important to learn if more years of teaching translated into
qualitatively different experiences related to developing proficient readers.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 103
Interview Sampling Criterion 7. The study included classroom teachers of different
age groups. It was important to learn if similarities or differences in teacher experiences
surfaced based on what stage of life teachers found themselves in.
Data Analysis
Survey Data
In this study, analysis of survey data was used to answer the first research question,
which is the following: Are social context factors and knowledge, motivation, and organization
factors influencing teachers’ performance related to developing proficient readers at AES?
Once all survey results were submitted, the data analysis process began immediately, as
recommended by Creswell (2014a). Fortunately for the researcher, the entire data in Qualtrics
was clean and complete. There was no need to adjust the frequency or number of responses for
the items not completed, as is customary (Pazzaglia, Stafford, & Rodriguez, 2016; Rahm & Do,
2000). The researcher believes as suggested in the literature that the probability of user errors
requiring data cleaning was minimized because the survey was administered online and not by
using paper-and-pencil options (Bethlehem, 2009).
1
Once the raw data and internal Qualtrics
reports were visualized and reviewed, the raw data was completely exported to an Excel
spreadsheet. The researcher created various new sheets on the spreadsheet with tables. The
tables were populated with relevant raw data, and descriptive and inferential (factor analysis and
correlation tests) statistics were conducted using the survey data (Creswell, 2014b). Using excel,
the researcher could produce more customized figures and visual representations of the data.
Normal frequency distributions (bell curve) were used to determine if teacher responses had
1
In the latter situation, because of the open format, studies have shown that it is more common
for multiple answers to be selected for an item when only one answer was expected by its
designer (Bethlehem, 2009).
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 104
reached a level that could be considered a group-level adoption of a perception. Normal
frequency distributions are used by Rogers (1971) in his Theory of Innovative Diffusion to
suggest the degree to which members of a cultural group have adopted a certain perception or
practice. Rogers (1971) argued that 50% is an important measure of adoption for a group
because that represents members of a group up to and including the “early majority”. The next
important level is 84%, which Rogers (1971) argued represents adoption for members of a group
up to and including the “later majority”. The following describes the different descriptive and
inferential statistics that were used for each survey part (Kurpius & Stafford, 2005), yielding data
on teacher demographics, SC factors, and KMO factors.
Survey part 1. The first part of the survey asked the target population to answer 12
demographic questions. The teacher demographic data captured was both numerical (e.g., years
of teaching experience) and categorical (e.g., gender) in form, and there were different item
response formats (e.g., yes/no, selection from a range of eight answer choices). Frequencies
representing the number of participant responses and their relative frequencies or percentages
(central tendency) were calculated for each item (Salkind, 2016). The use of percentages
facilitated clear explanatory narrative in the analysis sections by allowing the researcher to frame
the discussion about what percentage of the total teacher group agreed/disagreed to the influence
of items and grouped items (representing factors) on the survey. To make the data accessible to
the reader (Evergreen, 2016), the information was reported numerically using APA formatted
tables (Kurpius & Stafford, 2005). Select demographic data was also presented visually using
pie charts with bright colors for the four different responses options.
Survey part 2. The second part of the survey asked teachers to respond to statements
about the influence of items that were designed and intended to measure the influence of SC
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 105
factors and KMO factors on their performance. The data gathered was ordinal and the item
responses were coded as follows: strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), agree (3), and strongly
agree (4) (Kurpius & Stafford, 2005). The researcher analyzed the results for items and groups
of items (representing variables and factors, respectively
2
) using descriptive statistics,
determining the mean or average percent (central tendency), standard deviation, and range of
scores (measure of dispersion selected for reporting). Inferential statistics (Spearman correlation
technique, given that data was ordinal) was used to analyze the correlational relationship, if any,
that existed statistically between and among factors/variables (Hauke & Kossowski, 2011; Yong
& Pearce, 2013). The results indicated that the factors hemmed together in a distinct way, thus
providing more information about the nature of their potential influence on teacher performance
(See Appendix K-L).
Individual item analysis. The mean score, range, and standard deviation was calculated
for each survey item using all 24 teacher responses (See Appendix O). Additionally, relative
frequencies were calculated for each survey item to capture the percentage of teachers who
responded as strongly disagree, disagree, agreed, and strongly agree (See Chapter Four). Select
data from individual items was presented visually using color-coded stacked bar graphs in the
chapter report.
Multiple items analysis. The results of more than one survey item were averaged to
attempt to measure teacher responses related to the construct factors conceptualized by the
researcher (see Table 10). In those situations, the descriptive statistics were used to calculate
2
An important consideration when measuring construct variables is to ensure internal validity of
survey items clustered together to form the composite (Clark & Watson, 1995), and thus the
researcher took the time to carefully construct, word, and test (using 5 sample participants not to
be included in the study) the survey items to ensure that various aspects of the same constructs
were being measured. Factor analysis showed acceptable Cronbach’s alpha for 6 factors and their
respective survey items (see Appendices M-N).
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 106
percentages that suggested teacher perceptions of strongly disagree, disagree, agree, and strongly
agree related the influence of a factor on performance (See Chapter Four). Also, the percentages
of strongly disagree and disagree were summed; the percentages of agree and strongly agree
were also summed. This resulted in each factor having a total average percentage reporting the
percentage of teachers that disagreed or agreed to the influence of a factor on performance.
The range of scores for each factor was used as the measure of dispersion for reporting,
subtracting the smallest percentage value from the largest one (Kurpius & Stafford, 2005;
Sullivan & Artino, 2013). Table 10 demonstrates how the factors are organized by type and how
they correlate to survey items. Table 23 captures the results for each factor.
Analysis of factors. To determine if any relationship existed between and among the
proposed construct factors, the Spearman correlation test was conducted at the significance level
of p < 0.05 (Salkind, 2016). Using Excel software, individual participant scores were averaged
across items intended to measure a construct factor resulting in a total average score. All 24
participants’ total average scores for a construct factor were then listed in an excel column. The
same process was repeated for each construct factor, resulting in groups of columns that were
used to run the Spearman correlation test. The results were produced in a new excel sheet,
capturing the summary statistics and correlation matrix. The results of teacher responses
indicated a statistical correlation
3
among some factors, suggesting a potential pattern of influence
on teacher performance related to developing proficient readers at AES (See Appendices K-L).
Factor analysis tests were conducted using Excel’s XLSTAT software to determine if
there was internal consistency among variables (survey items) and proposed construct factors
(Yong & Pearce, 2013), which would support reliability of the survey instrument (Creswell,
3
Values in bold were different from 0 with a significance level α = 0.05.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 107
2014a). The data analysis provided partial support for reliability of the survey instrument
because about half of the construct factors and their variables were internally consistent at or
above .70 based on Cronbach’s alpha (See Appendices M-N) (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011).
Further refinement of the survey instrument is needed to increase its reliability. Factor analysis
tests also demonstrated that the 47 variables (test survey items) reduced into 11 latent variables
that were each above the eigenvalue of 1 (Kaiser, 1960) (See Appendix J).
Interview Data Analysis
Answering the research questions required the analysis of interview data. As mentioned
in the beginning of the data analysis section, open-ended data was collected and analyzed, and
the results were merged with that of the quantitative dataset and compared for confirmation
purposes (Creswell, 2014a; 2014b). The goal of this analysis was to prove the assumption true
that results from both datasets would confirm each other.
Analysis of the interview data began as soon as the researcher’s independent data
collector, who conducted the interviews, left the field and provided the researcher with the
cleaned transcripts of the audio recordings
4
. The four interviews were scheduled effectively and
took place within one day, in one sitting. Upon receiving the transcripts, the researcher read over
the information and began to make his own notes and to write analytic memos as suggested by
Bogdan and Biklen (1997). Then, the researcher uploaded the four transcripts, about 80 pages in
all, to Atlas.ti for additional analysis. The coding, writing of analytic memos, and the overall
process of organizing the analysis of interview data was greatly aided using the software
program Atlas.ti. In the program, the researcher wrote analytic memos after spending hours
coding each transcript, following Miles, Huberman, and Saldana’s (2013) recommendations on
4
The audio recordings were submitted for transcription using the online software Rev.com
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 108
writing analytic memos. The researcher focused on capturing sincere and authentic thinking
through writing without censorship— imperfect grammar and/or spelling did not matter. The
writing was a very reflective process, as understanding came to the researcher with each stroke
of the keyboard. During this process of coding and transcript analysis, the researcher also used
Corbin and Strauss’ (2008) analytic tools, such as questioning, comparisons, connecting to
personal experiences, and examining the multiple meanings of words to dig at the text for
insight. There was perfect space in Atlas.ti where comments could be added for both the selected
text and the code connected to that piece of text. The researcher also paid attention to using the
conceptual framework and research questions as a lens for examining his thoughts, questions,
and conclusions about the data (Bogdan & Biklen, 1997). After revisiting each transcript many
times, the researcher made notes including drawings and diagrams on white sheets of paper. This
helped to open new creative connections between and within transcripts. The process of coding
and labeling chunks of text felt very successful and became more fluid after each review of the
transcripts. New codes emerged from reading the text inductively. Also, the analytic codes that
were identified a priori also were found relatively quickly as the interview questions appeared to
be well designed. The researcher also engaged in peer review and received feedback from the
independent data collector and study chairperson related to the coding and text/data analysis
process.
Table 11 presents the analytic a priori codes that were identified and used for transcript
analysis. It also shows side-by-side how they were represented quantitatively in the survey
questions and qualitatively in the codebook. New codes emerged from the inductive reading of
text, and those codes were added to the codebook below under the appropriate category of codes.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 109
Table 11
Codebook: Categorical “A Priori” Analytic Codes as Represented in Study
Analytic Codes
Represented by
Survey Questions
Represented in Codebook
Emergent Analytic Codes (see below) Y
Social Context Factors
(All Qs of
Outside & Inside
School Factors)
Y
OUTSIDE OF SCHOOL (see below) Y
Influence: The Society 13, 19, 25, 31 Y
School demographics 13 Y
Societal expectations 19 Y
U.S. historical treatment of minorities 25 Y
Availability of social services 31 Y
Emergent codes: Politics n/a Y
Influence: The Parents and Home
Environment
15, 18, 26, 28
Y
Family socioeconomic status 15 Y
Parenting styles 18 Y
Family religious belief 26 Y
Primary home language 28 Y
Emergent codes: Mobility n/a Y
Influence: The Child 17, 20, 27, 32 Y
Student potential 17 Y
Student personality 20 Y
Student behavior 27 Y
Student motivation/effort 32 Y
Emergent code: Students really like n/a Y
Emergent code: Absenteeism n/a Y
INSIDE OF SCHOOL (see below) Y
Influence: The School and Education
System
14, 22, 24, 30
Y
School resources 14 Y
Continuous staff learning 22 Y
Professional development 24 Y
Work processes 30 Y
Emergent codes: n/a n/a n/a
Influence: The Teacher 16, 21, 23, 29 Y
Teacher preparation 16 Y
Culturally responsive teaching 21 Y
History of test scores 23 Y
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 110
Teaching reading to students 29 Y
Emergent code: Energized 12 Y
KMO Factors (see below) Y
Knowledge
Influence: Knowledge - Declarative 33, 36, 39 Y
Reading subject matter 33 Y
Various assessments of readers 36 Y
Socio-cognitive reading processes 39 Y
Emergent codes: n/a n/a n/a
Influence: Knowledge - Procedural 34, 37, 40 Y
Represent students’ culture 34 Y
Differentiate reading instruction 37 Y
Critical examination of curriculum 40 Y
Emergent codes: High-interest
content
n/a
Y
Influence: Knowledge - Metacognitive 35, 38, 41 Y
Cultural comparisons 35 Y
Communication styles
38
Y
Engaging parent conferences 41 Y
Emergent codes: n/a n/a n/a
Motivation
Influence: Motivation - Self-Efficacy 42, 45, 49 Y
Ability to develop readers 42 Y
Catching up low-readers 45 Y
Catching up non-readers 49 Y
Emergent codes: Mastery issues n/a Y
Influence: Motivation - Expectancy-
Utility-Value
43, 46, 50
Y
Value of CR for Engagement 43 Y
Value of CR for Interest 46 Y
Take time to plan CR Lessons 50 Y
Emergent codes: n/a n/a n/a
Influence: Motivation - Attributions 44, 47, 48 Y
Responsibility for reading outcomes 44 Y
Teacher Influence > Parents/home 47 Y
Teacher Influence > Student 48 Y
Emergent codes: n/a n/a n/a
Organization
Influence: Organization – Model:
Learning Orientation
51, 54, 57 Y
Culture about speaking up 51 Y
Culture about sharing information 54 Y
Open to work alternatives 57 Y
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 111
Emergent code: Narrowing of the
curriculum
n/a Y
Influence: Organization – Setting:
Resources
52, 55, 58 Y
Access to material resources 52 Y
Professional development 55 Y
Professional collaboration/network 58 Y
Emergent codes: Instability n/a Y
Influence: Organization – Setting: Work
Processes
53, 56, 59 Y
Team use of data to plan lessons 53 Y
Structures to plan interventions 56 Y
Data analysis methods 59 Y
Emergent codes: n/a n/a n/a
Although the researcher in advance identified a priori codes, it did not prevent the
researcher from also exploring very powerful and relevant emergent codes, as they arose, from
reading and rereading the transcripts and inductively coding the data.
5
Some examples of new
codes that emerged were societal politics, student absenteeism, teacher mastery issues,
organizational instability, to name just a few. At the next level of coding, the researcher created
categories for the analytic codes (Miles et al., 2013). After this phase, the categories or analytic
codes created were grouped together to create a pattern or a theme (Punch & Oancea, 2014).
Some codes and themes did arise through this coding process that were of little relevance to the
study and therefore were not included as part of the final presented themes.
After themes were established, the researcher created a findings section that
communicated a pattern of relationships (Harding, 2013). Teachers were experiencing both
constraints and opportunities to practice personally transformative, reflective actions to help
improve their performance related to developing readers. By using the themes, the researcher
5
Also, the qualitative data shared by participants after each survey item, if they choose to do so,
lent itself to the emergence of 9 new codes to be included in the codebook.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 112
weaved a narrative built upon assertions, evidence, and analysis. Rich descriptions and select
quotations, including block verbatim quotes, were used to support themes that helped answer the
research questions. The next section discusses the researcher’s commitment to credibility and
trustworthiness throughout the entire process of the study.
Credibility and Trustworthiness
Creswell (2014a) explained that credibility/validity and trustworthiness/reliability convey
different connotations in qualitative and quantitative research. In qualitative research, credibility
means "that the researcher checks for the accuracy of the findings by employing certain
procedures" (Creswell, 2014a, p. 201). Trustworthiness captures the idea that regardless of the
researcher or project, the approach taken by the qualitative researcher is consistent (Creswell,
2014a). The credibility—the soundness of results—and the trustworthiness—the confidence
placed in the researcher—related to the qualitative components of the study was ensured in
multiple ways.
To strengthen credibility, the researcher made certain that the findings were accurate
from the perspective of the participants, researcher, and readers of the accounts detailed in the
study. One effective strategy utilized was member-checking (Creswell, 2014a). During
participant interviews, the independent data collector used a semi-structured approach that
allowed for probing and clarifying with the interviewees. It allowed the interviewer to capture a
richer picture of the participants' perspectives and responses. Also, the transcript of each
participant's interview was shared back with him or her by the data collector with the possibility
of revision and/or edits to better capture the participant's intended expression. This was done
using a secure Google drive folder shared only between the independent data collector and each
interviewee. The interviewees reported satisfaction with their interview data, with no need for
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 113
changes/adjustments. Another strategy used was triangulation. Creswell (2014a) explained that
triangulation converges several sources of data or perspectives to create a strong case for a
theme. The researcher triangulated findings from the literature, survey results, and interview
findings to determine what SC and KMO factors appeared to be influencing teachers’
performance related to developing proficient readers. Another strategy that was employed to
establish credibility was the use of rich, thick descriptions to communicate the research findings.
These descriptions borrowed heavily from the teacher interviews, painting a picture of some of
the challenging and rewarding experiences that teachers faced in teaching reading to diverse
students. Lastly, to strengthen the credibility of the findings, the researcher clearly stated the
bias that he brought to the study. He believes that all classroom teachers work tirelessly and with
passion to develop proficient readers at high-poverty schools. This honest self-reflection helps
contribute to a narrative that readers can connect with and appreciate (Creswell, 2014a).
To increase the trustworthiness of the researcher and his approach to the study, Yin's
(2009) recommendation was followed to document well all the procedural steps taken. These
steps included the following: checking interview transcripts for errors with the independent data
collector; maintaining definitions of codes consistent during the process of coding; and, creating
a memo outlining the various codes and their definitions. Also, the researcher documented all
meetings held with dissertation committee members focused on coding techniques and analysis.
Finally, to help increase the trustworthiness of the results and researcher (Kuraski, 2000), the
additional steps were taken by the principal researcher of engaging in the cross-checking of
codes through the means of intercoder agreements with the independent data collector. The next
section discusses the researcher’s commitment to validity and reliability of survey
instrumentation and administration.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 114
Validity and Reliability
In quantitative studies, validity and reliability measures are much more related to
instrumentation. According to Creswell (2014a), "validity refers to whether one can draw
meaningful and useful inferences from scores on particular instruments" (p. 250). In turn,
reliability is maintained when test administration and scoring is uniform, there is internal
consistency (i.e. item responses are consistent across constructs), scores are stable over time (i.e.
test-retest correlations) (Creswell, 2014a).
The researcher made every effort to create a valid survey. Construct validity was
intended by carefully referencing the literature, the conceptual framework, research questions,
and running inferential statistics on the internal structure of the survey (Creswell, 2014a; Hauke
& Kossowski, 2011; Yong & Pearce, 2013). The researcher intended to measure the same
construct factors using quantitative and qualitative means to ensure comparability at the end of
the data analysis process of interpretation. Using Excel’s XLSTAT program and the Factor
Analysis function with survey data, the 47 variables correlated to 11 latent factors (accounting
for 84.82 cumulative % of variance, each above the eigenvalue of 1) (See Appendix J). This
provides evidence that the variables did reduce to a lesser number of latent factors. Further
statistical analysis is needed to determine the extent to which the variables correlate to the
intended construct factors and to refine the survey instrument.
A different statistical test suggested support for the hypothesis that the five SC factors
would sort and/or hem into two broader categories of factors. Excel’s XLSTAT program was
also used to run the Spearman Correlation Test to demonstrate statistically significant (p < 0.05
level) correlations among the SC (and nested KMO) factors, partially supporting the researcher’s
hypothesized relationships among the construct factors. The SC factors of the child and the
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 115
parents and home environment statistically correlated (0.569), and the SC factors of the teacher,
the school and education system, and the society statistically correlate (See Appendice K-L).
The only difference between the hypothesized and actual statistical correlations was that the
factor of the society hemmed with the SC factors of the teacher and school and education system
and not with the child and the parents and home environment. This might suggest that societal
influences upon teacher performance are more proximal than formerly believed and work more
closely with other influences that make part of the school setting.
Content validity was supported by ensuring that the content of the survey matched the
content domain associated with the construct (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997). Using the literature
and experience in the field as a subject matter expert intimately involved with the problem of
practice (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997), the researcher had to make careful decisions about what, and
how, the variables and factors were believed to relate to one another. The researcher also
referenced the literature to better capture wording that would accurately convey the
characteristics of variables and constructs. A few questions were adapted from existing research
surveys that have been validated (Garvin, Edmondson, & Gino, 2008; Siwatu, 2007). These
included questions from the Culturally Responsive Teaching Self-Efficacy Scale (CRTSE) and
Culturally Responsive Outcome Expectancy Scale (CRTOE), both developed by Siwatu (2007).
In addition, the researcher consulted the School Self-Assessment for Culturally Responsive
Practice survey that was developed by the National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational
System (NCCREST). Items related to organization factors were adapted from Garvin et al.’s
(2008) Learning Organization Survey published by The Harvard Business Review.
Face validity was supported by reviewing and testing versions of the survey. To better
indicate that aspects of a construct factor were being measured by test items on the “face” of the
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 116
survey, a prototype was trialed multiple times with five different non-site teachers in similar
work conditions as AES teachers. Their feedback was critical to revising survey items for greater
validity. After each phase, an adjustment of wording was made using the feedback. The
researcher was also careful about the wording of survey items. Item language was clear and
concise. Also, the items avoided being double-barreled, so that each item measured, as best
possible, one variable related in theory to a specific aspect of the intended construct factor
(Maxwell, 2013; Merriam & Tisdell, 2015).
Internal validity was supported by the fact that participation rates were very high—all 24
of AES general education teachers participated in the survey. Also, the time given of a two-
week window for survey collection was appropriate. Having one hour of non-teaching time
during teachers’ working contract hours approved by the school district for this purpose helped
to facilitate survey completion. Additionally, there was no attrition of study participants during
the phase of data collection. All participants took the online survey independently and
anonymously. The link was emailed along with directions to all participants, along with a
reminder of the incentive to participate.
Reliability of the survey instrument was partially supported by a Cronbach’s Alpha of
0.919 resulting from Factor Analysis of survey results for all 47 items (Tavakol & Dennick,
2011), showing excellent internal consistency because of the degree to which all items appeared
to measure perceived influences on teacher performance. Further revision of the survey
instrument is needed to increase internal consistency for items related to about half the construct
factors (See Appendices M-N). Administration of pilot surveys with non-site teachers and
revisions based on participant feedback also strengthened the design of a more reliable survey
instrument. A next step for increasing reliability of the survey instrument would be to conduct a
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 117
series of test-retest with participants, and comparing results, by administering the same
instrument to the same group of people at two different points in time, and running further factor
analysis tests to measure internal consistency after revisions (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011).
Ethics
The importance of conducting research in an ethical manner cannot be overstated. The
researcher is committed to this moral obligation. Per Merriam and Tisdell (2015), the very
validity and reliability of a study depends upon the researcher's ethics. Largely, as a qualitative
researcher, personal accountability is held for high intellectual rigor and thinking; a researcher's
personal credibility is linked to the credibility of the qualitative research they conduct (Patton,
2015). Based on this reasoning, the researcher’s ethical commitment reached beyond the
minimal expectation of following the laws and regulations governing good research. He honored
the process of conducting good research in a humbled spirit of gratitude and excellence. The
researcher faithfully abided by the three major principles found in The Belmont Report (National
Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research,
1978). Pertaining to research involving human subjects, he showed respect for persons,
beneficence, and justice.
Regarding the ethical treatment of study participants, the researcher made good on this
commitment from the moment of recruitment to the end of the study. Developed as a safeguard
against intrusive research, informed consent forms protect study participants (Glesne, 2011).
The researcher provided study participants with clear and comprehensive consent
forms/information sheets. The informed consent document detailed that participation was
voluntary and could be withdrawn at any time. It also outlined what the study was about, what
the participant would be asked to do, the risks and benefits, issues of compensation, how and
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 118
when information would be collected, stored, and finally destroyed, and how to best contact the
researcher or the faculty advisor when needed. Furthermore, to ensure further ethical safeguard,
the researcher operated under the direction of the faculty advisor and under the approval of
University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB).
Regarding the collection and protection of the data and participants, the researcher
ensured that survey and interview data was not identifiable or connected back to the participants
(Glesne, 2011). In addition, the independent data collector obtained permission first from the
participants to audio record any interview. None opted out of audio recording. The study
participants also had full access thereafter to review their transcripts and related notes. They also
had the right at any time to modify them as appropriate for use in the study. As recommended by
Rubin and Rubin (2012), the researcher followed the best practice of storing physical transcripts
under lock and key when not in use; digital transcripts were stored on a password-protected
computer using encrypted data. After transcribing the audio recordings, the independent data
collector who conducted the interviews destroyed the electronic files. The researcher received
and kept a copy of the transcripts, with an expiration date of 3 years, at which time he will
destroy the records.
Finally, because the participants are employees that the principal researcher supervises,
the informed consent form clearly explained that the alternative was not to participate, and that
choosing not to participate would in no way carry negative consequences. As to holding a dual
role as both researcher and work supervisor, the researcher’s intent was not evaluative in any
way related to employee performance. The researcher’s motive in conducting the study was to
sincerely learn how to better serve and lead the students and staff at AES using empirical data.
Since the researcher knew the staff and school where the research was conducted, complete
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 119
anonymity could not be guaranteed, although that was the goal and there was no known example
of leaking participant information. In the end, one of the purposes of conducting research at the
study site was that through the process of authentic interaction with the transcripts, the researcher
would be able to engage in the spirit of dialogic conversation by intently listening to participants
share their reasons for “choosing to say what they say in specific contexts” (Rodriguez &
Berryman, 2002, p. 1021). As a token of appreciation for participants and their invested time, all
participants received a $10 gift card. Furthermore, each participant was entered in a drawing to
win a $50 gift card, with three chances to win. The next section discusses the study’s limitations
and delimitations.
Limitations and Delimitations
There were important anticipated limitations to the study. First, surveys contained self-
reported data, and therefore the study could not control participants' responses: teachers might
have responded in ways that they thought would align them with the expected outcomes of the
study. Second, the tendency for biased responses (participants saying what they think the
researcher or data collector may have wanted to hear) may have been even greater during in-
person interviews. In addition, there were anticipated delimitations to the study. The study took
place within a short timeframe and data was gathered as expected to triangulate and validate
what teachers reported through means of the survey and interviews. Lastly, the conceptual
framework contained the construct of LO, which was developed first within the field of business
management (Senge, 2006), and later adapted to school organizations (Senge et al., 2012). The
researcher included this critical lens as discovered in the literature review as part of the
conceptual framework to better understand how the organization interacts with teachers'
knowledge, motivation, and goal-oriented performance.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 120
Chapter Summary
The methodology for the study was discussed in detail. The participating stakeholders
and the site of study, including their rationale, was explained. The instruments and methods for
data collection and analysis were discussed as conforming to the mixed methods convergent
parallel design. Descriptive and inferential statistics were selected as the means to analyze
survey data; relative frequencies were chosen for reporting of items and grouped items, and
evidence-and-analysis assertions were decided as the means for supporting themes that emerged
from interview data. The researcher discussed how he ensured credibility and trustworthiness,
reliability and validity of results. Limitations and delimitations of the study were acknowledged
including the inherent biases of self-reported data and the quick timeline for completing the
project.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 121
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
Overview of the Purpose and Questions
The purpose of this project was to identify and understand the factors that AES teachers
perceive to be influencing their performance related to developing proficient readers. By
collecting teachers’ perceptions about the influences that they face in attempting to meet their
goals, the school organization will be able to use the gained knowledge to best remove barriers
and mobilize assets to support student reading achievement.
The project adhered to a mix methods convergent parallel design (Creswell, 2014a;
2014b). To gather close-ended data about teachers’ perceptions of factor influences, a one-time,
60-question online survey was administered to 24 teachers. To gather open-ended data about
teachers’ perceptions of how factors influence their experiences, 13-question semi-structured
interviews were conducted with four classroom teachers. The research questions that guided this
study were the following:
1. Are social context factors and knowledge, motivation, and organization factors
influencing teachers’ performance related to developing proficient readers at AES?
To what extent do the qualitative results confirm quantitative results?
2. How do the factors influence teachers’ experiences of working to develop proficient
readers at AES?
3. What are teachers’ recommended knowledge, motivation, and organization
implementation solutions at AES?
The quantitative data was analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics and was
reported through tables, figures, and explanatory narrative (Kurpius & Stafford, 2005). The
qualitative data was analyzed using a series of techniques and was reported through themes. The
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 122
researcher applied triangulation methods to increase credibility and trustworthiness of the
findings (Creswell, 2014a), used confirming and disconfirming evidence where available
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2015), applied reflexivity (Maxwell, 2013), and drew upon shared
professional and sociocultural experiences (Wang, Bruce, & Hughes, 2011). Taken together, the
quantitative data results and qualitative findings elucidated the researcher’s understanding of the
problem of practice to answer the research questions. The next section gives a brief description
of the study site.
Study Site
Aspiring Elementary School is a TK-3, elementary school in the Southwestern part of the
US, near the border with Mexico. AES serves 675 culturally diverse students, 96% of whom are
Latino/a. AES is a Title 1 school, meaning 100% of students qualify for free and/or reduced
breakfast and lunch. Two language programs are offered to students: English-only and Dual-
language (English/Spanish). AES staff consists of 84 individuals including one principal, three
office staff, one health nurse, two custodians, a resource teacher, twenty-four general education
teachers, and a school psychologist. AES underperforms in all academic areas, and less than
30% of students read proficiently by the end of 3
rd
grade. This was the problem of practice of
focus for the study. The next section provides demographic and narrative description of study
participants, including the four interview participants.
Study Participants
The study participants consisted of the target population of 24 general education teachers.
They took an online survey about factor influences on performance. All teachers met the criteria
of the study: being general education teachers who provide reading instruction to students in a
diverse, underperforming public school. The researcher did hold a supervisory role over the 24
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 123
participants, so measures were taken to ensure maximum protection of participants (see Chapter
Three for more details).
Participants’ Background
Detailed below is background information from survey data of the target population of
teachers at AES, followed by a narrative description of teachers’ context at the site of study.
Table 8
Demographic Characteristics of Participating AES Teachers, N=24
Characteristics N %
Gender
Male 2 8
Female 22 92
Other 0 0.00
Years of Teaching Experience
1-5 Years 2 8
6-10 Years 2 8
11-15 Years 8 33
16-20 Years 8 33
21-25 Years 2 8
26-30 Years 0 0
30+ Years 2 8
Experience in Grades Taught (multiple choices)
Kindergarten 15 63
First Grade 14 58
Second Grade 13 54
Third Grade 15 63
Fourth Grade 6 25
Fifth Grade 3 13
Sixth Grade 2 8
Teach in Dual-Language Program
Yes 8 33
No 16 67
Have Taught Only in This School District
Yes 19 79
No 5 21
Languages Spoken Fluently (multiple choices)
English 24 100
Spanish 21 87
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 124
Other 2 8
Consider Self to be Multicultural
Yes 23 96
No 1 4
Have Specialized Training in Multicultural Education
Yes 23 96
No 1 4
Have Specialized Training in Reading Instruction
Yes 14 58
No 10 42
Have a Master’s Degree in Education
Yes 18 75
No 6 25
The demographics of the target population demonstrated that the group was represented
mostly by female teachers (92%), having taught for 11-20 years (66%), in all primary grades
(81%), within the Mainstream English-only program (67%), and only in this school district
(79%). The group was mostly bilingual (87%), multicultural (96%), and trained in multicultural
education (96%). Only 58% of the teachers reported having specialized training in reading
instruction, and 75% have a Master’s Degree in Education. Data about teacher’s affective state
showed that 86% of teachers felt energized about working in a high-poverty school. Figure 3
shows this data. One-quarter of teachers have considered leaving the teaching profession at least
once in their career due to “burn-out”. Figure 4 shows this data. It is possible that the same
three or four teachers who were not feeling energized by working at AES (14%) are the same
individuals who have considered leaving the profession due to “burn-out” (25%). The
percentages roughly mirror each other.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 125
Figure 3. Teacher responses to survey question 12, N=24.
Figure 4. Teacher responses to survey question 11, N=24,
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 126
Participants’ background at site of study. AES teachers are a closely-knit group of
seasoned educators who have mostly taught together (79%). Many teachers live around the
school neighborhood, were raised in the community, attended the neighborhood schools, and
visit the local Catholic church. On teacher felt that living in the neighborhood was a badge of
honor: “I'm everybody's maestrita here in this community”. Teachers also have family relatives
that work in the school district or school. One teacher appreciated working with his sister in the
same grade level: “I'm very lucky, my sister's in my grade level. For me, it's easy to say, ‘Hey,
I'm struggling with this. What are you doing with this?’". A familial culture extends throughout
AES.
AES teachers have been shaped by leadership and organization instabilities. The school
district has seen eight superintendents come and go in recent years. One teacher felt that
“different administrators coming with different ideas” caused instability. Three years ago, a
teachers’ labor strike was a blow to good relations between teachers and management. Shortly
after, an outside consultancy group named Leaders United was hired by the school district. They
implemented a mandatory and highly scripted instructional program. One teacher saw this as
undo outside influence: “People coming into our district and telling us what to do, when they
don't understand what it's like to be a teacher in the classroom. It’s bureaucracy.” The cultural
context of teachers’ background connects them to students and families. Teachers’ professional
experiences have shaped them into a strong, resilient group of teachers who are cautious about
outsiders’ influence.
Interview Participants’ Background
Four teachers were purposively selected, using the maximum-variation sampling strategy,
from the target population for interviews. The teachers varied in age, gender, years of teaching
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 127
experience, grade level taught, language program taught, and level of education attained.
Participants provided background information during interviews that is provided in the table
below. Participants have all been assigned a pseudonym to protect their anonymity. Details of
their background were provided in ranges to prevent the solicitation of personally identifiable
information.
Table 12
Interview Participant Background Information, n=4
Age Gender Years of
Teaching
Experience
Current Grade
Level Taught
Program
Taught
Master’s
Degree
Rosalinda 60-65 Female 35-40 Kindergarten Dual-Language Yes
Jenny 40-45 Female 15-20 First Grade English-Only Yes
Maricela 35-40 Female 0-5 Second Grade English-Only No
Samuel 45-50 Male 15-20 Third Grade Dual-Language Yes
Rosalinda teaches in the dual-language kindergarten program and is the most senior
teacher at the site and school district. She has been teaching for more than 35 years, lives in the
neighborhood, and sees her students, parents, and families as her own. She abandoned her
hometown of East Los Angles for AES: “My original thoughts were to go back to East Los
Angeles, where I grew up. I had job offers, but I fell in love with this community. It's a border
community.” Rosalinda is deeply invested in the school community and is transformative in her
practices of connecting parents and families to literacy learning in the school and at home.
Jenny teaches first graders in the English-only program. She has taught for more than 15
years, was raised in the community, attended neighborhood schools, and sees herself as teacher
who wants to make a difference for students. She appreciates the structures of a well-organized
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 128
school system, and feels that clear procedures, routines, and expectations prepare teachers for
professional success.
Maricela teaches second graders in the English-only program. She has taught for five
years and is newer to the teaching profession in the US. She was born and raised in Mexico,
completed her undergraduate studies in her native country, taught English in Mexico for seven
years, and immigrated into the US as an adult to become an elementary school teacher. Maricela
feels deeply connected to her students and seeks to understand their experiences. She revealed
that she, too, struggled to read as a child and was often put down by others for it. Maricela is
eager to learn, grow, collaborate, and become her idealized version of a great teacher.
Samuel teaches third graders in the dual-language program. He has taught for 20 years,
all at AES. Samuel is a native of Ecuador, South America, and emigrated out of his hometown
and into the US during his adolescence. He expressed sensitivity to the constant changes that he
has experienced as a teacher in the school district, and dislikes the “games” of politics that
surround him. He prides himself in connecting with his students through shared cultural
experiences. In later sections, themes about the four teachers’ experiences will be presented.
The next section provides a specific definition of validation to be used in the study, not to be
confused with the term validation related to survey instrumentation.
Definition of Validation of Assumed Influences
Clark and Estes’ (2008) conceptual and methodical framework informed this study. They
argued that people’s performance is driven by three factors: their knowledge and skills,
motivation to achieve a goal, and the necessary organizational support. Data sources provide
vital insights about people’s performance. These data sources must be analyzed to bring out
people’s perceptions of reality that help “decide whether additional support is needed and to
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 129
identify the type of support required to achieve goals” (Clark & Estes, 2008, p. 42). They
asserted: “all presumed causes [affecting performance] must be validated” (Clark & Estes, 2008,
p. 43). In this study, as part of the study design, the researcher made assumptions about factors
that were believed to be influencing teacher performance at AES. The construct factors assumed
to be influencing teacher performance were the society, the parents and home environment, the
child, the teacher, the school and education system, teacher knowledge (and sub-factors), teacher
motivations (and sub-factors), and the school organization (and sub-factors). The assumed
influences of these 14 individual factors on teacher performance had to be validated in this
context by collecting teachers’ perceptions (confirming/disconfirming data) about their
influences through survey and interviews. Also, by comparing the results of both data sets, the
research could confirm/disconfirm validation of factor influence on teachers’ targeted
performance, in line with the mixed method, convergent parallel design (Creswell, 2014a).
Interpreting Teacher Responses on Surveys
The purpose of the survey was to collect teacher perception data about proposed factor
influences. However, an important question for the researcher was, “What levels of percentages
suggest that AES teachers, as a group, have adopted a certain perception about a factor?” A
review of the literature revealed no clear guidelines. Thus, to make better sense of the
quantitative data, in addition to identifying patterns and trends, the researcher decided to give
meaning to levels of teacher responses as reported by percentages. Normal frequency
distributions (bell curve) were used to determine if teacher responses had reached a level that
could be considered a group-level adoption of a perception. Normal frequency distributions are
used by Rogers (1971) in his Theory of Innovative Diffusion to suggest the degree to which
members of a cultural group have adopted a certain perception or practice. Rogers (1971) argued
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 130
that 50% is an important measure of adoption for a group because that represents members of a
group up to and including the “early majority”. The next important level is 84%, which Rogers
(1971) argued represents adoption for members of a group up to and including the “later
majority”.
Table 13 shows how 50% and 84% were used to suggest that a perception for AES
teachers had taken hold or had, on average, been adopted by members of the teacher group.
Table 13
Measuring Teacher Group Perceptions About Factor Influences Using Survey Data
Criteria Perception is
Weak
Perception is
Moderate
Perception is
Strong
Average Teacher Responses to Survey
Item(s)
Agree/Strongly Agree
0-50%
51-84%
85-100%
This method for measuring teacher group perceptions according to their responses helped
to frame discussions about data trends in the next section.
Research Question One
The study aimed to answer the first research question: Are social context factors and
knowledge, motivation, and organization factors influencing teachers’ performance related to
developing proficient readers at AES? To what extent do the qualitative findings confirm the
quantitative results?
Based on survey results, all the proposed construct factors were reported by teachers as
moderately to strongly influencing their targeted performance related to developing proficient
readers (84% teacher agreement) (See Table 23). The factor of attributions appeared to be the
outlier factor with less agreement among the teachers as being an influence (54% teacher
agreement). The survey results were supported by one’s teacher concluding comment in the
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 131
survey’s open-response text box: “I believe that all these factors above contribute to a child's
reading ability. With motivation, support and resources any child is fully capable of exceeding
reading expectations.” This teacher’s comment is powerful in its affirmation of all children’s
learning potential; he or she also perceived all the factors presented in the survey as contributing
to children’s reading abilities.
Interview findings based on teacher-reported data also helped the researcher to answer
research question, but from a different perspective. These findings supported the survey data
results because teachers described how many factors interacted with their efforts to develop
proficient readers. Two major themes about teachers’ experiences emerged that highlighted the
influence of social context factors upon teachers’ work of teaching reading to students. Three
additional themes discuss teacher performance related to knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences. Later sections in this chapter present these thematic findings. In this
next section, a detailed analysis of survey results is provided.
Survey Results for Research Question One
Survey results are presented using tables, figures, and explanatory narrative. To
triangulate results, confirming and disconfirming evidence was provided. Each survey item was
paired with an open-response text box, and 29% (7/24) of teacher participants used this feature.
These comments were included where appropriate to help frame the survey response data.
Social context factors. As an aggregate, the five SC factors
7
had moderate influence on
teacher performance (81% agreement). Theoretical and empirical research support the influence
the five SC factors on teacher performance (Bandura, 2001; Berliner, 2009; 2017; Cowan et al.,
2005; Harris & Herrington, 2006; Laidra, et al., 2007; O’Brennan et al., 2014; Robinson at al.,
7
These five SC factors can also be sorted into two broader categories: In-School (2) and Out-of-
School (3) factors.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 132
2008; Rodriguez et al., 2013; Spring, 2016; Uhlenberg & Brown, 2002). Table 14 presents the
results for individual survey items and their respective construct factors. Subtotals and totals for
AES average teacher responses are reported.
Table 14
Teacher Responses Showing Perceived Influence of Social Context Factors, N=24
Perceived Influence of Factor on
Teacher Performance Related to
Student Reading Outcomes
Average Teacher Responses
Reported as %
The Child
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree
Q 17
4.17 8.33 75.00 12.50
Q 20 4.17 8.33 62.50 25.00
Q 27 0.00 0.00 29.17 70.83
Q 32 0.00 4.17 45.83 50.00
Avg. Subtotals 2.09 5.21 53.13 39.58
Avg. Totals for Disagree/Agree 7.29 92.71
The School and Education
System
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree
Q 14 0.00 20.83 54.17 25.00
Q 22 0.00 8.33 66.67 25.00
Q 24 0.00 4.17 58.33 37.50
Q 30 4.17 12.50 50.00 33.33
Avg. Subtotals 1.04 11.46 57.29 30.21
Avg. Totals for Disagree/Agree 12.50 87.50
The Society Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree
Q 13 4.17 8.33 70.83 16.67
Q 19 0.00 12.50 66.67 20.83
Q 25 4.17 45.83 50.00 0.00
Q 31 4.17 8.33 45.83 41.67
Avg. Subtotals 3.13 18.75 58.33 19.79
Avg. Totals for Disagree/Agree 21.88 78.13
The Teacher Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly
Agree
Q 16 4.17 16.67 50.00 29.17
Q 21 0.00 8.33 58.33 33.33
Q 23 20.83 54.17 16.67 8.33
Q 29 0.00 0.00 75.00 25.00
Avg. Subtotals 6.25 19.79 50.00 23.96
Avg. Totals for Disagree/Agree 26.04 73.96
The Parents and Home Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 133
Environment Disagree Agree
Q 15 0.00 8.33 70.83 20.83
Q 18 0.00 4.17 41.67 54.17
Q 26 16.67 62.50 12.50 8.33
Q 28 8.33 16.67 54.17 20.83
Avg. Subtotals 6.25 22.92 44.79 26.04
Avg. Totals for Disagree/Agree 29.17 70.83
Figure 5 visually presents the results found in Table 14 (see below).
Figure 5. Ranked results of average teacher responses about influences of social context factors,
N=24.
The strongest perceived influence reported was for the factor of the child (93%). In
contrast, teachers perceived moderate influence for the constructs of the teacher (74%) and the
parents and home environment (70%). Figure 6 shows the breakdown of the results for the most
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 134
perceived influential factor, the child. Of the four items measuring the construct factor of the
child, teachers perceived student behavior as most influential on their ability to develop readers
(100% agree/strongly agree).
Figure 6. Teacher responses to influence of the child factor, by item and average, N=24.
Figure 7 shows that teachers most disagreed to survey items 23 (75% strongly
disagree/disagree), 25 (50% strongly disagree/disagree), and 26 (79% strongly disagree/disagree)
(see below). It was evident that outlier scores (Q23, only 25% agree/strongly agree) reduced the
overall influence of the teacher. An outlier score (Q26, only 21% agree/strongly agree) also
reduced the overall influence of parents and the home environment. Survey items 25 and 26
related to distal factor influences. Research by Wang et al., (1993) found that contrary to
previous research, “distal” factors (e.g. state or district policies) had less influence in schools
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 135
than “proximal” factors (e.g. relationship between teacher and students). This finding helps
explain why teachers might have perceived less influence for the religious commitment of their
students/families or societal prejudices. Uhlenberg and Brown’s (2002) research provides an
explanation for why teachers may not have perceived their past test scores (Q23) to be an
influence on current/future performance: teachers are less likely to blame themselves for their
students’ achievement gaps and low performance.
Figure 7. Teacher responses to survey items 23, 25, 26, N=24.
The specific aspects of the related construct factors being measured by each item was
perceived as having weak influence. The following table captures the wording of these questions
indicating these aspects.
Table 15
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 136
Results and Wording for Survey Questions 23, 25, 26
Perceived
Influence?
Agree/
Strongly Agree
Item Wording
"The outcome of a student becoming a proficient
reader is influenced by ..."
Weak 50% Q23 The teacher's past/history of student reading test
scores
Weak 25% Q25 The nation's historical treatment of the ethnic
groups to which the student belongs
Weak 21% Q26 The religious commitment of the student's family
The literature suggested findings contrary to the results for the three items presented
above. Teachers’ past performance scores (of students) on standardized tests have been shown
to be strong predictors of their future students’ achievement outcomes (Hanushek & Rivkin,
2010; Kane et al., 2013). Hegemonic societal structures are theorized to hinder student success
(Gay, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 1994), and studies have demonstrated this effect, such as in the
case of Stereotype Threat (Steele & Aronson, 1995). The religious commitment of individuals
and their families has been found to be a strong correlate to reduced achievement gaps for
underserved students (Jeynes, 1999; 2010; 2015). However, these three items were not
perceived by teachers as influences on their performance (range of 45-80% strongly
disagree/disagree responses).
In conclusion, although teachers did not perceive the three items (Q23, Q25, Q26) as
being strong influencers, overall, teachers did perceive moderate influence for the five SC factors
as an aggregate (81%). In terms of the influence of the individual SC factors, teachers perceived
strong influence for the constructs of the child (93%) and the school and education system
(88%). They perceived moderate influence for the constructs of the society (78%), the teacher
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 137
(74%), and parents and home environment (71%). The next section presents results related to
the perceived influences of KMO factors.
KMO factors. As an aggregate, KMO factors had a strong influence on teacher
performance (87% teacher agreement). Teachers perceived strong influence for the constructs of
the school organization (95%) and teacher knowledge (90%). They perceived moderate
influence for the constructs of teacher motivational beliefs (75%). Theoretical and empirical
research supports the influence of the nine KMO factors on teacher performance (Boudett et al.,
2005; Darling-Hammond, 2010; Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001; Gay & Kirkland, 2003; Hill et
al., 2008; Howard, 2003; Milner, 2010a; 2010b; Pajares, 1997; Pintrich, 2002; Rodriguez, 1998;
Rueda, 2011; Schein, 2010; Schunk et al., 2009; Senge, 2006; Senge et al., 2012; Sharp et al.,
1988; Shulman, 1987; 1988; Wigfield & Cambria, 2010). Table 16 presents the results for
individual survey items and their respective construct factors. Subtotals and totals for AES
average teacher responses are calculated.
Table 16
Teacher Responses to Influences of KMO Factors, N=24
Perceived Influence of Factor on
Teacher Performance related to
Student Reading Outcomes
Average Teacher Responses
Reported as %
Teacher
Knowledge
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Declarative,
Procedural, and
Metacognitive
Knowledge
(9 Items)
1.39 8.80 59.26 30.56
Avg. Totals for
Disagree/Agree
10.19 89.82
Teacher
Motivational
Beliefs
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Self-Efficacy, 6.76 17.81 53.40 22.02
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 138
Expectancy
Utility-Value,
Attributions
(9 Items)
Avg. Totals for
Disagree/Agree
24.57 75.42
School
Organization
Elements
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Cultural Models
and Cultural
Settings
(9 Items)
0.48 4.35 61.84 33.33
Avg. Totals for
Disagree/Agree
4.83 95.17
Figure 8 visually presents the results found in Table 16. Teachers perceived strong
influence for the constructs of the school organization (95%) and moderate influence for the
constructs of teacher motivational beliefs (75%).
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 139
Figure 8. Ranked results of average teacher responses about influences of KMO factors, N=24.
In the following sections, detailed results are presented for the perceived KMO construct
factor influences of teacher knowledge, teacher motivational beliefs, and school organization
factors.
Knowledge results. As an aggregate, the teacher knowledge factor was perceived by teachers as having
strong influence on performance (90% agreement). Furthermore, teachers reported perceptions of strong
influence for the sub-factors of declarative knowledge (99%) and procedural knowledge (88%), and
moderate influence for the sub-factor of metacognitive knowledge (83%). Table 17 presents the
results for individual survey items and their respective construct factors. Subtotals and totals for
AES average teacher responses are calculated.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 140
Table 17
Teacher Responses to Teacher Knowledge Influences, N=24
Perceived Influence of Factor on
Teacher Performance related to
Student Reading Outcomes
Average Teacher Responses
Reported as %
Declarative
Knowledge
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Q 33
0.00 0.00 62.50 37.50
Q 36 0.00 0.00 66.67 33.33
Q 39 4.17 0.00 58.33 37.50
Avg. Subtotals 1.39 0.00 62.50 36.11
Avg. Totals for
Disagree/Agree
1.39 98.61
Procedural
Knowledge
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Q 34 0.00 20.83 50.00 29.17
Q 37 0.00 4.17 45.83 50.00
Q 40
0.00 12.50 75.00 12.50
Avg. Subtotals 0.00 12.50 56.94 30.56
Avg. Totals for
Disagree/Agree
12.50 87.50
Metacognitive
Knowledge
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Q 35 4.17 4.17 62.50 29.17
Q 38 4.17 8.33 66.67 20.83
Q 41 0.00 29.17 45.83 25.00
Avg. Subtotals 2.78 13.89 58.33 25.00
Avg. Totals for
Disagree/Agree
16.67 83.33
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 141
Figure 9. Teacher reported influences of teacher knowledge, by sub-factors, N=24.
Figure 9 visually represents the influences of teacher knowledge and its three sub-factors.
Declarative knowledge was perceived as having the strongest influence (99%) on teacher
performance.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 142
Figure 10. Teacher responses to influence of declarative knowledge, by item and average, N=24.
A more detailed breakdown of the declarative knowledge factor is found in Figure 10.
All teachers perceived strong influence for the items measuring teacher knowledge of reading
subject matter (Q33, 100%) and teacher knowledge of various types of teaching assessments
(Q36, 100%). Figure 11 shows that teachers most disagreed to survey items 34 (20.83%,
strongly disagree/disagree) and 41(29.17%, strongly disagree/disagree) (see below).
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 143
Figure 11. Teacher disagreeing responses to survey items 34, 41, N=24.
The aspects of the construct factor being measured by Q34 and Q41 were perceived by
teachers as having a moderate influence on performance. The following table captures the
wording of these items.
Table 18
Results and Wording for Survey Questions 34, 41
Perceived
Influence?
Agree/
Strongly Agree
Item Wording
"The outcome of a student becoming a proficient
reader is influenced by ..."
Moderate 79% Q34 The teacher's knowledge of how to incorporate
the student's culture into reading lessons
Moderate 71% Q41 The teacher's awareness of what the student's
parents need to feel comfortable to participate at
parent-teacher conferences
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 144
The research literature suggested stronger support for knowing how to incorporate
students’ culture into reading lessons. A key feature of teaching in a culturally relevant and
responsive manner involves knowing how to plan and teach for diversity by drawing on students’
background knowledge and experiences (Gay, 2010; Ladson-Billings, 1994). This data trend of
only 79% of teachers perceiving moderate influence for procedural knowledge of culturally
relevant planning (Q34) contrasted with the higher percentage of teachers (88%) who perceived
strong influence for valuing the time taken to plan culturally relevant reading lessons, (Q50).
One possible explanation is that teachers do value culturally relevant planning because as one
teacher wrote in the survey, “tapping into their culture makes them feel important”. Yet, because
this approach to teaching is complex, it may feel less possible. One teacher’s comment in the
survey’s open-response text box asking for more personnel, not more training, is telling: “We
need reading resource teachers that actually work with at risk students on a daily basis.” This
suggested that teachers perceived moderate influence for knowing how to plan culturally relevant
teaching, yet strong influence for valuing the time spent planning culturally relevant teaching,
and yet even stronger desire for someone else like a resource teacher to implement this method of
teaching for students.
The other item that teachers perceived as having lower moderate influence on their
performance was Q41 (71% agree/strongly agree), and it involved helping parents. This data
supports the claim that AES teachers in general are experiencing a fractured culture that divides
them from the parents, as one teacher said on the survey: “I don't expect that [support] from AES
parents.” Rather than perceiving parent conferences as great opportunities for partnerships
where teachers can connect parents to their children’s literacy learning, teachers’ attributions
may be limiting their expectancy of efforts to help parents, evidenced by one teacher’s comment
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 145
in the survey text-box: “Sometimes there are factors you can't control”. But not all AES teachers
feel this way, as one teacher commented: “Teachers need to share strategies with parents. It is
essential to make a home-school connection and encourage parents to become involved in their
children's educational journey.” In line with this teacher and in contrast to 29% of AES teachers
who perceived the content of Q41 as being a weak influence, the research shows that a key
indicator of engaging parents and partnering with them is through means of culturally responsive
parent conferences (Siwatu, 2007). However, based on the results at AES, these two items were
not perceived by 20-30% of teachers as being key influencers on their performance of teaching
students. The next section presents results related to motivation influences.
Motivation results. As an aggregate, the teacher motivation factor was perceived by
teachers as having moderate influence on performance (75% agreement). Furthermore, teachers
reported strong influences for self-efficacy (86%) and expectancy utility-value (87%). The sub-
factor of attributions was perceived as having the least influence on performance (54%). Table
19 presents the results for individual survey items and their respective construct factors.
Subtotals and totals for AES average teacher responses are calculated.
Table 19
Teacher Responses to Influences of Teacher Motivational Beliefs, N=24
Perceived Influence of Factor on
Teacher Performance related to
Student Reading Outcomes
Average Teacher Responses
Reported as %
Self-Efficacy Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Q 42
0.00 12.50 45.83 41.67
Q 45 0.00 13.04 52.17 34.78
Q 49 4.35 13.04 60.87 21.74
Avg. Subtotals 1.45 12.86 52.96 32.73
Avg. Totals for
Disagree/Agree
14.31 85.69
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 146
Expectancy
Utility-Value
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Q 43 0.00 8.70 69.57 21.74
Q 46 0.00 4.35 73.91 21.74
Q 50
4.35 21.74 60.87 13.04
Avg. Subtotals 1.45 11.60 68.12 18.84
Avg. Totals for
Disagree/Agree
13.05 86.96
Attributions Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Q 44 4.35 21.74 60.87 13.04
Q 47 26.09 8.70 39.13 26.09
Q 48 21.74 56.52 17.39 4.35
Avg. Subtotals 17.39 28.99 39.13 14.49
Avg. Totals for
Disagree/Agree
46.38 53.62
Figure 12 visually represents the teacher perceived influences of teacher motivational
beliefs and its three sub-factors (see below).
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 147
Figure 12. Teacher reported influences of teacher motivational beliefs, by sub-factors, N=24.
Teachers perceived the sub-factor of expectancy utility-value (87%) as having strong
influence on performance. A more detailed breakdown of the teacher perceived influence of the
expectancy utility-value sub-factor is found in Figure 13.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 148
Figure 13. Results of the influence of motivation expectancy utility-value, by item and average
result, N=24.
The survey results of items 50, 43, and 32 suggest that 93% of teachers perceived as
valuable the act of teaching for diversity and understanding (i.e. culturally relevant teaching) for
increasing student engagement and interest in reading. Figure 14 shows that teachers most
disagreed to survey items 44 (26%, strongly disagree/disagree), 47 (35%, strongly
disagree/disagree), 48 (79%, strongly disagree/disagree), and 50 (26% strongly
disagree/disagree). Three of the four items related to the attributions sub-factor. Among the
motivational beliefs, attributions were perceived by teachers as having the least moderate
influence on performance (53.62% agree/strongly agree). Visually, the red-colored bars show
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 149
the strength of disagreement and is striking compared to all other figures reported in the survey
section.
Figure 14. Teacher disagreeing responses to survey items 44, 47, 48, 50, N=24.
Teachers perceived the aspects of the related construct factors being measured by Q44,
Q47, and Q50 as having moderate to weak influence on performance. The following table
captures the wording of these items.
Table 20
Results and Wording for Survey Items 44, 47, 48, 50
Perceived
Influence?
Agree/
Strongly Agree
Item Wording
"The outcome of a student becoming a proficient
reader is influenced by ..."
Moderate 74% Q44 The teacher's belief about who is most responsible
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 150
for the student's reading scores/outcomes
Moderate 65% Q47 The teacher's belief that the cause for a student's
reading scores is mostly due to the teacher's
efforts, not because of the parents and home
environment
Weak 22% Q48 The teacher's belief that the cause for a student's
reading scores is mostly due to the teacher's
efforts, not because of the student
Weak 74% Q50 The teacher's time spent planning culturally
responsive reading lessons
The survey results of Q48 revealed that 78% of AES teachers attributed the cause of
students’ low reading achievement more to the students than to themselves as teachers. This is
an important finding because it reveals how teachers understand their influence compared to
students’ influence within the problem of practice. Also, the survey results of Q47 demonstrated
that 35% of teachers attributed the cause of students’ low reading achievement more to parents
and the home environment than to themselves. This is a major finding because it reveals how
teachers understand their influence compared to parents’ and the home environment’s influence
within the problem of practice. These findings of teacher perceptions are of the most significant
in the study—they are clear data trends from the survey results that suggest an important pattern
of teacher mindset. The trend also suggests that AES teachers rank stakeholder influence from
greatest to least influence in the following order: (1) students, (2) parents, and then, (3) teachers.
One teacher explained her perception of the situation in the survey text-box. She explained that
for her to be able to help students, students must help her to help them by showing the love of
reading, and that parents must help her to help students by teaching their children reading
strategies at home. This will enable her to do her job to make a difference for children by
making them aware of “the treasures of reading, how books open doors to endless opportunities
of learning and connecting to the world that surrounds us.” Teachers’ attributional beliefs and
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 151
perceptions suggest the power that outside-of-school influences exert on in-school processes,
including on the psychological variables that influence their performance related to developing
proficient readers. This is an important finding because the literature shows that when
individuals attribute outcomes to their own efforts rather than to outside factors, they are more
likely to work hard to attain the desired goals and outcomes (Dweck, 1975; 1986; 2008; Pintrich,
2003; Weiner, 1985; 2005). The next section presents results related to organization influences.
Organization results. As an aggregate, the school organization factor was perceived by
teachers as having strong influence on performance (95% agreement). Furthermore, all three
sub-factors had strong influence on performance: cultural model of learning orientation (99%),
cultural setting of resources (96%), and cultural setting of work processes (91%). Table 21
presents the results for individual survey items and their respective construct factors. Subtotals
and totals for AES average teacher responses are calculated.
Table 21
Teacher Responses to School Organization Influences, N=24
Influence of Factor on Teacher
Performance related to Student
Reading Outcomes
Average Teacher Responses
Reported as %
Cultural Model
of Learning
Orientation
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Q 51
4.35 0.00 78.26 17.39
Q 54 0.00 0.00 52.17 47.83
Q 57 0.00 0.00 69.57 30.43
Avg. Subtotals 1.45 0.00 66.67 31.88
Avg. Totals for
Disagree/Agree
1.45 98.55
Cultural
Setting of
Resources
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Q 52 0.00 4.35 52.17 43.48
Q 55 0.00 8.70 43.48 47.83
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 152
Q 58
0.00 0.00 52.17 47.83
Avg. Subtotals 0.00 4.35 49.27 46.38
Avg. Totals for
Disagree/Agree
4.35 95.65
Cultural
Setting of Work
Processes
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree Strongly Agree
Q 53 0.00 4.35 65.22 30.43
Q 56 0.00 4.35 78.26 17.39
Q 59 0.00 17.39 65.22 17.39
Avg. Subtotals 0.00 8.70 69.57 21.74
Avg. Totals for
Disagree/Agree
8.70 91.30
Figure 15 visually represents the teacher perceived influences of the school organization
and its three sub-factors.
Figure 15. Teacher reported influences of the school organization, by sub-factors, N=24.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 153
The cultural model of learning orientation was perceived by teachers as having the
highest level of strong influence (99%) from among the school organization sub-factors. A more
detailed breakdown of the influence of cultural model of learning orientation is found in Figure
16.
Figure 16. Results of the influence of cultural model of learning orientation, by item and average
result, N=24.
All teachers perceived strong influence for having an organization work culture of open
collaboration that supports sharing information (Q54) and alternative ways to accomplish work
(Q57). The most intense teacher perception that showed strong agreement (see dark blue bar on
graph) for an organization influence was item 54 (48% strongly agree), which read: “The
outcome of a student becoming a proficient reader is influenced by ... The eagerness of the
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 154
teacher's colleagues to share personal experiences about what does and doesn't work related to
teaching reading.” Teachers most disagreed to survey items 55 (8.70%, strongly
disagree/disagree) and 59 (17.39%, strongly disagree/disagree). Figure 17 shows these results.
Figure 17. Teacher disagreeing responses to survey items 55, 59, N=24.
Even though teachers perceived items 55 and 59 as having less influence on performance
from among the organization items, the aspects of the construct factors being measured by these
items overall still had strong influence (Q55) and moderate influence (Q59) on performance.
The following table captures the wording of these questions.
Table 22
Results and Wording for Survey Items 55, 59
Perceived
Influence?
Agree/
Strongly Agree
Item Wording
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 155
"The outcome of a student becoming a proficient
reader is influenced by ..."
Strong 91% Q55 The training the teacher receives from the school's
leadership to teach reading to diverse students
Moderate 83% Q59 The data analyses techniques that the teacher's
grade-level team uses on reading data (e.g.
disaggregating data, analyzing trends, correlating
data, comparing averages)
Teachers’ perceptions of the organization factors having strong influence on their
performance demonstrated the potential of cultivating a collaborative learning orientation for all
stakeholders as promoted by Senge (2006) in his model of a Learning Organization. Leveraging
the school culture is one way to improve reading outcomes for students in a school setting
(Senge et al., 2012). These data results suggest that AES teachers value a work environment and
culture that would support open, authentic collaboration to improve teacher performance and
student outcomes. The importance of this influence was hypothesized by the researcher and
included as part of the study’s conceptual framework (described at length in Chapter Two).
Summary of results. The survey results suggest that all SC factors and KMO factors are
perceived by teachers at AES to be influencing their performance at varying levels, moderate to
strong, related to developing proficient readers. Teachers did have strong disagreeing reactions
to a few survey items. Therefore, overall, the assumed influences of the 14 construct factors for
teachers appear to be validated by survey data. This conclusion suggests that teachers at AES
are facing a very complex problem of practice because of having to respond to multiple
influences on performance. Table 23 captures and ranks teacher-reported data about the
perceived influences of individual and grouped construct factors.
Table 23
Ranked Summary of Teacher Perceptions of Factor Influences on Teacher Performance
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 156
Perceived
Influence?
Avg. % Agree/
Strongly Agree
Range
(Items)
Survey
Items
Type Factor Name
Strong 99% 96-100% 3 K sub-factor Declarative Knowledge
Strong 99% 96-100% 3 O sub-factor Cultural Model of
Learning Orientation
Strong 96% 91-100% 3 O sub-factor Cultural Setting of
Resources
Strong 95% 83-100% 9 O factor School Organization
Strong 93% 88-100% 4 SC sub-factor The Child
Strong 91% 83-96% 3 O sub-factor Cultural Setting of Work
Processes
Strong 90% 71-100% 9 K factor Teacher Knowledge
Strong 88% 79-96% 3 K sub-factor Procedural Knowledge
Strong 87% 22-100% 27 KMO KMO Factors
Strong 87% 79-96% 4 SC sub-factor The School and
Education System
Strong 87% 74-96% 3 M sub-factor Utility-Value
Strong 86% 83-88% 3 M sub-factor Self-Efficacy
Strong 84% 21-100% 47 All factors Social Context Including
KMO
Moderate 83% 71-92% 3 K sub-factor Metacognitive
Knowledge
Moderate 81% 21-100% 20 SC Social Context Factors
Moderate 78% 50-88% 4 SC sub-factor The Society
Moderate 75% 22-96% 9 M factor Teacher Motivation
Moderate 74% 25-100% 4 SC sub-factor The Teacher
Moderate 70% 21-96% 4 SC sub-factor The Parents and Home
Environment
Moderate 54% 22-74% 3 M sub-factor Attributions
The next section bridges the analysis of quantitative and qualitative data for answering
research question one. The data of frequency counts of analytic codes used on interview
transcripts will highlight what teachers spoke about and how often related to factor influences.
Frequency Counts of Analytic Codes for Research Question One
The frequency counts of analytic codes in and of themselves are not proof that certain
factors are influencing teachers and/or causing low student reading outcomes. They do, however,
help the researcher with triangulation of results and findings (Creswell (2014a) by giving the
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 157
researcher a sense of what topics and related factors were discussed by AES teachers during the
interviews, and, how frequently. Together, with the survey results and findings of the themes,
they helped to shed light on teachers’ experiences of working to develop proficient readers.
Evidence from codebook. The researcher developed a distinct codebook for qualitative
analysis in this study using the conceptual framework, the research questions, and the literature
(see Table 11). Using the codebook within the coding software of Atlas.ti, the researcher coded
the four interview transcripts for a total 533 instances of coding using established “a priori”
codes and nine emergent codes. Across more than 80 pages of transcripts from the four
interviews, 322 frequency counts of codes were tagged for topics of conversation related KMO
Factors and 211 counts were tagged related to SC Factors. Figure 18 displays a summary of
these results.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 158
Figure 18. Summary of total counts of analytic codes used on interview transcripts about topics
of conversation related to factors.
Interviewed teachers discussed KMO related topics with more frequency than for SC
related topics. However, there were more conversations that could be associated with KMO
factors because of having more sub-factors. On average, across the interview conversations,
there were 42 frequencies/counts of codes related to each of the five SC sub-factors and 36
counts related to each of the nine KMO sub-factors. Figure 19 displays the breakdown of
frequency counts related to the 14 individual sub-factors.
Figure 19. Ranked sun of frequency counts of codes for topics of conversation related to the 14
individual sub-factors.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 159
Codes and conversations about social context factors. An important finding is that
AES teachers did discuss SC related topics and factors when speaking about their experiences of
teaching students to read. Figure 19 shows that teachers engaged in more frequent conversations
about the construct factor of the teacher (67 counts). Table 24 presents what conversational
topics were discussed by teachers, with what frequency, and related to what SC factors, as
evidenced by instances of coding.
Table 24
Frequencies of Coding for SC Factors Across Teacher Interview Transcripts
SOCIAL CONTEXT
FACTORS
Frequencies of Analytic
Codes in Transcripts –
Using ATLAS.ti
Topics of Conversation
The Society
25
Political Climate
Multiculturalism
The Parents and Home
Environment 36
Low Socioeconomics
Values Related to Schooling
Ability to Support Student
The Child
54
Language Abilities
Behaviors
The School and Education
System 29
Organizational Instability
Leadership
Culture of Testing
The Teacher
67
Responding to Students
Cultural Responsiveness
Provider of Reading Lessons
The topics of conversation most frequently discussed by teachers related to SC factors
were the following: responding to students’ needs; students’ behaviors; students’ language
abilities; acting in culturally responsive ways; and, providing reading lessons to students. The
topics of conversation most frequently discussed by teachers aligned to the construct factors of
the child (54 counts) and the teacher (67 counts). Least discussed by teachers in conversations
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 160
were topics of multiculturalism and the political climate, yet those conversations did appear to be
meaningful for the teachers.
Codes and conversations about KMO factors. An important finding is that AES
teachers did discuss many KMO related topics and factors when speaking about their
experiences of teaching students to read. Table 25 presents what conversational topics were
discussed by teachers, with what frequency, and related to what KMO factors, as evidenced by
instances of coding.
Table 25
Frequencies of Coding for KMO Factors Across Teacher Interview Transcripts
KMO FACTOR Frequencies of Analytic
Codes in Transcripts –
Using ATLAS.ti
Topics of Conversation
Declarative Knowledge of the
Teacher
64
Knowing Students
Knowing Data
Knowing Reading
Foundations
Procedural Knowledge of the
Teacher 62
Teaching Methods
Culturally Relevant Teaching
Addressing Opportunity Gaps
Metacognitive Knowledge of
the Teacher
26
Cultural Responsiveness
Awareness of Barriers
Self-Efficacy: Motivational
Belief of the Teacher
26
Teaching Mastery Issues
Interpreting Outcomes
Utility-Value: Motivational
Belief of the Teacher
15
Benefit to Engagement
Benefit to Relationships
Attribution: Motivational
Belief of the Teacher
21
Reasons for Student Skills
Locus of Control
Cultural Model: Learning
Orientation of the
Organization
37
Adapting to Changes
Willingness to Collaborate
Sharing with Colleagues
Cultural Setting: Resources of
the Organization
53
Provision of Materials
Provision of Structures
Cultural Setting: Data Work
Processes of the Organization 28
Mandatory and Emergent
Practices
Relationship to Instruction
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 161
The topics of conversation most discussed by teachers related to KMO factors were
knowing students; data; the process of teaching reading; teaching methods; culturally relevant
teaching; and, addressing students’ needs. These topics of conversation mostly touched on the
KMO factors of teacher declarative knowledge (64 counts), teacher procedural knowledge, (62
counts) and organization resources (53 counts).
Summary of codes and conversations about SC and KMO factors. During the
interviews, the four teachers touched on topics about SC factors and KMO factors. The numeric
value of the frequency with which these topics emerged in conversation related to factors is
captured in the table below. Table 26 compares the survey results alongside the frequency
counts of analytic codes for the same factors and topics discussed.
Table 26
Comparison of Survey Results, Frequencies of Codes, and Topics of Conversations
Type of Factor Survey Results
—Agrees/
Strongly Agrees
Frequencies
of Codes
Interview Findings
– Topics of Conversation
SC FACTORS 80.63% 221 See below
The Society 78.13%
(Moderate
Influence)
25
Political Climate
Multiculturalism
The Parents and Home
Environment
70.83%
(Moderate
Influence)
36 Low Socioeconomics
Values Related to Schooling
Ability to Support Student
Mobility/Attrition/Absenteeism
The Child 92.71%
(Strong
Influence)
54 Language Abilities
Behaviors
Lacking Academic Skills
Engagement & Interest
The School and
Education System
87.50%
(Strong
Influence)
29
Organization Instability
Culture of Testing
The Teacher 73.96%
(Moderate
Influence)
67 Opportunity Gaps Closer
Culture Responsiveness
Provider of Reading
KMO FACTORS 86.80% 322 See below
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 162
Teacher Knowledge 89.82%
(Strong
Influence)
152 Knowing Students
Reading Instruction
Differentiating
Using Data
Teacher Motivational
Beliefs
75.42%
(Moderate
Influence)
62 Value Cultures
Responsiveness
Shared Attributions
School Organization
Elements
95.17%
(Strong
Influence)
118 Data Work Processes
Responding to Changes
Providing Interventions
Leadership
Authentic Collaboration
The data trends in Table 26 demonstrate that all factors were discussed in conversation by
the four interviewed teachers. An important finding is that the topics related to the factors of
teachers, teacher knowledge, and the school organization were most frequently discussed. The
survey results on these same three factors show that the level of perceived influence that teachers
believe themselves, the teachers, to have is moderate (74%); their knowledge is perceived to
have strong influence (90%), and, the school organization is perceived to have the highest level
of strong influence (95%) on their performance. This data triangulation confirms the perceived
importance of these factors on the problem of practice. Another finding is that the construct of
the child was perceived to have very strong influence on teacher performance (93%) and
similarly the teachers discussed many topics in conversation related to children during the
interviews (54 counts). This finding suggests that students do have important influence on the
problem of practice.
Spirit of teacher conversations missed by code counts. The counts of analytic codes
miss conveying important information about the spirit or ethos of teachers’ conversations. For
example, when Rosalinda discussed the influence of politics on teacher performance, that was
coded as one count for the influence of “the society”. However, that numeric representation
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 163
missed the spirit of what Rosalinda said. She strongly felt and believed that US societal and
political pressures for families (an inference could be made that the current US president could
have something to do with it) around illegal immigration had caused many fears for parents,
which ultimately were affecting student’s attendance in school. She said, “This last year with the
whole politics, we noticed that enrollment is not as high...there's that fear. We have a lot of
dreamers and parents are fearful.” Even though that comment was coded as “the society”, that
numeracy did not convey the strength of the fearful emotion and disappointment with which
Rosalinda made that comment. To her, the result of that societal influence was difficult living
situations for families and poor attendance for students. Rosalinda ultimately came to believe
this: “[when] they don't come to school, it's something they miss, lessons that I cannot send
home.” The spirit of the conversation with Rosalinda could be captured in this way—it was as if
her great lessons missed by students were like carefully wrapped gifts that sadly remained
unopened and lost at school.
The spirit of teacher conversations related to teacher knowledge. Teacher knowledge
was the factor in conversation that captured the most frequency counts of code (152 counts).
This finding shows that teachers spoke often about themselves in the interviews. The spirit of
teachers’ conversations, however, suggested that teachers struggled overall to reveal their more
intimate reasons for their actions towards helping students to learn to read. In the few instances
where each teacher did reveal more intimate motivations and feelings about their teaching
experiences, that power did not translate in the frequency of a code count. An illustrative
example follows. When Samuel spoke about the instabilities that he felt constantly plagued the
school district, he was factual in his description and tone until he spoke about how it affected
him personally. When the personal connection arose, you could tell by his choice of words how
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 164
much it affected his sense of self-efficacy and his personhood. The interviewer’s notes
mentioned that at this moment in the conversation, he could see Samuel’s posture change and his
confidence dip. Here is the full exchange:
Samuel: And we felt comfortable with principals in the past, but it's more at a district
level where the superintendent hires this writing consultant. Great ideas. Man this is ...
but then, that was 3 superintendents ago. The one that came after him was like, oh, no,
that's ... we're gonna do away with that. I think we get encouraged by something that
seems to be working, and then it's like, NO, it becomes ... [energetic talk]
Interviewer: Obsolete.
Samuel: Worse than that. You gotta hide the, I forget the math program that we felt good
about. Oh, no, no, no, the new superintendent ... that's not his guy. [talk speeds up and
then slows down]
Interviewer: Oh.
Samuel: So, there's some of those games that we've kind of been pushed through. [voice
sounds of disappointment]
Interviewer: Interesting.
Speaker 2: And it's like, okay, this is new. Hopefully we will see it through to where we
can get some mastery in it. We're not just introducing something. [sounds like its
affecting him personally and his sense of self-efficacy]
Samuel’s quote “there’s some of those games that we’ve been pushed through” is powerful. The
choice of using the words “games” and “pushed” convey the belief of negative premeditated
intentions on the part of others and his words helped to visualize a sort of physical/violent act of
a push. Who wants to be played in a game? Who wants to be pushed around? These are the
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 165
subtle nuances that do not get transmitted by counts of codes and show the limitations of code
counts.
The value of triangulating code counts. The researcher believes that there is still value
in counting codes because trends with interview participants’ conversations become another data
source for triangulation. For example, teachers discussed with less frequency topics related to
motivations. Why is that? For instance, there were little coding counts for the factor of utility-
value. The reason for this could be that for AES teachers, the value of teaching for diversity and
understanding is an accepted and assumed value within the school community. This assumption
can be triangulated and supported by the data that shows that 96% of AES teachers considered
themselves to be multicultural (Q7). Furthermore, the code count related to the factor of
procedural knowledge—which was defined in this study through the characteristics of knowing
how to teach for diversity and understanding—did frequently emerge in teachers’ conversations
(62 counts, 3
rd
ranking).
Triangulating survey data and code data on motivation. By comparing the survey
results and frequency counts of analytic codes for the same factors, an interesting finding about
motivational beliefs emerged. First, on surveys, teachers reported perceptions of moderate
influence (75% agree/strongly agree) for motivational beliefs, as an aggregate, related to their
targeted performance. This is a comparatively low result of perceived influence for teachers in
view of other factors. Similarly, a finding from code counting is that teachers also talked less
frequently about topics related to their motivational beliefs during interviews, as evidenced by 62
counts of coding (compared to 152 code counts related to the factor of teacher knowledge).
Since motivations are beliefs of a very personal nature, perhaps that is a reason why teachers did
not more readily acknowledge or talk about its influence on their performance. This finding
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 166
about AES’ teachers’ perceptions about motivational beliefs seems to raise more questions about
the role of motivation for AES teachers because Clark and Estes’ (2008) assert that motivational
beliefs account for roughly 70-80% of employee performance problems. If motivation is
supposed to have such a big influence on performance, why do AES teachers not talk more about
it? Why do teachers perceive motivation as a lesser influence than their own knowledge? These
are questions that still need to be answered. In the section that follows, the researcher will bring
understanding to interview data through findings presented as themes that, ultimately in the
discussion section, will help to illuminate the survey results and coding data.
Interview Findings for Research Question One
Themes emerged as teachers discussed their experiences of working to support and
develop students to become proficient readers at AES. Teachers’ voices gave the researcher a
special lens into their perceptions, and insight into their psychological, emotional, and physical
world. This window of access allowed the researcher to gather important data to be able to
validate the assumed factors of influence brought into the study. The research question that
guided this analysis was the following: Are social context factors and knowledge, motivation,
and organization factors influencing teachers’ performance related to developing proficient
readers at AES? Themes showed the interrelated influences of SC and KMO factors upon
teachers’ experiences.
Theme one of adapting and responding to students. During the interviews, teachers
reported that students varied in their readiness for school because some students showed
inappropriate behaviors, struggles with lesson engagement, attendance inconsistencies, and
different language abilities. Teachers described how this presented a unique dynamic for them
as they responded to students who themselves were being influenced by out-of-school factors.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 167
Maricela’s response to students who were experiencing behavioral challenges.
Second-grade teacher Maricela shared how she really struggled to get a grip on her class. She
shared anecdotal thoughts about how she knew that she would not be able to teach unless she had
the appropriate behaviors in place. Her goal was to get her students to behave long enough for
her to teach them. She went on to say:
My first month, I did not focus on the teaching as I should have because it was really
hard. I have 32 students. I had behavior problems. I had hitting in my classroom. I had
running around in my classroom, so I did not impart my lessons the way that I like to.
So, I know the teaching has not been good teaching. And not the first month, I guess.
Maricela opened-up and became vulnerable. She admitted that for a month, not a day or two, she
basically did not have good control of her class. When she said that she did not focus on
teaching, that suggested through her self-evaluation that her mind was somewhere else. Maricela
was trying to manage behavior problems like “hitting”. That most likely involved contacting
parents, apologizing to them for students being hit or hurt. These pressures appeared to create a
dynamic for Maricela where she began to internalize the problems—she said, “I had behavior
problems”, not that her students had behavior problems. What was the outcome of this difficult
and “really hard” situation? Maricela confessed what must have had a serious impact on
students’ progress with developing important reading skills: “I did not impart my lesson the way
that I like to”. It took Maricela some time, but eventually she adapted and responded and shaped
students into her mold of what was expected for her classroom behavior. Maricela described this
process: “If I start working with my students and I see improvement, and that would be after a
month, okay? I know my students. I know their names. I'm going to start teaching them what
they need.” Put plainly, Maricela just worked through the problem. A little bit day by day, she
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 168
started to get to know her students, to memorize their names, to know what made them tick,
produce more work, get motivated, get set off, and this knowledge of students is what Maricela
used to turn the tide after a difficult month in her class. Her knowledge of her students became
her saving grace, what she needed was to get her class focused so that she could teach “them
what they need… the way I like to”.
Jenny’s response to students who need to be engaged in class. Jenny, a first-grade
teacher, with about 10 more years of teaching experience than Maricela, described a different
approach to responding and adapting to her students’ needs.
But, what I do, is I try to make it fun, I try to put a smile on my face, like “Yeah! We're
gonna read this story!” I kind of make it like you just went on a Caribbean cruise, like a
seven-day cruise for free. It's like, “Yeah! We’re gonna read this story, and it's gonna be
fun, and we're gonna do this”, and I mean that helps. And like I said, it's kind of like a
vibe that you pass on to the kids, that they get into it.
Jenny was so excited as she shared her approach—she lit up with high energy levels and it was
apparent that this approach was her method. She knew that if her kids were going to learn, it was
going to have to be “fun”. Fun was the best way she knew to get every student who walked
through the classroom door to be engaged for learning. Even if it meant being theatrical, that
was what she was going to be. She was not going to be one of those teachers that students said
was “boring” and therefore did not want to go to school. Jenny personally loves reading. She
grew up around books, her family had mountains of books everywhere. She wants her students
to love to read as much as she does.
Literacy was a big thing in my family with all of us growing up. Always had books
around, my parents always had books in their nightstands, reading. I always found them
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 169
with a book. If not the book, newspaper, things like that. So, that's something that I
carry to the classroom because, I love reading. I'm always reading a book. Now, I have
books in my nightstand. It's so funny how you do what your parents did.
Jenny responds to her students’ needs, their temptation for being absent or tardy or misbehaving,
by sharing her personal, family-passed-down love and excitement for books. That is what her
family did for her, and that is what she is now doing for her students. And what is the outcome
in Jenny’s mind for all her cheering and jazzing up the literacy in her classroom? Jenny said,
“It's kind of like a vibe that you pass on to the kids, that they get into it.” To Jenny, getting
students to become proficient readers is very much driven by motivational causes. She draws
from her own value system of loving reading, from her own personal and family experiences with
literacy, and combines that with enthusiasm to pass the “vibe” onto her students. Maricela used
her new knowledge of students to respond to their needs and to finally “impart” good reading
lessons; Jenny, used a different system, she relied on her motivational beliefs and value system to
project a “vibe” that got students into reading.
Rosalinda’s response to students who experience transiency. What happens when
teachers feel stuck, like they just do not know how, or they lack the resources like time to
successfully respond to students’ needs? What then? Rosalinda, the dual-language kindergarten
teacher and self-proclaimed “maestrita” of the community, shared her deep frustration about her
inability to work long enough with some of her students because of their transiency. Plainly put,
it is upsetting to her. Her voice became stronger and more pronounced. Her tone and facial
expressions gave a feel of disappointment. She went on to say:
That's been challenging because sometimes we have students and let's say, they're already
struggling as readers and we're seeing next year they're identified for interventions or for
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 170
some support. They don't come back and …we'll find parents and we’ll say, "Did they go
to school?" They’ll say, "No, they didn't go to school for four months because we
couldn't find a place to live.”
For Rosalinda, the promise of tomorrow is too late. The interventions that are planned for
students that are yet to come might as well be wished over. Why? Because Rosalinda lives in the
community and she knows that you must work with students and their literacy needs today, when
you have students in your hands. Like she said, “they don’t come back”. And Rosalinda knows
that students who experience transiency are very often the same students who struggle with
reading because she acknowledged “they’re already struggling as readers”. The students most
impacted by reading miss the most school and then get further impacted in their reading, and the
negative feedback loop continues. As the topic developed further, Rosalinda made the following
statement:
We can't wait until they get to second grade or third grade, that's already late. It doesn't
mean you can't support them then, it becomes more challenging and difficult for a child.
Once they know they can't read, it blocks them. They're going to say, "I can't do it. I can't
do it."
Rosalinda, with her 35 years of teaching experience in the community, has met her share of
students who say, “I can’t do it. I can’t do it”. It troubles her deeply to see her students so
adversely affected by the commotion of factors outside of school and in the home and
neighborhood. She knows that when students get this far behind in reading, they say that “they
know they can’t read”. Then, students’ self-knowledge of being a non-reader has devastating
effects on students. Rosalinda does not want students to feel defeated, demoralized, or
“blocked” because of the inability to read. This is one reason why she makes the extraordinary
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 171
effort to reach and teach her parents about literacy so that they can take that knowledge with
them anywhere they go to be able to help their children.
I do a lot of workshops with my parents to show them how we teach our students in the
classroom. That it isn't anything that they can't do themselves at home, to take that time
to really make reading very special.
These workshops that Rosalinda gives are not paid workshops. These are personal investments of
time and love into her students and their families. That is how Rosalinda responds to students’
and families’ needs—with actions. She finds an inner motivation and compassion for her
students, and that drives her beautiful work as an educator. She knows that students are
experiencing many adversities. What better way to give some medicine for the soul than to give
her students experiences that cause good feelings— of genuine learning.
Samuel’s response to students who are Emergent Bilingual. Samuel knows what it is
like to have to learn a second language. It was not easy for him, and it took him longer because
he was older when he was immersed in English in the US. With this motivational understanding
and compassion, Samuel draws out from students the strengths of their native language of
Spanish. He builds masterfully on the structures and components of the Spanish language, using
what transfers to English acquisition. He explained this very enjoyable process and personal
approach to teaching.
In my program, I have the flexibility to jump to Spanish if I need to and re-direct certain
things…like a little… this is this and keep going. And even with my lowest group, I
don't feel bad teaching a lot of that in Spanish, just so they know if I'm teaching, the
differences in quotations. Because there's differences in Spanish there, and things like
that.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 172
Samuel sees the opportunity to help students become English proficient and uses his talents and
personal resources of knowledge and experiences to facilitate this learning for students. Imagine
what a newcomer feels like when he or she moves to AES to find a teacher who values the
Latino culture and language—and more, uses it show its value? For that student, Samuel
represents a warm welcome to the country; he becomes a friend, a trusted advisor. The fact that
Samuel uses the Spanish language as a strength and not a deficit helps students to feel valued and
respected.
Theme two of authentic collaboration for AES stakeholders. It takes great personal
investment to collaborate authentically with others. It requires trust, patience, understanding,
compromise, and a motivating drive. During the interviews, the teachers discussed when
collaboration felt right and wrong, and how mandated collaboration helped to a limit.
When collaboration feels right, teachers authentically collaborate with people who they
trust. Although Rosalinda is a powerhouse teacher and champion in the community, she prefers
to plan lessons with a very close friend who is a retired teacher and substitute more so than with
work colleagues. The only time Rosalinda spoke in detail about her experiences of collaboration
at AES during her interview was when speaking about her experience planning around student
data with the retired substitute teacher.
As a matter of fact, I have a friend who's volunteering her time right now in my
classroom. She's a 39-year kinder teacher. She also subs in our district, and whenever
I'm absent, she's the only one who will come in my classroom, because she's a
kindergarten queen. She's been helping me with assessments. Since he [principal]
bought me Estrellitas, it comes with a very thorough assessment program. She's doing all
the assessments, and we sat yesterday late, and we were looking at them, and we were
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 173
saying, ‘Look. He [the student] understands the combination of syllables, but he hasn't
made the connection yet, that when you connect two syllables, you can create a word.’
We're looking at the data, and now I'm going to look at my groups, and now I'm going to
pull those kids out and do some more activities with them, so that it's going to click.
Listening to Rosalinda recount her experience of collaborating and reviewing data with the
substitute friend revealed that this is a deep conversation about student learning. It informed her
subsequent teaching efforts. It was not surface level chit-chat, like what often happens in
mandated meetings or collaboration sessions at AES. And why does Rosalinda partner and
collaborate with her close substitute friend and not with a work colleague? The answer is simple:
Rosalinda trusts her. That is the secret ingredient that helps to facilitate authentic collaboration.
When collaboration feels wrong, teachers have the opposite feeling—they shut down to
authentic collaboration. Maricela expressed this great dismay during her interview. She
explained with great sincerity to the interviewer how she really wanted to learn from others. She
expressed how she craved wanting to be able to ask colleague teachers questions to get good
ideas from them. The problem, in Maricela’s eyes, was that other more experienced colleagues
simply would not give her the time. The interviewer asked her: “Do you guys have those type of
conversations? Do you and your colleagues share the same system of routines for using data to
improve reading?” Maricela revealed her situation:
We do not. Not sharing, like, you can do this …because also the other teachers have
many years of experience. I would not feel comfortable telling them what I'm doing. I
have experienced before that I share things and I come with ideas and … I'm just ignored.
"Oh, yes, great." That's all I get. Nobody really gets engaged in a conversation on how
we can work together and do things better together. So, I stop doing that.”
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 174
Maricela was devastated. You could hear it in her voice and see it in her defeated body
language. Her confession that her colleagues did not share ideas with her—a new and excited
teacher—reveals a lot about the culture of collaboration at AES. Maricela’s statement, “because
also the other teachers have many years of experience. I would not feel comfortable telling them
what I'm doing”, gives insight into her psychology and mental model. It does not appear that
Maricela seemed insecure at first that her colleagues were more experienced than her; on the
contrary, she attempted to reach out to them for help. But, after a few of those deflating
experiences, it is understandable why Maricela has shut down. When collaboration feels wrong,
teachers shut down. And that is what she has done, as she said it best, “I stop doing that.”
Mandated collaboration helps to a limit. During the interviews, all four teachers
acknowledged that there was value in district- and site-mandated collaboration meetings. Jenny
had a very positive view of the mandated collaboration meetings and structures that were brought
to AES by Leaders United. When asked by the interviewer about what practices she believed
were currently transformational at AES in helping teachers to develop proficient readers, Jenny
quickly responded without hesitation:
As teachers, we sit down, we collaborate, we focus on these standards, and that really
gears our instruction to come together and really focus on what we need to teach for
reading in these English language arts components. I think that is a great milestone that
the district has come up with, because it really assists teachers on having a focus on what
we're teaching.
For Jenny, the collaboration meetings with colleagues, even if they are mandatory, help her to
align her instruction and “come together and really focus on what we need”. Jenny sees the
value of alignment among teachers and grade levels in terms of their instructional practices. She
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 175
appreciates a “focus on what we’re teaching”. The alternative for her would be planning on her
own, and wondering if she was on the right track. At least, it appears to Jenny, that what Leaders
United has brought is a sense of clarity, direction, and sense of security for teachers in knowing
that what they are doing is vetted. Jenny elaborated further to explain her rationale for why she
considered this mandatory collaboration structure to be moving towards being
“transformational”.
It has been transformative to a certain point. It has been transformative to the point that
as teachers, we have the routine down. We know what we need to focus on. We know
exactly what we need to do, how to prepare our lessons to help the students become better
readers, to learn how to read.
The collaboration meetings with colleagues help Jenny to sharpen her instructional routines, to
stay focused on goals, to know what to do, and to get help with planning reading lessons—there
are many benefits for her. You could hear it in her own words how her procedural knowledge
was benefiting, “how to prepare our lessons better to help students become better readers”.
Authentic collaboration appears to have the potential to help teachers to help students
become stronger readers and leaders. Rosalinda trusts her friend, the substitute teacher, and
reaches out to her for authentic collaboration. They review student data late into the night
because they are comfortable and trusting of one another. Likewise, Samuel turned first and
foremost to his sister, who is his grade level partner in 3
rd
grade, when looking for someone with
whom to authentically collaborate. He mentioned with a mix of pride and luck when asked with
whom he collaborates.
Samuel: I'm very lucky, my sister's in my grade level.
Independent Data Collector: Really? That is so awesome. I didn't know that.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 176
Samuel: For me, it's easy to say, "Hey, I'm struggling with this. What are you doing with
this?"
It is comfortable for Samuel to turn to his sibling that he works with for help because they have a
trusting relationship. That facilitates authentic collaboration. He is even vulnerable enough to
share that he is “struggling with this”. That is powerfully revealing because it appears to be
easier for teachers at AES to protect their sense of self or identity by not showing other less
trusted colleagues that they are “struggling with this”.
Maricela, after not having found trusting help from more experienced teachers at AES,
may have made a breakthrough in finding a more open and willing partner with whom to
authentically collaborate. She explained: “We have a new second grade teacher, so I'm helping
her a lot and she's open, so I can tell her, like ‘I'm doing this and it's really working with my
students’. I did not experience that in my previous years.” This is a wonderful relief for
Marisela and the new second grade teacher. Senge et al. (2006; 2012) argued that a learning
organization is one where peoples’ mental modes are aligned to a shared vision of having an
open and continuous learning orientation. Organizations that learn, grow. Organizations that
grow, learn. If AES can find or develop among its staff that same ingredient of trust, then
perhaps it can move one step closer towards creating a culture of authentic collaboration as a
learning organization.
Theme three of findings of teacher knowledge. The assumed teacher knowledge
influences were evaluated using data from the four teacher interviews at AES. Findings emerged
through analysis of interview data in relationship to the research question: Are knowledge factors
influencing teachers’ performance of developing proficient readers at AES? The findings
examined are related to teachers’ declarative knowledge, procedural knowledge, and
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 177
metacognitive knowledge. In the sections below, the findings are examined and identified as an
area of strength or an area that needs additional training, coaching, and/or support for teachers.
The finding of declarative teacher knowledge. To develop proficient readers, AES
teachers must factually and conceptually know reading subject matter, teaching methods, and
their learners. AES teacher interview participants mostly demonstrated that they have this
declarative knowledge. These findings were consistent with Shulman’s (1987; 1988) and Hill et
al.’s (2008) research that suggested that when teachers have pedagogical content knowledge,
they are more likely to effectively teach students to develop literacy skills. Additionally,
research has shown that teachers who themselves possess strong content knowledge of reading
have higher student achievement outcomes (Hattie, 2012; Lane et al., 2008).
This finding was confirmed during the four teacher interviews. Three of the four teachers
demonstrated integrated knowledge of reading subject matter, teaching methods, and their
learners. This declarative knowledge was demonstrated during an interview when Maricela
spoke of how she skillfully used assessments to gain knowledge about her students and to
provide instruction. She said, “I started doing assessments, analyzing my data. Based on that, I
made my [reading] groups.” Now, she has a clear sense of direction for planning and delivering
targeted reading lessons. Samuel, on the other hand, spoke with confusion about his knowledge
of the difference between teaching reading processes and teaching language arts. The
independent interviewer had to ask the same question, but in different ways, to assess Samuel’s
understanding of how he teaches reading to students. After a tense couple of moments, the
independent interviewer commented that he was not judging Samuel. The independent
interviewer said, “Reading. Reading. Not language arts. Not grammar. Reading… This isn't a
judgment. I just wanna make sure ...”. The interviewer then appeared to personally intervene by
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 178
explaining the reading process to Samuel. After a few minutes of listening to the explanation of
what it is to teach reading from a book like Goldilocks, Samuel explained himself and said, “I
see where you're going with this. For some reason, I was picturing what my lesson would look
like in a rotation for some reason.” The remainder of the interview, though, Samuel continued
with basic explanations of what it meant to teach reading. He was unable in his knowledge to
differentiate between reading processes and reading structures. In contrast to Samuel, Rosalinda
did speak with clear knowledge about teaching methods and learning modalities. She was most
excited, though, about the reading results she was getting in kindergarten: “We were reading.
The kids were reading. We were reading together, guided reading.” To see the fruit of her
labor, to see her knowledge put to action, was very rewarding for Rosalinda. Likewise, Jenny
spoke of her skillful reading instruction and the instructional processes she engaged in when
using Alphafriend charts, word tiles, and when she modeled reading around narrative text. She
also reported getting great results and appeared excited to share: “We go into making
words…there will be a certain pattern, and we pass out letter tiles and we created letter
words…that's a really enjoyable activity for them!” Jenny’s declarative knowledge of reading
instruction appears to bring enjoyable learning to students and a sense of personal
accomplishment as a teacher.
Quotes from interviews indicate that most AES teacher participants do know their
reading subject matter, teaching methods, and learners. Maricela were competent in her ability
to use reading assessments skillfully. Rosalinda knew what was involved in forming guided
groups reading with students. Jenny knew what various techniques to use to develop students’
phonics skills. In contrast, Samuel could benefit from additional training or support in
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 179
strengthening his declarative knowledge of reading processes to be able to better develop
proficient readers.
The finding of procedural teacher knowledge. To develop proficient readers, AES
teachers must know how to teach for diversity and understanding. AES teacher interview
participants strongly demonstrated that they have this procedural knowledge. The findings were
consistent with research that suggested that when teachers have procedural knowledge of
teaching for diversity and understanding, they are more likely to effectively engage and teach
students (Banks, 2006; Gay & Kirkland, 2003; Hattie, 2012; Neumann, 2013; Rodriguez, 1998).
Additionally, teachers who use teaching methods that reduce cognitive load will be more
effective in facilitating students’ understanding (Mayer, 2011).
This finding was confirmed during the four teacher interviews. All teachers interviewed
demonstrated a strength in teaching for diversity and understanding, specifically in building
students’ understanding through culturally responsive approaches. This procedural knowledge
was demonstrated during an interview when Maricela spoke of using strategies to the reduce
cognitive load for students to help them learn: “During my read aloud, I focus on one specific
strategy and I want my students to use that strategy during the whole week.” Maricela went on
to explain that students learned better when they focused on practicing their same content
knowledge in different settings: “Monday, for example, we're learning inferences. When we're
reading, independent reading, fun reading, I want them to start asking questions and making
inferences of what's going to happen next.” Instead of giving students five different reading
strategies to learn and apply, Maricela teaches for understanding by lowering the cognitive load
for students by focusing her expectations of them related to their practice of newly learned skills.
Samuel also knew how to deliver effective instruction that builds students’ understanding: “We
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 180
have a lot of newcomers and need a lot of realia and exposure and pictures and connections. I
think those sorts of scaffolding and coming back, and background knowledge, and keeping
things very oral and pictures and connecting things”. Samuel knows that providing Emergent
Bilingual students the visual scaffolds they need and tapping into their background knowledge
will help with cognition. His students make meaning immediately when concrete experiences
are provided, even as they develop the English language as “newcomers” to the country.
Rosalina also knew how to best cognitively instruct students through multiple modalities: “We
have a lot of opportunities for them to role play some of the parts in the book. Then, I do a lot of
the chanting of sounds, and letter names, and letter sounds”. Rosalinda draws on different
learning modalities to strengthen students’ understanding. By role playing parts of books,
students are experiencing the content and not simply being talked to about what is happening in
the text. This strengthens students’ understanding of the text by incorporating kinesthetic
opportunities for learning that connect the brain and the body. Jenny knew how to use similar
strategies like Rosalinda to instruct students in ways that support their cognition: “You have to
know to get them in movement… there's movement involved, there's songs, chants involved.”
By learning through song and dance, Jenny’s students are actively engaged in learning and are
using different parts of the brain to make meaning. Furthermore, Jenny explained how these
songs and dances specifically are chosen to reflect the diverse culture of her students, which
increases engagement for them.
Quotes from interviews indicate that all AES teachers did know how to teach for diversity
and understanding. Maricela knew to focus students on learning and applying the one reading
strategy at a time to reduce cognitive load. Samuel used effective learning strategies for
newcomers that included the use of students’ background knowledge, concrete learning objects
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 181
like realia, and picture supports to enhance cognition. Rosalinda and Jenny both engaged
students in whole body learning by getting students to sing, dance, chant to culturally relevant
content that increased body and brain connections and student engagement. Based on the
interviews, all four AES teacher participants are demonstrating a strength in their abilities to use
their procedural knowledge to support the development of proficient readers.
The finding of metacognitive teacher knowledge. To develop proficient readers, AES
teachers must know to engage in critical reflection and awareness of socio-political
consciousness. AES teacher interview participants all demonstrated that they have this
metacognitive knowledge. These findings were consistent with research that suggested that
when teachers have metacognitive knowledge of critical reflection and awareness of socio-
political consciousness, they are more likely to structure learning in the classroom in a way that
reduces a deficit-approach to teaching, increases student engagement, and enhances student
understanding (Gay, 2010; Hattie & Timperley, 2007; Howard, 2003; Rodriguez, 1998).
Additionally, teachers who use self-knowledge are more effective in reducing opportunity gaps
that increase student motivation and learning (Milner, 2010a; 2010b).
This finding was confirmed during the four teacher interviews. All four teachers
demonstrated knowledge to engage in critical reflection and awareness of socio-political
consciousness. This metacognitive knowledge was demonstrated during an interview when
Maricela spoke of connecting her own childhood experiences of learning to read to those of her
struggling students: “When I was in sixth grade, I had lots of difficulty reading, but nobody
helped me so I know that if my student has difficulties, I am there to help them and to have a
different perspective.” Maricela’s self-knowledge and reflexivity was a source of strength that
enabled her to personally understand her students’ experiences of learning to read. This critical
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 182
reflection drove her to work even harder in her investment to help her struggling readers: “I
focus a lot on my students who have those problems because that's something that I experienced
growing up.” Instead of focusing on students who may appear to be easier to work with because
they have more developed reading skills, Maricela uses her reflexivity to go the opposite way
and help a struggling student so that he or she never feels inadequate as a reader like Maricela
felt growing up. Rosalinda also uses her knowledge of critical reflection and awareness of socio-
political consciousness to supplement students’ literacy resources in the home without offending
parents:
I know that many times, they [families] don't have books. When they would say, “no
tengo”, I would say, for many years, I guess it was, "Go to the library." But then I
realized, “Oh, wait a minute, maybe they can't go to the library?”, or “they don't
understand that this [library] is a public place that lends them books? Okay…. I’ll send
the books home.’”
Rosalinda gave deep insight in her metacognitive knowledge, how at first, she assumed if
families at AES did not have books, the simple answer was to say, “Go to the library.” But, over
time, Rosalina’s experiences taught her that her assumption could be wrong, and to be more
empowering and understanding of parents’ adversities, she changed course and made the more
transformative decision for students: “I’ll send the books home.” Samuel also found that his
metacognitive knowledge of his cultural experiences was an asset that he could use to connect
with students on similar ground.
Teaching sequence in reading, we do recipes and things that the kids like to help with at
home, especially around the holidays. Having a kid share about how they help make
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 183
something. That can go into writing fairly easy. Everybody, I think, is more interested in
what that kid has to say.
Samuel loved the holidays and those were very special times to him—grandparents, parents,
uncles, aunts, cousins, siblings, they all came together to celebrate the goodness of the family.
Samuel, being a Latino, shared that he knew the value that his culture, and his students’ culture,
placed on time together as a family around the holidays. So, using this self-knowledge, Samuel
connected “teaching reading in sequence” to “recipes and things that the kids like to help with at
home” so that engagement increased and students would put in more investment in learning.
Jenny, like Samuel, also used her critical reflection knowledge to draw from her personal life
experiences to influences her style of teaching reading to students: “The Little Red Hen… So,
we're reading about The Little Red Hen. That's an excellent book because it talks about
socialization, helping each other.” To Jenny, one of her personal values is “helping each other”.
She attended the Catholic schools in the neighborhood growing up and finds that social skills are
just as important as reading skills. So, when Jenny selects books to read students, she draws
from her own knowledge of what is important for students to know in terms of literacy and social
skills. Jenny reading the The Little Red Hen to students was intentional, planned, and based on
her metacognitive knowledge of what was best for students.
Quotes from interviews indicate that AES teacher participants did know to engage in
critical reflection and socio-political consciousness. Maricela reflected on her own experiences
as a reader and used that knowledge to focus her efforts on struggling readers. Rosalinda used
her knowledge of socio-political consciousness to empathize with financially struggling families
and changed course from recommending the public library to sending books home for students.
Samuel used his self-knowledge of the importance of family traditions and holidays to connect
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 184
those experiences to teaching reading sequencing. Jenny drew from her knowledge of what
students need to be successful and read specific books like The Little Red Hen to teach students
literacy and social skills. Based on the interviews, all four teachers are strong in using their
metacognitive knowledge to support their performance of developing proficient readers.
Theme four of findings of teacher motivational beliefs. The assumed teacher
motivation influences were evaluated using data from the four teacher interviews at AES.
Findings emerged through analysis of interview data in relationship to the research question: Are
motivation factors influencing teachers’ performance of developing proficient readers at AES?
The findings examined are related to teachers’ motivational beliefs of self-efficacy, expectancy
utility-value, and attributions. In the sections below, the findings are examined and identified as
an area of strength or an area that needs additional training, coaching, and/or support for
teachers.
The finding of the motivational belief of self-efficacy. To develop proficient readers,
AES teachers must believe in one’s personal ability as a teacher to achieve a goal. AES teacher
interview participants partially demonstrated that they believed in their sense of self-efficacy.
Those that did display self-efficacy were having a positive effect on students and their self-
image. This finding was consistent with Zee and Koomen’s (2016) research that suggested that
teachers who display self-efficacy have positive connections to students, quality classroom
practices, psychological well-being, commitment, and a personal sense of accomplishment.
Additionally, research has shown that teachers who believe in their ability to accomplish goals
are more effective in accomplishing their goals and teaching students to read (Bandura, 1997;
Klassen & Tze, 2014; Schunk & Usher, 2012).
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 185
This finding was confirmed during the four teacher interviews. Two of the teachers
believed in their personal ability as a teacher to achieve a goal. A display of low self-efficacy
was demonstrated during an interview when Maricela spoke of feeling helpless at times: “It was
too much information, but I felt that we, as teachers, have a lot of limitations to start helping
those students to get some kind of intervention.” Maricela felt very overwhelmed when speaking
about putting interventions into place for her struggling students because she did not feel like she
had the ability at the moment to make that difference. She called it “limitations”, and added: “I
want a plan and I want training on that and I want us to support the students”. Maricela
expressed wanting to be able to help her students better because she said, “I want a plan” and “I
want training”. It appears that Marcela felt that her knowledge, which supported her sense of
self-efficacy, had not been fostered by the organization. Her request for a type of knowledge, “a
plan”, and another type of knowledge, “training”, shows the interrelatedness of and causality
among the influences of the school organization, teacher knowledge, and self-efficacy. Like
Maricela, Samuel spoke of feeling inadequate in his level of teaching mastery, caused by the
school organization (showing directionality of factor influence): “Hopefully we will see it
through to where we can get some mastery in it. We're not just introducing something.” Samuel
was frustrated when making this comment because he was discussing how the constant
organizational changes he had experienced in a short matter of time affected the use of and
mastery with different teaching strategies and programs. The result was he felt he never got
good enough at using one approach or program, which is why he said he hopes to be beyond
“just introducing” something. In contrast, Rosalinda felt a high sense of self-efficacy to teach
her students about literacy using her resources and programs.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 186
For me, as a Spanish reading teacher, I start with reading a book, talking about
vocabulary, never watering down a hard word, if there's a difficult word. I'll ask them,
"What do you think it means?" I love how creative their minds are at this age.
Rosalinda is confident when she explains her pride and confidence as a “Spanish reader
teacher”. As a kindergarten teacher, it would be understandable because of how young her
students are for Rosalinda to say that they are not ready for deep learning. However, she has
high-levels of self-efficacy and she knows she can take her students to the deep waters of
learning—she can even help them to learn the meaning of unknown words using their
background knowledge and “creative minds”. Her choice of words demonstrates her self-
efficacy like a laser beam: “never watering down a hard word”. Rosalinda never waters down
her self-efficacy, either. Like Rosalinda, Jenny felt confident about her ability to implement
effective literacy practices. Jenny explained how she conducted literacy center rotations with
small group instruction for students.
That's the ZPD, right there. It's awesome, perfect. So, for example with my benchmark
students, I’ve already got them reading. Or they're just about to be reading at grade level,
first grade third month, second month. So then, perfect. We're going to do little readers,
we're going deeper into comprehension strategies, compare and contrast, a lot of talk, a
lot of discussion within the small group.
Jenny appears to be comfortable knowing that she has students of different reading levels in her
class because she “got them reading”. In other words, she knows her craft and is confident in her
ability to help them to improve. That is why she said, “we’re going deeper into comprehension
strategies” because she believes in her skillset of being able to differentiate her reading
instruction for all students.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 187
Quotes from interviews indicate that two AES teacher participants did believe and two
did not have strong belief in their personal ability as a teacher to achieve a goal. Maricela spoke
of feeling helpless at times when not having the needed plan or training to provide reading
interventions to students. Likewise, Samuel spoke of feeling inadequate in his level of mastery
with past programs and strategies because of changing organizational direction. In contrast,
Rosalinda felt able to teach her students deep learning about vocabulary using context clues and
background knowledge. Jenny felt confident about her ability to implement literacy center
rotations with small group instruction for students of all reading levels. Based on the interviews,
there is a need for more knowledge, in-depth training, and coaching to promote greater self-
efficacy beliefs among teachers that will help teachers to develop proficient readers.
The finding of the motivational belief of utility-value. To develop proficient readers,
AES teachers must believe in the benefits of teaching for diversity and understanding. AES
teacher interview participants all demonstrated that they had motivational beliefs of utility value
that helped them to provide students with rich opportunities for learning. These findings were
consistent with Beech and Sweeny’s (2008) research that demonstrated that when teachers
believe in the value of culturally relevant teaching, they design lessons that are more engaging to
students that increase achievement. Additionally, research has shown that when tasks fit into an
individual’s plan of expected future outcomes, the individual is more likely to value that task
(Higgins, 2007; Wigfield & Cambria, 2010).
This finding was confirmed during the four teacher interviews. All four teachers believed
in the benefits of teaching for diversity and understanding. This motivational belief of
expectancy utility-value was demonstrated during an interview when Maricela spoke of the
importance of reading culturally relevant texts like El Raton to her students.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 188
…because some of my children were losing teeth, and we were learning about elements
of the story, I read them the tooth fairy and El Raton…. Some of my students, even
though they have Mexican relatives, not their parents, but maybe their grandparents, they
are not very familiar with the Mexican tradition so they would not get it. Say, why El
Raton? So, my Mexican students, who just know El Raton, would explain to them so
there was some conversation between them, trying to explain who the characters are and
what they did with the teeth. That was something that created nice conversation during
the reading.
Maricela’s quick move to respond to the phenomenon of children losing teeth in class by reading
two versions of a similar book—one about the tooth fairy, and the other a culturally relevant
book El Raton—showed how Maricela’s value system created wonderful opportunities for
student engagement because “that was something that created nice conversation during the
reading”. Not only were students talking to each other, they were explaining the differences
between the stories to one another, “So, my Mexican students, who just know El Raton, would
explain to them”. On so many levels, rich learning about culture and literacy was taking place
because the teacher, Maricela, saw the benefit of teaching for diversity and understanding. Like
Maricela, Samuel valued teaching for diversity and understanding: “Here's a story about an
athlete that went to the Olympics and was disabled. So, when we're looking through Raz-kids, I
wanna find a story that has a kid with a disability that overcame something.” Samuel believes in
teaching his students to treat all people with dignity and respect, regardless of their differences.
That is why he went out of his way to find books that put individuals with disabilities in a light
of honor and accomplishment: “I wanna find a story that has a kid with a disability that
overcame something.” For many students, they are subject to the discriminatory language and
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 189
jokes that people say about students with disability. Samuel’s honorable value system of seeing
the benefit of teaching students to respect others who are different than them is the motivation
behind Samuel’s curriculum decision.
Rosalinda and Jenny both explained how they valued culturally relevant teaching in the
classroom for promoting diversity. Rosalinda shared about a time that she was able to light up
the life of a little African-American girl who had joined her dual-language program: “We were
talking about Martin Luther King. We did a whole month's unit on African-American culture.
She was so happy to be able to come in the classroom and share these stories.” Rosalinda valued
other cultures and made her African-America student feel respected and special by highlighting
her culture. Rosalinda gave African culture equal status to the dominant Latino culture of AES.
Jenny, like Rosalinda, valued multicultural education and enriched students’ experiences: “So
that's how I introduce culture to them, so they know that there's other things. There's other
things we celebrate. Some people celebrate Kwanzaa, we also celebrate Day of the Dead.”
Jenny does not shy away from bringing broader cultural perspectives into the classroom from
“Kwanzaa” to “Day of the Dead” because she values diversity and transmitting those values to
students to increase their knowledge, understanding, and awareness of “other things” that help
them become well-rounded learners.
Quotes from interviews indicate that all four AES teacher participants did display strong
expectancy utility-value beliefs around seeing the benefits of teaching for diversity and
understanding. Maricela created wonderful student dialogue around El Raton. Samuel
purposefully found and taught a book about disabled Olympic champions. Rosalinda made
African-American culture take center stage in her class for a month and her sole African-
American student beamed with honor. Jenny celebrated traditions like Kwanzaa and Day of the
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 190
Dead to promote multiculturalism. Based on the interviews, all four teachers were influenced by
the motivational belief of utility-value and demonstrated a strength in this area, which supported
their performance of developing proficient readers and engaged learners.
The finding of the motivational belief of attributions. To develop proficient readers,
AES teachers must believe that teacher performance mostly explains student outcomes (even if
that belief is overstating its accuracy). AES teacher interview participants did not demonstrate
that they had supportive attributional beliefs. In contrast, their attributional beliefs appeared to
be strongly undermining their performance. These findings were consistent with Weiner’s
(1985) and Dweck’s (1975; 1986; 2008) research that suggested that when individuals attribute
the outcome of performance to be inside one’s locus of control, then they are more likely to
expect and work for those intended outcomes. The inverse relationship is also supported by the
research. Additionally, research has shown that teachers who believe that student achievement
outcomes are largely caused by their own efforts at instruction rather than that of students’
characteristics or other external factors exhibit greater effort (Brophy, 1985; Clark & Peterson,
1986; Guskey, 1982).
This finding was confirmed during the four teacher interviews. All four teachers
displayed different attributional beliefs. Only one of the teachers believed that teacher
performance mostly explains student outcomes. One attributional belief was demonstrated
during the interview when Maricela explained how she believed that some students simply
lacked the high ability of others: “When I see my students getting behind, I know that there
might be something else. It's not they don't want to do their job, they cannot do it.” Maricela’s
attributional beliefs on the surface are shocking because she appears to be blaming the student
for not having enough potential. At least, it appears, she does not attribute the low performance
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 191
to lack of student motivation. However, her deeper explanation gives a personal reason for her
attributional beliefs: “My teachers would tell my mom that I was too lazy, that I would not do
my work. I'd say, 'I'm not lazy, I'm always working. I pay attention, I'm still getting behind. It's
not that I don't want to do it; I can't do it'.” Maricela knows that in her experience, her lack of
performance was not due to motivation, but it was due to a genuine lack of understanding of
what was being asked of her to do. Similarly, Maricela now transfers that causality in the form
of an attributional belief to her students when she says, “It's not they don't want to do their job,
they cannot do it.” Unfortunately, Maricela still appears to struggle with the belief of “I can’t do
it” because on another occasion, she felt that students’ potential trumped her ability to help
students to learn: “[I have] several non-readers, so I cannot teach them to analyze the text if they
are unable to read a text.” While that may seem to make sense that there is a logical order to
reading and comprehension, it still shows the limitations Maricela places on herself to
accomplish student learning based on current student performance levels. Of the all the teacher
interviewees, Maricela mentioned the word cannot eight times, the most of any AES teacher
interviewed, and in similar contexts to these provided examples.
Samuel displayed a different attributional belief that put causality mostly on parents and
the home, but he also wondered about his role: “It's a combination. Probably me not reaching
them the way they needed to.” But then he added:
There's also, I would say, probably things that are happening that I'm not aware of… my
kids have challenges that I don't even understand. Like nutrition, well-being,
homelessness and things that are just like a movie. My students come from a movie.
Especially the struggling ones. So, there's that. I rarely think it's lack of effort or lack of
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 192
interest. I think they want to learn. If they didn't reach it, their attention is somewhere
else because of something else.
This is a powerful statement from Samuel because you could hear him wrestling with explaining
what he thinks is the cause for students struggling in school—he acknowledges his role slightly,
but then really brings the hammer down on the outside-of-school factors that are devastating like
lack of nutrition or “homelessness”. When he says that his students’ lives are like those of kids
who are shown “in the movies”, it is hard not to imagine films like Slum Dog Millionaire—
where poverty in India is completely beating down the lives and opportunities for many children.
To make Samuel’s attributional beliefs a lot more complex, although he did not blame students’
“lack of effort or lack of interest”, he did confess to believing that some students might not have
the potential due to “learning issues”:
We have a student…he came in very high orally, so I expected him to catch up ... to do
better than how he ended the year. He did not reach the goals, no, not only that, he was
far below grade level. We determined that there were some, probably, learning issues…
It was very hard for Samuel to imagine another reason for this student to have failed, other than
to have put the cause or blame to an aspect of the student himself. Samuel did not say the
student needed more intervention, or better resources, or more “small group” time with the
teacher to build on those “very high orally” developed skills—that would have signaled
attributional beliefs that put some more responsibility on the school and teacher. Instead, he
believed that the student probably had “learning issues”. And even if the student did qualify for
special education services, a learning disability should never be considered as the reason why a
student will not learn—as one teacher said in the survey comment box: “With motivation,
support and resources any child is fully capable of exceeding reading expectations.” Samuel also
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 193
mentioned “we determined”, so his grade level team might be sharing the same attributional
beliefs as him, yet different than the anonymous teacher from AES who believes that what all
children need is simply more support.
Jenny also shared unique attributional beliefs: “After years of teaching, I've noticed that
through my experience, that not all kids are at the same level, and obviously we know that, but
not all kids develop at the same rate.” This attributional belief is a softer version of Maricela’s in
that the cause is due to an aspect of the child, but in this case, it is only developmental, so the
student should improve in time. This view may serve to protect Jenny’s sense of identity when
she does not seem to get the results that she wants from students in terms of their learning—by
saying “not all kids are at the same levels”; it could be used to excuse the school and teacher
from making more efforts to reach the given student. In contrast, Rosalinda attributed student
outcomes and responsibility to herself, to high expectations for students, and not to
developmental levels. Rosalinda punctuated: “It’s the truth. We have to have high expectations
of our students. Some people say, ‘They can’t do that because they’re too young’, or ‘They can’t
critically think because they're so young’ ... You can create an environment”. Rosalinda is a firm
believer that a child’s environment is more likely to influence student performance than what
could appear to be a child’s potential or rate of development. This view, even if it turned out to
not be 100% accurate, still appears to be more beneficial to Rosalinda and the school system
because it drives her to find a solution to a student’s problem—for all AES students because they
are believed to be completely capable of learning at high levels.
Extensive quotes and explanations related to interviews indicate that AES teacher
participants possessed, except for Rosalinda, at times confused and undermining attributional
beliefs that could help to explain teachers’ low performance related to student reading outcomes.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 194
Maricela blamed her students because in part she could relate to being a struggling reader as a
child, and she felt as that time that she “cannot do it”. Samuel attributed causality mostly to
parents and the home, but wondered about his role. Jenny put the cause of some students’ low
performance to different developmental rates of learning for children. Rosalinda attributed
responsibility to herself, but also coupled that with high expectations for all students. Based on
the interviews, only one of AES teacher interview participant is demonstrating a strength in
attributional beliefs that serve to support high performance related to students becoming
proficient readers. Maricela, Samuel, and Jenny could benefit from further support, coaching,
and/or training to strengthen their attributional beliefs and related knowledge and skills.
Theme five of findings of the school organization. The assumed school organization
influences were evaluated using data from teacher interviews at AES. Findings emerged through
analysis of the data in relationship to the research question: Are organization factors influencing
teachers’ performance of developing proficient readers at AES? The findings examined are
related to teachers having received from the school organization the appropriate resources and
materials for teaching, data-driven decision-making frameworks and processes, and a culture that
enhances teaching and learning by embracing a learning orientation. In the sections below, the
findings are examined and identified as an area of strength or an area that needs additional
training, coaching, and/or support for teachers.
The finding of the influence of the organizational setting of resources. To develop
proficient readers, AES teachers must have access to the appropriate resources and materials to
enhance teaching and learning. AES teacher interview participants demonstrated that they have
received from the organization the resources and materials needed to develop proficient readers.
These findings were consistent with Greenwald et al.’s (1996) and Hanushek’s (1997) research
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 195
that suggested that when teachers have the resources they need, it is more likely that students
will experience positive learning outcomes. Additionally, research has shown that teachers who
have the appropriate research-based reading resource programs, curriculum, and materials are
more effective in developing proficient readers (Grabe & Stoller, 2004).
This finding was confirmed during the four teacher interviews. All AES teacher
interview participants have received from the organization the resources and materials needed to
develop proficient readers. The provisions in the organization’s setting were demonstrated
during an interview when Maricela spoke about having the new language arts adoption materials:
“Now, this year, I feel we have enough [resource and materials] because I am piloting… the
Wonders program. It has a lot of materials. Technology and books and workbooks that we can
use”. For Maricela, the arrival of new and varied core curriculum resources allowed Maricela
the opportunity to spend her other resource of time on planning and not on finding materials to
use. It is also interesting to note that Maricela used the words “I feel”, which shows that teachers
do have an emotional response to having and not having resources—that explains why teachers
can be demotivated when feeling like they do not have the resources they need. That is exactly
how Rosalinda used to feel about having outdated, outmoded reading teaching resources and
materials.
We've been using the same core curriculum for the last 15 years… that was a problem,
because when you're working with common core and you have core curriculum that was
prior, you know, just standards-based. Many of them are very different from what we see
in our common core now. It doesn't match.
Rosalinda knew as a teaching veteran of 35 years in the classroom the impact of having the same
materials for 15 years; it is a long time to be using the same materials. Fifteen years multiplied
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 196
by 180 days of instruction in a school year, all the while little children are opening, closing,
tugging on, and manipulating the books, resources, and materials. The physical conditions of the
materials were only one problem—the other was the alignment problem, as she said, “It doesn't
match”. This required Rosalinda to have to figure out what was the same and different,
instructionally, because previous state standards and lessons were what the older curriculums
were aligned to; the new common-core based standards came with new expectations. So, this
context helps to understand Rosalinda’s happiness over the new English language arts adoption
materials: “This year, we're very excited that we were given the opportunity to
pilot…Benchmark and Wonders…Maravillas. It's rigorous. It's something that we've been
waiting for, for years!” Rosalinda has a track record of teaching rigorously in kindergarten, and
finally she has rigorous materials to match. Similarly, Samuel spoke with relief about the new
change of having quick access to teaching materials.
I feel like we've gone through years of… let me get 'em… Teachers Pay Teachers kind of
thing. We are just now getting to taste what it's like to have a curriculum book and to
have a unit and things that are easy to find.
Samuel’s comment highlighted the organization’s past failure to provide teachers with
the needed resources because he had to spend personal money out of his pocket to supplement
his teaching program. Teachers Pay Teachers is an online pay-for-materials service. Like
Samuel, other teachers became fed-up with not having the appropriate resource tools they
needed, so they created their own website where teachers financially pay other teachers for their
craft-made worksheets, games, posters, charts, class management resources, lesson plans,
teaching units, you name it. This entrepreneurial corner of the ‘education materials’ world used
to be Samuel’s playground—that explains his comment about the welcomed change of
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 197
acclimating to a more streamlined, packaged curriculum when he said, “We are just now getting
to taste what it's like.” The language that Samuel uses is an interesting choice—the imagery of
“getting to taste” is a reference to tasting food, so following that logic, Samuel could be pictured
as a hungry teacher who was not been fed well for a very long time and just now, experiencing
malnutrition and being weathered, is “just now getting to taste” good, hearty educational
resources and materials. Samuel is in a much better place now.
Jenny shared how a new phonics program will help with reading instruction: “He's
[school principal] also provided us with extra supplemental programs that we can use in the
classroom to improve instruction, and that's also something that we didn’t have before… it's a
phonics program.” Jenny acknowledged that in the past, the school organization did not provide
supplemental programs to assist teachers with reading instruction because she said, “that's also
something that we didn’t have before”. Jenny saw it as a welcome support that makes her feel
more equipped: “And now, we have that one [phonics program SIPPS], so we're more than
equipped. We have materials to it, we have the time to plan, so I feel we're very equipped.” It is
important to notice the choice of words for Jenny, how she says, “So I feel we’re very equipped”
because she, like Samuel, spoke of feelings when they talked about having resources—the
teachers did not say, “I know we were equipped”, they use the word “feel” because having or not
resources affect teachers’ emotional state and motivations.
Quotes from interviews indicate that AES teacher participants did have the school
organization’s support of resources and materials to enhance teaching and learning. Maricela
and Rosalinda spoke with happiness and excitement about finally having a new, diversified,
updated and aligned English language arts adoption program and materials. Samuel spoke with
relief about having quick access to materials, no longer needing to pay out-of-pocket for
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 198
supplemental materials. Jenny spoke about the benefits of the new SIPPS program for teaching
phonics. Based on the interviews, all AES teacher interview participants have demonstrated
having the organizational support of resources and materials needed to develop proficient
readers.
The finding of the influence of the organizational setting of work processes. To
develop proficient readers, AES teachers must have the support from the school organization of
data-driven decision-making frameworks and processes. Two AES teacher interview
participants demonstrated feeling that they have the needed organizational setting of work
processes in place. These findings were consistent with Henning’s (2006) and Marsh and
Farrell’s (2015) research that suggested that when teachers have a framework for schoolwide
data-driven decision making that informs teachers’ use of data and builds their collective
capacity for assessment literacy, teachers are more likely to develop proficient readers.
Additionally, research has shown that teachers who engage in teacher collaboration and not just
contrived collegiality around data use are more effective in teaching students to develop literacy
skills (Datnow, 2011).
This finding was confirmed during the four teacher interviews. The importance of having
the appropriate organizational setting of work processes was demonstrated during an interview
when Maricela was not satisfied with the current work conditions involved with getting students
intervention support.
I don't think we have early intervention. It always takes too long to help those students.
When I got my class, I noticed that many of them needed an SST, but nobody did
anything. So, I got them and I had to start from the beginning to see what's going on with
this student and how can we have intervention with them.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 199
Maricela felt that a very important work process and related structures were missing at AES
related to student academic “early intervention”. One of her main concerns was the time factor,
as she said, “It always takes too long to help those students.” The inefficiency for teachers in
being able to get struggling readers the timely support they need appears to be a barrier to
teachers’ performance related to student reading outcomes. What makes the problem more
impacting is the fact that Maricela felt that this problem had a long history and no one has
addressed it: “but nobody did anything.” In Maricela’s eyes, her past colleagues may also have
contributed to the problem—her comment was borderline blaming towards colleagues, and it is
unclear if past colleagues were experiencing the same inefficiency of a broken system for
identifying and supporting struggling students. Rosalinda also shared the same sentiment about
the school’s intervention program being lackluster and ineffective: “I think for many years, our
district has been always asked for reading intervention support, even training as to reading
intervention”. Rosalinda’s comment shows the longitudinal view of the problem—the current
broken conditions around academic interventions for students has being happening for “many
years”. Rosalinda feels that the lack of student intervention work processes and structures is not
because of her lack of effort or asking: “Our district has been asked”. Rosalinda expressed that
she still has not stopped asking for intervention supports from the organization: “We don't have
interventions programs right now for our little kids. That's one of our focus, that we've been
bringing this up to our administrator that we need to have interventions, now.” Administrators
have been noticed, according to Rosalinda, because they “need to have interventions, now”.
Rosalinda, like Maricela, see the lack of school-provided intervention services for students as a
barrier to work performance.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 200
Samuel has a different view of the work structures and procedures that Leaders United
has implemented: “I feel like we guide a lot of our instruction based on these [mandated,
provided] assessments. We've gotten pretty good at teaching them. Again, we've made up a lot
of materials. I think we're well equipped.” Samuel sees the value of having a consistent
formative assessment across the grade level to guide his and his colleagues’ instruction—it
appears that having a consistent structure in place has also positively impacted his sense of self-
efficacy when he says, “We’ve gotten pretty good at teaching them”, which highlights the
complex relationship between the factor influences of organizational stability, structures, and
teacher-self efficacy. Samuel also understood that having work processes is part of what it
means to have resources because he said, “I think we’re well equipped”. Like Samuel, Jenny
feels that Leaders United has brought needed structures and work processes for teachers and she
considers their impact as becoming transformational.
Very equipped. Since the coming of the curriculum matrix, they've provided us with data
reflection meetings. So, we have time every week to get together, to meet, to go over
where we need to improve, what standards we need to focus a little more on. And then
we take it to the second tier, which would be, how are we gonna go about teaching the
standard? How are we gonna do this? I'm gonna try this… what are you gonna try? I'm
gonna try that. So, we're very equipped for that, now that the district has implemented
that.
Jenny provides a wealth of insight with her comment about the impact that having set structures
and work processes are having on teachers’ capacity for teaching because she said, “We take it to
the second tier, which would be, how are we gonna go about teaching the standard? How are we
gonna do this?” Jenny shows the complex relationship between the organization’s support of
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 201
work processes and structures, teacher reflexivity, procedural knowledge, and collaboration.
Teachers are using these “data reflection meetings” to engage in levels of metacognitive
planning together because teachers work with each other and ask, “what are you gonna try?”
This is the type of teacher activity that Maricela has expressed desiring—asking and engaging in
dialogue around student learning, and it appears that Jenny’s first grade team is achieving this
level of collaboration at their “data reflection meetings”. It is possible that the second-grade
team to which Maricela belongs has not quite built up the trust needed to engage in this type of
professional dialogue, which sounds like, “How are we gonna go about teaching the standard?
How are we gonna do this? I'm gonna try this… what are you gonna try?” In Jenny’s eyes, the
experience of collaboration is credited to the related work structures and processes found in data
reflection meetings.
Quotes from interviews indicate that two AES teacher participants demonstrated having
the needed support of data-driven decision-making frameworks and processes to support their
instructional efforts to develop proficient readers. Maricela is not satisfied with the current work
processes and procedures for getting students the intervention supports they need. Rosalinda
also does not feel that the requested academic interventions and supports are being provided to
her struggling students. Samuel sees the value of Leaders United’s mandatory teaching
curriculum and assessment for aligning teachers’ instruction and giving them a sense of stability.
Jenny feels that Leaders United is transformational because the consistent structures and work
processes are providing opportunities for dialogue around data of student learning and
instructional practices. Organizational adjustments are needed to better support some teachers’
performance needs through the provision of efficient and effective student intervention structures
and related work processes.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 202
The finding of the influence of the organizational model. To develop proficient
readers, AES teachers must embrace a learning orientation as part of the cultural model of the
school organization. AES teacher interview participants did not demonstrate, overall, that they
are receiving the needed support from the organization to embrace this work-related learning
orientation. It appears to be a barrier to greater work productivity and school climate. These
findings were consistent with Datnow’s (2011) research and Schein’s (2010) seminal work on
organizational culture that suggested that teachers benefit when authentic teacher collaboration,
not just contrived collegiality, is taking place in the organization around shared interests and
mental models. Additionally, recent research has suggested that teachers who work together to
create a learning organization are more effective in teaching students because of engaging in the
cultivation of personal mastery, mental models, shared vision, team learning, and systems
thinking (Senge 2006; Senge et al., 2012).
This finding was confirmed during the four teacher interviews. All AES teacher
interview participants were struggling to embrace a learning orientation as a member of the
school organization. Teachers only felt comfortable to open-up to a few select peers whom they
trusted. This lack of support of an organizational cultural model was demonstrated during an
interview when Maricela explained her frustration over trying to “catch up” struggling readers:
“I don't know why don't we plan with the first grader teachers.” Maricela teaches second graders
and it appears logical to her that it would benefit to engage in vertical collaboration with her
students’ previous grade level teachers. But this is not happening and Maricela, who sees the
obvious benefit of sharing grade level expectations with her colleagues in first grade, is stumped,
left to say, “I don’t know why”. What is interesting is that Jenny teaches first grade and she
appears to really value the collaboration that is occurring at her data reflection meetings at the
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 203
site and at the summer trainings led by Leaders United at the school district level: “There was a
great turnout, so teachers are interested. We saw that people were committed to learning more
and doing better.” So, it is unclear why Maricela who craves more collaboration and teaches
second-grade has not connected with Jenny who values collaboration and teaches first-grade.
This appears to be an area of opportunity for increased collaboration.
Samuel mentioned working within his grade level team on technical tasks like creating
instructional lessons, based on the teaching curriculum guide called the matrix: “We're trying as
a team to mimic what's gonna be on the unit and on the test.” But, this teamwork appears to fall
short of deeper collaboration because Samuel turns to his sibling, with whom he works with, for
more intimate support: “I'm very lucky, my sister's in my grade level. It's easy to say, ‘Hey, I'm
struggling with this.’” It is not clear if Samuel would also share his struggles with other teacher
colleagues had his sister not worked with him. What is clear is that Samuel and his grade level
team do share a common investment in their performance and achievement goals: “I would say
we're frustrated with the results”. This comment from Samuel reveals that his grade level team
does care about student achievement results—and they are frustrated with what is happening.
They want their students to succeed and they want to feel accomplished in having facilitated that
achievement. This is evidence of a shared mental model that helps teachers to perform in service
of their students.
Rosalinda’s situation was very interesting in terms of how she collaborates with and
engages colleagues: she never once significantly mentioned her grade level team during the
interview. The lack of deeper discussion about grade level teamwork and collaboration from
such a passionate 35-year teaching veteran is telling about the culture of collaborative learning at
AES. Rosalinda spoke extensively about partnering with parents and families, but not about that
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 204
same type of activity with her teacher colleagues. With Rosalinda’s wealth of experience and
passion, an opportunity exists to coach other less experienced and hungry-for-collaboration
teachers, like Maricela.
Quotes from interviews indicate that AES teacher participants are not engaging in high
levels of open collaboration that would show an a strong learning orientation as desired by a
learning organization. Maricela did not understand why the first-grade team does not collaborate
with the second-grade team. Samuel and his team shared a mental model of team achievement
around student performance results, but goes to his sister teammate to share his more intimate
struggles. Jenny is experiencing pride and satisfaction in both grade-level and district-level (i.e.
summer trainings) collaboration efforts. Rosalinda never significantly talked about her grade
level teammates or colleagues and appears to prefer to partner with other stakeholders like
parents. Based on the interviews, all AES teacher interview participants are demonstrating the
influence of the organization’s cultural model, but only one teacher, Jenny, expressed a
satisfaction with the learning occurring from engaging with colleagues at AES. More training,
coaching, and opportunities for shared professional practice is needed develop trust and promote
authentic collaboration among all teachers to support their performance of developing proficient
readers.
Synthesis of Results and Findings for Research Question One
The survey results and interview findings largely confirmed each other. Below, a
straightforward approach to comparing the results, side by side, is provided in Table 27 and
Table 28, as recommended by Creswell (2014a; 2014b) when presenting the “interpretation” of
results of closed-ended and open-ended data in a mixed methods study.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 205
Table 27
Answer to Research Question One and Major Survey Results
Answer to Research Question One: Yes, all factors appeared to be perceived by AES teachers
as having moderate to strong influence (84% agreement) on performance related to developing
proficient readers. The problem of problem is complex and cannot be solved through simple
solutions. It requires the joint-efforts of all stakeholders.
Social Context
Factors
Moderate Influence
51%-84%
Strong Influence
85%-100%
The Society (78%) The Child (93%)
The Teacher (74%) The School and Education System (87%)
The Parents and Home
Environment (70%)
KMO Factors
Moderate Influence
51%-84%
Strong Influence
85%-100%
Metacognitive Knowledge (83%) Declarative Knowledge (99%)
Attributions (54%) Cultural Model of Learning Orientation
(99%)
Cultural Setting of Resources (96%)
Cultural Setting of Work Processes
(91%)
Procedural Knowledge (88%)
Utility Value (87%)
Self-Efficacy (86%)
Table 28
Answer to Research Question One and Major Interview Findings
Answer to Research Question One: Yes, all factors appear to be influencing teachers’
performance at AES, making the problem complex. Teachers described two main sources of
influence that affected their ability to be effective reading teachers. One source was how students
varied in performance and school readiness levels based on their personal and family
experiences. A second source was how pressures of the school system, including their own
professional practices, were unsupportive of teaching reading in ways that they believed to be
most effective for students.
Social Context Factors –– In their own
words…
Key Findings
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 206
Theme 1: Students vary in school readiness;
teachers adapt and respond using resources and
talents.
“But, what I do, is I try to make it fun, I try to
put a smile on my face, like “Yeah! We're
gonna read this story!”-Jenny, first-grade
English-only teachers
Personal and family related factors manifest
influence on students’ readiness to learn. Need
to invest resources in ways that directly
influence student achievement.
Maricela responded to students’ behavioral
problems with perseverance and knowledge.
Rosalinda responded to students’ transiency
with teaching parents to take literacy learning
wherever they go.
Samuel responded to Emergent Bilingual
students by leveraging their primary language.
Jenny responded to students’ needing to be
engaged by being fun and energetic.
Theme 2: Authentic collaboration could be
strengthened at AES.
“She's a 39-year kinder teacher. She also subs
in our district, and whenever I'm absent, she's
the only one who will come in my classroom.”
-Rosalinda, kindergarten dual-language
teachers
All four teachers appeared to seek out
authentic collaboration with peers that they
trusted, but the organization schoolwide
appears to lack “open” collaboration.
• Teachers seem to want and need more
“open”, authentic collaboration, which
requires a shared stakeholder culture of
learning
School-related factors mostly contribute to this
cultural model. Need to leverage:
• School Organization to meet teacher
and student needs
KMO Factors – In their own words… Key Findings
Theme 3: Findings of Knowledge
“I started doing assessments, analyzing my
data. Based on that, I made my [reading]
groups.”- Maricela, second-grade English-
only teacher
All four teachers appeared to be strongly
influenced by knowledge factors, and possess
strengths. There appears to be some need for
support in the area:
• Declarative knowledge
Theme 4: Findings of Motivation
“I rarely think it's lack of effort or lack of
interest. I think they want to learn. If they
didn't reach it, their attention is somewhere
else because of something else.” - Samuel
All four teachers appeared to be influenced by
motivation factors, with utility-value being a
strong asset for all, but only 1-2 teachers
seemed to possess strong attributions/self-
efficacy. There is a need for support in these
areas:
• Attributions
• Self-efficacy
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 207
Theme 5: Findings of Organization
“I don't know why don't we plan with the first
grader teachers.”-Maricela, second-grade
teacher
All four teachers appeared to be influenced by
organization factors, but two of the teachers
appeared to need more support from the
organization. There is a need for support in the
areas:
• Intervention work structures/processes
• Open collaboration/engagement of
teachers across AES
Personal and Home Factors That Influence Students, Who Influence Teacher Performance
Students are directly influenced by societal and parent and home environment factors,
and teachers respond using their individual resources and talents. The survey results confirmed
this finding because 96% of teachers agreed/strongly agreed to the influence of “The parenting
style in the student's home” and 92% agreed/strongly to “The socioeconomic status of the
student's family” as being an influence on teacher performance.
Students appear to face the influence of stressors coming from their parents and the home
environment during the summer vacation break, which makes the transition back to school
difficult. This appears to manifest as “hitting” and other challenging behaviors that teachers
manage (Maricela, personal interview). This finding is confirmed by the results of survey item
27, where 100% of teachers agreed/strongly agreed to “the student’s behavior” as being an
influence on their performance.
Students face the influence of unstable living situations because of family poverty and
they leave school as quickly as they arrive: “It's difficult to make that commitment of crossing
that border every day, and then again of facing the challenges that some of these parents may
have of not having maybe basic needs or personal, emotional problems” (Jenny, personal
interview). This finding is confirmed by the survey results to item 13, “The demographics of the
school’s neighborhood”, that demonstrated that 88% agreed/strongly agreed to this influence on
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 208
teacher performance. In these situations, teachers must “get to” students while they have them
under their care by giving parents some training on literacy skill. Parents can then use this
knowledge to help their children at home and be less dependent upon the school as they can take
these skills with them wherever they go (Rosalinda, personal interview).
Students face the influence of coming to a new country, probably in search of better
opportunities for a quality life, with mostly language skills other than English as Emergent
Bilingual students, and teachers must strategically tap into that language to connect students to
learning and their value system (Samuel, personal interview). Survey results suggested that
teachers generally feel confident about their abilities in this respect as evidenced by the result of
survey item 28 of 75% agree/strongly agree to the influence of “The dominant language spoken
in the student's home”. This is a comparatively low result of perceived influence on teacher
performance, a difference of about 10% less than the mean score for all factor influences (84%
agree/strongly agree).
Students face the influence of environmental stressors like “homelessness” and “living in
cars” that mean their “attention is elsewhere”, and so teachers respond to disengaged students by
being “fun!” and “exciting!” (Jenny, personal interview). This finding was confirmed by the
survey result to item 29 of 100% agree/strongly agree related to the influence of a teacher’s
methods.
School Factors That Influence Teachers, Who Influence Student Performance
All 24 AES teachers, 100%, believe that their “methods” for teaching reading to students
influence their performance. This suggests that teachers place high value on individual teacher
performance.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 209
Only 79% of teachers agree/strongly agree that, “The school's resources and teaching
materials” influence their performance. This is partially explained by teachers’ personal sense of
obligation to make up for the lacking resources in the school: “I feel like we've gone through
years of let me get 'em, Teachers Pay Teachers kind of thing” (Samuel, personal interview) and
“I spend a fortune in books” (Rosalinda, personal interview).
Teachers are also influenced strongly by the school organization’s culture, and
interviews showed that AES is still developing the schoolwide “trust” required for authentic
collaboration. Survey results confirm that teachers agree about the strong influence of the school
organization (95% agreement).
Teachers are affected by the quality and quantity of strategies gained from mandatory
meetings and sidebar authentic collaboration sessions with select peers (All four teachers,
personal interviews). This finding is confirmed by the survey result of item 54 showing that
100% of teachers agreed/strongly agreed to the influence of “The eagerness of the teacher's
colleagues to share personal experiences about what does and doesn't work related to teaching
reading”. This item had the second highest teacher response of “strongly agree”, 48%, of all the
items of the survey. These results confirm that teachers strongly value and desire an open culture
of sharing and collaboration around teaching reading (Maricela, personal interview).
However, if teachers receive little support from the organizational culture and settings,
that trickles down into less positive influence and resources for students and their learning. When
Maricela was “shut down” by a more experienced colleague, that meant one less opportunity to
bring a practice or strategy to a student to help him or her improve in reading. She recounted the
experience with pain in her voice: “I come with ideas and I'm just ignored. ‘Oh, yes, great.’
That's all I get and nobody really gets engaged in a conversation on how can we work together
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 210
and do things better together. So, I stop doing that” (Maricela, personal interview). This finding
is important because it shows how teachers’ behaviors, by avoiding authentic collaboration, are
working against the very conditions they want in their organization—an open culture of sharing
and collaboration around reading (100% agree/strongly agree response on survey).
Teachers are influenced by KMO factors, but individual teachers and groups of teachers
need further training, coaching, and support related to certain areas. The survey results
confirmed this finding because 87% of AES teachers agree/strongly agree (across 27 items) to
the influence of KMO factors, as an aggregate, on their performance. The areas that the survey
results showed to be relatively less influential to teachers, such as metacognitive knowledge
(83% agree/strongly agree), turned out to be one of AES teachers’ most amazing assets that they
used to foster learning for students by tapping in self-knowledge: “But then I realized, ‘Oh, wait
a minute, maybe they can't go to the library?’, or ‘they don't understand that this [library] is a
public place that lends them books? Okay…. I’ll send the books home’” (Rosalinda, personal
interview). This window into Rosalinda’s metacognitive thinking helps to illuminate survey
results related to metacognitive knowledge.
Although teachers reported less agreement for the influence of motivational beliefs on
performance (75% agree/strongly agree), teacher interviews suggest that these factors are
consequential for explaining their performance related to low student achievement: “It's a
combination. Probably me not reaching them the way they needed to?... I rarely think it's lack of
effort or lack of interest. I think they want to learn. If they didn't reach it, their attention is
somewhere else because of something else” (Samuel, personal interview). There is great need
for support around self-efficacy and attributions for teachers based on findings from teacher
interview. That is confirmed by the fact that only 54% of AES teachers perceived attributional
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 211
beliefs to be of influence on their performance. Only roughly half of AES teachers
agreed/strongly agreed to the influence of attributing student reading outcomes to the teacher
rather than to the students or parents. That was absolutely the lowest score for any factor in this
study and a major finding.
Teachers also reported a need for efficient organizational work processes around student
interventions: “I don't think we have early intervention. It always takes too long to help those
students” (Maricela, personal interview). Teachers also have not connected with each other at a
deeper level of team learning: “It has been transformative to a certain point” (Jenny, personal
interview). Yet, many teachers also possess great assets like knowing and valuing how to teach
for diversity and understanding or knowing to be critical in reflection—these assets need to be
revealed, promoted, and leveraged by the school organization, and even more importantly,
opened through authentic collaboration, which has the potential to spread these ideas and
practices inward and far-and-wide.
Conclusion. The survey results and interview findings together suggest that teachers at
AES perceive all factors to be influencing their performance related to developing proficient
readers. Both data streams place students and the school organization as major sources of
influence on teachers. The interview findings provided some explanation for how these factor
influences potentially operate. Teachers described how parents and the home environment
affected their students, with less support meaning a greater need for teacher assistance and
intervention. Also, they described how the school system and its pressures affected them
personally as teaching professionals. More conflict, less support, and more stressful situations
meant that the teachers had to problem-solve how to provide greater personal intervention to
support student learning. The interview descriptions point to a potential pattern of influences
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 212
among the factors. This pattern suggests that the child and parent and home environment factors
are related; the school, teacher, and society factors are related. This pattern is supported in part
by factor analysis and Spearman correlation tests of the survey data, which showed a statistical
correlation among these same factors given teacher responses to survey items (See Appendices
K-L).
Discussion for Research Question One
It has been demonstrated through numeric evidence and narrative explanation that
teachers are facing the influence of many, complex factors as they make every effort to develop
proficient readers at AES. This major conclusion serves to debunk the “blame game” often seen
in public discourse that ‘ineffective teachers’ or ‘unengaged parents’ or ‘unmotivated students’
are individually to blame. This conclusion rejects the “blame” given to any one group and
redistributes not the blame, but rather the responsibility of influence to all stakeholders for their
contributions to current student outcomes. This project has shown that the society influences
parents who influence their children who influence teachers’ efforts to teach them to become
proficient readers. Likewise, this project has shown that the society influences the school and
education system that influences the school organization that influences teachers who influences
themselves in their knowledge and motivations that influence the children sitting in the
classrooms wanting to learn to become proficient readers. So, who is to blame for the
underperforming schools in the US, like AES? This project suggests that all of us are to blame,
if we are to call it that. But more accurately, we all should take joint-responsibility for results
and fight not one another, but rather fight the enemy of disunity who pulls everyone away from
investing directly into students’ lives. Given this conclusion, those who created the problem—
all of us—are the same people who must work the problem out and solve it. It is the researchers’
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 213
position based on the project’s results and findings that the only chance AES stands to improve
learning for students involves building “trust” and authentically uniting all stakeholders at AES
around the biggest and most important shared interests: the children. All stakeholders must unite
around the singular focus of student achievement, now and into the future.
Research Question Two
The study aimed to answer the second research question: How do the factors influence
teachers’ experiences of working to develop proficient readers at AES?
The answer to this question is that teachers’ experiences of working to develop proficient
readers have been both frustrating and rewarding. Teachers reported that they faced adverse
constraints to their performance because of organizational instability, the narrowing of the
curriculum, student absenteeism, and child differences. In contrast, teachers reported that they
experienced the rewards of successful performance when they individually enacted practices for
transforming student learning, such as data use, cultural responsiveness, use of high-interest
content, and engaging parents. These themes are also developed below.
Building on the knowledge derived from results and findings in this study, the researcher
hypothesized a new model that suggests how teachers might be perceiving the interaction of
factors being studied. The model intends to show how the researcher interpreted AES teachers’
experiences of working to improve the problem of practice at AES. Figure 20 displays this
newly hypothesized model.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 214
Figure 20. A new model suggesting how teachers perceive factor influences at AES.
Figure 20 shows that children (students) are the object of parents’ and teachers’
performance. That is, parents and teachers want children to develop into proficient student
readers. This desired outcome, however, is influenced by many factors that operate inside and
outside of the school setting. First, children are influenced by outside-of-school factors like the
society, the parents and home environment, and themselves. The related social context factors
act upon children outside the realm of the school and appear to be the initial and continued
sources of children’s problems related to developing reading proficiency. When ready for
schooling, parents send students on a mission across the socially constructed line that artificially
serves to bifurcate the home and school environments. Children bring with them the influences
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 215
of outside-of-school factors, including the associated problems, to the school setting. Now,
within the realm of the school setting, in-school factors serve as the primary source of the
solutions to children’s problems related to developing reading proficiency. From among in-
school factors, teachers are the first responders. Teachers work firsthand with students to help
them become proficient readers. They do what they can, even as they encounter constraints, like
organizational instability, the narrowing of curriculum, student absenteeism, and child
differences, to achieve their desired outcomes for students. Through the enactment of individual
practices, like data use, parent engagement, cultural responsiveness, and high-interest content,
teachers, against the grain, personally find ways to help students become proficient readers.
Children, the object of teachers’ performance, are the key characters in this model. Children
cross the boundary between home and school daily, bringing and taking with them the influences
that they absorb and emit, for good and for bad. In the following sections, this hypothesized
model will be supported by teachers’ descriptions of their experiences working to develop
proficient readers at AES.
Constraints on Teachers’ Efforts to Develop Proficient Readers
AES teachers’ experiences of working to support and develop proficient readers are
simultaneously frustrating and rewarding. They are rewarding because they have found
individual ways to implement transformative solutions that bring the light of learning to students.
At the same time, their experiences are frustrating because they face many and constant
constraints that act upon their efforts to develop proficient readers.
Organizational instability. The instability of the school organization and the frustration
it has caused was reported by teachers as being a constraint on their efforts to achieve the desired
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 216
outcomes for students. When asked what challenges the school community faced as teachers
tried to improve student reading achievement, the third-grade teacher Samuel said:
A lack of consistency with leadership and curriculum. I think we have different
administrators coming with different ideas, and we've committed to things in the past and
when those administrators leave, those previous programs have a negative connotation,
because the new administrator sees that as maybe the resistance or part of the enemy that
needs to be wiped clean and started over with something new.
Samuel’s comment shows that “consistency” is a quality that he values in an organization. The
constant changes affect Samuel because he has “committed to things in the past”. Commitment
is a strong word that shows investment, so Samuel finds it hard to have to reinvest himself over
and over with each new administrator. Samuel continued to explain how the changes were
affecting him personally and emotionally: “I think we get encouraged by something that seems to
be working, and then it's like, ‘no.’” To Samuel, his motivation has also taken a toll because
when “something that seems to be working” is taken away, all the preparation and work that
went into those successes are now felt as part of the loss. In addition to affecting him, Samuel
shared how the constant changes in leadership and curriculum impact student results, and how it
makes him and his colleagues feel.
I would say we're frustrated with the results we've gotten so far. We see that we need to
find a better way to reach the bubble kids. We feel we're so close with them and we do
what we do when we use what we use. And yet, we don't have the results we want.
“Bubble kids” is the language that Samuel uses to refer to students who are close to grade level
mastery—it is like they are about to pop and achieve that score. And it was very frustrating to
Samuel and his colleagues that of all the students, the “bubble kids”—the ones who are supposed
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 217
to achieve—were not doing so. More than half his class was below the level of the “bubble
kids”, which explains why Samuel said, “we need to find a better way to reach the bubble kids”.
According to the interviewer, Samuel’s body language reflected this frustration during this
portion of the conversation. He dropped his shoulders, his voice changed. He continued to
explain his response.
But I just think that's a challenge, like we were trained in certain things that we got good
at. And I understand because the testing changed, things needed to change, but it feels
like curriculum hasn't been ... We are just now having math, and we are close to getting
language arts, so I would say curriculum and leadership changes.
Samuel also valued the training he received in the past and felt it was effective because it
allowed him to get “good at” implementing practices. During the interview, Samuel told the
interviewer that the instability started at the top of the organization and made its influence all the
way down to the classroom with prohibited strategies: “In the past…the superintendent hires this
writing consultant. Great ideas. Man…the one that came after him was like, oh, no, that's ...
we're gonna do away with that.” No teacher should have to feel that like a yo-yo, like how
Samuel was feeling—use this great strategy, then get good at it, then hide it or forget you learned
it in the first place. This disappointment was obviously affecting Samuel’s motivations, but he
also confessed that his practices were being affected: “And it's like, ‘okay, this is new. Hopefully
we will see it through to where we can get some mastery in it. We're not just introducing
something’”. Samuel did not want to be the ‘great introducer’, he wanted to be the ‘great
teacher’ who reached those “bubble kids”. Unfortunately, organizational instabilities are barriers
that keep shifting the ground beneath teachers’ feet.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 218
Narrowing of the curriculum. The narrowing of the curriculum and the challenges it
presents to teaching reading foundational skills was reported by teachers as being a constraint on
their efforts to achieve the desired outcomes for students. When the interviewer asked Jenny
what she would see on a typical day of her teaching reading to her students, she replied about the
influence of teaching to the test and not about students’ needs being the primary driver.
It's very much driven by my district assessment. We have a matrix and we can see the
test that's coming. For example, for this unit, I've been focusing on quotation marks,
capitalization of proper nouns. So, I will choose one of those and I will do it in whole
class with my kids.
Jenny’s words showed how the “district assessment” was driving her instruction, not students’
needs. Instead of putting students’ interests, needs, or culturally relevant teaching units as the
driver of her instruction, Jenny was basically educating students to achieve a score. Also, the
district assessment was multiple choice format, so Jenny was forced to teach students to answer
questions about quotation marks instead of teaching students to authentically use and apply
quotation marks in their writing. This was the adverse impact of a narrowed curriculum for
Jenny and her students—trading authentic experiences like writing for real communication for
simulations of those experiences like answering questions about writing. They are not the same
experience. When the interviewer asked Samuel to explain how he prepared for teaching a
reading lesson, he mentioned same the constraining influence resulting from a backwards-design
of teaching to a test.
Again, I go back to the test. If we're doing character traits, I find passages that have that
kind of theme and hopefully stems with questions that I can go with it. Like what is the
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 219
character like and which sentence from the passage supports that. We're trying as a team
to mimic what's gonna be on the unit and on the test.
Samuel’s words show that he and his colleagues have mastered the art of teaching to the test
because they go to the great lengths of “trying as a team to mimic what’s gonna be on the unit
and on the test”. So much of Samuel and his team’s time and energy is devoted to a narrow
focus: getting kids to pass a test. He came into teaching for other reasons—to transform
children’s lives through a great education, so Samuel does feel conflicted. Samuel made it clear
that this way of teaching reading is not what he believes is best for students. When asked by the
interviewer to verbally paint a picture of the perfect reading lesson in his classroom, Samuel did
NOT speak about teaching to a test. Instead, Samuel lit up, became energized, and responded by
telling what would be different in this ideal world compared to today: “But now since we're
following not a made-up matrix, but we're following a curriculum by inspiring… and, we're
gonna get it”. Samuel hit the nail on the head—inspiring is what is missing in a narrowed
curriculum. Teachers and students are not inspired by teaching and learning around a test. A
messy science experiment inspires learning, not bubbling-in answers to questions about character
traits.
Maricela also was experiencing the adverse impact of a narrowed curriculum. She did
not feel that Leaders United, the 3
rd
party consulting company that was hired by the school
district to create a new instructional design, was helping her because the model was squeezing
out important literacy lessons and strategies for students. Listen to her words as she explains its
impact on her typical day teaching reading to her students.
My typical day ... I would start with a read aloud. We read every day…and I model it on
Mondays. I focus on a reading strategy. It's not part of what the Leaders United expects
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 220
us to do, teaching reading strategies… but students need to learn how to read. They need
to know what to do when they encounter a word they don't know.
Maricela was overriding what “Leaders United expects us to do” because she believed that was
the right thing to do for her students. What if Maricela did not have that courage? Would
students miss out on learning important reading strategies like how to learn the meaning of an
unknown word using context clues? Maricela also shared her concern about how Leaders United
had created a mandatory curriculum for teachers with little collaboration or input from teachers
with respect to the design.
There have been some changes since I've been here. One of the things that the district
did was hire Leaders United so they can teach us new strategies of teaching our students.
I know that's something as teachers we have to do. The district requires us to do that.
Maricela’s choice of words that “we have to do” and “the district requires us to that” show that
Leaders United is pushing its narrow focus on teachers not as a recommendation, but rather as a
“must do” through the powers of the school district. Jenny also had detailed comments to say
about Leaders United’s influence over instructional matters, including the mandatory use of a
curriculum matrix. Jenny shared how it was great in theory, but in practice was hindering her
ability to achieve the broader goal of developing strong readers.
I do feel that if the standards were more conducive more for reading foundational
standards in the matrix for kinder or first grade, in this case I teach first grade, I think it
would be way more successful. So, what I mean by that is if you notice in our first-grade
matrix, there's only very few foundational standards. One of the things that I consider
foundational standards are phonemic awareness, fluency, reading comprehension. There
is a bit more reading comprehension this year on the matrix. So, I think if the standards
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 221
were more geared towards reading foundational standards, if this matrix was adhered
more to more foundational standards, I think it would be even better. However, the idea
of the matrix is excellent.
Jenny revealed that for the curriculum matrix to be more effective, it should focus more on
“reading foundational standards”. She described those as being “phonemic awareness, fluency,
reading comprehension”. If what Jenny is saying is true, only teaching the matrix ‘as is’ means
that students will miss these very important reading components. A good teacher with many
years of experience like Jenny knows to supplement or override the matrix, but that requires a lot
more work, and sets up the possibility that a teacher will just teach the matrix the way it is, to
students’ reading detriment. So, although AES teachers appreciated the provision of a
curriculum matrix, AES teachers were constrained by its incessant focus on testing. They
desired more autonomy over its content and wanted the ability to collaborate in designing it, to
meet students’ literacy and reading needs.
Student absenteeism. Student absenteeism and the missing presence of students in the
classroom during important reading instruction was reported by teachers as being a constraint on
their ability to achieve the desired reading outcomes for students. Rosalinda, the kindergarten
teacher, cited parents’ lack of understanding of the US school system as contributing to student
absenteeism and low student reading performance.
I feel that in my class this year, there are children who are struggling. It's very evident
that their absence, the fact that they don't come to school, affects them. Parents
sometimes think they're just in kindergarten, what could they possibly learn? It's very
different now. ‘It's the new first grade’, is what I tell my parents. ‘The rigor is higher.
The expectations are higher. Your children are capable of much of what the expectations
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 222
are, but they have to be in school.’ They don't come to school, it's something they miss,
lessons that I cannot send home.
As innocent as parents’ intentions may be, Rosalinda sees the view by parents that kindergarten
is “just” kindergarten as a barrier to students’ success. But, she does not just take it passively, she
speaks up and corrects the false notion: “‘It's the new first grade’, is what I tell my parents. ‘The
rigor is higher. The expectations are higher. Your children are capable of much of what the
expectations are, but they have to be in school.’” Rosalinda is not comfortable with students
missing school because she knows that the consequence is “lessons that I cannot send home.” To
Rosalinda, even in the age of internet learning, kindergarteners need that hands-on, in-class
learning experience. Like Rosalinda, Jenny also has many students who miss school. She
emphatically responded to the interviewer when asked about what she believed were the
challenges the school community were facing related to developing proficient readers.
Well, the greatest challenge that I feel is the most important is absenteeism. The student
is not here, they're not learning. So, to me, I think that's the most greatest challenge.
With that, it ties into the parents not having a true commitment to education. I don't think
they choose not to be committed. But again, because of the low socioeconomics, certain
issues that come up in their lives, that prohibits them, or impedes them to bring their
children to school every day. So, absenteeism to me, that's the number one challenge.
Both Jenny and Rosalinda stated their truth—children must attend school if they are to be
learning. Jenny, like Rosalinda, understood, however, some of the reasons why students miss
school. Rosalinda believed that some parents misunderstood the value and urgency of
kindergarten; she even called it “the new first grade”. Jenny, on the other hand, explained her
understanding of the absenteeism problem: “low socioeconomics, certain issues that come up in
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 223
their lives, that prohibits them, or impedes them to bring their children to school every day.”
Jenny saw the everyday struggles of some of her students’ families who lived in poverty and
understood the reasons, but still, Jenny had a hard time accepting this, as evidenced by her words
that parents were “not having a true commitment to education”.
Child differences. Individual differences among children—their personal qualities,
behaviors or unique lived experiences—was reported by teachers as being a constraint on their
ability to achieve the desired reading outcomes for students. Samuel cited the personal challenge
that some students faced as the source of their reading problems: “My kids have challenges that I
don't even understand. Like nutrition, well-being, homelessness and things that are just like a
movie... their attention is somewhere else”. To him, the experiences that his students faced
seemed fiction-like. It was that bad. And Samuel, when his students came to school hungry,
tried to show empathy for their needs because like he said, “my kids have challenges that I don’t
even understand”. What Samuel does understand is that the source of these issues come from
outside of school—they are issues stemming from the home environment and the families’
unique circumstances, such as being homeless. He understands that these outside influences can
have a debilitating effect on students causing them to have “their attention…somewhere else”.
Jenny summed up the prevailing thinking for AES teachers about why they believed the
unique situation of the child determined to a large extent if a student would become a successful
reader.
It depends on the student. Like we were talking, going back to those anecdotal notes, by
your intuition you know exactly, okay this student sometimes just needs help. A lot of
times it's a cognitive thing, developmentally they're just not ready yet. They're still a
little immature, and they'll get there. So, a lot of times it has to do with the student,
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 224
where they're at developmentally, cognitively. Some of it has to do with their home life.
Maybe they have a very chaotic home life. Again, pyramids of needs, if you're not
getting your basic needs met, stability, love shelter, food, your parents at least not
fighting, or having your parents that are with you in kindergarten or first grade, that has
to change your priorities. When you're at school your mind is with your mom, with your
dad or if you're homeless, we have some students who are homeless. So again, it's a
combination of things, you know?
Jenny’s powerful statement gives insight into how she understands the problem of practice for
students: “that has to change your priorities”. To Jenny, and other teachers at AES, how can
students focus long enough to learn to read when their “pyramid of needs” are not being met,
when students have “a very chaotic home life”? Jenny tries to counterpunch that “chaotic” home
life by being “fun!” and “exciting!” at their school home, but is that enough? Is there anything
else that AES teachers can do to make life better for their students, and to help them become
literate?
Although teachers at AES admitted that they face many and constant constraints within
the school system as they work to develop proficient readers, they also find solace in their role as
first responders to students’ needs. In the next section, the heroic actions of teachers show that
their love for students, parents, and the community compel them to enact individual practices
that they believe are transformative for student learning. These are practices that must be
acknowledged, praised, and spread.
Individual Practices of AES Teachers
Each of the four interviewed teachers spoke with passion about the ways in which they
aimed to respond to the challenge of helping students to become proficient readers. Each teacher
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 225
did it in his or her own way. Their actions were personal, powerful, and transformative for
students and in turn satisfying for the teachers. They were genuine expressions of care for
students. These actions were not mandated or prescribed by the school or leadership. Simply,
they reflect the experiences of great teachers who believe in their vocation, the calling to educate
children in a high-poverty school.
Maricela’s use of data. Maricela is a Latina second-grade English-only teacher. She
substituted for teachers for about two years in long-term assignments before having her own
classroom. Maricela taught dual-language last year at AES. Also, Maricela understands the
school and education system differences between Mexico and the US because she taught in
Mexico for seven years. She said of the differences: “The settings are different, and the
strategies when you're teaching English as a primary language, they're completely different”.
Maricela is transforming her own teaching practice to effect change for students by using
assessment data to better know her students and to plan differentiated reading lessons.
The interviewer asked Maricela what she does for struggling readers who do not know
how to read. She responded confidently and with poise.
That's why I use my data with those students, so I know specifically what they need. It
might be beginning sounds, ending sounds. They mostly have problems with inflections
and diagraphs. Some of them have problems with CVC words. They're just not decoding
sound by sound. They try to put them together and it doesn't sound the right way, so with
those students, I know what they need, so I create activities. When we're reading, first in
my read aloud, then in my guided reading group, I focus on those strategies that they
need. And then, again, when they go to play at centers, they're practicing what we
worked on during my guided reading group.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 226
Maricela used her knowledge of assessments to better understand her students’ needs. She
explained how she diagnoses their decoding challenges like a doctor would his or her patient: “it
might be beginning sounds, ending sounds. They mostly have problems with inflections and
diagraphs…”. You can hear the expertise behind Maricela’s words, that she knows how to take
students from where they are to where they need to be in their reading skills. This use of her
pedagogical content knowledge is transformative—her expertise of reading content, her students,
the classroom environment, and instructional strategies like “guided reading groups” and
“centers” for practice—make Maricela an effective teacher. These qualities, not necessarily her
ability to prove test scores, show that Maricela is being transformative with her students. What
is even more impressive is that Maricela’s reflective use of data is a new skillset. Just last school
year, she confessed, she was absolutely lost in knowing how to get good data that would help her
with reading differentiation.
I can now see the patterns with my groups. I had that problem last year. I did not know
how to form my reading groups. And, because I was doing my BTSA [Beginning
Teacher Support and Assessment] program a little late, I was working on my BTSA, I
chose that to be my final work. I said, ‘okay, I have all these assessments. I want to use
the assessment and that data to form my groups.’ So, I learned to use it correctly because
I started noticing the patterns, that these groups have the same needs. They can all not
read these kind of words, multi-syllabic words with certain endings. So, I taught them
those words… to the whole group.
It is amazing that in one school year, Maricela went from feeling that “I had that problem” to
being able to notice “the patterns, that these groups have the same needs”. She was now
grouping students strategically for better instruction. Her professional growth became an asset
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 227
that she could now leverage to help students become better readers. Maricela continued to
explain that she felt successful this year because she immediately got to know her students’
reading needs through the data.
Yes, I used my data because the first month of school, when I met my kids, I started
doing assessments and analyzing my data. Based on that data, I made my groups and
then… I started working with my students at their level. Mr. Tapia, the principal, asked
us to do the BPST [Basic Phonics Skills Test], so I knew exactly what their reading needs
were.
The BPST assessment was of worth to Maricela because she had already developed the skills
needed to make sense of it and to use it with students. The tool is only as good as the person
using it, so Maricela’s development of data use opened her ability to be effective even with new
reading assessment programs. The outcome of using data to drive reading instruction has been
transformative for Maricela and her students. She shared with pride and enthusiasm.
But my reading groups are so well-formed now that I think that's why students also are
getting more engaged in the group because, before, I didn't know what to teach them. I
had my group. I’d say to myself ‘I know they're low, but I don't know what they need,’ so
I was kind of struggling… and figuring out during their reading group what each one
needed. I feel the difference now.
Students feel the difference now, too—their instruction received from Maricela is targeted and
based on their needs. Essentially, Maricela has decreased the opportunity gaps for students in
the school setting—no more haphazard reading instruction.
Rosalinda’s parent engagement. Rosalinda is a Latina dual-language kindergarten
teacher. With 35 years of teaching experience, Rosalinda has the most seniority of all district
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 228
teachers. She started her teaching career when she was only 21-years-old. Rosalinda graduated
from a teacher program at a University of California school. She also has the distinguished
honor of having been recognized during her career as a California Teacher of the Year.
Although she grew up in East Los Angeles, Rosalinda’s abuelita and abuelito lived near AES
across the US border in Mexico. The connectedness that Rosalinda feels for the school
community runs deep because from the beautiful high-perched view standing in the parking lot at
AES, she can see the sight of her birthplace city in Mexico. Rosalinda reported that multiple job
offers have not been able to dissuade her from leaving this beautiful school that she calls home.
She has no regrets, and now, Rosalinda resides a stone’s throw away from AES in an adjacent
home community.
Rosalinda is transforming her practice to effect change for students by engaging parents
through workshops, personalized lessons that foster literacy in the home, provision of materials,
and expressions of love. Rosalinda expressed in her own words her reasons for her
transformative actions.
I'm near where I was born so that it reminds me of the sacrifices that my dad gave to
come to this country, to make our dreams come true, his children's dream come true. I
stayed, and I taught K-3 for the last 35 years. My passion has always been in the
classroom. I really enjoy every day. I still put in so many hours that people say, “Why do
you stay here so late?” I say, “Because there's so much to do, and I want everything to be
perfect for the students, for them, so that they feel very successful when they're learning.”
Rosalinda expressed how her teaching sacrifices, like staying late, is a payment back to her
father who made so many sacrifices for her to be in this country. She also pays it forward to her
students because “her passion has always been in the classroom”, so she gives them her “perfect”
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 229
efforts there every day. From this place of loving sacrifice, Rosalinda also works actively with
parents and imparts knowledge and research findings to parents.
I always share this research with the parents about words, and how much language their
children should have, and how it doesn't take for their child to be in the school that's in a
rich community, with all these resources. The key to a child being a good reader is to be
read to.
Rosalinda finds wealth in a child being read to and a child being able to read for him/herself—
that is greater wealth than living in a “rich community, with all these resources”. To Rosalinda,
the non-material, social capital resources like parents expanding their education together with
their children is the definition of wealth. In this spirit, Rosalinda takes the time to model for
parents what appropriate reading looks like and sounds like for their children.
I love to read, and I love to read a book with emotion. I model that for my parents. I do a
lot of workshops with my parents to show them how we teach our students in the
classroom. That it isn't anything that they can't do themselves at home, to take that time
to really make reading very special.
It may seem basic, but Rosalinda knows that parents may overlook simple yet powerful reading
strategies like being able to “read a book with emotion”. When books are read “with emotion”,
students get excited and hooked. That’s exactly what Rosalinda wants to see—her students
hooked by a book. Also, as a member of the AES neighborhood, Rosalinda knows that many
parents lack resources. She personally removes some barriers for her families by giving them
access to books and a variety of literature.
I know that many times, they don't have books. When they would say, ¡no tengo libros!
I would say, many years, I guess it was, “Go to the library.” Then I’d think… “Oh, wait a
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 230
minute, maybe they can't go to the library, or they don't understand that this is a public
place that lends them books. Okay. I send the books home.” We have Maravillas right
now, they have so many books. I send one home every day.
Rosalinda provides books and materials from AES, but also, she invests her own finances: “I
spend a fortune in books. My husband is always saying, ‘One more book.’ I say, ‘Many books.’”
She also holds parents accountable, though, with high-expectations for responsible behavior, just
like she would her students. She asks them to take care of the books she sends home.
I tell the parents, “Important, you've got to bring the book back. I'm going to be on you if
you don't bring it back.” That book, I switch it to the next kid, every day, after school, I
switch it. The parents will say, “I love those books, because then my kid can re-tell a
story to me.”
The provision of books from Rosalinda to parents for use with children in the house is creating
new opportunities for families to engage in academic and literacy talk. The stories she has heard
from parents about how children fell in love with reading in the home with her books has deeply
impressed her heart. Rosalinda even wants to memorialize her stories for years to come.
I want to write a book about my experiences as a teacher. My father used to call me
‘maestrita’, and I am his ‘maestrita’, but I'm everybody's ‘maestrita’ here in this
community. I have many stories to tell, many beautiful stories of children learning and
parents being committed to their children's education.
For this transformative kindergarten teacher, Rosalinda, the rewards of working in the
community with parents to help students outweigh the costs of dealing with constraints: “You
don't stay stuck in those situations that make you feel burned out and not move forward…
knowing that it's a long, long strand of your life…it’s about being committed to the community.”
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 231
Rosalinda’s experiences of working to develop proficient readers has been truly remarkable
because she is one of the few teachers who has learned to effectively tear down the socially
constructed and artificial wall dividing the home and school settings. She explained:
Yes, and the parents have taken me under their wing… so I have many parents... We need
that connection, and letting them know that you are there with them, not, ‘I am the
teacher and you are so and so ...’ That's what's helped me, and I live in this community.
It is transformational not only that Rosalinda goes above and beyond to model reading practices
to her parents, and to send books home, and provide workshops—most importantly, Rosalinda
shares power with her parents. She allows parents to “take her under their wing”. She does not
get offended or say, “I am the teacher, you should be the one under my tutelage”. No, she is
humble enough to do all the things one does when someone takes you under their wing: listen,
take feedback, dialogue about vulnerabilities, share insights, ask for help, and partner
authentically. All teachers at AES can contribute to their students’ success if they applied the
same transformative practices.
Samuel’s cultural responsiveness. Samuel is a Latino third-grade dual-language
teacher. He is proud of having earned his Bilingual, Cross-cultural, Language and Academic
Development (BCLAD) credential to become a teacher. Now, he is in his 19th year of teaching,
all at AES, and he has taught second-, third-, and fourth-grade. Samuel is transforming his
teacher practice to effect change for students by practicing cultural awareness that helps him to
build strong connections with his students, which fosters greater learning.
When asked about his background by the interviewer, Samuel was proud to say that he is
bilingual and an immigrant from Ecuador, South America. He explained that he arrived at the
US during the years of middle-school, entered a Bilingual program, and learned to speak English
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 232
through hard work. The interviewer asked Samuel, “In what ways do you think that your
upbringing, culture, and experiences influence the way you teach students to read?”, and he
deeply and slowly responded with the words, “Everything”. Samuel said that he shares his story
with his students to encourage them and to help them understand that they have a lot in common.
He said students respond very well to his story, “We connect. We are family”.
Samuel went on to explain that he motivates his students to be the best students by
showing them the cultural responsiveness that they deserve. He doesn’t hide his or his family’s
immigrant story, that when he came to the US, he had it harder than his younger siblings because
he was older, and the transition was more difficult for him. He even jokingly said, “My younger
siblings… they cheated. They were young.” He explains the difference with his and their
transition to US school and life.
We didn't fit in socially in a way that ... and maybe even language-wise. I wish we would
have picked up things, but they're more native English speakers ... either way. Culturally,
my students and I, we're family. We eat the same stuff. We watch the same stuff, we
listen to the same stuff. We have the same dreams. And they know that.
It is not an understatement to say that it is transformative for Samuel that he connects on such a
deep and personal level with his students, using his native language of Spanish, by sharing his
trials and triumphs as an immigrant youth who transitioned to the US at a critical point in his life.
Recent research showed that 76% of public school teachers are female; teachers of color only
make up 17.5% of the teacher workforce in the US, while 45% of the student population K-12 is
represented by students of color (Goldring et al., 2014). Furthermore, more than 80% of
bachelor degrees awarded to future teachers in 2010 were to non-Latino Anglo students; only
4.2% went to Latinos (Goldring et al., 2014). At AES, 96% of students are Latino/a. Taken
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 233
together, all these demographic statistics give even greater value to the fact that Samuel is
standing proud and tall as a responsible, caring, and approachable Latino male role model for
students. In 2014, Samuel went to the World Cup in Brazil. When he returned, his students who
are soccer fanatics, went crazy. He shared: “Messi…Ronaldo…We had all those conversations
and we have jokes in Spanish. And you know, culture and ... Dude, it's everything. For me, for
us, that's everything”. For AES students, having a male teacher who looks and speaks and feels
like them is everything.
Jenny’s high-interest content. Jenny is a Latina first-grade English-only teacher. She
has taught for 16 years and her experience has always been in kindergarten and first grade. She
has experience teaching in English-only, Spanish-only, and bilingual programs. She is
transforming her practice to effect change for students by using high-interest content to engage
students in the love of learning and literacy. Jenny explained why she chooses to use narrative
text over expository text to excite students to read.
The stories that students like are the ones that have a climax. And again, those are
narratives. The new common core standards, they don't focus too much on narratives.
And I've always been a big fan of narratives, because that's where you learn a lot. There's
a lot of didactic stories in narratives. And I understand that, with the whole common core
movement, they focus a lot on expository text, a lot of learning.
Jenny has expert knowledge of curriculum and knows that a plot, with its rise and climax, grab
students’ interest and they enjoy the experience of following characters through the plots’
development. For Jenny, even under common core standards, the priority is still to find text that
connects to kids’ interests, backgrounds, and needs.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 234
Informational text. Which is great, you know? But… I notice that the little kids really,
really identify with those kinds of stories. So, for example, I just read recently a book
students love that is called Thelma the Unicorn. And that book is a transformative book.
It's a dynamic character. Thelma's a little pony, this really bulgy-eyed pony, and she
wants to be a unicorn. Thelma does everything she can to make herself a unicorn, and
then she's beautiful, she does some physical changes… she paints herself, she puts a
carrot on her head. And Thelma experiences being a unicorn. But then… she realizes that
it's not ‘all that’ to be famous and stuff. So, then she realizes, “I don't want to be that
anymore, I don't want to be a unicorn anymore!” And then she goes back to her old
friends, and she goes back to her old farm, and the kids love this story because it's
transformative! The kids are like, “oh yeah, look!... Thelma went back to her friends!”
At this point in the interview, Jenny was waving her arms around, speaking with great
enthusiasm, barely able to contain the love of teaching and learning that she was feeling as she
spoke about the narrative text she read to her students. A personal lover of reading and literacy,
Jenny herself was excited by Thelma’s story. Maybe she knew what it felt like to explore the
grass on the other side only to come back home and say, “I like it here better here after all”.
These personal connections to literacy for Jenny are valuable and enjoyable. Jenny continued:
Yeah, she went back to being a regular pony. So those kind of stories, I noticed that kids
really enjoy. Where a change happens to the character. Where the character goes through
a specific change. they love it. They always say, “read it again! Read it again!” I'm like,
“Okay!” And I read Thelma for three days, and I'm like, “Okay, no more Thelma, okay?
Let's do something else. I think I'm done with Thelma now!” But they love these stories.
Even though they're not readers, they cannot physically read, they pick up on it, and they
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 235
love those ‘rooting-for-the-underdog’ stories, they're rooting for the change. The dynamic
characters, they really like those.
Jenny made a powerful statement when she said, “Even though they're not readers, they cannot
physically read, they pick up on it, and they love those ‘rooting-for-the-underdog’ stories”.
Jenny understood that students should not be limited intellectually from experiencing the
richness of literacy and stories just because they cannot yet read independently. Imagine a
student who cannot read independently and also has never had the opportunity to hear an
amazingly good book? That would be morally wrong to Jenny. She makes sure that all kids are
“reading” even if it is her who is doing the decoding. That is powerful. Jenny then shared about
another high-interest book that her students absolutely loved and were motivated to read.
There’s a book…Fill your Bucket…and everybody loves that character, how he starts his
day all bad, his mom yells at him for dropping the cereal, and then he gets there to school
and they're all making fun of him. He's like, “oh my gosh, the drops are being taken out
of his bucket. Then, next thing you know, somebody gives him a compliment, and next
thing you know another one, and another one, and they see that throughout the whole
story, and they love that. They're like, “oh yeah!”. And it shows how at the end, the boy
would help his little sister, his bucket was full and he was able to contribute to his family,
to his mom. They love those stories!
Jenny also loves those stories, like Fill Your Bucket, which is why she reads them to her students.
It might not seem transformative at first, but being an excited teacher who loves reading and
teaching goes a long way towards creating motivated readers and learners in the classroom.
What makes the careful and explicit choice of text that Jenny picks for her students even more
transformative as a teaching practice is that Jenny, in her mind, does it against the expectation to
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 236
do other things. Jenny feels that she is expected to spend less time teaching narrative text. Still,
she mightily teaches it because she believes it will help her students to catch the spirit of the love
for reading, which will promote reading proficiency.
I know that… because of the whole common core movement, it's focused too much on
expository reading, a lot of learning, and that's beautiful too, and that's important, but
from my experiences in kinder and first grade, at that age, high-interest narrative text is
what they really enjoy.
Doing what you believe is right for the kids is praiseworthy. All educators should put kids first,
just like Jenny does.
Discussion for Research Question Two
The researcher offers an analogy to answer research question two and to explain the
reported experiences of teachers as they work to develop proficient readers at AES. Teachers
adapt to students’ needs like a surgeon would with a patient during a midnight emergency room
operation. Both situations feel urgent for the professionals—life or death, in one case long-term
consequences, in the other case immediate ramifications. The time factor related to the outcomes
do not change the fact that teachers like doctors make the most of their situation given their time,
resources, and the unique patient before him or her. It is a great responsibility. To make matters
more complex, many unintended factors influence the performance of a teacher and surgeon. A
vein in the body ruptures and changes the course of the doctor’s surgery plan. A student’s father
is deported to Mexico and now the teacher must respond to a student’s urgent need, a student
who also now only attends school two days a week, if that. These complex, adaptive problems
require adaptive solutions—for a teacher like for a doctor. Understanding that teachers face the
influence of many factors, just like a surgeon does, brings greater empathy to their experiences.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 237
Society is reluctant to blame doctors when their patients die in the emergency room—often
doctors say, “I did the best I could.” We believe them. We even empathize with the doctors and
their loss. But when teachers say the same, somehow the public holds them 100% accountable
for student outcomes. Surgeons know well that preventative care is the best answer to keeping
people healthy, and would prefer that intervention over the knife on the operating table any day.
Teachers also know well that early intervention is better than the operating rooms of late stage
learning centers and credit-recovery programs for failing students. By identifying and seeking to
understand the factors in this study that influence teacher performance related to developing
proficient readers, school organizations like AES have a better opportunity at making the best
student-centered reforms that leverage assets and minimize deficit-based approaches.
Chapter Summary
In this chapter, the two research questions were answered using the triangulation strategy
of synthesizing the literature findings, survey results, and interview findings. First, all SC and
KMO factors that were assumed to be influencing teachers’ performance related to developing
proficient readers at AES appeared to be validated by survey results and interview findings. This
highlights the complexity of the problem of practice. The factors also appeared to hem together
in distinct ways: (1) the child and parents and home environment, and (2) the teacher, society,
and school system. Second, teachers demonstrated during the interviews that their experiences
of teaching students to become proficient readers were simultaneously frustrating and rewarding.
They faced many constraints, but more importantly, they took it upon themselves to enact
individual practices that they believed were transformative for student learning. In Chapter Five,
the third question will be answered, which is the following: What are teachers’ recommended
knowledge, motivation, and organization solutions at AES?
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 238
CHAPTER FIVE: SOLUTIONS, IMPLEMENTATION, AND EVALUATION
Answers to Research Questions and Summary of the Findings
In this introduction to Chapter Five, a summary of the answers to the research questions
and findings are provided. In response to research question one, all the factors were reported by
teachers as influencing their performance related to developing proficient readers at AES (See
Table 23). Descriptions from teacher interviews were in part supported by results of factor
analysis and Spearman correlation tests suggesting that the construct factors have a pattern of
relationships related to their influence upon teacher performance (See APPENDICES J-M).
Teachers described how two major sources of influence were the children (students and their
personal and home experiences) and the school system (its pressures and themselves as teaching
professionals). Inferential statistical analyses also suggested a similar pattern of influence: (1)
the factors of the child and the parents and home environment influence teachers in related ways,
and (2) the factors of the teacher, school and education system, and society hem in their
influence upon teacher performance.
In response to research question two, AES teachers reported through interviews that they
enact individual practices that they believe are transformative for student learning, such as data
use, cultural responsiveness, parent engagement, and use of high-interest content. Teachers also
reported that they face many and constant constraints such as organizational instability, the
narrowing of the curriculum, student absenteeism, and child differences. These constraints
appear to influence teachers’ efforts to teach reading in ways that they believe would improve
student reading outcomes. Although they believe in the value of culturally relevant teaching,
often teachers defer to less effective standardized teaching methods.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 239
This chapter will provide the response to the third research question: What are teachers’
recommended knowledge, motivation, and organization implementation solutions at AES?
Recommendations for Practice to Improve Reading Outcomes at AES
Given these results and findings, there are many potential plans that could be
implemented to improve reading outcomes for students. Teachers can benefit from increased
knowledge, motivation, and organizational support. However, to focus improvement efforts and
to increase the likelihood that AES teachers would support the plan, an implementation and
evaluation plan focused directly on knowledge influences for AES teachers has been designed to
close the gap between espoused beliefs and values around actual teaching reading methods and
practices. This plan will leverage the results of two major findings from the study: (1) Teachers
desire to enact culturally relevant teaching practices because they believe students are more
engaged in the process of learning and reading, and (2) Teachers desire an organizational culture
that is more engaging, collaborative, and supportive of their teaching efforts. This second area
can be provided for teachers and addressed indirectly through the process of adult learning with
peers via implementation of professional learning cycles. The implementation and evaluation
plan will be structured by blending Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework and the New
World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016),
Culturally Relevant Teaching Recommendations Based on Results and Findings
The results and findings of the study support the recommendation of a plan for teachers
focused on culturally relevant teaching practices. Interviews showed how teachers’ ideal reading
teaching lessons meant stepping away from the script of a standardized lesson aligned to a test-
based curriculum matrix. For teachers to enact practices that are not just believed to be
culturally relevant, but that are observable and verifiable as such, they would need to support and
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 240
increase their knowledge of such teaching methodology, frameworks, posture, and paradigms
(Gay, 2010; Gay & Kirkland, 2003; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Rodriguez, 1998). Teachers could
achieve this level of mindset and practice through professional development, coaching, peer
engagement, and personal and professional reflection (Brooks, 1994b; Edmondson, 1999; John-
Steiner & Mahn, 1996; Schön, 1987).
Table 29 represents the list of high-priority, validated knowledge factors that would be
addressed through the implementation of a professional learning cycle focused on culturally
relevant and responsive teaching.
Table 29
Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Knowledge Influences
Context-Specific Recommendations
Declarative Knowledge
AES Teachers can strengthen
their knowledge of subject
matter, methods, and learners
related to culturally relevant and
responsive teaching
Provide teachers with in-depth training (1-year plan) in
reading instruction. Provide “methods” workshops (3x/year)
focused on teaching reading using learning theories
(cognitive and sociocultural) and methodologies (balanced
literacy and culturally relevant and responsive teaching).
Provide lesson implementation cycles with feedback (safe
practice; peer observation; supervisor visits).
Metacognitive Knowledge
AES Teachers can strengthen
their knowledge of critical
reflection and socio-political
consciousness related to
culturally relevant and
responsive teaching
Provide teachers with mentorship through weekly coaching
(reading language arts coach and principal). Supportive
“dialogic conversation” will encourage metacognitive
thinking/critical reflection. Teachers will reflect in
journals—one short journal entry each time, half-page—
about classroom instruction (2x/week).
The 1-year plan of professional learning cycles involves a series of in-depth trainings and
coaching sessions around increasing and deepening pedagogical content knowledge of reading,
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 241
culturally relevant teaching methods, learners, critical reflection, and building awareness of
socio-political consciousness.
A focus on training teachers about culturally relevant and responsive teaching practices
as a solution to the problem of practice is supported by the literature (Berliner, 2017; Aronson &
Laughter, 2016). Research shows that teachers are oftentimes unaware that their teaching
practices actually widen opportunity gaps for diverse students (Milner, 2010a), or that their
lessons might disenfranchise students through lackluster delivery or irrelevant content (Hattie,
2012), or that their the lessons might even hinder student learning through the presentation of
offensive or racist material (Gay & Kirkland, 2003).
The survey data for AES teachers showed that 83% believed that metacognitive
knowledge is a factor that influences their ability to develop proficient readers. Excluding the
survey item involving awareness around parent needs for parent-teacher conferences (Q41), the
percent increases to 90%. Thus, teachers will benefit from weekly opportunities for critical or
dialogic conversation (Rodriguez & Berryman, 2002) with mentors (i.e. school coaches,
principal) around issues of power, positionality, and authentic learning experiences for students
and families. Personal journaling a few times a week would also be encouraged so that AES
teachers create a dedicated space/time and routine for reflecting, planning, and envisioning.
Studies have shown that teachers who engage in critical reflection increase their own
sense of agency (Howard, 2003) and employ more culturally relevant/responsive practices
(Rodriguez & Berryman, 2002). A meta-analysis of 40 studies from journals across educational
disciplines showed that teachers who engage in critical reflection and dialogue increase students’
achievement, motivation, and feelings of agency and empowerment (Aronson & Laughter,
2016). As such, it is intended that engaging AES teachers in dialogic conversations with
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 242
mentors on a weekly basis in addition to personal journaling will increase teachers’ perspectives
of authentic teaching and learning that closes opportunity gaps for students.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
The implementation and evaluation plan for AES has been designed using the New
World Kirkpatrick Model, an updated version to the original model developed in the 1950s
(Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Figure 21 presents a visual of the New World Kirkpatrick
Model.
Figure 21. The New World Kirkpatrick Model used to guide the implementation and evaluation
package. Reprinted from Kirkpatrick's Four Levels of Training Evaluation (p. 11) by J.D.
Kirkpatrick and W. K. Kirkpatrick, 2016, Alexandria, VA: ATD Publications. Copyright 2016
by Kirkpatrick Partners, LLC.
The true success of any training program is now understood as more than trainees
experiencing pleasurable initial reactions (level 1). Likewise, trainees must do more than learn
information (level 2). Success for trainees is measured by genuine application of critical
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 243
behaviors developed on-the-job—this requires organizational support in the form of reinforcing
drivers (level 3). Only then will trainees experience the personal performance results that move
an organization forward towards attaining its global goals and results (level 4) (Kirkpatrick &
Kirkpatrick, 2016).
Organizational Purpose, Needs and Expectations
The mission of Aspiring Elementary School is to ensure that all students achieve
academic excellence. Currently, about 70% of students are failing to meet grade-level
proficiency targets in Reading/language arts. Classroom teachers in grades K-3 have been
selected as the key stakeholders to improve learning outcomes for students. By June 2018, K-3
teachers will implement research-based reading instructional practices using cultural relevant
teaching practices to ensure that 75% of general education students meet the end-of-year reading
proficiency targets. For AES students to meet proficiency, they must possess the required
foundational skills of phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, and comprehension. For this to
occur, students must be engaged in learning with their hearts as well as their minds. Therefore,
the intended recommendations for improvement that follow for AES teachers consist of a blend
of job aids, training, education, dialogic conversations, and provision of appropriate resources to
strengthen the ability to teach in culturally relevant and responsive ways.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
Table 30 shows the proposed Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators in the form of
outcomes, metrics and methods for both external and internal outcomes for AES. If the internal
outcomes are met as expected because of the training and organizational support provided for
classroom teachers, then it is highly probable that the external outcomes will also be realized.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 244
Table 30
Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes
Outcomes
Metrics
Methods
External Outcomes
1. The community prides
itself in the neighborhood
school, AES.
The number of students
leaving AES seeking higher
performing schools elsewhere
decreases. Increased number
of requests for student
transfers into AES from
outside schools.
Solicit attrition and enrollment
reports using the attendance
system of e-School Plus on a
quarterly and end-of-year basis.
2. Higher academic
achievement outcomes
realized on state
standardized tests
(CAASPP)
The number and percent of
students who meets or
exceeds on CAASPP
increases.
Summative results of CAASPP
tests in ELA and mathematics.
3. Increased public
approval of AES and
RSSD.
The ranking of AES compared
to similar schools in the
county improves.
Public publishing of CAASPP
testing results for all county
schools online and in major local
newspapers at the end of the
school year.
Internal Outcomes
4. AES students are
becoming more successful
readers “on average”.
The number and percent of
students going from non-
readers and below-level
readers to proficient readers
increases.
Fountas & Pinnell and STAR
Reading assessments are
administered quarterly and end-
of-year to show reading growth
and to measure proficiency
against expected targets.
5. AES teachers attain
higher reading achievement
results from students “on
average”.
The number and percent of
students in teachers’ classes
reaching reading proficiency
increases.
Fountas & Pinnell and STAR
Reading assessments are
administered quarterly and end-
of-year to show reading growth
and to measure proficiency
against expected targets, by
classroom.
6. AES teachers feel more
personally and
professionally
accomplished and
efficacious due to
Statistically significant
increase “on average” of
teacher self-efficacy rating of
self as a reading teacher.
Pre/post self-efficacy surveys for
reading teachers
(Beginning/End-of-Year)
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 245
demonstrated ability to
meet own stakeholder
goals.
7. AES Principal reports
increased confidence in his
ability to effectively lead
his staff through change
reforms that improve
reading outcomes for
students.
Written reflections using
descriptive language, cited
examples, and supported
assertions using school-level
reading data and statistics to
demonstrate increased
confidence with leading
change-efforts.
Principal’s quarterly and
summative self-evaluation as
part of the job performance
evaluation.
Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. To focus their performance with intensity and precision, AES
teachers must commit to certain critical behaviors. The focused critical behaviors are that
teachers must apply the Balanced Literacy reading techniques modeled by the literacy coach
during their classroom reading lessons. The second critical behavior is AES teachers must enact
culturally relevant and responsive teaching practices when teaching reading to students (See
Appendix H). The specific metrics, methods, and timing for each of these outcome-related
behaviors are found below.
Table 31
Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Teachers
Critical
Behaviors
Metrics Methods Timing
1. AES teachers
will apply the
techniques
modeled by the
literacy coach
(and feedback)
related to teaching
Balanced Literacy
reading lessons.
The number of Read
Alouds, Shared
Readings, Guided
Readings, and
individual teacher-
student reading
conferences conducted.
AES teachers will
document and notate
evidence of balanced
literacy lessons
conducted on weekly
lesson planner.
Literacy Coach will
observe one lesson
per week and provide
written feedback, in
addition to debriefing
the lesson with the
teacher.
The weekly planner
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 246
will be submitted to
principal every
Monday morning for
that week.
2. AES teachers
will utilize
Culturally
Relevant and
Responsive
(CRE) teaching
methods when
teaching reading
to students.
Observational evidence
of culturally relevant
reading texts, mixed
student grouping
strategies, connections
to students’ funds of
knowledge employed
during reading/English
language arts lessons.
AES teachers will
document and notate
evidence of planned
CRE elements for each
unit of study in
reading/English language
arts.
Journal entries in a CRE
notebook will capture
teachers’ reactions and
reflections with regards
to implementing CRE in
the classroom.
Units of Study
capture 6-8 weeks of
ELA instruction.
Weekly “CRE
reflection” journal
entries
Required drivers. AES teachers require the support of the school principal, the literacy
coach, and the school organization (including support staff) to reinforce what they learned during
training and coaching sessions. To stay motivated with the goal of closing the persistent reading
achievement gap, the entire organization will celebrate team and individual successes at every
staff meeting and quarterly using the school media resources. Rewards will be agreed upon
ahead of time in consultation with teachers to increase buy-in for recognized progress achieved
on performance goals. Table 32 shows the recommended drivers to support critical behaviors of
general education teachers at AES.
Table 32
Required Drivers to Support Teachers’ Critical Behaviors
Methods Timing
Critical
Behaviors
Supported
Reinforcing
AES teacher training on understanding the complexity Bi-Weekly 1
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 247
of reading language arts as a content area
Training on methods for teaching reading in the
context of sociocultural learning theory
Monthly 1, 2
Job Aid Document including checklist highlighting the
Quality Indicators of a Read Aloud, Shared Reading,
and Guided Reading Lesson; Quality Indicators of
Independent Reading behaviors
Ongoing 1
Job Aid Document including checklist highlighting the
Quality Indicators of CRE reading lessons
Ongoing 2
Job Aid including checklist highlighting the Quality
Indicators of Phonics Lessons
Ongoing 1
AES Teachers will write to self-reflect in a personal
journal about their experiences with implementation
efforts
2x/Week 1, 2
Provide Research-based information (studies) showing
effectiveness of CRE for improving learning outcomes
Beginning/Ongoing 2
Encouraging
Collaboration and peer modeling of diverse reading
lessons during grade-level meetings
Weekly 1, 2
Feedback and coaching from Literacy Coach and
Principal
Weekly/Quarterly 1, 2
Rewarding
Exemplar reading teacher performers will have an
opportunity to publicly share their positive experiences
at a staff meeting or via a recorded video lesson to be
used for supportive group discourse
Monthly 1, 2
Close modeling and feedback from Literacy Coach will
likely increase AES teacher’s intrinsic motivation due
to greater and improved knowledge and teaching skills
Ongoing 1, 2
Monitoring
AES teachers will write to self-reflect in a personal
journal about their experiences with implementation
efforts
2x/Week 1, 2
Leadership Team (Task Force) and Literacy Coach will
conduct classroom visits; Principal will evaluate
progress
Announced –
Monthly &
Unannounced -
Ongoing
1, 2
Organizational support. The school administration will ensure that AES as a school
organization is accountable for providing the necessary resources of time, space, materials,
training, job aids, safe psychological environments for authentic dialogic conversations, and
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 248
timely feedback by making the “follow-through” explicitly visible and linked to the school
administrator’s job performance evaluation for the next three school-year cycles. The goals,
actions, and needed resources will be framed using the language and framework of SMART
goals.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Following the implementation of the recommended solutions, general
education teachers, K-3, at AES will know and/or be able to:
1. Possess thorough information about pedagogical content knowledge, balanced literacy,
and culturally relevant and responsive methods, understand the interrelatedness of these
frameworks and strategies for developing proficient readers
2. Apply critical reflection during the phases of planning and delivering reading lessons
Program. The previous section outlined learning goals that will be achieved for AES
teachers through the deployment of a series of trainings and on-the-job coaching/interventions.
The trainees, AES general education teachers, will acquire knowledge and understanding of
important research-based theoretical learning frameworks (and corresponding support materials)
that will support the attainment of the overall goal of developing proficient readers. The training
program will begin with a professional learning cycle lasting one semester around PCK/Balanced
literacy. The second semester will see the launching of a second professional learning cycle
around CRE. A professional learning cycle consists of a full day (7 hours) introduction into the
concepts of the framework and its relevance to the problem of practice at the site. Each week
thereafter, the AES teachers and the lead trainers will engage in an afternoon of professional
readings of select articles and research studies and engage in critical reflection/dialogic
conversations that further help explain and consolidate understanding of the framework, its
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 249
subcomponents, and its application to practice. After four afternoon sessions (one session per
week, about 1.5 hours each), a month of “safe practice” is introduced where AES teachers
practice implementing the framework in action in the context of teaching reading to students.
The literacy coach supports the “safe practice” phase through non-evaluative observations and
coaching sessions with feedback. Next, AES teachers share their experiences from applying the
frameworks in action with other colleagues during afternoon collaboration sessions (one session
per week, about 1.5 hours each, for four weeks). Agreements are made to refine the
implementation of the frameworks in action based on feedback, and peer observations are
scheduled where colleagues from within and across grade levels observe and provide affirming
feedback on implementation during reading lessons. Lastly, during the last round or phase of on-
the-job training, the principal schedules classrooms visits to provide evaluative feedback on the
implementation of the training and coaching program related to the framework in action. Key
indicators that have been learned and practiced during the training program will serve as the
criteria to be used to measure and evaluate progress on implementation.
Components of learning. The ability to possess comprehensive factual and conceptual
understanding of a topic is often a prerequisite to being able to apply existing knowledge to solve
problems within that domain (Anderson et al., 2001). Therefore, it is imperative to evaluate if the
required learning has occurred as presented for AES teachers during training. Furthermore, the
likelihood of AES teachers using their newly acquired knowledge on-the-job rests heavily on the
fact of whether they enjoyed and valued the content and delivery of the training that they were
provided (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016). Another dimension crucial to facilitating the
application of the new knowledge for AES teachers is based on how confident they feel,
following the training, to use it on-the-job (Zee & Koomen, 2016). In addition to valuing and
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 250
feeling confident about using the information on-the-job, AES teachers should be sufficiently
motivated, to the point of commitment, to test out and refine their newly acquired knowledge and
skills (Mayer, 2011). As such, Table 33 lists the evaluation methods and time for these
components of learning.
Table 33
Components of Learning for the Program
Methods and/or Activities
Timing
Declarative Knowledge: “I know it.”
Knowledge checks for AES teachers
using multiple choice, short answer
responses, and reflective writing.
During the full-day (7 hour) launch of the professional
learning cycle.
During the weekly (1.5 hour each session/four weeks)
afternoon training sessions.
Knowledge checks for AES teachers
through discussions, “think, pair,
shares” and other individual/group
activities.
During the full-day (7 hour) launch of the professional
learning cycle.
During the weekly (1.5 hour each session/four weeks)
afternoon training sessions.
Knowledge checks for AES teachers
through written annotations on the
actual text of (1) journal articles and (2)
research studies provided.
During the full-day (7 hour) launch of the professional
learning cycle.
During the weekly (1.5 hour each session/four weeks)
afternoon training sessions.
Knowledge checks for AES teachers
through small group presentations to
the larger group of sections of the
training text/readings (e.g. jigsaw the
article).
During the full-day (7 hour) launch of the professional
learning cycle.
During the weekly (1.5 hour each session/four weeks)
afternoon training sessions.
Procedural Skills: “I can do it right now.”
Modeling and demonstrations in groups
and individually by the Literacy Coach
(and using pre-recorded videos of
lessons) using the job aids and teaching
During the full-day (7 hour) launch of the professional
learning cycle.
During weekly coaching sessions with the Literacy
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 251
materials (related to the frameworks) to
successfully perform the skills.
Coach prior to the phase of “safe practice” or upon
request of the trainee during “safe practice”
Individual application of the skills
without any outside observation (only
reflective feedback)
During the phase of “safe practice”
Quality of the feedback (written and
oral) from colleagues/peers of lesson
implementation
During the 1 month of “practice & peer
observation/feedback” phase (following the 1 month
phase of “safe practice”)
Retrospective pre- and post-test
assessment survey asking AES teachers
about their level of proficiency before
and after the training.
At the end of the full-day (7 hour) training launch and
at the end of the professional learning cycle (end-of-
semester, after the post-evaluative feedback received
from the Principal)
Attitude: “I believe this is worth-while.”
Trainer’s observation of AES teacher
participants’ statements and actions
demonstrating that they see the benefit
of what they are being asked to do on-
the-job.
During the full-day (7 hour) training launch of the
professional learning cycle.
During weekly coaching sessions with the Literacy
Coach prior to the phase of “safe practice”
During the 1 month of “practice & peer
observation/feedback” phase (following the 1 month
phase of “safe practice”)
Discussions of the value of what AES
teachers are being asked to do on the
job.
During each training session or gathering within the
professional learning cycle
Retrospective pre- and post-test
assessment item.
At the end of the semester, after implementing the full
phases of the professional learning cycle
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Survey items using scaled items Following each training session/gathering/coaching
session during the professional learning cycle (one
semester long)
Discussions with Literacy Coach and/or
colleagues following practice and
feedback.
During “practice & peer observation/feedback” phase
Retrospective pre- and post-test
assessment item.
At the end of the semester, after implementing the full
phases of the professional learning cycle
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 252
Personal written reflection in personal
learning journal
Weekly or as the need arises during the professional
learning cycle
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Trainer’s observation of AES teacher
participants’ statements and actions
demonstrating their commitment to
apply it on the job.
During the full-day (7 hour) training launch of the
professional learning cycle.
Written affirmations in personal journal
following safe practice with rationale
provided
During the phase of “safe practice” where there are no
outside observations
Discussions following practice and
feedback.
During the 1 month of “practice & peer
observation/feedback” phase (following the 1 month
phase of “safe practice”)
Create an individual action plan.
If needed, following weekly coaching sessions with
the Literacy Coach during “practice & peer
observation/feedback” phase or after multiple
evaluative observations by the principal demonstrate a
need for an accountability mechanism to ensure
appropriate implementation
Retrospective pre- and post-test
assessment item.
At the end of the full-day (7 hour) training launch of
the professional learning cycle.
At the end of the semester, after implementing the full
phases of the professional learning cycle
Level 1: Reaction
Reactions desired. A positive reaction of AES teachers to the knowledge, skills, and
frameworks that they are presented with during trainings is in line with the fundamental goal of
all training programs (KirkPatrick & KirkPatrick, 2016). It is desirable for AES teachers to
indicate a high level of interest, value, engagement, and satisfaction with the training content and
its delivery; it promotes greater likelihood of adoption of practices. It is critical, therefore, to
assess the reactions of AES teachers to the training programs. As such, Table 34 lists the
methods and timing for these components of stakeholder reactions.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 253
Table 34
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Methods and/or Tools
Timing
Engagement
Observation by instructor/facilitator/trainer During the training workshops: full day,
afternoon sessions
Training workshop written evaluation form At the end of each training workshop: full
day, afternoon sessions
Attendance During the training workshops: full day,
afternoon sessions
Relevance
Quick check-ins with participants via survey
(online) and discussion (ongoing)
Opportunity after every training session;
dedicated web platform for capturing
ongoing trainee comments and feedback
Trainer’s observation of participants’ statements and
actions demonstrating affirmation of relevance to on
the job performance.
During the training workshops: full day,
afternoon sessions
Training workshop written evaluation form At the end of each training workshop: full
day, afternoon sessions
Customer Satisfaction
Quick check-ins with participants via survey
(online) and discussion (ongoing)
Opportunity after every training session;
dedicated web platform for capturing
ongoing trainee comments and feedback
Training workshop/program written evaluation form At the end of each training workshop: full
day, afternoon sessions; at the end of the
professional learning cycle (end-of-
semester)
Evaluation Tools
Throughout each semester-long professional learning cycle, various “reactions” and
“knowledge” checks will occur for AES teachers for training evaluation purposes.
For Level 1, observation notes captured by the trainer, submission of written evaluation
forms by AES teachers, attendance rates, pre-post survey results, and group discussion will all
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 254
inform trainers and the leadership team of the training program’s effectiveness in eliciting
positive reactions. Level 2 evaluation data gathering will occur through means of Level 1
methods and additionally will include multiple-choice knowledge checks, written and verbal
interactions using critical literature/texts, small group presentations to the larger group of
relevant training information, and the creation of individual action plans for classroom
implementation.
Approximately one week after the completion of the semester-long professional learning
cycle, and then again at the end of the second semester, the leadership team will administer a
survey containing scaled items and open-ended response format questions using the Blended
Evaluation approach. This will assist the leadership team in identifying AES teachers’
perceptions with regards to the relevance of and satisfaction with the training received (Level
1). It will also measure their confidence level in being able to apply the new information gained
through learning and the perceived value gained from doing so (Level 2). Actual on-the-job
performance will be evaluated according to the implementation of critical behaviors (Level
3). Observation checklists will assist in validating AES teachers’ performance through the
triangulation of data. Lastly, the evaluation tools will measure the attainment of intended
program-aligned goals and outcomes for AES teachers because of on-the-job performance (Level
4).
Data Analysis and Reporting
It is imperative to gather, analyze, and report findings after administering immediate and
delayed evaluation instruments. The Level 4 goal of AES is meeting outcomes as measured by
classroom teachers’ students’ reading achievement levels and gains. Each week, classroom
teachers will review their students’ Accelerated Reader (AR) data reports. The dashboard below
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 255
will report on three key indicators that represent on-target student reading achievement: (1)
reading comprehension as measured by % correct on reading quizzes, (2) reading participation as
measured by students reading one book (qualitatively appropriate and at independent reading
level) per week, and (3) meeting reading proficiency benchmark targets (book level difficulty)
according to grade-level expectations (cut scores). The following dashboard (see below) will
serve as a summary and powerful visual reporting tool for Level 4 results. It will foster urgency
and accountability among AES school staff. Each classroom will have a dedicated wall space for
posting the dashboard results. Similar dashboards will be created to monitor Level 1, Reactions;
Level 2, Learning; and Level 3, Behavior.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 256
Figure 22. Reading achievement dashboard for monitoring Level 4 results.
*Report Options: (By Student, Classroom, Grade Level, and/or School-wide Results)
Chapter Summary
The New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) has provided the
framework and guidelines for evaluating the effectiveness of a systematic and strategic
implementation plan. The plan focused on knowledge recommendations for closing gaps in
teacher espoused beliefs and actions related to effective reading instruction through the
enactment of culturally relevant and responsive teaching practices. The plan also intends on
ultimately increasing student reading achievement at AES through strengthened teacher
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 257
performance. Lastly, the purpose of the plan is to address areas of need revealed by the mixed
method study, which is the opportunity to strengthen motivational beliefs through improved
practice and to provide experiences for teachers of authentic collaboration around the shared
interests of students through professional learning cycles.
Future Research
This study highlighted the value of mixed methods research in education for helping to
improve the learning conditions of one individual US school. While the study demonstrated that
teachers at one high-poverty elementary school do experience the influences of multiple factors
on their performance related to developing proficient readers, it is unknown if other high-poverty
schools are experiencing this same phenomenon.
Future research could include similar studies that seek to explore/understand the
influences of the same factors at high-poverty elementary, middle, and high-schools across the
US. By identifying, validating, and better understanding powerful influences on teacher and
student performance, schools could tailor specific improvement plans to address their needs and
meet their goals.
Lastly, the researcher developed a survey instrument that was partially validated by
statistical analysis. Further psychometric testing, revision, and exploration of the survey
instrument may provide a useful tool for other schools to measure the influences of factors on
their teaching performance related to students in high-poverty schools.
Conclusion
This dissertation project aimed to understand and improve teaching and learning
conditions for AES, a high-poverty elementary school that serves traditionally underserved and
diverse Latino/a students. Seventy percent of students fail to read proficiently by 3
rd
grade.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 258
Using the literature, the researcher proposed five broad social context factors (14 factors
individually), categorized as in-school and out-of-school factors, that appeared to influence
teacher performance and student outcomes. Using a convergent parallel mixed methods design,
the researcher evaluated the assumed influences of the 14 factors on teacher performance related
to developing proficient readers. Results and findings suggested that teachers perceived all
factors to be influencers on their performance. The two main sources of influences appeared to
be related to the child (and their personal and home experiences) and the school system
(including the teacher and society). Also, teachers described themselves as first responders to
children’s needs, working firsthand to educate them, even in the face of constraints, by enacting
individual practices that they believed to be transformative for student learning.
A systematic, integrated implementation and evaluation package for AES was developed
by the researcher-practitioner that is intended to strengthen teacher performance, improve student
learning, and support the school to fulfill its mission of providing a quality education for all its
students.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 259
References
1898: A Birth of a Superpower. (n.d.). In Office of the Historian. Retrieved from
https://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/short-history/superpower
Abrahamson, E., & Fombrun, C. J. (1994). Macrocultures: Determinants and consequences.
Academy of Management Review, 19(4), 728-755.
Acar, B., & Tarhan, L. (2008). Effects of cooperative learning on students’ understanding of
metallic bonding. Research in Science Education, 38(4), 401-420.
Achinstein, B., Ogawa, R. T., & Speiglman, A. (2004). Are We Creating Separate and
Unequal Tracks of Teachers? The Effects of State Policy, Local Conditions, and Teacher
Characteristics on New Teacher Socialization. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 26(3), 557-603.
Adler, N. E., Boyce, T., Chesney, M. A., Cohen, S., Folkman, S., Kahn, R. L., & Syme, S. L.
(1994). Socioeconomic status and health: the challenge of the gradient. American
psychologist, 49(1), 15.
Altrichter, H., & Moosbrugger, R. (2015). Micropolitics of Schools. In Wright, J.D. (Ed.),
International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences, 2nd Ed., (pp.134-140).
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J.:
Prentice Hall.
Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R., Airasian, P.W., Cruikshank, K.A., Mayer, R.E. Pintrich,
P.R., Raths, J., & Wittrock, M.C. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and
assessing: A revision of Bloomʼs taxonomy of educational objectives. Longman New
York (Vol. 2003, pp. 1-3).
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 260
Anderson, S., Leithwood, K., & Strauss, T. (2010). Leading data use in schools: Organizational
conditions and practices at the school and district levels. Leadership and Policy in
Schools, 9(3), 292-327.
Antil, L. R., Jenkins, J. R., Wayne, S. K., & Vadasy, P. F. (1998). Cooperative learning:
Prevalence, conceptualizations, and the relation between research and practice. American
educational research journal, 35(3), 419-454.
Aronson, B., & Laughter, J. (2016). The theory and practice of culturally relevant education: A
synthesis of research across content areas. Review of Educational Research, 86(1), 163-
206.
Arslan, M. (2006). The influence of teaching note-taking and information mapping on learning
and recalling in science. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 5(2),
56-63.
Artz, L., & Murphy, B. O. (2000). Cultural hegemony in the United States (Vol. 7). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological
review, 64(6p1), 359.
Au, K. H. (1993). Literacy instruction in multicultural settings. Wadsworth Publishing
Company.
Auguste, B. G., Hancock, B., & Laboissière, M. (2009). The economic cost of the US education
gap. The McKinsey Quarterly, 1-2.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M. M. Bakhtin (M. Holquist,
Ed.). Austin: University of Texas Press.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 261
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Eds.).
Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual review of
psychology, 52(1), 1-26.
Banks, J. A. (Ed.). (2006). Cultural diversity and education: Foundations, curriculum, and
theory (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Barth, R. S. (2002). Learning by heart. John Wiley & Sons.
Beecher, M., & Sweeny, S. M. (2008). Closing the achievement gap with curriculum enrichment
and differentiation: One school's story. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19(3), 502-530,
551, 554.
Beesley, A. D., & Apthorp, H. S. (2010). Classroom Instruction That Works: Research Report.
Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (McREL).
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1991). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the
sociology of knowledge (No. 10). Penguin UK.
Berlin, I., & Hoffman, R. (Eds.). (1983). Slavery and Freedom in the Age of the American
Revolution. University of Illinois Press.
Berliner, D. C. (2009). Out-of-School Factors and School Success. The School of Education,
(March), 1-52. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/PB-Berliner-NON-
SCHOOL.pdf
Berliner, D. C. (2011). Rational responses to high stakes testing: The case of curriculum
narrowing and the harm that follows. Cambridge Journal of Education, 41(3), 287-302.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 262
Berliner, D. C. (2017). Poverty’s powerful effects on reading achievement and the achievement
gap. The achievement gap in reading: Complex causes, persistent issues, possible
solutions, 23-37.
Berliner, D. C., & Glass, G. V. (Eds.). (2014). 50 myths and lies that threaten America's public
schools: The real crisis in education. Teachers College Press.
Betts, J. R., Reuben, K. S., & Danenberg, A. (2000). Equal resources, equal outcomes? The
distribution of school resources and student achievement in California. Public Policy
Institute of California, 500 Washington Street, Suite 800, San Francisco, CA 94111.
Beutel, D. (2010). The nature of pedagogic teacher-student interactions: A phenomenographic
study. The Australian Educational Researcher, 37(2), 77-91.
Bloom, B. S., Davis, A., Hess, R. D., & Silverman, S. B. (1965). Compensatory education for
cultural deprivation (p. 179). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Boudett, K. P., Murnane, R. J., City, E., & Moody, L. (2005). Teaching educators how to use
student assessment data to improve instruction. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(9), 700-706.
Bouffard, T., Boisvert, J., Vezeau, C., & Larouche, C. (1995). The impact of goal orientation on
self-regulation and performance among college students. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 65, 317-329.
Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). Learning and transfer. How people
learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school, 55. Washinton, D.C: National Academy
Press.
Brooks, A. K. (1994a). Power and the production of knowledge: Collective team learning in
work organizations. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 5(3), 213-235.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 263
Brooks, A. K. (1994b). Collective team learning in work organizations. PAACE Journal of
Lifelong Learning, 3, 34-49.
Brooks-Gunn, J., Klebanov, P. K., & Duncan, G. J. (1996). Ethnic differences in children's
intelligence test scores: Role of economic deprivation, home environment, and maternal
characteristics. Child development, 67(2), 396-408.
Brophy, J. (1985). Teachers’ expectations, motives and goals for working with problem
students. Research on motivation in education, 2, 175-213.
Butler, R. (1994). Teacher communications and student interpretations: Effects of teacher
responses to failing students on attributional inferences in two age groups. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 64(2), 277-294.
California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (2016). Aspiring Elementary
School: Results by Group/Subgroup. Available from
http://caaspp.cde.ca.gov/sb2016/Search
Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Steca, P., & Malone, P. S. (2006). Teachers' self-efficacy
beliefs as determinants of job satisfaction and students' academic achievement: A study at
the school level. Journal of school psychology, 44(6), 473-490.
Card, D., & Krueger, A. B. (1992). School quality and black-white relative earnings: A direct
assessment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(1), 151-200.
Carley, K., & Palmquist, M. (1992). Extracting, representing, and analyzing mental models.
Social forces, 601-636.
Carter, P. L., & Welner, K. G. (2013). Closing the opportunity gap: What America must do to
give every child an even chance. Oxford University Press.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 264
Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2003). Personality predicts academic performance:
Evidence from two longitudinal university samples. Journal of research in
personality, 37(4), 319-338.
Chaney, B., Burgdorf, K., & Atash, N. (1997). Influencing achievement through high school
graduation requirements. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(3), 229-244.
Chatterji, M. (2006). Reading Achievement Gaps, Correlates, and Moderators of Early Reading
Achievement: Evidence from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study (ECLS)
Kindergarten to First Grade Sample. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(3), 489-507.
Chen, Z. (1999). Schema induction in children's analogical problem solving. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 91(4), 703.
Cheung, A. C., & Slavin, R. E. (2012). Effective reading programs for Spanish-dominant English
language learners (ELLs) in the elementary grades: A synthesis of research. Review of
Educational Research, 82(4), 351-395.
Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., & Johnson, C. W. (2011). Disrupting class: How disruptive
innovation will change the way the world learns (Updated and expand new ed.). New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Christensen, L. B., Johnson, B., & Turner, L. A. (2011). Research methods, design, and analysis.
Pearson Education, Inc.
Chung, K. K., & Tam, Y. H. (2005). Effects of cognitive-based instruction on mathematical
problem solving by learners with mild intellectual disabilities. Journal of Intellectual and
Developmental Disability, 30(4), 207-216.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 265
City, E. A., Elmore, R. F., Fiarman, S. E., & Teitel, L. (2009). Instructional rounds in education:
A network approach to improving teaching and learning. Harvard Education Press. 8
Story Street First Floor, Cambridge, MA 02138.
Clariana, R. B., & Koul, R. (2006). The effects of different forms of feedback on fuzzy and
verbatim memory of science principles. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
76(2), 259-270.
Clark, C.M., & Peterson, P.L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M.C.Wittrock (Ed.), Third
handbook of research on teaching, 255–296, New York, NY: Macmillan.
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, N.C: Information Age Pub, Inc.
Cleary, L. M. (2008). The Imperative of Literacy Motivation When Native Children Are Being
Left Behind. Journal of American Indian Education, 47(1), 96-117.
Cochran, K. F., DeRuiter, J. A., & King, R. A. (1993). Pedagogical content knowledge: An
integrative model for teacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 44(4), 263-271.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (1999). Chapter 8: Relationships of knowledge and practice:
Teacher learning in communities. Review of research in education, 24(1), 249-305.
Coleman, J. S., & Department of Health USA. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity (Vol.
2). Washington, DC: US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of
Education.
Connors-Tadros, L. (2014). Definitions and approaches to measuring reading proficiency.
CEELO fast fact by CEELO (Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes).
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 266
Cooper, H., Lindsay, J. J., Nye, B., & Greathouse, S. (1998). Relationships among attitudes
about homework, amount of homework assigned and completed, and student
achievement. Journal of educational psychology, 90(1), 70.
Cooper, H., Robinson, J. C., & Patall, E. A. (2006). Does homework improve academic
achievement? A synthesis of research, 1987–2003. Review of educational research,
76(1), 1-62.
Costa, A. L., & Kallick, B. (1993). Through the lens of a critical friend. Educational leadership,
51, 49-49.
Cowan, P. A., Johnson,V. K., Measelle, J. R., Cowan, C. P., & Ablow, J. C. (2005). The family
context of parenting in children’s adaptation to elementary school. New York: Erlbaum.
Creswell, J. W. (2014a). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Creswell, J. W. (2014b). A concise introduction to mixed methods research. Sage Publications.
Crocco, M. S., & Costigan, A. T. (2007). The narrowing of curriculum and pedagogy in the age
of accountability urban educators speak out. Urban Education, 42(6), 512-535.
Crone, D. A., Carlson, S. E., Haack, M. K., Kennedy, P. C., Baker, S. K., & Fien, H. (2016).
Data-based decision-making teams in middle school: Observations and implications from
the middle school intervention project. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 41(2), 79-
93. doi:10.1177/1534508415610322
Danielson, C. (2011). Enhancing professional practice: A framework for teaching. ASCD.
Darden, E. C., & Cavendish, E. (2012). Achieving resource equity within a single school district:
Erasing the opportunity gap by examining school board decisions. Education and Urban
Society, 44(1), 61-82.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 267
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). Doing what matters most: Investing in quality teaching. National
Commission on Teaching & America's Future, Kutztown Distribution Center, 15076
Kutztown Road, PO Box 326, Kutztown, PA 19530-0326.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement. Education policy
analysis archives, 8, 1.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Anatomy of inequality: How the opportunity gap is
constructed. The flat world and education: How Americaʼs commitment to equity will
determine our future (pp. 27-65). Teachers College Press.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Youngs, P. (2002). Defining “highly qualified teachers”: What does
“scientifically-based research” actually tell us? Educational researcher, 31(9), 13-25.
Das, J. P. (1973). Cultural deprivation and cognitive competence. International review of
research in mental retardation, 6, 1-53.
Datnow, A. (2011). Collaboration and contrived collegiality: Revisiting Hargreaves in the age of
accountability. Journal of educational change, 12(2), 147-158.
Deal, T. E., & Peterson, K. D. (2016). Shaping school culture. John Wiley & Sons.
Dearing, E., Kreider, H., Simpkins, S., & Weiss, H. B. (2006). Family involvement in school and
low-income childrenʼs literacy: Longitudinal associations between and within
families. Journal of Educational Psychology,98(4), 653-664.
Dechant, K., Marsick, V. J., & Kasl, E. (1993). Towards a model of team learning. Studies in
Continuing Education, 15(1), 1-14.
Decuyper, S., Dochy, F., & Van den Bossche, P. (2010). Grasping the dynamic complexity of
team learning: An integrative model for effective team learning in organisations.
Educational Research Review, 5(2), 111-133.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 268
Dee, T. (2003). Standards and Student Outcomes: Lessons from the ‘First Wave’ of Education
Reform. In No Child Left Behind? The Politics and Practice of School Accountability.
Washington, DC: Brookings Institute
Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people's
children. Harvard educational review, 58(3), 280-299.
Delpit, L. D. (2006). Other people's children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. The New Press.
Derbentseva, N., Safayeni, F., & Cañas, A., J. (2007). Concept maps: Experiments on dynamic
thinking. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(3), 448-465.
De Romero, L. L. P., & Dwyer, F. (2005). The effect of varied rehearsal strategies used to
complement visualized instruction in facilitating achievement of different learning
objectives. International Journal of Instructional Media, 32(3), 259.
DiMaggio, P. (1997). Culture and cognition. Annual review of sociology, 23(1), 263-287.
Dohrenwend, B. P., & Levav, I. (1992). Socioeconomic status and psychiatric disorders: the
causation-selection issue. Science, 255(5047), 946.
Dover, A. G. (2013). Teaching for social justice: From conceptual frameworks to classroom
practices. Multicultural Perspectives, 15(1), 3-11.
Dowdall, C. (2006) Dissonance between the digitally created words of school and home.
Literacy, 40(3).
Dweck, C. S. (1975). The role of expectations and attributions in the alleviation of learned
helplessness. Journal of personality and social psychology, 31(4), 674.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American psychologist, 41(10),
1040.
Dweck, C. S. (2008). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House Digital, Inc.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 269
Dyer, J., Gregersen, H., & Christensen, C. (2013). The innovator's DNA: Mastering the five skills
of disruptive innovators. Harvard Business Press.
Eccles, J. S. (2005). Subjective task value and the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related
choices. Handbook of competence and motivation, 105-121.
Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams.
Administrative science quarterly, 44(2), 350-383.
Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and
purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1-4.
Farkas, G., Grobe, R. P., Sheehan, D., & Shuan, Y. (1990). Cultural Resources and School
Success: Gender, Ethnicity, and Poverty Groups within an Urban School
District. American Sociological Review, 55(1), 127.
Fennema, E., Peterson, P. L., Carpenter, T. P., & Lubinski, C. A. (1990). Teachers' attributions
and beliefs about girls, boys, and mathematics. Educational Studies in
Mathematics, 21(1), 55-69.
Ferguson, R. F. (1991). Paying for public education: New evidence on how and why money
matters. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 28(2), 465.
Finn, J. D., Pannozzo, G. M., & Voelkl, K. E. (1995). Disruptive and inattentive-withdrawn
behavior and achievement among fourth graders. The Elementary School Journal, 95(5),
421-434.
Ford, D. Y., Grantham, T. C., & Whiting, G. W. (2008). Another look at the achievement gap:
Learning from the experiences of gifted Black students. Urban Education, 43(2), 216-
239.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 270
Fordham, S., & Ogbu, J. U. (1986). Black students' school success: Coping with the “burden of
‘acting white’”. The urban review, 18(3), 176-206.
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Frey, W. H. (2014). Diversity explosion: How new racial demographics are remaking America.
Brookings Institution Press.
Fry, R. (2007). How far behind in math and reading are English language learners?
Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.
Fullan, M. G. (1993). Why teachers must become change agents. Educational leadership, 50, 12-
12.
Gardner, D. P., Larsen, Y. W., Baker, W., Campbell, A., & Crosby, E. A. (1983). A nation at
risk: The imperative for educational reform (p. 65). United States Department of
Education.
Garvin, D. A., Edmondson, A. C., & Gino, F. (2008). Is yours a learning organization? Harvard
business review, 86(3), 109.
Gay, G. (1975). Organizing and designing culturally pluralistic curriculum. Educational
Leadership, 33(3), 176.
Gay, G. (2002). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher
Education, 53(2), 106-116.
Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. Teachers
College Press.
Gay, G. (2013). Teaching to and through cultural diversity. Curriculum Inquiry, 43(1), 48-70.
Gay, G., & Kirkland, K. (2003). Developing cultural critical consciousness and self-reflection in
preservice teacher education. Theory into practice, 42(3), 181-187.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 271
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational
Psychologist, 36(1), 45-56.
Gehsmann, K. M., & Woodside-Jiron, H. (2005). Becoming more effective in the age of
accountability: A high-poverty school narrows the literacy achievement gap.
In YEARBOOK NATIONAL READING CONFERENCE (Vol. 54, p. 182).
Georgiou, S. N., Christou, C., Stavrinides, P., & Panaoura, G. (2002). Teacher attributions of
student failure and teacher behavior toward the failing student. Psychology in the
Schools, 39(5), 583-595.
Glaser, C., & Brunstein, J. C. (2007). Improving fourth-grade students' composition skills:
Effects of strategy instruction and self-regulation procedures. Journal of educational
psychology, 99(2), 297.
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Boston, MA:
Pearson. Chapter 6, pp. 162-183.
Goldring, E. & Berends, M. (2009). Leading with data: Pathways to improve your school.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Goldring, R., Taie, S., & Riddles, M. (2014). Teacher Attrition and Mobility: Results from the
2012-13 Teacher Follow-Up Survey. First Look. NCES 2014-077. National Center for
Education Statistics.
Gottfredson, L.S. (1997). Mainstream science on intelligence: An editorial with 52 signatories,
history, and bibliography. Intelligence, 24 (1), 13-23. Doi:10.1016/S0160-
2896(97)90011-8.
Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (2004). Teaching reading. The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 272
Graham, S. (1990). Communicating low ability in the classroom: Bad things good teachers
sometimes do. In S. Graham & V. Folkes (Eds.), Attribution theory: Applications to
achievement, mental health and interpersonal conflict. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Greenwald, R., Hedges, L. V., & Laine, R. D. (1996). The effect of school resources on student
achievement. Review of educational research, 66(3), 361-396.
Grimmett, P. P., & Mackinnon, A. M. (1992). Chapter 9: Craft Knowledge and the Education of
Teachers. Review of research in education, 18(1), 385-456.
Gronn, P. (2003). The new work of educational leaders: Changing leadership practice in an era
of school reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Gudmundsdottir, S. (1987). Pedagogical content knowledge: teachers' ways of knowing. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
Washington, D.C. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service NO. ED 290 701)
Guskey, T. R. (1982). Differences in teachers' perceptions of personal control of positive versus
negative student learning outcomes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 7(1), 70-80.
Hamilton, S. L., Seibert, M. A., Gardner, R., & Talbert-Johnson, C. (2000). Using guided notes
to improve the academic achievement of incarcerated adolescents with learning and
behavior problems. Remedial and Special Education, 21(3), 133-170.
Hanushek, E. A. (1996). School resources and student performance. Does money matter? The
effect of school resources on student achievement and adult success, 43-73.
Hanushek, E. A. (1997). Assessing the effects of school resources on student performance: An
update. Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 19(2), 141-164.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 273
Hanushek, E. A. (2009). Teacher deselection. Creating a new teaching profession, 168, 172-173.
Hanushek, E., A. & Rivkin, S. G. (2010). Generalizations about Using Value-Added Measures of
Teacher Quality. The American Economic Review, 100(2), 267-271. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/stable/27805002
Harris, D. N., & Herrington, C. D. (2006). Accountability, standards, and the growing
achievement gap: Lessons from the past half-century. American Journal of
Education, 112(2), 209-238.
Hart, J. E., & Lee, O. (2003). Teacher professional development to improve the science and
literacy achievement of English language learners. Bilingual Research Journal, 27(3),
475-501.
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible Learning for Teachers: Maximizing Impact on Learning. New York:
Routledge.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of educational
research,77(1), 81-112.
Hauke, J., & Kossowski, T. (2011). Comparison of values of Pearson's and Spearman's
correlation coefficients on the same sets of data. Quaestiones geographicae, 30(2), 87.
Hawley, W., & Sykes, G. (2007). Continuous school improvement. In W. Hawley (Ed.), The
keys to effective schools: Educational reform as continuous improvement (pp. 153–172).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
Hays, P. S. (2013). Narrowing the gap: Three key dimensions of site-based leadership in four
Boston charter public schools. Education and Urban Society, 45(1), 37-87.
Henderlong, J., & Lepper, M. R. (2002). The effects of praise on children's intrinsic motivation:
a review and synthesis. Psychological bulletin, 128(5), 774.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 274
Henning, J. E. (2006). Teacher leaders at work: Analyzing standardized achievement data to
improve instruction. Education, 126(4), 729.
Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (2010). Bell curve: Intelligence and class structure in American
life. Simon and Schuster.
Higgins, E. T. (2007). Value. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. Tory Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of social
psychology (2nd ed., pp. 454–472). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Hill, H. C., Ball, D. L., & Schilling, S. G. (2008). Unpacking pedagogical content knowledge:
Conceptualizing and measuring teachers' topic-specific knowledge of students. Journal
for research in mathematics education, 372-400.
Hlas, A., & Hildebrandt, S. (2010). Demonstrations of pedagogical content knowledge: Spanish
Liberal Arts and Spanish Education majors' writing. L2 Journal, 2(1).
Hofferth, S. L., & Sandberg, J. F. (2001). How American children spend their time. Journal of
Marriage and Family, 63(2), 295-308.
Hong, E. (2001). Homework style, homework environment, and academic achievement.
Learning Environments Research, 4(1), 7-23.
Howard, T. C. (2003). Culturally relevant pedagogy: Ingredients for critical teacher reflection.
Theory into practice, 42(3), 195-202.
Hsu, Y. S. (2008). Learning about seasons in a technologically enhanced environment: The
impact of teacher-guided and student-centered instructional approaches on the process of
students' conceptual change. Science Education, 92(2), 320-344.
Hull, G. A. (2003) Youth culture and digital media: new literacies for new times. Research in the
Teaching of English, 38(2).
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 275
Irvine, J. J. (2003). Educating teachers for diversity: Seeing with a cultural eye (Vol. 15).
Teachers College Press.
Jarvis, P. (1999). The Practitioner-Researcher. Developing Theory from Practice. Jossey-Bass
Higher and Adult Education Series. Jossey-Bass Publishers, 350 Sansome St., San
Francisco, CA 94104.
Jenkins, A. (2009). Bridging the Racial Opportunity Gap. National Civic Review, 98(3), 9-13.
Jensen, A. R. (1968). Social Class, Race, and Genetics: Implications for Education. American
Educational Research Journal, 5(1), 1-42.
Jensen, A. (1969). How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement? Harvard
educational review, 39(1), 1-123.
Jeynes, W. H. (1999). The effects of religious commitment on the academic achievement of
black and Hispanic children. Urban Education, 34(4), 458-479.
Jeynes, W. H. (2005). The relationship between urban students attending religious revival
services and academic and social outcomes. Education and urban society, 38(1), 3-20.
Jeynes, W. H. (2010). Religiosity, religious schools, and their relationship with the achievement
gap: A research synthesis and meta-analysis. The Journal of Negro Education, 263-279.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and
theoretical perspectives. Handbook of personality: Theory and research, 2(1999), 102-
138.
John-Steiner, V., & Mahn, H. (1996). Sociocultural approaches to learning and development: A
Vygotskian framework. Educational psychologist, 31(3-4), 191-206.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 276
Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and
psychological measurement, 20(1), 141-151.
Kane, T. J., McCaffrey, D. F., Miller, T., & Staiger, D. O. (2013). Have We Identified Effective
Teachers? Validating Measures of Effective Teaching Using Random Assignment.
Research Paper. MET Project. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Kirkpatrick, J. D., & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016). Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation.
Alexandria, VA: ATD Press.
Klassen, R. M., & Tze, V. M. (2014). Teachers’ self-efficacy, personality, and teaching
effectiveness: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 12, 59-76.
Klem, A. M., & Connell, J. P. (2004). Relationships matter: Linking teacher support to student
engagement and achievement. The Journal of School Health, 74(7), 262-73.
Koh, K. H. (2011). Improving teachers’ assessment literacy through professional
development. Teaching Education, 22 (2015), 255-276.
Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloomʼs Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into
Practice, 41(4), 212-218.
Kroese, J. M., Mather, N., & Sammons, J. (2006). The relationship between nonword spelling
abilities of K-3 teachers and student spelling outcomes. Learning Disabilities: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(2), 85-89.
Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2006). What matters to
student success: A review of the literature. In Commissioned report for the national
symposium on postsecondary student success: Spearheading a dialog on student success.
Kukla-Acevedo, S. (2009). Leavers, movers, and stayers: The role of workplace conditions in
teacher mobility decisions. The Journal of Educational Research, 102(6), 443-452.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 277
Kurpius, S. E. R., & Stafford, M. E. (2005). Testing and measurement: A user-friendly guide.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American
children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American
educational research journal, 32(3), 465-491.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding
achievement in US schools. Educational researcher, 35(7), 3-12.
Laidra, K., Pullmann, H., & Allik, J. (2007). Personality and intelligence as predictors of
academic achievement: A cross-sectional study from elementary to secondary
school. Personality and individual differences, 42(3), 441-451.
Lambert, L. (2002). A framework for shared leadership. Educational leadership, 59(8), 37-40.
Lane, H. B., Hudson, R. F., Leite, W. L., Kosanovich, M. L., Strout, M. T., Fenty, N. S., &
Wright, T. L. (2008). Teacher knowledge about reading fluency and indicators of
students' fluency growth in Reading First Schools. Reading & Writing
Quarterly, 25(March 2015), 57-86.
Lankshear, C., Bigum, C., Durrant, C., Green, B., Honan, E., Murray, J., Synder, I., & Wild, M.
(1997). Digital rhetorics: Literacies and technologies in classrooms: Current practices and
future directions.
Lauer, P. A., Akiba, M., Wilkerson, S. B., Apthorp, H. S., Snow, D., & Martin-Glenn, M. L.
(2006). Out-of-School-Time Programs: A Meta-Analysis of Effects for At-Risk
Students. Review of Educational Research, 76(2), 275-313.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 278
Lavrakas, P. J. (2008). Target population. In Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods: AM
(Vol. 1). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Lears, T. J. (1985). The concept of cultural hegemony: Problems and possibilities. The American
Historical Review, 567-593.
Lee, V. E., & Bryk, A. S. (1988). Curriculum tracking as mediating the social distribution of
high school achievement. Sociology of Education, 78-94.
Lee, V. E., Croninger, R. G., & Smith, J. B. (1997). Course-taking, equity, and mathematics
learning: Testing the constrained curriculum hypothesis in US secondary
schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 99-121.
Lee, V. E., & Burkam, D. T. (2002). Inequality at the starting gate: Social background
differences in achievement as children begin school. Economic Policy Institute, 1660 L
Street, NW, Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20036.
Leinhardt, G. (1990). Capturing craft knowledge in teaching. Educational researcher, 19(2), 18-
25.
Leithwood, K. A., & Riehl, C. (2003). What we know about successful school leadership.
Nottingham: National College for School Leadership.
Lewin, K. (1938). The conceptual representation and the measurement of psychological forces.
Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Louis, K. S., & Miles, M. B. (1991). Improving the urban high school: What works and why.
NASSP Bulletin, 75(534), 117-119.
Luft, J., & Ingham, H. (1961). The Johari Window. Human Relations Training News, 5(1), 6-7.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 279
Lutkus, A., Grigg, W., & Donahue, P. (2007). The Nation's Report Card [TM]: Trial Urban
District Assessment--Reading 2007. NCES 2008-455. National Center for Education
Statistics.
Marbach-Ad, G., Rotbain, Y., & Stavy, R. (2008). Using computer animation and illustration
activities to improve high school students' achievement in molecular genetics. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 45(3), 273-292.
Marsh, J. A., & Farrell, C. C. (2015). How leaders can support teachers with data-driven decision
making: A framework for understanding capacity building. Educational Management
Administration & Leadership, 43(2), 269-289. doi:10.1177/1741143214537229
Marzano, R. J., Pickering, D., & Pollock, J. E. (2001). Classroom instruction that works:
Research-based strategies for increasing student achievement. Ascd.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach: An Interactive
Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
McGraw, R., Lubienski, S., & Strutchens, M. (2006). A Closer Look at Gender in NAEP
Mathematics Achievement and Affect Data: Intersections with Achievement,
Race/Ethnicity, and Socioeconomic Status. Journal for Research in Mathematics
Education, 37(2), 129-150. Retrieved from
http://www.jstor.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/stable/30034845
McIntosh, P. (1988). White privilege: Unpacking the invisible knapsack. Excerpt from White
Privilege and Male Privilege: A Personal Account of coming to see Correspondences
through Work in Women’s Studies. Wellesley College Center for Research on Women.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 280
McKown, C., & Strambler, M. J. (2008). Social influences on the ethnic achievement
gap. Handbook of race, racism, and the developing child, 366-396.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. John Wiley & Sons.
Mertler, C. A. (1999). Assessing student performance: A descriptive study of the classroom
assessment practices of Ohio teachers. Education, 120(2), 285-296.
Miech, R. A., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., Wright, B. R. E., & Silva, P. A. (1999). Low
socioeconomic status and mental disorders: a longitudinal study of selection and
causation during young adulthood. American journal of Sociology, 104(4), 1096-1131.
Milner, H. R. (2010a). Start where you are, but don't stay there: Understanding diversity,
opportunity gaps, and teaching in today's classrooms. Harvard Education Press. 8 Story
Street First Floor, Cambridge, MA 02138.
Milner, H. R. (2010b). What does teacher education have to do with teaching? Implications for
diversity studies. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1-2), 118-131.
Milner, H.R. (2012). But What is Urban Education? Urban Education., 47(3), 556-561.
Milner, H. R. (2015). Rac (e) ing to Class: Confronting Poverty and Race in Schools and
Classrooms. Harvard Education Press. 8 Story Street First Floor, Cambridge, MA 02138.
Moats, L. C. (1994). The missing foundation in teacher education: Knowledge of the structure of
spoken and written language. Annals of Dyslexia, 44(1), 81-102.
Moore, E. G. (1986). Family socialization and the IQ test performance of traditionally and
transracially adopted Black children. Developmental Psychology, 22(3), 317.
Motivation. (2010). In New Oxford American Dictionary.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 281
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (US). (1991). What Teachers Should Know
and Be Able To Do. National Board for Professional Teaching Standards.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2009). Achievement gaps: how Black and White
students in public schools perform in mathematics and reading on the National
Assessment of Educational Progress. (NCES 2009-455). Institute of Education Sciences,
U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Achievement gaps: how Hispanic and White
students in public schools perform in mathematics and reading on the National
Assessment of Educational Progress. (NCES 2011-459). Institute of Education Sciences,
U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2011a). The nation’s report card: Science 2011,
national assessment of educational progress at grade 8. (NCES 2012-465). Institute of
Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2011b). The nation’s report card: Mathematics 2011
(NCES 2012-458). Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education,
Washington, DC.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2011c). The nation’s report card: Reading 2011 (NCES
2012-457). Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington,
DC. Retrieved from http://www.utofp.org/FormsandDocuments/NoDreamDenied.pdf
National Center for Education Statistics. (2012). The nation’s report card: trends in academic
progress 2012. (NCES 2013-456). Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of
Education, Washington, DC.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 282
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral
Research. (1978). The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the
Protection of Human Subjects of Research-the National Commission for the Protection of
Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. US Government Printing
Office.
Neumann, J. W. (2013). Critical pedagogy’s problem with changing teachers’ dispositions
towards critical teaching. Interchange, 44(1-2), 129-147.
Nieto, S. (2005). Public education in the twentieth century and beyond: High hopes, broken
promises, and an uncertain future. Harvard Educational Review, 75(1), 43-64.
Nieto, S. (2015). The light in their eyes: Creating multicultural learning communities. Teachers
College Press.
Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping Track: how schools structure inequality. New Haven, CT, Yale
University Press.
Obama, B. (2009). Change we can believe in: Barack Obama's plan to renew America's promise.
Canongate Books.
O’Brennan, L. M., Bradshaw, C. P., & Furlong, M. J. (2014). Influence of classroom and school
climate on teacher perceptions of student problem behavior. School mental health, 6(2),
125-136.
Odden, A., Borman, G., & Fermanich, M. (2004). Assessing teacher, classroom, and school
effects, including fiscal effects. Peabody Journal of Education, 79(4), 4-32.
Pahl, K., & Rowsell, J. (2005) Literacy and Education: Understanding the New Literacy Studies
in the Classroom. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 283
Parcel, T. L., & Dufur, M. J. (2001). Capital at home and at school: Effects on student
achievement. Social forces, 79(3), 881-911.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications.
Perlmann, J. (1989). Ethnic differences: Schooling and social structure among the Irish, Italians,
Jews, and Blacks in an American city, 1880-1935. Cambridge University Press.
Phillips, G., McNaughton, S., & MacDonald, S. (2004). Managing the Mismatch: Enhancing
Early Literacy Progress for Children with Diverse Language and Cultural Identities in
Mainstream Urban Schools in New Zealand. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2),
309.
Pintrich, P. R. (2002). The role of metacognitive knowledge in learning, teaching, and
assessing. Theory Into Practice, 41(4), 219-225.
Pintrich, P.R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in
learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4) 667.
Plake, B. S. (1993) Teacher assessment literacy: Teachers’ competencies in the educational
assessment of students. Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 6(2), 21–7
Planty, M., Hussar, W., Snyder, T., Provasnik, S., Kena, G., Dinkes, R., Kewal Ramani, A., &
Kemp, J. (2008). The condition of education 2008 (NCES 2008-031). National Center for
Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, US Department of Education.
Washington, DC.
Popham, J. W. (2011). Assessment literacy overlooked: A teacher educator's confession. Teacher
Educator, 46(4), 265-273.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 284
Prawat, R. S., Byers, J. L., & Anderson, A. H. (1983). An attributional analysis of teachers’
affective reactions to student success and failure. American Educational Research
Journal, 20(1), 137-152.
Ravitch, D. (2016). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and
choice are undermining education. Basic Books.
Reissman, F. (1962). The culturally deprived child. New York: Harper & Row.
Rivet, A. E., & Krajcik, J. S. (2004). Achieving standards in urban systemic reform: An example
of a sixth-grade project-based science curriculum. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 41(7), 669-692.
Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). Teachers, schools, and academic
achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 417-458.
Robinson, V. M. J., Lloyd, C. A., & Rowe, K. J. (2008). The impact of leadership on student
outcomes: An analysis of the differential effects of leadership types. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 44(5), 635-674. doi:10.1177/0013161X08321509
Rodriguez, A. J. (1998). Strategies for counterresistance: Toward sociotransformative
constructivism and learning to teach science for diversity and for understanding. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 35(6), 589-622.
Rodriguez, A. J. (2001). From gap gazing to promising cases: Moving toward equity in urban
education reform. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 38(10), 1115-1129.
Rodriguez, A. J., & Berryman, C. (2002). Using sociotransformative constructivism to teach for
understanding in diverse classrooms: A beginning teacher’s journey. American
Educational Research Journal, 39(4), 1017-1045.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 285
Rodriguez, A. J., Collins-Parks, T., & Garza, J. (2013). Interpreting research on parent
involvement and connecting it to the science classroom. Theory into practice, 52(1), 51-
58.
Rodriguez, A. J., Zozakiewicz, C., & Yerrick, R. (2005). Using prompted praxis to improve
teacher professional development in culturally diverse schools. School Science and
Mathematics, 105(7), 352-362.
Ross, T., Kena, G., Rathbun, A., KewalRamani, A., Zang, J., Kristapovich, P., & Manning, E.
(2012). Higher Education: Gaps in Access and Persistence Study (NCES 2012-
046). National Center for Postsecondary Education Statistics, (August), 1-329.
Roth, J., Crans, G. G., Carter, R. L., Ariet, M., & Resnick, M. B. (2000). Effect of high school
course-taking and grades on passing a college placement test. The High School
Journal, 84(2), 72-87.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Chapter 6, pp. 85-92.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance: Finding the right
solutions to the right problems. New York: Teachers College Press.
Rushton, J. P., & Jensen, A. R. (2005). Thirty years of research on race differences in cognitive
ability. Psychology, public policy, and law, 11(2), 235.
Russell, T. (2015). Teacher Craft Knowledge. In Encyclopedia of Science Education (pp. 1021-
1023). Springer Netherlands.
Ryan, W. (1976). Blaming the victim. New York: Vintage Books.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 286
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2009). Promoting self-determined school engagement: Motivation,
learning, and well-being in school. In K. R. Wentze 1 & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of
motivation at school (pp.171-196). New York, NY: Routledge.
Ryan, K., & Shepard, L. (2010). The future of test-based educational accountability. Routledge.
Salkind, N. J. (2016). Statistics for people who (think they) hate statistics. Sage Publications.
Scarr, S., & Weinberg, R. A. (1976). IQ test performance of Black children adopted by White
families. American Psychologist, 31(10), 726.
Schaefer, L., Downey, C. A., & Clandinin, D. J. (2014). Shifting from stories to live by to stories
to leave by: Early career teacher attrition. Teacher Education Quarterly, 41(1), 9-27.
Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (Vol. 2). John Wiley & Sons.
Schlechty, P. C. (2011). Leading for learning: How to transform schools into learning
organizations. John Wiley & Sons.
Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., Houang, R. T., Wang, H., Wiley, D. E., Cogan, L. S., &
Wolfe, R. G. (2001). Why Schools Matter: A Cross-National Comparison of Curriculum
and Learning. The Jossey-Bass Education Series. Jossey-Bass, 989 Market Street, San
Francisco, CA 94103-1741.
Schneider, B., Brief, A. P., & Guzzo, R. A. (1996). Creating a climate and culture for sustainable
organizational change. Organizational dynamics, 24(4), 7-19.
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching
and learning in the professions. Jossey-Bass.
Schunk, D. H., & Pajares, F. (2005). Competence perceptions and academic
functioning. Handbook of competence and motivation, 85, 104.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 287
Schunk, D.H., Pintrich, P.R., & Meece, J. L. (2009) Motivation in education: Theory, research,
and application. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
Schunk, D. H., & Usher, E. L. (2012). Social Cognitive Theory. The Oxford Handbook of
Human Motivation.
Schwartz, W. (2001). Closing the Achievement Gap: Principles for Improving the Educational
Success of All Students. ERIC Digest. Retrieved from https://eric-ed-
gov.libproxy1.usc.edu/?id=ED460191
School Accountability Report Card (SARC). (2014-2015, Published in 2015-16). Retrieved from
school district’s website (hidden to protect site and participant anonymity).
Senge, P. M. (2006). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization.
Broadway Business.
Senge, P. M., Cambron-McCabe, N., Lucas, T., Smith, B., & Dutton, J. (2012). Schools that
learn (updated and revised): A fifth discipline fieldbook for educators, parents, and
everyone who cares about education. Crown Business.
Shirbagi, N. (2007). Feedback in formative evaluation and its effects on a one sample of Iranian
Primary Students' Achievement in Science. Pedagogika, (88), 99-105.
Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
researcher, 15(2), 4-31.
Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
educational review, 57(1), 1-23.
Shulman, L.S. (2012). PCK summit keynote address: PCK reflections after 25 years [livestream
lecture]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZjmYvfrYSE
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 288
Sirin, S. R. (2005). Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of
research. Review of educational research, 75(3), 417-453.
Siwatu, K. O. (2007). Preservice teachers’ culturally responsive teaching self-efficacy and
outcome expectancy beliefs. Teaching and teacher education, 23(7), 1086-1101.
Smith, B. (1998). It's about Time: Opportunities to Learn in Chicago's Elementary Schools.
Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
Smith, T. M., Desimone, L. M., & Ueno, K. (2005). “Highly qualified” to do what? The
relationship between NCLB teacher quality mandates and the use of reform-oriented
instruction in middle school mathematics. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
27(1), 75-109.
Smith, P. S., Trygstad, P. J., & Banilower, E. R. (2016). Widening the gap: Unequal distribution
of resources for K–12 science instruction. education policy analysis archives, 24, 8.
Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition:
Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of educational research,
72(3), 387-431.
Spring, J. (2016). Deculturalization and the struggle for equality: A brief history of the education
of dominated cultures in the United States. Routledge.
Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of
African Americans. Journal of personality and social psychology, 69(5), 797.
Stiegelbauer, S. (1992). Why we want to be teachers: New teachers talk about their reasons for
entering the profession. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, San Francisco.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 289
Stiggins, R. J. (1995). Assessment literacy for the 21st century. The Phi Delta Kappan, 77(3),
238–245.
Stone, M. K. (2010). A schooling for sustainability framework. Teacher Education Quarterly,
37(4), 33-46.
Subramaniam, K., & Esprívalo Harrell, P. (2015). An analysis of prospective teachers'
knowledge for constructing concept maps. Educational Research, 57(3), 217.
Summers, J. J., Davis, H. A., & Hoy, A. W. (2017). The effects of teachers' efficacy beliefs on
students' perceptions of teacher relationship quality. Learning and Individual
Differences, 53, 17-25.
Swidler, A. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American sociological review,
273-286.
Tallaferro, A. (2011). It Is Simple, But Not Easy-Culturally Responsive Leadership and Social
Capital: A Framework for Closing the Opportunity Gap. Academic Leadership, 9(4), 1-7.
Tavakol, M., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. International journal of
medical education, 2, 53.
Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P. D., Peterson, D. S., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2005). The CIERA School
Change Framework: An evidence-based approach to professional development and
school reading improvement. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(1), 40-69. Retrieved from
http://doi.wiley.com/10.1598/RRQ.40.1.3
Teitelbaum, P. (2003). The influence of high school graduation requirement policies in
mathematics and science on student course-taking patterns and achievement. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(1), 31-57.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 290
Thapa, A., Cohen, J., Guffey, S., & Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (2013). A review of school
climate research. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 357-385.
Tolman, E. C. (1932). Purposive behavior in animals and men. New York, NY: Appleton-
Century-Crofts.
Tschannen-Moran, M., Hoy, A. W., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and
measure. Review of educational research, 68(2), 202-248.
Uhlenberg, J., & Brown, K. M. (2002). Racial gap in teachers’ perceptions of the achievement
gap. Education and Urban Society, 34(4), 493-530.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2001). Mental Health: Culture, Race, and
Ethnicity—A Supplement to Mental Health: A Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville,
MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration, Center for Mental Health Services.
Value. (2010). In New Oxford American Dictionary.
Volante, L., & Fazio, X. (2007). Exploring teacher candidates' assessment literacy: Implications
for teacher education reform and professional development. Canadian Journal of
Education / Revue Canadienne De L'éducation, 30(3), 749–770.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1980). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Harvard university press.
Wang, L., Bruce, C., & Hughes, H. (2011). Sociocultural theories and their application in
information literacy research and education. Australian Academic & Research
Libraries, 42(4), 296-308.
Wang, M. C., & Gordon, E. W. (Eds.). (1994). Educational resilience in inner-city America:
Challenges and prospects. Routledge.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 291
Wang, M. C., Haertel, G. D., & Walberg, H. J. (1993). Toward a knowledge base for school
learning. Review of educational research, 63(3), 249-294.
Ward, J. D., & Lee, C. L. (2004). Teaching strategies for FCS: Student achievement in problem-
based learning versus lecture-based instruction. Journal of Family and Consumer
Sciences, 96(1), 73.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion.
Psychological Review, 92(4), 548-573. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/6
14311182?accountid=14749
Weiner, B. (1992). Human motivation: Metaphors, theories, and research. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications.
Weiner, B. (2005). Motivation from an attribution perspective and the social psychology of
perceived competence. Handbook of competence and motivation, 73-84.
Wheatley, M. (1992). Leadership and the new science. San Francisco, CA: Berrett Koehler
Publishers.
Wigfield, A., & Cambria, J. (2010). Students’ achievement values, goal orientations, and
interest: Definitions, development, and relations to achievement outcomes.
Developmental Review, 30(1), 1-35.
Yeh, S. S. (2005). Limiting the unintended consequences of high-stakes testing. education policy
analysis archives, 13, 43.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publications.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 292
Yong, A. G., & Pearce, S. (2013). A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: Focusing on exploratory
factor analysis. Tutorials in quantitative methods for psychology, 9(2), 79-94.
Zee, M., & Koomen, H. M. (2016). Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on classroom processes,
student academic adjustment, and teacher well-being: A synthesis of 40 years of
research. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 981-1015.
Zillow (2016). Retrieved from http://www.zillow.com/
Zmuda, A., Kuklis, R., & Kline, E. (2004). Transforming schools: Creating a culture of
continuous improvement. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 293
Appendix A
Informed Consent/Information Sheet
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway
Los Angeles, CA 90089
3470 Trousdale Pkwy, Los Angeles, CA 90089
A STUDY INTO THE FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE TEACHER PERFORMANCE AT
A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Joel I. Tapia, M.A., Doctoral
Candidate, under the guidance of Jenifer Crawford, Ph.D., faculty advisor, at the University of
Southern California, because you are a general education classroom teacher working at a U.S.
public school that is experiencing achievement gaps for groups of students. Your participation is
voluntary. You should read the information below, and ask questions about anything you do not
understand, before deciding whether to participate.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
Research shows that many non-school and school-related factors contribute to the achievement
of students, especially in the important area of reading. It is also commonly understood that in
this context, classroom teachers like yourself play a major role in developing student readers.
This study, then, seeks as its major purpose to examine your perceptions, beliefs, and
experiences related to the factors that most influence (help and hinder) your performance related
to developing proficient readers. Based on the study’s findings, the researcher will make
research-based and teacher-supported recommendations for strategies that you and your school
can implement to reduce reading achievement gaps for students.
STUDY PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to complete a one-time, twenty-
minute online survey. Survey questions will gather brief demographic data and then will focus
on identifying factors that you believe most influence your ability to develop proficient readers.
If you choose, you can clarify any response by commenting in the item text box. You will
receive the survey via an email link, and all responses will be anonymous. If you are interested in
participating in a follow-up personal interview, you can click a link at the end of the survey that
will redirect you to a separate online form where you can provide your name and contact
information.
If you are selected for a personal interview, an audio recorder will be used to record your
responses for more accurate retrieval and analysis of your responses. The independent data
collector will conduct the interview to provide anonymity in terms of protecting your identity in
INFORMATION/FACTS SHEET FOR EXEMPT NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 294
connection to your responses. If you do not want to be audio recorded, handwritten notes will be
taken, which you will have full access to review and edit after its completion. If you do allow
audio recording, a transcript of the recording will be completed, which similarly you will have
full access to review and edit. As a reminder, at any time, you may choose to change your mind
about being recorded or having your interview used for the study, and you may choose to
withdraw your participation from the study.
POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no anticipated risks, discomforts, or inconveniences associated with this study.
POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
The direct benefit for you in participating in the study is that you will receive specific
organizational support based on the findings of the study to support your work as a teacher in
developing proficient readers. The anticipated benefit to society is students who transform from
nonreaders to readers because of post-study interventions will most likely become larger and
more effective contributors to a healthy social and economic U.S. society.
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
Participation in this study is completely voluntary. However, if you do choose to participate, you
will receive a $10 gift card as a token of gratitude for your time. The $10 card will be delivered
electronically to your personal email at the end of the study. Furthermore, all participants in the
study will be entered in a drawing to win a $50 gift card. There will be three persons randomly
drawn and selected for this prize. The drawing will be held at the end of the study. The winner of
the $50 gift card will be notified, and will receive the prize, electronically via email.
CONFIDENTIALITY
We will keep your records for this study confidential as far as permitted by law. However, if we
are required to do so by law, we will disclose confidential information about you. The members
of the research team and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection
Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to
protect the rights and welfare of research subjects.
If you permit audio recording, you will have the right to review/edit the audio recording and/or
transcripts. The only individuals having access to the transcripts other than you are the principal
researcher, the faculty advisor, the independent data collector, and the hired transcriber. No
identifiable information will be obtained in connection to this study. Your interview responses
will be coded with a pseudonym. The audio recordings will be destroyed once they have been
transcribed. All transcripts will be stored securely: physical copies will be kept under lock and
key; digital copies will be securely stored on a computer using password protected encrypted
data for three years after the study has been completed, and then destroyed.
PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your participation is voluntary. Your refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss of
benefits to which you are otherwise entitled. You may withdraw your consent at any time and
discontinue participation without penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or
remedies because of your participation in this research study.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 295
ALTERNATIVES TO PARTICIPATION
Your alternative is to not participate. Your relationship with your employer will not be affected
in any possible manner, whether you participate or not in this study.
INVESTIGATOR’S CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please feel free to contact the Principal
Investigator, Joel I. Tapia, M.A., Doctoral Candidate, via email at joeltapi@usc.edu or by phone
at (619) 952-2855. Also, you can reach the Faculty Advisor, Dr. Jenifer Crawford, at
jenifercrawford@gmail.com or by phone at (530) 519-4085 (cell –normal business hours). Office
location: USC Downtown, 1150 S. Olive Street, 21st Floor, Room 2118.
RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the
research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to someone
independent of the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional Review Board
(UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or
upirb@usc.edu
SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT
I have read the information provided above. I have been given a chance to ask questions. My
questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have
been given a copy of this form.
AUDIO
□ I agree to be audio-recorded
□ I do not want to be audio-recorded
Name of Participant
Signature of Participant Date
SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR
I have explained the research to the participant and answered all of his/her questions. I believe
that he/she understands the information described in this document and freely consents to
participate.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 296
Name of Person Obtaining Consent
Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 297
Appendix B
Recruitment Letter - Teacher Survey
November 1, 2017
Dear Teacher,
Joel I. Tapia, a doctoral candidate with the Rossier School of Education at the University
of Southern California, is conducting a study into the factors that influence teacher performance
related to developing proficient readers.
One component of the study is to collect teacher responses to an online survey with 60
items. The survey should take no more than twenty minutes to complete. Your responses will
be anonymous. You may discontinue participation in the survey at any time.
The direct benefit to you of participating in this study is that your responses will help the
school organization to better serve and support teachers related to this topic. You will also
receive a $10 gift card as a token of appreciation for your participation. Additionally, you will be
placed in a raffle to be conducted at the end of the study with the possibility of winning one of
two $50 gift cards.
At the end of the survey, there will be a link which will direct you to a google form where
you can list your name if you are interested in participating in one of four personal interviews
during the fall of 2017. After reviewing and signing the attached Informed Consent Sheet,
please click on the link provided to complete the survey.
LINK
Thank you!
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 298
Appendix C
Survey Protocol and Instrument
Teacher Perceptions of Factors that Influence Teacher Performance in Reading
'Developing Proficient Readers' Factors Survey
A STUDY INTO THE FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE TEACHER PERFORMANCE
RELATED TO DEVELOPING PROFICIENT READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY SCHOOL
Introduction
SURVEY
According to research, there are many factors, non-school and school-related, that potentially
contribute to student performance. This study focuses on what is influencing (i.e. helping and/or
hindering) teachers’ performance, in light of all these factors, related to developing proficient
readers among students from diverse backgrounds at a high-poverty school.
For example, at this school site, students are struggling to read proficiently by the end-of-3rd
grade. What could be contributing to this phenomenon?
Please note that participation is strictly voluntary. Your responses are completely anonymous.
There are no consequences for not participating or not answering a question. There are no wrong
or right answers. Give the answers which describe how you generally think.
All item responses include an optional comment box, where you can explain/elaborate on your
response if you choose to.
Thank you for participating!
Section 1 TEACHER DEMOGRAPHICS
Please answer the following items about yourself to the best of your ability.
Q1 My gender is
Male (1) ________________________________________________
Female (2) ________________________________________________
Other (3) ________________________________________________
Q2 I have been teaching for
1-5 Years (1) ________________________________________________
6-10 Years (2) ________________________________________________
11-15 Years (3) ________________________________________________
16-20 Years (4) ________________________________________________
21-25 Years (5) ________________________________________________
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 299
26-30 Years (6) ________________________________________________
30+ Years (7) ________________________________________________
Q3 I have taught in the following grade levels:
Select all that apply
Transitional Kindergarten (1) ________________________________________________
Kindergarten (2) ________________________________________________
First Grade (3) ________________________________________________
Second Grade (4) ________________________________________________
Third Grade (5) ________________________________________________
Fourth Grade (6) ________________________________________________
Fifth Grade (7) ________________________________________________
Sixth Grade (8) ________________________________________________
Seventh Grade (9) ________________________________________________
Eight Grade (10) ________________________________________________
Other (11) ________________________________________________
Q4 I teach in the Dual-Language program
Yes (1) ________________________________________________
No (2) ________________________________________________
Q5 I have only taught in this school district (do not include preservice or substitute teaching
experience)
Yes (1) ________________________________________________
No (2) ________________________________________________
Q6 I understand and speak the following languages fluently:
Select all that apply
English (1) ________________________________________________
Spanish (2) ________________________________________________
Other (3) ________________________________________________
Q7 I consider myself to be multicultural
Yes (1) ________________________________________________
No (2) ________________________________________________
Q8 I have specialized training in multicultural education
Yes (1) ________________________________________________
No (2) ________________________________________________
Q9 I have specialized graduate-level training in the area of reading/language arts
Yes (1) ________________________________________________
No (2) ________________________________________________
Q10 I have a master's degree or higher in education
Yes (1) ________________________________________________
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 300
No (2) ________________________________________________
Q11 I have considered leaving the teaching profession due to "burn-out"
Strongly disagree (1) ________________________________________________
Disagree (2) ________________________________________________
Agree (3) ________________________________________________
Strongly agree (4) ________________________________________________
Q12 I am energized about working in a high-poverty school
Strongly disagree (1) ________________________________________________
Disagree (2) ________________________________________________
Agree (3) ________________________________________________
Strongly agree (4) ________________________________________________
Please answer the following items in response to the statement below using the Likert scale
provided.
"The outcome of a student becoming a proficient reader is influenced by ..."
Q13 The demographics of the school’s neighborhood
Strongly disagree (1) ________________________________________________
Disagree (2) ________________________________________________
Agree (3) ________________________________________________
Strongly agree (4) ________________________________________________
Q14 The school's resources and teaching materials
Strongly disagree (1) ________________________________________________
Disagree (2) ________________________________________________
Agree (3) ________________________________________________
Strongly agree (4) ________________________________________________
Q15 The socioeconomic status of the student's family
Strongly disagree (1) ________________________________________________
Disagree (2) ________________________________________________
Agree (3) ________________________________________________
Strongly agree (4) ________________________________________________
Q16 The professional preparation of the teacher (i.e. academic training)
Strongly disagree (1) ________________________________________________
Disagree (2) ________________________________________________
Agree (3) ________________________________________________
Strongly agree (4) ________________________________________________
Q17 The student's potential to learn (i.e. intelligence)
Strongly disagree (1) ________________________________________________
Disagree (2) ________________________________________________
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 301
Agree (3) ________________________________________________
Strongly agree (4) ________________________________________________
Q18 The parenting style in the student's home
Strongly disagree (1) ________________________________________________
Disagree (2) ________________________________________________
Agree (3) ________________________________________________
Strongly agree (4) ________________________________________________
Q19 The society's academic expectations for the student
Strongly disagree (1) ________________________________________________
Disagree (2) ________________________________________________
Agree (3) ________________________________________________
Strongly agree (4) ________________________________________________
Q20 The student's personality
Strongly disagree (1) ________________________________________________
Disagree (2) ________________________________________________
Agree (3) ________________________________________________
Strongly agree (4) ________________________________________________
Q21 The teacher's ability to teach in a culturally relevant/responsive way
Strongly disagree (1) ________________________________________________
Disagree (2) ________________________________________________
Agree (3) ________________________________________________
Strongly agree (4) ________________________________________________
Q22 The school's culture related to how the teachers on campus approach their own continuous
learning
Strongly disagree (1) ________________________________________________
Disagree (2) ________________________________________________
Agree (3) ________________________________________________
Strongly agree (4) ________________________________________________
Q23 The teacher's past/history of student reading test scores
Strongly disagree (1) ________________________________________________
Disagree (2) ________________________________________________
Agree (3) ________________________________________________
Strongly agree (4) ________________________________________________
Q24 The school leadership (e.g. the leader's vision, beliefs and practices)
Strongly disagree (1) ________________________________________________
Disagree (2) ________________________________________________
Agree (3) ________________________________________________
Strongly agree (4) ________________________________________________
Q25 The nation's historical treatment of the ethnic groups to which the student belongs
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 302
Strongly disagree (1) ________________________________________________
Disagree (2) ________________________________________________
Agree (3) ________________________________________________
Strongly agree (4) ________________________________________________
Q26 The religious commitment of the student's family
Strongly disagree (1) ________________________________________________
Disagree (2) ________________________________________________
Agree (3) ________________________________________________
Strongly agree (4) ________________________________________________
Q27 The student's behavior
Strongly disagree (1) ________________________________________________
Disagree (2) ________________________________________________
Agree (3) ________________________________________________
Strongly agree (4) ________________________________________________
Q28 The dominant language spoken in the student's home
Strongly disagree (1) ________________________________________________
Disagree (2) ________________________________________________
Agree (3) ________________________________________________
Strongly agree (4) ________________________________________________
Q29 The teacher's reading pedagogy (i.e. the methods used to teach reading)
Strongly disagree (1) ________________________________________________
Disagree (2) ________________________________________________
Agree (3) ________________________________________________
Strongly agree (4) ________________________________________________
Q30 The school's operational system (e.g. structures, policies, procedures, routines)
Strongly disagree (1) ________________________________________________
Disagree (2) ________________________________________________
Agree (3) ________________________________________________
Strongly agree (4) ________________________________________________
Q31 The health and human services available to the student and family (e.g. medical, mental
health, housing)
Strongly disagree (1) ________________________________________________
Disagree (2) ________________________________________________
Agree (3) ________________________________________________
Strongly agree (4) ________________________________________________
Q32 The student's motivation to learn
Strongly disagree (1) ________________________________________________
Disagree (2) ________________________________________________
Agree (3) ________________________________________________
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 303
Strongly agree (4) ________________________________________________
Q33 The teacher's domain knowledge in the subject area of reading/ language arts
Strongly disagree (1) ________________________________________________
Disagree (2) ________________________________________________
Agree (3) ________________________________________________
Strongly agree (4) ________________________________________________
Q34 The teacher's knowledge of how to incorporate the student's culture into reading lessons
Strongly disagree (1) ________________________________________________
Disagree (2) ________________________________________________
Agree (3) ________________________________________________
Strongly agree (4) ________________________________________________
Q35 The teacher's awareness of the cultural differences at play in the classroom setting
Strongly disagree (1) ________________________________________________
Disagree (2) ________________________________________________
Agree (3) ________________________________________________
Strongly agree (4) ________________________________________________
Q36 The teacher's assessment knowledge of the student as a reader
Strongly disagree (1) ________________________________________________
Disagree (2) ________________________________________________
Agree (3) ________________________________________________
Strongly agree (4) ________________________________________________
Q37 The teacher's knowledge of how to differentiate the reading instruction for the student
Strongly disagree (1) ________________________________________________
Disagree (2) ________________________________________________
Agree (3) ________________________________________________
Strongly agree (4) ________________________________________________
Q38 The teacher's awareness of the multiple ways that the student may communicate at school
and at home
Strongly disagree (1) ________________________________________________
Disagree (2) ________________________________________________
Agree (3) ________________________________________________
Strongly agree (4) ________________________________________________
Q39 The teacher's knowledge of the student's personal needs (e.g. social and cognitive) related to
learning to read
Strongly disagree (1) ________________________________________________
Disagree (2) ________________________________________________
Agree (3) ________________________________________________
Strongly agree (4) ________________________________________________
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 304
Q40 The teacher's knowledge of how to critically examine the reading curriculum for bias
Strongly disagree (1) ________________________________________________
Disagree (2) ________________________________________________
Agree (3) ________________________________________________
Strongly agree (4) ________________________________________________
Q41 The teacher's awareness of what the student's parents need to feel comfortable to participate
at parent-teacher conferences
Strongly disagree (1) ________________________________________________
Disagree (2) ________________________________________________
Agree (3) ________________________________________________
Strongly agree (4) ________________________________________________
Q42 The teacher's belief in her/his ability to develop every student into a proficient reader
Strongly disagree (1) ________________________________________________
Disagree (2) ________________________________________________
Agree (3) ________________________________________________
Strongly agree (4) _______________________________________________
Q43 The teacher's belief in culturally responsive reading lessons for increasing student
engagement
Strongly disagree (1) ________________________________________________
Disagree (2) ________________________________________________
Agree (3) ________________________________________________
Strongly agree (4) ________________________________________________
Q44 The teacher's belief about who is most responsible for the student's reading scores/outcomes
Strongly disagree (1) ________________________________________________
Disagree (2) ________________________________________________
Agree (3) ________________________________________________
Strongly agree (4) ________________________________________________
Q45 The teacher's belief in her/his ability to successfully bring low-readers up to grade-level
Strongly disagree (1) ________________________________________________
Disagree (2) ________________________________________________
Agree (3) ________________________________________________
Strongly agree (4) ________________________________________________
Q46 The teacher's belief in culturally responsive teaching for increasing student interest in
reading
Strongly disagree (1) ________________________________________________
Disagree (2) ________________________________________________
Agree (3) ________________________________________________
Strongly agree (4) ________________________________________________
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 305
Q47 The teacher's belief that the cause for a student's reading scores is mostly due to the
teacher's efforts, not because of the parents and home environment
Strongly disagree (1) ________________________________________________
Disagree (2) ________________________________________________
Agree (3) ________________________________________________
Strongly agree (4) ________________________________________________
Q48 The teacher's belief that the cause for a student's reading scores is mostly due to the
teacher's efforts, not because of the student
Strongly disagree (1) ________________________________________________
Disagree (2) ________________________________________________
Agree (3) ________________________________________________
Strongly agree (4) ________________________________________________
Q49 The teacher's belief in her/his ability to make significant progress with non-readers by the
end of the school year
Strongly disagree (1) ________________________________________________
Disagree (2) ________________________________________________
Agree (3) ________________________________________________
Strongly agree (4) ________________________________________________
Q50 The teacher's time spent planning culturally responsive reading lessons
Strongly disagree (1) ________________________________________________
Disagree (2) ________________________________________________
Agree (3) ________________________________________________
Strongly agree (4) ________________________________________________
Q51 The school's culture related to teachers speaking up and asking for help with teaching
reading
Strongly disagree (1) ________________________________________________
Disagree (2) ________________________________________________
Agree (3) ________________________________________________
Strongly agree (4) ________________________________________________
Q52 The school's reading resources/materials that the teacher receives
Strongly disagree (1) ________________________________________________
Disagree (2) ________________________________________________
Agree (3) ________________________________________________
Strongly agree (4) ________________________________________________
Q53 The way the teacher's grade-level team uses data to plan reading lessons together
Strongly disagree (1) ________________________________________________
Disagree (2) ________________________________________________
Agree (3) ________________________________________________
Strongly agree (4) ________________________________________________
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 306
Q54 The eagerness of the teacher's colleagues to share personal experiences about what does and
doesn't work related to teaching reading
Strongly disagree (1) ________________________________________________
Disagree (2) ________________________________________________
Agree (3) ________________________________________________
Strongly agree (4) ________________________________________________
Q55 The training the teacher receives from the school's leadership to teach reading to diverse
students
Strongly disagree (1) ________________________________________________
Disagree (2) ________________________________________________
Agree (3) ________________________________________________
Strongly agree (4) ________________________________________________
Q56 The systems (e.g. structures, protocols, routines, forms) provided by the school's leadership
about how to use student data to teach reading lessons
Strongly disagree (1) ________________________________________________
Disagree (2) ________________________________________________
Agree (3) ________________________________________________
Strongly agree (4) ________________________________________________
Q57 The flexibility of school colleagues to try alternative ways of engaging students in reading
activities and sharing the results with each other
Strongly disagree (1) ________________________________________________
Disagree (2) ________________________________________________
Agree (3) ________________________________________________
Strongly agree (4) ________________________________________________
Q58 The opportunities provided to the teacher by the district to learn from other reading
specialists outside the school
Strongly disagree (1) ________________________________________________
Disagree (2) ________________________________________________
Agree (3) ________________________________________________
Strongly agree (4) ________________________________________________
Q59 The data analyses techniques that the teacher's grade-level team uses on reading data (e.g.
disaggregating data, analyzing trends, correlating data, comparing averages)
Strongly disagree (1) ________________________________________________
Disagree (2) ________________________________________________
Agree (3) ________________________________________________
Strongly agree (4) ________________________________________________
RANKING ACTIVITY
For this final section, think about what most influences your performance as a teacher related to
developing proficient readers:
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 307
Q60 Order Factors from Least Influence (1) ... to Greatest Influence (8)
(PLEASE DRAG & DROP EACH FACTOR TO PLACE IN ORDER)
Factors
______ My Knowledge as a Teacher (1)
______ The Parents and Home Environment (2)
______ The Child (3)
______ The School & Education System (4)
______ My Motivation as a Teacher (5)
______ The American Society (6)
______ The Teachers (7)
______ My School's Support as an Organization (8)
Conclusion Is there anything else you would like to comment or add?
________________________________________________________________
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 308
Appendix D
Recruitment Letter - Teacher Interview
November 1, 2017
Dear Teacher,
Joel I. Tapia, a doctoral candidate with the Rossier School of Education at the University
of Southern California, is conducting a study into the factors the influence your performance as a
teacher related to developing proficient readers.
One component of the study is to gather information from teachers like you through
personal interviews. From among individuals who took the online survey, four teachers will be
selected for a one-time, in-person, semi-structured individual interview. About 10 questions
have been prepared. The interview will take no more than forty-five minutes to complete. The
direct benefit to you of participating in this study is that your responses will help the school
organization to better serve and support you in your teaching efforts.
Your responses will be anonymous to the principal researcher, Joel I. Tapia, because the
interviews will be conducted by an independent data collector, Mr. Munoz. The principal
researcher will only have access to the written transcript of the interview. Even though you have
volunteered to take the survey and have been selected, you may discontinue participation in the
interview at any time. After reviewing and signing the Informed Consent Sheet, you will be
provided with an interview date and time that is convenient for you, other teachers interviewing,
and the interviewer. Thank you!
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 309
Appendix E
Interview Protocol and Instrument
Lead-in introduction:
• As you know, this school is a 100% Title 1 School, qualifying all students for free and/or
reduced lunch. Also, many students come from traditionally underserved backgrounds.
Most students are English Learners, of low-socioeconomic status, culturally and
ethnically diverse, from immigrant families, and so on.
• I'd like to ask you some questions about your experiences—both about your successes
and challenges—as your attempt to develop all students into proficient readers.
• Please remember that at any time during this interview, you can withdraw your
participation, with no adverse impact to you personally or professionally.
• Your participation is greatly appreciated as it will help to shed light on how schools and
leaders can best support teachers to increase the reading achievement of diverse and
traditionally underserved students.
• Lastly, please remember that this interview is being recorded to have a more accurate
record of the conversation. At any time, you can choose to stop the recording. Also, at
your request, you may have full access to the audio recording file and interview
transcript.
• At this time, do you have any questions? If not, let's get started!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
School Demographic Open-Ended Questions [Asked verbally]
• Could you briefly describe your teaching experience?
• What challenges does this school community face as teachers try to improve student
reading achievement?
• What successful or transformative practices are teachers in this school community
engaging in to improve student reading achievement?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Semi-Structured Interview Questions & Potential Follow-Up Questions
1. Tell me about a typical day of teaching reading to your students. (experience and
behavior question) [K] [Declarative]
a. Tell me more.
b. What happens for your struggling readers?
c. And your proficient readers?
2. How do you prepare for teaching a reading lesson? (experience and behavior question)
[K] [Procedural]
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 310
a. Tell me more.
b. What do you consider the important ingredients?
3. Please paint a picture of the PERFECT reading lesson. (sensory question) [K][M][O]
[ALL]
a. Tell me more.
b. What do you find most rewarding about this lesson?
c. How often do you feel your lesson goes this way? Why do you think?
4. How equipped do you feel you and your colleagues are to support your students’ reading
development? (feeling question) [O] [Resources] [constraints]
a. Tell me more.
b. If you had a magic wand, what would you provide every teacher with so they
could do their job better? What would you make disappear so that every teacher
could do their job better?
5. How adaptable do you think you and your co-workers are about learning new ways to
teach reading? (opinion and values question) [O] [Learning orientation]
a. Tell me more.
b. Has it always been that way? Can you give me an example?
c. What do you find most challenging? Rewarding? Why?
6. In what ways do you think your upbringing, culture, and experiences influence the way
you teach students to read? (experience and behavior question) [K] [Metacognitive]
a. Tell me more.
b. Do you feel your school’s students differ from you in the way they are
experiencing school?
c. Do you think the way your students use language influence the way you teach
them students to read?
7. What are you able to do for a struggling reader to help him or her get caught up?
(opinion and values question) [M] [Self-efficacy]
a. Tell me more.
b. What do you think are your strengths related to teaching students to read well?
8. Can you think of an example of a time when it benefited a student to bring his or her
culture and experiences explicitly into the reading lesson? (opinion and values
question/knowledge question) [M] [Utility value]
a. Tell me more.
b. Do you think this kind of teaching has no influence, an indirect influence, or a
direct influence on reading achievement? How so? Why?
c. How often do you think teachers engage in this practice at this school?
9. How do you know if you are using data correctly to guide your reading instruction?
(knowledge question) [O] [Work processes]
a. Can you tell me about a time when you used data in this way?
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 311
b. Do you and your colleagues share the same system and routines for using data to
drive reading instruction?
10. “Why do you think that some students do not reach the expected reading proficiency
level by the end of the school year?” (opinion and values question). [M] [Attributions]
a. Can you provide me a couple of examples of students who did not meet the end of
year reading level, and why?
b. Why is it that some students in the same classroom and school do reach reading
proficiency by the end of the school year?
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 312
Appendix F
Evaluation Instrument for Immediate Use
Directions - Please complete the following training evaluation form. Your honest and thoughtful
feedback will help us to provide quality learning experiences that support the positive
development of your knowledge, skills, and performance.
Level 1
The training was an actively engaging
learning experience.
a. Strongly disagree
b. Disagree
c. Agree
d. Strongly Agree
I found the information presented during
the training to be relevant to my on-the-
job work and performance.
a. Strongly disagree
b. Disagree
c. Agree
d. Strongly agree
I felt that the delivery of the training was
professional and respectful of trainees’
perspectives and differences.
a. Strongly disagree
b. Disagree
c. Agree
d. Strongly agree
Level 2
I was able to clearly comprehend the
information presented during the
training.
a. Strongly disagree
b. Disagree
c. Agree
d. Strongly agree
I understand the process of how to apply the training
knowledge to my work tasks and responsibilities.
a. Strongly disagree
b. Disagree
c. Agree
d. Strongly agree
I believe the training was worthwhile.
a. Strongly disagree
b. Disagree
c. Agree
d. Strongly agree
I believe that I am able to effectively implement the training
knowledge to my work tasks and responsibilities.
a. Strongly disagree
b. Disagree
c. Agree
d. Strongly agree
It is important for me to follow through with
implementation of the training content.
a. Strongly disagree
b. Disagree
c. Agree
d. Strongly agree
What struck you as eye-opening during the training?
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
___________________________________
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 313
Appendix G
Evaluation Instrument for Delayed Use
Directions - Please complete the following training evaluation form. Your honest and thoughtful
feedback will help us to provide quality learning experiences that support the positive
development of your knowledge, skills, and performance.
Level 1
I found the information presented during the
training program to be relevant to my on-the-
job work and performance.
a. Strongly disagree
b. Disagree
c. Agree
d. Strongly agree
Level 2
I believe that I can effectively implement the
training program knowledge to my work
tasks and responsibilities.
a. Strongly disagree
b. Disagree
c. Agree
d. Strongly agree
Level 4
I see and have evidence of improved student
learning results/outcomes because of my
training implementation.
a. Strongly disagree
b. Disagree
c. Agree
d. Strongly agree
Level 3
My personal on the job performance has
improved since implementing what I learned
during the training program.
a. Strongly disagree
b. Disagree
c. Agree
d. Strongly agree
Open-Response Format Item: Please share how the training program has helped you to
improve your teaching performance in service of students.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 314
Appendix H
Key Indicators for Conceptual Framework Constructs
(CRE, PCK, & LO, & KMO)
CRE Indicators (Aronson & Laughter, 2016)
PCK Indicators (Shulman, 1986)
Teacher is…
ü Socially and academically empowering
ü Multidimensional
ü Validating of every student's culture
ü Socially, emotionally, and politically
comprehensive
Teacher affirms…
ü Transformation of schools and societies
ü Emancipation and liberation from
oppressive educational practices and
ideologies
ü Academic achievement for all students
ü Cultural competence for all students
ü Socio-political consciousness for all
students
Teacher knows…
ü Subject matter
o Knowledge of how to structure
and represent academic content
for direct teaching to students
ü Teaching methods
o Knowledge of the specific
teaching strategies that can be
used to address students’
learning needs in classroom
circumstances
ü Students (learners)
o Knowledge of the common
conceptions, misconceptions,
and difficulties that students
encounter when learning
content
LO Indicators (Senge et al., 2012)
KMO Elements (Clark & Estes, 2008))
Teacher …
ü Articulates individual and collective
aspirations
o Personal Mastery
o Shared Vision
ü Recognizes and manages complexity
o Systems Thinking
ü Engages in Reflective Thinking and
Generative Conversation
o Mental Models
o Team Learning
Teacher is influenced by…
ü Knowledge
o Declarative – Subject/students
o Procedural- teaching for
diversity/understanding
o Metacognitive – critical self-
reflection, dialogic conversation
ü Motivation
o Self-efficacy- teach reading
o Attributions- responsible for
outcomes
o Utility-value- value of CRE for
results
ü Organization
o Cultural setting - Resources
o Cultural setting - Data work
processes
o Cultural model - Learning
orientation
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 315
Appendix I
14 Influencing Factors from the Literature
(on teacher performance)
(1) The American society (AS)
(2) The parents and home environment (P&HE),
(3) The child (C),
(4) The school and education system (S&ES),
(5) The teacher (T),
(6) Declarative knowledge of subject matter, methods, and learners (K-DK),
(7) Procedural knowledge of teaching for diversity and understanding (K-PK),
(8) Metacognitive knowledge of critical reflection and socio-political consciousness (K-MK),
(9) Utility-value of believing in the benefits of teaching for diversity (M-UV),
(10) Attributions of believing that teacher performance explains student outcomes (M-A),
(11) Self-efficacy of believing in one's personal ability as a teacher to achieve a goal (M-SE),
(12) Cultural model of embracing a learning orientation as an organization (O-LO),
(13) Cultural setting of having resources and materials to enhance teaching and learning
(O-R), and
(14) Cultural setting of having data-driven decision-making frameworks and processes
(O-DWP).
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 316
Appendix J
Factor Analysis of 47 Variables to Latent Factors
Figure J1. Factor analysis eigenvalues.
Figure J2. Scree plots of eigenvalues (factor analysis).
0
20
40
60
80
100
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 F8 F9 F10 F11 F12 F13 F14 F15 F16 F17 F18 F19 F20 F21 F22
Cumulative variability (%)
Eigenvalue
axis
Scree plot
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 317
Appendix K
Statistical Analysis of SC Factors and Correlations - Tables
Table K1
Summary Statistics of Quantitative Data, N=24
Construct Factors M SD
The Society 2.948 0.505
Parents and Home Environment 2.906 0.409
The Child 3.302 0.313
The School and Education System 3.167 0.525
The Teacher 2.917 0.520
Table K2
Spearman Correlation Matrix, N=24
Variables The Society
Parents and
Home
Environment
The Child
The School and
Education
System
The
Teacher
The Society 1.000 -0.029 0.069 0.764 0.631
Parents and
Home
Environment -0.029 1.000 0.569 0.060 0.118
The Child 0.069 0.569 1.000 0.398 -0.088
The School
and
Education
System 0.764 0.060 0.398 1.000 0.503
The Teacher 0.631 0.118 -0.088 0.503 1.000
Note: Values in bold are different from 0 with a significance level alpha=0,05
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 318
Appendix L
Statistical Analysis of SC Factors and Correlations - Chart
Figure L. Correlations among the five social context factors.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 319
Appendix M
Internal Consistency of Survey Instrument – Tables
Table M
Correlations Between Variables (Survey Items) and Factors (Constructs)
The society
The parents and home environment
Variables F1
Cronbach’s alpha
Q15 0.375
0.516
Q18 0.908
Q26 -0.284
Q28 0.682
The child
Variables F1
Cronbach’s alpha
Q17 -0.641
0.499
Q20 0.177
Q27 -0.103
Q32 0.924
The teacher
Variables F1
Cronbach’s alpha
Q16 0.729
0.781
Q21 0.551
Q23 0.585
Q29 0.975
The school and education system
Variables F1
Cronbach’s alpha
Q14 0.613
0.836
Q22 0.574
Q24 0.973
Q30 0.875
Variables F1
Cronbach’s alpha
Q13 0.671
0.664
Q19 0.754
Q25 0.754
Q31 0.857
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 320
Declarative knowledge
Variables F1
Cronbach’s alpha
Q33 0.774
0.710
Q36 0.922
Q39 0.432
Procedural knowledge
Variables F1
Cronbach’s alpha
Q34 0.336
0.527
Q37 0.417
Q40 1.000
Metacognitive knowledge
Variables F1
Cronbach’s alpha
MK-Q35 0.648
0.648
.
MK-Q38 0.861
MK-Q41 0.719
Self-efficacy
Variables F1
Cronbach’s alpha
SE-Q42 0.833
0.579
SE-Q45 0.951
SE-Q49 0.142
Utility-value
Variables F1
Cronbach’s alpha
UV-Q43 0.999
0.609
UV-Q46 0.561
UV-Q50 0.366
Attributions
Variables F1
Cronbach’s alpha
ATT-Q44 0.484
0.803
ATT-Q47 0.961
ATT-Q48 0.973
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 321
Organization model of learning orientation
Variables F1 F2
Cronbach’s alpha
LO-Q51
0.168 0.844
0.629
(F1)
LO-Q54
0.770 -0.549
LO-Q57
0.916 0.247
Organization setting of resources and materials
Variables F1
Cronbach’s alpha
RM-Q52 0.706
0.716
RM-Q55 0.946
RM-Q58 0.666
Organization setting of work processes
Variables F1
Cronbach’s alpha
WP-Q53 0.830
0.783
WP-Q56 0.995
WP-Q59 0.532
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 322
Q17
Q20
Q27
Q32
-1
-0.75
-0.5
-0.25
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
-1 -0.75 -0.5 -0.25
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
F2 (16.79 %)
F1 (31.34 %)
Variables (axes F1 and F2: 48.13 %)
Q16
Q21
Q23
Q29
-1
-0.75
-0.5
-0.25
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
-1 -0.75 -0.5 -0.25
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
F2 (0.00 %)
F1 (100.00 %)
Variables (axes F1 and F2: 100.00 %)
Appendix N
Internal Consistency of Survey Instrument – Charts
Q13
Q19 Q25
Q31
-1
-0.75
-0.5
-0.25
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
-1 -0.75 -0.5 -0.25
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
F2 (0.00 %)
F1 (100.00 %)
Variables (axes F1 and F2: 100.00 %)
Q15
Q18
Q26
Q28
-1
-0.75
-0.5
-0.25
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
-1 -0.75 -0.5 -0.25
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
F2 (13.23 %)
F1 (26.23 %)
Variables (axes F1 and F2: 39.46 %)
Figure N2. Correlations between
survey items and factor of parents and
the home environment.
Figure N1. Correlations between
survey items and the society factor.
Figure N3. Correlations between
survey items and factor of the child
factor.
Figure N4. Correlations between survey
items and factor of the teacher.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 323
Q14
Q22
Q24
Q30
-1
-0.75
-0.5
-0.25
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
-1 -0.75 -0.5 -0.25
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
F2 (0.00 %)
F1 (100.00 %)
Variables (axes F1 and F2: 100.00 %)
DK-Q33
DK-Q36
DK-Q39
-1
-0.75
-0.5
-0.25
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
-1 -0.75 -0.5 -0.25
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
F2 (0.00 %)
F1 (100.00 %)
Variables (axes F1 and F2: 100.00 %)
PK-Q34
PK-Q37
PK-Q40
-1
-0.75
-0.5
-0.25
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
-1 -0.75 -0.5 -0.25
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
F2 (0.00 %)
F1 (100.00 %)
Variables (axes F1 and F2: 100.00 %)
MK-Q35
MK-Q38
MK-Q41
-1
-0.75
-0.5
-0.25
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
-1 -0.75 -0.5 -0.25
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
F2 (0.00 %)
F1 (100.00 %)
Variables (axes F1 and F2: 100.00 %)
Figure N5. Correlations between survey
items and factor of the school and
education system.
Figure N6. Correlations between survey
items and factor of declarative
knowledge.
Figure N7. Correlations between survey
items and factor of procedural knowledge
Figure N8. Correlations between survey
items and factor of metacognitive
knowledge
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 324
SE-Q42
SE-Q45
SE-Q49
-1
-0.75
-0.5
-0.25
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
-1 -0.75 -0.5 -0.25
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
F2 (0.00 %)
F1 (100.00 %)
Variables (axes F1 and F2: 100.00 %)
UV-Q43
UV-Q46
UV-Q50
-1
-0.75
-0.5
-0.25
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
-1 -0.75 -0.5 -0.25
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
F2 (0.00 %)
F1 (100.00 %)
Variables (axes F1 and F2: 100.00 %)
ATT-Q44
ATT-Q47 ATT-Q48
-1
-0.75
-0.5
-0.25
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
-1 -0.75 -0.5 -0.25
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
F2 (0.00 %)
F1 (100.00 %)
Variables (axes F1 and F2: 100.00 %)
LO-Q51
LO-Q54
LO-Q57
-1
-0.75
-0.5
-0.25
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
-1 -0.75 -0.5 -0.25
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
F2 (15.77 %)
F1 (36.18 %)
Variables (axes F1 and F2: 51.95 %)
Figure N9. Correlations between survey
items and factor of self-efficacy.
Figure N10. Correlations between
survey items and factor of utility-value.
Figure N11. Correlations between
survey items and factor of attributions.
Figure N12. Correlations between
survey items and factor of organizational
model of learning orientation.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 325
RM-Q52
RM-Q55
RM-Q58
-1
-0.75
-0.5
-0.25
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
-1 -0.75 -0.5 -0.25
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
F2 (0.00 %)
F1 (100.00 %)
Variables (axes F1 and F2: 100.00 %)
WP-Q53
WP-Q56
WP-Q59
-1
-0.75
-0.5
-0.25
0
0.25
0.5
0.75
1
-1 -0.75 -0.5 -0.25
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1
F2 (0.00 %)
F1 (100.00 %)
Variables (axes F1 and F2: 100.00 %)
Figure N13. Correlations between
survey items and factor of organizational
setting of resources and materials.
Figure N14. Correlations between
survey items and factor of organizational
setting of work processes.
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 326
Appendix O
Summary Statistics of Survey Items 13-59
"The outcome of a student becoming a proficient reader is influenced by ..."
Table O
Summary Statistics of Survey Results Items 13-59, Ranked by Mean Score
Variable Observations Min Max M SD
CH-Q27 24 3.000 4.000 3.708 0.464
LO-Q54 24 3.000 4.000 3.500 0.511
RM-Q58 24 3.000 4.000 3.500 0.511
PHE-Q18 24 2.000 4.000 3.500 0.590
CH-Q32 24 2.000 4.000 3.458 0.588
PK-Q37 24 2.000 4.000 3.458 0.588
DK-Q33 24 3.000 4.000 3.375 0.495
RM-Q52 24 2.000 4.000 3.375 0.576
RM-Q55 24 2.000 4.000 3.375 0.647
SES-Q24 24 2.000 4.000 3.333 0.565
DK-Q36 24 3.000 4.000 3.333 0.482
LO-Q57 24 3.000 4.000 3.292 0.464
DK-Q39 24 1.000 4.000 3.292 0.690
SE-Q42 24 2.000 4.000 3.292 0.690
TCH-Q29 24 3.000 4.000 3.250 0.442
WP-Q53 24 2.000 4.000 3.250 0.532
Soc-Q31 24 1.000 4.000 3.250 0.794
TCH-Q21 24 2.000 4.000 3.250 0.608
SE-Q45 24 2.000 4.000 3.208 0.658
SES-Q22 24 2.000 4.000 3.167 0.565
MK-Q35 24 1.000 4.000 3.167 0.702
UV-Q46 24 2.000 4.000 3.167 0.482
PHE-Q15 24 2.000 4.000 3.125 0.537
SES-Q30 24 1.000 4.000 3.125 0.797
UV-Q43 24 2.000 4.000 3.125 0.537
WP-Q56 24 2.000 4.000 3.125 0.448
CH-Q20 24 1.000 4.000 3.083 0.717
PK-Q34 24 2.000 4.000 3.083 0.717
LO-Q51 24 1.000 4.000 3.083 0.584
Soc-Q19 24 2.000 4.000 3.083 0.584
SES-Q14 24 2.000 4.000 3.042 0.690
DEVELOPING READERS AT A HIGH-POVERTY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 327
TCH-Q16 24 1.000 4.000 3.042 0.806
MK-Q38 24 1.000 4.000 3.042 0.690
PK-Q40 24 2.000 4.000 3.000 0.511
SE-Q49 24 1.000 4.000 3.000 0.722
WP-Q59 24 2.000 4.000 3.000 0.590
Soc-Q13 24 1.000 4.000 3.000 0.659
MK-Q41 24 2.000 4.000 2.958 0.751
CH-Q17 24 1.000 4.000 2.958 0.624
PHE-Q28 24 1.000 4.000 2.875 0.850
ATT-Q44 24 1.000 4.000 2.833 0.702
UV-Q50 24 1.000 4.000 2.833 0.702
Soc-Q25 24 1.000 3.000 2.458 0.588
ATT-Q47 24 1.000 4.000 2.167 0.917
TCH-Q23 24 1.000 4.000 2.125 0.850
PHE-Q26 24 1.000 4.000 2.125 0.797
ATT-Q48 24 1.000 4.000 2.042 0.751
Note: Likert scale consisted of strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), agree (3), and strongly agree
(4)
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Narrowing the achievement gap: a case study of one outperforming urban high school
PDF
Overcoming the cultural teaching gap: an evaluative study of urban teachers’ implementation of culturally relevant instruction
PDF
Teach them to read: implementing high leverage pedagogical practices to increase English language learner academic achievement
PDF
The opportunity gap: culturally relevant pedagogy in high school English classes
PDF
Increase parental involvement to decrease the achievement gaps for ELL and low SES students in urban California public schools: an evaluation study
PDF
Factors that contribute to narrowing the achievement gap for elementary age students: a case study
PDF
Overcoming urban challenges: a succesful case study
PDF
Teacher role in reducing the achievement gap: an evaluation study
PDF
Authentic care in an urban high school
PDF
The knowledge, skills, motivation and organizational factors that teachers need to support African American boys in public preschool: an evaluation study
PDF
An examination of small, mid-sized, and large school district superintendents and the strategies they employ to improve the academic achievement of English language learners
PDF
Narrowing the achievement gap: a case study of one outperforming urban school making a difference
PDF
Achievement gap and sustainability: a case study of an elementary school bridging the achievement gap
PDF
Reflective journeys: African American community college STEM students' perceptions on equity and access
PDF
Critical ambitious language pedagogy for cognitive academic language proficiency development in two-way immersion schools: teachers' ideologies and practices
PDF
Effective STEM initiatives in high-poverty elementary schools
PDF
Closing academic achievement gap between economically advantaged and economically disadvantaged students: an improvement study
PDF
The audacity to teach: creating access to rigor for African American and Latino high school students
PDF
Explicit instruction’s impact on the student achievement gap in K-12 English language learners
PDF
A gap analysis of homeless student school attendance in a large urban school district
Asset Metadata
Creator
Tapia Mascareño, Joel Isaac
(author)
Core Title
Developing readers at a high-poverty elementary school: a study of factors that influence teacher performance
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)
Publication Date
02/08/2018
Defense Date
12/08/2017
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
achievement gap,culturally relevant teaching,OAI-PMH Harvest,organizational learning,reading achievement,school factors,teacher performance
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Crawford, Jenifer (
committee chair
), Carbone, Paula M. (
committee member
), Rodriguez, Alberto J. (
committee member
)
Creator Email
joeltapi@usc.edu,mrtapia@mac.com
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c40-471654
Unique identifier
UC11268146
Identifier
etd-TapiaMasca-6017.pdf (filename),usctheses-c40-471654 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-TapiaMasca-6017.pdf
Dmrecord
471654
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Tapia Mascareño, Joel Isaac
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA
Tags
achievement gap
culturally relevant teaching
organizational learning
reading achievement
school factors
teacher performance