University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Self-reflective practices and procedures to systematically examine reading comprehension instruction

(USC Thesis Other)

Self-reflective practices and procedures to systematically examine reading comprehension instruction

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 1
SELF-REFLECTIVE PRACTICES AND PROCEDURES TO SYSTEMATICALLY
EXAMINE READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION
by
Madeleine Mejia
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 2015
Copyright 2015 Madeleine Mejia
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 2
Acknowledgements
The study presented in its final format and content, would not have been possible without
the help, guidance, and support from my dissertation chair, Dr. Eugenia Mora-Flores. Thank you
for coming alongside me throughout this process and for taking the time from your busy
schedule to take me on as an independent study. I am truly appreciative of your dedication to
this study, to the teaching profession, and to students in general. This work was also achieved
due to the guidance, instruction, and feedback from my dissertation committee: Dr. Robert
Rueda and Dr. Mayra Perez. Thank you for your advice, suggestions, and for your support to
make this study possible.
To the teachers who so willingly invited me into their classrooms, I thank you. Thank
you for volunteering to help with this work. Thank you for your honesty, openness, and for
taking time from your busy schedules to answer all of my questions. I admire your hard work
and your commitment to your students and to the teaching profession.
A deep appreciation and thanks to the USC Rossier faculty is also necessary. Your work
in education has been a true inspiration. The knowledge I gained throughout my time in the
Ed.D. program will continue to guide my future studies, research and practice as a teacher
educator.
To my parents and two brothers: mom, dad, Hannibal and Joseph - Thank you for your
support, encouragement, and being a source of inspiration. I truly admire and respect each and
every one of you, and I am proud to call you my family.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 3
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements 2
List of Tables 6
Abstract 7
Chapter One: Overview of the Study 8
Background of the Problem 12
Teaching Reading Comprehension 12
The Role of Self-Reflection 15
Statement of the Problem 16
Purpose of the Study 17
Significance of the Study 19
Delimitations of the Study 19
Assumptions 20
Limitations of the Study 20
Definition of Terms 21
Organization of the Study 21
Chapter Two: Literature Review 23
Chapter Overview 23
The Reading Process 24
Phonemic Awareness 26
Phonics 28
Word Study and Spelling 31
Reading Fluency 34
Vocabulary 36
Reading Comprehension 38
Effective Reading Comprehension Instruction 44
Explicit Instruction 45
Interactive Discussions 49
Differentiated Instruction 51
Knowledge Required to Teach Reading Comprehension 54
Knowledge of the Reading Process 55
Pedagogical Content Knowledge 60
Gaps in Teacher Knowledge to Teach Reading Comprehension 66
Self-Reflection of Teaching Practices 72
Conclusion 82
Chapter Three: Methodology 84
Context and Problem Addressed by the Study 84
Research Questions 84
Design Summary 85
Site and Population Selection 86
School Site Criteria 86
Participant Criterion 87
Instrumentation 89
Teacher Demographic Information and Self-Assessment of Reading Comprehension
Instruction 89
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 4
Teacher’s Beliefs about Reading Knowledge and Comprehension Instruction 89
Teacher Enacted Knowledge of Reading Comprehension Instruction 90
Self-Reflection of Reading Comprehension Instruction 92
Data Analysis 93
Ethical Considerations 94
Chapter Four: Results 96
School Sites and Study Participants 97
Knox Elementary 97
Tyler Elementary 99
Pierce Elementary 100
Harrison Elementary 101
Results Research Question One 103
Self-Reported Level of Expertise 103
Teaching Philosophies of Reading Comprehension Instruction 105
Instructional Approaches to Teaching Reading Comprehension 107
Summary of Research Question One 111
Results Research Question Two 112
Part One: Intentional and Targeted Planning 113
Theme One: Addressing Common Core State Standards 113
Theme Two: Flexible and Continuous Planning 116
Theme Three: Differentiation: Organizing Student Groups 121
Part Two: Teaching Reading Comprehension Lessons 124
Theme One: Explicit Instruction 124
Theme Two: Classroom Discussions 128
Theme Three: Differentiated Instruction 135
Summary Research Question Two 140
Results Research Question Three 141
Practices Used to Engage in Self-Reflection 141
Theme One: Strategic Organization of Classroom Environments 142
Theme Two: Collaborative Networks 144
Processes Used to Engage in Self-Reflection 153
Summary Research Question Three 158
Research Question Four: 159
Theme One: Meaningful Learning Experiences 159
Theme Two: Developing Independent Learners 165
Theme Three: Self-Awareness of Professional Knowledge Needs 174
Summary: Research Question Four 180
Summary of Findings 180
Chapter Five: Conclusions 182
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions 182
Summary of Findings
Discussion of Findings
182 Participants’ Knowledge of Reading Instruction
Seeking Coaching and Feedback to Teach Reading Comprehension
Open-Mindedness to Engage in Systematic Self-Reflective Practices
186
182
184
185
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 5
Developing a Sense of Responsibility for Instructional Decisions 189
Wholeheartedness: Increasing Expertise in Reading Instruction 190
Unexpected Findings 191
Implications for Practice and Policy 194
Implications for Practice 195
Implications for Policy 196
Recommendations for School Administrators 197
Recommendations for Teachers 200
Recommendations for Future Studies 201
Limitations of the Study 204
Conclusion 204
References 206
Appendix A: Informed Consent for Non-medical Research 227
Appendix B: Teaching Reading Comprehension Survey 229
Appendix C: Teacher Interview Protocol: Reading Comprehension and Self-reflection 231
Appendix D: Classroom Observation Protocol 234
Appendix E: Post-Lesson Conversation Protocol 239
Appendix F: Prompts of Depth and Complexity 242
Appendix G: Content Imperatives 243
Appendix H: The Cornell Note-taking System 244
Appendix I: Notice and Note Sign-Posts 245
Appendix J: Students’ Annotations of Sign-Posts 246
Appendix K: Ms. Martin’s PLC Color Coded Calendar 247
Appendix L: Mrs. Clark’s Notes to Plan Lessons 248
Appendix M: Ms. Martin Self-Reflective Journal 249
Appendix N: Self-Reflection Rubric 250
Appendix O: Lesson Objective and Sample Chart 251
Appendix P: Sign-Post Charts with Guiding Questions in Mrs. Clark’s Classroom 252
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 6
List of Tables
Table 1: Components of Literacy Development 44
Table 2: Effective Practices to Teach Reading Comprehension 54
Table 3: Knowledge Required to Teach Reading Comprehension 66
Table 4: Gaps in Teacher Knowledge to Teach Reading Comprehension 72
Table 5: Components of Self-Reflectio 76
Table 6: Qualities of Self-Reflection 77
Table 7: Systematic Approaches that Support Self-Reflection 82
Table 8: Research Question Matrix 85
Table 9: Schools Demographic Information 87
Table 10: Participant’s Teaching Experience 88
Table 11: Participants’ Profiles 102
Table 12: Self-Reported Level of Expertise in Reading Instruction 104
Table 13: Self-Reported Areas of Strength and Identified Additional Needs 105
Table 14: Participants’ Instructional Approaches to Reading Comprehension Instruction 108
Table 15: Process Used to Plan Reading Comprehension Lessons 123
Table 16: Instructional Approaches used to Teach Reading Comprehension Lessons 139
Table 17: Practices Used to Engage in Self-Reflection 153
Table 18: Processes Used to Engage in Self-Reflection 158
Table 19: Self-Reflection and Meaningful Learning Experiences 165
Table 20: Self-Reflection and Instruction to Support Independent Learners 173
Table 21: Self-Reflection: Self-Awareness and Professional Knowledge Needs 179
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 7
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine the processes and practices teachers use to
engage in self-reflection of reading comprehension instruction. The aim was to determine the
nature of self-reflection on instructional decisions. Five 4
th
grade experienced teachers
participated in the study. Participants responded to a teacher survey, participated in one-on-one
interviews, were observed teaching three to five reading comprehension lessons, and discussed
their teaching practices during post-lesson conversations. A grounded theory approach was used
to analyze data findings.
Findings from the study suggest that using a systematic approach to engage in self-
reflection helps teachers develop an accurate understanding of their professional knowledge in
reading comprehension instruction. Teachers who consistently engaged in self-reflection were
also aware of their professional knowledge needs and actively sought guidance, coaching, and
feedback from expert others to continue to develop their expertise in reading instruction. The
study also revealed that teachers who engaged in self-reflection demonstrated the dispositions of
open-mindedness, sense of responsibility, and wholeheartedness that supported a close review of
instructional practices and led to a deeper understanding of students’ and professional knowledge
needs. Recommendations based on these findings include providing teachers with the structure
and space to engage in quality self-reflection, and providing differentiated professional
development to foster self-reflection as an on-going and sustainable practice.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 8
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY
Student performance in reading comprehension has been a universal concern of reading
researchers since Durkin’s (1978-1979) report that students in US classrooms were not receiving
sufficient instruction in reading comprehension. For the past three decades, reading researchers
continued to document reading comprehension proficiency as a significant educational problem
(RAND Reading Group, 2002). Recently, reading results in Nation’s Report Card put out by the
National Assessment Educational Progress (NAEP) confirmed that, on average, 4
th
grade public
school students cannot comprehend written texts at the readability level for their grade level
placement (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2013).
Similar findings were reported in the NAEP 2013 report card for the state of California.
Reading performance for 4
th
grade students was lower than in 41 other states and results from the
state report card showed that 42% of 4
th
grade students read below the basic level of
performance. These results indicated that students were unable to locate relevant information in
texts, make simple inferences, interpret word meanings and identify details to support their
conclusions (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2013).
The NAEP also reported that California educates the largest representation of English
Language Learners (ELLs) in the nation. Nearly 1.5 million students in California are ELLs, or
students who enter schools with a first language other than English, need to increase proficiency
in English to meet academic demands. Unfortunately, ELL status is often correlated with low
socio-economic status, immigration, acculturation, limited access to English language
experiences in the home, and insufficient access to literacy experiences prior to school entry
(Aikens & Barbarin, 2008; Bowey 1995; Hecht, Burgess, Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 2000).
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 9
Researchers have found these factors affect students’ reading and literacy acquisition (Reese,
Thompson, & Goldenberg, 2008; Rueda, Velasco, & Lim, 2008).
These statistics are of importance because the recently adopted Common Core State
Standards (CCSS) place a new demand on reading comprehension instruction. The CCSS
requires using more complex and varied texts to teach the strategic and cognitive processes
critical to reading comprehension. Fourth grade students are required to (a) use cognitive
strategies to activate background knowledge; (b) analyze and synthesize main ideas; (c) make
inferences; (d) learn new vocabulary through context; and (e) draw and support conclusions with
textual evidence (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief
State School Officers, 2010). Yet, recent NAEP data reports that only 6% of 4
th
grade students
can make complex inferences and support their inferential understanding with evidence from the
text; and only 2% of ELL students were included in this statistic (National Center for
Educational Statistics, 2013).
Research on reading instruction and student achievement consistently correlated student
reading performance to the level of expertise held by the teacher (Carlisle, Kelcey, Berebitski, &
Phelps, 2011; Hayes & Robnolt, 2006; Porche, Pallante & Snow, 2012). Studies on teaching
reading to ELL students document that teachers require specialized and professional knowledge
to effectively meet the needs of this student population (Coleman & Goldenberg, 2009;
Goldenberg, 2008; 2011; Pacheco, 2010). Teachers need to take into account students’ language
limitation and need to know how to provide explicit instruction in the foundational reading skills
of phonological awareness, phonics, vocabulary, syntax, include and multiple opportunities for
students to hear and practice English language to acquire academic language proficiency (Carlo,
August, & Snow, 2005; Goldenberg, 2008; 2011).
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 10
Teachers of ELLs also need to provide meaningful and relevant learning experiences,
activate students’ background knowledge to anchor new learning, and use effective learning
strategies to develop ELL students’ reading skills and reading comprehension abilities (August &
Shanahan, 2006; Echeverria, Vogt, & Short, 2008; Hayes, Coleman and Goldenberg, 2009;
Rueda, & Lim, 2008). Unfortunately, due to lack of appropriate preparation, students from
diverse language backgrounds have been historically underserved when it comes to their
education (August, Shanahan, & Escamilla, 2009; Pacheco, 2010).
Over the last few decades, several federal and state initiatives were adopted and
implemented to address and remediate the gap in teachers’ knowledge of reading instruction.
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2002 was passed as a federal initiative to improve
teachers’ understanding and use of effective reading comprehension strategies (U.S. Department
of Education, 2015). Federal dollars were spent developing teachers’ knowledge of instructional
strategies in reading comprehension to meet the requirements set forth by the law and to improve
student achievement in reading. Unfortunately, studies on the effects of NCLB did not find any
consistent evidence of 4
th
grade achievement gain in reading performance (Beecher & Sweeny,
2008; Dee & Jacob, 2011).
Several authorities of effective reading instruction document that improving teaching
practices requires more than increasing the technical knowledge of instructional strategies.
Improving teaching practices requires consistent engagement in quality and on-going self-
reflection to think deeply about instruction and analyze the impact of instructional decisions on
student learning (Darling-Hammond, 1999; Dewey, 1933; Hagevik, Aydeniz & Rowell, 2012;
Hatton & Smith 1995; Risko, Roskos & Vukelich, 2002; Schön, 1987; Zeichner & Liston, 1996).
Results from studies on self-reflection show that, when teaching situations are analyzed from
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 11
multiple perspectives and when instructional decisions are questioned, instruction improves and,
consequently, student performance increases (Butler, Lauscher, Jarvis-Selinger, & Beckingham,
2004; Emerling, 2010; Osipova, Prichard, Gould-Baradman, Kiely, & Carrol, 2011; Wold,
2003).
In a report that focused on the knowledge required to teach reading, Snow, Griffin and
Burns (2007) argued that teachers at various levels of expertise (pre-service, apprentice, novice,
experienced, and master) place different emphasis on the cycles of learning, enactment,
assessment and reflection. These authors distinguished that pre-service and novice teachers are
mostly involved in new learning, whereas experienced and master teachers place more emphasis
on self-assessment and reflection. Snow and colleagues posit that experienced and master
teachers have enough expertise to closely examine and reorganize their knowledge of reading
instruction.
In this context, this study aimed to uncover the practices and processes 4
th
grade
experienced teachers used to engage in self-reflection about their reading comprehension
instruction. To conduct this study, teachers with five or more years of teaching experience were
selected. This criterion was used because 6,500 hours or roughly five years of teaching
experience is considered the minimum level of practice to establish expertise/mastery (Berlinger,
1994; Ericsson, Krampe & Tesch-Romer, 1993). Surveys, one-on-one interviews, classroom
observations, and post-lesson conversations were used to collect data on teachers’ professional
practices such as (a) creating reading comprehension lesson plans, (b) making revisions to lesson
plans, (c) collaborating with colleagues, and (d) participating in professional learning
communities. Similarly, the teachers’ pedagogical practices examined; these were (a) explicit
instruction and think-alouds, (b) interactive discussions, and (c) differentiated instruction to meet
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 12
the varied reading comprehension needs of all students. The data collected was used to
determine how these teachers self-reflected to examine their practice, and to uncover the nature
of self-reflection on instructional decisions.
Background of the Problem
Teaching Reading Comprehension
An extant body of literature affirms that learning how to read is a multifaceted linguistic
and cognitive process (Adams, 1990; Fuchs et al., 2001; Nation & Angell, 2006; Snow, Griffin,
& Burns, 2007). To access content and make meaning from a text, a reader is required to (a)
apply knowledge of letter-sound relationships (including knowledge of letter patterns to correctly
pronounce written words); (b) activate previous knowledge of vocabulary words; determine the
meaning of unknown words; (c) activate background knowledge of the topic; and (d) read the
text with fluency, or read accurately using proper expression, in order to understand and maintain
the meaning of what was read. The integration of all these skills helps a reader determine a
purpose for reading to later analyze and evaluate the information gathered (Nation & Angell,
2006; National Reading Panel, 2000; National Early Literacy Panel, 2009; RAND Study Group,
2002; Snow, Griffin, & Burns, 2007).
Comparably, studies on reading instruction confirm that teaching reading is also a
multifaceted and complex practice. Teaching reading requires (a) extensive professional
knowledge of the overall reading process, (b) a thorough understanding of the general
progression of literacy development, and (c) pedagogical content knowledge of reading
instruction to effectively create lessons that address students’ varying needs in reading
(Cunningham, Zibulsky, Stanovich, & Stanovich, 2009; Moats, 1994; 1999; 2009; National
Reading Panel, 2000; Snow, Griffin, & Burns, 2007).
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 13
These studies attest that effective reading instruction begins with an understanding that
oral language supports reading development (Fillmore & Snow, 2004; Moats, 1994; 1999; Snow,
Burns & Griffin, 2007). Teachers, additionally, need to know how the components of the
reading process (phonemic awareness, phonics, reading fluency, vocabulary and comprehension)
are taught as part of an integrated process and not in isolation (Foorman and Moats, 2004; Lyon
and Weiser, 2009; National Reading Panel, 2000; Snow, Burns & Griffin, 2007). These two
foundational understandings requires teachers to acknowledge that ELL students may have
smaller vocabularies, less background knowledge in a particular subject matter, and less
experience with mainstream discourse patterns (Au, 2003; August, Francis, Hsu, & Snow, 2006;
Goldenberg, 2011). Therefore, instruction for ELL students must appropriately respond to these
needs.
In 1986, Shulman introduced the concept of Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK). He
described PCK as specialized knowledge of what makes the learning of a specific topic easy or
difficult. Teachers equipped with PCK of reading instruction recognize students’ home cultures,
personal experiences, background knowledge, cultural values and practices as areas of strength
that can be built upon and leveraged as resources for learning (Au, 2003; Gutiérrez, Morales &
Martinez, 2009; Moll, 1992). Skilled teachers of reading design and deliver reading
comprehension lessons that are accessible and meaningful for all students and know how to
accurately and flexibly support students throughout the various stages of reading development
(Hall, 2005; Lyon & Weiser, 2009). Skilled teachers of reading are also knowledgeable and can
use instructional methods such as explicit instruction, modeling of thinking processes,
facilitating meaningful dialogue of texts amongst students, and differentiation of instruction to
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 14
develop students’ reading comprehension ability (Coleman & Goldenberg, 2009; Connor et al.,
2011; Cunningham et al., 2009; Goldenberg, 2011; Moats, 2009; Williams, 2005).
Several researchers of reading instruction agree that gaining this level of professional
knowledge takes place over several years of focused study and practice (Darling-Hammond,
2000; Darling-Hammond & Youngs, 2002; Foorman & Moats, 2004; Gallant & Schwartz, 2009;
Moats, 1999; 2009). Unfortunately, studies also found that teachers are not familiar with the
critical components of the reading process and often lack the professional knowledge of effective
reading instruction due to a lack of appropriate preparation (Foorman & Moats, 2004; Moats,
1999; 2009; Snow, Griffin, & Burns, 2007; Teacher Prep Review, 2014). Similar, in-service
support in reading comprehension often falls short of developing teacher expertise. Most
professional development programs (PD) do not teach the interconnectedness of the reading
processes; instead, teachers learn about teaching phonics, vocabulary strategies, reading
comprehension as isolated reading practices, which creates unfamiliarity with the progression of
reading development (Goldschmidt & Phelps, 2010; Guthrie et al., 2004; Gutiérrez, Morales, &
Martinez, 2009; Pacheco, 2010).
Research also documents that the professional knowledge of effective reading instruction
is often lacking due to inappropriate preparation. Teachers who lack PCK of reading instruction
are unable to design instruction that is properly differentiated to respond to the variability of all
students’ reading needs (Block, Parris, Reed, Whiteley, & Cleveland, 2009; Brady, Gillis, Smith,
Lavalette, Liss-Bronstein, Lowe, & Wilder, 2009; Dole, Nokes & Drits, 2009; Goldenberg,
2008; 2011; McCombes-Tolis & Feinn, 2008). As a result, reading comprehension instruction is
frequently taught in a question-and-answer interchange, instead of with interactive discussions
where students co-construct meaning from texts to develop new knowledge (Pressley, 2006).
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 15
The Role of Self-Reflection
Dewey (1933) introduced the concept of self-reflection and defined this practice as an
active, meaning-making self-assessment. Dewey explained that self-reflection requires being
open-minded to view situations from multiple perspectives, develop a sense of responsibility for
decisions and the consequences of actions taken, and have wholeheartedness, or an relentless
commitment to become active learner. Several researchers agree that self-reflection is the
conduit that helps teachers actively examine what they know to determine what they have yet to
learn (Darling-Hammond, 1999; Lai, McNaughton, Timperley & Hsiao, 2009; Loughran, 2002;
2006; Rogers & Raider-Roth, 2006; Valli, 1997). The work of these researchers confirm that
engaging in self-reflection helps teachers review their instruction from multiple perspectives to
determine a fitting course of action and improve their professional practice.
Regrettably, large scale studies on teachers’ self-assessment of reading expertise have
documented a disparity between teachers’ actual and perceived knowledge of reading instruction
(Cunningham, Perry, Stanovich, & Stanovich, 2004; Al-Hazza, Fleener & Hager, 2008).
Teachers in these studies tended to significantly overestimate their knowledge of reading
instruction. Reading experts agree that if teachers misperceive their knowledge of reading
instruction, inquiring into and questioning their teaching practices is not likely to happen, and
seeking new knowledge is very unlikely (Al-Hazza et al., 2008; Cunningham, et al., 2004).
Therefore, reviewing the practices teachers use to engage in self-reflection is of importance to
determine how teachers examine their instructional practices and manage the complexity of
teaching reading comprehension.

SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 16
Statement of the Problem
National assessment data reports that students are not able to access and understand the
text demands of the curriculum. In the state of California, 42% of students in 4th grade read
below the basic level of achievement. Fourth grade is a pivotal time as students begin to
transition from learning to read, which generally happens in grades 1 through 3, to using reading
as a tool for learning (Chall, 1996). By grade four, the demands of the curriculum and new
Common Core State Standards (CCSS) require students to analyze and synthesize main ideas,
make inferences, learn new vocabulary through context, and draw and support conclusions with
evidence from texts. For example, a 4
th
grade CCSS standard in English Language Arts Literacy
RL.4.1 requires students to “refer to details and examples in a text when explaining what the text
says explicitly and when drawing inferences from the text.” Similarly, standard RL.4.4 requires
students to: “explain events, procedures, ideas, or concepts in a historical, scientific, or technical
text, including what happened and why, based on specific information in the text” (National
Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers,
2010). The recent National Assessment Educational Progress (NAEP) data, however, shows that
only 6% of 4
th
grade students know how to make complex inferences and are able to construct
and support their inferential understanding of the text, and the percentage of ELL students is
much lower (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2013).
These statistics suggests the need to strengthen the instructional environment in
elementary schools by including more consistent and skillful instruction of the critical elements
of reading development and reading comprehension. Evidence from the extant body of literature
asserts that the type of instruction provided directly affects students’ performance, yet a gap
exists in teachers’ professional and specialized knowledge to plan and deliver effective reading
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 17
comprehension instruction (Dole et al., 2009; Duffy, 2002; Foorman & Moats, 2004; Guthrie et
al., 2004; Moats, 1999; 2009; Pressley & El-Dinary, 1997; Snow, Griffin, & Burns, 2007;
Teacher Prep Review, 2014). Teachers may have misguided perceptions that prohibit them from
questioning the effectiveness of their teaching practices and result in misinterpretation and
misdiagnosis of students’ reading needs (Al-Hazza et al., 2008; Cunningham et al., 2004;
Foorman & Moats, 2004).
Since self-reflection is a practice that helps teachers recognize their areas of strength and
areas of need, this study sought to uncover the processes and practices teachers use to examine
their reading comprehension instruction. It was also important to determine the nature of self-
reflection on the instructional decisions teachers made to support student learning. Further, this
study aimed to identify the support systems and mechanisms needed to enable self-reflection as a
sustainable instructional practice.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to uncover and analyze teachers’ reflective practices and
decision-making processes when teaching reading comprehension. With a focus on the learning
of students not fully proficient in English, teacher self-reflection was of particular interest
because reviewing self-reflection practices provided an insight into the process teachers used to
make instructional decisions that support students’ reading comprehension performance.
To gain insight into teachers’ self-reflective practices, this study used a qualitative
design. Data were gathered using surveys, one-on-one semi-structured interviews, classroom
observations of reading comprehension instruction and post-lesson conversations. Teacher
surveys were used to collect teachers’ demographic data, years of teaching experience, type of
professional development received in reading instruction, and frequency of participation in
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 18
professional development programs. One-on-one semi-structured interviews were used to learn
about teachers’ self-reported level of expertise in reading instruction, attitudes and beliefs about
teaching reading comprehension instruction, pedagogical approaches, planning procedures, and
self-identified needs in reading instruction. Classroom observations were used as a first-hand
encounter to reveal teachers’ enacted practices of reading comprehension instruction. Following
each classroom observation, post-lesson were conducted to determine the self-reflective practices
teachers used to analyze their reading instruction. Data findings were triangulated, or cross-
verified, from all measures used.
In order to learn about teachers’ self-reflective practices and processes, the following
research questions were used to structure and guide this study:
1. How do 4
th
grade teachers rate their knowledge of reading comprehension instruction?
2. How do 4
th
grade teachers plan and teach reading comprehension?
3. What practices and processes help teachers self-reflect on their behaviors, decisions and
actions when teaching reading comprehension?
4. What is the nature of self-reflection on teachers’ decisions of reading comprehension?
Using a grounded theory approach, data gathered to answer these questions were analyzed to
determine how teachers assessed their knowledge of reading comprehension instruction and how
their knowledge was enacted in the classroom. The quality and depth of teachers’ self-reflection
was examined to determine the outcome of this practice on future instructional decisions and
actions.

SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 19
Significance of the Study
This study sought to reveal effective ways to support teacher self-reflective practices and
decision-making processes when teaching reading comprehension. Examining teaching practices
was important since the new Common Core State Standards (CCSS) requires using more
complex and varied texts to teach reading comprehension (National Governors Association
Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010). These standards have
a higher cognitive demand that requires on students to independently read complex texts,
determine relevant information, make logical inferences, and use that information to present
arguments that demonstrate a critical understanding of the content. Determining how teachers
self-reflect and make instructional decisions in light of the new CCSS requirements was of
importance given the low percentage of students reported as proficient in reading in the
California NAEP 2013 report card. Thus, the goal of this study was to contribute to the body of
literature on self-reflection and reading comprehension instruction. As such, this study sought to
provide insight on the effective practices and organizational structures needed to develop
teachers who self-reflect to analyze and examine their practice, and who make informed
decisions to improve their instruction.
Delimitations of the Study
This study did not evaluate reading programs used in the schools’ observed. The study
also did not evaluate teachers’ participation in self-reflective trainings that may have influenced
the behaviors and actions observed. Instead, this study only focused on the self-reflective
practices teachers used to examine their instruction. Additionally, student reading
comprehension data was not collected, analyzed or compared to the self-reflective practices
reviewed and analyzed.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 20
Assumptions
The researcher in this study assumed that the participants responded to the survey,
interview questions, and post-lesson conversations to the best of their ability with honesty and
with candor. Additionally, since state assessment data was not available, the researcher assumed
that teachers administered a reading assessment to determine students’ reading ability and
performance in reading comprehension to establish baseline data used for instruction. The
researcher further assumed that teachers were proficient in using reading assessments, analyzed
reading data obtained objectively, and used the data to plan reading lessons to meet identified
students’ needs. The researcher also assumed that teachers understood the components of the
reading process and possessed the pedagogical content knowledge of reading instruction to plan
and deliver instruction.
Limitations of the Study
While this study attempted to retrieve reliable results, the study’s limitations presented
some considerations. The sample size of participants was small and this limited any
generalization of findings to the larger and overall population. Since the researcher in a
qualitative study is the central instrument to collect and code data (Patton, 2002); the
background, experience and biases of the researcher were taken into account as a limitation.
Additionally, the potential of the researcher’s presence in the classroom unintentionally
influencing the instruction delivered and the student participation observed was considered a
limitation. The data collected from classroom observations was limited to three to five reading
comprehension lessons that were observed over the course of one week, instead of over a longer
period of time. Finally, this study was limited because student data in reading comprehension
was not collected.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 21
Definition of Terms
Following are definitions of the main terms used throughout this study:
English Leaner- a student whose primary language is other than English.
Pedagogical Content Knowledge – knowledge of what makes learning specific topics easy or
difficult (Shulman, 1986, p. 7).
Reading Comprehension - “the process of simultaneously extracting and constructing meaning
through interaction and involvement with written language” (RAND Study Group, p.11).
Redesignated FEP – This term refers to English Learners who were Redesignated as Fluent
English Proficient according to multiple criteria, standards, and procedures adopted by the school
district. Students who are redesignated have English language proficiency comparable to that of
average native English speakers.
Self-Reflection – an active, meaning-making self-assessment that requires the ability to be open-
minded to view and analyze teaching situations from multiple perspectives and to develop a
sense of responsibility for the decisions made, actions taken, and the consequences that result
from those actions (Dewey, 1933).
Self-Regulation - refers to self-generated thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that are oriented to
attaining goals (Zimmerman, 2002).
Organization of the Study
This study is organized into five chapters, with each chapter presenting the purpose of the
study, supporting literature, study’s design, study’s results, and implications for practice and
policy.
Chapter One provides an introduction and overview of the context for this study.
National and State statistics contextualize student performance in reading and underscore the
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 22
significance of this educational concern at the national and state level. The required knowledge
to effectively teach reading comprehension and current gap that exists in teacher knowledge is
introduced and self-reflection is discussed as a practice used to examine teaching practices. The
four research questions that focused this study are included.
Chapter Two begins with a review of the literature on the components of the reading
process that support students’ reading comprehension. Effective reading instruction is introduced
and discussed. Knowledge required to teach reading comprehension is presented and is followed
by an examination of the gaps in teacher knowledge in these two domains. Finally, self-
reflective practices to effectively examine instruction are discussed.
Chapter Three details the design used to conduct this qualitative study. The rationale for
using a grounded theory approach to analyze data is explained and the tools used to collect data
are described. The criteria used to select the school sites and participants for the study are
presented.
Chapter Four presents the findings for this study. Findings from the measures used for
this study are organized by research question.
Finally, Chapter Five discusses the findings and includes implications for education
practice and policy. A conceptual framework that illustrates the interconnections and cyclical
approach to quality self-reflection is introduced. Recommendations for school administrators
and classroom teachers based on the study’s findings are presented. Suggestions for future
research in the area of self-reflection and reading comprehension instruction are included.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 23
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
The purpose of this study was to examine how teachers self-reflect on their instruction of
reading comprehension. The professional practices analyzed in this study were (a) planning
reading lessons, (b) making revisions to lessons, (c) collaborating with colleagues, and (d)
participating in professional learning communities. The pedagogical practices analyzed were (a)
explicit instruction of procedures and modeling of cognitive processes using think-alouds, (b)
interactive discussions, and (c) differentiating instruction to meet the varied literacy needs of all
students when teaching reading comprehension. This study was also designed to determine
nature of self-reflection on the decisions teachers made about their instruction and professional
practice.
Chapter Overview
This literature review is organized in four sections. First, an overview of the reading
process: phonemic awareness, phonics, word study, spelling, reading fluency, vocabulary, and
reading comprehension is discussed. Second is an examination of effective comprehension
instruction such as (a) explicit instruction of procedures and using think-alouds to model the
cognitive processes used when reading, (b) interactive discussions, and (c) differentiated
instruction is reviewed. Third, required knowledge to teach reading (i.e., knowledge of the
reading process and pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) of reading instruction) is presented.
The examination is followed by a review of the gaps in teacher knowledge documented in the
literature. This review is followed by an introduction of self-reflection as a practice that helps
teachers analyze teaching actions, reframe situations, evaluate instruction and level of expertise,
and inform decision-making to support student learning. The chapter concludes by introducing
support systems and tools that engage teachers in quality and on-going self-reflection practices.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 24
The Reading Process
Current knowledge of reading development confirms that learning to read is a complex
linguistic and cognitive process (Adams, 1990; Fuchs et al., 2001; Nation & Angell, 2006; Snow,
Griffin, & Burns, 2007). When approaching a text, a reader must be able to use several decoding
and meaning-making strategies to access and understand what is being read. Linguistically, a
reader must learn the correspondence between letters and sounds to accurately decode words
using phonological (letter sounds), grapho-phonic (orthographic) and syntactic (language rules
and patters) information to connect sounds to letters and words. Cognitively, a reader must make
connections between the content of the text and previous knowledge to understand what is
presented in the text. The reader must also know how to access and maintain the meaning of
what was read to determine a purpose for reading and to understand what was read (Nation &
Angell, 2006; National Reading Panel, 2000; National Early Literacy Panel, 2009; RAND Study
Group, 2002; Snow, Griffin, & Burns, 2007).
Studies on reading instruction also attest that teaching reading is a multifaceted and
complex practice. Teaching reading requires extensive professional knowledge of the overall
reading process and a thorough understanding of the general progression of literacy development
(Cunningham et al., 2009; Moats, 1994; 1999; 2009; National Reading Panel, 2000; Snow,
Griffin, & Burns, 2007). Teachers are required to know how linguistic and cognitive skills, such
as phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary, spelling, reading fluency, reading comprehension
and writing, support students’ literacy development. In addition, teachers need to know how to
organize and deliver instruction that addresses the varying demands of students’ progression in
literacy, in particular for students who are considered English Learners (August & Shanahan,
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 25
2006; Foorman & Moats, 2004; Goldenberg, 2008; 2011; Moats, 1999; 2009; Snow, Griffin, &
Burns, 2007).
Within the past decade, several studies, books, federally mandated reports, and articles
documented best practices of reading instruction. A widely cited document in this respect is the
National Reading Panel report, Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of
the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction
(2000). Formed by a group of experts in the fields of reading education and psychology, the
National Reading Panel conducted a meta-analysis of over 400 studies on reading instruction to
outline implications for classroom practice and recommend a future research agenda in reading
instruction. The analysis of the studies resulted in a report that synthesized the repeated positive
outcomes in reading instruction across all the independent investigations analyzed. This
synthesis identified phonemic awareness, phonics, reading fluency, vocabulary, and reading
comprehension as critical components and essential to effective reading instruction.
Although the report did not include word study and spelling as components of reading
instruction, studies since the publication of this report evidenced a direct correlation between
word analysis and spelling instruction to reading performance and comprehension ability (Apel,
Wilson-Fowler, Brimo & Perrin, 2012; Kirk & Gillon, 2009; Foorman & Petscher, 2010; Nagy,
Berninger, Abbott, Vaughan, & Vermeulen, 2003; Nagy, Berninger, & Abbott, 2006). The
National Reading Panel (NRP) also did not include writing instruction in its analysis and was
omitted from the report. While the researcher of this study acknowledges that reading and
writing are related components that support reading proficiency and overall literacy
development, this study only focused on the reading process and instruction of reading
comprehension.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 26
Further, the NRP did not include studies on ELLs. Instead, the panel indicated that the
effective practices distilled from the research studies as effective practices for English Only
students, were also effective for English Language Learners. Given the increase of ELLs in
schools, a second panel was formed: the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children
and Youth (NLP). The NLP was composed of experts in the field of second language acquisition
and literacy development who synthesize the knowledge base on best practices for developing
literacy in ELLs. Their report was published in a book entitled Developing Literacy in Second
Language Learners (August & Shanahan, 2006).
In what follows, research findings for each component of the reading process are
explained separately as presented in the literature. The findings presented also indicate the
critical impact of each component to the overall development of reading proficiency for English
Learners.
Phonemic Awareness
Identified as a critical component of the reading process, phonemic awareness (PA) is the
ability to hear, identify and manipulate spoken individual sounds in words (National Reading
Panel, 2000). In order to access written text independently, a reader has to learn how to identify,
isolate, discriminate, manipulate and blend the sounds in words (Adams, 1990; Foorman, Chen,
Carlson, Moats, Francis, & Fletcher, 2003; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). For example, a
reader must be able to identify that the word “cat” has three separate sounds /c/ /a/ /t/, and has to
recognize that blending these sounds together creates a word that carries a meaning.
PA is a teachable skill of considerable importance in the development of reading and
comprehension ability (Adams, 1990; August & Shanahan, 2006; Ehri, Nunes, Stahl, & Willows,
2001; Carlson, Jenkins, Li, & Brownell, 2013; Ferguson, Currie, Paul, & Topping, 2011;
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 27
National Reading Panel, 2000; National Early Literacy Panel, 2009; Snow, Burns, & Griffin,
1998; Snow, Griffin, & Burns, 2007; Schatschneider, Fletcher, Francis, Carlson, & Foorman,
2004). A meta-analysis of PA studies conducted by The National Early Literacy Panel (2008)
found that early exposure to letters, words, and sounds is predictive of students’ reading
readiness and overall reading achievement. Specifically, using explicit instruction to teach
students how to detect, manipulate and segment words, syllables, or phonemes is directly
correlated to students’ ability to decode and understand texts effectively.
Much earlier studies, however, also reported similar findings. Ehri and colleagues (2001)
conducted the first meta-analysis that established the positive effects of PA instruction upon
students’ reading ability. In this landmark study, the researchers found that providing instruction
in PA highly impacts students’ ability to read and spell words accurately. Students who received
PA instruction were able to identify, categorize, blend, segment or delete phonemes (sounds in
words), and were able to manipulate onset-rime units (beginning sounds in a word before the
vowel and ending sounds in a word including the vowel /b/at, /c/at, /s/at) more effectively than
students who did not receive PA instruction. Further analysis of findings revealed that students
identified at-risk of reading failure who received PA instruction had a greater ability to decode
words more easily and could spell words with more accuracy. Students were found to decode
and read texts with more accuracy and understood what they read.
Comparable results to Ehri and colleagues’ findings were evident in Foorman and
colleagues’ (2003) data analysis of 4,872 students who received PA instruction. These
researchers reviewed whether PA instruction in kindergarten classrooms had an impact on
students’ reading achievement in grade 1. Students were assessed in letter-word identification,
word attack skills, and reading comprehension measures to determine the impact of PA
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 28
instruction received. Findings revealed that well-structured PA instruction helped develop
students’ higher levels of knowledge in letter-word identification skills, spelling ability, and
reading comprehension.
Several other studies on the effects of early PA development also document significant
gains in students’ decoding skills, spelling, and reading comprehension in later years. Using
student data from a large national sample, Carlson and colleagues (2013) examined the long-term
effects of PA to students’ reading ability. The researchers assessed the emerging language and
literacy skills of 3,104 children ages three to ten years old and found that students who had
developed PA at the age of five had a higher rate of decoding words at the age of six. Similarly,
students aged eight to ten years had higher reading ability and comprehension skills than students
who had not received any instruction in PA.
One of the areas of study the NLP panel reviewed was whether intervention/instruction in
phonemic awareness improved the literacy development of ELLs. The panel found that
instruction in PA had significant benefits for ELL’s reading comprehension. There was clear
evidence in the studies reviewed that first language oral proficiency influenced the
developmental patterns in second language speech discrimination and production. The panel
also found that teachers need to make adjustments to PA instruction to achieve maximum benefit
for ELLs. Some of these adjustments included emphasizing English phonemes that did not exist
in students’ native language (August & Shanahan, 2006).
Phonics
While PA helps students identify sounds in words, phonics helps students represent
identified letter sounds with letter symbols (National Reading Panel, 2000). For example, when
a reader learns the word “cat” is made up of three sounds (/c/ /a/ /t/) the corresponding letter
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 29
symbols that represent these sounds in print must also be learned. Phonics and PA are two
components of literacy development that work in tandem with each other, and knowledge of
letter-sound correspondence is a second crucial component to becoming a competent reader
(August & Shanahan, 2006; Ehri et al., 2001; Ehri, Satlow & Gaskins, 2009; National Reading
Panel, 2002).
Phonics instruction was the focus of many research studies aimed to determine the best
approach to teach this skill. These studies reveal that teaching phonics using a systematic, well-
organized, and strategic that teaches phonic elements sequentially and provides students time to
practice how to transfer decoding skills to new words develops students’ ability to match sounds
with letters (de Graaff et al., 2009; Ehri et al., 2001; White, 2005). The literature identifies four
types of phonics instruction: synthetic, analytic, embedded, and analogy to support students’
development of reading. Synthetic phonics instruction focuses on teaching students how to
identify sounds represented by a letter or letter clusters and how to blend sounds in words.
Analytic phonics instruction teaches students letter sound relationships in the context of the
word. Embedded phonics instruction places emphasis on spelling patterns encountered in
predictable texts. Analogy phonics instruction promotes the use of known words to identify new
words.
To evaluate the effects of systematic phonics instruction on students’ reading ability,
Ehri, et al., (2001) conducted a meta-analysis of 66 treatment-control comparison studies. Ehri
and colleagues found that students who received systematic phonics instruction, as part of a
balanced approach to teach reading, demonstrated a higher ability to blend larger units of words,
analyzed spelling patterns in words, and were able to transfer letters into sounds and into
recognizable words with more proficiency.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 30
White (2005) analyzed whether analogy based phonics instruction is effective when
taught systematically and strategically. Teachers taught at-risk second grade students how to
decode by analogy and use words posted on word walls to decode unknown words. Results from
pre-and post-tests showed that students’ ability in word reading and reading comprehension
performance significantly improved due to the strategic instruction in phonics and its application
in reading.
Recently, McGeown and Medford (2013) examined the effects of synthetic phonics
instruction to early reading development. Eighty-five students received instruction using a
systematic synthetic phonics reading program and learned how to identify sounds represented by
a letter or letter clusters. Students were assessed in letter sound knowledge, rhyme awareness,
and word reading. Letter sound knowledge was the strongest and most consistent predictor of
early word reading. Students used their knowledge of letter sounds to read unfamiliar words.
Having determined that systematic phonics instruction supports students’ development of
literacy, Ehri, Satlow and Gaskins (2009) sought to examine whether supplementing analogy
phonics instruction with grapho-phonemic (knowledge of letter-sound correspondence) analysis
further developed students’ reading performance. Struggling readers received explicit and
interactive instruction in phonemic segmentation skills, and were taught to analyze and discuss
their discoveries about language and spelling patterns found in familiar and new words when
reading texts. Students were assessed when they entered school and subsequently as they
completed four years at the school using word reading, spelling, and automaticity in pseudo word
decoding, and reading comprehension assessments. Results showed that students who received
combined analogy and grapho-phonemic instruction read and spelled words significantly better
than students who only received phonics instruction.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 31
August and Shanahan (2006) also found systematic phonics instruction combined with
oral language proficiency and a print-rich environment as effective phonics instruction for ELLs.
Their review of studies on phonics instruction revealed that teaching phonics sequentially, using
meaningful reading materials, and combined with intensive oral language development helped
ELL students learn how to decode print material. The authors recommended that before phonics
instruction is provided, ELL students need to have phonemic awareness skills to perceive
individual sounds in words. Additionally, instruction in phonics needs to include explicit
instruction of word meanings to understand that reading carries meaning. The authors concluded
that effective phonics instruction requires providing ELLs time to practice hearing and producing
the sounds of English, learn the meanings of the words, learn the multiple combinations of letters
that make the same sound, and learn sight words.
Word Study and Spelling
Word study and spelling follow in the continuum of reading development (Dickinson,
McCabe, Anastasopoulos, Peisner-Feinberg, & Poe, 2003; Muter, Hulme, Snowling, &
Stevenson, 2004; Nagy, et al., 2003). During word study, students manipulate word parts such
as prefixes, suffixes, roots and grammatical inflections to analyze how words are constructed and
create new words. Numerous studies found that developing students’ awareness of word
structures increases vocabulary knowledge, reading fluency, proficiency in spelling, cognitive
ability, and comprehension of texts (Apel, et al., 2012; Deacon, & Kirby, 2004; Foorman &
Petscher, 2010; Kirby, Deacon, Bowers, Izenberg, Wade-Woolley, & Parrila, 2012; Nagy et al.,
2003).
In an effort to demonstrate the simultaneous influence of word study and spelling to
reading ability, Nagy et al., (2003) evaluated whether oral vocabulary, morphology (how words
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 32
are constructed by meaningful parts—prefix, suffix, roots), phonology (the study of sound
systems in language) and orthography (conventional spelling system) were related to reading
ability. Students identified at-risk of not meeting reading proficiency were administered a
battery of assessments to measure morphological and orthographic awareness. Students’
morphological awareness (or knowledge of how word parts such as root words, prefixes, suffixes
and grammatical inflections can be manipulated to construct new words) was assessed by having
students complete sentences, create new compounds words using the context of a sentence, and
identify derivations of words from a list. Orthographic awareness (or knowledge of rules or
patterns of how words are represented in print) was assessed by asking students to evaluate
which pseudo-word completed a sentence. Students were also assessed on word decoding,
identification, and reading comprehension. Using structural equation modeling, data analysis
revealed students with higher scores in morphological awareness had similarly higher scores in
word decoding, word-reading, spelling, and in overall reading comprehension.
Morphological awareness was also found as a consistent predictor in reading ability in
Apel and colleagues’ (2012) study. This study aimed to determine which metalinguistic,
linguistic, and processing skills predicted word-level reading, spelling, and reading
comprehension. Second and third grade students participated in tasks that used semantic
(meanings of words and sentences) and syntactic (how words are put together to form sentences)
knowledge of words, grammatical rules, and awareness of suffixes meanings to complete
sentence prompts (i.e., “Farm: My uncle is a ______”). Students also had to identify and spell
base words from words read out loud (i.e., examiner read “friendly”, and students were expected
to write “friend”). Findings revealed that students who were aware how letters are used to
construct simple and more complex words had greater scores in spelling ability and word-level
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 33
reading performance. This reciprocal relationship between morphological awareness to spelling
also had a great impact on students’ receptive vocabulary and reading comprehension
achievement.
Foorman and Petscher (2010) conducted a large scale study that examined the
implications of spelling development to reading ability and comprehension performance.
Students from 850 schools (N= 875, 040) in grades 3 to high school were assessed in reading
comprehension, text reading efficiency, and word analysis tasks. The researchers used
multilevel models to account for different clusters of students, classes, schools, and type of
instruction provided to students. Data analysis revealed that students who had experience in
analyzing words and who were aware of word structures outperformed students who did not
receive instruction in word analysis and morphological awareness. Consequently, students who
received instruction in word analysis had higher levels of correct spelling ability and also had
higher levels of reading comprehension.
Kieffer and Lesaux’s (2008) study on relationship between morphological awareness and
reading comprehension in English among Spanish-speaking English language learners found that
morphological awareness broadened ELL students reading vocabulary. Their longitudinal study
followed 87 students from three schools from 4
th
to 5
th
grade. Students were assessed using a
base word identification task (e.g., students were given ‘‘popularity’’ and asked to complete (The
girl wanted to be very ________). The researchers found that morphological awareness predicts
reading comprehension in ELLs in fifth grade. ELL students who had developed morphological
awareness were equipped to acquire a larger repertoire of word meanings, which helped in their
comprehension of reading texts. Findings from this study determined that morphological
awareness was an important skill in second language learners’ development of reading skills.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 34
Reading Fluency
Reading fluency is the ability to read a text effortlessly with speed, accuracy, and proper
expression. Reading texts with fluency requires the reader to automatically recognize words and
use multiple cognitive processes to make meaning from texts (Fuchs et al., 2001; National
Reading Panel, 2000; Spear-Swerling, 2006). As such, reading fluency was found to be an
essential component and a predictor of reading comprehension ability (Fuchs, et al., 2001;
National Reading Panel, 2000; Spear-Swerling, 2006). Studies on reading comprehension found
that when students can read a text accurately, quickly, and with expression, they are more able to
focus cognitive abilities to analyze, interpret, and infer meaning from texts, rather than spend
time focusing on how to decode sounds in words (Fuchs, et al., 2001; Jenkins, Fuchs, van den
Broek, Espin, & Deno, 2003; Schwanenflugel et al., 2006; National Reading Panel, 2000).
Testing the effects of reading fluency on reading comprehension was the focus of several
large scale and longitudinal studies. Roehrig, Petscher, Nettles, Hudson, and Torgesen (2008),
conducted a study to determine whether reading fluency had an effect on reading comprehension
of 35, 207 third grade students. These students were administered an oral reading fluency test
and a reading comprehension criterion-referenced test. The findings showed that students with
high levels of oral reading fluency had a similar high performance in reading comprehension.
Likewise, students falling within the risk range of scores in oral reading fluency were equally
likely to have an inadequate performance in the reading comprehension measures used.
Kim, Petscher, Schatschneider, and Foorman (2010) also conducted a large scale
longitudinal study to examine whether reading fluency affected later reading comprehension.
The study followed 12,536 kindergarten to grade 3 students to analyze students’ decoding,
fluency (reading rate), and reading comprehension data from each respective grade level. Data
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 35
findings indicated that in order for oral reading fluency to be effective, the integration of all other
early literacy skills was required. Students who had high rates of reading fluency also had strong
phonological awareness and well developed vocabularies. Equally, students with high ability to
decode reading words had higher reading fluency achievement, and in the same way, students’
level of reading fluency provided the most information about their reading ability and
comprehension achievement. Students who were successful at reading words fluently at the
beginning of grade 1 had higher levels of reading comprehension achievement at the end of
grade 3.
Further exploring the impact of reading fluency on reading comprehension in later upper
grades, Rasinski, Rikli, and Johnston (2009) assessed reading fluency development of students in
grades 3, 5, and 7. The researchers used prosody (expressiveness in reading) rather than reading
rate (automatic word recognition) as a measure of reading fluency. Using standardized tests in
silent reading and reading comprehension, students’ oral reading and use of expression,
smoothness, and pace was assessed. Results from these assessments confirmed that students
who read fluently and with expression tended to have higher level achievement scores in silent
reading comprehension. The researchers concluded that reading fluency was a significant
variable in upper elementary and middle grades students’ reading ability.
To determine whether reading fluency had the same effects on English Learners’ reading
comprehension, Quirk and Beem (2012) assessed 171 ELL students in grades 2, 3, and 5.
Students were assessed in word reading efficiency, reading fluency, and reading comprehension.
Students were also assessed for English Language proficiency using the California English
Language Development Test (CELDT). The results from these assessments revealed that the
general relationship between reading fluency and reading comprehension for ELL students is
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 36
similar, although slightly weaker than studies of non-ELL students. The researchers cautioned
educators about making decisions based solely on oral reading fluency data and recommended
pairing comprehension instruction when teaching fluency.
Vocabulary
Similar to reading fluency, vocabulary is also a strong predictor of reading
comprehension performance. Research studies documented strong associations between oral
vocabulary knowledge and literacy skills, with particular emphasis on increased reading
comprehension of texts (Biemiller & Boote, 2006; Hemphill & Tivnan, 2008; Nation &
Snowling, 2004; Nelson, & Stage, 2007; Ricketts, Nation, & Bishop, 2007; Ouellette, 2006;
Verhoeven, van Leeuwe, & Vermeer, 2011). Vocabulary knowledge, additionally, has a direct
link to accurately decoding words and non-common words, which are relatively more present in
higher-level and complex reading texts (Hemphill & Tivnan, 2008).
Setting out to examine whether direct instruction of word meanings during book readings
had an impact on students’ vocabulary development, Biemiller and Boote (2006) conducted two
studies of primary vocabulary instruction. In one study, kindergarten to grade 2 students
received direct instruction of word meanings during story book reading. In the second study,
kindergarten to grade 2 students participated in repeated readings of story books without
explanations of word meanings. Using pre-and post-tests of students’ vocabulary knowledge
indicated that students learned more words when direct and explicit instruction was used to teach
the meaning of words. Students who received direct instruction of the meaning of words
understood the meaning of words using context sentences at post-test and outperformed students
who only received repeated readings instruction.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 37
Extending Biemiller and Boote’s (2006) study, Coyne and colleagues (2010) focused on
interactive instruction of target vocabulary words that included discussions of word meanings.
Eighty kindergarten students received target vocabulary instruction during storybook read alouds
and engaged in interactive discussions about the meanings of words. An additional 44 students
in the same grade participated as the no-treatment control group. The researchers found that
students who participated in interactive read-alouds outperformed students in the control group
in target word knowledge, receptive vocabulary, and listening comprehension. The researchers
emphasized that explicit and direct instruction of the meaning of words increased students’
vocabulary knowledge and reading comprehension ability.
Nelson and Stage (2007) extended these studies by examining the effects of contextually-
based multiple meaning (i.e., words with multiple meanings) vocabulary instruction. Teachers in
3rd and four 5th grade experimental groups taught word meanings by: connecting new words and
meanings to students’ prior knowledge and presenting words in varied contextually-based
instructional contexts. Teachers also provided practice for students to use the new words and
their multiple meanings in sentences, and used a match activity between words and multiple
meanings. Results from post-test assessments indicated that 3rd and 5th grade students in the
treatment group had statistically significant gains in vocabulary knowledge and reading
comprehension skills due to the vocabulary instruction provided. The control group did not have
the same results.
Ouellette (2006) examined the reciprocal association between word knowledge,
decoding, and reading comprehension and found that a developed vocabulary works in
conjunction with students’ orthographic, phonological, and semantic representations. Likewise,
Verhoeven et al.’s (2011) longitudinal study also sought to determine the correlation between
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 38
vocabulary knowledge, reading ability, and reading comprehension. Results indicated that
students’ reading comprehension increased when a large vocabulary or word knowledge was part
of their background knowledge. Results also revealed that students’ word knowledge was
strongly supported by high word decoding skills and phonological abilities. Students with low
decoding skills, conversely, had low vocabulary knowledge and low reading comprehension
abilities.
Lesaux, Crosson, Kieffer, and Pierce (2010) conducted a study to determine whether ELL
students’ oral language and vocabulary knowledge had an influence on reading comprehension
skills. Eighty seven students were followed from the 4
th
to the 5
th
grade. These students were
from three different schools that had low-socio economic status- 90 to 100% of the student
population received free or reduced-price lunch. Two reading comprehension measures were
used at the end of each grade; students were also assessed in pseudoword reading accuracy,
English word reading fluency, expressive vocabulary and listening comprehension. The results
indicated that ELL students showed average word reading skills and below average
comprehension skills. The researchers found that English language skills had a large and
significant effect on reading comprehension. Lesaux and colleagues recommended developing
ELL students’ oral language competencies, by extending breadth and depth of vocabulary
knowledge, to improve reading comprehension outcomes.
Reading Comprehension
Reading comprehension is defined as “the process of simultaneously extracting and
constructing meaning through interaction and involvement with written language” (RAND Study
Group, p.11). As an interactive process, reading comprehension requires the reader to use
background knowledge and textual information to create mental representations and consistently
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 39
evaluate and modify these representations to make meaning from texts (Adams, 1990; Cutting &
Scarborough, 2006; National Reading Panel, 2000; Perfetti, Landi & Oakhill, 2005; Snow,
Griffin, & Burns, 2007).
A consensus in the literature affirms that cognitive strategy instruction is an effective
instructional approach to support students’ reading comprehension skills and ability (Brown,
Pressley, Van Meter, & Schuder, 1996; Palincsar & Brown, 1984; Paris, Cross & Lipson, 1984;
Perfetti et al., 2005; RAND Reading Study Group, 2002; Snow, Griffin, & Burns, 2007).
Cognitive strategy instruction emphasizes the use of thinking skills and mental processes
associated with learning. Early studies of comprehension instruction focused on studying the
effects of cognitive strategies in isolation (Brown, et al., 1996; Dole, Duffy, Roehler & Pearson,
1991; Pearson, 2009). Treatment groups were taught to either ask questions, or visualize, or
summarize what had been read before, during, or after reading a text. A comparison in
performance was usually made with a group that did not receive any strategy instruction, and the
results always favored the treatment groups. Students in treatment groups had higher scores in
reading comprehension performance than peers in the control group (Pearson, 2009).
Comprehension instruction studies later shifted to teaching a “set” or “family” of
comprehension strategies instead. One of the most prominent studies of multiple cognitive
strategy instruction is Palincsar and Brown’s (1984) study on Reciprocal Teaching. Twenty-four
7th grade students with poor comprehension skills were taught to: (a) ask questions about the
text, (b) clarify the meaning of words, (c) summarize parts of the text, and (d) predict what might
come next in the text. Teachers found that when students used the four strategies during reading,
the quality of students’ dialogue increased significantly, students’ comprehension scores
increased from 20% to 60% correct. Students demonstrated a more developed awareness and
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 40
knew how to use strategic reading processes when approaching texts. Additionally, the level of
student performance was sustained after the completion of the study--students were observed
using the strategies in new tasks and in other content area courses.
Improving students’ metacognition and use of multiple cognitive reading strategies was
also the focus of Paris et al.,’s (1984) study. The researchers designed the program Informed
Strategies for Learning (ILS) to improve students’ awareness of strategy use and to develop
metacognitive skills in reading. A total of eighty-seven 3rd grade and eighty-three 5th grade
students participated in this longitudinal study. One grade per level (3rd and 5th grade) acted as
the treatment group and the other two grades participated as the control group. Students in the
treatment group received instruction in ILS and learned how to set goals, find the main idea,
make inferences, summarize, and evaluate texts. Through guided and independent practice,
students learned when to use these strategies and how these strategies helped monitor reading
comprehension. Results showed that students who received ISL instruction had a heightened
metacognitive awareness and knew the purpose of using reading strategies. These students
largely outperformed students in the control group on how to evaluate and use cognitive
strategies to monitor the meaning of texts.
Building on Paris, Cross and Lipson’s and Palincsar and Brown’s (1984) studies, Brown
and colleagues’ (1996) study illustrated the benefits of teaching metacognitive skills to monitor
reading comprehension. The researchers created the SAIL program (Students Achieving
Independent Learning) to monitor reading comprehension. Teachers in the SAIL program used
think-alouds to explain their thinking and reasoning when using strategies to understand texts,
and used explicit instruction to explain the benefits of using reading strategies. Teachers also
modeled how, when, and where to: (a) adjust reading to a specific purpose; (b) make predictions;
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 41
(c) generate questions; (d) make interpretations; (e) visualize; (f) summarize and, (g) think-aloud.
The results from pre and post-assessments showed greater improvement in reading
comprehension measures for the students in the SAIL model than the comparison group.
Students were also able to successfully recall literal information, think-aloud as they used the
strategies, and provide interpretations of the information presented in the text. Lastly and most
important, SAIL students were able to articulate when and how they needed to use strategies to
understand texts.
More recent studies on cognitive comprehension instruction revealed similar results.
Klinger, Vaughn, Arguelles, Tejero Hughes and Lefwich (2004) conducted a study in ten 4th
grade classrooms across five schools to assess the effects of Collaborative Strategic Reading
instruction (CSR). Teachers in the CSR cohort taught students how to collaborate with peers to
make meaning from texts via the use of interactive dialogue. Students learned how to brainstorm
and predict, monitor their understanding, find the main idea, generate questions, and review key
ideas when dialoguing with peers. Teachers in the control cohort, on the other hand, taught as
they normally did and used the materials and resources that were already available to them.
Results from these assessments showed students in CSR classrooms had greater improvement in
reading comprehension than students in classrooms where CSR was not implemented. An
analysis of scores also indicated that students in the CSR classrooms had higher gains in reading
comprehension than their peers; and an analysis of the think-aloud prompt measure revealed
students’ strategic knowledge of comprehension monitoring.
In regards to research on reading comprehension of ELL students, Rueda, Velasco, and
Lim (2008) reported that from 2000 to 2008 a shift in research on reading for ELLs occurred.
These researchers note that studies on ELL reading instruction shifted from an exclusive
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 42
emphasis on basic reading skills research to a more balanced view that includes reading
comprehension, in particular motivation aspects of reading and cultural issues in reading
comprehension. In a follow up article to their 2006 report, August and Shanahan (2009) noted
that between 2002 and 2010, additional studies were conducted that focused on reading on
comprehension outcomes. The conclusion from these studies revealed that effective literacy
instruction has a similar impact on ELLs and non-ELL students’ development of literacy.
McElvain’s (2010) study on the effect of collaborative conversations and strategic
strategy instruction to teach reading comprehension to mainstream ELL students reported similar
findings. Seventy five 4th through 6th grade students received reading comprehension
instruction using the Transactional Literature Circle (TLC) model. Students were taught reading
strategies through explicit and direct instruction; the teacher modeled the strategies and provided
coaching when the students practiced using the strategies. Students worked with peers to model
the use of strategies and explain to each other how the strategies were used to process texts. A
control group of also 75 students did not receive TLC instruction. Students were assessed with
multiple reading measures (standardized tests, a reading inventory, TLC observation rubric, and
students also participated in a one-on-one interview). Results revealed that students who
received TLC instruction improved in reading comprehension skills. These students were also
more engaged and motivated to read; teachers reported their students were more willing to
participate whole class discussions, and had an increased reading self-efficacy due to
participating in small group discussion on a weekly basis.
Findings from these studies illustrate that reading comprehension requires the use of
several cognitive and linguistic skills and processes. In order to understand texts, knowledge of
and skills in oral language, PA, phonics, and word structures must first be used to approach and
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 43
decode a text. Distinguishing unknown words and properly identify their meaning is also
required to understand the content of texts. Further, texts need to be read fluently with
automaticity and prosody to make sense of the messages presented. To fully understand texts
requires the active involvement when reading. This requires readers to (a) set a purpose for
reading; (b) assess the difficulty level of a text; (c) access prior knowledge about the topic to
create a frame of reference for what is about to be read; (d) make predictions while reading and
revise predictions as necessary; and (6) effectively summarize what was read. Finally,
collaborating with others and using cognitive and metacognitive strategies to monitor, self-
correct, and interpret what was read results in critical understandings of texts.
The literature on reading comprehension and ELLs also revealed a similar approach.
Oral language was found as the foundational and significant predictor of ELLs reading ability.
Researchers of reading instruction for ELLs found that effective literacy instruction in all the
components of the reading process were equally beneficial to ELLs. Aside from making
recommendations to use meaningful reading materials, accessing students’ prior knowledge,
making modifications to the curriculum as needed and providing instruction to develop oral
language proficiency, these highlight the importance of instruction of all the components of the
reading process. Their studies affirm the interdependence of oral language to PA, phonics,
vocabulary, fluency and reading comprehension.
Table 1 summarizes the components of the reading process that support reading
comprehension. The next section presents three effective practices of reading comprehension
instruction culled from studies found in the literature.

SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 44
Table 1
Components of Literacy Development
Components of Literacy Development How it Supports Literacy Development

Phonemic Awareness

The ability to orally hear, identify, and manipulate
spoken individual sounds in words

Phonics

Connects learned letter sounds with letter symbols

Word Study and Spelling

Develops students’ recognition of language patterns
to examine and manipulate how words are
structured and constructed.

Reading Fluency

The ability to read a text effortlessly with speed,
accuracy and proper expression. This skill supports
reading comprehension.

Vocabulary

The breath of oral vocabulary knowledge is strongly
correlated to reading comprehension ability.

Reading Comprehension

Requires the reader to make use all of the
components of literacy development to understand
texts.

Effective Reading Comprehension Instruction
Effective comprehension instruction refers to teaching methods, practices, and
approaches designed specifically to address, support and promote student learning.
Accumulating evidence from the literature affirms that the quality of comprehension instruction
is directly correlated to student performance (Connor, Morrison, & Katch, 2004; Foorman,
Schatscheider, Eakin, Fletcher, Moats, & Francis, 2006; National Reading Panel, 2000; Taylor,
Peterson, Pearson, & Rodriguez, 2002; Taylor, Pearson, Peterson & Rodriguez, 2003; 2005).
Effective teachers of reading provide instruction that is accessible, meets the varying reading
needs of students, incorporates strategies and skills that encourage higher-level thinking, and
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 45
helps students become independent learners (Goldenberg, 2008; 2011; Moats, 1999; 2000;
National Reading Panel, 2000; Pressley, 2006; Taylor et al., 2002).
Several studies have been conducted to determine effective practices of reading
comprehension instruction. These studies report that explicit instruction, interactive discussions,
and differentiated instruction are approaches that that help students learn how to determine when
and how to use strategies to monitor their reading comprehension (Berninger, Vermeulen,
Abbott, Devonshire, Morris & Fluck, 2013; Duffy, Roehler, Sivan, Rackliffe, Book, Meloth,
Vavrus,… & Bassiri, 1987; Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2008; Moats, 1999; National Reading
Panel, 2000; RAND Reading Research Group, 2002; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998; Tobin &
McInnes, 2007; 2008).
Explicit Instruction
Explicit instruction is an overt, direct and systematic instructional approach. Using
explicit instruction consists of providing explicit and direct explanation of concepts to clearly
model how and when strategies are used and why they are used. As a systematic instructional
approach, explicit instruction requires pre-planned and structured time for guided practice, direct
application of learning, guidance and feedback (Archer & Hughes, 2011; National Reading
Panel, 2000).
Explicit instruction has a direct effect on students’ reading ability. Studies report that
explicit teaching helps students learn how to identify relationships between concepts, develop
analytical thinking, problem-solving skills, and articulate the process of learning new concepts
(Avalos et al., 2008; Duffy, et al., 1987; Lesaux et al., 2010; Moats, 1999; Ryder, Tunmer, &
Greaney, 2008). Studies also documented that explicit instruction develops students’ cognitive
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 46
thinking, metacognition, and self-regulatory skills (Berninger, et al., 2003; Klingner, et al., 2004;
Paris, Cross, & Lipson, 1984; Palincsar & Brown, 1984).
Berninger and colleagues (2003) aimed to define the effects of explicit instruction to
students’ development of cognitive thinking. Ninety-six 2
nd
grade students, from diverse
backgrounds and who were identified at-risk of reading failure, were randomly assigned to either
a treatment condition that offered explicit word and reading comprehension instruction, or to a
treated control group that practiced reading skills without instruction. Explicit instruction of
procedures was used to teach students how to analyze texts, engage in discussions to draw on
background knowledge, and promote inferential thinking about what was read. Results from a
battery of reading measures at pre-and post-intervention determined that students who received
explicit instruction had the highest effect sizes in reading comprehension ability than the control
group. Students developed strategic and analytical skills, asked questions about the text,
provided their own interpretations and opinions when they evaluated texts, made predictions, and
successfully summarized the information learned.
Williams and colleagues’ (2005) also reviewed the effects of explicit instruction on
students’ cognitive comprehension monitoring abilities (or metacognition). These researchers
studied the effects of explicit teaching when reading expository texts. Using explicit instruction,
2
nd
grade African-American (41%) and Latino (57%) students were taught to identify the
purpose of lessons, learn new vocabulary, identify texts structures, analyze information from
texts, and use graphic organizers to create written summaries. Analysis of students’ scores from
pre-and post-test assessments showed students had high levels of reading comprehension skills
and ability after receiving explicit instruction. Students monitored their comprehension of texts
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 47
by identifying text structures, determining the purpose of the text, using graphic organizers to
organize information, and used these skills to learn new material.
Numerous studies also attest that explicit instruction of procedures, in particular using
think-alouds, increases students’ comprehension skills and teaches the cognitive processes of
strategy use. Think-alouds are verbal articulations of the mental processes and reasoning that
takes place when a reader is making meaning from text. Think-alouds also provide a process and
framework that develops self-regulatory skills, make the cognitive process used to understand
texts visible, develop metacognitive control of learning (Block & Israel, 2004; Duffy et al., 1987;
Kucan & Beck, 1997).
Duffy and colleagues’ (1987) study was one of the first to illustrate the positive effects of
think-alouds. Twenty 3
rd
grade teachers, who taught low-level reading groups, were equally
divided into two groups. The treatment group learned how to explicitly articulate the reasoning
associated with strategic skill usage. These teachers analyzed basal textbooks and decided how
and when to explicitly articulate the reasoning associated with strategic reading. Teachers in the
control group taught reading lessons as presented in basal textbooks. The results from both post-
intervention measures revealed that think-alouds of mental processes supported students’ overall
growth in content awareness and academic achievement in reading. Students knew when to use
reading strategies and how to use the strategies when reading a text, and maintained the
achievement noted at the end of the study into the next academic year.
Bauman, Seifert-Kessell and Jones (1992) also studied the effectiveness of think-alouds
to promote comprehension monitoring performance. Sixty-six 4th grade students participated in
the study and were assigned to one either: The Think-Aloud (TA) group, the Directed Reading-
Thinking Activity (DRTA), or the Direct Reading Activity (DRA). Students in the Think-Aloud
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 48
group received explicit instruction in comprehension monitoring strategies and learned how to
use think-alouds to articulate their thinking processes when using the monitoring strategies.
Results from the post-assessments indicated that using explicit instruction using think-alouds
was more effective in developing students’ comprehension monitoring abilities than the other
two methods. Analysis of student interview responses also revealed that the Think-Aloud
students had greater awareness of comprehension monitoring and correction strategies. Students
knew how to select the appropriate strategy to monitor their reading and knew how to use
strategies to fix any misunderstanding in texts.
Several researchers examined explicit instruction with a population of diverse students in
ethnicity, socio-economic backgrounds, and English language ability, and found similar results.
Explicit instruction helped developed an accurate knowledge of strategies to determine their
appropriate use when reading texts (Avalos, Plasencia, Chavez & Rascon, 2008; Francis et al.,
2006; Lesaux et al., 2010). Goldenberg (2008) synthesized findings from research studies about
effective instruction for ELLs. His findings indicated that ELLs benefited from instruction when
concepts presented clearly, teacher models were included, corrective feedback was provided, and
guided practice was provided to help students acquire new knowledge and skills. In particular,
teaching phonemic awareness and decoding skills using explicit instruction and as part of a
comprehensive approach to develop early literacy skills, was found to successfully support ELLs
English language development. Additionally, explicit instruction of vocabulary words was
effective when vocabulary was embedded in meaningful contexts and when ELL students had
multiple opportunities to practice using new words in numerous contexts. Teaching these
foundational literacy skills using explicit instruction was found to support ELL students’ reading
comprehension skills.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 49
Interactive Discussions
Studies on interactive discussions that engages students in their learning is directly linked
to higher levels of academic achievement (Bransford, Brown & Cocking, 2000; Echevarria,
Vogt, & Short, 2008; Fisher & Ivey, 2005; Taylor, et al., 2003; 2005). Discussions that prompt
students to share experiences, discuss new ideas, ask questions, interpret texts, and use
information to co-construct new knowledge are some examples of interactive discussions. This
active interaction promotes student learning, develops students’ higher-level thinking skills, and
provides ELL students ample opportunities to practice using conversational and academic
English language (Bitter, et al., 2009; Carlisle, Kelcey, Berebitsky & Phelps, 2011; Goldenberg,
2008; 2011; Lesaux et al., 2010; Taylor, et al., 2003; 2005).
Bransford, Brown and Cocking (2000) labeled this active interaction between students
and peers as Accountable Talk. This type of discussion is centered on fostering students’
responsibility to interact with texts and engage in evidence-based discourse to make meaning.
When using this instructional approach, the teachers’ role is to facilitate students’ learning by
asking questions, facilitating discussions, providing scaffolds to help students think deeply about
their text interpretations, and offering guidance to support active learning.
Following Bransford, Brown and Cocking’s report, Taylor’s et al., (2003) analyzed the
reading instruction of 88 teachers who taught grades 1-5. Across all the schools that participated
in the study, 70 to 95% of students qualified for a subsidized lunch; 68% of students were non-
native speakers of English, and 67-91% had diverse backgrounds. Data from classroom
observations indicated that teachers who took the role of facilitator during classroom discussions
typically asked higher level questions, challenged students’ thinking about what they had read,
and guided discussions to help students analyze and interpret story characters more deeply.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 50
Teachers were also observed engaging students in classroom interactions that were more
conversational than interrogational and allowed students to take a more active role in
discussions. Consequently, students were observed making meaningful connections between the
readings, their prior knowledge, and personal experiences.
Accountable talk was also evident in Bitter et al.’s (2009) intensive longitudinal study.
Conducting classroom observations of 101 elementary school teachers from nine high-poverty
schools, the researchers reviewed the effects of teacher and student interactions during reading
instruction. Their observational data revealed the most consistent use of teacher-student
interaction was asking higher level questions and prompting students to engage in discussions at
deeper levels of comprehension. Students were observed engaging in conversations that focused
on interpreting the text, generating new ideas, and using evidence from the text to support new
learning. The researchers concluded that when teachers support students’ active engagement
with texts via the use of Accountable Talk, students respond with higher levels of thinking. This
finding was particularly evident in the area of reading comprehension.
Active exchanges during classroom discussions also enable students to co-construct new
knowledge. As was the case in McKeown, Beck and Blake’s (2009) two-year study of 119 fifth
grade students-- 48% of whom were scoring at basic or below basic in reading according to
standardized assessments. Two major approaches of comprehension instruction were examined:
strategy instruction and content instruction to determine which approach produced higher results
in reading comprehension. Findings indicated that reading comprehension instruction, inclusive
of discussions with open and meaning-based questions, results in better quality of student
dialogue and higher level of thinking. Students were observed analyzing and evaluating the texts
read at deeper levels. Moreover, using data from the transfer task administered uncovered that
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 51
students in the content group had higher scores in both length and quality of recall of information
read.
Facilitating and guiding discussions amongst students has largest effect on students’
comprehension growth. Carlisle and colleagues’ (2011) study demonstrated the impact on
student learning when the teachers act as facilitator and guide discussions during classroom
interactions. The researchers observed 88 second and third grade teachers over the course of a
year to determine whether fostering discussion between students increased students’ reading
comprehension performance. About 36% of students in this study were from diverse ethnicity;
73% were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, and 18% of the students were of limited
English language proficiency. During their observations, the researchers found a high
percentage of instructional time dedicated to interactive learning experiences--students
participated in discussions with their peers to ask questions about the text, contribute their ideas
to what they were learning, and practice using the English language. Teachers facilitated
students’ discussions by guiding conversations and providing feedback on students’
interpretations of readings. Results from a comparison between pre-and post-assessment in
reading comprehension indicated higher levels in achievement gains in students’ reading
achievement across the year.
Differentiated Instruction
Differentiated instruction is instruction presented in a variety of ways; it takes into
account students’ interests, readiness, and learning profiles, and it incorporates several strategies
designed to support students’ learning. Differentiated instruction requires teachers to properly
diagnose students’ reading achievement and language proficiency to determine a starting point of
instruction, modify instruction as needed to match students’ identified needs, and make content
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 52
comprehensible for all students (Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006; Bransford et al., 2005;
Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2008). Tomlinson (1999) suggests that differentiated instruction can
be accomplished by modifying what students need to learn, the process of how students will
learn the content, and the product that will assess how students will demonstrate their learning.
Differentiating instruction requires making the necessary modifications, adaptations and
accommodations to ensure all students can access the content and concepts in texts. Teachers are
required to learn about their students using on-going assessments (formal and informal) to take
into account what students are able to do and appropriate instruction (Connor, et al., 2011; Reis,
McCoach, Little, Muller, & Kaniskan, 2011; Tobin & McInnes, 2007; 2008). Students’ learning
needs, background knowledge, level of language proficiency in English, interests and abilities
become the starting point to design high-quality instruction tailored to further students’ learning
(Connor, et al., 2011; Echevarria, Vogt, & Short, 2008; Goldenberg, 2008; 2010; Reis et al.,
2011).
Differentiating and making accommodations to instruction to meet students’ reading
needs was the focus of Tobin and McInnes’s (2007, 2008) case studies. Teachers in mixed-grade
2/3 and 3/4 classrooms participated in workshops that emphasized using a variety of texts with
struggling readers, creating meaningful reading tasks, including flexible grouping, and using on-
going assessments to adjust instruction. Teachers selected book bundles at the appropriate
reading level for each student and determined the type of work products that varied in degrees of
difficulty to appropriately support student learning. Teachers reported using these approaches to
teach reading helped them address individual students’ needs and created effective learning
environments that provided the adequate challenge necessary to promote learning. Teachers also
reported that using differentiating instruction was a systematic approach to teaching reading
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 53
strategies. Teachers felt that their lesson plans on components of reading instruction (i.e., word-
study strategies, reading fluency, and reading comprehension) were specifically tailored to help
develop students’ reading comprehension performance.
Similarly, Connor et al.’s (2011) study focused on teachers’ use of student data to
differentiate reading instruction and support students’ reading comprehension. Using a cluster-
randomized treatment control design, 33 third grade teachers and 448 students were randomly
assigned to either implement reading comprehension instruction based on individual students’
needs, or to implement a vocabulary intervention not individualized to students’ needs.
Conducting the study over a year, the researchers determined that teachers in the individualized
instruction group were more likely to assess students’ literacy skills to better understand
students’ strengths and needs and match instruction to fit each student profile. These teachers
used flexible learning groups and differentiated instruction in word reading, reading
comprehension and vocabulary knowledge. Students who received differentiated instruction
made greater gains on reading comprehension assessments as a result of the individualized
instruction than the students in the vocabulary intervention group.
Students’ gains in reading achievement were also the result of Reis and colleagues’
(2011) large scale study. The researchers examined the effects of 70 2
nd
to 5
th
grade teachers’
use of differentiated instruction across five elementary schools utilizing a sample of 1,192
students. These schools had high percentages of students deemed at risk of reading failure.
Teachers in the treatment group used student assessment data to modify curriculum and
instruction. These teachers responded to differences in students’ readiness, interests and learning
profiles by using small group instruction and high interest self-selected books to provide the
appropriate academic challenge and engagement for students. Teachers in the control group
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 54
taught whole group and used a basal reading program. Assessments in reading fluency and
comprehension were collected at pre-and post-intervention and indicated a higher increase in
reading fluency and comprehension performance for students who received differentiated
instruction. An increase in student enjoyment, higher engagement in reading and a more positive
attitude towards reading instruction was also reported by the teachers in the treatment group.
The effective practices to teach reading comprehension discussed in this section are
summarized in Table 2.
Table 2
Effective Practices to Teach Reading Comprehension
Effective Teaching Practices Supports Reading Comprehension

Explicit Instruction

Used to clearly explain and model how and when
cognitive strategies are used to develop reading
comprehension skills.

Interactive Discussions

Support active student learning and engage students
to share experiences, ask questions, interpret texts
and use information to co-construct new
knowledge.

Differentiated Instruction

Takes into account students’ interests, readiness and
learning profiles to determine a starting point of
instruction and tailor teaching to match the needs of
students.

As documented in the literature, knowing how to enact these effective practices requires
professional and specialized knowledge. This specialized knowledge of the reading process and
reading instruction is defined and explained in the next section.
Knowledge Required to Teach Reading Comprehension
Findings from the literature on reading comprehension instruction reveal that teaching
reading requires extensive professional and specialized knowledge (Cunningham & Zibulski,
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 55
2009; Moats, 1994; 1999; Snow, Burns & Griffin, 2007). The consensus of these studies asserts
that, to effectively teach reading, teachers need to have an overall understanding of how
language works since oral language is the foundation of reading development (Fillmore & Snow,
2004; Moats, 1994; 1999; Snow, Burns & Griffin, 2007). Teachers must also be equipped with
the pedagogical content knowledge of reading instruction to select, organize and implement
instructional approaches that helps students easily access the content of texts (Shulman, 1986;
1987). Additionally, teachers who are skilled in reading instruction know how to deliver
instruction that is systematic and appropriately designed to address students’ needs (Au, 1993;
Echeverria, Vogt, & Short, 2008; Goldenberg, 2008; 2011; Lesaux et al., 2010).
In what follows, effects of teachers’ knowledge of the reading process and pedagogical
content knowledge of reading instruction are presented.
Knowledge of the Reading Process
Studies on teacher knowledge of reading instruction have found that when teachers are
knowledgeable of the reading process, student failure in reading achievement is reduced (Lyon &
Weiser, 2009; National Reading Panel, 2000; Moats & Foorman, 2003; Snow, Griffin, & Burns,
2007). Studies define teacher expertise as a comprehensive understanding of the development of
literacy learning. This understanding includes: (a) knowledge of the alphabetic principle, which
includes phonological awareness and phonics (Adams, 1990; Moats, 1999; 2009; Moats &
Foorman, 2003) (b) knowledge of how to teach spelling, vocabulary and fluency (Beck,
McKewon, Kucan, 2000; Biemiller & Boot, 2006; Fuchs et al., 2001); and (c) knowledge of
cognitive comprehension strategies (National Reading Panel, 2000; Snow, Griffin, & Burns,
2007).
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 56
Knowledge of the reading process has been the emphasis of several research studies of
reading instruction. Snow, Griffin and Burns (2007) contend that an extensive knowledge of
language structures has an impact on the quality of reading instruction delivered to support
students’ reading achievement. These researchers content that teachers need to know the
developmental process of phonological awareness and the specific activities that foster students’
identification of units of oral language. Teachers equipped with the knowledge of language
structures are able to identify which speech sounds and combinations are easier and more
challenging for students to learn and know how these sounds are evident in reading and spelling
errors. Having this foundational knowledge, Snow and colleagues continue, ensures that
teachers design instruction, select and use the appropriate activities, and provide specific
feedback to support individual students’ reading needs.
Moats and Foorman (2003) extensively studied teachers’ knowledge of the reading
process and reading instruction. These researchers also argue that teachers need to have
knowledge and expertise of phonology, phonics, reading fluency, vocabulary development and
reading comprehension to properly determine students’ reading acquisition and adequately
diagnose learning needs in reading development. Consistent with Moats and Foorman, Lyon and
Weiser (2009) and Vellutino, Tunmer, Jaccard and Chen (2007) maintain that knowing what is
meant by PA, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension is not sufficient to be an
effective teacher of reading. Teachers also need to know how all of these components work
together to contribute to reading development and proficiency. Having this knowledge informs
how teachers make instructional decisions, and select appropriate strategies, teaching methods
and approaches to deliver reading instruction that is well informed. Knowledge of the reading
process informs teachers how to teach reading components in an integrated fashion, and helps
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 57
teachers effectively monitor student performance, differentiate instruction, and meet the needs of
all students (Block, et al., 2009; Brady et al., 2009; Foorman and Moats, 2004; Snow, Griffin &
Burns, 2007).
In an attempt to determine the effects of teacher knowledge of the reading processes to
student reading performance, McCutchen et al. (2002) conducted a study that developed
teachers’ professional knowledge of reading. Forty-four kindergarten and 1
st
grade teachers
participated: 24 teachers were placed in the treatment group and the remaining 20 teachers were
part of the control group. The researchers assessed teachers’ knowledge of phonology at pre-and
post-intervention and found that teachers were not very knowledgeable about English phonology
and orthography. Teachers in the treatment group attended a two-week institute that deepened
their understanding of phonology, phonological awareness, decoding, spelling and the use of
explicit instruction to teach reading comprehension, and received support throughout the year.
Teachers in the control group, on the other hand, did not attend the institute nor received
additional support. Their instruction did not target students’ needs.
The researchers also assessed the students to determine the effects of teacher knowledge
of phonology on student performance. Students were assessed throughout the year using six
different literacy measures: phonological awareness, alphabet writing fluency, writing prompt
response, spelling, and listening comprehension. Results from these assessments revealed a 50%
increase in phonological awareness, word reading ability, orthographic fluency, and reading
comprehension from kindergarten students in the treatment group. First grade students’ data also
indicated an increase in phonological awareness, reading comprehension, reading vocabulary,
spelling, and composition fluency. After the intervention, teachers were assessed a second time
on phonology measures, and as evidenced by students’ achievement results, teachers in the
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 58
treatment group demonstrated a deeper awareness of phonological knowledge and reading
instruction.
Podhajski and colleagues (2009) also emphasized teacher knowledge of language
structures on students’ reading achievement. Seven teachers who taught grades 1 and 2
participated in the study. Four teachers participated in the treatment group; the remaining three
teachers were the control group. Teachers in the treatment group received 35-hours of
professional development in literacy instruction that focused on phonemic awareness, phonics,
and fluency instruction. Additionally, a master teacher collaborated and mentored the treatment
group to learn research-based assessment tools and intervention strategies such as: 1) using
sound and word walls; 2) linking speech to print by using sound and letter mapping; 3) following
a scope and sequence to teach phonic skills; and 4) use controlled sentence dictation for spelling.
Teachers received pre-and post-test assessments in language structures and early reading
and spelling instruction. Students were also assessed in phonological awareness, letter
recognition, and word retrieval. Reading fluency and reading/listening comprehension
assessments were also administered. Results from teacher assessments revealed that before the
intervention, teachers in the treatment group obtained a mean score of 45%. After the
intervention, teachers mean scores rose to 81%. Teachers indicated that the training and support
they received changed their instructional practices. Scores from students who were part of the
treatment group also yielded growth patterns. First grade students showed greater gains than the
control group in nonsense word fluency, letter name fluency, phonemic segmentation, and oral
reading fluency. Second grade students made gains in phoneme segmentation, phonemic
decoding, oral reading fluency, and reading/listening comprehension.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 59
Porche, Pallante and Snow’s (2012) study sought out to determine whether teachers’
content knowledge of the reading process supported students’ performance in reading. Twenty-
seven kindergarten and 4th grade teachers--from nine classrooms across five elementary schools-
-participated in the study as the intervention group. These grades were selected because the
researchers wanted to determine the effects of the program in emerging (kindergarten) and
established (grade 4) reading levels. Teachers in control group taught in the same schools as the
intervention teachers and were selected at random to participate in the study.
As part of the treatment group, teachers learned the effects of low phonemic awareness
influence on decoding skills, the relationships between weak decoding skills, lack of reading
fluency, and impact of these skills on reading comprehension ability. On-site coaching was also
provided throughout the year to help teachers analyze student data and determine the presence or
absence of specific reading skills. The teachers designed differentiated instruction lessons to
support students’ word reading, fluency, vocabulary development, writing skills, and reading
comprehension. Results from post-test reading assessment, revealed that at-risk kindergarten
students, who were part of the intervention group, had greater gains on phoneme segmentation
and reading fluency—these students scored almost 10 points higher than at-risk peers in the
control classrooms. Fourth grade students, similarly, scored significantly higher in reading
fluency than both at-risk control and non-risk students. These students made significantly
greater gains in vocabulary development than their at-risk control peers. As a result of the
intervention, the researchers concluded that developing teachers’ knowledge of the reading
process had a positive impact on students’ achievement in phoneme segmentation, reading
fluency and vocabulary development.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 60
Francis, Rivera, Lesaux, Kieffer, and Rivera (2006), in their seminal work, further
emphasized knowledge of the foundational skills in reading, such as: phonological awareness,
phonics, and oral language skills for teachers of ELLs. These researchers commented that
teachers equipped with this knowledge are able to provide strategically and systematic
instruction in these areas to build ELL students’ knowledge of sound structures, word attack
strategies for reading, and vocabulary development. These skills, the researchers maintain, are
critical for ELLs to access content and develop academic language. Additionally, knowledge of
the reading process helps teachers of ELLs organize instruction that incorporates key
comprehension strategies for listening and reading various texts. Further, when ELL teachers
understand the role of language in reading instruction, lessons include active use of discussions
and critical thinking skills to determine the main idea, draw inferences, predict outcomes and
summarize texts.
Pedagogical Content Knowledge
Pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) refers to having an understanding of what makes
learning easy or difficult (Shulman, 1986; 1987). PCK requires knowing how to use “the most
useful forms of representation, the most powerful analogies, illustrations, examples,
explanations, and demonstrations—in a word, the most useful ways of representing and
formulating the subject that make it comprehensible to others” (Shulman, 1986, p. 7).
A well-developed knowledge of reading informs teachers how to teach reading
comprehension in an integrated fashion that is accessible and meaningful for all students
(Goldenberg, 2011; Hall, 2005; Lyon & Weiser, 2009). Teachers who have well-developed
pedagogical content knowledge of reading instruction are able to provide reading instruction that
produces significantly higher results in student achievement (Carreker et al., 2005; Connor et al.,
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 61
2011). Teachers who possess pedagogical content knowledge of reading can design instruction
that includes specific strategies to accurately and flexibly support all students throughout the
various stages of reading development (Goldenberg, 2008; 2011; Phelps & Schilling, 2004;
Carlisle et al., 2011).
Seeking to identify teachers’ knowledge of text, language, and reading processes, Phelps
and Schilling (2004) conducted a study to determine how this knowledge is used when teaching
reading. The researchers established three distinctions in content knowledge for teaching
reading: (a) knowledge of content, (b) knowledge of students and content, and (c) knowledge of
teaching and content. Knowledge of Content (KC) requires teachers to use knowledge of
reading in the context of teaching situations; Knowledge of Students and Content (KSC) uses
knowledge of reading to recognize typical student errors when reading. Knowledge of Teaching
and Content (KTC) uses knowledge of reading to choose teacher actions—for example, KTC
requires using content knowledge to determine what to say to a struggling student when s/he is
unable to decode a difficult word.
Using these three dimensions as a framework, the researchers sought to assess teachers’
content knowledge in the areas of comprehension and word analysis. A total of 1,542 teachers
were administered three surveys that measured content knowledge of reading instruction.
Results from the assessment indicated that multiple sources of knowledge are required to teach
reading. One knowledge domain required includes knowing: language structures, word
decoding, word analysis, and reading comprehension. As well pedagogical knowledge to teach
reading components and ensure instruction is accessible by all students is also requirement to
effectively teach reading. The researchers concluded that both types of knowledge, working in
tandem, make for effective reading instruction.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 62
Extending their 2002 study, McCutchen, Green, Abbott and Sanders (2009) examined the
effects of teacher knowledge on the achievement of struggling readers using a sample of thirty
teachers: 16 were assigned to the intervention condition and the remaining 14 participated as the
control condition. Most teachers taught 4
th
grade and few taught 3
rd
or 5
th
grade. Teachers in the
intervention group participated in a 10-day summer institute designed to deepen the teachers’
understanding of phonology, discourse genre, explicit comprehension instruction; and
pedagogical content knowledge to address the typical development of children’s understandings
and predictable students’ errors in reading. Additionally, teachers participated in one-day
follow-up sessions three times during the year. Teachers were assessed using a pre and post-
linguistic measure. Students were also assessed using a pre and post-measure in literacy
development.
Classroom instruction was observed three times during the school year. Teachers were
observed engaging students in a wide range of literacy activities that were addressed during the
institute. Teachers were observed providing vocabulary instruction embedded in discussion of
texts. During follow-up meetings, the themes taught during the institute were revisited and
teachers’ implementation needs were addressed. Results from pre and post-the assessment data
revealed that low performing students benefited the most from the intervention provided.
Students’ scores on comprehension, vocabulary, narrative composition, spelling and writing
fluency were higher in these domains at post-intervention, and outperformed the results of
students in the control group. Similarly, results from teacher measures on the post-linguistic
assessment indicated deeper linguistic knowledge after the intervention. Teachers were observed
providing more effective interventions in linguistic measures and reading instruction after
receiving the professional development.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 63
Carreker et al. (2005) also conducted a longitudinal study to determine the effects of
teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge on students’ reading achievement. First and 2
nd
grade
teachers received training in Language Enrichment based literacy instruction. The effects of the
instruction were assessed with 518 3
rd
grade students to determine the longitudinal outcomes of
the instructional approach. Students in 1
st
and 2
nd
grade received systematic, explicit instruction
in PA, letter-sound correspondence, reading fluency (using repeated readings), and reading
comprehension (using metacognitive strategies). Results from a state-mandated reading
comprehension assessment revealed that students whose teachers had knowledge Language
Enrichment instruction had higher comprehension scores than teachers who had not received this
training. Additionally, students who received this instruction earlier in second grade had higher
achievement outcomes in reading comprehension scores in 3
rd
grade. The researchers concluded
that due to the training, teachers had deeper knowledge of the reading process and reading
instruction and were better equipped to support students’ overall reading needs.
With the aim to also determine whether knowledge of reading instruction supports
student achievement in reading, Hayes and Robnolt (2006) trained teachers over a two-year
period on how to use student data to evaluate their teaching practices. Thirty-one teachers
(kindergarten through grade four) received professional development in reading instruction and
met regularly to analyze data, discuss and reflect on their teaching practices. Teachers worked as
a team to analyze classroom observational data and student assessment scores to create common
goals that supported student learning. Teachers also worked closely with a coach who provided
implementation support, collected and disaggregated grade-level data, and facilitated a cycle of
inquiry to create a process to engage in self-reflection and make informed decisions about
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 64
instructional practices. The coach reviewed grade level data to determine the specific reading
instruction support that each grade level teacher required and provided support accordingly.
Kindergarten and grade 1 teachers received professional development training in phonics
and spelling. Second through fourth grade teachers received targeted pedagogical content
training on how to teach reading fluency and reading comprehension. These teachers learned
how to use explicit instruction to model their thinking process and learned how to use think-
alouds to teach students how to use text structures to understand texts. Results from the study
revealed teachers had a significant growth in professional knowledge of the reading process and
in reading instruction. Results from teacher survey data indicated that teachers noticed a change
in their knowledge of reading instruction. Teachers attested that due to the professional
development provided, their knowledge if reading instruction increased. This increase in
knowledge was evident in students’ assessment data. Student scores showed significant
improvement in reading performance, 47% of 3rd grade students met passing standards after one
year of implementation and 65% of students met passing standards at the completion of the
second year.
Carlisle and colleagues’ (2011) study aimed to determine whether teachers’ instructional
approaches contributed to students’ reading comprehension achievement. Forty-four 3
rd
grade
teachers with average of more than 13 years of teaching experience participated in the study.
Classroom instruction of reading comprehension lessons were observed and analyzed using three
theoretical dimensions of instruction: (a) pedagogical structure (explained the purpose and value
of the lesson, provided directions for activities and included a summary of what was
accomplished); (b) teacher directed instruction (telling, modeling/coaching, asking questions for
evaluation, providing practice or review of activities); and (c) support for student learning
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 65
(fostering discussion, assess and students work, providing feedback, giving students
opportunities to ask questions). In addition, two measures were used to assess teachers’
knowledge of reading (i.e., PA and comprehension) and instructional practices (i.e., modeling,
providing demonstrations and examples of concepts and using data to meet the needs of
students). An analysis of the results revealed that teachers’ knowledge contributed to each of the
dimensions of instruction. Teachers’ emphasis on adequate support resulted in the inclusion of
more models, examples, demonstrations, and interactive discussions to support students’ specific
needs in reading. The result of these practices produced significant variance in students’ reading
comprehension achievement.
Along with the pedagogical practices presented in these studies, researchers of ELLs
suggest that specialized knowledge is required to effectively teach reading comprehension to this
student population. Teachers of ELLs need to be equipped with the pedagogical content
knowledge to develop comprehensive and strategic lesson plans that present content that is
attainable by students’ level of English language proficiency and that promote language
development. Teachers prepared to effectively teach ELL students understand that lessons plans
need to include language and content objectives to help ELL students acquire content knowledge
while at the same time developing English language fluency. Instruction for ELL students
include creating experiences that build on background knowledge and make use prior
experiences as a resource for learning. Additionally, instruction is delivered using approaches
such as Specially Designed Academic Instruction in English (SDAIE) that help make the content
accessible and comprehensible for students. Using visuals/real objects, repeating, modeling,
including hands on activities, and using interactions with others to discuss and use new
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 66
knowledge provide ELLs with opportunities to practice and apply the content (Echeverria, Vogt,
& Short, 2008; Genzuk, 2011; Goldenberg, 2008; 2011; Hayes, Rueda and Chilton, 2009).
As presented in these studies, teachers require extensive professional and specialized
knowledge of the reading process and reading instruction to effectively enact reading
comprehension and successfully address students’ needs. Table 3 summarizes the findings from
the studies on the required knowledge to reach reading comprehension. The following section
reviews the gaps in teacher knowledge found in the literature.
Table 3
Knowledge Required to Teach Reading Comprehension
Knowledge Required Supports Reading Comprehension Instruction

Knowledge of the Reading Process
(phonemic awareness, phonics, word
study/spelling, vocabulary, reading
fluency and reading comprehension)

Provides the foundational framework for reading
comprehension instruction.

Informs instructional decisions to support students’
reading development.

Assists in properly diagnosing students’ needs in
reading to provide the appropriate intervention.

Knowledge of Teaching Reading
(Pedagogical Content Knowledge
(PCK))

Helps teachers teach complex content in a way that
is accessible to all students.

Supports the selection of appropriate instructional
approaches to meet students’ varying needs in
reading.

Provides the foundational framework to
differentiate instruction.

Gaps in Teacher Knowledge to Teach Reading Comprehension
While a number of researchers suggest that teacher knowledge is related to student
academic achievement, there also is accumulating evidence that teachers generally exhibit low
levels of knowledge about language and literacy concepts, literacy development, and literacy
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 67
pedagogy (Al-Hazza et al., 2008; Cunningham et al., 2004; Levine, 2006; Moats, 1994; 2009;
Moats & Foorman, 2003). This lack of foundational knowledge is of importance because it
directly affects how teachers support students’ development in reading comprehension ability.
Levine (2006) in his policy report Educating School Teachers found that teachers lack
the foundational knowledge and understandings that support teaching beginning and struggling
readers, partly due to not receiving enough formal instruction in reading development in teacher
preparation programs. Similarly, a recent report by the National Council on Teacher Quality
Teacher Prep Review (2014) indicates that many schools of education are not teaching pre-
service teachers the foundational knowledge required to teach students how to read and
understand texts. This report found that only 17 percent of 836 teacher education programs
prepare elementary school teachers to use all five fundamental components of reading
instruction.
Concurrent with the lack of foundational knowledge of the reading process, researchers
found that, when it comes to enacting effective reading instruction, teachers lack the pedagogical
content knowledge to appropriately use explicit instruction (Guthrie et al., 2004). Studies show
that teachers encounter a barrier when trying to explicitly explain the mental models used to
understand texts (Dole et al., 2009; Duffy, 2002; Pressley & El-Dinary, 1997) and may, instead,
rely on scripts provided by reading programs. This proves problematic because not having the
knowledge to explain the mental models used to understand texts inhibits teachers from
discerning the quality of scripts provided in reading programs. Most reading programs, studies
found, do not meet the guidelines of explicit instruction as recommended in research studies and,
although these programs direct teachers to use mental processes such as think-alouds, the
explanations included in teacher manuals are not explicit enough and do include independent
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 68
practice time for students learn how to use the strategies (Dewitz, Jones, & Leahy, 2009).
Further, a lack of knowledge inhibits teachers to self-assess and determine the additional
knowledge needed to develop expertise in reading comprehension instruction.
Goldschmidt and Phelps (2010) and Guthrie et al., (2004) found that most in-service
professional development programs focus on only one component of the reading process.
Teachers receive professional development in either phonics instruction, or vocabulary
development, or reading comprehension strategies, but do not learn the interconnectedness of the
components of the reading process and how these function as a whole to develop reading
proficiency. Gutierrez, Morales, and Martinez (2009) labeled the instruction PA, phonics, and
vocabulary skills in isolation as “narrow skill-based approaches” and contend that when these
skills are not taught as part as part of the complete reading process, the development of proficient
readers is limited.
Other studies suggest that teachers do not understand the active reading components
critical to reading comprehension (Pressley, 2006). Instead of creating interactive classroom
discussions to examine texts, teachers revert to the typical reading comprehension instruction
that usually includes teachers asking questions to evaluate whether students’ responses are
correct. This type of comprehension instruction contradicts active student-teacher interactions
that lead to Accountable Talk.
Additionally, one of the most persistent problems of reading instruction is teachers’ lack
of knowledge of reading pedagogy that informs teachers how to differentiate instruction based
on students’ needs (Block, et al., 2009; Brady et al., 2009; Dole et al., 2009; McCombes-Tolis &
Feinn, 2008; Spear-swerling, Bucker, & Alfano, 2005). Findings from these studies indicate that
teachers’ lack of pedagogical content knowledge in reading has unfavorable effects on students’
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 69
performance. Without the proper knowledge of reading instruction, teachers are unable to
adequately analyze students’ reading progress and appropriately create lessons to deliver
instruction that responds to the variability in students’ reading performance.
In an attempt to examine teachers’ knowledge about the reading process and reading
instruction, Moats and Foorman (2003) spent 4 years working with kindergarten through grade 4
teachers (K-2 teachers: n = 50; 2
nd
-3
rd
grade teachers: n = 41; and 3
rd
and 4
th
grade teachers: n=
103). The aim of the study was to analyze teachers’ misconceptions of principles of reading
instruction (i.e., PA, phonics instruction, spelling, comprehension) and to provide specific
professional development to address any gaps of knowledge in language structures, reading
instruction, and student learning.
Teachers were surveyed annually to assess their knowledge of reading instruction and
language concepts considered critical for reading instruction. Findings from teachers’ responses
to surveys included essential misunderstandings of the reading process and reading instruction.
These misunderstandings were categorized as follows: (a) differentiation of speech sounds from
letters; (b) inability to detect and identify phonemes and words, especially when the spelling of
those sounds is not transparent; (c) knowledge of the letter combinations that represent many
phonemes; (d) conceptualization of functional spelling units such as digraphs, blends, and silent-
letter spellings; (e) conventions of syllable division and syllable spelling; (f) linguistic
constituents of the sentence; (g) use of assessments to recognize students’ needs in literacy; and
(h) how the components of reading instruction are related to one another. To address this lack of
knowledge, the researchers provided professional development (PD) courses that focused on
phonology and reading research that included phonics, spelling, vocabulary, comprehension, and
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 70
writing. The outcomes of the PD produced measurable effects on teachers’ content knowledge
of reading, and resulting in students’ increased performance in reading ability.
Teachers’ lack of knowledge of foundational reading instruction was also evident in
Cunningham and colleagues’ (2004) study. This study sought to determine how kindergarten to
3rd grade teachers self-assessed their knowledge of children's literature, phonological awareness,
and phonics. Seven hundred and twenty-two teachers volunteered to complete a Likert scale
assessment of knowledge of children’s literature and language structures. The researchers used a
phonological awareness test, a phonics measure that tested both explicit and implicit knowledge
of reading instruction, and a title recognition test aimed to determine teachers’ familiarity with
children’s literature. An analysis of the assessment results indicated a disparity in teachers’
perceived and actual knowledge of reading instruction. Most of the teachers overestimated and
did not accurately calibrate their knowledge reading instruction. Teachers demonstrated little
knowledge in the areas of phonics and phonological awareness and lacked discernible knowledge
of sight word methods or decoding skill instruction. Additionally the majority the teachers did
not know the most significant titles of children’s literature.
Al-Hazza et al. (2008) also conducted a similar study to that of Cunningham and
colleagues. These researchers examined teachers’ knowledge calibration of early reading skills
of kindergarten to grade 3 teachers. One hundred and forty one teachers were administered a
survey that measured teacher’s perceived knowledge of phonics, PA, and syllabication.
Teachers were asked to (a) identify the phonemes in words; (b) ending consonant graphemes,
diphthongs, digraphs; and (c) words with open and closed syllables, and the rules for decoding
multisyllabic words. Teachers were also asked knowledge calibration questions in the same
three categories and had to indicated whether they felt they were either an expert or proficient in
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 71
these domains or if they felt they had minimal to no ability or experience. The results indicated
that the majority of the K-3 teachers were not familiar with early literacy instruction, averaging
53% correct responses in phonologic awareness, 52% correct in phonics and 62% correct
responses in syllabication. Teachers’ responses to knowledge calibration questions, however,
had opposite results. Teachers rated their knowledge of these categories as expert and proficient,
when in fact their knowledge base was weak.
The studies presented in this section document the gaps that exist in teacher knowledge of
the reading process and pedagogy of reading instruction. A lack of knowledge in the
foundational components of the reading process can result in ineffective diagnosis of students
reading needs. Similarly, lacking the pedagogical content knowledge of reading instruction can
lead to inadequate selection of instruction as well as faulty and confusing feedback provided to
students. When both of these bodies of knowledge are missing, teachers are unable to discern
and effectively assess their areas of need in professional knowledge. Most often, this results in a
disparity of perceived and actual knowledge, which impedes teachers from recognizing a need
for further training to learn how to plan and deliver effective reading comprehension instruction.
Table 4 summarizes the gaps in teacher knowledge of reading instruction and their
impact in students’ reading comprehension performance.

SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 72
Table 4
Gaps in Teacher Knowledge to Teach Reading Comprehension
Knowledge Gaps of Reading
Instruction
Impact on Students’ Reading Comprehension
Performance

Lack of knowledge of language
structures and the reading process

Leads to teachers misinterpreting students’ reading
errors, resulting in inappropriate feedback, or
unintentional confusing instruction.

Misguided evaluation/perception of
reading knowledge.

Impedes recognition for further training and
diminishes teachers’ receptivity to learn about
reading instruction.

Lack of pedagogical content
knowledge to teach reading
comprehension

Prevents teachers designing meaningful and
differentiated reading comprehension activities to
support all students.

Self-Reflection of Teaching Practices
Self-reflection is an introspective practice that helps educators question teaching
practices, examine instructional decisions, and recognize the need for further training. Self-
reflection is considered a deliberate, evaluative and constructive activity that is part of the self-
regulation process. Self-regulation refers to leaning that occurs largely from the influence of
self-generated thoughts, feelings, strategies and behaviors, which are oriented to the attainment
of goals (Schunk & Zimmerman, 1998). Schunk and Zimmerman describe self-reflection as an
open-ended cyclical activity that revolves around the three phases of self-regulation: Forethought
(planning phase), Performance Control (monitoring of the plan), and Self-Reflection. The Self-
Reflection phase evaluates the outcome of the plan once completed and influences the learner’s
reactions to the experience. Zimmerman (2002) found that self-reflection takes place throughout
the phases of creation, monitoring and evaluation of the plan; as such, self-reflection informs the
next iteration of this cyclical activity.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 73
Self-reflection is the focus of several research studies in teacher education. Self-
reflection helps educators inquire into teaching practices to assess instruction expertise (Hatton
& Smith, 1995; Rogers & Rayder-Roth, 2006; Valli, 1997). Loughran (2006) contends that in
order for teachers to effectively engage in self-reflection and inquire into their teaching practices,
requires being “present” in teaching. He introduced the construct of being “present” to help
teachers notice how to navigate the many challenges of teaching. Loughran maintains that being
present helps teachers challenge existing practices, identify the barriers to student learning, and
critique pedagogy to develop new practices.
Similarly, Rodgers and Raider-Roth (2006) introduce a theoretical framework of
“presence in teaching” to help teachers think about and effectively analyze teaching practices.
Taking presence in teaching requires self-awareness, establishing relationships with students, and
having the pedagogical knowledge to define the competencies needed to make intelligent
decisions and appropriately respond to student learning. The authors argue that these three
requirements embody the reflective process of teaching.
Presence in teaching is also a construct that Lampert (1985) used to help teachers analyze
classroom dilemmas. Lampert defined classroom dilemmas as teaching situations that need
careful attention and thorough analysis before a solution is selected. Lampert asserts that self-
reflection helps teachers view classroom dilemmas as opportunities to learn how to manage the
complexity of teaching. Presence in teaching also helps teachers inquire and analyze teaching
situations from multiple perspectives including teacher knowledge, students’ point of view,
materials used, and environmental contexts. Considering these multiple perspectives helps
educators determine a fitting course of action.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 74
In their work, Darling-Hammond (1999) and Lai, McNaughton, Timperley and Hsiao
(2009) also affirm that engaging in self-reflection helps teachers (a) become aware of their
teaching effectiveness; (b) learn how to manage classroom and instructional behaviors; and (c)
modify teaching approaches to improve their professional practice. Self-reflection also
establishes discernment for rational judgment and creativity, which provides a process to analyze
learning how to learn and helps pursue improvement in teaching (Fellows & Zimpher, 1988;
Rogers, 2002). Moreover, self-reflection helps teachers understand their current expertise in
instruction and identify what is needed to further their professional knowledge (Loughran, 2002).
Self-reflection was a construct first introduced to the twentieth century by John Dewey in
his book How We Think. In this work, Dewey (1933) defined self-reflection as an active,
meaning-making self-assessment. A central component of self-reflection is the ability to be
open-minded to view situations from multiple perspectives, develop a sense of responsibility for
the decisions made and the consequences of actions taken, and have a wholeheartedness
approach to be an active learner. Dewey found self-reflection important in teaching because
[Self-reflection] emancipates us from merely impulsive and merely routine activity...
enables us to direct our activities with foresight to plan according to ends-in-view, or
purposes of which we are aware...to act in deliberate and intentional fashion...to know
what we are about when we act. It converts action that is merely appetitive, blind, and
impulsive into intelligent action. (p. 17)
Dewey explained that self-reflection requires a systematic review and analysis of instructional
decisions and teaching practices. This systematic approach helps teachers (a) identify and assess
learning needs (b) address these needs by changing teaching behaviors, and (c) think about
teaching behaviors in the context in which they occur to evaluate the effectiveness of these new
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 75
behaviors. Dewey maintained that teachers who do not engage in self-reflection are limited in
their ability to make good decisions, are partial to reflect on the consequences of their actions,
and are restricted in making adjustments or changes to their actions.
Influenced by Dewey’s work on self-reflection, Schön (1987) introduced the construct of
reflective thinking as a central component in the teaching and learning process. Schön argued
that reflective thinking provides teachers with an experience to analyze theory and practice with
the goal to improve teaching. He introduced reflection-in-action and reflection-on-action as two
types of reflective thinking processes that help teachers think during and after their actions.
Reflection-in-action consists of recognizing the impact of decisions made in the moment,
connecting with feelings and experiences to build new understandings, and using these new
findings to inform new actions. Reflection-on-action, on the other hand, is performed after the
activity has passed; and refers to the importance of reflecting back and critiquing one’s practice.
This type of reflection usually takes place by discussing an activity with colleagues, reviewing
student work, taking notes, and revising lesson plans. Schön clarified that both types of
reflection-in- and -on-action are required to frame and reframe classroom situations and to
transform teaching practices.
Zeichner and Liston (1996) furthered the conceptualization of self-reflection as a process
that questions the self. They argued that engaging in self-reflection helps teachers analyze their
beliefs, values, assumptions, knowledge, goals, and the context in which they teach. This
analysis helps teachers evaluate teaching practices, classroom relationships, and the decisions
they make that impact the effectiveness of their instruction. The authors maintain that engaging
in self-reflection helps teachers identify classroom dilemmas or problematic situations, question
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 76
the suitability of created goals, review teaching contexts, analyze possible solutions, and create
the appropriate educational experiences that support student achievement.
Table 5 summarizes the components of self-reflection presented in this section.
Table 5
Components of Self-Reflection

Open-Mindedness

Assists teachers to acknowledge that teaching is problematic and helps them
become capable of self-evaluation by considering multiple points of view
and recognizing limitations in self-perspectives.

Sense of
Responsibility

Supports educators in the careful analysis of teaching dilemmas either in-
action, while the teaching situation is happening, or on-action after the
teaching situation has occurred. A sense of responsibility helps teachers use
a rational problem solving approach to think about possible solutions,
monitor the effects of actions by considering all possible consequences, and
willingness to assume responsibility for decisions and actions taken.

Wholeheartedness

Increases self-awareness and self-knowledge by reinforcing teachers to
evaluate knowledge of the subject matter, educational environments,
practices, and philosophical orientations.

As an introspective practice that helps educators examine instructional decisions, self-
reflection can take place at different levels of self-analysis (Hatton & Smith 1995; Risko, Roskos
& Vukelich, 2002; Ward & McCotter 2004; Hagevik, Aydeniz & Rowell, 2012: Zeichner &
Liston, 1996). Ward and McCotter (2004) conducted a study that identified self-reflection across
three dimensions, Focus, Inquiry and Change, and across four qualities or levels self-analysis: (a)
routine, (b) technical, (c) dialogic and (d) transformative reflection. These levels of self-
reflection produce varied levels of thinking and analysis. Routine reflection is a self-analysis
disengaged from change. Technical reflection reviews specific teaching tasks such as planning
or classroom management, but does not consider connections between teaching issues. Dialogic
reflection engages the views of students in the learning process and uses cyclical inquiry process
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 77
to develop new insights about teaching. A transformative level of self-reflection greatly affects
instruction. This level of reflection examines and prompts individuals to recognize assumptions
about teaching practices, acknowledges students as diverse learners who have individual
strengths and needs, and considers the effectiveness of the learning environments created.
Table 6 defines the qualities of self-reflection.
Table 6
Qualities of Self-Reflection
Routine Does not have a focus on problems instead adopts the deficit view and blames
others for the situation or problem. This type of reflection is disengaged from
change.
Technical Focuses on specific teaching tasks such as planning or classroom management,
but does not view the situation to change perspectives.
Dialogic Engages the views of students in the process of learning. Regards inquiry as
part of a process that helps develop new insights about teaching.

Transformative
Demonstrates the ability to analyze situations from multiple perspectives and
questions fundamental assumptions (i.e., pedagogical, ethical, moral, cultural,
etc.) that impact learning.

Several researchers contend that quality self-reflection is dependent on using a systematic
approach to analyze teaching situations and examine teaching practices. Using a systematic
approach helps teachers develop an awareness of a teaching situation to engage in a cyclical
analysis of a problem (Dewey, 1933; Hagevik et al., 2012; Rogers, 2002; Schön, 1987; Yost,
Sentner, & Forlenza-Bailey, 2000). Action research, participating in Communities of Practice,
using a collaborative process of teacher inquiry, and keeping reflective journals are few
examples of engaging in self-reflection using a systematic and structured approach.
Engaging in action research to inquire into teaching practices produces enhanced
professional teaching skills and abilities (Butler, et al., 2004; Emerling, 2010; Hatton & Smith,
1995; Ward & McCotter, 2004; Wold, 2003). In Wold’s (2003) longitudinal 2-year study on
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 78
teacher inquiry and self-reflection, three K-2 teachers received bi-monthly literacy training and
daily coaching support on how to teach Guided Reading and Interactive Writing. Qualitative
data was gathered using classroom observations, audio and video-taped lesson transcripts,
interviews, and coaching sessions. The interviews before and after lessons asked teachers to
identify the lesson’s objective (before the lesson was taught) and determine what students had
learned (after the lesson was completed). Working alongside a literacy coach, teachers reviewed
segments of teaching videos, analyzed their instructional decisions, and created next steps for
instruction.
Conclusions from the data gathered confirmed that teachers who inquired into their
practice were able to ask deep questions about their instruction and gained new knowledge about
their teaching. Teachers also made quality decisions about instruction when they had a clear
understanding of and knew (a) what to teach, (b) when to teach a selected reading strategy; and
(c) why it was important to teach that strategy. Further analysis of the data indicated that change
in instruction took place when teachers became aware of their professional learning needs. This
awareness helped teachers ask for the specific coaching and support they needed to improve their
teaching practices.
Making meaningful shifts in instructional practices due to engaging in self-reflection was
also evident in Butler et al.’s (2004) longitudinal study. In this 2-year study, the researchers used
a Communities of Practice (COP) model to assist teachers in identifying and enacting best
practices, and reflecting critically on outcomes to re-construct knowledge about teaching and
learning. Ten teachers participated in the project and collaborated with colleagues and
researchers to co-construct instructional strategies to support student learning. The teachers used
interactive discussions to teach students how to self-monitor their own learning. At first, the lead
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 79
researcher met with teachers one-on-one to co-plan, co-teach, and debrief lessons on a weekly
basis. Teachers met with one another between researcher visits and worked with research
assistants to develop systems, collect data and evaluate student progress. Teachers also
documented their experience and efforts using reflection forms.
Findings from the first year of the project indicated teachers were actively thinking about
their teaching practices. Teachers reported a need to analyze their teaching strengths and
identify areas of weakness in order to determine how to help their struggling students. They
explained that once they determined a plan of action to focus their instruction, they were more
able to actively think about the strategy or skill they were trying to revise or practice.
Additionally, teachers reported that reflecting on their teaching practices helped them make
improvements in instructional methods, classroom routines, and their ability to match instruction
to students’ needs.
Results from the second year of the study showed that teachers maintained the changes
made in instructional approaches. Teachers reported their interactions with students were
different – they created a better rapport with the students and established a stronger community
in the classroom. Teachers also had a new and better developed understanding about teaching
and learning that did not focus solely on instructional procedures. Instead, their new focus
emphasized the importance of establishing a theoretical framework for teaching, seeing their
work in practice, trying out new strategies, and reflecting on the success of their efforts. Student
gains were evident during both years of the project. Teachers reported an improvement in
students’ confidence in understanding task demands and using strategies for learning. Students
demonstrated more self-direction and became more independent.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 80
Similarly, Emerling’s (2010) case study about collaborative teacher inquiry illustrates
self-reflection helps teachers question their practice to make meaningful shifts in instruction.
Over the course of 14 months, a group of teachers used a process of collaborative teacher inquiry
that consisted of (a) identifying a problem based on student need, (b) co-planning and
implementing possible instructional solutions, (c) analyzing the results of instructional plans and
their impact on student learning, (d) reassessing and repeating the process, and (e) identifying
cause-and-effect findings about teaching and learning. Teachers analyzed their classroom
instruction by videotaping their teaching lessons and analyzing their teaching practice. Their
analysis revealed inconsistencies among lesson plans, teaching practices, and student learning
outcomes. Using these findings, teachers reflected on how their instructional choices differed
from their lesson plans, and how these choices influenced students’ opportunities to explore and
understand the concepts taught. As a result, teachers made a change in practice and planned a
second iteration of lessons that were more refined in structure and format. Teachers reported the
new instructional approaches used provided more concrete information about student thinking.
Students also had a better understanding of the concepts during the instruction of the second
lesson.
More recently, a study by Osipova, and colleagues (2011) revealed that using journals
helps teachers engage in self-reflection and make changes in their instruction. Fifteen upper
elementary teachers received professional development in word study and reading fluency.
During the study, teachers were videotaped six times teaching word study and fluency using a
form with principles of effective instruction to guide their lessons. These principles included
student engagement, explicitness and intensity of instruction, and features decoding and fluency
instruction. After the lessons were taught, teachers watched their videos, made observations of
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 81
their instruction, and used a form to evaluate their teaching. Teachers wrote reflections on their
lesson in a journal and used their observations and reflections to create a plan for future
instruction. A coach also filled out a form to document what went well in the lesson and
included suggestions for next steps in instruction—this information was shared with the teachers.
At first, teachers rated themselves as “high” in most of the principles of effective
instruction. Their self-reflection journal entries were also vague. During the mid-point
observations, teachers reflected with more critical comments of their practice and provided
examples from their lesson to illustrate their thinking. By the end of the study, teachers’
reflections shifted to a more in-depth analysis of their practice. Teachers’ comments were more
aligned with the coach’s observations; their comments included what worked in the lesson and
identified specific areas of need. A deeper analysis on instructional approaches was also evident
in teachers’ comments; teachers identified that the curriculum they used was not aligned to
student needs. Teachers’ reflections also revealed a change in confidence and in self-identity;
teachers documented feeling more confident in their teaching and viewed themselves as learners
after the completion of the study. Two teachers in the study, however, did not reach deeper
levels of self-analysis and self-reflection. These teachers did not question the impact of their
instructional decisions. Of importance, the researchers reported that these teachers consistently
assessed their practices with higher scores than the researchers’ ratings. The researchers
concluded that these two teachers had a misinformed conception of their knowledge of reading
instruction.
Table 7 summarizes the systematic approaches that support self-reflection.

SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 82
Table 7
Systematic Approaches that Support Self-Reflection
Systematic Approaches Support Self-Reflection and Change in Teaching Practices

Action Research

A guided process that helps teachers self-reflect and analyze their
instructional practices and the decisions made when planning lessons
and delivering instruction.

Communities of
Practice (COP)

Assist in the identification and enacting of best practices, critically
reflecting on outcomes, and re-constructing knowledge about teaching
and learning. COP require a structured and consistent time to
collaborate with colleagues and coaches and/or mentors.

Collaborative Teacher
Inquiry

A process that helps teachers reflect on how their instructional choices
by using a process of collaborative inquiry.

Reflective Journals

Help teachers reflect more critically by analyzing and evaluating the
effectiveness of their teaching practice and instructional decisions.
Reflective journals also document a progression and shift in teachers’
thinking.

Conclusion
The research findings described in this literature review present the components of the
reading process that serve as the foundation of reading comprehension. As a cognitive process,
reading comprehension requires extensive professional knowledge to appropriately plan and
deliver instruction that develops students’ comprehension skills. Teachers, therefore, must be
adequately prepared to teach reading comprehension and to recognize areas of professional
knowledge needs to further their teaching practices. Unfortunately, the literature indicates that
most teachers are not aware of the gaps that exist in their knowledge of reading comprehension
instruction. This lack of knowledge impacts student learning and inhibits teachers from
determining areas of need.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 83
Self-reflection becomes important when it comes to reading comprehension instruction
because it requires teachers to examine their knowledge of reading instruction. Engaging in self-
reflection prompts teachers to think deeply, use multiple perspectives to analyze their knowledge
of reading instruction, and determine what they know and what they still have yet to learn.
When used systematically, self-reflection helps teachers analyze the effectiveness of reading
lessons, examine the impact of instructional decisions, and critically evaluate the level of
knowledge and expertise in reading comprehension instruction. Developing self-awareness of
the effectiveness of their instruction helps teachers recognize whether a gap in knowledge exists
and determine the preparation needed to enhance their teaching practices.
This is study aimed to add to the literature on self-reflection and reading comprehension
instruction by examining the processes and practices teachers use to engage in self-reflection and
by revealing effective ways to support teacher self-reflective practices and decision-making
processes when teaching reading comprehension. This study also sought to determine the
outcome of self-reflection on teachers’ instructional decisions, particularly in terms of teaching
ELL students. This study also intended to provide insight on the effective practices and
organizational structures needed to develop teachers who self-reflect to analyze and examine
their practice, and who make informed decisions to improve their instruction.

SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 84
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
Context and Problem Addressed by the Study
This study was designed to examine the processes and practices teachers use to engage in
self-reflection of reading comprehension instruction. Teachers’ self-reflective practices were
reviewed and analyzed to determine the nature of self-reflection on instructional decisions.
Specifically, this study was designed to uncover how teachers use professional teaching practices
such as (a) planning reading lessons, (b) making revisions to lessons, (c) collaborating with
colleagues, and (d) participating in professional learning communities to think about their
instruction. Additionally, the following pedagogical practices were analyzed (a) explicit
instruction of procedures and modeling of cognitive processes using think-alouds, (b) interactive
discussions, and (c) differentiated instruction to meet students’ reading comprehension needs
were examined to determine how teachers reflect and analyze the impact of their instruction.
Research Questions
In order to examine how teachers engage in self-reflection and analyze their instruction,
the following research questions were used to guide this study:
1. How do 4
th
grade teachers rate their knowledge of reading comprehension
instruction?
2. How do 4
th
grade teachers plan and teach reading comprehension?
3. What practices and processes help teachers self-reflect on their behaviors, decision-
making and actions when teaching reading comprehension?
4. What is the nature of self-reflection on teachers’ decisions of reading comprehension?

SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 85
Design Summary
An inquiry approach in the form of Case Studies was selected as the design for this study.
Since case studies help researchers gather and analyze comprehensive, systematic and in-depth
information about a particular phenomenon of interest (Patton, 2002), this design was selected to
closely analyze teachers’ self-reflection processes and practices. This study collected qualitative
data to capture the phenomenon of interest (teachers’ self-reflective processes and practices) in
its natural setting (Merriam, 2009). Using a grounded theory approach, a systematic process was
used to understand teachers’ self-reflection processes and practices. This approach consisted of
the following qualitative methods: a teacher survey, one-on-one semi-structured interview,
classroom observations of reading comprehension instruction, and post-lesson conversations. To
determine any emerging patterns and to strengthen findings, a process of triangulation, which
helps researchers determine if similar types of answers or patterns were found across all data
sources (Cresswell, 2008) was used.
Table 8 displays surveys, interviews and classroom observations as required
methodologies to adequately answer the research questions for this study.
Table 8
Research Question Matrix

Teacher
Survey
Teacher
Interviews
Classroom
Observations
Post-lesson
Conversations
Research Question #1 x x x
Research Question #2 x x x x
Research Question #3 x x x x
Research Question #4 x x x

SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 86
Site and Population Selection
This study was designed to examine 4
th
grade teachers’ reflective practices (the
phenomenon of interest) when teaching reading comprehension. Fourth grade was of importance
because the recent NAEP report card revealed that only 21% of fourth grade students in
California are proficient in integrating, interpreting and drawing conclusions to evaluate
information in texts, and ELL students had a lower representation in this level of proficiency
(National Center for Educational Statistics, 2013). Gaining an insight and understanding of
teachers’ self-reflective practices was relevant to determine how teachers reflected on their
instructional practices and made decisions about instruction that supported the development and
reading comprehension proficiency of all students.
School Site Criteria
Several elementary school sites that served Kindergarten to Grade 5 were selected. These
schools were located in an urban setting, had a Title I status, and had a diverse population of
students represented both in ethnicity and English language development. All the schools
selected were from a school district located in Southern California. During the time the study
was conducted, the schools selected did not have a mandated English Language Arts curriculum.
Instead, the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) were adopted as the core program and any
previous programs adopted, or other reading materials, were used flexibly to meet the
requirements outlined in the new standards. Demographic information for each school is
presented in Table 9. The number of participants observed from each school is also included.
Pseudonyms are used for all schools.

SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 87
Table 9
Schools Demographic Information
School Site Number of
Students
% ELL
students
% of Students
Receiving Free
and Reduced
Lunch
Number of
Participants
in this Study

Knox Elementary

559

42

79

2

Tyler Elementary

627

44

87

1

Pierce Elementary

616

32

95

1

Harrison Elementary

1006

39

91

1

Participant Criterion
Study participants were purposefully selected using pre-determined criteria. Purposeful
sampling is a deliberative selection of participants who have the most knowledge about the
phenomenon of interest (Maxwell, 2012; Merriam, 2009). A criterion of 5 or more years of
teaching experience in an elementary school setting was used because studies on teacher
expertise indicate that 6,500 hours, or roughly 5 years, is considered the minimum level of
practice required to establish expertise/mastery in a particular field (Berliner, 1994; Ericsson et
al., 1993). In order to select the participants, the researcher contacted the school principal of four
different schools to explain the purpose of the study. The researcher learned that all schools had
teachers with 5 or more years of teaching experience teaching grade four. With the assistance of
the school principal, the researcher visited each school and met with the 4th grade level team to
explain the purpose of the study. These meetings took place after school hours or during the
grade-level’s planning time. During the meeting, teachers were thoroughly informed of the
purpose of the study, and were provided with an invitation letter (Appendix A) that explained the
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 88
purpose of the study, the types of activities required, and the duration of individual involvement.
Teachers were informed that participation was voluntary.
A total of 13 teachers were invited to participate in the study. Three teachers from Knox
elementary were invited to take part, and two teachers volunteered. One teacher from Tyler
elementary volunteered to participate because she was the reading comprehension teacher for her
grade; her two colleagues were not invited because they were responsible for teaching writing
and math for their grade level. Three teachers from Pierce elementary were invited and one
volunteered to participate. Six teachers from Harrison elementary were invited; one excused
herself from the study because she taught the special education; and one teacher volunteered to
participate. All participating teachers taught English Only students or students who were
redesignated as fluent in English. Participants’ overall teaching experience and years teaching
grade four are presented in Table 10. The school where each participant taught is included.
Table 10
Participant’s Teaching Experience
School Total Years of
Teaching Experience

Years Teaching
4
th
Grade

Mr. Smith

Knox Elementary

23

23

Mrs. Clark

Knox Elementary

20

10

Ms. Martin

Tyler Elementary

32

20

Ms. Anderson

Pierce Elementary

13

5

Ms. Lewis

Harrison Elementary

18

8

SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 89
Instrumentation
Teacher Demographic Information and Self-Assessment of Reading Comprehension
Instruction
The Teacher Survey (Appendix B) was created by the researcher and consisted of 15
close and open-ended questions. The survey collected teacher demographic information (5
questions), determined teachers’ participation in professional development training and activities
in reading comprehension (5 questions), and gathered teachers’ self-perception of expertise in
reading comprehension instruction (5 questions). Demographic questions included school name,
classroom number, number of years of teaching experience and number of years teaching grade
four. Questions about professional development (PD) included the frequency of attendance in
PD programs, types of PD received, and participation in Professional Learning Communities.
The last questions were open-ended and asked teachers to self-rate their knowledge and expertise
level of reading comprehension instruction--terms expert, proficient, or basic experience were
provided as examples. Teachers were also asked to include any information on any additional PD
they felt they needed.
Teacher’s Beliefs about Reading Knowledge and Comprehension Instruction
In order to capture teachers’ knowledge and beliefs about reading comprehension
instruction, an Interview Protocol (Appendix C) used questions adapted from Richardson,
Anders, Tidwell and Lloyd’s (1991) study on the relationship between teachers’ beliefs and
practices in reading comprehension instruction. Used before the first classroom observation, the
questions in this protocol were semi-structured in format and served two purposes. First, open-
ended and flexibly worded questions allowed the researcher to have a more open and detailed
discussion with the participant. Second, an open-ended format allowed the researcher to ask
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 90
probing questions in order to gain more insight on teachers’ experiences, instructional practices,
and level of expertise in reading instruction.
The Interview Protocol also captured teachers’ beliefs of reading instruction, enacted
behaviors of good readers, processes for planning reading comprehension lessons, and
instructional approaches used to teach reading comprehension. Additionally, the Interview
Protocol included simulated recall questions that asked teachers to describe their lesson planning
processes based on students who were either proficient or struggling readers. Using this
approach allowed the researcher to gain more information about teachers’ level of expertise in
reading comprehension instruction, the types of approaches they determined important in reading
instruction, and the choices they made when teaching reading comprehension. All interviews
were conducted face-to-face in the participant’s classroom and were audio recorded.
Teacher Enacted Knowledge of Reading Comprehension Instruction
Classroom observation data was collected to identify teachers’ enactment of reading
comprehension instruction with students. Gaining access to a participant’s classroom to observe
classroom instruction required the researcher to explain the purpose and goal of the study to each
participant. In order to establish a trusting relationship with each participating teacher and to
increase the teachers’ level of comfort (Bogdan & Biklen, 2007), the researcher shared her
interests in the study, obtained permission to take notes while observing classroom instruction
before any visit was conducted, and ensured complete anonymity and confidentiality of all
participants (i.e., teacher and students).
Classroom observations were conducted using an Observation Protocol (Appendix D)
created by the researcher. The protocol was organized in three sections that allowed the
researcher to (1) include a diagram of the classroom setting, (2) write notes and verbatim
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 91
interactions between teacher and students – these were organized in five minute intervals which
helped the researcher record teacher’s and students’ behaviors during reading comprehension
instruction; and (3) capture components of the lesson observed by using the Instructional
Snapshot Checklist. This checklist captured learning objectives, instructional strategies, student
behavior and grouping arrangements during the lesson. Duffy and colleagues’ (1986) rating
scale on teachers’ use of explicit instruction of reading comprehension strategies was included
as part of the checklist. Additionally, description of three examples of interactive discussions
was used from Accountable TalkSM CD (2002) produced by Institute for Learning (IFL)/LRDC.
Classroom observations also focused on whether explicit instruction of how and when
cognitive strategies were used to understand texts and whether think-alouds were employed by
the teacher to articulate the thinking processes required to understand written text. Teacher
actions and practices that supported interactive discussions were also closely attended to in order
to determine how teachers supported students’ higher-level thinking skills to interpret texts and
co-construct new knowledge. In addition, teacher practices were observed to determine whether
instruction was differentiated to meet students’ interests, readiness and learning profiles.
Observations also focused on whether opportunities for guided practice and direct application of
strategies were provided in order to support students’ development of analytical thinking,
problem-solving skills and comprehension monitoring.
All classroom observations conducted were audio-recorded. In addition, the researcher
took field notes that reflected initial reactions, interpretations, and feelings about the setting,
participants and activities observed. Written notes and audio-recordings of the lessons observed
were linked to the data collected from the teacher survey to determine any emerging patterns or
variations in data.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 92
Self-Reflection of Reading Comprehension Instruction
A review of the literature on self-reflection indicated that teachers engage in self-
reflection at four different levels of analysis, with each level or dimension of self-reflection
presenting deeper levels of thinking (Darling-Hammond, 1999; Loughran, 2002; Zeichner &
Liston, 1996; Ward & McCotter, 2004). In order to capture teachers’ self-reflection and to
determine the level of thinking or self-analysis of their instruction, post-lesson conversations
were conducted using a Post-Lesson Conversation Protocol (Appendix E) after each classroom
observation. This protocol was adapted from Echeverria, Vogt, and Short’s (2004) book on
Making Content Comprehensible for English Learners: The SIOP Model. The purpose of the
protocol was two-fold. First, the protocol served as guiding questions for the researcher to
engage participants in a reflective conversation about their instruction. Second, the protocol was
used to examine participants’ responses about their lessons to determine the level of self-
reflection of the responses provided. The questions in the protocol were also semi-structured in
format and asked teachers to describe their perceptions how the lesson went; determine whether
students understood the concepts taught; explain if any changes were made during the lesson and
the reason for the changes; and reflect on the effectiveness of the strategies selected and the
format of instruction used (whole group, small group, use of discussions, explicit instruction,
etc.). Further, the questions asked teachers to articulate any accommodations made for
struggling readers and students from diverse backgrounds.
The post-lesson conversations were also audio-recorded and transcripts from these
discussions were analyzed and compared with data collected from the one-on-one interview,
classroom observations and with the results from the teacher survey. This analysis was
conducted to determine any emerging patterns or variations in data.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 93
Data Analysis
A grounded theory approach was used to analyze the data gathered from the teacher
survey, one-on-one semi-structured interview, classroom observations and post-lesson
conversations. Grounded theory is an inductive approach used to generate or build a theoretical
framework that explains the data collected (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). To build a theoretical
framework, the primary sources of data analyzed were participants’ responses to the teacher
survey, the one-on-one interview, classroom observations of reading comprehension instruction
and teachers’ responses to post-lesson conversations. Creswell’s (2008) six-step model was used
to (1) organize and prepare the data for analysis; (2) read through the data to get a general sense
of the information gathered; (3) organize the material into chunks or themes, also known as
coding; (4) generate themes or categories from the codes created, also known as axial coding; (5)
chose how to represent the themes and descriptions in the study narrative; and (6) interpret or
make meaning from the data.
Participants’ responses to the survey were exported on to an Excel spreadsheet and
organized around the different question categories. The responses were analyzed across all
respondents to determine any emerging patterns. To code the interviews, classroom observation
and post-lesson discussion data, the following sequence was used: (a) a pseudonym and date for
each interview, observation and post-lesson discussion transcript was assigned; (b) each
transcript of classroom observations, field notes, and post-lesson conversations was read, a label
code was selected to summarize the information found; (c) participant’s responses, comments,
behaviors and actions were categorized under defined organizational categories; (d) data was
reviewed to identify any subcategories to further organize data findings; and (e) data was
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 94
analyzed to identify any patterns or connections across all sources of data collected (Corbin &
Strauss, 2008). The researcher also wrote memos during the data analysis process.
An analysis of the data coded began by reviewing the research questions and the
categories and sub-categories generated. First, classroom observation transcripts and the
researcher’s field notes were reviewed to find further evidence that would fit under any specific
category created. A table was created to organize the themes found and participant’s verbatim
quotes were used as evidence for each category. Data collected from the post-lesson
conversations were analyzed and compared with the data gathered from classroom observations,
researcher’s field notes, and memos to determine any reoccurring patterns, trends and themes.
The researcher wrote down notes, comments and reactions to the codes that emerged from the
data. This information was used to review the table created, and the categories across all data
points were compared and contrasted to determine any connections. Once these connections
were made, codes were refined to create themes that were reviewed and analyzed again to
identify any relationships among themes. This data was then used to create a conceptual
framework to visually represent the interconnected themes that emerged from the data. Finally,
the data was translated into a storyline to represent the findings.
Ethical Considerations
In order ensure the credibility of this study, the researcher carried out the study with
integrity and an ethical stance (Merriam, 2009). The Institutional Review Board’s (IRB) rules,
regulations, and procedures were followed. Participation in this study was voluntary, and
participants were provided with an informed consent letter that outlined the study’s expectations.
Pseudonyms were used for schools sites and participants from the beginning of data collection to
protect the privacy of each participant. The researcher as primary instrument for data collection
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 95
and dissemination was addressed by recognizing biases and subjective interpretations of data, at
the outset of the study.

SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 96
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS
The purpose of this study was to examine the processes and practices teachers use to self-
reflect when teaching reading comprehension. The aim was to explore the nature of self-
reflection on instructional decisions. Using a qualitative methodology, the following
professional and pedagogical practices were explored. Professional practices reviewed were (a)
planning reading comprehension lessons, (b) making revisions to lessons, (c) collaborating with
colleagues, and (d) participating in professional learning communities. Pedagogical practices
analyzed were (a) explicit instruction of procedures and modeling of cognitive processes using
think-alouds, (b) interactive discussions, and (c) differentiated instruction to meet the varied
literacy needs of all students.
The following research questions were selected to guide this study:
1. How do 4
th
grade teachers rate their knowledge of reading comprehension instruction?
2. How do 4
th
grade teachers plan and teach reading comprehension?
3. What practices and processes help teachers self-reflect on their behaviors, decisions and
actions when teaching reading comprehension?
4. What is the nature of self-reflection on teachers’ decisions of reading comprehension?
This chapter presents data findings and results to these questions. An overview of the
school sites selected, demographic information, participants’ profiles, and classroom make-up is
included. Findings, organized by research question and emerging themes, are supported by
participants’ responses to the survey, interviews, and post-lesson conversations.

SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 97
School Sites and Study Participants
Four elementary school sites were selected for this study: Knox, Tyler, Pierce, and
Harrison Elementary (pseudonyms are used). The schools were located in the same school
district in Southern California. Five 4
th
grade teachers, who taught English Only or
Redesignated as fluent English Language Learners (RFEPs), participated in the study. All
teachers reported participating in weekly Professional Learning Community (PLC) meetings.
Knox Elementary
Knox Elementary served a population of 559 elementary school students. School
demographics included Latino (98%), African-American (1%) and White (1%) students.
Additionally, the school had a population of English Language Learners (42%) and students who
were Reclassified English Language Learners (RFEPs) (14%). The term RFEP refers to students
who have English language proficiency comparable to that of an average native English speaker.
The school was considered a Title I school – 79% of the student population received lunch that
was either free or offered at a reduced rate. Two fourth grade teachers, Mr. Smith and Mrs.
Clark, volunteered to participate in this study. One-on-one interviews, classroom observation
data and post-lesson conversations were conducted with each teacher at different periods of time
during the data collection process.
Mr. Smith was a fourth grade teacher with 23 years of teaching experience. He held a
Master’s Degree in Education and a certificate in Cross-cultural, Language and Academic
Development. Mr. Smith received professional development (PD) once per quarter on
instruction of Common Core State Standards. His classroom profile consisted of 27 students (18
girls and 9 boys). All students were considered either English Only speakers or Redesignated as
Fluent English Language Learners (RFEPs). Mr. Smith used E.B. White’s novel Charlotte’s
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 98
Web and the prompts of Depth and Complexity (Appendix F) and Content Imperatives
(Appendix G) to teach reading comprehension. The prompts of Depth and Complexity are a set
of eleven visual icons designed to help students gain a critical understanding of texts and
information while analyzing and evaluating their understanding of concept at a deeper level
(California Department of Education, 1994). Content Imperatives are a set of five visual
prompts that help students think deeply about texts. Mr. Smith was observed four times; three
lessons were on reading instruction, one lesson taught students how to use Microsoft Power
Point.
Mrs. Clark was a teacher with 20 years of teaching experience; 10 years were spent
teaching grade four. Mrs. Clark held a Master’s Degree in Reading and Writing and was a
Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment (BTSA) provider and was responsible for helping
novice teachers meet requirements to clear their teaching credential. At her school site, Mrs.
Clark received PD once a quarter on instruction aligned to Common Core State Standards.
Additionally, Mrs. Clark consistently participated in PD outside of her school – she received
training in Close Reading, Guided Reading, Note-Taking strategies such as Cornell Notes,
(Appendix H) SQ3R (Survey, Question, Read, Recite & Review), Notice and Note Sign-Posts
(Appendix I) and Readers’ Workshop. Throughout the year, Mrs. Clark also visited other
schools outside of her district to observe classroom instruction of master teachers of reading.
Mrs. Clark had 26 students (17 girls and 7 boys). All of the students in Mrs. Clark’s
classroom were considered either English Only or RFEPs. Mrs. Clark used picture books and
Kate DiCamillo’s novel Because of Winn-Dixie to teach the Notice and Note Sign-Posts
(Appendix I) as part of her reading comprehension instruction. The Notice and Note Sign-Posts
are a set of six Sign-Posts designed to help students attend to text, further their understanding of
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 99
what they read, and foster rigorous thinking at deeper levels (Beers & Probst, 2013). Mrs. Clark
was observed teaching reading comprehension five times. One of her lessons was a Sign-Post
demonstration lesson observed by her PLC team and the school principal.
Tyler Elementary
Tyler Elementary served a population of 627 Latino students. Forty-four percent of the
school population was considered English Language Learners; and 10% were reclassified as
English proficient. Tyler elementary was also a Title I school, as 87% of students received free
or reduced-price lunch.
One fourth grade teacher, Ms. Martin, volunteered to participate in this study. Ms.
Martin had 32 years of teaching experience, and taught fourth grade teacher for 20 years. She
held a Master’s degree in Human Development and Leadership in Education and received
weekly professional development provided by her school or by a private consultant. Ms. Martin
received PD from a private consultant hired by the school once a quarter. The content of this
professional development included Close Reading strategies, Academic Conversations, and
writing instruction to meet the Common Core State Standards.
Ms. Martin had 27 students (13 girls and 14 boys). Two students were considered
English Language Learners (ELLs)--their primary language was Spanish. As part of her reading
comprehension instruction, Ms. Martin used Kate DiCamillo’s novel Because of Winn-Dixie and
different sources of informational texts to supplement students’ understanding of the concepts
introduced in the novel (i.e., the Civil War). Classroom observations of reading instruction also
included lessons on annotating, Academic Conversations, and students keeping Personal Journals
to summarize events from the novel. Ms. Martin was observed teaching reading comprehension
five times.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 100
Pierce Elementary
Pierce Elementary served a population of 616 students. School demographics were
comprised of Latino (98%), African-American (1%), and White (1%) students. The school also
had a population of English Language Learners (32%) and Reclassified as English proficient
(13%) students. Pierce elementary was a Title I school--95% of students received free or
reduced-price lunch.
One fourth grade teacher, Ms. Anderson, volunteered to participate in this study. Ms.
Anderson had 13 years of teaching experience, five of which were spent teaching grade four.
Ms. Anderson had a Master’s Degree in Education, held a certificate in Gifted Instruction, and
was a first year student in a Doctoral program in a Teacher Education program when the study
was conducted. Ms. Anderson received quarterly PD provided by a private consultant hired by
her school on the requirements of Common Core State Standards and appropriate reading
instruction based on students’ reading levels.
Ms. Anderson had 28 students (11 girls and 17 boys). Ms. Anderson’s classroom make-
up included identified gifted students (13) and identified high-ability learners (5). One student
was an English Learner; he received special services due to a severe hearing impairment that
affected his listening and speaking abilities. According to Ms. Anderson, the student was
diagnosed with a hearing impairment 2 years prior entering 4
th
grade and was a grade level
below in reading. The remaining students were either English Only or RFEPs. To teach reading
comprehension, Ms. Anderson alternated between using core literature and informational texts
and dedicated a week of instruction per genre. During the week of classroom observations, Ms.
Anderson used two informational texts and included writing instruction to further expand
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 101
students’ understanding of texts. Ms. Anderson was observed teaching reading comprehension
four times.
Harrison Elementary
Harrison Elementary served a population of 1006 students. Student demographics
included Latino (97%) and White (3%) students. The school also had a population of English
Language Learners (39%) and reclassified English proficient (17%) students. Harrison
elementary was a Title I school--91% of the student population received free or reduced-price
lunch.
One teacher from this school, Mrs. Lewis, volunteered to participate in this study. Mrs.
Lewis was a teacher for 18 years, eight of which were spent teaching grade four. In addition to
holding certificates in Cross-cultural, Language and Academic Development and Gifted
Instruction, Mrs. Lewis was an author of teacher education books. These books provided
resources for teachers on academic language connections through listening, speaking, reading
and writing, across the content areas. The titles of these books were Strategies for Connecting
Content and Language for English Language Learners: English Language Arts; Strategies for
Connecting Content and Language for English Language Learners: Math; Strategies for
Connecting Content and Language for English Language Learners: Science; and Strategies for
Connecting Content and Language for English Language Learners: Social Studies.
Mrs. Lewis received PD provided by her school districted. These PD meetings focused
on implementing Common Core State Standards, using anchor charts to help students understand
content, and using talking stems to engage students in discussions. Mrs. Lewis had 28 students
(13 girls and 15 boys). According to Mrs. Lewis, her students were considered advanced or
high-ability learners and all were proficient readers. The majority of her classroom population
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 102
was English Only and very few students were Reclassified English Proficient. To teach reading
comprehension, Mrs. Lewis used Andrew Clements’ novel Lunch Money to teach the Notice and
Note Sign-Posts (Appendix I). Mrs. Lewis was observed teaching reading comprehension four
times.
Table 11 below presents a summary of the participants’ profiles and their respective
schools sites. The next section presents findings from the Teacher Survey responses and one-on-
one interview to answer Research Question One, “How do teachers rate their knowledge of
reading comprehension instruction?”
Table 11
Participants’ Profiles
School Site Participant Years of
Teaching
Experience
Years
Teaching
4
th
Grade
Highest Level of
Education
Additional Certifications

Knox
Elementary

Mr.
Smith

23

23

MA
Cross-cultural,
Language and
Academic
Development
Certificate

Mrs.
Clark

20

10

MA Reading
and Writing

BTSA Support
Provider

Tyler
Elementary

Ms.
Martin

32

20
MA Human
Development
and Leadership
in Education

SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 103
Table 11, continued

Pierce
Elementary

Ms.
Anderson

13

5

MA and
Doctoral
Candidate

Gifted Instruction
Certificate

Harrison
Elementary

Mrs.
Lewis

18

8
BA Spanish
Literature
Cross-cultural,
Language and
Academic
Development and
Gifted Instruction
Certificate

Results Research Question One:
How do 4
th
grade teachers rate their knowledge of reading comprehension instruction?
The responses collected from these two measures (surveys and interviews) were cross-
referenced to uncover any patterns or discrepancies amongst the data. Findings are organized as
follows: (a) Self-Reported Level of Expertise; (b) Teaching Philosophies of Reading
Comprehension Instruction, and (c) Instructional Approaches to Teach Reading Comprehension.
Self-Reported Level of Expertise
Results from the Teacher Survey (Appendix B -Survey Questions 11-15) indicated that
four participants considered themselves to be Proficient, and one participant considered herself
to be an Expert in reading comprehension instruction. Out of these four responses, one
participant, Mrs. Clark, qualified her response with “Proficient expertise, but always looking to
improve,” and one participant, Ms. Anderson self-rated her knowledge as Proficient to Expert.
Participants also indicated similar expertise of reading comprehension strategies. Three
participants, Mr. Smith, Mrs. Clark, and Ms. Anderson, indicated a Proficient level of
knowledge. Mrs. Lewis reported Proficient to Expert knowledge, and Ms. Martin regarded
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 104
herself an Expert while “adapting the new terms to the Common Core State Standards.” These
responses are summarized in Table 12.
Table 12
Self-Reported Level of Expertise in Reading Instruction
Participant Level of Expertise Experience Teaching Reading
Comprehension Strategies
Mr. Smith Proficient Proficient

Mrs. Clark Proficient, but always
looking to improve
Proficient
Ms. Martin Expert Expert while adapting the new terms to
the Common Core Standards
Ms. Anderson Proficient to Expert Proficient
Mrs. Lewis Proficient Proficient to Expert

Participants also reported their areas of strength when teaching reading comprehension.
Participants stated (a) using a variety of strategies to meet students’ needs and to promote deeper
analysis and thinking; (b) incorporating group discussions during instruction; (c) making
connections across content areas; (d) breaking down the thought process to understand the
meaning of texts; and (e) keeping records of students’ progress as personal areas of
strength/expertise. Responses to whether additional PD was needed resulted in Mr. Smith and
Ms. Martin indicating not needing any additional PD. Two participants indicated needed
additional PD: Mrs. Clark needed PD in implementing reading instruction tailored to students’
individual needs, and Mrs. Lewis needed PD in guided reading instruction. One participant, Ms.
Anderson was not sure if she needed any additional PD.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 105
Table 13 summarizes participants’ self-reported areas of strength and identified need for
professional development in reading comprehension instruction.
Table 13
Self-Reported Areas of Strength and Identified Additional Needs
Participant Self-Reported Areas of Strength Identified Additional PD

Mr. Smith

Using strategies to develop deep
thinking and understanding of texts

No
Mrs. Clark Keeping records of students’ progress Implementing tailored reading
instruction to meet student needs
Ms. Martin Using multiple and varied strategies to
meet students’ needs
No
Ms. Anderson Motivating students; using group
discussions and making connections
across texts
Not Sure
Mrs. Lewis Breaking down the though process
used to understand texts
Guided Reading Instruction

Teaching Philosophies of Reading Comprehension Instruction
Participants’ self-reported expertise and identified areas of strength in reading instruction
were analyzed with responses collected during the one-on-one interviews (Appendix C -
Interview Questions 1, 7, 8, 10, 16-18). The purpose for making this connection was to
determine whether participants’ philosophy of teaching reading comprehension was aligned to
the self-reported level of expertise and areas of strength in comprehension instruction. The
philosophies of four participants, Teachers Clark, Martin, Anderson, and Lewis, included reading
texts with a purpose, using multiple reading strategies to analyze texts, teaching students to think
critically, and instilling a love of reading outside of the classroom. Teachers Clark, Martin,
Anderson, and Lewis self-reported strengths in reading instruction in the survey (i.e., using
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 106
multiple strategies to meet students’ needs, using group discussions, making connections across
texts, and breaking down the thought process to understand texts) were directly aligned to their
philosophies of reading comprehension instruction.
Mr. Smith’s philosophy of instruction was not consistent with his self-reported expertise
in reading comprehension instruction. Mr. Smith explained his philosophy of reading instruction
included using “whatever was effective;” and the phrases “effective instruction” and “making
changes to instruction until something was effective” were consistently repeated to describe his
approach to teach reading comprehension. Mr. Smith explained that, “finding what is effective
was a big problem, because when teaching comprehension you can test for comprehension, but
that doesn’t give you an accurate accounting whether the kids can really comprehend, or whether
some other thing came into play.” Upon asking Mr. Smith to provide examples of “other things
that come into play,” his response included, “bad testing questions, lack of responses to short
answer questions, but you can’t tell whether they [students] got lazy and decided not to answer
the question, or whether they copied their neighbor.” Mr. Smith’s self-reported area of strength
in reading instruction as stated in the survey (i.e., using strategies to develop deep thinking and
understanding of texts) was not expressed as part of his philosophy of reading comprehension
instruction.
To gain additional insights, participants were asked to provide a personal definition of
reading comprehension. The aim of this question was to find out whether these responses were
aligned to the philosophies previously stated. All participants defined reading comprehension as
gaining meaning from text. Participants’ definitions also included using strategies to make
predictions; analyzing characters, identifying the author’s purpose; visualizing; asking questions;
and making connections. Reading comprehension was also defined as teaching students how to
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 107
select strategies and use skills to think critically about texts to form opinions. For example, Mrs.
Lewis defined reading comprehension as, “interacting with the text and draw meaning, [and]
being able to use that meaning in some other way, making connections and thinking critically,
asking questions, questioning the author and forming opinions.” The definitions provided by
participants were concurrent with the RAND research group’s report that defined reading
comprehension as the “process of simultaneously extracting and constructing meaning through
interaction and involvement with written language” (RAND Study Group, p.11). Participants’
responses to this question demonstrated their knowledge of the cognitive processes required and
use of specific strategies to make meaning from texts.
To further investigate participants’ knowledge of reading comprehension instruction,
personal definitions of reading comprehension were compared to descriptions of the instructional
approaches used to target specific reading needs.
Instructional Approaches to Teaching Reading Comprehension
In order to determine participants’ understanding of the reading development process and
knowledge of reading instruction, participants were asked to (a) describe reading behaviors of
students slightly behind and students having great difficulty in reading comprehension and (b)
select the type of instruction each student profile required. Four out of five participants
described student behaviors in both of these scenarios with detail. Teachers Clark, Martin,
Anderson, and Lewis’s descriptions of struggling readers included students not aware of how to
use reading strategies and missing the foundational knowledge of the reading process (i.e.,
phonemic awareness). Responses to address these needs included appropriate selection of
instructional approaches. Participants explained that properly designed reading instruction
included targeted focus; using leveled readers; strategic grouping arrangements (one-on-one or in
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 108
small group), and instruction of reading comprehension strategies. Ms. Anderson commented,
“You have to ensure that students are able to decode text and read with some level of fluency so
the instruction then can be provided at their level. When you can match instruction to current
decoding skills, students are able to read the text you provide.” These four teachers also stated
that students behind in reading need to hear texts read out loud to them.
Mr. Smith provided general comments to describe struggling readers and instruction to
address reading needs. His description of struggling readers included students with low self-
esteem and being quiet in class. The instructional approaches he explained using included
calling on quiet students more since “they are easy to pass on by during class instruction” and
developing students’ confidence as readers by asking “not too in depth questions at first.”
Table 14 summarizes the instructional approaches participants explained to teach students
with varying reading comprehension needs.
Table 14
Participants’ Instructional Approaches to Reading Comprehension Instruction
Participant Student Behaviors:

Examples of Reading Comprehension
Instruction
Mr.
Smith
Slightly Behind
“Students who are very quiet and
who don’t raise their hands.”

Having Great Difficulty
“Student who lack confidence and
read choppy.”
“They are easy to pass by. Call on them
more to answer questions.”

“Develop confidence. Ask them questions
that are not too in depth at first.”

SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 109
Table 14, continued

Mrs.
Clark

Slightly Behind
“Students who misunderstand the
meaning of the text.”

Having Great Difficulty
“Students who do not make any
connections to anything they are
reading. They are just word
calling.”

“Teach the meaning of words. Use
apposition, clues in the text to figure out
what the word means. Provide opportunities
to use oral language.”

“Help students create a plan of attack in their
mind. Teach strategies, and begin with
prediction and how to revise predictions
based on evidence.”

Ms.
Martin
Slightly Behind
“Students who are aware they
cannot read well and look for
excuses to get out from reading.”

Having Great Difficulty
“Students who are missing the
early learning that supports reading
(i.e., phonemic awareness,
phonics), or students who have not
been taught reading
comprehension strategies.”

“Use small groups to target instruction
depending on their need. Use level readers
so students can access the text. Provide one-
on-one instruction to teach what they need.
Read to them so they hear how reading
sounds.”

“Provide one-on-one instruction in the core
elements of reading. Use level readers.
Teach reading comprehension strategies like
making connections to prior knowledge,
predicting, summarizing, asking questions,
etc. Give students time to practice using the
strategies and make reading meaningful.”

Ms.
Anderson
Slightly Behind
“Depends on where they are on
their development of reading.”

Having Great Difficulty
“Students, who do not understand
text, don’t know how to approach a
text to understand it, and who are
not metacognitive.”

“Instruction needs to be at the student level
and the text has to match that need so
students are able to read the text. Teach pre-
reading strategies, how to access
information, define a purpose for reading.”

“Teach strategies like visualizing, re-
reading, asking questions, etc. Teach skills
like cause and effect, or comparisons,
contrast and contradictions. Teach students
how to make choices as a reader.”

SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 110
Table 14, continued

Mrs.
Lewis
Slightly Behind
“Students who do not understand
what they are reading.”

Having Great Difficulty
“Students who are not really
thinking while they are reading.
Students who do not know how to
react to the reading and who are
not metacognitive to know how
and when to use different reading
strategies to gain meaning from the
text.”

“Teach students to checking for
understanding and notice the purpose for
why they are reading. Teach how to take
notes, highlight, annotate, reference and
cross-reference information from texts.”

“Pair students based on reading level and
provide small group or one-on-one
instruction to teach students to make sense
of the text, interact with the text, draw
meaning from what they are reading and use
that information in some other way. Ask
questions and question the author.”

Responses to the case scenario questions revealed that four out of five participants had an
understanding of the general progression of reading development. Teachers Clark, Martin,
Anderson, and Lewis designed and delivered instruction that was responsive to the variability in
students’ reading performance. Their descriptions of lessons included meaningful, instructional
interactions that were used to support students’ development of literacy. These responses were
aligned to the personal philosophies, understanding of reading comprehension instruction and
validated their self-reported expertise. The work of Moats (2004) and Snow, Burns, and Griffin
(2007) affirms that teachers who possess knowledge of the reading process are able to identify
how good readers differ from poor readers and can effectively assess and diagnose students’
reading needs. Block and colleagues (2009), Dole et al. (2009), and McCombes-Tolis and Feinn
(2008) also assert that teachers who possess knowledge of reading instruction are better able to
design lessons that take into account students’ identified needs and that are inclusive of
differentiated approaches to mediate students’ reading performance.

SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 111
Summary of Research Question One
An analysis and cross-reference of responses to the survey and interview questions
revealed that four out of five (Teachers Clark, Martin, Anderson, and Lewis) participants had an
accurate understanding of their self-reported level of expertise in reading instruction. These
participants were knowledgeable of effective comprehension instructional practices and
effectively described how to address the needs of struggling readers. Teachers Clark, Martin,
and Lewis, however, acknowledged needing additional support and training to further their
teaching practices.
The data analysis also pointed to some inconsistencies among Mr. Smith’s responses to
the survey and interview questions. Mr. Smith defined his philosophy of reading instruction was
to teach whatever was effective, yet this instructional practice was not defined or described. Mr.
Smith also stated using reading strategies to understand texts at a deeper level an identified
strength in reading instruction, however, when asked how to identify and select an instructional
approach to support struggling readers, the responses provided did not include targeted
instruction or the use of reading strategies. The differences in responses revealed an
inconsistency between Mr. Smith’s self-reported expertise in reading comprehension instruction
to his articulation of struggling readers and specified instructional approaches to meet students’
needs.
To gain a more comprehensive understanding and to explain more fully participants’
level of knowledge and expertise, an analysis was conducted of responses to interview questions,
classroom observations and post-lesson conversations on how teachers planned and taught
reading comprehension. This analysis identified how participants’ instructional philosophies and
approaches to address students’ reading needs were enacted during classroom instruction.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 112
Results Research Question Two:
How do 4
th
grade teachers plan and teach reading comprehension?
In order to explore participants’ professional knowledge of reading instruction, a series of
questions about planning and teaching approaches were asked during one-on-one interviews.
This data is divided into two parts: approaches to plan reading comprehension lessons and
enactment of reading comprehension instruction.
To answer the first part of Research Question Two, participants were asked to describe
their lesson planning process (Appendix C - Interview Questions 2-4, 14, 19). These questions
asked participants to describe the goals for reading comprehension lessons, frequency of lesson
planning, and the process used to plan lessons. To answer the second part of Research Question
Two, participants were asked to describe how they taught reading comprehension lessons
(Appendix C - Interview Questions 19, 22, 24-26). Participants were asked to explain a typical
reading comprehension lesson, whether grouping strategies were used when teaching, and to
describe under what conditions instruction was differentiated. The goal in asking these questions
was threefold: (a) to determine the extent of participants’ professional knowledge of reading
instruction, (b) compare responses with observations of classroom instruction, and (c) to cross-
reference with the self-reported data from the survey and interview findings presented earlier.
Findings from one-on-one interviews, classroom observations, and post-lesson
conversations are organized in two parts. Part One: Intentional and Targeted Planning reports
how teachers plan reading comprehension lessons. Part Two: Teaching Comprehension Lessons
reports how participants enacted their lesson plans.

SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 113
Part One: Intentional and Targeted Planning
Four out of five participants, Teachers Clark, Martin, Anderson, and Lewis, reported
created lessons that spanned over several days. Their lesson plans were purposeful and
strategically designed to meet students’ identified reading needs, and were used as guides to
introduce or review concepts and were modified as required. Three themes emerged from the
data. Lesson plans (a) Address Common Core State Standards, were (b) Flexible and
Continuous in design, and were used for (c) Differentiation: Organizing Student Groups.
Theme One: Addressing Common Core State Standards
A common response from participants was creating lessons to meet the requirements of
Common Core State Standards (CCSS). The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are a set of
high-quality education standards that ensure all students are literate and college and career ready
at the end of high school. Based on research and aligned with college and work expectations, the
CCSS use more complex materials to develop students’ critical thinking skills and focus on
fewer concepts than previous State standards to ensure student mastery of the content (National
Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers,
2010). These standards do not mandate particular instructional approaches. Instead, teachers
have the liberty to design lessons as they see appropriate to meet the requirements outlined in the
standards (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State
School Officers, 2010).
Four participants, Teachers Clark, Martin, Anderson, and Lewis, indicated their lesson
plans were guided by the CCSS. Mrs. Martin explained, “Our basal reading program is not
matching the Common Core standards exactly so now I am using core literature, and everything
that I am doing is driven by the standards that we have to cover.” Ms. Martin also commented
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 114
on using a flip chart of the standards during her planning meetings with colleagues and school
principal to guide her instruction. She stated, “I keep a flip chart book of the standards with me
all the time…I am looking at the standards and I am really working on having the students meet
the standards at the fourth grade level.” Ms. Martin used different types of reading genres (i.e.,
narrative, expository, poetry) to ensure students received exposure to different types of reading
materials, also outlined as a requirement in the CCSS.
Mrs. Clark used the CCSS as a guide to select the reading strategies students needed to
learn. Mrs. Clark explained, “I use the Common Core check-list when I am teaching a reading
strategy or a skill that I want them [students] to use when they are reading. Like analyzing,
inferring, using evidence to come up with an opinion.” Mrs. Clark explained she used the CCSS
to plan lessons that developed students’ reading ability and comprehension skills. She used the
CCSS to structure instruction that provided students opportunities to learn how to review texts
carefully, analyze the information presented, use the context to make inferences, and form
opinions supported by evidence. Teachers Clark and Martin also commented that using the
CCSS to guide their instruction insured that students were meeting the grade level expectations
and were being prepared for the reading requirements of consecutive school grades.
In addition to using CCSS as a planning tool, participants also acknowledged that the
new demands of the CCSS required making constant adjustments and accommodations to
lessons plans. Ms. Anderson described herself as a “standards-teacher” and made several
instructional modifications to meet the new requirements of CCSS. During the interview, she
stated, “We are finding that fourth-grade selections are now in third-grade. So students are
underprepared for, what I am calling the new fourth-grade.” To meet the “new fourth grade”
requirements, Ms. Anderson’s approach to planning reading lessons required reviewing the text
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 115
selection to determine whether the reading level of a text was appropriate, and using interactive
activities (whole and small group) to facilitate student learning and monitor students’ responses
to the instruction.
Reviewing teacher resources and texts to design CCSS lesson plans was also a practice
used by Ms. Martin. When asked about her approach to plan lessons, she stated, “As a seasoned
teacher, I know a little bit more about story selection for read-alouds than a novice teacher, and I
use that to select the core literature books we will use for our Author Studies.” Ms. Martin
explained that planning lessons included reviewing students reading levels, reading fluency, and
reading interests to then select the texts at an appropriate level. Her class was re-reading Kate Di
Camillo’s novel Because of Winn-Dixie, and she commented that re-reading a familiar story
helped students “think outside of the box, become critical and analytical while making
connections to the text, to the world, and to the self.” She used this text to teach students how to
analyze concepts and themes.
Mrs. Lewis expressed using CCSS in tandem with reading materials. Mrs. Lewis
selected texts first and used the standards to inform her lesson plans: “I review my students’
reading interests then I select a text. I don’t focus on the standard over what text I am using. I
focus on both and how I can teach both.” Mrs. Lewis described designing reading
comprehension lessons based on students’ interests and selecting texts that lent themselves to
deep thinking and analysis. She commented that all of her students were proficient readers, but
needed additional practice to use strategies independently. Thus, Mrs. Lewis lessons included
ample time for students to think about and discuss with each other how to use strategies, analyze
the characters at a deeper level, and determine the themes and Big Ideas presented in the text.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 116
Teachers Clark, Martin, Anderson, and Lewis’s approaches to planning instruction
illustrated their pedagogical knowledge of reading instruction. These participants’ responses
revealed using a process for planning lessons. They analyzed the CCSS to understand what was
required of students and used this information to create lesson plans and activities that aligned to
these requirements. Participants also took into account students’ current levels of reading
performance and reading interest to select texts and instructional scaffolds to ensure students
successfully accessed the content of their lessons. These responses depict the participants’ view
of lesson planning as a comprehensive process. Their lesson designs specifically supported the
acquisition of particular skills and concepts, while also considered the various reading needs and
interests of their students. This finding is supported by research studies that assert that skilled
teachers of reading are able to review and analyze students’ needs, review curriculum materials,
and select instructional approaches to design reading comprehension lessons in accessible and
meaningful ways for all students (Hall, 2005; Phelps & Schilling, 2004; Lyon & Weiser, 2009).
In addition to planning lessons to address the Common Core State Standards, four
participants, Teachers Clark, Martin, Anderson, and Lewis, also expressed designing flexible
lessons as an approach to continuously guide student learning.
Theme Two: Flexible and Continuous Planning
Four out of five participants regarded lesson planning as an iterative informative practice.
As part of their lesson planning process, Teachers Clark, Martin, Anderson, and Lewis created
weekly instructional plans to guide their instruction. These four participants underscored their
weekly plans used a flexible design that allowed a natural evolution of instruction based on
students’ responses to lessons. Making revisions to lessons plans took place during instruction,
daily, or every other day and comprised (a) conducting research about the texts, (b) gathering
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 117
student data, and (c) revisiting lesson plans as needed to ensure students met the goals
established.
Teachers Clark, Martin, Anderson, and Lewis conducted thorough research to plan
reading comprehension lessons. Research conducted identified students’ interest in finding
appealing texts; texts were read to determine the level of difficulty or ease of themes and
concepts; and appropriate texts, resources, and materials were selected to reinforce students
learning. One participant, Ms. Martin, stated that, in order to gain a thorough understanding of
the complexities of texts, she conducted research to learn about the author, the selection of books
written by the author, and the themes presented in each text. Additionally, she selected several
materials such as interactive online maps to provide a context for the story setting, other texts to
extend students’ understanding of concepts, and realia or real objects used as tangible visual aids.
Ms. Martin kept all her research and lesson plans in a three-ring binder organized by the
concepts and themes presented in the texts.
In addition to conducting research to create lesson plans, participants constantly collected
data. Teachers Clark, Martin, Anderson, and Lewis gathered data to determine whether lessons
needed to be re-taught, revised, or if students were ready to learn new material. Ms. Anderson’s
commented, “I constantly make choices while teaching based on students’ responses, activities,
and behavior. This gives me a little progress monitoring and an overall idea of how students are
doing in reading, and lets me know what I have to do in return.” An important component of
Ms. Anderson’s lesson planning process included observing students interactions with one
another, analyzing students’ responses to questions, and reviewing students’ behaviors (i.e.,
engagement, confusion, distraction) to determine a proper course of action.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 118
Using student data to make revisions to lesson plans was also a common practice for Ms.
Martin. She explained that, once she taught a lesson, she took mental notes while observing
students to determine whether her lesson was effective and whether students understood the
content of the lesson. She commented, “I check on them to make sure I do any re-teaching or
provide any small group instruction. It’s important to look at all they work and then provide the
instruction necessary to meet their needs.” Ms. Martin used student data to change lesson plans
once she determined whether additional time was needed to further reinforce a skill or strategy.
Mrs. Clark expressed observing students’ reactions to the lessons provided the data she
needed to revisit specific components of her lesson plans. Mrs. Clark observed students to
identify those who struggled with the text and those needed more challenging instruction: “when
the students work, I walk around and that’s when I observe students’ work and provide
feedback.” After reviewing students’ responses to the lessons, Mrs. Clark made adjustments to
her lessons by providing more one-on-one support to particular students to revisit concepts or
strategies, or adjusting the lesson to include more rigorous assignments for those students who
needed the “extra push.”
Mrs. Lewis also described observing students’ responses and interactions throughout her
instruction to make adjustments and support student learning. Mrs. Lewis commented,
I noticed, when they [students] talk about the characters, they point out the details. So I
pull a small group and conference with them. I ask them to go a little deeper and to think
more about the character and what the character is doing. I expect them to question each
other. They are not currently doing that. Right now, they each share what they have
found, but they are not supporting each other’s thinking.”
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 119
Mrs. Lewis explained that making adjustments to her lessons based on student data was a
practice she used to revisit her lesson plans. She made decisions based on “students’ use and
understanding of the strategies.” Her instructional plans were flexible and responsive to help
students think “at a deeper level.”
Mr. Smith’s responses to questions about lesson planning approaches revealed that Mr.
Smith did not plan lessons to teach reading comprehension. Instead, Mr. Smith thought about
what he covered the day before to decide the content of future instruction. Mr. Smith said,
Ummm….in the normal sense of planning, sitting down and planning, I don’t sit down
and plan. Well, it comes out when I am thinking about what I am going to teach that day.
It comes naturally, I guess. For example, we read the chapters we are going to be
touching on that week and then at some point before we get to the next part, I don’t
know, I run through it somehow in my head and it comes up and then I decide I want to
focus on these items.”
Data from post-lesson conversations confirmed this was the approach Mr. Smith used to make
decisions about reading comprehension instruction. When asked to provide his thoughts on how
a lesson went and to describe his next steps for instruction, Mr. Smith responded,
We read each chapter [in Charlotte’s Web] and we will figure out a focus on each one.
The first chapter we read was about the Bad News, so I am going to focus on the sheep
and how the bad news is delivered. I haven’t really decided how I am going to frame that
yet, so we are going to take notes on that. Then, the next part when Wilbur is trying to
build a web and the fact that Templeton is really eager to see him fail. So, I haven’t
decided how I am going to frame that yet. I will probably figure it out when I do it.”
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 120
Mr. Smith revealed during the one-on-one interview that this was his first year using core
literature to teach reading comprehension. In past years, Mr. Smith used a language arts program
and followed the sequence of reading comprehension instruction outlined in the Teacher’s
Manual. An analysis of Mr. Smith’s approach to teaching reading comprehension is discussed in
Chapter Five.
The approaches described to plan reading comprehension lessons by Teachers Clark,
Martin, Anderson, and Lewis revealed that these four participants used procedural and content
knowledge of effective reading instruction to plan instruction. Their procedural knowledge was
evident when they used a systematic approach and process to create lesson plans that were
guided by CCSS requirements. These lessons were also designed using flexible plans that were
altered as necessary based on observations and analysis of student data. Similarly, participants’
content knowledge of reading instruction was apparent when students’ needs were taken into
consideration to select the teaching methods and instructional materials most relevant and
practical to meet the established goals in the lesson plans.
Teachers Clark, Martin, Anderson, and Lewis’s content knowledge of reading instruction
was also apparent when becoming familiar with the complexities of the text was a central tenet
of their lesson planning process. This approach allowed participants to provide students with
instruction that developed critical thinking skills and in-depth analysis of themes, yet instruction
was always designed to help students access the content. Several instructional strategies were
used to develop and deliver comprehensive lessons that met students’ needs. Further, using data
to inform instruction engaged participants in a cyclical pattern of creating and revising lessons
that were relevant and meaningful to students, and that helped students think about texts at
deeper levels. This practice evidenced participants’ understanding of the multifaceted
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 121
components required to teach reading comprehension and is supported by studies that indicate
that effective instruction requires teachers to take into account what students are able to do and
use formal and informal assessments to tailor instruction and support student learning (Connor et
al., 2011; Moats & Foorman, 2003; Reiss et al., 2011; Taylor et al., 2005; Tobin & McInnes,
2007, 2008). These practices also illustrated participants’ understanding of how to select texts,
determine the complexities of these materials, and plan reading instruction that supports student
learning (Rueda, Unrau, & Son, in press).
Theme Three: Differentiation: Organizing Student Groups
Participants also included different configurations of student groups as part of their lesson
planning approaches. All participants reviewed students’ reading records and personal notes
from observations to determine the organization of student groups; and instruction was organized
around whole group instruction, small groups, students working in pairs, and independent work.
While all participants described using different forms of data to determine group membership,
the frequency of using student groups when teaching reading comprehension varied. Four
participants, Teachers Clark, Martin Anderson, and Lewis, incorporated student groups as part of
their reading lessons on a daily basis, and provided student with ample opportunities to practice
using the strategies taught to develop academic language. One participant, Mr. Smith, stated
using cooperative groups once per week.
Two participants, Teachers Clark and Martin, explained using student data such as
running records to determine how lessons and student interactions were organized. Ms. Martin’s
approach to plan lessons included reviewing “the makeup of my class, individual reading levels,
fluency, comprehension, writing ability, and then I determine what I will teach whole group,
small group, or who I will have on the rug with me for one-on-one instruction for additional
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 122
support.” Mrs. Clark used running records to plan and differentiate her instruction based on her
students’ overall literacy needs. She used students reading level to “place students into same
level groups, with the goal to get them up to the next level.” Mrs. Clark met with her groups on
a bi-weekly basis to address the groups’ reading needs and re-configure groups as needed.
Two participants, Teachers Anderson and Lewis, observed students during instruction to
collect data and plan instruction and student group arrangements. Ms. Anderson commented, “I
don’t use that data to plan what I am going to teach instead I use that data to plan how I am going
to teach.” Mrs. Lewis also observed students’ reading behaviors during instruction: “I pair my
students according to level. This way they can read books they can understand and discuss. I
conference with them, and we meet weekly, so that next week the group can change.” Teachers
Clark, Martin, Anderson, and Lewis stated that students were placed in groups strategically and
consistently moved in and out of groups as needed. Changes in group membership were made
based on student performance in reading via running records or teachers’ observations.
Using data to structure grouping dynamics demonstrated the participants’ level of
knowledge of the reading process and instruction. Responses from Teachers Clark, Martin,
Anderson, and Lewis provided insight to how they designed flexible reading instruction to
support students’ diverse and varying needs in reading. These participants explained taking into
account students’ interests, reading readiness, and learning profiles to prepare lessons that were
responsive to identified needs and that promoted reading and academic language growth. This
finding is supported by the research literature that states that properly diagnosing students’
reading needs provides a starting point of instruction (Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006; Bransford et
al., 2005). Using ongoing assessments assists teachers in determining the type of instruction
students need and the level of scaffolding that is required to ensure student success (Moats, 2004;
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 123
Snow, Burns & Griffin, 2007). This approach to lesson planning is also supported by research
that asserts that skilled teachers select, organize and implement instructional approaches that are
responsive to students’ learning needs (Shulman, 1986; 1987).
Table 15 summarizes the approaches participants used to plan reading comprehension
lessons as an overview of the findings for Research Question Two Part 1.
Table 15
Process Used to Plan Reading Comprehension Lessons
Processes Purpose
Review Common Core
State Standards
Determine overall goal for lesson plans
Select skill, strategy and create instructional
goals
Review student data, reading needs,
and reading interests
Select appropriate reading materials for
instruction
Design a flexible plan of instruction Implement lesson while collecting data to
make the adjustments necessary
Organize Student Grouping Organize instruction that is appropriate to
meet students’ reading needs. Gather data
to make modifications
Responses to Research Question Two Part 1 revealed that four out of five participants
used a systematic approach to plan reading comprehension lessons. One participant, however,
did not plan lessons to teach reading comprehension. Teachers Clark, Martin, Anderson, and
Lewis planned reading lesson to address Common Core State Standards and designed flexible
instruction to address the reading needs of students. Their instruction of reading comprehension
was informed by students’ reading levels, and student data was used to design future instruction.
Student data was also used to develop lesson plans inclusive of differentiation approaches to
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 124
create student groups based on students’ reading needs. These findings corroborate Teachers
Clark, Martin, Anderson, and Lewis’s knowledge of the reading process and ability to articulate
teaching methodologies aligned to student-centered planning approaches.
Part Two: Teaching Reading Comprehension Lessons
Several forms of data were collected to determine how participants taught reading
comprehension lessons. During the one-on-one interviews, participants were asked to explain
how they taught reading comprehension lessons (Appendix C - Interview Questions 19, 22, 24-
26) and were asked to describe how a typical comprehension lesson was delivered to students.
Responses to these questions were compared to notes from classroom observations and post-
lesson conversations, and also with the researcher’s field notes. Participants were observed
teaching three to five reading comprehension lessons during the period of a week; each lesson
lasted 90 minutes. After each observation, participants engaged in post-lesson conversations to
discuss the lesson and to share next steps for instruction. These sources of data were analyzed
separately and then cross-referenced against one another to determine if there were any patterns
amongst responses and observed behaviors. The analysis revealed that four out of five
participants taught reading comprehension lessons daily using three forms of instruction: (a)
Explicit Instruction; (b) Classroom Discussions; and (c) Differentiated Instruction.
Theme One: Explicit Instruction
The rationale for using explicit instruction to teach reading comprehension lessons was
articulated by two participants: Mrs. Clark and Mrs. Lewis. Mrs. Clark stated that throughout
her instruction she used explicit instruction to ensure students understood the goal and the
purpose of the strategy introduced. She remarked,
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 125
I am very explicit when I teach. I will say, “Today I am going to show you or model for
you how to monitor your understanding by stopping and asking questions.” Whenever I
am monitoring in reading comprehension, I show them [students] and then I say, “Do you
see what I did when I was reading? Do you see how I stopped because I was in
understanding what I read? Do you see how I did that? So when you are reading and you
get stuck on something, you can try this strategy. Now you try it. Go ahead and read and
try the same.”
Mrs. Clark explained that being explicit when using a reading strategy allowed her
students to observe how a strategy was used. She clearly informed her students how a strategy
prompted the reader to ask questions, activated background knowledge, and helped form new
ideas.
Mrs. Clark used explicit instruction when she introduced the Sign-Post Contrast and
Contradictions (Appendix I). The excerpt below illustrates her use of explicit
instruction:

Mrs. Clark: Now, Contrast and Contradiction is when a character acts in a way that we
don’t expect or in a way that is different from the way they behave. So, Contrast and
Contradiction is when all of a sudden the character does something different. It’s not
what we would expect. So today we are reading we are going to be looking for when the
character does something different, or we don’t expect. When we come to that point, we
are going to ask ourselves, “Why would the character do this? Or why does the character
feel different?”

S: [students turn to their notebooks where the story Chrysanthemum is pasted]

Mrs. Clark: Remember, I am going to show you an example. [begins to read out loud and
students follow along]….. I am going to pause right there, and I don’t notice a Contrast or
a Contradiction. You are not going to usually see it right off the bat because we don’t
know the character yet, do we? We don’t know these characters well enough to us see
that they are doing something unexpected. [continues to read]

Mrs. Clark: Okay, I am pausing here. Has the character acted in a way that we don't
expect?

S: No [answer in unison]
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 126
Mrs. Clark: [Continues to read] How is the character acting? I am going to pause here
because I think it’s different. Think about how her mom and her dad acted. They love her
name, but how is Chrysanthemum acting now?
S1: Chrysanthemum doesn’t like her name.
S2: She is sad because the girls are laughing at her.
Mrs. Clark: Up until this point everyone has loved Chrysanthemum’s name. It was
practically perfect right? And, now, is it still practically perfect?
S: No [in unison]
Mrs. Clark: So, this is an example of Contrast and Contradiction. Go ahead and
underline it and right next to it I want you put CC for contrast and contradiction.
After this whole group lesson, students worked in pairs to discuss Contrast and
Contradictions in the characters’ behavior throughout the rest of the lesson. Students were asked
to read the story silently and share with partners new examples of Contrast and Contradictions in
the text. Students also worked at their desks and re-read their independent reading books and
used post-it notes (Appendix J) to annotate the change in characters. Meanwhile, Mrs. Clark
monitored group interactions and provided guidance as necessary. Extended practice was
provided for students as homework.
Mrs. Lewis used explicit instruction to model the mental processes when using a reading
strategy. Mrs. Lewis explained that to teach students how to understand texts, she “thought
about the thought process of how I got there and that is how I teach [the strategy] and I ask the
students to tell me the process they used.” Mrs. Lewis expressed that explaining the process
helped students understand how to use a strategy step-by-step. This type of instruction was
observed when Mrs. Lewis introduced the Sign-Post: Again and Again (Appendix I). She used a
think-aloud to review a text excerpt and made her thought process visible to her students:
“Always started with a single word: Divorce.” So here I am going to annotate and I am
going to put Again and Again because he mentions the idea of always, which means that
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 127
it has happened before. So, now, if I keep reading…“It was an ugly word…” Now, so
far, he has only mentioned the word divorce once, but I remember when I read this before
that he mentioned this word again, and he keeps bringing up the word always and it keeps
coming up again. So, if I keep reading, I notice now that here its saying, “Divorce a
breaking word, and ugly, breaking word.” So here I am going to make a note of it. This
keeps coming up over and over, so I am going to ask myself, “Why does this word keep
coming up?”
Mrs. Lewis used explicit instruction to help her students think about the information in
the text at a deeper level. Students were observed analyzing the information in the text, asked
questions about the character and the concept of divorce, and provided their own interpretations
of the story. Students also discussed and agreed on the author’s overall message. Additionally,
students asked clarifying questions about the purpose of the Sign-Post and discussed how to
identify the Sign-Post in texts.
Explicit instruction was also observed when Ms. Anderson modeled how to use
apposition, context clues, and pictures in the text as a process to identify and learn the meaning
of unknown words. Ms. Anderson explicitly modeled her thinking about unknown words and
engaged her students in a discussion about the process she used. Students practiced using the
process with partners to determine the meaning of words using the context, apposition, or
pictures found in the text.
Teachers Clark, Lewis, and Anderson’s pedagogical content knowledge of reading
instruction became evident when they were observed using explicit instruction. Using this
instructional approach demonstrated participants’ knowledge of teaching and of the content.
They used explicit instruction to provide a road-map of the thinking process used when
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 128
analyzing information in texts. Studies on the effects of explicit instruction found that this
instructional approach helps students identify relationships between concepts; develop analytical
thinking, and problem-solving skills (Duffy, et al., 1987; Moats, 1999; Ryder, Tunmer, &
Greaney, 2008; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). This was evident as students were observed
analyzing the characters’ feelings and actions.
Teachers Clark, Lewis, and Anderson also used explicit instruction to develop students’
self-regulatory skills. Students in Mrs. Clark and Lewis’s class were taught the sequence of
steps and cognitive processes required to use a Sign-Post and think deeply about the information
in the texts. Students in Ms. Anderson’s class learned a problem-solving skill to monitor,
identify and understand the meanings of unknown words. In all three occasions, students were
provided time to practice using the strategies and to articulate the process of learning new
concepts. Students were observed sharing their thinking during small group and whole group
classroom discussions.
Theme Two: Classroom Discussions
Classroom discussions were observed as a prominent practice to teach reading
comprehension; however, the frequency of use varied amongst participants. Four participants,
Teachers Clark, Martin, Anderson, and Lewis, stated during their interviews that classroom
discussions were a necessary component to their reading lessons. Mrs. Clark explained that her
students, although considered redesignated as English fluent still “needed to practice using
language “to understand text patterns,” Ms. Martin stated that her reading comprehension
instruction included “reading texts, having academic conversations to make connections and
become critical about the text.” Ms. Anderson commented that the purpose of classroom
discussions was to encourage students to “discuss and think: how is this right? or how is this
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 129
wrong?” and she further elaborated, “I push for everyone in my class to participate; so wrong
answers are encouraged.” Finally, Mrs. Lewis explained that students “needed time to talk it out
and explore together how a strategy helped them gain a deeper understanding of texts and
supported a real in-depth conversation about what they are reading.”
Four out of five participants alternated between classroom discussions conducted whole
group, small groups, and in student pairs. These discussions occurred when a reading strategy
was introduced and when the meaning of the text was discussed. The most prominent use of
classroom discussions was to practice using a reading comprehension strategy. Two participants,
Mr. Smith and Mrs. Clark, were observed introducing two different reading comprehension
strategies to help students understand the characters and the story’s plot in more depth.
Mr. Smith used classroom discussions to summarize the three chapters he read to his
class from the novel Charlotte’s Web. During the discussion observed, Mr. Smith and his
students annotated the important information from each chapter. This classroom discussion took
place with the students sitting at their desks while Mr. Smith asked questions and wrote down a
summary of the chapters based on students’ responses to his questions. The summary was
recorded on a notebook that was projected on the board using a document camera. Students had
their own personal notebooks and copied Mr. Smith’s notes. Below is an excerpt of this
discussion:
Mr. Smith: Now, we have what the old sheep said, I want to know about the old sheep’s
character. What can you tell me about the old sheep herself?
S1: She is mean. She doesn’t mean to spread bad news, but she does.
Mr. Smith: Alright, she is mean, and we know this directly from the story, our evidence
directly from the story, is that she said that she doesn’t mean to spread bad news, but she
spreads bad news. I want you to remember the evidence from the story and provide that
evidence on the test we will have on Friday. [Writes: she is mean].
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 130
Mr. Smith: Give me more details about the old sheep

S3: The sheep has been around a long time.

Mr. Smith: Let’s talk about that. What does this tell you about sheep?

S4: She knows what happens.

Mr. Smith: The sheep has been around a long time and has seen what happens.

S5: She sees many pigs come and go.

Mr. Smith: Yes, what does that say about sheep in general, in comparison to pigs?

S6: She has been alive a long time.

Mr. Smith: So, what does not happen to sheep?

S3: She is safe.

Mr. Smith: Yes, she knows she is safe. She has seen the pig get slaughtered every year,
but she is safe. [Writes in notebook] So the sheep knows she is safe and that makes her
smug. Smug is like being very happy with yourself in a not so nice way. Like, I am safe
and you are not. That is what smug is.

Mr. Smith guided a group discussion to help students practice how to summarize the text.
During post-lesson discussions, Mr. Smith explained that the notes students took were used later
in the week when students worked in cooperative groups to discuss the text using the prompts of
Depth and Complexity and Content Imperatives (Appendices F and G). These conversations,
Mr. Smith explained, were designed to help students analyze the text in-depth. This lesson is
explained in more detail in the next section: Differentiated Instruction.
Mrs. Clark used classroom discussion to examine the information in the texts using the
Sign-Post: Tough Questions (Appendix I). This discussion took place with students sitting on
rug and Mrs. Clark facilitated small group discussions of the Sign-Post. During students’
discussion in pairs, Mrs. Clark sat on the rug with the students to listen to their conversations and
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 131
provided feedback to support their interpretations of the characters’ actions. Mrs. Clark listened
in to students’ conversation and prompted them to think about the struggle the character was
facing. Mrs. Clark also facilitated students’ conversations about the characters as part of whole
group instruction. She discussed how the Sign-Post Tough Questions helped revisit a familiar
text and question the characters’ actions and feelings in more depth. Below is an excerpt of the
discussion observed:
Mrs. Clark: [Students and teacher read the text again] Don’t you think I wanted her to
stay too? Don’t you think that I miss her every day? Do you think that reveals the inner
struggle of the character the preacher? Is he struggling with missing the mama too?

S1: Now we know that the preacher also misses her.

S2: I think the preacher misses Opal’s mother too and he is sad.

Mrs. Clark: Okay, what does this question make you think about? And wonder? Talk to
your partner. [Students work in pairs to discuss and teacher moves around the rug to
listen to students]

Mrs. Clark: I was listening to your discussions, and I want you to share what you talked
about with the whole group. What does this question make you think about? And
wonder?

S3: I wonder if the Mama is ever going to come back

Mrs. Clark: Do you think that reveals Opal's inner struggle?

S: [All students in unison] Yes.

S4: I wonder if Opal knew that her dad was that upset.

Mrs. Clark: That’s a good one. I also wonder if Opal knew how her dad felt.

S5: I wonder if the preacher will find Opal’s mom.

S6: I wonder if the mamas even alive? Maybe she passed away in the preacher does one
tell Opal.

S7: I agree I wonder why the preacher didn’t tell Opal how he was feeling earlier.

SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 132
Mrs. Clark: These are good wonderings. Do you see how when we stop and notice the
Sign-Posts like Tough Question helps us understand the character’s inner struggle or a
conflict that makes us ask questions about what we think happened in the story? And this
makes us wonder what is going to happen next in the story?
Mrs. Clark explained using classroom discussions to help students practice using
strategies to review and understand texts a deeper level. She commented, “Using the Sign-Posts
is helping my students discuss familiar texts and look at information from a different lens.” Mrs.
Clark shared that using classroom discussions was an effective approach for students to
understand texts from different angles or multiple perspectives and this type of instruction helped
students think deeply about the characters and themes in the texts.
Classroom discussions were also used to explore and gain further understanding of
concepts presented in texts. This was evident in two observations of interactive classroom
discussions. Ms. Martin used discussions to further understand the purpose of the Civil War, a
concept introduced while reading Because of Winn-Dixie. This conversation took place on the
rug during Academic Conversations time. The students and teacher were sitting in a circle
facing each other, and Ms. Martin facilitated the discussion:
Ms. Martin: Now we are going to talk about the chapters we covered this week.

S1: We learned that Ms. Franny’s great grandfather had to leave his family because he
had to go to the Civil War.

S2: Ms. Franny said that the Civil War was like H-E-L-L.

S3: When you go to war you have guns. Guns are dangerous.

Ms. Martin: Yes, someone can get hurt. That is why Ms. Franny said that going to war
was pure H-E-L-L. It’s not a curse word. She is describing her opinion of war.

S4: I agree that H-E-L-L is bad because it’s the underworld. It’s the worse place that you
can be.

Ms. Martin: It is the worse imaginable. The description of it lets us know that it is the
worse place imaginable that you can be, but this is how Ms. Franny describes the Civil
War.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 133
S2: The Civil is when two countries fight against slavery.

Ms. Martin: It wasn’t two countries it’s one country that is divided. It was the United
States of America and it was the North and the South.

S6: The Civil War is when one part of the country wanted slavery and the other part
wanted not have any more slaves.

S7: I think it’s important because if we didn’t have the Civil War we would still have
slaves now.

S6: I agree because now no one is a slave.

Ms. Martin: You are right. Something good came out of it.

S8: But it wasn’t all about slavery, it was also about the States and money.

Ms. Martin: That is right, because they made money from the cotton and the plantations
in the South and the North made money with their factories. That is why it’s the Civil
war because civil has to do with being a citizen and a part of a country and the rights.

S9: So people fought for their rights, so they can be free.

Ms. Martin: Yes, so even though Ms. Franny described it as H-E-L-L, something good
came out of it.

Ms. Martin explained that Academic Conversations were used to help students
understand the concepts in the text. She stated that her role was to maintain flow of the
conversation by posing questions or making summarizing statements that prompted the students
to arrive at new ideas.
Interpreting texts and generating new ideas during classroom discussions was also
evident in Mrs. Lewis’ classroom. Mrs. Lewis used classroom discussions to review examples
of two Sign-Posts: A-ha Moment and Contrast and Contradictions (Appendix I) that helped
students gain a deeper understanding of the concepts presented in Lunch Money. This
conversation took place with students sitting on the rug in a circle:
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 134
Mrs. Lewis: Yesterday we read Lunch Money using the Sign-Posts and you provided an
example of either an A-ha Moment or a Contrast and Contradiction and you explained
why this was a Sign-Posts in the story. Now, we are going to share these examples. First
you are going to read your partner’s post-it note with the Sign-Posts identified and what
this means.

S1: This is Cindy’s A-ha Moment on page 204. Greg realizes that Mrs. Davenport didn’t
want sell the comics because when she was little her mom never got her comic books. I
think Cindy has a great point and I agree with it because an A-ha Moment is when it
changes things and I agree that this will.

Mrs. Lewis: How will this change things?

S2: If her mom bought her comic books, then she would let Greg and Maura sell comic
books.

S3: I agree that it will change things because if she never read comic books and she
would never want someone else to live the same childhood like she did.

S4: It could change things in two ways. It could be that she will allow it, or it could be
that she has a little anger because she never got to read comic books and she would not
let them sell the comic books.

S5: Mrs. Davenport won’t join in because she still has to work and control the whole
school and she is telling Greg and Maura they can’t sell the comic books.

S6: But maybe she might have faith in them and she might even help them.

Mrs. Lewis: You are already thinking that it might change things, what was it that made
you think that?

S6: When Greg and Maura make the presentation.

S5: Now I could agree because she might join in and let them sell the comic books.

Mrs. Lewis explained that classroom discussions were a regular component of her
reading lessons. She provided time for students to explore together, think about the characters,
analyze the information presented in the text, and arrive at new opinions and understandings of
the characters.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 135
A review of the data indicates that participants used classroom discussions as part of their
reading comprehension instruction. One participant, Mr. Smith, was observed using classroom
discussions to summarize the text. Three participants, Teachers Clark, Martin, and Lewis,
engaged students in active conversations to analyze characters; practice new reading strategies;
and gain deeper knowledge of concepts by evaluating information and forming new opinions.
This finding is supported by research studies that attest when teachers support students’ active
engagement with texts via interactive discussions, where students analyze and evaluate texts,
their interpretations produce higher levels of thinking (Bitter et al., 2009; McKeown et al., 2009).
Equally, the literature also asserts that when classroom discussions are facilitated by the teacher,
students’ comprehension is greatly impacted for growth, particularly when discussions help
students interpret concepts presented in texts at a deeper level (Bitter et al., 2009; Carlisle et al.,
2011; Taylor et al., 2003, 2005).
Helping students form new opinions and gain a deeper understanding of texts was also
evident when participants taught reading lessons designed to address on students’ specific needs
in reading. These lessons were observed as participants used different group arrangements to
differentiate and mediate instruction.
Theme Three: Differentiated Instruction
Classroom observations revealed that all participants used differentiated instruction to
meet students’ individual reading needs. This instruction was observed most often when
students worked in small groups or in pairs. However, a cross-analysis between interview
responses and classroom observations revealed that the implementation of this practice varied
amongst participants.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 136
Two participants, Teachers Smith and Anderson, differentiated instruction by grouping
students based on reading levels. Mr. Smith placed students in cooperative groups based on
similar reading needs, and used this grouping arrangement as part of his instruction once per
week. Mr. Smith used whole group instruction to explain how to use the Content Imperative of
Contribution (Appendix G) to identify the events discussed in the chapters read from the novel
Charlotte’s Web. He used the white board to work backwards and sequence the events that
contributed to saving Charlotte’s life. Students worked in their respective cooperative groups to
discuss and review their summary notes and determine the sequence of events. Mr. Smith
walked around the room and asked guiding questions to help students determine the sequence of
events and to help students use the prompt of Contribution. During post-lesson conversations,
Mr. Smith referred to using cooperative groups to “recapture a review of what was read so they
[students] can remember the events” and to introduce the Content Imperative of Contribution.
He explained his role was to provide scaffolds along the way to each respective group based on
observations of the students’ use of the strategy.
Ms. Anderson used groups to provide differentiated opportunities for students to
understand informational texts. Ms. Anderson was observed facilitating group discussions of an
informational reading text, and, while each group was provided with the same assignment, the
point of entry and instructional scaffolds observed for each group was different. Groups were
organized according to the students’ reading level, and Ms. Anderson differentiated instruction
by tailoring feedback and guidance to each group as required:
Ms. Anderson: You are going to re-read your story as a table and you will write a
summary in your own words. [Students begin re-reading their stories as a group.
Teacher walks around the classroom and approaches Group One]

Group One
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 137
Ms. Anderson: Now that you have finished reading, I suggest that you discuss what
happened and then work on a summary together.
S1: Do we write one summary for the table?
Ms. Anderson: You can work on a summary as a group, but you should each write it in
your notebook. If you like, you can use a sentence starter like: “I think the story is
about…”.Talk about it first, to get an understanding as a group, then you can work on
your summary. [Students begin to discuss. Teacher moves to Group Two]

Group Two
[Teacher listens as students discuss and share their opinion of the story]
Ms. Anderson: I keep hearing everyone sharing what happened in the story, but what
does a summary entail? Who can tell me?
S2: The main idea, the plot, and the characters
S3: It’s only what is important, and not the whole story or everything that happened
Ms. Anderson: That is correct. You should keep on working on your summaries. Why
don’t you write that down in your green notebook? I am going to ask you to share your
summaries with the class. [Students bring out their notebooks and Teacher moves to
Group Three]

Group Three
[Teacher listens to the students’ discussions]
Ms. Anderson: Let’s get organized here before we start writing in our notebooks. I am
going to ask you some questions first so we all understand the story and what is
happening. Where is the setting in the story?
S4: The zoo
Ms. Anderson: Ok, so this is happening in a zoo. Who is the main character? Who is
telling us what is going on?
S5: Kara and she doesn’t want to be there.
Ms. Anderson: Ok, Kara is there. Who else is there?
S6: Her mom and her brother
Ms. Anderson: Ok, now we have something that we can start writing. What can we
write?
S7: That Kara and her mom and her brother went to the zoo
Ms. Anderson: Okay, now talk amongst yourselves and discuss what happened at the zoo.
What is happening there? And why is this important?

Group Four
Ms. Anderson: Who wants to read their summaries?
S8: Reads her summary
Ms. Anderson: What is happening at the beginning?

Ms. Anderson designed her instruction to support the needs demonstrated by her students.
For some groups, she reviewed what was required in a summary; for other groups, she provided
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 138
scaffolds to help students discuss the important events in the story, and yet for other groups she
asked guiding questions about the information in the text to help students understand the plot of
the story. During post-lesson conversations Ms. Anderson explained that her lesson was
designed to accommodate the needs of her students. She explained using groups to spend more
time with the group that needed more scaffolding and support; and she particularly provided one-
on-one support to her ELL student. She asked guiding questions and engaged this student and
his group in a conversation about the story before writing a summary. Ms. Anderson also
gathered data throughout her individual meetings with her groups to determine where students
were successful in the lesson and where they needed additional support, and she used this data to
determine the changes she needed to make to her instruction. These decisions are further
explained in Research Question Four: Creating Meaningful Learning Experiences.
Selecting the appropriate support and instruction required to help students understand
texts, was also evident in Mrs. Lewis’s classroom. During the interview, Mrs. Lewis revealed
using dynamic and flexible grouping to pair students according to current reading needs. During
a classroom observation, Mrs. Lewis alternated between group structures to provide the support
students needed to understand the purpose of using the Sign-Post: A-ha Moment. The number of
students per group changed constantly throughout the lesson: on the rug, students had a
designated partner; during small group instruction students worked with a designated group, and
during peer reading students met with their Reader’s Workshop partner. While students worked
together, Ms. Lewis listened, asked questions, and guided groups’ discussions. She also took
notes after meeting with each group. Mrs. Lewis explained that she designed interactive
activities to develop students’ critical thinking skills about the text, and provided the time
required for students to delve deeper into the text to examine the characters more in-depth.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 139
The scaffolding and guidance provided by Teachers Anderson and Lewis is supported by
the literature on differentiation. Studies on differentiated instruction assert that with flexible
grouping and modifications of the processes whereby students learn the content, provides the
adequate challenge necessary to promote student learning (Tobin & McInnes, 2007; 2008;
Tomlinson, 1999). The literature also states that knowledgeable teachers of reading instruction,
or teachers who developed Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), design lessons that integrate
components of reading in accessible and meaningful ways (Hall, 2005; Lyon & Weiser, 2009).
These participants created student groups based on reading criteria, collected student data to
make adjustments to instruction, provided varied modes of student participation, and allocated
time to for students to practice and discuss how to use the strategies presented. While the
students in this study were considered redesignated as fluent in English, these practices helped
students access to the content and promoted the use of conversational and academic language
development (August & Shanahan, 2006; Goldenberg, 2010).
Table 16 summarizes how participants taught reading comprehension lessons as an
overview of the findings for Research Question Two Part 2.
Table 16
Instructional Approaches used to Teach Reading Comprehension Lessons
Instructional
Approach
Purpose
Explicit Instruction Introduce Sign-Posts to understand texts at a deeper level
Teach the cognitive process used to understand texts
Teach the process of determining the meaning of new words
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 140
Table 16, continued
Classroom
Discussions
Provide students with practice time to practice and discuss new learning
Help students make connections and gain further understanding of texts
Guide students as they interpret texts and to think critically and
analytically as they generate new ideas
Differentiated
Instruction
Identify students’ needs in reading and select the appropriate materials
and tools to address identified needs
Modify the learning process providing the adequate challenge to support
learning
Summary Research Question Two
A review of participants’ responses to interview questions regarding lesson planning
approaches revealed that four out of five participants, Teachers Clark, Martin, Anderson, and
Lewis, consistently planned reading comprehension lessons. These reading lessons were
designed to address the Common Core State Standards and were flexibly designed to address
students’ identified needs. Classroom observations, post-lesson conversations and the
researcher’s notes revealed that these same four participants taught reading comprehension using
explicit instruction to introduce new concepts or review information. Classroom discussions
were used to provide students time to explore and practice the strategies taught, evaluate texts,
and form new options. Differentiated instruction was used to provide the adequate support
needed to ensure students had access to the text and were able to understand the concepts
presented at a deeper level using the strategies taught. One participant, Mr. Smith, revealed not
planning reading comprehension lessons. He was observed using classroom discussions in a
whole group setting to summarize the text; and used cooperative groups, based on students’
reading needs, to discussed the sequence of events in the text.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 141
A prominent finding across interview, classroom observations, researcher’s notes, and
post-lesson conversations, was participants’ use of student data to guide instruction. Four
participants, Teachers Clark, Martin, Anderson, and Lewis, collected data throughout instruction,
consistently monitored student learning, revisited lesson plans more frequently, and used this
data to design targeted instruction to meet students’ varying comprehension needs. This finding
will be discussed in more depth in Research Question Three: Processes Used to Engage in Self-
Reflection.
The themes that arose in Research Question Two: Part One and Part Two were compared
to participant’s responses and actions reported in Research Question Three. Several connections
emerged between participants’ approaches to plan and teach lessons to the self-reflective
practices used to examine teaching practices.
Results Research Question Three:
What practices and processes help teachers self-reflect on their behaviors, decisions and
actions when teaching reading comprehension?
Data gathered from classroom observations and post-lesson conversations identified a set
of practices and processes participants used to reflect on their instruction. These findings are
organized in two sections: Practices Used to Engage in Self-Reflection and Processes Used to
Engage in Self-Reflection.
Practices Used to Engage in Self-Reflection
An analysis of classroom observations and post-lesson discussions data revealed that four
out of five participants reviewed their teaching practices and analyzed the effectiveness of their
instruction on a consistent basis. The practices these four participants used included a strategic
organization of their classroom environments that was used to collect student data and closely
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 142
examine classroom situations. Participants were also involved in collaborative networks that
supported their personal analysis and assessment of instructional approaches.
Theme One: Strategic Organization of Classroom Environments
Data from one-on-one interviews and post-lesson conversation revealed that four
participants, Teachers Clark, Martin, Anderson, and Lewis, organized their classroom to
facilitate student data collection. Classrooms were strategically organized to provide participants
ample view of students to “pulse the classroom” and monitor student learning. Common
classroom arrangements observed included tables organized in small groups in a semi-circle
around the room, a classroom rug that served as a central meeting location, designated areas
where students worked in groups, and also with the teacher (i.e., reading table).
Ms. Anderson explained that her classroom was organized for small group instruction,
which allowed her to easily collect data. She explained, “I use a lot of observational data [when
students work in groups], and I constantly make choices while teaching based on students’
responses, activities, and behavior. This gives me a little progress monitoring and an overall idea
of how students are doing in reading.” During instruction, Ms. Anderson walked around the
room and met with individual groups to determine which students struggled to understand the
text and to determine who needed additional time to practice using a strategy.
Mrs. Lewis also organized her classroom to collect student data and make decisions about
instruction. Mrs. Lewis explained using groups to provide students with the appropriate
instruction based on their needs (see Research Question Two: Differentiated Instruction), and
restructured her instruction based on her observation of student work. Upon observing a lesson
on the Sign-Pots, Mrs. Lewis explained using student data to revise her lesson plans: “I changed
what I was going to do. I thought we could talk it out [whole group] and have them [students]
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 143
pick out the Sign-Posts, but saw that they were still getting confused. So I gave them group
work to continue to practice.” Students were tasked to work in small groups at their desks to
discuss the Sign-Posts; they also worked as whole group with the teacher to discuss their
understanding of the Sign-Posts and practiced identifying the Sign-Post with their reading
partners.
The physical arrangements in Teachers Martin and Clark’s classroom were also
strategically organized to collect student performance data. These two participants emphasized
using a classroom rug to deliver whole group instruction and to observe students more closely.
Ms. Martin explained using a classroom rug to designate a central meeting place where students
worked together. She stressed the importance of using “a rug in 4
th
grade to create proximity
with students” and commented using a classroom rug gave her a place to conduct individual
assessments, work with students more closely, and revisit instruction with students that needed
extra help. This information helped her think about her instruction to determine the
modifications and changes she needed to make to her lessons.
Mrs. Clark also commented using a classroom rug allowed her to closely monitor student
learning. She explained, “I need a gathering place where the kids are right there in front of me
so I can make sure they are paying attention. I can hear what they are saying and monitor that
they don’t have any distractions.” During instruction, Mrs. Clark joined students on the rug
while they worked in pairs and moved around to listen to students’ conversations. Mrs. Clark
explained that sitting on the rug with students allowed her hear what students were saying, give
individual support to students who struggled using the strategies, and monitor students’
understanding of instruction.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 144
The data collected from all four participants indicated that Teachers Clark, Martin,
Anderson, and Lewis arranged their classroom environment to facilitate student observations and
inquire into their teaching practices. Their classrooms were deliberatively organized to promote
various groups and allowed participants to gather on-going and targeted data about their
instruction. The data participants collected were used to self-reflect on classroom instruction and
to make decisions about revisiting lessons, modifying classroom assignments and providing
more focused independent practice time to students who needed additional support. This finding
is supported by literature on self-reflection that asserts that becoming “present” helps educators
inquire and analyze teaching situations from multiple perspectives. A strategic classroom
organization to collect data demonstrated how participants considered multiple perspectives:
students’ point of view, the materials used, and the environmental contexts to self-reflect and
inquire into their practice. Considering these multiple perspectives helps educators determine a
fitting course of action that supports student learning (Butler et al., 2004; Emerling, 2010; Ward
& McCotter, 2004; Wold, 2003). Additionally, self-reflection that considers multiple points of
views helps teachers learn how to manage classroom and instructional behaviors; this practice
helps modify teaching approaches and improve professional practices (Darling-Hammond, 1999;
Lai, McNaughton, Timperley & Hsiao, 2009).
Data gathered from the one-on-one interview also revealed that collaborating with grade
level colleagues was another practice that supported self-reflection.
Theme Two: Collaborative Networks
Collaboration with colleagues took place in two fronts: all participants collaborated with
colleagues during weekly grade-level Professional Learning Community (PLC) meetings.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 145
Collaboration also took place during regular, yet informal meetings with colleagues other than
grade-level team members.
School Based Networks. All five participants explained meeting with their PLCs once a
week to discuss student progress, share resources, and collaboratively plan lessons. Three
participants, Mr. Smith, Mrs. Clark and Ms. Martin, expressed working very closely alongside
their grade level colleagues. Mr. Smith stated that the culture of his weekly PLC meetings
included trust and respect and he was comfortable asking for help regarding classroom issues he
encountered. During the one-on-one interview, Mr. Smith remarked, “I think our collaboration
[during PLC] is phenomenal. I think one of my colleagues is an outstanding teacher. She has
answers for everything.” In this statement, Mr. Smith referred to Mrs. Clark, his grade-level
colleague.
A main component of PLC meetings, participants also explained, was observing each
other teach demonstration lessons. Three participants, Mr. Smith, Mrs. Clark, and Ms. Martin,
commented that observing demonstration lessons taught by grade-level colleagues allowed them
to learn from one another and observe how instruction of a new strategy or concept was enacted
with students. A PLC demonstration lesson, taught by Mrs. Clark was observed by her grade-
level team and the school principal. Mrs. Clark taught the Sign-Post: Words of the Wiser. She
worked with her students on the rug as a whole group; students practiced using the Sign-Post
with their partners on the rug, and also practiced using the Sign-Post with their reading partners
sitting at their desks. During the lesson debrief, the observing teachers asked questions about the
instructional decisions Mrs. Clark made to plan the demonstration lesson:
Mrs. Clark: When I came to Notice and Note, I thought you know there are so many
perfect examples from this book [Because of Winn-Dixie] that I can pull from and since
the students are ready familiar with the story line and the plot, the book works out really
well with these Sign-Posts. The students were immediately able to talk about Franny and
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 146
Gloria as the Words of the Wiser characters. It is easier for the students to go back and
find examples of the strategies we are practicing. I notice my students are not afraid to
do that and I think that every time we add a new lens for them to look at a piece of text, it
just makes it that much better for them and easier to understand what’s going on.

School Principal: One of the things that makes it so successful is that the kids are so
familiar with those characters and they can comfortably talk about them.

Mrs. Clark: I also used Chrysanthemum to first introduce these Sign-Posts because I have
a student who is reading at a level J and I wanted a story that he could easily read and
understand, and not be afraid to read with his partner on the carpet.

School Principal: I like when they come back to their desks because you can really hear
them, talking with each other.

Mr. Smith: I notice what you do, is you ask the question several times and you tell them
specifically what you are looking for and you help them think about what they are doing
[strategy use]. One small thing that I have noticed, it’s very small, but in my class kids
raise their hands and don’t listen to everyone else speak. You have them put their hands
down, as soon as someone is speaking. It’s a little technique, but it’s something that I am
going to start using.

Mrs. Clark: That is something that we use a lot here during reading because I want to
make sure that they are all listening to what everyone else is saying.

Resource Teacher: I also like the mini-lesson technique when you keep repeating the
question over and over again because there are kids who don’t catch it the first time. You
keep reiterating what we are looking for, and why we are looking for it. It’s one thing to
find them, but it’s another when you have to analyze them. And you kept repeating: Ask
yourself that question, what does this mean? What is the lesson? What is she trying to
teach them?

As a group, Mrs. Clark and colleagues collectively reviewed the structure of the lesson,
inquired into the decisions Mrs. Clark made to plan the lesson. Together, they analyzed the
effectiveness of the instructional approaches and methodologies Mrs. Clark used to introduce the
Sign-Post: Words of the Wiser. The demonstration lesson concluded with the group identifying
new approaches to deliver instruction, as well as new practices to manage classroom interactions
and participation amongst students.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 147
Similarly, Ms. Martin participated in weekly PLC meetings with her grade level team.
The structure of her PLC also included a Community of Practice, which is a collaborative
framework and approach that supports the construction of knowledge about teaching and
learning situated in practice (Butler et al., 2004). Ms. Martin and colleagues had a specified and
dedicated time to meet as a COP and observe one another teach demonstration lessons. Each
grade level had a COP and used a personalized yearly color-coded calendar (Appendix K)
created by the school principal. The color-coding was used to indicate PLC meeting times, staff
meetings, COP observation of demonstration lessons, whole school staff meetings, and
professional development. Community of Practice observations at Ms. Martin’s school were
scheduled to take place 15 times throughout the school year.
Ms. Martin taught a COP demonstration lesson. She was observed by her grade level
team and school principal; the lesson, however, was not observed by the researcher. Classroom
observations for this study took place in the morning, and the COP demonstration lesson took
place during one afternoon. The lesson plan and outcome from the group’s discussion was
shared with the researcher during post-lesson conversations.
Ms. Martin taught an extension of the concept of the Civil War introduced in the novel
Because of Winn-Dixie for her demonstration lesson. She used three informational texts about a
different perspective of the Civil War; each text was carefully selected to organize student
groups based on students’ reading levels. To activate background knowledge, Ms. Martin asked
students to share what they knew about the concept of war in a whole group setting. In groups,
students read the text collaboratively and used chart paper to annotate important details. Then as
a whole group, each student group shared their findings from the text and revisited their initial
ideas about war. The day after the lesson, Ms. Martin shared with the researcher that her
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 148
colleagues did not understand why different leveled texts with different perspectives of the Civil
War were selected for one lesson. They found the approach “confusing for the students, and they
questioned her practice.” The researcher learned that the team as a COP met once again to
continue to discuss the purpose and outcome of the lesson. The group shared their questions and
concerns about the text selections, they discussed the effectiveness of the instructional approach
used, and asked to review the students’ annotated charts. The COP wanted to know the impact
of the lesson on students’ overall understanding of the novel Because of Winn-Dixie. During
their discussion, the COP learned that students gained a better understanding the concept of war.
Ms. Martin referenced the insights students provided during their Academic Conversations while
summarizing the text (see discussion script in Research Question Two- Part 2 Theme Two:
Classroom Discussions), and she explained students demonstrated an interest in learning more
about the Civil War.
As a result, the COP engaged in a self-reflective practice that helped the community as a
whole question, analyze and understand the approach Ms. Martin used. Ms. Martin recalled,
After we met to discuss my lesson again, one of my colleagues said, “Now it makes sense
to me.” She was referring to my planning. It takes some time for others to understand. I
did a lot of research. I found the texts that were best suited for my students, and that is
what I did to plan. I used different perspectives of the Civil Way so that everyone can get
deeper insight on the text and they can all continue to contribute to what we are learning.
My colleagues asked, “Why would you choose different articles like that?” Because I
know my kids, and I know how to design instruction that is engaging. I didn’t want
every group to have the same answers or over hear what the other group was doing to
then use as their presentations. I didn’t want to re-ask the same question for all my
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 149
groups, I wanted different perspectives, and I connected everything; and when we went to
the library, the kids decided to check out books on the Civil War on their own. They
wanted to learn more about this topic.”
Asking questions about instructional decisions, Ms. Martin explained, allowed the COP
to analyze the student outcome of the lesson and determine the effectiveness of the lesson.
Having the space and time engage in these conversations, Ms. Martin stated, helped the group
think about new teaching approaches an effective instructional practices. This conclusion was
reached by engaging in constructive and reflective conversations to collaboratively examine how
to design instruction that engages students in meaningful learning experiences.
These school-based networks provided participants with opportunities to discuss
instructional approaches, think about their teaching practices, discuss student learning, and learn
new approaches as a collective unit. Participants had a network of colleagues with whom to
discuss their instruction and to determine how to improve their teaching practices. This finding
is supported by research studies on self-reflection that confirm discussing an activity with
colleagues, reviewing student work, and revising lesson plans helps identify areas of strength and
need. This type of collaboration requires reflective discussions that help educators determine a
plan of action, focus instruction, and support active thinking to critique one’s practice (Butler et
al., 2004; Emerling, 2010; Hatton & Smith, 1995; Schön, 1987).
In addition to membership in grade-level PLCs, the data from one-on-one interviews and
post-lesson conversations revealed that three participants also had access to an outside network
of experts in reading instruction.
Outside Networks. While all participants were members of Professional Learning
Communities at their school sites, the data from one-on-one interviews revealed that three
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 150
participants also created outside networks with other educators. Teachers Anderson, Clark, and
Lewis created their own personal and informal networks to discuss classroom practices, analyze
student work, share instructional approaches and analyze the requirements of the Common Core
State Standards. These outside networks emerged from an identified need for additional support,
and teachers and educators regarded to have a higher level of expertise in reading comprehension
instruction were selected to meet this identified need.
Ms. Anderson had access to two outside networks. One network was a group of teachers
at her school site who were not in her same grade level team. This network was created to
“discuss how students were reacting to lesson plans and to new instructional approaches”
Meetings with this group were informal and mostly took place over lunch and before or after
school. Ms. Anderson’s second network was a group of educators who taught 4
th
grade in
different schools. Ms. Anderson explained that her outside network was made up of a group of
educators she trusted and respected because she had “genuine conversations about instruction,
discuss current classroom issues, gain new perspectives about teaching, and learn from their
experiences.” Ms. Anderson stated these groups were informal, but she had monthly meetings
over dinner and had access to this group via phone, email, and text messages.
Mrs. Clark also had a supportive network of colleagues outside of her school site. Ms.
Clark worked with a group of educators from a different school whom she regarded as master
teachers of reading, and whom she observed teach reading comprehension on a consistent basis:
“I was struggling in fourth grade and I wanted to learn another approach to do guided reading
that can help me create my groups. So for the last three years I have been observing them
[mentors] teach different reading lessons.” Ms. Clark learned how to differentiate instruction
from her mentors and received support as she implemented new ways of teaching reading.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 151
In addition to learning about reading group structures, Mrs. Clark also wanted to learn
new ways to organize her daily instruction. She commented, “I really want to know how to
structure your day, how to keep track of your [student] records, how to keep your notes from
conferencing and how you keep all of this together.” Mrs. Clark identified a mentor who
excelled at keeping track of students’ reading records: “There is a teacher there [school where
Mrs. Clark observes] and she literally knows the reading level of every single one of her
students, all 36 of them…She knows what’s in their personal book bag libraries. She is
incredible.” This awareness of a professional need was also articulated in the survey response
Mrs. Clark provided when she was asked to identify additional professional development (PD)
needed. She stated needing additional PD in keeping track of students’ records.
Participants formed additional professional connections after examining the extent of
resources available to them. After having determined a need for additional support in her
instruction, Mrs. Lewis identified a personal mentor who was an expert in pedagogy,
instructional strategies, and student assessment. Mrs. Lewis met with her mentor on a regular
basis to gain more knowledge about reading instructional approaches, learn new strategies to
support student learning, and to discuss and examine current classroom situations that needed
attention. Mrs. Lewis received regular one-on-one coaching and support in reading and writing
instruction from her mentor.
In addition, Mrs. Lewis created a network of other educators to discuss instruction, share
resources, and plan lessons. Mrs. Lewis explained meeting with these educators at her home
during the weekends. These meetings were valuable to Mrs. Lewis because she regarded the
group as expert colleagues whom she collaborated with to learn new things: “I am always trying
different things and I am able to share this with my colleagues and get suggestions and
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 152
feedback.” Mrs. Lewis expressed that this outside network had an impact on her instruction
because she was able to analyze and solve any challenges she was facing in the classroom in a
group setting.
Data collected from the Teacher Survey, one-on-one interviews, and post-lesson
discussions with Ms. Anderson and Mrs. Lewis revealed that seeking others to collaborate with
was due to a lack of processes and procedures in place at their school sites to inquire into their
teaching practices with their colleagues. Both participants explained the collaboration with their
colleagues was in the formative stages. PLC meetings did not include demonstration lessons
because “some teachers were not comfortable with others watching them.” Ms. Anderson
expressed that collaboration to plan lessons to meet CCSS requirements was absent. Her
colleagues were in the process of “defining what our language program is and we do this
individually teacher by teacher.” Teachers Anderson and Lewis also stated that opportunities for
collective problem-solving were not available; and working together to achieve a common goal
in reading instruction was not yet defined.
Teachers Clark, Anderson, and Lewis created outside networks to enhance their
professional knowledge. These participants sought out additional resources and mentors to
develop their knowledge of reading because they were aware of their teaching practices and
identified a need to develop their professional knowledge. This finding is supported by the
literature that states that when educators engage in a self-reflective process, they identify and
assess learning needs by analyzing and discerning what they know and what they need to learn to
develop professional knowledge (Fellows & Zimpher, 1987; Loughran, 2002; Rogers, 2002). As
a result, self-reflective practitioners address their needs by making changes to behaviors or
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 153
situations to appropriately respond to student learning (Dewey, 1933; Rodgers & Raider-Roth,
2006).
Table 17 summarizes the practices teachers use to engage in self-reflection as findings
from Research Question Three – Part 1.
Table 17
Practices Used to Engage in Self-Reflection
Practice Purpose
Classroom
Organization
Create an environment conducive to student observation, and
teacher-to-student support, and data gathering to revise
instruction.
Professional
Learning
Communities
Committees of teachers and administrators who work
collaboratively to seek new learning and share resources with
the goal to enhance their teaching effectiveness.
Communities
of Practice
Collaborative approach to support knowledge construction about
teaching and learning situated in practice.
Outside Networks Identification of expert others who support and mentor the
learning the teach process.

Processes Used to Engage in Self-Reflection
Data gathered from classroom observations and post-lesson conversations uncovered that
participants monitored their instruction, took notes during classroom observations of students,
and kept reflective journals as processes to self-reflect. These processes, participants explained,
provided a structure to examine their teaching practices and to make changes to their
instructional approaches.
Monitoring Delivery of Instruction. One process used to self-reflect was creating of
personal notes to plan lessons and monitor the efficiency of instruction. During classroom
observations, Mrs. Clark used a notebook annotated with notes that she referred to as she
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 154
introduced the Sign-Posts to her students (Appendix L). Mrs. Clark explained creating personal
notes when she reviewed professional texts and instructional materials when she planned lessons
to self-monitor her understanding and use of the strategies she was teaching:
I keep the notes in front of me and use them until the strategy or habit becomes the way I
teach. If it is content, I keep it in front of me to keep me focused on the objective of the
lesson. I take the notes to make my learning relevant to my students learning. I also feel
writing about something I might use in my classroom helps me understand it better.”
Mrs. Clark also shared the sequence she used to analyze her teaching practices. She used
her personal notes to analyze the text she selected to teach reading strategy, she examined her
interpretation and implementation of the strategy, and she observed students to determine how
they used the strategy. She compared these two sources of data to guide her instruction and
delivery of future lessons.
Mrs. Clark’s use of personal notes to self-reflect on her instruction is an example of a
structured and systematic approach to examine teaching practices. Studies on self-reflection
affirm that quality self-reflection requires a systematic approach to review and analyze
instructional decisions and teaching practices (Dewey, 1933; Schön, 1987; Zeichner & Liston,
1996). Using personal notes to assess and monitor the true intent of the strategy, is an example
of taking “presence in teaching;” researchers contend that taking presence in teaching helps
educators think about and carefully analyze teaching practices. A careful analysis helps define
the competencies needed to make intelligent decisions and appropriately respond to students’
needs (Rodgers & Raider-Roth, 2006).
While making personal notes during lesson planning was a structured process to self-
reflection on instruction, collecting student data was integral to making instructional decisions.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 155
Collecting Observational Data. A recurring pattern in this study was the use of data.
Student data was used to plan lessons, revisit and make changes to lesson plans, organize student
groups, and deliver appropriate and targeted instruction. Two participants were observed taking
down notes while monitoring students’ work in small group settings; they used this process to
review the effectiveness of their lesson plans.
Ms. Anderson revealed collecting student data while students worked in groups to make
changes that were responsive to students’ needs. She explained observing her students to
“constantly make choices based on students’ responses, activities, and behavior. This data is a
huge asset to my teaching practice. I am very good about reflecting in process and I change the
direction of my lesson often.” The process that Ms. Anderson refers to is directly aligned with
the reflective thinking process in-action that Schön (1987) introduced as a means to think and
analyze classroom situations during instruction to determine a fitting course of action. Ms.
Anderson’s use of observation data exemplifies the processes she used to review her instruction.
She collected and analyzed students’ behaviors and reactions to make instructional decisions
based on students’ demonstrated need.
The process Mrs. Lewis used to analyze her teaching practices was to write down notes
while she observed students work in groups. She explained that her notes helped her determine
if there were any salient or common needs when students were using the Sign-Posts. Mrs. Lewis
was observed meeting with groups and reviewing notes before assigning a new task. When asked
about the content of these notes, Mrs. Lewis explained,
I write down different things: whether they [students] are able to use a strategy from a
lesson, the way they answer certain questions and the language they are using, how they
respond to each other. I use this to coach them on how to hold conversations with each
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 156
other and how to elaborate and piggyback on each other’s ideas. Also, it helps me hold
them accountable day to day. I can remind them the next day about things they said.
Then they know I am paying attention to them, and lastly sometimes it is just so that I can
validate what they were saying at the end of a lesson.”
Observing students and writing down notes during classroom instruction was one process
participants used to engage in self-reflection. Schön (1987) categorizes this process as reflective
thinking that takes place in-action. He explained that using a reflective thinking approach to
review learning as it takes place helps educators determine the impact of the decisions made in
the moment. This approach to self-reflection in-action also creates experiences that build new
understandings and that inform new actions.
Schön (1987) also introduced a second type of a reflective thinking process: reflection
on-action. Two participants used personal reflective journals to reflect on their instruction either
before or after the lesson took place.
Reflective Journals. A third self-reflective process that participants used was to analyze
their instruction was keeping personal journals. Two participants, Ms. Martin and Mrs. Clark,
used a reflective journal as part of their lesson planning and lesson review process. Both
explained using a reflective journal to keep notes about professional development (PD) programs
attended. Notes in these journals included writing down questions and writing ideas about how
to implement the concepts presented in the PD using resources and classroom materials
available. Both Mrs. Clark and Ms. Martin used reflective journals as a guide to plan lessons or
to create activities for specific groups of students.
In addition to a professional development journal, Ms. Martin stated keeping a journal to
record her daily teaching practices (Appendix M). As a daily practice, Ms. Martin recorded her
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 157
thoughts on her lessons, she wrote down notes about specific students’ progress, and concerns to
share with parents. The processes she used to self-reflect included using a check-list that
comprised of recalling events of the day, assessing whether the objective and standard were met,
reviewing students’ responses to the lesson, and deciding the content to teach the next day. Ms.
Martin decisions based on her notes were to “model more, do more scaffolding, use more
gradual release, include more pair-share, etc. This [keeping a journal] for me is a mental check
point that helps me make decisions when I plan for the next lesson.” Using a journal as a process
to self-reflect illustrated Ms. Martin’s willingness to assess and evaluate the effectiveness of her
instructional decisions.
Keeping a journal also demonstrated participants’ open-mindedness to assess and
evaluate their instruction. Mrs. Clark and Ms. Martin also took responsibility for their learning
by using a journal to reflect on-action and made decisions to improve their practice and keep
themselves accountable to their learning. Additionally the process that Mrs. Clark and Ms.
Martin used to think about their instruction was deliberate and purposeful. Mrs. Clark took notes
while planning lessons to monitor the implementation and use of strategies, and Ms. Martin
reviewed her instruction on a daily basis to gain insight into her teaching situations before
making decisions about what to teach next. These behaviors, Dewey (1933) explained, are the
tenets of quality self-reflection. Dewey also clarified that engaging in quality self-reflection
helps educators become aware of teaching effectiveness by analyzing the learning how-to-learn
process that supports student achievement.
Table 18 summarizes the process participants used to engage in self-reflection as findings
from Research Question Three – Part 2.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 158
Table 18
Processes Used to Engage in Self-Reflection
Process Purpose
Personal Notes
to Plan Lessons
Collect personal data to determine whether instructional approaches
are implemented with fidelity. Helps educators self-monitor and
assess knowledge of pedagogical approaches.
Gathering
Observational Data
Collects student data that when combined with self-assessment data
provides with a complete context that supports quality self-
reflection.
Reflective
Journals
Documents the progression of self-awareness of professional
knowledge. Supports quality reflection to improve teaching
effectiveness.
Summary Research Question Three
The data gathered to uncover the practices and processes participants used to engage in
self-reflection revealed the following findings. Four out of five participants, Teachers Clark,
Martin, Anderson, and Lewis, strategically arranged their classroom environments to conduct
student observations and collect data on student performance. All participants also collaborated
with grade-level colleagues to exchange resources and teaching methods that supported self-
reflective behaviors. In addition, Teachers Clark, Anderson and Lewis established outside
networks and found personal mentors whom they met with regularly. These mentors served as
personal coaches to further develop participants’ teaching expertise in reading comprehension.
The data also revealed three processes participants used in to engage in self-reflection.
Participants created personal notes when planning lessons to monitor the fidelity of teaching of a
new concept or strategy. Participants collected student data by taking mental notes and writing
down observations that were used immediately to modify instruction. Participants also kept
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 159
reflective journals to strategically and diligently think about their practice and to determine the
effectiveness of their instruction.
Research Question Four:
What is the nature of self-reflection on teachers’ decisions of reading comprehension?
An analysis of participants’ self-reflections revealed that the nature of engaging in this
practice helped participants create (a) Meaningful Learning Experiences, (b) Developed
Independent Learners, and developed (c) Self-Awareness of Professional Knowledge Needs.
Theme One: Meaningful Learning Experiences
Observations of reading comprehension instruction revealed that participants who
engaged in self-reflection made decisions to situate their instruction in meaningful learning
experiences. These learning experiences provided students a context to practice a reading skill or
strategy and anchored their understanding of texts. Two participants, Teachers Anderson and
Martin, discussed providing this type of instruction to support student learning.
Creating a meaningful learning experience to help students understand texts at a deeper
level was observed as part of Ms. Anderson’s instruction. Using the observational student data
she collected, Ms. Anderson guided her students through a shared learning experience to co-
construct knowledge, and taught reading comprehension strategies within the context of writing
instruction. Students were assigned to work in groups to write a summary of an expository text,
and Ms. Anderson walked around the room and provided differentiated scaffolds to each group
(see Research Question Two: Part 2-Differentiated Instruction).
Upon discussing the lesson, Ms. Anderson described the purpose of the lesson was for
students to review the text and to “summarize the story and be able to tell someone who had
never read it what it was about.” A second goal of the lesson was for Ms. Anderson to collect
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 160
data to determine whether students understood the story. During the post-lesson conversation,
Ms. Anderson stated that she did not teach students what to include in their summaries. She
explained, “I am a very critical person. I felt all students gained comprehension, gained practice
in working together to collaborate, but I may need to model more what I am looking for in a
summary.” Ms. Anderson collected student data and determined that she needed to teach what to
include in a summary. She commented, “I monitored the groups and their [summaries] started
similarly. They all wrote that Kara was bored, but I did not expect them moving away from
generalizing and including details to their summary.” The observations Ms. Anderson noted did
not lead to change the course of the lesson immediately. Instead, Ms. Anderson decided on the
following:
I need to pre-model or give an example of a good summary. I need to have it written on
the board, what is included in a summary. In retrospect, I am surprised that is not on the
board. I often have it written, and I ask students to tell who the characters are, what the
setting is…I think I will have a class discussion about what is in a summary and discuss
the plot to help students understand the story better and how to write a summary.”
During the second day of observations, students were provided with explicit directions
for their group work. Students had to re-read the selection and discuss the story’s characters,
plot, resolution, and the main idea to finish writing their summaries. Once completed, students
volunteered to present their work to the class. As a group, the class engaged in a discussion to
review the content of the summaries:
S1 reads: Kara tries to get her mother to leave the zoo by making herself have a
stomachache. Kara thought her mom would have to take her to the hospital and the
doctor would say you can never go to the zoo again.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 161
Ms. Anderson: Ok, what do you notice about this summary?
S2: He doesn’t have a topic sentence.
S3: There is one idea
Ms. Anderson: Let’s read this again. [Class reads summary] What is he saying?
S4: He says that Kara is trying to get a stomachache by drinking a lot of water so she can
get sick.
Ms. Anderson: He is explaining one idea from the story. What are some other possible
ideas?
S5: She thought the zoo was booooring.
S6: Yes, she didn’t want to go and was trying to annoy her mom.
S7: But then she wants to stay because she wants to meet the gorilla because she thinks it
will be fun. Then, she is not bored anymore.
Ms. Anderson explained that incorporating writing as part of her reading comprehension
instruction provided the structure and experience students needed to further understand the story
and summary components. She stated, “I felt that that learning was really great. This helped us
work whole group to discuss the meaning they [students] made and we talked as a group to re-
assess and re-think what we had and together we made new meaning.” An additional
observation Ms. Anderson made was the time required to provide students with opportunities to
collaborate as a group, share their ideas, and discuss their learning. She commented that reading
a text and providing students with the experiences they needed to gain meaning required
revisiting and re-reading the text several times. She explained, “One lesson turns into 3-4 days
because I feel that new learning activities need to take place, or can take place because it adds,
clarifies, or re-defines what students need to learn.” Ms. Anderson’s instruction was responsive
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 162
to her students’ needs. Her instructional decisions were focused on developing students’
reading comprehension and she allocated the time required to teach the skills and strategies
students needed.
Ms. Anderson’s instructional decisions based on self-reflection can be categorized at the
Focus Dialogic level in the Self-Reflection rubric (Appendix N). The decision to include a
writing mini-lesson to support her students’ comprehension indicated Ms. Anderson used data to
re-visit and re-teach the skill of writing a summary. The instruction she provided was interactive
and required the entire class to discuss ideas and collaborate to expand on their overall
understanding of the story.
Ms. Martin instructional decisions to provide meaningful and relevant learning
experiences were also based on self-reflections of her instruction. During a classroom
observation, Ms. Martin read the novel Because of Winn-Dixie out-loud to her students, and
introduced the concept of family lineage by defining the word ancestor: After reading to the
class, Ms. Martin asked the students to work independently and summarize the information in the
chapter; students were also asked to illustrate their understanding of the events that took place as
part of their summaries. Ms. Martin called students’ attention and used a piece of chart paper to
record the setting, characters, and events. Students had difficulty identifying the relationship
between Litmus W. Block and Ms. Franny, as some students believed he was her brother.
During the post-lesson conversations, Ms. Martin commented, “I knew that a lot of them did not
understand the character lineage in the story. They were saying the names Herman W. Block,
Artly W. Block, and Litmus W. Block, but they were not getting it [how the characters were
related].”
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 163
Based on observations of her students’ summaries and their confusion about the
relationship between characters, Ms. Martin decided to teach students how to create a family tree
to provide a context about relationships amongst relatives and family lineages. The next day,
Ms. Martin used a family tree chart to model how to record a family’s lineage. Students were
engaged in a whole group discussion and shared about their parents, siblings, grandparents, and
other family members. Ms. Martin modeled how to create a family tree and assigned students to
research their family lineage to create their own family tree.
During post-lesson conversations, Ms. Martin explained that her lessons often included
meaningful and relevant learning experiences. These experiences were created specifically to
meet students’ learning needs and develop students’ background knowledge of the concept of
family lineages:
I thought this would break down the concept of lineage and would also introduce what is
a family tree. Their job now is to do some research and ask family members and do some
interviews to find out who their ancestors are beyond their parents and grandparents. I
will give them a couple of days to finish it. I show the family tree and make a
connection, a true personal connection to their lives. That way, it is meaningful, and then
I take it back to the book. I show them the character’s family tree, and, since they now
have this as background knowledge, they are able to understand what Mrs. Franny is
referring to when she talks about these characters.”
Ms. Martin explained developing strategic lesson plans that provided students with
experiences that made learning “accessible and interesting.” To help her students read and
analyze texts more closely, she provided authentic tasks that helped students produce knowledge
in meaningful ways and that helped students understand the text at a deeper level.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 164
Ms. Martin also commented on the time it required to effectively teach reading
comprehension. When asked about her decision to use the family tree activity, Ms. Martin
explained, “I knew that I was going to need six weeks to go through this chapter book rather than
trying to read it in one week or two weeks, by reading two chapters per day to be done with it
all.” Ms. Martin stated that teaching students how to delve into texts and ask deep meaning
questions required providing students with the background knowledge they needed to be
successful and with the appropriate activities that developed students’ analytical thinking skills.
Ms. Martin’s level of self-reflection can be categorized at the Focus Dialogic level of the
Self-Reflection rubric. The decision to teach students about family lineage using independent
research illustrates Ms. Martin’s considerations of students’ perspectives in their learning
process. By providing them with an activity that was personal and meaningful, she helped
students investigate their family histories while also providing a forum for students to discuss
their own family make-up and make personal connections to the concepts presented in the text.
The participants’ self-reflections included instructional decisions that create meaningful
learning experiences to anchor students’ learning. Teachers Anderson and Martin created
lessons that allowed students to collectively share a learning experience that developed a deeper
understanding of texts. This finding is supported by research that states self-reflection helps
teachers identify problematic situations and review teaching contexts to analyze possible
solutions. Zeichner and Liston (1996) posit that self-reflection also helps teachers review created
learning goals to develop appropriate educational experiences that support student achievement.
Table 19 presents participants level of self-reflection resultant in meaningful learning
experiences.

SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 165
Table 19
Self-Reflection and Meaningful Learning Experiences
Participant Self-Reflection
Practice and Process
Level of Self-
Reflection
Example
Ms.
Anderson
Observing students
and taking mental
notes
Gathering
observational data
Focus Dialogic Ms. Anderson focus was on the student
learning. Using observations of students’
interactions and discussions, she assessed
their learning and determined what to
include in their summaries. She provided
additional practice time and included a
writing instruction lesson where all
students collaboratively learned what to
include in a summary.
Ms. Martin Student observations
Gathering
observational data
Focus Dialogic Ms. Martin’s focus is on the processes of
student learning. She demonstrated
concern for students not understanding the
lineage presented in the text. To support
student learning, she used a family tree
research activity that connected the
learning to students in a personal and
meaningful way. She also provided
relevant learning activities throughout the
curriculum.
Engaging in self-reflection about instruction also helped participants design instruction
and create learning environments that developed students as independent learners. Three
participants, Teachers Lewis, Anderson, and Clark discussed developing lessons and learning
activities that helped students take ownership of their learning.
Theme Two: Developing Independent Learners
Observations of reading comprehension instruction revealed that participants who
engaged in self-reflection provided instruction that developed students as independent learners.
Instruction included student-centered tasks, active exchanges between students, and learning
experiences that supported students’ independent use of strategies.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 166
Developing students as independent learners was evident as part of the instruction
observed in three classrooms: Teachers Lewis, Anderson, and Clark. During a classroom
observation, Mrs. Lewis used explicit instruction to teach students how to identify the Sign-Post:
Again and Again (See Research Question Two –Part 2: Explicit Instruction). When post-lesson
conversations were conducted, Mrs. Lewis commented: “They [students] really got Again and
Again with Hatchet, but when it came to transfer it was difficult. I did not foresee students
finding words that came up over and over like committee because the characters are in a
committee.” Mrs. Lewis decided to further reinforce the identification of Sign-Posts by
providing students an additional day of instruction.
The next day, the students worked in groups and created a chart to organize the Sign-
Posts they found in their novel Lunch Money. Students were asked to re-read the text, find Sign-
Posts, explain what each Sign-Posts meant, and infer what message the author was trying to
convey. Mrs. Lewis presented a sample chart students were to create their own (Appendix O).
Students were observed working together while Mrs. Lewis visited with groups to provide
guidance and feedback. Students met as a whole group to share their work:
Group 1: We had Contrast and Contradictions with Greg. It was on page 159. I thought
it was a Contrast and Contradiction for Greg to say that Maura smiled. Because, at first,
they were not willing to work together, and, once they started working together, the
author was trying to tell us that Greg was asking kindly to work together with Maura
because maybe he noticed that they had good teamwork when they were working
together to make the comics.
Group 2: We did a Sign-Post of A-ha Moment. Our evidence is that he Mr. Z left the box
of comics and Mrs. Davenport let the kids sell comics since he did that. Ms. Davenport
decided to read all of them [comic books left by Mr. Z] and she started to change, and
once she read all the comics she thought it was so fun to read [them] that she might want
to read one from the students. Our ideas and thoughts are that Mrs. Davenport thought
that selling comics is actually a good idea because kids can show and use something they
love to do.”
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 167
Mrs. Lewis’ reasoning for her instructional decisions was to provide students an
opportunity to work in small groups to explore, discuss, and agree on how each Sign-Post was
identified and used. The rationale behind this decision was explained during the post-lesson
conversation:
I thought they just need to put it all together and talk it out. I noticed that some of them
really needed to get it down [write it down] because it seemed that, when we would talk
together, they got it; and, when I walked around, I realized that they really didn’t. It was
apparent when they had to verbalize it to each other and then they had to record it. I
think they needed this day to kind of soak it in and talk it out and get it down [write it
down].”
Providing a student-centered learning experience was also part of the decision Mrs.
Lewis made to develop her students’ independent learning skills. Having the students
collaborate to create their own charts, allowed students to problem-solve together as they decided
how to best represent their ideas and opinions about the author’s message. The comments below
present her reasons for making this decision:
I like them [students] to create things on their own that is why I did not provide already
made charts. I decided to have them create their own anchor charts; it’s part of their
thinking and how they are representing their thoughts visually. I go back and forth on this
and sometimes the students take a while making the chart, but I don’t think it’s because
they are wasting time. They are discussing and sharing with each other how to best
represent their ideas. That is part of meaning making.”
Mrs. Lewis further expressed that the additional of instruction on the Sign-Posts provided
students the opportunity to internalize the use of each Sign-Post. Each group had to first find and
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 168
agree on a Sign-Post and then had to discuss how the Sign-Post helped them understand what the
author was trying to convey. Creating the chart was part of the instructional design that
prompted students to think about how to organize the information gathered by using the Sign-
Posts to understand the author’s overall message. This instructional decision also supported
students to become more self-directed and take ownership of their learning. Mrs. Lewis also
expressed awareness of the time required to teach reading comprehension. She explained, “they
[students] do need time [to discuss]…otherwise there are students who just go to the surface
level and in order to get to the deeper thinking, you have to give them time to talk and think”
On another occasion, Mrs. Lewis reflections revealed that she sometimes did not provide
enough time for students to practice using the strategies independently. She commented, “They
need to read their book so they can apply these Sign-Posts to their independent reading. It takes
time…and sometimes it takes longer to fill in the gaps or reprogram the student to attend to their
learning.” Throughout the post-lesson discussions, Mrs. Lewis discussed the time needed to help
students think about the themes in the text.
The decisions Mrs. Lewis made based on her observation of her students can be
categorized at the Focus Transformative level of the Self-Reflection rubric. Mrs. Lewis self-
reflection focused on selecting the instructional approach or pedagogy that best supported her
students’ learning. She also provided the time required for students to gain a deep understanding
of how to use the Sign-Posts to then use these with their independent books. Mrs. Lewis’
decisions also exemplify paying close attention to her students’ needs to design learning
experiences that promoted and reinforced the pathway for students to become independent
learners (i.e., students creating their own charts, making their own decisions).
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 169
Providing students with opportunities to explore and internalize how to independently use
reading strategies was also observed as part of Ms. Anderson’s instruction. Ms. Anderson
revealed that, based on her previous observations, her students struggled in identifying unknown
words and did not use strategies to determine the meaning of words. Therefore, Ms. Anderson
decided to teach a vocabulary lesson that spanned two days. First, her students read the selection
in small groups first to identify and highlight unfamiliar words. Students were observed working
in groups and identified words such as oxen, plows, Cambodia, Phnom Penh, modern and motor
scooters. The next day, Ms. Anderson provided a lesson on vocabulary instruction that included
using the context, pictures, part of speech to define unknown words.
During the post-lesson conversation, Ms. Anderson explained that she purposefully
designed her vocabulary lesson using explicit instruction to show students a process to self-
monitor when and how to identify unfamiliar words. Ms. Anderson stated that the process she
modeled provided students with a structure to use independently when they encountered
unfamiliar vocabulary. Ms. Anderson commented, “The more that I go through that model, part
of speech, context, and let’s look at other vocabulary strategies. The more that they see it [the
model] they will use it on their own.” This structure, Ms. Anderson expressed, was an
instructional approach used to strengthen students’ word knowledge that in result supported
students’ reading comprehension.
Students taking ownership of their learning was also discussed with Ms. Anderson during
other post-lesson conversations. A discussion about students’ group arrangements revealed that
Ms. Anderson’s students selected where to sit in class--students did not have assigned seats.
Students’ seats also changed several times throughout the day; students belonged to different
grouping structures for different content areas. Ms. Anderson explained assigning students to
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 170
groups and each group collectively decided where to sit, “They [students] have mapped out seats
where they would like to sit, and students are allowed to sit wherever they like. I have some
students who do not sit at the back of the table by choice.” Ms. Anderson stated one student in
her class had a hearing impairment and needed to sit up front, and two other students wore
glasses and had better access to the board when they sat in the front seats. These students
independently chose to sit in the front area of the classroom. Ms. Anderson further expressed
that this classroom organization helped her create a close community that supported
collaborations and prompted students to take ownership of their learning.
The self-reflection Ms. Anderson engaged in to decide how to structure her vocabulary
instruction can be categorized at the Focus Transformative level. Ms. Anderson’s focus was on
the instructional approach that was best suited to support her students’ independent use of the
vocabulary process she modeled. She provided a structure that helped students learn when and
how to identify and find the meaning of unfamiliar words. Similarly, Ms. Anderson’s decision to
organize her classroom without assigned seats was indicative of a focus on instructional
approaches that extended to a classroom organization and environment supportive of students
becoming independent learners.
Making instructional decisions to develop independent learners was also discussed and
observed in Mrs. Clark’s classroom. Mrs. Clark’s approach to develop her students as
independent learners consisted of fostering a community where both student and teachers learned
together. Promoting independent learning was first discussed during the one-on-one interview
where Mrs. Clark explained that her goal when teaching reading comprehension was for,
“students to independently pick up any book, any kind of text, and know which skills and what
strategies and what kind of reading the need to do to attack that text.” The topic of students
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 171
taking ownership of their learning was also discussed as part of the post-lesson conversation of
the first lesson observed. While discussing her introduction of the Sign-Post of Contrast and
Contradiction (see Research Question Two: Explicit Instruction), Mrs. Clark stated that she did
not emphasize how to use the Sign-Post’s guiding question, which was an important component
of the lesson. Her self-reflection included the following comments:
I did not emphasize the question. You know, why did the character do that? And I did not
emphasize that question. I went home last night, and I thought I missed the whole point
of pointing out to them the question. I want them to reflect why does the character do
that? And some of the kids were doing that and so I didn’t harp on it, but I’m not sure
that every group did it…I know I should have done better.”
Mrs. Clark maintained open communication with her students and created a safe and
trusting environment for learning. Mrs. Clark shared her reflections about the lesson with her
students to explain how she forgot to teach the guiding question for the Sign-Post. Mrs. Clark
recounted the conversation with the researcher:
So, today, during the morning I said to my students, “Boys and girls, I really messed up
yesterday…remember yesterday we were talking about Contrasting Contradictions? I
forgot to ask the question why did the character do that?” And they were like, “But we
answered that!” And I said, “I know. But I didn't make a point to clearly tell you.” And
some of the students were like, “Yes you did.” And I was like, “No, no. I didn't because I
was focused so much on helping you define it than helping you identify it.”
Mrs. Clark’s self-reflection also led her to use several resources as she taught the rest of
the Sign-Posts. Mrs. Clark decided to make notes to remind herself how to keep true to the use
of the Sign-Posts. These notes were included in Mrs. Clark’s books and teaching materials
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 172
(Appendix L). This was also expressed as a process Mrs. Clark used to self-reflect and keep
herself accountable to the integrity of the strategy or Sign-Post she was teaching (see Research
Question Three: Personal Notes to Plan Lessons). On subsequent classroom observations, Mrs.
Clark was observed using her professional books with her annotation and post-it notes that had
the accompanying questions to the Sign-Posts. Mrs. Clark was observed using explicit
instruction to articulate how the guiding question supported a deeper understanding of texts and
was observed repeating the purpose of the Sign-Posts and the guiding question throughout the
her lessons. Mrs. Clark also added the guiding questions to the class posters she made of each
Sign-Post (Appendix P). These classroom posters were used as resources for students to use
when reading independently or when reading with a partner.
The level of self-reflection that led to the decisions Mrs. Clark made can be categorized
at the Focus Transformative level. The realization of missing a teaching point in her instruction
led Mrs. Clark to make her instruction transparent, supported students’ independent use of the
Sign-Posts, and demonstrated that learning is a collaborative process. Since her focus was on
using pedagogical approaches to support student learning, Mrs. Clark purposefully created
subsequent lesson plans that included various modes of instruction and resources (i.e., explicit
instruction, charts, and Post-it notes) selected specifically to support her students’ independent
use of the Sign-Posts and guiding questions when reading texts.
The findings from data analysis of participants’ self-reflections point to decisions that
developed students as independent learners. Teachers Lewis, Anderson, and Clark used
classroom observations and students’ responses to instruction to examine their practice and select
the instructional approaches that supported students’ independent use of strategies/Sign-Posts
presented. Classroom instruction was student-centered and provided activities for students to
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 173
take ownership and direct their learning. Instructional decisions also included guided practice
for students to learn a process to monitor their learning. Models and posters were used as
resources to help students learn-how-to learn new comprehension strategies. These findings are
supported by research studies on self-reflection that indicate that teachers who think about and
effectively analyze their instruction, select instructional approaches with foresight and with an
end-in-view that is deliberate (Dewey 1933). Teachers, who also become self-aware based on
their reflection, take “presence in their teaching,” establish relationships with their students and
use their pedagogical knowledge to make intelligent decisions to appropriately respond to
student learning (Dewey, 1933; Lampert, 1985; Loughran, 2006; Rodgers & Raider-Roth, 2006).
Table 20 presents participants’ level of self-reflection resulted of independent learners .
Table 20
Self-Reflection and Instruction to Support Independent Learners
Participant Self-Reflection
Practice and Process
Level of Self-
Reflection
Example
Mrs. Lewis

Students working in
groups

Gathering
observational data
Focus
Transformative
Mrs. Lewis focus is on pedagogical
practices that impact student learning.
Mrs. Lewis provided instructional
activities that allowed students to
collaborate, problem-solve and self-direct
their learning by discussing and creating
their own anchor charts.
Ms.
Anderson

Students working in
groups

Gathering
observational data
Focus
Transformative
Ms. Anderson’s focus in on instructional
approaches that support students to
become independent learners as they
monitor how to use reading strategies and
their learning environment.
Mrs. Clark

Monitoring Delivery
of Instruction

Focus
Transformative
Mrs. Clark focus is on using pedagogical
resources for herself and students to
develop a community of learning and to
develop independent learners.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 174
Developing self-awareness of professional learning needs was also evident as participants
engaged in self-reflection to examine situations and teaching practices. Participants commented
seeking out mentorship from expert when they reviewed their instruction and determined
professional knowledge needs.
Theme Three: Self-Awareness of Professional Knowledge Needs
Data collected from one-on-one interviews and post-lesson discussions revealed that all
participants sought out mentoring and collaborated with others to enhance their teaching
practices. Collaboration with colleagues took place during grade-level Professional Learning
Community (PLC) meetings or during informal meetings with other educators considered
experts in reading instruction. Aside from the demonstration lesson that Mrs. Clark taught to her
grade-level colleagues (Research Question Three: School-Based Networks), the interactions
between participants and their mentors were not part of the data set collected for this study. The
conversations that took place during the interviews and after classroom observations, however,
revealed that seeking guidance from colleagues or identifying a personal mentor was a decision
made based on self-reflections of instruction and overall self-awareness of needs to improve their
teaching practices.
Making the decision to review teaching practices, discuss student learning, analyze
teaching situations to problem-solve instructional concerns, and find appropriate solutions was
evidenced in the following comments made by participants. Mr. Smith explained seeking
assistance and guidance from his PLC, in particular from Mrs. Clark. Mr. Smith shared a high
level of respect for Mrs. Clark and stated that “[she] is outstanding teacher. She has answers for
everything. Usually, I am the one that comes in with the problem and she comes with the
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 175
solution.” Mr. Smith further stated that his PLC provided the forum to ask for help. He made
the following comment about the level of collaboration with his PLC team:
If I needed support I could go to my colleagues. We have meetings every Tuesday and I
say, “Look I am having an issue with this” and we would definitely look for solutions
right then and there. Because the other two would say, “Oh, this is what I do in that
situation” and I say, “That is good or I am not so sure.”
Mr. Smith’s decision to ask for guidance from his PLC after assessing a professional
need can be categorized at the Inquiry Dialogic level. The rubric indicates that reflection at
Inquiry Dialogic level requires inquiring about teaching practices that are conducted in
collaboration with others that considers new ideas. Mr. Smith’s comments illustrate willingness
to ask for assistance once he determined a professional need. Additional data is needed to
determine whether the suggestions made by his colleagues were implemented and adopted as
part of his teaching practice.
Similarly, Mrs. Clark expressed seeking help from a group of educators whom she
regarded as master teachers of reading instruction. During the one-on-one interview, Mrs. Clark
explained that one component of her reading instruction included using the Café strategies.
These strategies were shared by her mentors:
So, this group I know has been using the Sisters Café approach. For the last three years I
have been going and observing them teach different Café lessons. Now, there is a new
released version of Café lessons that align with Common Core, and I am in the process of
switching from the old system to the new system that aligns with the standards.”
Café strategies, Mrs. Clark explained, included a system of daily reading strategies
(Comprehension, Accuracy, Fluency, and Expanding Vocabulary) that were used to create goals
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 176
with students. Students were grouped based on demonstrated needs of each strategy and targeted
instruction and conferencing were used to monitor student progress. Mrs. Clark stated meeting
with her mentors regularly to discuss instruction and analyze student work. She remarked, “I
wasn’t having any luck on putting my groups together.” Although reading instruction using the
Café strategies was not observed by the researcher, evidence of the guidance Mrs. Clark received
from her mentors was discussed with the researcher and was seen around Mrs. Clark’s classroom
(Appendix Q).
Mrs. Clark’s decision to seek guidance and mentorship from master teachers can be
categorized at the Change Transformative level. Self-reflection at the Change Transformative
level helps develop new insights about teaching, students, personal teaching strengths and
weaknesses that lead to improvement of practice. Mrs. Clark’s comments and classroom
environment demonstrate the changes she made based on the guidance she received.
Ms. Martin expressed the same sentiment about her grade level colleagues and the
Community of Practice (COP) they developed to inquire into their teaching practices. Ms.
Martin expressed that her COP met regularly and worked together as a grade level team to
“watch each other teach, look at summative and formative assessments, discuss how students are
doing, and learn collaboratively.” The collaboration and inquiry of practice Ms. Martin and her
colleagues shared is further explained in Research Question Three: School Based Networks.
Ms. Martin’s decision to inquire into her teaching practices with her grade-level
colleagues can be categorized at the Change Transformative level. Self-reflection at the Change
Transformative level helps develop new insights about teaching, students, personal teaching
strengths and weaknesses that lead to improvement of practice. Ms. Martin’s Community of
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 177
Practice allowed her and her colleagues analyze their instruction, question each other, and make
shifts to their teaching based on their collaboration and group work.
Having consistent meetings with her mentors to share resources was also a decision Ms.
Anderson made after assessing her teaching needs. Ms. Anderson shared the reasons for seeking
out mentorship and guidance from other educators: “I am currently in a learning process. I am
moving away from a reading program and I am moving to core literature type of instructional
model, which I have never taught before. I only taught with a program.” Ms. Anderson
explained that meeting regularly with her mentors provided her with the opportunity to “gain
perspective about how things run for my age/grade level, and it provides me with ideas for
implementation in my classroom.”
Ms. Anderson’s decision to seek guidance and mentorship after identifying a professional
need can be categorized at the Inquiry Transformative level. Self-reflection at Inquiry
Transformative level requires ongoing inquiry and engagement with model mentors, critical
friends, critical texts, students to carefully examine teaching and student learning. This level of
self-reflection also asks questions that challenge personally held assumptions. Ms. Anderson’s
regular meetings with her mentors to discuss teaching approaches, is indicative of the ongoing
inquiry approach to review her instruction and enhance her professional knowledge.
Mrs. Lewis’s decision to collaborate with other educators to discuss teaching practices
and plan curriculum arose from not having sufficient planning time during school hours. Mrs.
Lewis created an outside network of like-minded educators whom she met with at her home to
plan lessons, share strategies, look at students writing samples, and review resources obtained
from professional development meetings or conferences. Meeting with her group was a regular
practice: “I have been doing this probably for about 6 years.” Similarly, Mrs. Lewis met with her
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 178
personal mentor on a one-on-one setting on a regular basis to discuss the students in her class,
instructional approaches and teaching resources. Mrs. Lewis expressed that her mentorship
resulted in “reading new books, learning about other ways to teach, and always trying different
things.”
Mrs. Lewis’s decision to seek guidance and mentorship from other colleagues and a
personal mentor can be categorized at the Change Transformative level. Self-reflection at the
Change Transformative level helps develop new insights about teaching, students, personal
teaching strengths and weaknesses that lead to improvement of practice. Mrs. Lewis’s
comments about her collaborative planning meetings and discussions with her personal mentor
demonstrate her effects of the guidance and feedback she received from expert others. Using the
Sign-Posts to teach reading comprehension, for example, was a resource shared by her personal
mentor. Mrs. Lewis remarked, “I learned about the book from my mentor. I read the book and
thought it made sense, so I started using it.”
Findings from participants’ comments, discussions, and observations of classroom
instruction indicated that participants made decisions to seek guidance and mentorship after self-
reflecting on their teaching practices. All participants demonstrated an interest to continue to
learn about reading instruction. Participants’ motivation to seek new knowledge emerged when
each individually assessed his/her professional knowledge and determined an area of need.
Participants made an active choice to seek help and create personal goals to improve their
practice and develop agency as teachers of reading comprehension. Participants sought
additional help to improve their practice and collaborated with others to discuss instruction and
gain new professional knowledge about reading instruction.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 179
These findings are supported by research that affirms that self-reflection is a practice that
helps understand their current instructional expertise. As such, this practice develops self-
awareness of teaching effectiveness, and the process helps identifies areas of need to further
professional knowledge (Darling-Hammond 1999; Lai, McNaughton, Timperley & Hsiao, 2009;
Loughran, 2002). These studies also confirm that self-reflection prompts educators to address
identified needs by collaborating with others, making changes to teaching behaviors, and
evaluating the effectiveness of new practices to improve their professional practice (Dewey,
1933; Emerling, 2010; Hatton & Smith, 1995; Schön, 1987; Ward & McCotter, 2004; Wold,
2003).
Table 21 presents participants level of self-reflection resultant in self-awareness of
professional knowledge needs.
Table 21
Self-Reflection: Self-Awareness and Professional Knowledge Needs
Participant Self-Reflection Practice
and Process
Level of Self-
Reflection
Example
Mr. Smith Professional Learning
Communities
Inquiry
Dialogic
Asking his PLC members questions
about classroom issues
Mrs. Clark Collaborating with
peers to examine
instruction
Change
Transformative
Identifying a need to restructure
Guided Reading groups. Observing
others to seek guidance and make
changes to teaching practices
Ms. Martin Collaborating with
peers to examine
instruction
Change
Transformative
Collaborating with her grade-level
COP to examine instruction and learn
together
Ms.
Anderson
Outside Networks
Asking questions,
seeking guidance
Inquiry
Transformative
Seeking guidance to enhance teaching
reading using core literature. Meeting
with mentors to share resources.

SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 180
Table 21, continued

Mrs. Lewis
Collaborating with
peers to examine
instruction
Change
Transformative
Collaborating with others to plan
lessons, share resources and analyze
student work. Meeting with personal
mentor to discuss teaching practices
and learn new methods and
instructional approaches.”

Summary: Research Question Four
To explain more fully the nature of self-reflection on participants’ instructional decisions,
the themes from all four research questions were compared. The analysis resulted in a consistent
finding: participants, who had a well-developed knowledge of reading instruction, demonstrated
proficiency in analyzing and using student data to plan and deliver targeted reading instruction.
Teachers Clark, Martin, Anderson, and Lewis were observed using a comprehensive approach to
self-reflect and review the effectiveness of their instruction. The decisions they made focused on
improving teaching practices and student learning. Participants also were aware of professional
knowledge needs that resulted in seeking additional guidance and mentorship from expert others.
Participants asked questions, sought guidance from expert others, examined their instructional
approaches, reviewed student work, and made changes to teaching practices.
Summary of Findings
This study aimed to uncover the practices and processes participants used to self-reflect
and examine their reading comprehension instructional practices. The purpose for uncovering
these self-reflective practices was to determine the nature of self-reflection on the decisions
participants’ made about instruction and their professional practice. An analysis of the data
collected revealed that participants, who had an accurate understanding of knowledge and
expertise of reading instruction, effectively used data to plan and teach flexible targeted reading
comprehension lessons. These participants were more likely to use a systematic and focused
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 181
approach to engage in self-reflection and examine their instruction, and sought guidance,
mentoring and coaching, and were more likely to make decisions focused on student learning.
Participants who self-reflected on their instruction became aware of their professional knowledge
needs and took responsibility for their learning by working alongside colleagues and mentors to
improve their practice.
As presented by Dewey (1933) the nature of self-reflection is cyclical and on-going, and
using a targeted approach can increase the quality of long-term inquiry that critically analyzes
teaching practices and creates a fundamental change in instruction. It can be determined from
these findings that using a process to examine instruction with a targeted focus can result in self-
reflection as an on-going and sustainable practice. The implications of these findings on future
practice are further discussed in Chapter Five.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 182
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS
Purpose of the Study and Research Questions
The purpose of this study was to examine the processes and practices teachers use to self-
reflect on their instruction of reading comprehension. The aim was to determine the nature of
self-reflection on the decisions participants’ made about their instruction and professional
practice. Using a qualitative methodology, the following professional and pedagogical practices
were explored. The professional practices reviewed were: (a) planning reading comprehension
lessons, (b) making revisions to lessons, (c) collaborating with colleagues, and (d) participating
in professional learning communities. The pedagogical practices analyzed included: (a) explicit
instruction of procedures and modeling of cognitive processes using think-alouds, (b) interactive
discussions, and (c) differentiated instruction to meet the varied literacy needs of all students.
The following research questions were used to guide this study:
1. How do 4
th
grade teachers rate their knowledge of reading comprehension
instruction?
2. How do 4
th
grade teachers plan and teach reading comprehension?
3. What practices and processes help teachers self-reflect on their behaviors, decision-
making and actions when teaching reading comprehension?
4. What is the nature of self-reflection on teachers’ decisions of reading comprehension?
Summary of Findings
Findings from this study are illustrated in a conceptual framework that captures a cyclical
and inter-relationship between four domains: (a) participants’ knowledge of reading instruction
(b) approaches to planning and delivering reading comprehension lessons, (c) practices and
processes used to engage in self-reflection to analyze instruction, and (d) instructional decisions
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 183
made based on self-reflective practices. An analysis of the data revealed that the intersections
between these domains was evident in three dispositions identified by Dewey (1933) as central
tenets of quality self-reflection. These dispositions were: open-mindedness, sense of
responsibility, and wholeheartedness. Participants were open-minded to review their teaching
practices, demonstrated a sense of responsibility for the instructional decisions they made, and
had an unwavering commitment to continue to expand their knowledge of reading
comprehension instruction. As a result, participants engaged in a cyclical self-reflective process
that allowed them to develop a keen sense of self-awareness of their instructional expertise and
gain a deep knowledge of their professional needs. This self-awareness prompted participants to
seek coaching and feedback from expert mentors who guided their practice.
The cyclical approach illustrated in Figure 1.1 captures cyclical approach of self-
reflection that participants engaged in to review and examine their practice. This cycle starts
with participants’ self-awareness and moves clockwise through the self-reflection cycle. The
next section presents a discussion of these findings and explains each of the four domains where
self-reflection took place. The intersections are also explained.

SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 184
Figure 1.1 Cyclical Approach of Self-Reflection

Discussion of Findings

Participants’ Knowledge of Reading Instruction
This study found that participants, who engaged in self-reflection to examine their
instruction, had an accurate awareness of their expertise in reading comprehension instruction.
These participants had a well-developed understanding of the progression of reading
development and used this conceptual and procedural knowledge to plan, organize, and deliver
instruction that addressed the varying demands of students’ needs (Foorman & Moats, 2004;
Moats, 1999; 2009; Snow, Griffin, & Burns, 2007). Participants also used a process to plan
reading comprehension lessons. They analyzed the requirements of the Common Core State
Standards to determine what students needed to learn and to guide the content of lesson plans.
Accurate self-awareness
of professional expertise
and needs
Targeted
and focused
instruction
based
on student
data
Systematic and focused
approach to examine the
effectiveness of
instruction
Self-
reflection
Decisions
made to
impact
student
learning
Seek guidance
and coaching
Open-
mindedness
Sense of
Responsibility
Wholeheartedness
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 185
Their reading instruction included diagnosing students’ reading needs first to determine a starting
point of instruction (Tomlinson & McTighe, 2006; Bransford et al., 2005). Using ongoing
assessments to design instruction that was responsive to students’ needs was also a common
planning practice.
Seeking Coaching and Feedback to Teach Reading Comprehension
Although participants demonstrated an understanding of the reading progress and reading
instruction, they also sought out additional guidance and mentorship from expert others to
continue to enhance their teaching practices. These participants asked for specific coaching and
support from expert others to improve their teaching practices and support student learning
(Butler, et al., 2004; Emerling, 2010; Wold, 2003). As a result, participants developed targeted
and focused lessons that incorporated effective teaching practices. Effective instructional
strategies such as: explicit instruction or think-alouds were used to provide students the strategic
tools to learn how and when to use strategies to understand texts (Duffy et al., 1987; National
Reading Panel, 2000; RAND Reading Research Group, 2002; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998).
Reading instruction also included students working in groups (whole group, small group, pairs).
Participants used groups to facilitate learning and to provide students with ample opportunities to
practice using academic language with peers in various settings. Varied sources of reading
material were used to teach and practice reading strategies and interactive discussions were used
to teach students how to analyze information from the texts, evaluate the meaning of the themes
presented in stories critically, and form new opinions using new knowledge gained (Bitter et al.,
2009; Taylor et al., 2003).
As part of their instruction, participants also monitored students’ reactions to lessons and
activities to determine how to differentiate and modify lesson plans (Block, et al., 2009; Brady et
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 186
al., 2009; Foorman and Moats, 2004; Snow, Griffin & Burns, 2007). Based on student
responses, reading comprehension lessons were re-structured to provide the appropriate
challenge and scaffolds needed to ensure student success (Tobin & McInnes, 2007; 2008;
Tomlinson, 1999). Participants made the content accessible to students by using graphic
organizers and classroom charts to anchor new information about texts, and by providing several
opportunities for students to practice using the strategies either working alongside peers and/or
working individually (Moats, 2004; Shulman, 1986; 1987; Snow, Burns & Griffin, 2007).
Open-Mindedness to Engage in Systematic Self-Reflective Practices
Participants were open-minded and systematically assessed and evaluated their
instructional decisions and teaching approaches. Dewey (1933) maintained that in order to
engage in quality self-reflection, educators must possess a disposition to be open-minded to
carefully analyze and review instructional practices and consider multiple points of view to
determine the effectiveness of their instruction. Using a series of practices and processes,
participants engaged in self-reflection to review their instruction approaches.
Data was used as a catalyst to engage in self-reflection and examine the effectiveness of
instruction. Data was collected by the strategically collected by using a deliberative classroom
organization. Participants organized their classroom environments to facilitate group instruction
what was aimed to support students’ specific needs and to collect student performance data. The
data collected during classroom instruction were used to analyze aspects of teaching approaches
and to modify or change instruction to develop students’ independent use of reading strategies.
A strategic organized classroom environment to facilitate data collection revealed that
participants were “present” when teaching reading comprehension. The literature presents the
construct of being “present” as a disposition to consider classroom organization, environmental
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 187
contexts, and students’ point-of-view as multiple sources to self-reflect and analyze the impact of
instructional approaches on student learning. Being “present” helps teachers manage classroom
and instructional situations, modify teaching approaches to determine a fitting course of action
(Butler, et al., 2004; Darling-Hammond, 1999; Emerling, 2010; Lai, McNaughton, Timperley &
Hsiao, 2009; Ward & McCotter, 2004; Wold, 2003). Participants used their classroom
organization to review the effects of their instruction and to make informed decisions about their
teaching practices.
Participants also collaborated with colleagues and experts in reading comprehension
instruction to discuss instruction, ask questions, and learn about new instructional approaches
and resources available to enhance their teaching practices. Participants observed other
colleagues teach reading lessons, met on a regular basis to discuss classroom instruction and
review student work, and worked alongside an identified mentor to receive coaching and support
to improve their teaching practices. The decision to seek guidance and mentorship is supported
by the research studies that affirm that self-reflection helps teachers understand their current
instructional expertise, and become aware of their teaching effectiveness to identify areas of need
to further their professional knowledge (Darling-Hammond 1999; Lai, McNaughton, Timperley
& Hsiao, 2009; Loughran, 2002). These studies also confirm that self-reflection prompts
educators to address identified needs by collaborating with others, making changes to teaching
behaviors, and evaluating the effectiveness of new teaching approaches to improve their
professional practice (Dewey, 1933; Emerling, 2010; Hatton & Smith, 1995; Schön, 1987; Ward
& McCotter, 2004; Wold, 2003).
Participants were also observed using a structured process to collect student data.
Participants took notes during their meetings with students and kept personal journals to review
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 188
instruction at the end of the day. These notes and journal entries were used think about more
carefully and reflect on instruction more critically before making instructional decisions.
Classroom observations and responses from post-lesson discussions revealed that participants
were diligent in using these processes to think about their instruction. Taking notes and writing
down the events of the day informed participants how their students were learning and what their
students needed to practice further. Findings from the literature confirm that using a systematic
approach to self-reflect helps educators become aware of their teaching effectiveness, review
their learning goals, and analyze the process of learning how to learn to develop appropriate
educational experiences and support student achievement (Dewey, 1933; Zeichner & Liston,
1996).
The systematic practices and processes used to engage in self-reflection revealed that
participants used a focused and structured approach to examine their instruction and improve
their professional practice. This finding is supported by the literature that confirms that quality
self-reflection requires a systematic approach to analyze instructional decisions and teaching
practices to evaluate their effectiveness (Dewey, 1933; Hagevik, Aydeniz, & Rowell, 2012; Lee,
2005; Rogers, 2002; Schön, 1987; Yost, Sentner, & Forlenza-Bailey, 2000). When educators
engage in a structured self-reflective process, they identify and assess their learning needs, and
analyze and discern what they know and what they need to learn to develop professional
knowledge (Fellows & Zimpher, 1987; Loughran, 2002; Rogers, 2002). As a result, deliberate
decisions are made to either change teaching behaviors or situations to appropriately respond to
student learning and to further professional knowledge (Dewey, 1933; Rodgers & Raider-Roth,
2006).

SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 189
Developing a Sense of Responsibility for Instructional Decisions
A sense of responsibility was evident when participants carefully analyzed teaching
situations and monitored the effects of their decisions when teaching reading comprehension.
Dewey (1933) stated that developing a sense of responsibility for decisions and actions allows
educators to think deeply about their instruction and analyzing teaching practices and
instructional decisions becomes more effective since all possible consequences are taken into
consideration. The result of developing this disposition impacts student learning by prompting
teachers to carefully analyze, plan and deliver instruction that is responsive to student learning.
Participants demonstrated a sense of responsibility for student leaning by becoming
aware of students’ needs. In order to address students’ needs, participants created meaningful
learning experiences and provided authentic learning tasks to support students’ understanding of
texts at deeper levels. Learning tasks such as a collective shared experience to situate the use of
skills or strategies in a meaningful way were also decisions participants made to support student
learning. Additionally, the instruction and homework provided promoted the co-construction of
learning with peers and family members. These decisions revealed that participants, who took
responsibility for their instruction, were “present” in their teaching. The works of Dewey
(1933), Lampert (1985), Loughran (2006), and Rodgers and Raider-Roth (2006) states that
teachers who take “presence in their teaching” use their pedagogical knowledge to make
intelligent decisions that are appropriate and that respond to student learning. Intelligent
decisions require thoughtful and careful analysis of situations before a course of action is
selected.
Participants’ decisions also focused on selecting the appropriate pedagogical practices to
provide student-centered instruction where students were encouraged to self-direct their learning,
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 190
problem-solve and become independent learners. Learning environments were created to
encourage students to explore use strategies taught in more depth. Learning activities that
prompted students to collaborate with peers to think about and discuss their learning were also
part of reading comprehension instruction. Participants facilitated instruction and created a
community of learners in their classrooms to help students take an active role during instruction
and to become independent learners. Research studies on self-reflection indicate that teachers
who think about and effectively analyze their instruction, select instructional approaches with
foresight and with an end-in-view that is deliberate (Dewey 1933). These participants made
deliberate choices to support and equip students with strategies and processes to manage their
own learning.
Wholeheartedness: Increasing Expertise in Reading Instruction
The findings presented in this study suggest that to engage in quality self-reflection
requires a targeted focus on a specific goal. Having a specific goal supports the careful
examination of teaching practices, instructional decisions, and student performance, and using a
systematic approach to engage in self-reflection helps teachers examine their practice and
evaluate their expertise in instruction (Rogers & Rayder-Roth, 2006; Valli, 1997). Engaging in
this type of self-reflection helped participants develop an unconditional commitment to evaluate
their knowledge of the subject matter, their educational environments, teaching practices, and
philosophical orientations. As a result, participants gained a further understanding of their
teaching practices and expertise in reading instruction (Dewey, 1933). This finding is consistent
with studies on self-reflection in teacher education indicate that self-reflection helps teachers
inquire and analyze professional knowledge to become aware of teaching effectiveness and
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 191
modify teaching approaches to improve professional practice (Darling-Hammond, 1999; Dewey,
1933; Lai, McNaughton, Timperley & Hsiao, 2009; Loughran, 2002).
Engaging in self-reflection about their instruction demonstrated participants’ motivation
to seek new knowledge and improve their practice. Participants’ motivation to seek new
knowledge emerged when each individually assessed their professional knowledge and
determined an area of need. Their motivation resulted in making an active choice to seek help
and create personal goals to improve their practice and develop agency as teachers of reading
comprehension. These participants also invested the time and effort required to develop
expertise in reading comprehension instruction, and directed their attention to seek help,
guidance and coaching from others to plan and deliver effective reading comprehension lessons.
The work of Wold (2003) confirms that quality decisions about instruction are made when
teachers have a clear focus that helps them become aware of their professional learning needs.
By engaging in this type of self-reflection, educators create a plan of action to mediate any gaps
in their professional knowledge and continually seek guidance and mentorship from other
colleagues regarded as master teachers in reading or experts in instruction.
Unexpected Findings
This study also revealed that one participant did not have an accurate awareness of his
instructional expertise in reading comprehension. Mr. Smith reported a proficient level of
knowledge in reading comprehension instruction and strategies, and regarded using strategies to
develop deep thinking and understanding of texts as a self-reported strength to teach reading
comprehension. Mr. Smith also expressed not needing any additional professional development
in reading instruction to enhance his teaching practices. Yet, Mr. Smith’s responses to lesson
planning approaches included “figuring out what to teach right before a lesson” and not creating
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 192
lesson ahead of time. By omitting lesson plans from reading comprehension instruction, Mr.
Smith dismissed the structure needed to measure student performance against a measurable goal.
Although Mr. Smith sought help regarding classroom situations, his responses also
revealed that he did not evaluate his instructional practices at a deeper level. Research studies on
self-reflection assert that reviewing classroom situations requires analyzing theory in practice
using multiple forms of perspectives to gain new understandings of instruction (Dewey, 1933;
Schön, 1987). Several studies on self-reflection also assert that continuous progress monitoring
and thoughtful reflection are integral to designing effective instruction (Dewey, 1933; Hagevik,
Aydeniz, & Rowell, 2012; Risko, Roskos & Vukelich 2002; Schön, 1987; Zeichner & Liston,
1996). Without a context of student performance it was unfeasible for Mr. Smith to engage in
quality self-reflection to think deeply about the instruction he provided.
Additionally, by not planning lessons, Mr. Smith created a reactive approach to
instruction instead of a responsive approach that aims to analyze the effectiveness of instruction
provided and to determine the appropriate next steps to meet students’ needs. Dewey (1933)
maintained that teachers who do not engage in self-reflection are limited in their ability to make
good decisions, are partial to reflect on the consequences of their actions, and are restricted in
making adjustments or changes to their actions.
An analysis of Mr. Smith’s responses and observations of instruction revealed that Mr.
Smith was not motivated and did not invest the mental effort to think deeply about his
instruction. Mental effort refers to the amount of cognitive resources allocated to learning new
tasks (Rueda, 2011). The literature on motivation states that individuals who are motivated make
an active choice to select a task, make a commitment, or are persistent in pursuing the task, and
invest the mental effort needed to achieve and complete the selected task (Schunk, Pintrich &
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 193
Meece, 2009 in Rueda, 2011). Mr. Smith’s responses to interview questions about reading
instruction revealed that he “did not need much support to teach reading comprehension,”
therefore it can be inferred that Mr. Smith did not have a goal to increase his level of knowledge
of reading comprehension instruction and he did not invest the mental effort required to engage
in quality self-reflection by gathering data to analyze his teaching practices, carefully reviewing
and modifying his lesson planning approaches, and determining whether the instruction he
provided effectively addressed his students’ reading needs.
Perhaps the social context of Mr. Smith’s school influenced his decision not exert the
mental effort required to examine his teaching practices. Rueda (2011) states that sociocultural
influences such as: culture and context have an effect on individuals’ motivation. Perhaps a
more delineated structure and vision for Mr. Smith’s professional learning community meetings
can help create the supportive context that will influence him to actively make the choice to
consistently review his teaching practice by collecting data, reviewing student work, monitoring
students’ reactions to his lessons, and use this information to identify areas of learning growth.
A structured process to engage in self-reflection can provide the scaffolding needed to
help Mr. Smith examine his instruction at a more critical level. This was apparent when the
design used to collect data for this study revealed an unexpected finding. Mr. Smith revealed
benefiting from participating in this study. Using consecutive classroom observations followed
by post-lesson conversations as part of the study’s design provided a dedicated space that
supported Mr. Smith self-reflection of his instruction. This daily practice, Mr. Smith explained,
allowed him to self-reflect and discuss his teaching goals and methods using a consistent
structure and format.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 194
Discussing his classroom instruction, following a series of open-ended questions,
provided Mr. Smith a systematic approach to review his instruction and think about his teaching
practice. Mr. Smith reflections on his instruction revealed that he only called on a third of his
class, and he was not sure of how to engage everyone without making students feel
uncomfortable if they did not have the answer to his question. While Mr. Smith acknowledged
how he asked his class questions, he did not consider other questioning approaches and
scaffolding techniques that can encourage all students to participate and feel successful.
Notwithstanding, Mr. Smith’s awareness of only calling on a third of his class can be considered
a step towards examining and evaluating his teaching practices in more depth. It is
recommended that Mr. Smith continue to self-reflect and review his instructional practices more
consistently using a structured process or guide. Engaging in this type of self-reflection can help
Mr. Smith to make changes to his teaching approaches.
Overall these findings indicate that when participants consistently used a systematic and
structured approach to engage in self-reflection, their analysis of classroom instruction and
teaching practices were more in depth and produced changes in their teaching practices. The
next section presents the implications for practice and policy based on the findings from this
study. Additionally, recommendations for school administrators, teachers, and future research
studies are included.
Implications for Practice and Policy
The purpose for conducting this qualitative study was to uncover the practices and
processes 4
th
grade teachers used to engage in self-reflection to examine their reading
comprehension instruction. Fourth grade was selected because the recent National Report Card
indicates a consistent trend in low performance scores for 4
th
grade students in the area of
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 195
reading comprehension (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2013). Moreover, the recent
adoption of Common Core State Standards requires students to independently engage in critical
reading of complex texts to determine the relevant information; make logical inferences; analyze
and evaluate the effectiveness of the information is presented; and use that information to present
arguments that demonstrate critical understanding of the content (National Governors
Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010).
The CCSS new requirements call for consistent and skillful instruction of the critical
elements of reading development and reading comprehension. Teachers, therefore, need to
closely examine their level of expertise and knowledge to effectively teach reading
comprehension to meet these new requirements, and, more importantly, increase the percentage
of students reading at basic and proficient levels of performance. Self-reflection can be used as a
systematic tool to help teachers think deeply, analyze and question the effectiveness of their
current teaching practices to determine areas of professional need. Engaging in systematic and
quality self-reflection can assist teachers in making informed decisions their professional
learning needs that in turn will impact students’ performance.
The findings from this study hold several implications for teacher practice and for
educational policy.
Implications for Practice
The most prominent implication for the teaching practice based on the findings of this
study is to create the space for teachers to collaborate and self-reflect on their instruction. One of
the findings this study uncovered was participants’ willingness to discuss their practice and
examine their instructional approaches. The structure and design of this study revealed that
providing a space for participants to discuss their student observations and instructional decisions
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 196
using a structure (See Appendix E) provided a format for teachers to think deeply about their
practice.
The teaching practice can often be isolating; therefore, a recommendation for teacher
preparations programs is to prepare teachers to acknowledge that teaching is problematic and
that reading is a complex process. Teacher preparation programs can develop novice teachers
with the disposition to analyze and reflect on their developing knowledge of teaching reading
and expertise to provide effective reading instruction. Teacher preparation programs can help
teachers become researchers of their practice, to determine what they know and what they need
to know to become effective teachers of reading. Similarly, professional development providers
need to incorporate self-reflection as part of their programs. Professional development providers
need to provide a structure that guides in-service teachers to use the dispositions of self-reflective
practitioners to investigate their instruction at a closer level of scrutiny. This disposition will
facilitate a continuous improvement approach and life-long learning philosophy that will guide
how teachers structure their path towards expert and master teachers.
Implications for Policy
The findings presented in this study hold the following implication for educational
policy. The pasting of the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) reform law in 2013 provided
school districts with the flexibility to make funding decisions responsive to students’ needs. This
law also required school districts to create their own Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP)
that required the creation of a vision and strategy linked to funding allocated to achieve specific
student outcomes. Districts’ plans include yearly assessments to review the effectiveness of
proposed plans and to make the necessary changes to meet the established goals.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 197
The implications of this study can have an impact on the upcoming LCAP assessment
that school districts will undergo this year, and annually thereafter. Conducting a teacher self-
assessment aligned to the implementation of three state priorities in the accountability plan:
implementation of CCSS, student achievement, and developing independent learners can inform
the revisions to this accountability plan. Local school districts have a choice in selecting the
professional development training and support needed to meet their established goals, therefore a
targeted plan can benefit from a professional needs assessment that can further reinforce school
and district goals. Additionally, performance metrics (either qualitative or quantitative) can be
used to measure progress. These metrics can take the form of student portfolios of work samples
and can also be inclusive of pre-and post- assessment data that measure the impact of
professional development programs.
Recommendations for School Administrators
Based on the findings from this study, the following recommendations are made for
school administrators. In order to establish the required space for teachers to engage in quality
self-reflection and examine their practice, it is recommended that school administrators provide
the structure needed for teachers to effectively inquire into their practice. Since most schools
currently adopted Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) as a means for grade-level teams
to plan lessons and share resources, it is recommended that the structure for these PLC meetings
be revisited.
The core principles of Professional Learning Communities include close collaboration
with others to seek new learning, share resources and enhance teaching effectiveness (Hord,
1997). Seeking new learning through collaboration with others requires setting measurable goals
that align to a vision. In order to set specific goals, it is recommended that school administrators,
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 198
the leadership team, and teachers develop a shared and common vision. Using this vision, the
school leadership team can engage the school in some preliminary work to change individual
behaviors and motivations regarding professional development. A self-efficacy survey can be
created that identifies teachers’ interests, self-efficacy and task value of professional
development programs. The result of this survey can be used to address teachers’ concerns and
needs before selecting professional development programs and trainings. Additionally, the
leadership team can create a self-assessment to determine teachers’ professional knowledge
needs in reading comprehension instruction. This self-assessment can include close and open
ended questions that ask teachers to identify their areas of strength and areas of need to teach
reading comprehension. The results of the self-assessment can be used to collaboratively create
a comprehensive professional development plan that builds upon teachers’ strengths and that
meets teachers’ identified needs in reading comprehension instruction.
A comprehensive professional development focused on increasing teachers’ knowledge
of the reading process and pedagogical content knowledge in reading instruction (PCK) is
inclusive of the following components. Professional development in reading instruction builds
teachers’ knowledge base and capacity for student success. The content of professional
development programs is research-based and strategies introduced are aligned with research
findings. Collaboration with an expert/coach in reading instruction in the form of student data
analysis, demonstration lessons, co-panning and co-teaching opportunities are made available to
teachers. Also of importance is creating a shared definition and understanding of reading
comprehension. This shared definition includes knowing what entails teaching reading
comprehension effectively (i.e., effective instruction as identified in the literature) and knowing
how this instruction is enacted with students. This shared context can be used to begin reflective
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 199
conversations as a group to examine instruction provided, review lesson plans, texts and
strategies selected, and the delivery approaches used to teach lessons. A guided protocol to
engage in such discussion can be used to align with the identified professional knowledge needs
identified in the self-assessment. This alignment will create a targeted approach to inquire into
teaching practices, and differentiated support can be made available to further develop teachers’
knowledge of reading instruction.
PLC meetings can be the conduit for teachers to use this process and inquire and examine
into their teaching practices. Therefore, a guided structure that supports teachers’ engagement in
quality dialogue to promote change is necessary. Guided discussions that prompt teachers to
think deeply about their practice can be co-constructed as a team, with the intent to have a
process to analyze students’ needs and professional needs and meet the established goals. The
protocol can also serve as a measure of personal accountability. Reviewing of the content (text
and strategy selection) and delivery of lesson plans (instructional approaches used) to help define
the intention and purpose for lessons. Lessons can be video-taped and can be used to review
instruction and further the analysis of the instruction provided. Using PLCs to create this
collaborative approach will support teachers to co-construct knowledge about teaching and
learning in practice; the result will entail Community of Practice (Butler et al., 2004) wherein
teachers use a systematic approach to analyze instruction using multiple perspectives, question
one another, and determine an appropriate course of action. Assessment data can be collected in
the form of student portfolios of work samples, and teachers’ self-reflective analysis of
professional knowledge needs.
Incorporating this structure to PLC meetings, will create an effective system and will
provide the space to maintain self-reflection as a sustainable an on-going practice. Thus,
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 200
promoting a self-reflective cycle that develops participants’ accurate understanding of their
professional knowledge needs. In turn, professional development can be aligned to teachers’
needs and personalized PD plans can guide the continuous improvement efforts set forth by the
school as a team.
Recommendations for Teachers
Recommendations for teachers based on the findings from this study include the
following. First, it is recommended teachers recognize that teaching reading is a complex
process that requires professional knowledge developed through focused study and on-going
coaching and support. Second, it is recommended that teachers adopt the dispositions of self-
reflection that promote self-awareness of expertise and that helps identify professional
knowledge needs. Dewey (1933) described these dispositions as open-mindedness, sense of
responsibility and whole heartedness. It is recommended that teachers practice using these
dispositions to become self-aware and recognize their professional areas of strength and need in
reading comprehension instruction. One approach to develop these dispositions is to keep a
reflective journal. A reflective journal can be used to closely examine t teaching situations and
instructional decisions to determine the effectiveness of instruction.
Reflective journals can include an analysis of reading comprehension lessons. For
example, an analysis of lessons can review the whether the thinking skill is taught to the level of
cognition required for students to learn how to apply and use the strategy in texts. This exercise
can include reviewing student work to determine the effectiveness of the lesson and to identify
any areas of need for both the teacher and the students. An analysis of the delivery methods used
to teach thinking skills can also be conducted. One approach is to examine whether explicit
instruction and think-alouds are used to teach reading comprehension strategies. Reading
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 201
lessons can be videotaped our audio recorded to analyze how instruction is delivered. As an
option, the instruction can take place in a small group setting or can include whole group
instruction. Based on the analysis, teachers can identify whether the cognitive processes used
when teaching the strategy were explicit and provided students with a structured model to use
independently. This can be a starting point to inquire into teaching practices.
Additionally, it is recommended teachers take an active role in their learning. Teachers
can inquire into research conducted on reading comprehension to further enhance their
professional knowledge of reading comprehension. These recommendations can have a positive
impact on teachers’ self-awareness if the three dispositions of self-reflection outlined by Dewey
are part of the process. The goal of these recommendations is to determine the support and
professional knowledge teachers need to effectively teach reading comprehension. Additionally,
these recommendations have a stronger impact on teachers’ practice when they are conducted in
collaboration with others and when guidance and coaching is provided by an expert. Quality
self-reflection is disciplined, structured, deliberate, and it is incomplete if it is not done in
company of others (Dewey, 1933). Therefore, it is recommended that teachers seek other
educators whom to collaborate with and engage in self-reflection to study their practice. It is
also recommended that teachers pursue a self-study to determine their areas of need and use this
knowledge to develop a goal and to focus their reflective conversations. This approach will help
further their self-awareness and in turn will also create the pathway to develop expertise in
reading instruction.
Recommendations for Future Studies
This study aimed to contribute to the body of literature on self-reflection and reading
comprehension instruction. As such, this study sought to provide insight on the effective
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 202
practices and organizational structures needed to develop self-reflective educators who carefully
analyze and examine their practice to make informed decisions and improve their practice.
Although teachers of ELL students did not volunteer to participate in this study, the findings and
contributions of this work warrant future attention to the following areas that are of interest to
this researcher.
Conduct Action Research to further determine the nature of self-reflection on reading
comprehension instruction. This Action Research can be conducted with teachers of ELL
students to gain insight on their professional development needs and their self-reflective
practices. The professional development plan recommended for school administrators can be
investigated to determine the impact of a systematic, comprehensive and on-going approach to
develop teachers’ dispositions to become self-reflective practitioners. Conducting a study on a
comprehensive professional development program that develops teachers’ knowledge of reading
instruction and teaches the construct of quality self-reflection can provide in-depth and reliable
results about this phenomenon of interest. Using experts to provide the support and create the
protocols needed can engage teachers in higher levels of reflective thought and consider multiple
perspectives to their reading instruction as a continuous process to promote student success and
achievement in reading comprehension. The results can help identify the protocols needed to
establish effective communities of practice that support teachers’ critical reflection of instruction.
The research can also be longitudinal in nature to include the appropriate time required to
establish valid results that can be generalized to a larger population.
A following research study to conduct on self-reflection can include the voice of the
students. Carol Rogers (2006) introduces the concept of Descriptive Feedback in which teachers
collect students’ perspectives by asking for feedback to gather information about what they
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 203
learned. The questions teachers use include students articulating what helped them learn the
concepts introduced and what hindered their learning. A qualitative study can be conducted to
examine the effects of students’ voice in teachers’ reflections and decisions about reading
instruction. Concurrently, the study can also focus on how teachers, by using Descriptive
Feedback, can develop students’ awareness of the learning process. The aim of the study can
capture the classroom practices and instruction required to develop students as self-regulated
learners and overall partners in the learning to teach process. This study can follow in the
continuum of the action research explained above.
Finally, one additional research study on self-reflection that is of interest to the researcher
includes the nature of self-reflection on teachers’ personal beliefs and values that impact
instruction. This longitudinal study can start with a group of pre-service teachers enrolled in a
teacher preparation program focused on developing the dispositions of self-reflection discussed
in this study. The study can continue as study participants go through an induction program that
also promotes the same self-reflection dispositions of the preparation program and that uses a
Communities of Practice approach to inquire and examine instruction, specifically in reading
comprehension instruction. Finally, the study can extend and continue with a professional
preparation in reading that also makes use of teachers’ classrooms as lab-sites to inquire and
examine teaching practices. Studying the effects of self-reflection in these three domains can
determine the context and support needed to help educators reflect on their instruction at a
critical and transformative level. The findings can also uncover the effects of quality self-
reflection on teachers’ beliefs and values that impact instruction.

SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 204
Limitations of the Study
While this study attempted to retrieve reliable results, the study’s design presented some
limitations. The participant sample size was small in scale, and this presented a limitation to any
generalization of findings to the overall population. A final limitation was the time available to
discuss instruction was always not sufficient to delve into a deep analysis of the instruction
observed. This limitation, however, uncovered participants’ motivation to discuss their
instruction. Participants were eager to discuss their teaching approaches even a few months later
when the researcher emailed to ask additional questions that arose during data analysis.
Participants’ responded via email or via a telephone call almost immediately, and the responses
provided were in-depth and thoughtful. These behaviors illustrate that providing a structured
space to review lessons, discuss students’ reactions to instruction, and analyze instructional
approaches was a positive experience for participants.
Conclusion
This study sought to reveal effective ways to support teacher self-reflective practices and
decision-making processes when teaching reading comprehension, especially as the new
Common Core State Standards are implemented in classrooms wherein English proficiency
varies. The findings from this study suggest that engaging in self-reflection using a systematic
approach helps teachers develop an accurate understanding of their professional expertise in
reading comprehension. Additionally, developing self-awareness of professional knowledge
needs can lead to changes in teaching practices. These results are more likely when teachers
adopt three dispositions: open-mindedness, sense of responsibility and wholeheartedness
(Dewey, 1933).
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 205
Further, engaging in quality self-reflection is also more likely when the space and
structure is provided for teachers to collaborate with peers and other experts to analyze data,
share resources, discuss student performance, learn new instructional approaches, and enhance
their teaching practices. Self-reflection can become a continued and sustained practice when the
support necessary to address teachers’ motivation and investment of effort is provided. This type
of support can include differentiated professional development to appropriately address teachers’
individual needs as educators. More research, however, is needed to investigate the effects of
these suggestions on teachers’ self-reflective practices, instructional approaches, and student
performance in reading comprehension.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 206
References
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Aikens, N. L., & Barbarin, O. (2008). Socioeconomic differences in reading trajectories: The
contribution of family, neighborhood, and school contexts. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 100(2), 235.
Al-Hazza, T. C., Fleener, C., & Hager, J. (2008). Primary teachers’ knowledge and knowledge
calibration of early literacy practices. Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal,
8(2).
Apel, K., Wilson-Fowler, E. B., Brimo, D., & Perrin, N. A. (2012). Metalinguistic contributions
to reading and spelling in second and third grade students. Reading and Writing, 25(6),
1283-1305.
Archer, A. L., & Hughes, C. A. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching.
New York; Guilford Press.
Au, K. (2003). Balanced literacy instruction: Implications for students of diverse backgrounds. In
J. Flood, D. Lapp, J. Squire, J. Jensen (Eds.) Handbook of research on teaching the
English language arts (pp. 955-966). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
August, D., Carlo, M., Dressler, C., & Snow, C. (2005). The critical role of vocabulary
development for English language learners. Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 20(1), 50-57.
August, D., Shanahan, T., & Escamilla, K. (2009). English language learners: Developing
literacy in second-language learners--report of the national literacy panel on language-
minority children and youth. Journal of Literacy Research, 41(4), 432-452.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 207
August, D., Francis, D. J., Hsu, H. Y. A., & Snow, C. E. (2006). Assessing reading
comprehension in bilinguals. The Elementary School Journal, 107(2), 221-238.
Avalos, M. A., Plasencia, A., Chavez, C., & Rascon, J. (2007). Modified guided reading:
Gateway to English as a second language and literacy learning. The Reading Teacher,
61(4), 318-329.
Baumann, J. F., Seifert-Kessel, N., & Jones, L. A. (1992). Effect of think-aloud instruction on
elementary students' comprehension monitoring abilities. Journal of Reading Behavior,
24, 143-167.
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M., & Kucan, L. (2003). Taking delight in words. American
Educator, 27(1), 36-46.
Beecher, M and Sweeny, S. M. (2008). Closing the achievement gap with curriculum
enrichment and differentiation one school’s story. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19,
502-530.
Beers, G. K., & Probst, R. E. (2013). Notice & note: Strategies for close reading. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Berliner, D.C. (1994). Expertise: The wonder of exemplary performance. In J.N. Mangieri &
C.C. Block (Eds.), Teaching thinking for teachers and students: Diverse perspectives (pp.
163–186). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
Berninger, V. W., Vermeulen, K., Abbott, R. D., McCutchen, D., Cotton, S., Cude, J., . . .
Sharon, T. (2003). Comparison of three approaches to supplementary reading instruction
for low-achieving second-grade readers. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in
Schools, 34(2), 101-116.
Biemiller, A., & Boote, C. (2006). An effective method for building meaning vocabulary in
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 208
primary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 44.
Bitter, C., O'Day, J., Gubbins, P., & Socias, M. (2009). What works to improve student literacy
achievement? An examination of instructional practices in a balanced literacy
approach. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 14(1), 17-44.
Bowey, J. A. (1995). Socioeconomic status differences in preschool phonological sensitivity and
first-grade reading achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(3), 476.
Block, C. C., & Israel, S. E. (2004). The ABCs of Performing Highly Effective Think‐ Alouds.
The Reading Teacher, 58(2), 154-167.
Block, C. C., Parris, S. R., Reed, K. L., Whiteley, C. S., & Cleveland, M. D. (2009). Instructional
approaches that significantly increase reading comprehension. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 101(2), 262-281.
Brady, S., Gillis, M., Smith, T., Lavalette, M., Liss-Bronstein, L., Lowe, E., ... & Wilder, T. D.
(2009). First grade teachers’ knowledge of phonological awareness and code concepts:
Examining gains from an intensive form of professional development and corresponding
teacher attitudes. Reading and Writing, 22(4), 425-455.
Bransford, J.D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
Bransford, J., Derry, S., Berliner, D., Hammerness, K., & Beckett, K. L. (2005). Theories of
learning and their roles in teaching. Preparing teachers for a changing world: What
teachers should learn and be able to do, 40-87.
Brock, C. H., Boyd, F. B., & Moore, J. A. (2003). Variation in language and the use of language
across contexts: Implications for literacy learning. Handbook of research on teaching the
English language arts, 2, 446-458.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 209
Brown, R., Pressley, M., Van Meter, P., & Schuder, T. (1996). A quasi-experimental validation
of transactional strategies instruction with low-achieving second-grade readers. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 18-37.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007). Qualitative research in education. An introduction to
theory and methods. Allyn & Bacon.
Butler, D. L., Lauscher, H. N., Jarvis-Selinger, S., & Beckingham, B. (2004). Collaboration and
self-regulation in teachers’ professional development. Teaching and teacher
education, 20(5), 435-455.
Carlisle, J. F., Correnti, R., Phelps, G., & Zeng, J. (2009). Exploration of the contribution of
teachers’ knowledge about reading to their students’ improvement in reading. Reading
and Writing, 22(4), 457-486.
Carlisle, J. F., Cortina, K. S., & Katz, L. A. (2011). First-Grade Teachers' Response to Three
Models of Professional Development in Reading. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 27(3),
212-238.
Carlisle, J., Kelcey, B., Berebitsky, D., & Phelps, G. (2011). Embracing the complexity of
instruction: A study of the effects of teachers' instruction on students' reading
comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15(5), 409-439.
Carlson, E., Jenkins, F., Li, T., & Brownell, M. (2013). The Interactions of Vocabulary,
Phonemic Awareness, Decoding, and Reading Comprehension.The Journal of
Educational Research, 106(2), 120-131.
Carreker, S. H., Swank, P. R., Tillman-Dowdy, L., Neuhaus, G. F., Monfils, M. J., Montemayor,
M. L., & Johnson, P. (2005). Language enrichment teacher preparation and practice
predicts third grade reading comprehension. Reading Psychology, 26(4-5), 401-432.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 210
Chall, J. S., & Jacobs, V. A. (2003). Poor children's fourth-grade slump. American
Educator, 27(1), 14-17.
Coleman, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2009). What does research say about effective practices for
English learners? Introduction and part I: Oral language proficiency. Kappa Delta Pi
Record, 46(1), 10-16.
Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., Fishman, B., Giuliani, S., Luck, M., Underwood, P. S., ... &
Schatschneider, C. (2011). Testing the impact of child characteristics× instruction
interactions on third graders' reading comprehension by differentiating literacy
instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 46(3), 189-221.
Connor, C. M., Morrison, F. J., & Katch, L. E. (2004). Beyond the reading wars: Exploring the
effect of child-instruction interactions on growth in early reading. Scientific Studies of
Reading, 8(4), 305-336.
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (Eds.). (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and
procedures for developing grounded theory. NY; Sage Publications.
Coyne, M. D., McCoach, D. B., Loftus, S., Zipoli Jr., R., Ruby, M., Crevecoeur, Y. C., & Kapp,
S. (2010). Direct and extended vocabulary instruction in kindergarten: Investigating
transfer effects. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 3(2), 93-120.
Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches. NY; Sage Publications.
Cunningham, A. E., Perry, K. E., Stanovich, K. E., & Stanovich, P. J. (2004). Disciplinary
knowledge of K-3 teachers and their knowledge calibration in the domain of early
literacy. Annals of Dyslexia, 54,139–172.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 211
Cunningham, A. E., Zibulsky, J., Stanovich, K. E., & Stanovich, P. J. (2009). How Teachers
Would Spend Their Time Teaching Language Arts The Mismatch Between Self-Reported
and Best Practices. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(5), 418-430.
Cutting, L. E., & Scarborough, H. S. (2006). Prediction of reading comprehension: Relative
contributions of word recognition, language proficiency, and other cognitive skills can
depend on how comprehension is measured. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(3), 277-
299.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy
evidence. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy, University of
Washington.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Solving the Dilemmas of Teacher Supply, Demand, and
Standards: How We Can Ensure a Competent, Caring, and Qualified Teacher for Every
Child. National Commission on Teaching & America's Future, Kutztown Distribution
Center, PO Box 326, Kutztown, PA 19530-0326.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Youngs, P. (2002). Defining" highly qualified teachers": What does"
scientifically-based research" actually tell us?. Educational Researcher, 31(9), 13-25.
Deacon, S. H., & Kirby, J. R. (2004). Morphological awareness: Just "more phonological"? the
roles of morphological and phonological awareness in reading development. Applied
Psycholinguistics, 25(2), 223-238.
Dee, T. S., & Jacob, B. (2011). The impact of No Child Left Behind on student achievement.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(3), 418-446.
de Graaff, S., Bosman, A. M. T., Hasselman, F., & Verhoeven, L. (2009). Benefits of systematic
phonics instruction. Scientific Studies of Reading, 13(4), 318-333.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 212
Devonshire, V., Morris, P., & Fluck, M. (2013). Spelling and reading development: The effect of
teaching children multiple levels of representation in their orthography. Learning and
Instruction, 25, 85-94.
Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the
educative process. New York: D.C. Heath.
Dewitz, P., Jones, J., & Leahy, S. (2009). Comprehension strategy instruction in core reading
programs. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(2), 102-126.
Dole, J. A., Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., & Pearson, P. D. (1991). Moving from the old to the
new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research,
61, 239–264.
Dole, J. A., Nokes, J. D., & Drits, D. (2009). Cognitive strategy instruction. In G. G. Duffy & S.
E. Israel (Eds.), Handbook of research on reading comprehension (pp. 347–372).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
Duffy, G. G. (2002). The case for direct explanation of strategies. In C. C. Block & M. Pressley
(Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 28-41). New
York: Guilford.
Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., Sivan, E., Rackliffe, G., Book, C., Meloth, M. S., ... & Bassiri, D.
(1987). Effects of explaining the reasoning associated with using reading strategies.
Reading Research Quarterly, 347-368.
Duffy, G., Roehler, L., & Herrmann, B. (1988). Modeling mental processes helps poor readers
become strategic readers. The Reading Teacher, 41, 762-67.
Durkin, D. (1978). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension
instruction. Reading research quarterly (1978): 481-533.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 213
Echevarria, J. (1995). Interactive reading instruction: A comparison of proximal and distal
effects of instructional conversations. Exceptional Children, 61(6), 536.
Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. (2004). Making content comprehensible for English
learners: The SIOP model. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Willows, D. M., Schuster, B. V., Yaghoub-Zadeh, Z., & Shanahan, T.
(2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the
National Reading Panel's meta-analysis. Reading research quarterly, 36(3), 250-287.
Ehri, L. C., Satlow, E., & Gaskins, I. (2009). Grapho-phonemic enrichment strengthens keyword
analogy instruction for struggling young readers. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 25(2-3),
162-191.
Ermeling, B. A. (2010). Tracing the effects of teacher inquiry on classroom practice. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 26(3), 377-388.
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Romer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the
acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), 363–406.
Ferguson, N., Currie, L. A., Paul, M., & Topping, K. (2011). The longitudinal impact of a
comprehensive literacy intervention. Educational Research, 53(3), 237-256.
Fellows, K., & Zimpher, N. L. (1988). Reflectivity and the instructional process: A definitional
comparison between theory and practice. Images of reflection in teacher education, 1-19.
Fillmore, L. W., & Snow, C. E. (2000). What teachers need to know about language. US
Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Educational
Resources Information Center.
Fisher, D., & Ivey, G. (2005). Literacy and language as learning in content-area classes: A
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 214
departure from “Every teacher a teacher of reading”. Action in Teacher Education, 27(2),
3-11.
Foorman, B. R., Chen, D. T., Carlson, C., Moats, L., Francis, D. J., & Fletcher, J. M. (2003). The
necessity of the alphabetic principle to phonemic awareness instruction. Reading and
Writing, 16(4), 289-324.
Foorman, B. R., & Moats, L. C. (2004). Conditions for sustaining research-based practices in
early reading instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 25(1), 51-60.
Foorman, B. R., & Petscher, Y. (2010). Development of spelling and differential relations to text
reading in grades 3-12. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 36(1), 7-20.
Francis, D. J., Rivera, M., Lesaux, N., Kieffer, M., & Rivera, H. (2006). Practical guidelines for
the education of English language learners: Research-based recommendations for
instruction and academic interventions. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation,
Center on Instruction.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an
indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical
analysis. Scientific studies of reading, 5(3), 239-256.
Gallant, P., & Schwartz, R. (2009). Examining the nature of expertise in reading
instruction. Literacy Research and Instruction, 49(1), 1-19.
Genzuk, M. (2011). Specially designed academic instruction in English (SDAIE) for language
minority students. Center for Multilingual, Multicultural Research Digital Papers Series.
Center for Multilingual, Multicultural Research, University of Southern California.
Goldschmidt, P., & Phelps, G. (2010). Does teacher professional development affect content and
pedagogical knowledge: How much and for how long?. Economics of Education
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 215
Review, 29(3), 432-439.
Goldenberg, C. (2008). Teaching English language learners: What the research does—and does
not—say. American Educator, 32(2), 8-23, 42-44.
Goldenberg, C. (2011). Reading instruction for English language learners. In M.L. Kamil, P.D.
Pearson, E.B. Moje, and P.P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. IV),
pp. 684-710. New York: Routledge.
Guthrie, J. T., Wigfield, A., Barbosa, P., Perencevich, K. C., Taboada, A., Davis, M. H., . . .
Tonks, S. (2004). Increasing reading comprehension and engagement through concept-
oriented reading instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(3), 403-423.
Gutierrez, K. D., Morales, Z. P., & Martinez, D. C. (2009). Re-mediating literacy: Culture,
difference, and learning for students from non-dominant communities. Review of
Research in Education, 33(1), 212-245.
Hagevik, R., Aydeniz, M., & Rowell, C. G. (2012). Using action research in middle level teacher
education to evaluate and deepen reflective practice. Teaching and Teacher
Education, 28(5), 675-684.
Hall, L. A. (2005). Comprehending expository text: Promising strategies for struggling readers
and students with reading disabilities? Reading Research and Instruction, 44(2), 75-95.
Hatton, N., & Smith, D. (1995). Reflection in teacher education: Towards definition and
implementation. Teaching and teacher education, 11(1), 33-49.
Hayes, L. L., & Robnolt, V. J. (2006). Data-driven professional development: The professional
development plan for a reading excellence act school. Reading Research and Instruction,
46(2), 95-119.
Hayes, K., Rueda, R., & Chilton, S. (2009). Scaffolding Language, Literacy, and Academic
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 216
Content in English and Spanish: The Linguistic Highway from Mesoamerica to Southern
California. English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 8(2), 137-166.
Hemphill, L., & Tivnan, T. (2008). The importance of early vocabulary for literacy achievement
in high-poverty schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 13(4), 426-
451.
Hecht, S. A., Burgess, S. R., Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (2000).
Explaining social class differences in growth of reading skills from beginning
kindergarten through fourth-grade: The role of phonological awareness, rate of access,
and print knowledge. Reading and writing, 12(1-2), 99-128.
Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (2012). Words their way: Word study for phonics,
vocabulary, and spelling instruction. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Jenkins, J. R., Fuchs, L. S., Van Den Broek, P., Espin, C., & Deno, S. L. (2003). Sources of
Individual Differences in Reading Comprehension and Reading Fluency. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 95(4), 719.
Kieffer, M. J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2008). The role of derivational morphology in the reading
comprehension of Spanish-speaking English language learners. Reading and
Writing, 21(8), 783-804.
Kim, Y. S., Petscher, Y., Schatschneider, C., & Foorman, B. (2010). Does growth rate in oral
reading fluency matter in predicting reading comprehension achievement?. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 102(3), 652.
Kirby, J. R., Deacon, S. H., Bowers, P. N., Izenberg, L., Wade-Woolley, L., & Parrila, R. (2012).
Children's morphological awareness and reading ability. Reading and Writing, 25(2),
389-410
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 217
Kirk, C., & Gillon, G. T. (2009). Integrated morphological awareness intervention as a tool for
improving literacy. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40(3), 341-351.
Klinger, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (1999). Promoting reading comprehension, content learning, and e
English acquisition through collaborative strategic reading (CSR). The Reading
Teacher, 52(7), 738-747.
Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., Arguelles, M. E., Hughes, M. T., & Leftwich, S. A. (2004).
Collaborative Strategic Reading “Real-World” Lessons From Classroom Teachers.
Remedial and Special Education, 25(5), 291-302.
Kucan, L., & Beck, I. L. (1997). Thinking aloud and reading comprehension research: Inquiry,
instruction, and social interaction. Review of Educational Research, 67(3), 271-299.
Lai, M. K., McNaughton, S., Timperley, H., & Hsiao, S. (2009). Sustaining continued
acceleration in reading comprehension achievement following an
intervention. Educational Assessment, Evaluation and Accountability (formerly: Journal
of Personnel Evaluation in Education), 21(1), 81-100.
Lampert, M. (1985). How do teachers manage to teach? Perspectives on problems in practice.
Harvard Educational Review, 55(2), 178-194.
Lesaux, N. K., Crosson, A. C., Kieffer, M. J., & Pierce, M. (2010). Uneven profiles: Language
minority learners' word reading, vocabulary, and reading comprehension skills. Journal
of applied developmental psychology, 31(6), 475-483.
Levine, A. (2006). Educating school teachers. Education Schools Project.
Loughran, J. J. (2002). Effective reflective practice in search of meaning in learning about
teaching. Journal of teacher education, 53(1), 33-43.
Loughran, J. J. (2006). Developing a pedagogy of teacher education: Understanding teaching
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 218
and learning about teaching. London; New York: Routledge.
Lyon, G. R., & Weiser, B. (2009). Teacher knowledge, instructional expertise, and the
development of reading proficiency. Journal of learning disabilities, 42(5), 475-480.
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach: An interactive
approach (Vol. 41). Thousand Oaks; CA: Sage Publications.
McCombes-Tolis, J., & Feinn, R. (2008). Comparing teachers’ literacy-related knowledge to
their state’s standards for reading. Reading Psychology, 29, 236–265.
McCutchen, D., Abbott, R. D., Green, L. B., Beretvas, S. N., Cox, S., Potter, N. S., …& Gray, A.
L. (2002). Beginning literacy: Links among teacher knowledge, teacher practice, and
student learning. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 69–86.
McCutchen, D., Green, L., Abbott, R. D., & Sanders, E. A. (2009). Further evidence for teacher
knowledge: Supporting struggling readers in grades three through five. Reading and
Writing, 22(4), 401-423.
McElvain, C. M. (2010). Transactional literature circles and the reading comprehension of
English Learners in the mainstream classroom. Journal of Research in Reading, 33(2),
178-205
McGeown, S. P., & Medford, E. (2013). Using method of instruction to predict the skills
supporting initial reading development: insight from a synthetic phonics
approach. Reading and Writing, 1-18.
McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., & Blake, R. G. K. (2009). Rethinking reading comprehension
instruction: A comparison of instruction for strategies and content approaches. Reading
Research Quarterly, 44(3), 218-253.
Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. San
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 219
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Moats, L. (1994). The missing foundation in teacher education: Knowledge of the structure of
spoken and written language. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 81–102.
Moats, L. C. (1999). Teaching Reading Is Rocket Science: What Expert Teachers of Reading
Should Know and Be Able To Do.
Moats, L. (2009). Knowledge foundations for teaching reading and spelling. Reading and
Writing, 22(4), 379-399.Moats, L. C., & Foorman, B. R. (2003). Measuring teachers’
content knowledge of language and reading. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 23–45.
Moats, L. C., & Foorman, B. R. (2003). Measuring teachers’ content knowledge of language and
reading. Annals of Dyslexia, 53(1), 23-45.
Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching:
Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into
practice, 31(2), 132-141.
Muter, V., Hulme, C., Snowling, M. J., & Stevenson, J. (2004). Phonemes, rimes, vocabulary,
and grammatical skills as foundations of early reading development: evidence from a
longitudinal study. Developmental psychology, 40(5), 665.
Nagy, W., Berninger, V., Abbott, R., Vaughan, K., & Vermeulen, K. (2003). Relationship of
Morphology and Other Language Skills to Literacy Skills in At-Risk Second-Grade
Readers and At-Risk Fourth-Grade Writers. Journal of educational psychology, 95(4),
730.
Nagy, W., Berninger, V. W., & Abbott, R. D. (2006). Contributions of morphology beyond
phonology to literacy outcomes of upper elementary and middle-school students. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 134.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 220
Nation, K., & Angell, P. (2006). Learning to read and learning to comprehend. London Review
of Education, 4(1), 77-87.
Nation, K., & Snowling, M. J. (2004). Beyond phonological skills: Broader language skills
contribute to the development of reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 27(4), 342-
356.
National Center for Education Statistics (2013). NAEP The Nation’s Report Card. Retrieved
from: http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2014451
National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the National Early
Literacy Panel. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School
Officers. (2010). Common Core State Standards for English language arts and literacy in
history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. Washington, DC: Authors.
National Reading Panel (US), National Institute of Child Health, & Human Development (US).
(2000). Report of the national reading panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-
based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for
reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development, National Institutes of Health.
Nelson, J. R., & Stage, S. A. (2007). Fostering the development of vocabulary knowledge and
reading comprehension though contextually-based multiple meaning vocabulary
instruction. Education and Treatment of Children, 30(1), 1-22.
Osipova, A., Prichard, B., Boardman, A. G., Kiely, M. T., & Carroll, P. E. (2011). Refocusing
the Lens: Enhancing Elementary Special Education Reading Instruction Through Video
Self Reflection. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(3), 158-171.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 221
Ouellette, G. P. (2006). What's meaning got to do with it: The role of vocabulary in word reading
and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(3), 554-566.
Pacheco. M., (2010) English-language learners’ reading achievement: Dialectical relationships
between policy and practices in meaning-making opportunities. Reading Research
Quarterly, 45 (3), 292-317.
Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and
comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and instruction, 1(2), 117-175.
Paris, S. G., Cross, D. R., & Lipson, M. Y. (1984). Informed Strategies for Learning: A program
to improve children's reading awareness and comprehension. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 76(6), 1239.
Patton, M.Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Third Edition. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Pearson, P. D. (2009). The roots of reading comprehension instruction. In C.C. Block & M.
Pressley (Beds.), Comprehension Across the Curriculum: Perspectives and Practices in
K-12, 279-314.
Perfetti, C. A., Landi, N., & Oakhill, J. (2005). The Acquisition of Reading Comprehension
Skill. The science of reading: A handbook. Blackwell handbooks of developmental
psychology., (pp. 227-247).
Phelps, G., & Schilling, S. (2004). Developing measures of content knowledge for teaching
reading. The Elementary School Journal, 105, 31–48.
Podhajski, B., Mather, N., Nathan, J., & Sammons, J. (2009). Professional Development in
Scientifically Based Reading Instruction Teacher Knowledge and Reading
Outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(5), 403-417.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 222
Porche, M. V., Pallante, D. H., & Snow, C. E. (2012). Professional Development for Reading
Achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 112(4), 649-671.
Pressley, M. (2002a). Comprehension strategies instruction: A turn-of-the-century status report.
In C. Collins-Block & M. Pressley (Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based
best practices (pp. 11–27). New York: Guilford Press.
Pressley, M., & El-Dinary, P. B. (1997). What we know about translating comprehension
strategies instruction research into practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 486–
488.
Pressley, M. (2006). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching (3rd ed.).
New York: Guilford Press.
Quirk, M., & Beem, S. (2012). Examining the relations between reading fluency and reading
comprehension for English language learners. Psychology in the Schools, 49(6), 539-553.
RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Towards an R&D program in
reading comprehension. Retrieved from:
http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2005/MR1465.pdf
Rasinski, T., Rikli, A., & Johnston, S. (2009). Reading fluency: More than automaticity? More
than a concern for the primary grades?. Literacy Research and Instruction, 48(4), 350-
361.
Reese, L., Thompson, S. L., & Goldenberg, C. (2008). Variability in community characteristics
and Spanish-speaking children's home language and literacy opportunities. Journal of
Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 29(4), 271-290.
Reis, S. M., McCoach, D. B., Little, C. A., Muller, L. M., & Kaniskan, R. B. (2011). The effects
of differentiated instruction and enrichment pedagogy on reading achievement in five
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 223
elementary schools. American Educational Research Journal, 48(2), 462-501.
Richardson, V., Anders, P., Tidwell, D., & Lloyd, C. (1991). The relationship between teachers’
beliefs and practices in reading comprehension instruction. American educational
research journal, 28(3), 559-586.
Ricketts, J., Nation, K., & Bishop, D. V. (2007). Vocabulary is important for some, but not all
reading skills. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(3), 235-257.
Risko, V. J., Vukelich, C., & Roskos, K. (2002). Preparing Teachers for Reflective Practice:
Intentions, Contradictions, and Possibilities. Language Arts, 80(2), 134-44.
Rodgers, C. R., & Raider-Roth, M. B. (2006). Presence in teaching. Teachers and Teaching:
theory and practice, 12(3), 265-287.
Roehrig, A. D., Petscher, Y., Nettles, S. M., Hudson, R. F., & Torgesen, J. K. (2008). Not just
speed reading: Accuracy of the DIBELS oral reading fluency measure for predicting
high-stakes third grade reading comprehension outcomes. Journal of School Psychology,
46, 343–366.
Rueda, R. (2011). The 3 Dimensions of Improving Student Performance: Finding the Right
Solutions to the Right Problems. Teachers College Press. 1234 Amsterdam Avenue, New
York, NY 10027.
Rueda, R., Velasco, A., & Lim, H. J. (2008). Comprehension instruction for English
learners. Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices, 294-308.
Ripley, W. H., Blair, T. R., & Nichols, W. D. (2009). Effective reading instruction for struggling
readers: The role of direct/explicit teaching. Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming
Learning Difficulties, 25(2-3), 125-138.
Ryder, J. F., Tunmer, W. E., & Greaney, K. T. (2008). Explicit instruction in phonemic
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 224
awareness and phonemically based decoding skills as an intervention strategy for
struggling readers in whole language classrooms. Reading and Writing, 21(4), 349-369.
Schön, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner (pp. 153-199). San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (Eds.). (1998). Self-regulated learning: From teaching to
self-reflective practice. New York: Guilford Press.
Shulman, L. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational
Researcher, 15, 4–14.
Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard
Educational Review, 57, 1–22.
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in
young children. Committee on the prevention of reading difficulties in young children.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Snow, C., Griffin, P., & Burns, M. S. (Eds.). (2007). Knowledge to support the teaching of
reading: Preparing teachers for a changing world. San Francisco: Jossy-Bass.
Spear-Swerling, L., Bruckner, P. O., & Alfano, M. P. (2005). Teachers’ literacy-related
knowledge and self-perceptions in relation to preparation and experience. Annals of
Dyslexia, 55(2), 266-296.
Stahl, K. (2004). Proof, practice, and promise: Comprehension strategy instruction in the primary
grades. The Reading Teacher, 57(7), 598–609.
Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P. D., Peterson, D. S., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2003). Reading growth in
high-poverty classrooms: The influence of teacher practices that encourage cognitive
engagement in literacy learning. The Elementary School Journal, 3-28.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 225
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.
Taylor, B. M., Peterson, D. S., Pearson, P. D., & Rodriguez, M. C. (2002). Looking inside
classrooms: Reflecting on the" how" as well as the" what" in effective reading
instruction. The Reading Teacher, 270-279.
Teacher Prep Review: A Review of the Nation's Teacher Preparation Programs, (2014). National
Council on Teacher Quality.
Tobin, R., & McInnes, A. (2007). Meeting many needs: Differentiated instruction in Language
Arts classrooms. Thinking Classroom, 8(4), 35-43.
Tobin, R., & McInnes, A. (2008). Accommodating differences: Variations in differentiated
literacy instruction in grade 2/3 classrooms. Literacy, 42(1), 3-9.
Tomlinson, C. A. (1999). The Differentiated Classroom: Responding to the Needs of All
Learners. ASCD.
Tomlinson, C. A., & McTighe, J. (2006). Integrating differentiated instruction and
understanding by design. ASCD.
U.S. Department of Education Elementary and Secondary Act (2002). Retrieved from
http://www.ed.gov/esea.
Valli, L. (1997). Listening to other voices: A description of teacher reflection in the United
States. Peabody journal of Education, 72(1), 67-88.
Vellutino, F. R., Tunmer, W. E., Jaccard, J. J., & Chen, R. (2007). Components of reading
ability: Multivariate evidence for a convergent skills model of reading
development. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(1), 3-32.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 226
Verhoeven, L., van Leeuwe, J., & Vermeer, A. (2011). Vocabulary growth and reading
development across the elementary school years. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15(1), 8-
25.
Ward, J. R., & McCotter, S. S. (2004). Reflection as a visible outcome for preserve
teachers. Teaching and teacher education, 20(3), 243-257.
White, T. G. (2005). Effects of systematic and strategic analogy-based phonics on grade 2
students' word reading and reading comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 40(2),
234-255.
Williams, J. P., Hall, K. M., Lauer, K. D., Stafford, K. B., Desist, L. A., & decani, J. S. (2005).
Expository Text Comprehension in the Primary Grade Classroom. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 97(4), 538.
Wold, L. S. (2003). An examination of teachers’ “learning to act on reflection.” Literacy
Research and Instruction, 42(3), 52-74.
Yost, D. S., Sentner, S. M., & Forlenza-Bailey, A. (2000). An examination of the construct of
critical reflection: Implications for teacher education programming in the 21st
century. Journal of teacher education, 51(1), 39-49.
Zeichner, K. M., & Liston, D. P. (1996). Reflective teaching. An introduction. Reflective
teaching and the social conditions of schooling. New York; Routledge
Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into
practice, 41(2), 64-70.
.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 227
Appendix A
Informed Consent for Non-medical Research
Teacher Self-Reflective Practices

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Madeleine Mejia from the
University of Southern California, Rossier School of Education under the supervision of Dr.
Eugenia Mora-Flores. Your participation is voluntary. Please read the information below and
feel free to ask any questions about anything that you do not understand before deciding whether
you would like to participate. Take as much time as you need to read over the consent form.
You can discuss whether this invitation with your family or friends. You can keep this form for
your records.

Participation is voluntary.

Purpose of the Study
This purpose of this study is to examine the processes and practices teachers use to engage in
self-reflection and to determine the level of depth of their self-analysis when teaching reading
comprehension.

Study Procedures
If you agree to participate you will be asked to complete an online survey, depending on your
responses in the survey, you may also be asked to participate in a one-on-one face-to-face
interview, as well as allowing the researcher to observe you teaching reading comprehension in
your classroom. The researcher will take notes on the type of reading comprehension provided
by you (the teacher). The classroom observations will take place during reading comprehension
instructional block and will last about one hour. These observations will be followed by a post-
lesson debrief where you will be discuss how the lesson went.

Potential Benefits to Participants and/or Society
You may not directly benefit from your participation in this study. It is hoped that this study will
offer potential benefits to the field of teacher education in reading comprehension instruction.
Findings from the study will be used to create professional development programs that support
teachers as they teach reading comprehension in their classrooms.

Confidentiality
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential.
Your responses will be coded with a false name (pseudonym) and maintained separately. Audio-
tapes of one-on-one interviews will be destroyed once they have been transcribed.

Required language:
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.

SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 228

Participation and Withdrawal
Your participation is voluntary and you will be compensated with a $10 gift card for your
cooperation. You refusal to participate will not involve any penalty or loss of benefits to which
you are entitled otherwise. You may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue without
penalty. You are not waiving any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your participation
in this research study.

Investigator’s Contact Information
If you have any questions or concerns about the research, please contact Madeleine Mejia via
email at madeleine.mejia@usc.edu

IRB Contact Information
The University Park Institutional Review Board (UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street # 301, Los
Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or upirb@usc.edu

SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 229
Appendix B
Teaching Reading Comprehension Survey

Introduction:
My name is Madeleine Mejia and I am currently a doctoral student at USC Rossier of Education.
The focus of my study is on the self-reflection process teachers engage in when teaching
comprehension monitoring strategies.

The purpose of this survey is to gather information about you as a teacher and your experiences
when teaching reading comprehension. Specifically, I would like to learn: (a) how long you have
been teaching, (b) how often you receive professional development in reading comprehension
instruction, and (c) what you feel are your areas of strength in reading comprehension
instruction.

My study’s ultimate goal is to create practical and useful professional development programs
that support teachers’ knowledge of comprehension instruction.

Your comments will be confidential. Your name, school, grade level you teach or any other
personal information about you will not be shared with anyone--a pseudonym will be used.

The survey should take approximately 30 minutes.

I. Background

1. Please enter the name of your school [fill in space]

2. Please enter your classroom number [fill in space]

3. How long have you been a teacher? [drop down menu] 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10+

4. How long have you been teaching 4
th
grade? [drop down menu] 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10+

5. Please select the highest level of education you have reached. [drop down menu]
Bachelor, Master Degree, Doctoral Degree

II. Professional Development

6. How often do you receive professional development or training in reading instruction?
[drop down menu] one a week, once a month, once a quarter, once a year

7. What kind of professional development or training have you had or have you received in
reading comprehension instruction? [drop down menu] Training provided by a school
colleague, Training provided by a literacy coach, Training provided by a literacy
consultant, Training provided by the school district,
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 230

8. Please enter the content of training. [fill in space]

9. Do you participate in any professional learning communities (PLC) at your school site?
[drop down menu] Yes, No, I am not familiar with PLCs

10. If yes, please list the content discussed in these PLCs [fill in space]

III. Teaching Reading Comprehension

11. What would you say is your level of experience in teaching reading comprehension?
For example: Expert, Proficient, Basic Ability, No Ability or No Experience [open-ended
question]

12. What would you say is your level of experience teaching reading comprehension
strategies? For example: Expert, Proficient, Basic Ability, No Ability or No Experience
[open-ended question]

13. What do you feel are your areas of strength when teaching reading comprehension to
your students? [fill in space]

14. Based on what you know about reading instruction, is there any additional professional
development you are interested in obtaining to enhance your teaching practices? [drop
down menu]
Yes, No, Not sure

15. If you indicated, Yes or Not sure, please provide more information [fill in space]

Thank you for your participation.

SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 231
Appendix C
Teacher Interview Protocol: Reading Comprehension and Self-reflection

Interviewer:______________________ Date:___________________

Interviewee Code: _____________________ School:__________________

Start Time:____________ End Time: _____________

Introduction:
Hello, my name is Madeleine Mejia and I am currently a doctoral student at USC Rossier of
Education. The focus of my studies is on teachers’ self-reflective practices and decision-making
processes when teaching reading comprehension.

During this conversation, I hope to learn more about you as a teacher and your experiences with
teaching reading comprehension. Specifically, I would like to learn how you approach your
lesson planning and teaching process before, during and after teaching reading comprehension;
what influences your decisions when planning and teaching a lesson, your students’ role in your
classroom, and any additional professional development you are interested in obtaining. My
study’s ultimate goal is to create practical and useful professional development programs in
reading comprehension and self-reflective practices for other teachers to implement in their
classrooms.

Your comments will be confidential. Your name, school, grade level you teach or any other
personal information about you will not be shared with anyone. I will use pseudonyms. With
your permission, I would like to tape record this interview in order to have an accurate record of
our conversation. I will be the only one able to review this recording to ensure your answers,
thoughts, and feedback to the questions I have asked are transcribed appropriately. The audio recording
will be destroyed once transcribed. Please let me know if you agree to have this conversation tape
recorded. Please kindly sign this permission form (hand the participant the permission form and
have him/her sign it)

The interview should take approximately 30 minutes. Do you have any questions before we
begin?

Reading and Learning to Read
To get a sense of you as a teacher, I would like to know more about your teaching practices.
Specifically, I would like to learn how you approach your lesson planning and teaching process
before, during and after teaching; and what influences your decisions when planning and
teaching a reading comprehension lesson.

1. What is your teaching philosophy of reading comprehension?

2. What is your goal(s) when teaching a reading comprehension lesson?

SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 232
3. How often do you plan lessons to teach reading comprehension? [probe: every day, twice
a week, three times a week, once a week, use the school’s adopted reading program]

4. What is your process when planning a reading comprehension lesson (i.e., how do you
start planning a lesson?

5. When a student enters into grade, what should that student be able to do in terms of
reading? [Probe-your conviction, not what the program expects.]

6. When that student leaves grade 4, what can s/he do? So, how has that student learned to
read up to grade 4?

7. What does a good reader do?

8. What accounts for the differences between a good and poor reader? [Probe-parents? good
teaching?]

9. Is it possible for a teacher or other person to help a poor reader become a good reader?

10. How do you define reading comprehension? What is included in that?
The School:
11. Do you feel that there is a specific way of teaching reading comprehension in this school?

12. Do you know what the other teachers are doing? How do you know?

13. Do you ever observe in other classrooms?

14. Do you exchange materials, ideas, methods with other teachers? [Probe: Do you
communicate with other teachers about teaching reading? Other specialists, like
reading/literacy coaches?]

The Students:
15. Describe the students in your class.

16. Describe a student who is having great difficulty in reading. [Probe-cause? what is
teacher doing about it?]

17. Describe a student who is just slightly behind in reading. [Probe- cause?]

18. Describe a student who is really doing well. [Probe-cause?]
Reading Instruction:
19. Could you describe the way you teach reading comprehension? [Probe-typical day?
reading out loud? Objective-vocabulary? remembering ideas? memorizing facts?
Questioning students-why? what is a good response? what is a poor response? what is a
creative response? Where did you learn to teach reading that way?]
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 233

20. How do you plan instruction for a good reader? a student who is having difficulty with
reading?

21. Have you ever had in-service/graduate courses on how to teach reading?

22. Have you ever tried something different? Why? What happened?

23. Have you ever wanted to do something different?
Grouping:

24. How do you group students in your classroom? Why do you use grouping? [Probe-do you
change the groups? why?]

25. Have you ever tried to teach the whole group? Under what conditions would you do so?

26. Do you do different things in the different groups? Why?

27. What indicates to you that a lesson is going poorly?

28. How is teaching reading different from teaching math? from teaching science or social
studies? from teaching writing? Probe-more/less difficult? less clarity about objectives?

29. Do you ever feel like your students are getting behind in reading?
Closing statement
Thank you very much for taking the time to speak with me today. The information you have
provided will be very helpful as I move forward with my study.

Questions adapted from:
Richardson, V., Anders, P., Tidwell, D., & Lloyd, C. (1991). The relationship between
teachers’ beliefs and practices in reading comprehension instruction. American
educational research journal, 28(3), 559-586.

SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 234
Appendix D
Classroom Observation Protocol

Interviewer:__________________________ Date:___________________

Interviewee Code: _____________________ School:__________________

Start Time:____________ End Time: _____________

# of Students: _______________ # of Female __________ # of Male ____________

Diagram of Classroom Layout
Front

Back
Notes:

SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 235

Time Notes Comments

SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 236
Instructional Snapshot Checklist:

Is the Learning Objective:

___ Evident to students ___ Not evident to students ___Unable to determine

Instructional Strategies used to Teach Reading Comprehension (circle all that apply)

Centers/ Stations

Cooperative learning

Explicit think-alouds of
thinking processes

Feedback provided

Interactive discussion

Lecture

Presentation

Project/lab

Providing directions

Re-teaching

Review/ Closure

Student-led discussions

Teacher directed Q&A

Teacher-led

Testing

Teacher walks around to
check student work

Student Action

Reading

Listening

Talking

Practicing Reading
Strategies

Working with hands-on
materials

Student Grouping

Whole Group

Small Group

Paired

Individual

Other

Bloom’s Taxonomy (circle all that apply)

Evaluation: Make judgments and justify answers/positions
Synthesis: Put information together in new ways
Analysis: Break down information in new ways
Application: Use information in new ways
Comprehension: Understand information
Knowledge: Recall Information

SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 237
The following rating scale is from Duffy et al., (1986) study on explicit instruction of reading
comprehension strategies.

How explicitly does the teacher model how to do the mental processing to be used in completing
the task?
- The teacher does not model the mental processing.
- The teacher tries to model the mental processing but it is unclear or inconsistent.
2 - The teacher provides a clear model of how to do the mental processing.

How explicitly does the teacher direct students’ attention to the features to attend to when doing
the mental processing (by providing highlights, cues, etc.?
- The teacher does not model the mental processing.
- There is some evidence that the teacher highlights or cues, but it is not explicit or clear or
consistent.
- The teacher explicitly highlights or cues students to the features of the mental processing.

How explicitly does the teacher’s feedback to student responses re-focus attention and/or
elaborate on how to do the mental processing required to complete the task?
- The teacher’s feedback to students is confined to correctness criteria, and/or there is little
evidence of specific or elaborative responses to students, and /or the teacher’s feedback is
confusing.
– Teacher’s feedback to students is intended to focus (or re-focus) students on how to do the
mental processing but is not explicit or consistent.
- Teacher feedback to students focuses on how to do the mental processing, and when confusion
arises, the teacher re-focuses student attention through appropriate elaboration.

How explicitly does the teacher review with students what mental process is being taught, its use
in connected text, and how do you do it?
– The teacher provides no review.
– The teacher’s review is incomplete (does not include what and why and how) or is not explicit.
- The teacher provides explicit review of all three points.

Does the teacher provide students with independent or guided practice in using the mental
processing?
– The teacher does not provide practice, or it is not appropriate to the mental processing.
– The teacher provides practice, but it is not totally relevant to and/or appropriate for the mental
processing that is taught.
- The practice provided by the teacher calls for repeated opportunities to use the mental
processing that is taught.

Does the teacher help students apply the mental processing in connected text (i.e., basal text
stories or real life situations where the mental processing would be helpful) or talk to students
about doing such guided application in the near future?
– The teacher does not explicitly help students apply the mental processing in the connected texts
and does not talk about doing so in the near future.
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 238
– The teacher attempts to help students apply the mental processing to connected text (or talks
about doing so in the near future), but such help is not clear or explicit.
- The teacher provides explicit help students in applying the mental processing to connected
texts.

Accountable Talk
Accountable Talk and Talk moves are well-described in Accountable TalkSM CD (2002)
produced by Institute for Learning (IFL)/LRDC.

Accountability to Learning Community (ALC)

Teacher’s Linking (T:L) To what extent does the
teacher explicitly link
different people’s
ideas?
John, did you hear what Ann just
said? Can you repeat that in your own
words?
Who agrees/disagrees with what Ann
just said?
Who wants to add on what Ann just
said?
Student’s linking (S:L) To what extent does the
student explicitly link
different people’s
ideas?
I want to add on to what Ann said...
I agree with you because...

Accountability to Accurate Knowledge (AKK)

Teacher’s Asking for
Knowledge (T:K)

To what extent does the
teacher press the
students to support
their ideas with
evidence based on the
text?
How do you know that?
Can you give me some examples?
Where did you find that information?
Can you show me which part of the
text tells you that information?
What do you mean?
Student’s Providing
Knowledge (S:K)

To what extent do the
students support their
ideas with evidence
based on the text?

I know that because it says here...

Accountability to Rigorous Thinking (ART)

Teacher’s Asking for
Rigorous Thinking
(T:Th)

To what extent does the
teacher press the
students to explain
their thinking?
Why do you think that?
Can you explain that more?
Say more about that.
Student’s Providing with
Rigorous Thinking
(S:Th)

To what extent do the
students explain their
thinking?

I think because...

SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 239

Appendix E
Post-Lesson Conversation Protocol

Interviewer:______________________ Date:___________________

Interviewee: _____________________ School:__________________

Lesson No. _______________________

Start Time:____________ End Time: _____________

I. Lesson Debrief

1. Tell me about the lesson?

2. What were your goals and objectives for this lesson?

3. What’s your overall impression of how the lesson went? [Probes: what when well? How
do you know? Can you provide some examples?]

4. Do you think your students understood the directions for the tasks in the lesson? How did
you know?

5. What worked well when you gave directions or explained tasks? [Probe: What techniques
did you use to ensure the students understood the content?] What would you have done
differently?

6. How did you feel about the pacing of the lesson? Did the lesson go as you had planned it?
Why or why not? Where might you have spent less time or more time?

7. Was there anything that happened that was unexpected in the lesson?

8. Are there any changes you would have made to your lesson?

9. Now that you have taught the lesson, are there any things that you wish you had done
differently to prepare for the lesson?

II. Student engagement

10. Do you think students understood the content presented? How do you know? How might
you have gained a better understanding of what they know?

SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 240
11. What activities seemed most meaningful to students? What was it about these activities
that made them meaningful?

12. When do you think the students were most engaged in the lesson? When were they the
least?

13. What was it about this lesson that was especially engaging (or not engaging)? What
might you have done to get students more engaged?

14. How do you think the ______ (e.g. technique-visuals/ modeling/ demonstrations/ /hands-
on activities) you used helped make the content clear?

15. How do you think the feedback you provided benefited students? Was there some
feedback that you felt was more beneficial than others? Which kind and why?

III. Accommodations

16. Did you make any changes to your lesson plan when you were teaching? What prompted
these changes?

17. What accommodations did you make to meet the needs of all your students, specifically
for diverse students? [Probe: can you provide examples of how you use differentiate
instruction in your classroom?]

18. How did the adaptations you made support your students’ understanding of the content?
[Probes: What do you think specifically helped your Els? Why? Can you think of other
adaptations now that may have been helpful?]

19. What other supplementary materials could you have brought into the lesson to further
enhance students’ understanding of the content? How might these materials have helped
your students?

IV. Interactive Discussions

20. What percent of the time do you think was teacher-talk about the content? What percent
was teacher-student talk? What percent was student-student talk? How would you like
this to change in future lessons?

21. How could you have created more opportunities for students to discuss and elaborate on
concepts?

22. How did you incorporate wait time to support students, especially your ELLs? Did it
seem to work? What indications did you get that it helped?

SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 241
23. What kinds of grouping configurations do you think were used effectively in the lesson?
How do you think each of these helped support student learning? How did they help
students practice or better understand the lesson objectives?

V. Next steps

24. What might you try again next time?

25. What will you change for the next lesson? Why?

Thank you for your participation.

Questions adapted from:

Echevarria, J., Vogt, M., & Short, D. (2004). Making content comprehensible for English
learners: The SIOP model. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 242
Appendix F
Prompts of Depth and Complexity

SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 243
Appendix G
Content Imperatives

SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 244
Appendix H
The Cornell Note-taking System

The Cornell note-taking system was devised in the 1950s by Dr. Walter Pauk, an education
professor at Cornell University. This note-taking system is used to organize notes and to increase
comprehension and critical thinking of concepts introduced.

Cue Column Note-taking Column

1. Record: During the lecture, use the note taking column to record the
lecture using telegraphic sentences.

2. Questions: As soon after class as possible, formulate questions
based on the notes in the right-hand column. Writing questions helps
to clarify meanings, reveal relationships, establish continuity, and
strengthen memory. Also, the writing of questions sets up a perfect
stage for exam-studying later.

3. Recite: Cover the note taking column with a sheet of paper. Then,
looking at the questions or cue-words in the question and cue
column only, say aloud, in your own words, the answers to the
questions, facts, or ideas indicated by the cue-words.

4. Reflect: Reflect on the material by asking yourself questions, for
example: “What’s the significance of these facts? What principle are
they based on? How can I apply them? How do they fit in with what
I already know? What’s beyond them?

5. Review: Spend at least ten minutes every week reviewing all your
previous notes. If you do, you’ll retain a great deal for current use, as
well as, for the exam.

Summary
After class, use this space at the bottom of each page to summarize the notes on that page.

SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 245
Appendix I
Notice and Note Sign-Posts

SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 246
Appendix J
Students’ Annotations of Sign-Posts

SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 247
Appendix K
Ms. Martin’s PLC Color Coded Calendar

SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 248
Appendix L
Mrs. Clark’s Notes to Plan Lessons

SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 249
Appendix M
Ms. Martin Self-Reflective Journal

SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 250
Appendix N
Self-Reflection Rubric
Levels Routine
Self-disengaged from
change
Technical
Instrumental response
to specific situations
without changing
perspective
Dialogic
Inquiry part of a
process involving
cycles of situated
questions and action,
consideration for
others’ perspectives,
new insights
Transformative
Fundamental
questions and change
Focus (What is
the focus of
concerns about
practice?)
Focus is on self-
centered concerns
(how does this affect
me?) or issues that do
not involve a
personal stake.
Primary concerns
may include control
of students, time and
workload, gaining
recognition for
personal success
(including grades),
avoiding blame for
failure.
Focus is on specific
teaching tasks such as
planning and
management, but
does not consider
connections between
teaching issues. Uses
assessment and
observations to mark
success or failure
without evaluating
specific qualities of
student learning for
formative purposes.
Focus is on students.
Uses assessment and
interactions with
students to interpret
how or in what ways
students are learning
in order to help them.
Especially concerned
with struggling
students.
Focus is on personal
involvement
fundamental
pedagogical, ethical,
moral, cultural or
historical concerns
and how these impact
students and others.

Inquiry (What
is the process of
inquiry?)
Questions about
needed
personal change are
not asked or implied;
often not
acknowledging
problems or blaming
problems on others or
limited time and
resources. Critical
questions and
analysis are limited to
critique of
others. Analysis tends
to be definitive and
generalized.
Questions are asked
by
oneself about specific
situations or are
implied by
frustration,
unexpected results,
exciting results, or
analysis that indicates
the issue is complex.
Stops asking
questions
after initial problem
is addressed.
Situated questions lead
to new questions.
Questions are asked
with others, with open
consideration of new
ideas. Seeks the
perspectives of
students,
peers, and others.
Long-term ongoing
inquiry including
engagement with
model mentors,
critical friends,
critical texts,
students, careful
examination of
critical incidents, and
student learning.
Asks hard questions
that challenge
personally held
assumptions.
Change (How
does the inquiry
change practice
and
perspective?)
Analysis of practice
without personal
response—as if
analysis is done for
its own sake or as if
there is a distance
between self and the
situation.
Personally responds
to a situation, but
does not use the
situation to
change perspective.
Synthesizes situated
inquiry to develop new
insights about teaching
or learners or about
personal teaching
strengths and
weaknesses leading to
improvement of
practice.
A transformative
reframing of
perspective leading to
fundamental change
of practice.

Ward, J.R. & McCotter, S.S. (2004). Reflection as a visible outcome for preservice teachers, Teacher and Teacher
Education 20, 243-257
SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 251
Appendix O
Lesson Objective and Sample Chart
Students in Mrs. Lewis used to record the Notice and Note Sign-Posts in Lunch Money

Objective: Today I will be able to talk about all of the Sign-Posts I have noticed in Lunch
Money by Andrew Clemens, so that I can explain my understanding of the importance of the
book. I know I am successful when I have recorded my evidence and ideas on a chart.

Sign-Post Evidence Page # Ideas and Thoughts

SELF-REFLECTION AND READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION 252
Appendix P
Sign-Post Charts with Guiding Questions in Mrs. Clark’s Classroom

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this study was to examine the processes and practices teachers use to engage in self-reflection of reading comprehension instruction. The aim was to determine the nature of self-reflection on instructional decisions. Five 4th grade experienced teachers participated in the study. Participants responded to a teacher survey, participated in one-on-one interviews, were observed teaching three to five reading comprehension lessons, and discussed their teaching practices during post-lesson conversations. A grounded theory approach was used to analyze data findings. Findings from the study suggest that using a systematic approach to engage in self-reflection helps teachers develop an accurate understanding of their professional knowledge in reading comprehension instruction. Teachers who consistently engaged in self-reflection were also aware of their professional knowledge needs and actively sought guidance, coaching, and feedback from expert others to continue to develop their expertise in reading instruction. The study also revealed that teachers who engaged in self-reflection demonstrated the dispositions of open-mindedness, sense of responsibility, and wholeheartedness that supported a close review of instructional practices and led to a deeper understanding of students’ and professional knowledge needs. Recommendations based on these findings include providing teachers with the structure and space to engage in quality self-reflection, and providing differentiated professional development to foster self-reflection as an on-going and sustainable practice.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Effective reading instruction for English learners

PDF

Play, read, learn: building young Black males literacy skills through an activity-based intervention

PDF

School connectedness and teacher reflective practices

PDF

A dialogic reading intervention for parents of children with Down syndrome

PDF

Math and science academy literacy instruction: student study strategies, self-perception as readers, and reading achievement

PDF

Explicit instruction’s impact on the student achievement gap in K-12 English language learners

PDF

Support for English learners: an examination of the impact of teacher education and professional development on teacher efficacy and English language instruction

PDF

Examining the applications of data-driven decision making on classroom instruction

PDF

Factors influencing teachers' differentiated curriculum and instructional choices and gifted and non-gifted students' self-perceptions

PDF

How effective professional development in differentiated instruction can save Hawaii's Catholic schools

PDF

The relationship between ethnicity, self-efficacy, and beliefs about diversity to instructional and transformational leadership practices of urban school principals

PDF

Narrowing the English learner achievement gap through teacher professional learning and cultural proficiency: an evaluation study

PDF

Building academic vocabulary for English language learners through professional development: a gap analysis

PDF

Improving early grade reading instruction in Ghana: a discrepancy gap analysis

PDF

Teacher perceptions of instructional practices for long-term English learners

PDF

A comparative study of language arts instruction in triply segregated high schools

PDF

Teachers’ knowledge of gifted students and their perceptions of gifted services in public elementary schooling

PDF

The relationships between teacher beliefs about diversity and opportunities for culturally and linguistically diverse students, reflectiveness, and teacher self-efficacy

PDF

Reflective practice and pre-service language teacher preparation

PDF

Linking theory and practice in teacher education: an analysis of the reflective-inquiry approach to preparing teachers to teach in urban schools

Asset Metadata

Creator Mejia, Madeleine (author)

Core Title Self-reflective practices and procedures to systematically examine reading comprehension instruction

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 04/16/2015

Defense Date 03/11/2015

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,Reading,reading comprehension,reading comprehension instruction,reading instruction,self-reflection

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Mora-Flores, Eugenia (committee chair), Perez, Mayra (committee member), Rueda, Robert (committee member)

Creator Email madeleine.mejia@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c3-550001

Unique identifier UC11298599

Identifier etd-MejiaMadel-3310.pdf (filename),usctheses-c3-550001 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-MejiaMadel-3310.pdf

Dmrecord 550001

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Mejia, Madeleine

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