University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Inside out: teacher factors that assist in the facilitation of the implementation of early literacy interventions for at-risk first graders in an urban school

(USC Thesis Other)

Inside out: teacher factors that assist in the facilitation of the implementation of early literacy interventions for at-risk first graders in an urban school

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INSIDE OUT: TEACHER FACTORS THAT ASSIST IN THE FACILITATION OF
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF EARLY LITERACY INTERVENTIONS FOR AT-
RISK FIRST GRADERS IN AN URBAN SCHOOL
By
Marta Reinoso-Lasley
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
December 2006
Copyright 2006 Marta Reinoso-Lasley
ii
DEDICATION
This dissertation is dedicated to my family.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
It is with tremendous gratitude that I acknowledge family members, friends,
and colleagues who shared in this academic journey of research and the completion
of this dissertation.
First, I would like to thank my husband, Tony Lasley, for his unconditional
love, support, and laughter throughout this process; my son Jack Lasley for serving
as my inspiration for completing this work; my parents for their unwavering
confidence in me and for a place to live while I conducted my research; my siblings
and friends for their continual support and patience; and my wonderfully supportive
in-laws, Dick and Dede Lasley who were consistently willing to assist Tony, Jack
and me in any way possible throughout this process.
Second, I am deeply grateful to, Dr. Gisele Ragusa, the committee
Chairperson, for her dedication and expertise regarding this work as well as her
encouragement to go beyond what I thought was possible—through her prompting,
important revisions to this document took place and made it more valuable to the
research community. Many thanks to Dr. Robert Rueda for his guidance and
meaningful suggestions; I believe the completion of the dissertation is largely a
result of his input. A deep felt thanks to Dr. Kimberly Hirabayashi who provided me
with invaluable feedback and guidance with regard to the details of this work.
Additional gratitude to Diane Haager who availed me the opportunity of
working on her grant, Project PLUS, for allowing me access to project data, and for
professional guidance. I would also like to thank Michelle Windmueller, Project
iv
Coordinator of Project PLUS, for her sense of humor, friendship, encouragement,
and helpfulness throughout the course of this project.
Lastly, I would like to thank the classroom teachers, resource teachers, and
school site administrators for their participation in the study. With their
involvement, I was able to gain insight into the factors that contribute to the
facilitation of implementation of early literacy interventions for at-risk first graders
in an urban school.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
LIST OF TABLES viii
LIST OF FIGURES ix
ABSTRACT x
CHAPTER 1 1
THE PROBLEM 1
Introduction 1
Project Partnership Linking University / School Personnel (PLUS) 6
Statement of the Problem 7
Purpose of the Study 10
Importance of the study 11
Assumptions 11
Delimitations 13
Limitations 14
Definitions of Terms 15
Organization of the Study 22
CHAPTER 2 24
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 24
Introduction 24
Theoretical Framework 31
Studies on the Implementation of Early Literacy Interventions 35
Summary of Findings from the Implementation Studies 44
Studies of Teachers’ Methodological Preference to Reading Instruction 47
Summary of Findings from the Studies of Teachers’ Methodological
Preference to Reading Instruction 56
Conclusion 57
CHAPTER 3 60
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 60
Introduction 60
Project Partnership Linking University / School Personnel (PLUS) 62
Participants 66
vi
Instrumentation 68
Procedures 73
Data Analysis 77
Analysis of the First Research Question 82
Self-Reported Implementation 90
Analysis of the Second Research Question 91
Analysis of the Third Research Question 92
Summary 94
CHAPTER 4 96
FINDINGS 96
Introduction 96
Case Study Descriptions 96
Case Study Participant: Regina 96
Case Study Participant: Barbara 104
Case Study Participant: Tanya 113
Case Study Participant: Irma 125
Case Study Participant: Sandy 135
Case Study Participant: Marcie 144
Emergent Domains and Characteristics Defined 155
Domain I: Teacher Adaptation Process 156
Domain II: Student Dynamics 160
Domain III: Teacher Attributes 162
Cross Case Analysis of How Teachers Implemented Project
Interventions: Emergent Characteristics Across Case 166
Emergent Characteristics Across Case 166
Domain I: Teacher Adaptation Process 166
Domain II: Student Dynamics 182
Domain III: Teacher Attributes 185
Cross Case Analysis of Teachers’ Methodological Preference to
Reading Instruction and Implementation of Project Interventions 188
Introduction of User Types 189
Methodological Preference to Reading Instruction 195
Compatibility of Methodology to Interventions 198
Emergent Pattern Across Case and Determinants 199
Self-Reported Implementation of Project PLUS Early Literacy
Interventions 202
Self-Reported Implementation Across Other Determinants 203
CHAPTER 5 205
DISCUSSION 205
Introduction 205
vii
Overview of Study Findings 205
Discussion 206
Teacher Participants’ Methodological Preference to Reading
Instruction and Implementation of Project Interventions 218
Conclusion 229
Implications for the Researcher 231
Implications for Teacher Education Programs 233
Implications for the Practitioner 235
Implications for Professional Development 239
Implications for School Administrators 242
Implications for Research on Student Achievement 244
Implications For Future Research 244
Summary 246
REFERENCES 248
APPENDICES 264
Appendix A 264
Appendix B 266
Appendix C 272
Appendix D 274
Appendix E 275
Appendix F 276
Appendix G 277
Appendix H 278
Appendix I 279
Appendix J 280
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Project PLUS First Grade DIBELS Measures with Benchmark Levels 65
Table 2: Overview of Case Study Participants’ Teaching Experience
and Ethnicity 68
Table 3: Overview of Participants’ Scheduled Intervention Observation Dates 75
Table 4: Data Collection Schedule 76
Table 5: Overview of the Application of Instrumentation to Research Questions 81
Table 6: Overview of Data Collection for Descriptive Purposes 82
Table 7: Overview of Data Collection and Analysis Procedures For Research
Questions 93
Table 8: Overview of Teacher Participants’ Achieved Levels of Emergent
Characteristics within Domains 165
Table 9: Participants Mean Values (TAERS; Bos & Mather, 1997);
Methodological Preference, and User Type 198
Table 10: Participants Methodological Preference and Compatibility to Project
Interventions 199
Table 11: Participants’ Methodological Preference, Compatibility to Project
Interventions, Mean Difference, and Determined User Type 201
Table 12: Self-Reported Implementation of Project PLUS Early Literacy
Interventions 203
Table 13: Self-Reported Use of the Interventions Across Other Participant
Determinants 204
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: A Model of Teacher Thought and Action 33
Figure 2: Participants’ Mean Difference Between Reading Methodologies 202
x
ABSTRACT
Teacher implementation of effective practices is identified in the literature as
poor or lacking (e.g., Jenkins & Leicester, 1992; Klingner, Ahwee, Pilonieta, &
Menendez, 2003). The questions of how and to what degree six first grade general
education teachers implemented project interventions as well as the determination of
impact teachers’ beliefs about how best to instruct reading had on teacher
implementation of Project PLUS early literacy interventions for at-risk readers in an
urban school over a yearlong period was explored through a mixed methods
comparative case study (Creswell, 1994; Patton, 2002; Yin, 1989, 2003). The study
yielded three significant findings: First, three domains, the characteristics and sub-
characteristics within them emerged: Teacher Adaptation Process, Student
Dynamics, and Teacher Attributes. Second, sub-characteristics within each of the
characteristics were achieved at discernable levels among teacher participants and
thereby revealed a distinct pattern of user types: Accomplished, Emergent, and
Initial. In addition, sub-characteristics within the domain Teacher Adaptation
Process appeared to be the most challenging for teacher participants to
achieve—especially sub-characteristics within the characteristics, student outcome
interpretation and pedagogical understanding. Teacher participants achieving high
levels of the sub-characteristics within the characteristics student outcome
interpretation and pedagogical understanding implemented project interventions
more effectively. In sum, accomplished users (33%) implemented early literacy
interventions most effectively and instructed 100% of their at-risk learners 100% of
xi
the time; emergent users (33%) implemented early literacy interventions with
moderate effectiveness and instructed 29% of their at-risk learners; and initial users
(33%) implemented early literacy interventions with poor effectiveness and
instructed only 14% of their at-risk learners. Third, teacher implementation of
project interventions also appeared to correspond to teacher participants’ mean
difference between code-and-meaning-based reading instruction—meaning that the
greater the mean difference between code-based and meaning-based instruction the
more or less effective the implementation of project interventions.
Therefore, findings from this study suggest that teachers’ methodological
preference to reading instruction impacted their implementation of Project PLUS
early literacy interventions. Lastly, implications for the researcher, programs in
teacher education, the practitioner, leaders in professional development, school
administrators, student achievement, and future research were given.
1
CHAPTER 1
THE PROBLEM
Introduction
America’s at-risk readers continue to be of national concern (National
Assessment of Education Progress [NAEP], 2005; No Child Left Behind Act
[NCLB], 2002). Researchers in the scientific community have collaborated for the
purpose of identifying instructional practices that have consistently demonstrated
favorable outcomes for some of our nation’s most problematic readers (National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development [NICHD], 2000; National
Reading Council [NRC], 1998). However, further investigation with regard to
implementation of effective instructional practices is needed if our most at-risk
students are to benefit from the education in our nation’s public schools.
A multitude of promising reading interventions (e.g., Brown & Felton, 1990;
Klingner & Vaughn, 1999; Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1997; Wynne, Ball,
Black, Tangel, & Blachman, 2000) and intervention programs for those at-risk of
reading failure have and continue to emerge from the research (e.g., Clay, 1982;
DeFord, Lyons, & Pinnell, 1991; Hall, Prevatte, & Cunningham, 1995; Peck &
Serrano, 2002; Slavin, Madden, Dolan, & Wasik, 1996; Taylor, Strait, & Medo,
1994). However, concern over the partial or complete failure in the implementation
of these practices on the part of schools and their teachers remain (Fuchs & Fuchs,
2001; Gersten Vaughn, Deshler, & Schiller, 1997; Jenkins & Leicester, 1992;
2
Klingner, Ahwee, Pilonieta, & Menendez, 2003; Pressley, 1998; Pressley & El-
Dinary, 1997; Stanovich & Stanovich, 1997; Walmsley & Allington, 1995).
Research findings have identified the classroom teacher as one of the most
influential factors on student achievement, especially for at-risk pupils (Berry, Hoke,
& Hirsch, 2004; Rebell & Hunter, 2004). Consequently, attention to teacher
attributes as well as the instructional practices they choose to exercise in the
classroom has become more of an interest for the population at large, school
administrators, educators, curriculum developers, and the scientific community
(Berry, Hoke, & Hirsch, 2004; Fullan, 2001; Guskey, 2000).
The literature on reading success suggests that barriers to effective
implementation fall into two categories: the teacher, in which teachers’ attitudes and
beliefs are considered to belong and the system, in which the school environment is
considered to be a part (Allinder, 1996; Boyd, 1992; Hines, 2001; Kealey, Peterson,
Gaul, & Dinh, 2000; Klingner, Ahwee, Pilonieta, & Menendez, 2003; Pressley & El-
Dinary, 1997). Although both barrier types can act as a hindrance to teacher
implementation, characteristics of the teacher may provide more significant evidence
in terms of which strategies teachers will choose to implement.
Within educational research circles, it has become an accepted idea that
teachers’ ways of thinking are an essential element of their practice (e.g., Clandinin
& Connelly, 1987; Clark & Peterson, 1986; Nespor, 1987; Nisbett & Ross, 1980;
Pajares, 1992; Rokeach, 1968). Pajares (1992) suggested that the perspective of
focusing on the “things and ways that teachers believe” (p. 307) is required if there is
3
to be a better understanding of teacher behaviors—especially with regard to
educational practice. Moreover, an analysis of studies conducted by Clark and
Peterson (1986) investigating teachers’ thought processes—of which they claim
implicit theories, beliefs, and decision making are a part—warned that ignoring
teachers’ beliefs regarding the implementation of a significant curricular,
organizational, or instructional change would simply result in the “innovator’s peril”
(p. 291). Beliefs, Nisbett and Ross (1980) advocate, serve as the best indicators of
the decisions individuals make throughout their lives, “an assumption that can be
traced to human beings’ earliest philosophical contemplations” (as cited in Pajares,
1992, p. 307).
More specific to beliefs and the context of subject matter teaching, studies
have concluded that teacher held beliefs in the instructional area of reading have a
direct influence not only on the manner in which teachers teach, but on the
instructional content they deliver to pupils as well (Roe & Vukelich, 1998; Thomas
& Barksdale-Ladd, 1997). Like Allington (1991), Thomas and Barksdale-Ladd
(1997) contend that beliefs are the most critical factor driving instruction and
instructional design and maintain that in order to explore the impact that beliefs have
on how children come to understand and define literacy, documentation of teacher
beliefs is mandatory. In fact, findings from the Thomas and Barksdale-Ladd study
(1997) revealed that each of the two teachers opted to eliminate from their reading
instruction key elements of an early literacy methodological approach that opposed
their own—meaning that teachers instructed reading in a manner consistent with
4
their methodological preference to reading (Feng & Etheridge, 1993; Thomas &
Barksdale-Ladd, 1997). However, controversy over the dismissal of certain
instructional components over others may be problematic as science continues to
identify which types of instructional practices generate more favorable outcomes for
the majority of struggling readers (NICHD, 2000; National Reading Council [NRC],
1998; Slavin, Madden, Dolan & Wasik, 1996; Torgesen, 2000; Wynne, Ball, Black,
Tangel, & Blachman, 2000).
Interestingly, findings from additional qualitative studies revealed that
deliberate choices about intended as well as actual early literacy instructional
practices were a direct result of early literacy experiences that teacher candidates and
practicing teachers encountered as children when learning how to read (Olson &
Singer, 1994; Roe & Vukelich, 1998; Thomas & Barksdale-Ladd, 1997; Walker,
2002). Implications become far-reaching in terms of the degree of impact that
teachers’ beliefs potentially have on the composition of teacher beliefs related to
early literacy instruction, their methodological preference to reading instruction, and
on how teacher beliefs might affect implementation of early literacy interventions.
Furthermore, the question is raised as to whether or not the implementation of early
literacy interventions is likely to occur if by design they fall into conflict with
teacher held beliefs related to early literacy instruction. And, if instructional
practices are misaligned to teacher beliefs, are teachers willing to override their
beliefs about how best to instruct reading in favor of the mounting evidence on
effective reading instruction for our most at-risk readers? It is also important to note
5
that pupils at-risk of reading failure often need a more intensive and explicit type of
instruction (Clay, 1982, 1993; Slavin, Madden, Dolan & Wasik, 1996; Torgesen,
2000; Wynne, Ball, Black, Tangel, & Blachman, 2000).
Although interest in teachers’ beliefs have been expressed by both educators
and researchers alike, the investigation of beliefs within educational practice as well
as studies targeted toward understanding the teacher beliefs and the role they play in
the implementation of instructional practices, have been sparse (Clark & Peterson,
1986; Hollins, 2003; Nespor, 1987; Pajares, 1992).
Moreover, university professors, teacher education program doctrine,
planners of professional development, administrators, and policy makers may be
well-served and enlightened from the garnering of information about teachers’
beliefs about early literacy instruction, their methodological preference to reading
instruction and how it may affect their implementation behavior of early literacy
interventions. Findings may potentially offer additional avenues from which to
approach and effectively deliver knowledge to practicing teachers and teacher
candidates that will broaden their pedagogical foundation and skill base so that
success in acquiring literacy is shared by all pupils that comprise the diverse learner
population found in today’s schools (Jimenez, 2002).
Perhaps through this mixed methods dissertation investigation, a better
understanding of some of the unknown as well as known facilitators and/or barriers
to implementation noted in the literature such as, teachers’ acceptance of an
intervention (Klingner, Ahwee, Pilonieta, & Menendez, 2003; Sparks, 1988), teacher
6
commitment to implementation (Klingner, Ahwee, Pilonieta, & Menendez, 2003;
Klingner, Vaughn, & Hughes, 1999; Witt, 1986), intervention fidelity (Allinder,
1996; Klingner, Ahwee, Pilonieta, & Menendez, 2003), and frequency of
interventions will transpire (Allinder, 1996; Gersten, Vaughn, Deshler, & Schiller,
1997).
Project Partnership Linking University / School Personnel (PLUS)
This dissertation explored the implementation of Project Partnership Linking
University/School Personnel (PLUS) and the effect that it had on teacher
implementation. Project PLUS was a grant that promoted early literacy intervention
through the use of early literacy interventions to improve literacy outcomes for
students in urban schools. Initially, an urban elementary school in a large urban
school district and an institute of higher learning located within close proximity
formed a partnership to focus on at-risk learners from urban, high poverty
backgrounds. However, as the project continued over the span of 5 years, four more
elementary schools were added to the grant. The additional elementary schools that
participated in Project PLUS were also located in urban areas. Additionally, school
administrators, Kindergarten

through second grade teachers, special education
teachers, and other support staff from each site were encouraged to participate in the
project.
As Project PLUS expanded throughout several elementary schools and more
Kindergarten through second grade teachers began to participate in the project,
7
observations of teachers’ instructional practice revealed discrepancies in the
implementation process of early literacy interventions. Some teachers appeared to
lack understanding of the interventions as well as were unfamiliar with how to utilize
the manipulatives that accompanied them. Other teachers’ demonstrated confidence
in their ability to identify applicable interventions to students’ targeted instructional
areas and were accurate in their use of the intervention manipulatives. Due to
influence that the implementation process is known to have on intervention
outcomes, which in turn, impact student achievement, the interest for this study
emerged (Klingner, Vaughn, Arguelles, Hughes, & Ahwee, 2002; Kovaleski,
Gickling, Morrow, & Swank, 1999).
Statement of the Problem
Due to the partial or lack of teacher implementation as well as the limited
research available on teacher implementation of effective research-based practices,
the purpose of this mixed methods comparative case study is to observe, describe,
and analyze how six first grade teachers implemented research-based early literacy
interventions to students at-risk of reading failure in an urban school and the
potential factors that constitute the differences with regard to implementation across
participating teachers.
Inconsistent teacher implementation of effective research-based instructional
practices has been noted in the literature even when the results of the implementation
of an instructional practice demonstrated significant growth among students (e.g.,
8
Gersten, Vaughn, Deshler, & Schiller, 1997; Jenkins & Leicester, 1992; Klingner,
Ahwee, Pilonieta, & Mendez, 2003; Pressley & El-Dinary, 1997; Woodward &
Gersten, 1992).
Consistent in the research of literacy instruction for students at-risk of
reading failure is the promise of effective remediation through instruction (e.g., Clay,
1982, 1990; Slavin, Madden, Dolan, & Wasik, 1996; Torgesen, 2000). Numerous
research findings indicate that problematic readers can be reached through effective,
systematic and explicit delivery of early literacy interventions that are constructed
from the building blocks of literacy acquisition (NICHD, 2000). Teachers, therefore,
are the first line of defense against reading failure for pupils at-risk and the decisions
teachers make regarding the practices they choose to employ inside their classrooms
make the difference (Ayres, Meyers, Erevelles, & Park-Lee, 1994; Clay, 1990;
Gersten Vaughn, Deshler, & Schiller, 1997; Klingner, Ahwee, Pilonieta, &
Menendez, 2003; Pressley & El-Dinary, 1997; Rebell & Hunter, 2004; Stanovich &
Stanovich, 1997).
Researchers (Clark & Peterson, 1986; Clandinin & Connelly, 1987; Nisbett
& Ross, 1980) have drawn the reciprocal relationship among teachers thought
processes to include beliefs and decision-making with teacher classroom behaviors
such as instructional practice. Therefore, it is important to identify and clarify not
only what teacher beliefs are and how they might construct the framework of early
literacy pedagogy and instruction, but additionally to acknowledge if and how they
might facilitate the implementation of early literacy interventions for pupils at risk of
9
reading failure. By identifying teacher beliefs about how best to instruct early
literacy through the distinction of teachers’ methodological preference to reading
instruction, one is potentially able to gain awareness and insight into teachers’ early
literacy teaching as well as other elements of their instructional practices that may
verify new or other noted facilitators and/or barriers to implementation. For
example, a review of the relevant research demonstrates that the integration of new
practices into the existing repertoire as well as the sustainment of them is also
contingent upon teacher beliefs related to intervention acceptance (Klingner, Ahwee,
Pilonieta, & Menendez, 2003; Sparks, 1988), intervention appropriateness (Allinder,
1996; Klingner, Ahwee, Pilonieta, & Menendez, 2003), teacher commitment to the
use of interventions (Klingner, Ahwee, Pilonieta, & Menendez, 2003; Klingner,
Vaughn, & Hughes, 1999; Witt, 1986), intervention fidelity (Allinder, 1996;
Klingner, Ahwee, Pilonieta, & Menendez, 2003) and implementation frequency
(Allinder, 1996; Gersten, Vaughn, Deshler, & Schiller, 1997).
The importance of knowing the beliefs that teachers hold about the early
literacy interventions they are to implement will potentially serve as strong indicators
as to whether or not the interventions will be implemented in the classroom
(Klingner, Ahwee, Pilonieta, & Menendez, 2003; Pressley & El-Dinary. 1997;
Sparks, 1988). In addition, illumination of shifts therein as a result of professional
training in early literacy interventions devised for students at-risk for reading failure
may also occur.
10
Lastly, the identification of teachers’ beliefs that underlie their practices may
potentially be able to improve upon educational practices not only for those students
at-risk of reading failure, but for all students by availing a lens through which
researchers, policy makers, school administrators, curriculum designers, and teachers
themselves can focus and, therefore, understand and be better informed about the
rudimentary foundations that undergird teachers’ instructional practice in the
educational field.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study is to understand how to what degree and level of
depth six first grade general education teachers’ early literacy beliefs, more
specifically, their methodological preference toward early literacy instruction,
facilitate the implementation of Project PLUS early literacy interventions for at-risk
students over the course of the study.
The study was guided by three research questions:
1. What is the nature of implementation of Project PLUS early literacy
interventions by first grade general education teachers in urban schools?
2. To what degree and with what level of depth did general education teachers
implement the Project PLUS early literacy interventions?
3. How do general education teachers’ beliefs impact their implementation of
Project PLUS early literacy interventions?
11
Importance of the study
Local, state, and national concerns have been raised over the educational
performance of students in the area of reading. Certain national and state policy
initiatives, including the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), have been developed as
a means of improving what and how reading is taught in public schools. Current
research recognizes that teachers are at the heart of instructional improvement,
especially for those pupils most at-risk. Acknowledgement and understanding of the
factors that drive teachers’ instructional practice is vital to the success of the
improvement of reading achievement. Additional insight into other reform or
program efforts that require the component of implementation will be better served
as a result of this study, therefore, providing information that will lead to
implementation success rather than failure.
Information obtained from this study will provide input for the state and local
decision-making affecting teacher training in reading pedagogy, local professional
development programs and implementation plans for other schools. Information
from this study will contribute to effective teacher implementation of early literacy
interventions for pupils at-risk of reading failure.
Assumptions
The following assumptions are made regarding the case studies used in this
study:
1. The teachers, administrators, and Project PLUS personnel who were
involved in this study responded with accurate and authentic information.
12
2. Valid and adequate data were obtained through the instruments utilized in
this study; the Teacher Attitude about Early Reading and Spelling Survey
(TAERS; Bos & Mather, 1997); the Biographical Questionnaire; the
Project PLUS Intervention Observation Forms (Haager, 1999) used
during each of the classroom observations, and the information
exchanged between the researcher and the case study participants during
the debriefings that occurred at the conclusion of each of the two
intervention observations.
3. The voluntary sample of elementary teachers who were observed and
given the TAERS (Bos & Mather, 1997), and Biographical
Questionnaires reflected the thoughts and actions of the Project PLUS
case study participants.
4. Observations and examination of the kit materials provided accurate
information regarding the materials used by the case study participants in
the classroom.
5. An important assumption that is made in this study is that the “heuristic
device” offered by Clark and Peterson (1986), Teacher Thought and
Action, is accurate as well as applicable to this study. Teacher Thought
and Action, stated simply, is the notion that teachers’ thought and action
are reciprocal processes. In other words, teachers’ beliefs are considered
to be forms of thought that constitute and guide teachers’ instructional
behavior in the classroom to include decision-making and instructional
13
practice (Clark & Peterson, 1986; Nespor, 1987; Nisbett & Ross, 1980;
Pajares, 1992).
Delimitations
The study was delimited to only six first-grade female teachers who volunteered
to participate in Project PLUS; therefore, it is extremely limited in generalizability.
The study sample was not random, which also limits generalizability. The time of
this early literacy case study was from September 2001 through June 2002.
Although informal demonstration lessons were provided at any time to all
participants upon consensus or request, formal Project PLUS training was varied:
One program was a more intensive weeklong summer institute; another consisted of
two-all-day trainings in October 2001 at an elementary school not included in this
study; and additional training was conducted at the participants’ school site. Not all
of the first-grade teachers attended the same training session and some of the first-
grade teachers attended more than one training session. The Project PLUS training
program and on and off site trainings were not investigated. Consequently, the
actual Project PLUS training of the case study participants was not studied. Formal
classroom observations of teacher implementation of early literacy interventions
were conducted twice a year and informal classroom observations were conducted on
the average of four times a month throughout the course of the study and did not
always include the observation of teacher implementation of early literacy
interventions. Additionally, the data rendered from the informal classroom
14
observations were not incorporated into this study. Lastly, early literacy intervention
implementation of the case study participants was not observed prior to this study.
Limitations
There are potential limitations to the interpretation of these data. First, the
information generated from the formal observations of teacher implementation was
not obtained through random observations, but through scheduled observations on
the part of participating teachers. Therefore, teacher participants may have acted in a
certain way. Patton (2002) warns that, “participants may behave in some atypical
fashion when they know they are being observed” (p. 306). Second, my personal
bias about how best to instruct reading to students at-risk for reading failure may
have also distorted the data of the teacher participants. Third, the data collected in
the observations may have also been limited in focus; examination of only the
external behaviors rather than the internal behaviors of the teacher participants was
conducted during the time of formal observations. Fourth, some of the instruments
utilized in this study (e.g., TAERS; Bos & Mather, 1997; Biographical
Questionnaire, etc.) may have been incomplete and inaccurate. In addition, many of
the instruments required teachers to self-report without my presence or the presence
of personnel from Project PLUS. Fifth, teachers’ self-reporting data may also be
inaccurate due to teachers feeling compelled to respond in a manner that they felt
personnel from Project PLUS desired.
15
Definitions of Terms
The following terms are defined as they were used in the study:
Accuracy and Fluency with Connected Text
For the purpose of this dissertation, reading fluency is a combination of text
being read with accuracy, speed and expression. It is the ability to read words and
phrases fluidly and with ease.
Alphabetic Principle
Simply stated, the alphabetic principle is essentially the “code” of the English
language—the alphabet—and its function in reading. The assumption underlying
alphabetic writing systems is that each speech sound or phoneme of a language
should have its own distinctive graphic representation (Harris & Hodges, 1995).
Automaticity
Automaticity occurs when the decoding process is so automatic or well
refined that the reader appears to recognize the word instantly. This skill is
important to becoming a proficient reader because of the ability to focus attention on
comprehension rather than decoding.
16
Beliefs
In this dissertation, according to Rokeach (1968), beliefs are generally
defined as trust in something to be believed as true. However, there is consensus
among researchers (Clark & Peterson, 1986; Clandinin & Connelly, 1987; Pajares,
1992; Rokeach, 1968) that a precise definition for “beliefs” is lacking. Pajares
(1992) noted the following:
Defining “beliefs” is at best a game of player’s choice. They travel in
disguise and often under alias—attitudes, values, judgments, axioms,
opinions, ideology, perceptions, conceptions, conceptual systems,
preconceptions, dispositions, implicit theories, explicit theories, personal
theories, internal mental processes, action strategies, rules of practice,
practical principles, perspectives, repertoires of understanding, and social
strategy, to name but a few that can be found in the literature (p. 309).
Belief System
In this dissertation, a belief system has been defined according to Rokeach.
Rokeach (1968) defines a belief system as having represented within it, in some
organized psychological but not necessarily logical form, “each and every one of a
person’s countless beliefs about physical and social reality” (p. 2). Additionally, not
all beliefs are equally important to an individual and the more central a belief, the
more resistant to change. Moreover, the more a belief changes, the more widespread
the repercussions in the rest of the belief system.
17
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS)
The DIBELS (Good & Kaminski, 1996; Good, Kaminski, Laimon &
Johnson, 1992; Kaminski & Good, 1996) is a set of 10 brief measures designed for
progress monitoring and early identification of children with reading problems. Skill
areas assessed by DIBELS measures include phonological awareness, alphabetic
principle (letter-sound relationships), and fluency with connected text. The score for
each task reflects the number of correct responses given in a timed minute. DIBELS
measures relevant to this study include: Letter Naming Fluency (LNF), Phonemic
Segmentation Fluency (PSF), Nonsense Word Fluency (NWF), and Oral Reading
Fluency (ORF).
Early Literacy Interventions (ELIs)
Project PLUS defined intervention as a “systematic, intensive instruction
tailored to individual students’ specific learning needs,” (Haager & Dimino, 2001, p.
7). The early literacy interventions were included in the Intervention Guide (Haager
& Dimino, 2001) and were comprised of three essential areas of instruction:
phonological awareness (e.g., phonemic segmentation fluency), alphabetic principle
(e.g., nonsense word fluency), and fluency with connected text (e.g., oral reading
fluency).
18
Implicit Theory
In the literature the definition of implicit theory is found to be
interchangeable with the definition of beliefs or theories (Nisbett & Ross, 1980;
Pajares, 1992; Rokeach, 1968) and will be utilized as such in the course of this study.
More formally, however, Nisbett and Ross (1980) define implicit theory as a
derivation of an individual’s judgments and knowledge about physical and social
reality, which later solidify into an individual’s beliefs that become part of their
belief system.
Manipulatives
Items that students actually handle (e.g., color tiles), put together (e.g.,
selecting a tile for every sound heard in a word), or use to view or hear other things
(e.g., phoneme phone). In this study the manipulatives are those items in a kit that
students actually handle or use.
Onset-Rime
The linguistic terminology that refers to the pattern of breaking words into
the beginning sound and the rest of the syllable. The onset is the beginning sound,
such as /m/ in “man.” The rime part of the word is the vowel plus the ending
sound(s), such as /an/ in “man.” Multisyllable words also have onsets and rimes, but
syllable by syllable.
19
Pedagogical Orientation
The initial beliefs and practices espoused by the teacher encompassing how
students learn and how teachers teach. For example, if a teacher believes that
students’ learn best from reading instruction that utilizes explicit and systematic
instruction (e.g., phonemic segmentation activities) then, it is likely that the
teacher’s approach or pedagogical orientation to reading instruction would include
reading methodology that is code-based.
Phonemic Awareness
Is the understanding that words are made up of individual sounds, or
phonemes (the smallest meaningful unit of spoken language), and being able to
manipulate these sounds. Phonemic awareness is considered to be the most
important skill for reading acquisition, as it lays the foundation for decoding. The
skills that make up phonemic awareness include: Onset recognition (e.g., “cat”
begins with the sound /k/); onset-rime segmentation and blending (e.g., segmentation
of the onset and rime of “kite” /k/ = onset, /ite/ = rime; blending of onset and rime =
/l/ + /ife/ = life); phoneme segmentation (e.g., say the sounds in the word “tap” /t/ /a/
/p/); phoneme blending (e.g., tell me what word I am saying: /r/ /a/ /p/ = rap);
phoneme deletion (e.g., say the word “bike” without the /b/: /ike/); and phoneme
substitution (e.g., change the m in “man” to a /t/ sound: tan).
20
Phonics
For the purpose of this dissertation, phonics is defined as a way of teaching
reading and spelling that stresses symbol-sound relationships, used especially in
beginning instruction (Harris & Hodges, 1995, p. 186). Phonics is also defined as
having the ability to associate sounds with letters and letter patterns and then blend
them into whole words (Haager & Dimino, 2001).
Phonological Awareness
Phonological awareness is a vital prerequisite to learning to read and is more
of a language skill than a reading skill. Phonological awareness is the knowledge of
the sound structure of language. Phonological awareness is a general term that
includes the skill areas of rhyming, awareness of syllables, awareness of words and
sentences, and phonemic awareness.
Project PLUS Intervention Kits
Each participant of Project PLUS was given materials to assist with the
implementation of early literacy interventions. Each kit contained an intervention
manual (Haager & Dimino, 2001), one clipboard, one timer, one box of picture
cards, one tub of color tiles, one tub of letter tiles, one phoneme phone, and four
slinkies.
21
Traditional Approach (Code-Emphasis Approach)
The first and perhaps oldest approach to teaching reading is known in the
literature as one that has been described as bottom-up, code-based, code-emphasis,
phonics, phonics-first, part-to-whole, or systematic phonics. Proponents of this
approach argue that children get off to a better start in reading if they first learn to
break the alphabetic code of the targeted language so that they can sound out
unfamiliar words. Children are taught to associate sounds with individual letters and
letter combinations, the strategy of sounding out or decoding words, and when to use
the strategy in combination with various rules in order to overcome certain
exceptions to general sounding out principles.
Treatment Acceptance
Treatment acceptance is also referred to in the professional literature as
acceptability of interventions and was initially identified in the field of psychology
related to teachers’ implementation of behavioral interventions used in classrooms
(Kazdin, French, & Sherick, 1981; Witt & Martens, 1983). According to Kazdin,
French, and Sherick (1981), acceptability of an intervention is determined by three
criteria: (a) is the treatment appropriate for the given problem? (b) Is the treatment
fair, reasonable, or intrusive? (c) Is the treatment consistent with conventional
notions about what a treatment should be?
22
Treatment Fidelity
In the literature, the term treatment fidelity is often used interchangeably with
the term treatment integrity. Simply stated, it is the very close adherence to the
structure of the treatment (intervention) or the instructional practice. Gresham
(1989) defined treatment integrity to be “the degree to which a treatment
(intervention) is implemented as planned” (p. 37).
Treatment Integrity
See Treatment Fidelity.
Whole Language (Meaning-Emphasis Approach)
For the purpose of this dissertation, whole language is a professional
movement, theoretical perspective, and an approach to teaching reading. The
philosophy of whole language is rooted in the belief that all language systems are
interwoven and avoid the segmentation of language into component parts for specific
skill instruction. The use of strategies taught in meaningful contexts is emphasized
and the teaching of decoding skills is de-emphasized.
Organization of the Study
Chapter 1 included the introduction, statement of the problem, purpose of the
study, importance of the study, assumptions, delimitations, limitations, definitions,
and organization of the study. Chapter 2 reviews the literature pertaining to (a)
implementation of research-based practice that included educational innovations and
23
early literacy interventions, and (b) teachers’ early literacy theoretical orientations
related to reading instruction. Chapter 3 discusses the research methodology and the
procedures used in the study. Chapter 4 presents the findings of the study from the
data collected and the analysis of these specific research questions. Chapter 5
presents a summary of selected findings, conclusions, and implications.
24
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Introduction
According to the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP) on reading in 2005, only 30% of fourth graders can read at or above a
proficient level and thereby demonstrate solid academic achievement; while scores
for the highest-performing students have improved over time; those of America’s
lowest-performing students have declined (NAEP, 2005).
In 1997, at the request of the U.S. Congress, the National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development (NICHD) convened a National Reading Panel
(NRP) that conducted an extensive study examining research-based knowledge on
the effectiveness of approaches to teaching children to read. Results of the study
were made available in December of 2000 and concluded that children experiencing
difficulty in learning to read could make progress with appropriate instruction in the
areas of phonological awareness (e.g., phonemic awareness), alphabetics (phonics);
fluency (reading orally with speed, accuracy, and proper expression); word
recognition; vocabulary acquisition; and text comprehension --the building blocks of
literacy acquisition (Good, Kaminski, & Hill, 2000). More specifically, the study
revealed that alphabetic knowledge (knowledge of phonemic awareness and
phonics), the ability to decode and spell, as well as the comprehension of text were
found to improve after first graders received explicit and systematic phonics
instruction. Included in the studies reviewed by the panel were children from
25
populations of normal reading progress, poor performing, disabled, and various
levels of socioeconomic status (SES).
The results of this study in addition to other bodies of literature that attempt
to summarize research findings in the domain of reading, make it clear that a high
percentage of reading problems can be prevented if purposeful instruction were more
widespread and available in the early grades (National Reading Council [NRC],
1998; NICHD, 2000; Torgesen, 2000). Burns and Snow (1999), as well as others,
believe that “negative consequences are high for children when we simply let
reading problems emerge rather than addressing potential sources of difficulty as
early as possible” (p. 140). Additionally, research has identified that early,
systematic instruction in phonological awareness provided in the general education
classroom improves student’s early reading and spelling skills and results in a
reduction of the number of students who are reading below grade level and are
identified as having learning disabilities (Blachman, Ball, Black, & Tangel, 1994;
Bos, Mather, Friedman, Narr, & Babur, 1999; O’Connor, 1999). Researchers have
noted that students who continue to fail at reading require specific instructional
approaches that focus on phonemic awareness, phonics skills, and the application of
these skills to real words in text (McCutchen, Abbott, & Green, 2002; O’Connor,
1999; Torgesen, 2000; Vellutino, Scanlon, Sipay, Small, Pratt, Chen, & Denckla,
1996).
In a continuous national effort to attain higher literacy rates for all elementary
and secondary children living in the United States, the No Child Left Behind Act
26
(NCLB, 2002) was made into law under the Bush Administration on January 8,
2002, and urged schools to implement research-based practices that have proved
effective in the area of reading instruction. Researcher response to the pupil
population at-risk of reading failure continues to thrive and the study of many early
literacy interventions (e.g., Hall, Prevatte, & Cunningham, 1995; Juel, 1988;
Klingner & Vaughn, 1999; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998; Torgesen, Wagner, &
Rashotte, 1997; Wynne, Ball, Black, Tangel, & Blachman, 2000) and early literacy
intervention programs continue as a priority for investigation as well as are
commonplace in the professional literature (e.g., Clay, 1979, 1985, 1993, 2002;
Pinnell, Fried, & Estice, 1994; Schacter, 2001; Short, Frye, & King, 1999; Slavin,
Madden, Dolan, & Wasik, 1996; Taylor, Short, Shearer, & Frye, 1995; Taylor, Strait,
& Medo, 1994).
The ultimate goal behind any one early literacy intervention and/or
intervention program, as agreed upon by some researchers (e.g., Clay, 1985, 2002;
NRC, 1998; NRP 2000; Pressley, 1998; Slavin, Madden, Dolan, & Wasik, 1996), is
for problematic readers to gain the ability to establish meaning from text. Many of
the interventions and programs have varied instructional methods such as, one-on-
one tutoring (Clay, 1985, 2002; Vellutino, Scanlon, Sipay, Small, Pratt, Chen, &
Denckla, 1996; Wasik & Slavin, 1993) or one-on-two tutoring (Lennon & Slesinski,
1999), small or whole group instruction (Jackson, Paratore, Chard, & Garnick,
1999), computer software instruction (Schacter, 2001) or a combination thereof
(Hiebert, 1994).
27
Today, early literacy interventions as well as intervention programs with
varied philosophical frameworks are being executed in several of our nation’s
schools and continue to be scientifically identified as some of the most promising of
practices for raising the reading skills and levels of at-risk readers (Clay, 1982, 1990,
2002; Dyer & Binkney, 1995; Hall, Prevatte, & Cunningham, 1995; Lyons &
Beaver, 1995; McRae, 2002; Morrow & O’Connor, 1995; Oliver, & Maddahian,
2002; Peck & Serrano, 2002; Pinnell, DeFord, & Lyons, 1988; Schacter, 2001;
Slavin, Madden, Dolan, & Wasik, 1996; Taylor, Strait, & Medo, 1994; Wasik and
Slavin, 1993). There is concern, however, that too few schools and/or teachers are
participating in the implementation of effectual instructional practices that are
sustained over time (Gersten, Vaughn, Deshler, & Schiller, 1997; Jenkins &
Leicester, 1992; Walmsley & Allington, 1995).
Although the implementation of school-wide reading improvement models
are widely available in the professional literature (e.g., Clay, 1987; Clay, Crevola &
Hill, 1998; Simmons, Kuykendall, King, Cornachione, & Kameenui, 2000; Slavin,
Madden, Dolan, & Wasik, 1996), studies investigating teacher implementation
behaviors of classroom interventions for at-risk learners in the domain of reading are
infrequent (Hollins, 2003; Jenkins & Leicester, 1992; Klingner, Ahwee, Pilonieta, &
Menendez, 2003; Pressley & El-Dinary, 1997; Pressley, 1998). As a result, many of
the studies incorporated herein are from the larger body of research found in the
special education literature where importance continues to be placed on the
28
examination of how and under which circumstances effective research-based
practices find their way into practice inside American classrooms.
Apparent in the special education literature is the acknowledgement of the
discrepancy between what is known about the quality of educational programs and
best practices for students with disabilities and what is actually being practiced
inside the classroom (Ayres, Meyers, Erevelles, & Park-Lee, 1994; Gersten Vaughn,
Deshler, & Schiller, 1997; Klingner, Ahwee, Pilonieta, & Menendez, 2003; Pressley
& El-Dinary, 1997). Fuchs and Fuchs (2001) indicate that effective practices for
school-age children with and without disabilities only “sporadically” find their way
into educational practice. Malouf and Schiller (1995) assert that the same holds true
“even when the research has produced substantial knowledge related to problems of
real-world importance,” (p. 414). The limit to teacher implementation of effective
instructional practices specific to reading was identified by Pressley’s (1998)
observation of comprehension instruction in upper grade classrooms:
In some classrooms…we observed explicit comprehension instruction only
rarely, despite a great deal of research in the past two decades on how to
promote children’s comprehension of what they read. (p. 198)
It has been noted that teachers may well realize the benefit of an instructional
technique, are willing to learn it, and may have a deep understanding of why the
technique is more effective than their old methods, yet they fail to use it (Stanovich
& Stanovich, 1997). Often, effective instructional practices that have provided
benefits to students have a difficult time finding the teachers who will implement
them in their classrooms. More specifically, there a low presence of teacher
29
implementation of early literacy interventions when evidence via systematic
observation has clearly demonstrated the ability to move students from being at-risk
of reading failure to that of being successful readers.
Recent studies describe the teacher as the single most important factor
influencing student achievement—especially that of low achieving students (Berry,
Hoke, & Hirsch, 2004; Rebell & Hunter, 2004; Short, Frye, & King, 1999). Studies
of student achievement have found that effective teachers have an enormous
favorable impact on student learning. These studies indicate that over a number of
years and even during a single school year, students starting at the same achievement
level attain vastly different academic outcomes depending on the quality of their
teachers (Rebell & Hunter, 2004, p. 691). Moreover, low-achieving students appear
to benefit most from effective teachers (Darling-Hammond, 1999; Ferguson, 1998;
Rebell & Hunter, 2004; Short, Frye, & King, 1999).
The research that addresses the implementation behaviors of teachers
indicates that barriers to effective implementation can originate with the teacher,
which includes a teacher’s attitudes and beliefs or the system, which includes the
school environment (e.g., administration; Allinder, 1996; Boyd, 1992; Hines, 2001;
Kealey, Peterson, Gaul, & Dinh, 2000; Klingner, Ahwee, Pilonieta, & Menendez,
2003; Pressley & El-Dinary, 1997). A combination of subject matter and
pedagogical knowledge, as well as strong classroom management, has been
described as some of the characteristics that effective teachers embody (Berry, Hoke,
& Hirsch, 2004; Pressley, 1998; Rebell & Hunter, 2004). However, some
30
researchers posit that perhaps more pertinent than knowledge, are the belief systems,
perceptions, and attitudes that teachers hold about pedagogy, instructional practice
and their students (Algozzine & Wood, 1994; Boyd, 1992; Fullan, 1991, 1993, 2001;
Olson & Singer, 1994; Pajares, 1992; Pressley, 1998; Roe & Vukelich, 1998; Sparks,
1988; Walker, 2002).
Like Stanovich and Stanovich (1997), Olson and Singer (1994) claimed that
although teachers are “willing and eager to improve their pedagogical skills, they
[teachers] are often unaware of how their beliefs about teaching specific subjects, or
about teaching in general effect the kinds of changes they might make” (p. 97).
Richards (2001) also found that many teachers were unable to clearly explain their
beliefs about literacy teaching and learning. The identification of teachers’ beliefs is
an important aspect of teaching as Nespor (1987) suggests that teachers’ beliefs may
be tied to the personal value they assign to particular subject area knowledge and
skill. Further, “teachers’ beliefs determine how much of themselves they are willing
to invest in any given lesson,” (McGill-Franzen, 1994, p. 25). Therefore, the
acknowledgment of what teachers’ beliefs are about early reading instruction as well
as knowing how these beliefs may affect one’s instructional practice is instrumental
in the comprehension of the determinants to teacher implementation of early reading
interventions for the population of students at-risk of reading failure.
In light of the concern placed on the implementation of reading interventions,
this dissertation study closely examined the early literacy beliefs specific to teachers’
methodological preference and teachers’ implementation behavior of first grade
31
teachers participating in Project PLUS (Partnership Linking University – School
Personnel). The initial overall objective for Project PLUS was instructional
improvement in reading through the collaborative effort of university faculty and
special and general education teachers for at-risk readers who either had learning
disabilities or were very likely to be identified as such. Project PLUS provided
materials, professional development, training, and collegial support throughout the
school year for five elementary schools, however, only one urban elementary school
located in an urban school district took part in this study. During the investigation of
the first grade general education teachers, dialogue and conversation among the
school’s professional staff was continuous. This included teachers, specialists, the
vice-principal and principal. Project PLUS offered promise to improve reading
outcomes for all students at-risk of reading failure by serving as a model from which
instructional reform as well as improvement in the subject area of reading can
transpire.
To address the questions of this study, a review of the literature relative to
two topics was completed: (a) implementation of research-based practices that
included both educational innovations and literacy interventions, and (b) teachers’
methodological preference toward reading instruction.
Theoretical Framework
Emerging from the psychological literature is a lens from which to explore
teachers’ beliefs in order to gain a better understanding of teachers’ behaviors related
32
to the implementation of instructional practices. The perspective of psychologists
Nisbett and Ross (1980) clearly expressed by Pajares (1992), suggests that all
individuals are theorists about their social, cultural, and natural world and that
information encountered early in their experience is the thread from which inferences
they make about themselves, their surroundings, and their circumstances are woven.
Further, Nisbett and Ross (1980) posit that early experiences robustly influence final
judgments, which, in turn, evolve into implicit theories (the compositional
foundation of beliefs) that are extremely resistant to change even when the
confrontation of contradictory information is found to directly challenge the
constitution of the belief itself. Nespor (1987) additionally posits that when beliefs
change, “it is more likely to be a matter of a conversion or gestalt shift than the result
of argumentation or a marshalling of evidence,” (p. 321). As a result, the likelihood
of initial beliefs staying in tact in an individual is high even when the integration of
new information may provide evidence as being more beneficial. Further to this
point, Rokeach (1968) adds that beliefs are part of belief systems that represent
“some organized psychological but not necessarily logical form, each and every one
of a person’s countless beliefs about physical and social reality” (p. 2).
In their research review, cognitive psychologists, Clark and Peterson (1986)
identified teacher beliefs as an integral part of the thought processes of teachers.
Clark and Peterson (1986) state the following:
The thinking, planning, and decision making of teachers’ constitute a large
part of the psychological context of teaching. It is within this context that
curriculum is interpreted and acted upon; where teachers teach and students
33
learn. Teacher behavior is substantially influenced and even determined by
teachers’ thought processes (p. 255).
In their cognitive psychological model, Teacher Thought and Action, Clark
and Peterson (1986) assume that teachers’ theories and beliefs are reciprocal in
relationship to teachers’ thought processes such as, teacher-planning, teachers’
interactive thoughts and decisions, and teachers’ actions which include the
components of teachers’ classroom behavior, students’ classroom behavior, and
student achievement. Constraints and opportunities refer to factors that may bring
forth or impinge upon the teaching process. Such factors were described to include
“the physical setting” or the “external influences such as the school, the principal, the
community, or the curriculum” (p. 258).
Figure 1. A Model of Teacher Thought and Action

Note. From Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 255-296), by C. M. Clark and P. L. Peterson,
1986, New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company. Copyright 1986 by the American
Educational Research Association. Reprinted with permission.
34
More concisely, the conceptual framework for this study was that teachers’
thought processes included their beliefs (Clark & Peterson, 1986), which in turn,
directly impacted their decision-making (Clark & Peterson, 1986; Nisbett & Ross,
1980; Pajares, 1992), which, therefore, constituted the foundation from which their
classroom behaviors emerged (Nisbett & Ross, 1980; Pajares, 1992; Rokeach, 1968).
Thus, by ascribing to both the philosophical and psychological reciprocal forms of
thought, the assumption was made that teacher thinking and teacher behaviors with
regard to implementation were guided by an implicitly organized set of beliefs that
included teachers’ methodological preference toward reading instruction (Clandinin
& Connelly, 1987; Clark & Peterson, 1986; Nespor, 1987; Nisbett & Ross, 1980;
Pajares, 1992; Thomas-Barksdale-Ladd, 1997).
As a result of the above noted, it was believed that teachers’ methodological
preference to reading instruction would impact their implementation behavior of
Project PLUS early literacy interventions. Moreover, I suspected that the more
closely teachers’ methodological preference aligned with the methodology on which
Project PLUS early literacy interventions were rooted (code-based), the more likely
it would be for implementing teachers to demonstrate a high level familiarity with
intervention steps and procedures believed to be due, in part, to repeated
implementation of interventions; a high level of accuracy in matching an appropriate
intervention to the targeted skill area as determined by DIBELS student outcomes;
and a high level of intervention fidelity.
35
Studies on the Implementation of Early Literacy Interventions
Findings from the literature on the implementation of research based
innovations and/or reading interventions suggest that effective early literacy
intervention implementation can either be propelled or hindered by both systemic or
stakeholder factors (Allinder, 1996; Boyd, 1992; Clay, 1990, 1994; Hines, 2001;
Kealey, Peterson, Gaul, & Dinh, 2000; Klingner, Ahwee, Pilonieta, & Menendez,
2003; Pressley & El-Dinary, 1997). Researchers, however, assert that while the
systemic factors (e.g., cost, resources, administration, etc.) of the implementation of
an innovation are of great significance, it is the teacher’s instruction that often
defines the quality of any educational innovation and/or intervention (e.g., Clay,
1993; Kovaleski, Gickling, Morrow, & Swank, 1999; Slavin, Madden, Dolan, &
Wasik, 1996).
One of the most perplexing findings apparent in the implementation literature
is the complete lack of or partial implementation of a multitude of promising
interventions. In a quantitative study conducted by Jenkins and Leicester (1992), 12
elementary classroom teachers participated in a study where they were asked to rate
their confidence in designing effective reading interventions for one of their low
achieving students or a student with mild disabilities who was exhibiting inadequate
reading progress. They were instructed to diagnose the student’s reading problem(s),
select an intervention, and implement it.
Of the 12 teachers who began the study, 2 (17%) immediately opted out of
the study and expressed their reason for not participating being due to a reassignment
36
of schools being planned for the following year despite the fact that each of them had
students with reading difficulties. When the implementation of interventions was
scheduled to begin, only 6 of the remaining 10 teachers (50%) actually implemented
reading interventions. After two weeks, only 5 teachers (42%) were implementing
their interventions due to one of the teachers abandoning the implementation of the
intervention because she believed “the words got easier,” (p. 559), meaning that the
intervention was no longer necessary. In total, only 5 of the original 12 teachers
(42%) actually participated in the completion of the 5-week implementation phase of
the study.
Some of the teachers who chose not to implement the interventions gave
reasons of time constraints and made remarks such as: “It was too late in the year to
make a change,” and “It’s a hard time of the year to do anything,” (p. 559). Teacher
identification of time constraints as an implementation has also occurred in several
other studies (e.g., Ayres, Meyer, Erevelles, & Park-Lee, 1994; Klingner, Ahwee,
Pilonieta, & Menendez, 2003).
Other reasons that may have attributed to the lack of implementation on the
part of the teachers may have been, despite their self-reported “moderate” confidence
ratings, their lack of confidence. The following statements made by two of the
teachers expressed the aforementioned sentiment: “If I knew what to do, I’d already
be doing it,” (p. 561) and:
They [the specialists] would know about interventions that I could use in the
classroom that [student’s name] could use by himself, so I could continue
working with the rest of the class.” She continued, “I don’t want to invest
37
time in developing and starting something that might not work, when
someone else already knows things that work (p. 561).
Additionally, during interviews researchers assessed participating teachers and found
that 4 of the 10 had lower confidence ratings than what had initially been reported
due to doubts about their ability to select and implement interventions effectively
A strength that the majority of classroom teachers in this study (70%)
demonstrated was their ability to match their student’s problem area in reading to an
appropriate reading intervention. Teachers appeared to be systematic and thoughtful
in their approach to planning specialized instruction for their at-risk readers. It is
also apparent, however, that a greater number of teachers experienced considerable
difficulty in the implementation of their proposed interventions in the short time that
they were scheduled to implement them, which is not only discouraging in terms of
what current research findings suggest regarding how to assist at-risk readers, but
also with regard to the sustained implementation of effective practices. Furthermore,
for the majority of the at-risk pupils that did receive reading interventions in this
study, gains in reading were achieved.
In a qualitative study that spanned over the course of 7 years, Pressley and
El-Dinary (1997) examined how seven teachers implemented reading comprehension
strategies in their classrooms that included at-risk pupils in elementary grades. This
study included the earlier work of one of the authors (El-Dinary & Schuder, 1993)
when the teachers were in their first year of implementing reading comprehension
interventions. In the study’s end, only two of the seven teachers clearly “owned”
38
and consistently implemented the strategies. El-Dinary and Schuder (1993)
attributed the two teachers’ acceptance of the intervention to the compatibility that
the intervention had with the teachers’ teaching philosophy and style. This is
important to note, “because the interventions that teachers find unacceptable may be
implemented improperly or not at all” (Witt & Martens, 1983, p. 511).
Among the many findings from the extensive Pressley and El-Dinary (1997)
study was that the variation of the comprehension strategies, when implemented,
were much different from their original design. Pressley and El-Dinary (1997)
attributed the variations of the instructional strategies to “teachers’ clear belief that
their students would not learn the comprehension strategies without much
instruction, guidance and practice” (p. 487). They added that the emphasis on the
interpretation of the comprehension strategy “was more in keeping with the teachers’
beliefs about the nature of comprehension” (p. 487).
Additionally, some of the difficulties that teachers encountered as they
attempted to implement these reading strategies were related to the “feasibility and
fit” (p. 468) of the interventions (Gersten, Vaughn, Deshler, & Schiller, 1997).
Gersten and Brengelman (1996) refer to this concept as “The Reality Principle” (p.
68), which essentially connotes that an instructional practice needs to be perceived
by teachers as being concrete, usable, and manageable. The overarching conclusion
drawn by Pressley and El-Dinary (1997) was that the comprehension strategies as an
intervention “appealed to, and was possible for, only some teachers,” (p. 487).
Pressley and El-Dinary (1997) noted that an over-riding problem for the teachers
39
who did not buy into the instructional strategies was the teachers’ belief that they
needed more technical and conceptual support as well as the right to choose when
and whether or not to use the strategies in their instructional practice. Pressley and
El-Dinary (1997) recommend the tools of collaboration among stakeholders and
researchers, clear and respectful communication, videotapes, modeling, and coaching
to overcome the hurdles of effective implementation.
Sparks (1988) found in her study examining teachers’ attitudes toward
teaching practices presented during in-service training and the subsequent use of the
practices, that a teacher’s philosophical acceptance of an intervention was predictive
of their use of it or lack thereof. Upon further examination of the non-implementing
teachers in this study, Sparks (1988) found that likelihood of implementation failure
was because teachers “failed to find congruence between their style and the
recommended practices, teachers were not able or willing to open themselves up to
making any significant changes in their teaching,” (p. 115). For example, one
participant expressed a philosophical objection to what he called a “behaviorist”
training philosophy.
Sparks (1988) included in her definition of philosophical acceptance of an
instructional practice or intervention, the acknowledgment of a teacher’s belief that it
is the teachers that know which way is best to teach their students. Further, she
added that in the event of a conflict, teachers defended their preferred teaching style
by pointing out that they (a) did not believe in the value of the changes, (b) that the
changes would not be good for students, or (c) that they were simply unwilling to
40
make a change at that time. For example, one subject stated that she did not believe
that providing her low ability students with stronger academic demands or a quicker
pace would provide any benefits to her students. The sentiment expressed by this
teacher’s remark is cause for concern as scientific evidence supports the provision of
challenging academics and an accelerated pace to instruction for low ability students
(e.g., Allington, 1995; Short, Frye, & King, 1999; Walmsley & Allington, 1995).
Consistent with Sparks (1988), Witt (1986) proposes that users and potential
users of interventions are influenced by theoretical foundations from which the
intervention(s) is derived and how the intervention is described during the time of its
introduction to its users or potential users. Kazdin and Cole (1981) add that how an
intervention is labeled as well as the technical jargon used to describe it may also
contribute to the outcome of the utilization of a new practice.
Klingner, Ahwee, Pilonieta, and Menendez (2003) conducted one of the only
studies that examined teacher implementation frequency and fidelity in the subject
area of reading in grades Pre-K through five. A total of 29 teachers participated, and
almost all had students that were learning disabled (LD), limited English proficient
(LEP) and/or at-risk of reading failure. The objective of this qualitative study was to
better understand the barriers and facilitators experienced by teachers determined to
be high implementers, moderate implementers, and non-or low implementers of four
research based reading practices throughout the course of a year.
At the end of the study, nine teachers were classified as “high” implementers,
nine as “moderate” implementers, and eleven as “non-or low” implementers—four
41
teachers never implemented any of the practices. A total of nine teachers
implemented the practices with high fidelity and consistency while more than one-
third implemented the practices very little or not at all.
Teacher modifications made to the instructional practices concerned
researchers. Treatment fidelity was “sufficient” among the high implementers and
“less than adequate” among the moderate group. In some cases, a multitude of
components were omitted or modified from the instructional strategy to the degree
that “the practice was barely recognizable,” (p. 424). Gresham (1989), a researcher
of intervention implementation in the field of psychology, argued that the literature
has largely ignored a fundamental aspect of why interventions fail and attributes
much of the failure to treatment integrity. He suggested that the failures of
interventions “probably can be attributed to the fact that intervention plans are not
implemented as intended” (p. 37). Additionally, research has documented that
higher implementing teachers generated greater achievement gains among their
students than teachers who implemented a research based practice less often or with
less fidelity (Klingner, Vaughn, Arguelles, Hughes, & Leftwich, 2004).
Some of the characteristics noted by the researchers about high implementers
was their “persistence and positive approach to problem solving” (p. 425) when
confronted with a barrier to implementation. They also mentioned the benefits to
students as a motivating factor far more often than other lower implementing
teachers as well as the reference to a supportive administrator as a top facilitator to
implementation. The majority of moderate implementers, on the other hand, claimed
42
that their administrators did not support them. Strong administrative support has
been identified as being one of the key factors in the facilitation and sustainment of
innovative and effectual instructional practices (e.g., Ayres, Meyer, Erevelles, &
Park-Lee, 1994; Fullan, 1991, 1993; Gersten, Vaughn, Deshler, & Schiller, 1997;
Guskey, 2000). Klingner, Ahwee, Pilonieta, and Menendez (2003) make the
suggestion that studying the moderate implementers, whom they refer to as “the most
critical group,” may provide more insightful evidence as to how to overcome barriers
that hinder the implementation of instructional practices.
Kovaleski, Gickling, Morrow, and Swank (1999) conducted a quantitative
study across 1,400 elementary schools regarding the implementation of Instructional
Support Teams (ISTs). An IST is comprised of school personnel that collectively
work together to address students’ instructional needs prior to their referral for
evaluation of special education. The purpose of the study was to investigate the
effectiveness of the IST process. IST instructional interventions focused on reading
and mathematics; reading interventions addressed language concepts, word
identification, word study, comprehension, fluency, and self-monitoring strategies.
Two hypotheses were addressed: Students receiving instructional support, as
decided by the IST, would display greater gains on time-on-task, task completion,
and task comprehension measures than would similar students not having access to
the IST process and the degree of student progress on these measures would depend
on the school’s level of implementation of essential program features.
43
The data from this study is considered to be generalizable due to its scope
and size of the data pool and clearly demonstrated that students supported by ISTs
had greater levels of academic performance only when their schools implemented the
IST process to a high degree. Low IST implementation produced no differences in
academic performance in students from schools that had not implemented ISTs. The
researchers also noted that “half-hearted” efforts at IST implementation was no
better for at-risk students than what was traditionally practiced in non-IST schools.
Kovaleski, Gickling, Morrow, and Swank (1999) avow that these type of
results occur frequently in education when schools adopt new initiatives in name
only, without fidelity to vital program design features. According to Fullan (1983)
“program efficacy is influenced by the extent to which its components are
implemented has been persuasively argued” (p. 172). The results from the study
conducted by Kovaleski, Gickling, Morrow, and Swank (1999) not only confirmed
that overall high implementation of the features of ISTs were necessary for improved
student performance, but that high integrity during the implementation of the
interventions was also needed in order to maximize program and/or intervention
effectiveness. Additional studies (Gresham, 1989; Stallings, 1985) investigating the
effects of intervention integrity and improved student performance in a subject area
reinforce the conclusions drawn by Kovaleski, Gickling, Morrow, and Swank
(1999).
44
Summary of Findings from the Implementation Studies
In summary, the professional literature on implementation clearly validates
the concern among researchers, policy makers, professional developers, and
educators alike regarding the partial or lack of implementation of promising
instructional practices among teachers. However, important findings have emerged
from the aforementioned studies related to the implementation of educational
innovations or interventions. Teacher factors attributed to implementation barriers
include a teacher’s lack of the following: confidence to implement an intervention
with integrity (fidelity); acceptance of the intervention, as it was found that unless an
intervention was in alignment with teachers’ beliefs that the likelihood of its
implementation was highly improbable; a feasible and fit intervention, as teachers
needed to know that what they would be implementing would be concrete, useable,
and manageable; time; a common language between “innovators” and practitioners
that explicitly describes the intervention as well as the procedures for how to
implement them; and administrative, conceptual and technical support (El-Dinary &
Schuder, 1993; Gersten & Brengelman, 1996; Jenkins, & Leicester, 1992; Klingner,
Ahwee, Pilonieta, & Menendez, 2003; Olson, 1981; Pressley & El-Dinary, 1997;
Stanovich & Stanovich, 1997).
Additional findings revealed that modifications to an intervention often
affected the fidelity of it and that increased implementation often lead to greater
fidelity which, in turn, lead to greater gains in student performance (Allinder, 1996;
Klingner, Ahwee, Pilonieta, & Menendez, 2003; Kovaleski, Gickling, Morrow, &
45
Swank, 1999). According to Gersten, Morvant, and Brengelman (1995), if teachers
believe that pupils are benefiting as a result of participation in the interventions than
the likelihood of teachers maintaining the frequency of implementation of the
intervention(s) will likely persist. However, half-hearted implementation efforts of
promising interventions on the part of teachers were found to be just as ineffective
for at-risk pupils that were not receiving any intervention (Kovaleski, Gickling,
Morrow, & Swank, 1999).
Facilitators of implementation were identified as the following: teacher belief
that the interventions were appropriately suited to the grade level or instructional
level of the targeted student; belief that interventions would improve student
achievement; that interventions would be easy to integrate into teachers’ existing
teaching practices; students liking the intervention; administrative support; teacher
collaboration (e.g., shared decision–making, modeling by fellow educators); teacher
commitment to use of the intervention, which depended on clear linkages to
improved functioning of pupil progress (Gersten, Morvant, & Brengelman, 1995);
staff development opportunities; graduate courses; available resources and materials;
and uninterrupted instructional time (Allinder, 1996; Brown & Rose, 1995; El-
Dinary & Schuder, 1993; Gersten, Vaughn, Deshler, & Schiller, 1997; Jenkins, &
Leicester, 1992; Klingner, Ahwee, Pilonieta, & Menendez, 2003; Klingner, Vaughn,
& Hughes, 1999; Kovaleski, Gickling, Morrow, & Swank, 1999; Pressley & El-
Dinary, 1997; Sparks, 1988; Witt, 1986).
46
It was thought that this investigation of the nature with which teachers’
implemented early literacy interventions would glean additional insight into
additional factors that facilitated teacher implementation due to some of the known
barriers being addressed by Project PLUS. For example, it was thought that the
barrier of teachers’ lack of confidence to implement project interventions with
fidelity would be addressed by the provision of the opportunities for actual practice
of implementation of project interventions during project training sessions. During
the first and most intensive training sessions, teacher participants were allotted
approximately 20 minutes to practice with the implementation of a 10-minute
intervention activity after details about the conceptual framework from which the
interventions stemmed were addressed. Each teacher participant was also given a
scripted Intervention Guide (Haager & Dimino, 2001) that delineated each step and
procedure of the interventions, a partner with whom to practice and all necessary
intervention materials. Moreover, each project intervention was designed by Haager
and Dimino (2001) to be tangible, useable and manageable, thereby increasing the
interventions “feasibility and fit” (Gersten, Vaughn, Deshler, & Schiller, 1997, p.
468). Teacher participants were also availed the opportunity for additional support
and assistance from project personnel to include the researcher at any time during the
course of the study.
47
Studies of Teachers’ Methodological Preference to Reading Instruction
Although more publicly debated in years past, the debate over which
methodological approach to reading instruction is best still exists (Adams, 1990;
Chall, 1967; Goodman, 1986; NICHD, 2000; Pinnell, Lyons, DeFord, Bryk, &
Seltzer 1994; Moustafsa, 1997; Moats, 1994; Smith, 1988). The methodological
preference that underlies the traditional approach to reading instruction is commonly
referred to as “code-oriented” or “skill-or-code-based” and places instructional
emphasis on the alphabetic principle in the effort to gain meaning from text. Whole
language is commonly referred to as an opposing instructional approach with its
methodological preference placing more emphasis on whole, real, relevant, natural,
social and personal contexts in the attempt to gain meaning from text (Goodman,
1986). Although early reading instruction derived from the whole language
philosophy may successfully build a large number of independent readers, the code-
oriented method to instruction utilizes both systematic and explicit strategies that
have consistently provided more favorable evidence for pupils most at-risk of
reading failure (NICHD, 2000; Slavin, Madden, Dolan, & Wasik, 1996; Torgesen,
2000; Torgesen, Wagner, Rashotte, Rose, Lindamood, Conway, & Garvan, 1999;
Wynne, Ball, Black, Tangel, & Blachman, 2000).
Although other studies about reading methodology exist in the literature, they
did not relate to the questions posed in this study and therefore were not included.
Four studies specific to teachers’ methodological preference and early literacy
instruction are reviewed here. A descriptive study, conducted by Feng and Etheridge
48
(1993), utilized surveys and classroom observations to determine first grade
teachers’ methodological preference toward reading instruction. Two hundred and
fifty-nine of the 428 first grade teachers (61%) in 94 elementary schools across a
large mid-south metropolitan public school system returned usable survey data. A
stratified sample of 15 teachers, 5 from each early literacy methodological
preference; phonics, skills-based, and whole language, were randomly selected for
classroom observation and interviews.
Results from the Feng and Etheridge (1993) study indicated that the majority
of teachers (84.59%) held a skills-based methodological preference to reading, while
only 8 teachers (3.10%) held a whole language methodological preference to
reading. Upon observation, 60% of the total number of teachers taught reading in a
manner consistent with their methodological preference to reading. Seventy-three
percent of the teachers observed used basal/skills strategies. All participating
teachers used a variety of instructional strategies to teach reading in the classroom.
In addition, each of the participating classroom teachers consistently attributed their
own literacy experiences as students in classrooms as the single most significant
influence in what they believed about reading and reading instruction. These
findings suggest that introducing early literacy instructional strategies without theory
or early literacy instructional strategies that hold methodological preference counter
to teacher held beliefs may contribute to poor or a complete lack of implementation.
A study conducted by Richardson, Anders, Tidwell, and Lloyd (1991) was
designed to determine the relationship between teachers’ beliefs about reading
49
comprehension instruction and teachers’ instructional practice. A total of 39
teachers from grades 4, 5, and 6, from six elementary schools participated in the
study—9 males and 30 females. Teacher participants had teaching experience that
ranged from 1 to 32 years. Each teacher participated in an extensive interview that
was composed of questions that were designed to (a) elicit teachers’ declared or
public beliefs about reading comprehension and how children learn to read, and (b)
to elicit more private beliefs prompted by questions that focused teachers on specific
students. All teacher participants were also observed twice when reading
comprehension instruction took place inside their classrooms. At the time of
observation, a timed narrative record was used to record classroom events that
happened during the observation period. More specifically, this instrument directed
observers to record as accurately as possible what teachers were saying during the
lesson as well as teacher and student actions. In addition, a subset of the teachers (a
total of 14 teachers) was videotaped during reading instruction. Videotapes were
used as additional evidence for deciphering teachers’ instructional practices.
After the data from the belief interviews was coded, researchers determined
each teacher’s methodological preference (e.g., represented by a continuum where at
one end a code-based approach to instruction was located and at the other end a
meaning-based approach was located) and made a prediction as to how teachers
would instruct reading comprehension to their students. Individual belief statements
were used in part for determining each teacher’s methodological preference to
reading comprehension instruction but were also used to predict specific classroom
50
actions. Thereafter, classroom observations would be used as a way to corroborate
researcher predictions.
Findings from the study indicated that the majority of teachers were predicted
to instruct with a code-based instructional approach. Observation data confirmed
that 80% of all teachers instructed in a manner consistent with researcher predictions
and 80% of the teachers included in the subset of videotaped teachers also instructed
in a manner consistent with researcher predictions. This study demonstrates that the
beliefs of teachers in this sample did related to their instructional practices of reading
comprehension.
In one case, the case of Susan, a case study was conducted to further examine
why her stated beliefs were inconsistent with her classroom instruction. For
example, Susan, during her interview, described more of a meaning-based approach
to reading yet when she was observed in her classroom on both occasions it was
determined that “she relied heavily on the basals” (p. 577) and focused her
instruction on concepts of the main character. However, during Susan’s videotaped
instruction, a mixed approach to teaching was evident. Susan spent a considerable
amount of time preparing students for the story in the text by activating students’
background knowledge, bringing forth feelings of being scared, and working on
vocabulary words. She also spent a considerable amount of time on the concept of
the figure of speech and concluded her lesson with children reading from the basal
readers. Richardson, Anders, Tidwell, and Lloyd (1991) concluded that while
Susan’s public and personal beliefs about reading comprehension instruction
51
reflected more of a code-based approach, her classroom practices reflected more of a
progression into a meaning-based approach to instruction—meaning that Susan “was
in the process of changing her beliefs and practices…”(p. 578), and that changes in
her beliefs were preceding the changes in her instructional practices.
In a study conducted by Olson and Singer (1994) a multitude of qualitative
and quantitative instrumentation was utilized to determine 20 teachers’
methodological preference to reading instruction, the belief system that underpinned
their instructional approach to early literacy teaching, and that distinguished teachers
who received a formal education in reading methodology from teachers without such
a background. Additional data included field notes from classroom observations of
all teachers, and personal histories from two teachers. Although the authors warned
about the caveats of self-reported data, findings across instrumentation concluded
that teacher beliefs almost consistently matched their instructional literacy practices.
In addition, the two teachers were asked to compose personal histories in the effort to
“further elaborate their backgrounds as teachers and readers, to highlight the
formation of their beliefs and attitudes about reading and the teaching of reading, and
to corroborate other emerging data,” (p. 99).
In the personal history titled, “Teacher 1” the teacher’s beliefs centered on a
love of reading. This participant “recalled trips to the bookmobile, receiving her first
library card, and being challenged to read as many books as possible” (p. 107). This
teacher described her teachers as being “caring and energetic teachers who nurtured
her” (p. 107). Teacher 1 is now modeling that same love of reading to her students
52
that she experienced and her beliefs consistently reflected her instructional practice
of literacy teaching.
“Teacher 2” exhibits slightly different aspects in that her stated beliefs about
literacy teaching were referred to as a “non-match” to her instructional literacy
practice. Her personal history revealed that she grew up in a home where neither
parent graduated high school and few books were found in the home. She
recollected hardly ever being read to, but rather stated that she “learned to read by
studying the books her older brother brought home from school” (p. 107). However,
in seventh grade, she was inspired because her teacher often read to the students: “It
was obvious that her seventh grade teacher loved reading and wanted the students to
love it, too” (p. 107). Teacher 2’s practice, at the time of the study, reflected that of
what her seventh grade teacher demonstrated to her; she read all kinds of books for
young people because she wanted to “be the type of teacher kids will look back on
and be able to say that I am reading more because she inspired me to read,” (p. 107).
Clearly, Teacher 2’s seventh grade experience shaped her instructional practice of
literacy teaching and appeared to have eclipsed earlier literacy experiences.
Although the study conducted by Olson and Singer (1994) study did not
reveal the details of each of the participant’s responses to instrumentation, it was
noted that this participant achieved the highest score on the Inventory of Teacher
Knowledge of Reading (Artley-Hardin, 1975), which indicated that Teacher 2 had an
advanced knowledge of how to teach reading as well as having received formal
training in the subject area. The inference, therefore, might be drawn that the
53
instruments used in this study defined her belief system to be more aligned to a
skills-based approach to instruction rather than an “interest-based” approach that
seemed to more closely parallel her more holistic objective of wanting to “inspire”
her students to read more. One may argue that the priority to develop an
“inspiration” to read might be second to the development of an “ability” and/or
“understanding” of what was read.
The study conducted by Olson and Singer (1994) brings to light the
importance of teachers’ early literacy experiences and the impact that they may have
on the foundation of teachers’ early literacy beliefs from which instructional
practices are thought to emerge (e.g., Nespor, 1987; Nisbett & Ross, 1980, Pajares,
1992). Additionally, understanding if, when, and how early literacy experiences
influence teachers’ beliefs and instructional practice after professional training
through teacher education programs and/or professional development in the subject
of area of reading may render important findings and help to improve upon teachers’
knowledge base as well as their implementation behavior.
The last reviewed qualitative study, conducted by Thomas and Barksdale-
Ladd (1997), sought to investigate the relationship between two teachers’ literacy
belief systems and their kindergarten students’ understanding of literacy at the end of
the year. Researchers interviewed two kindergarten teachers who held two differing
philosophies as well as approaches to early literacy instruction (i.e. skills-based and
whole language). The overall finding from the study concluded that the kindergarten
54
pupils’ definition of literacy and the understanding of its function were a direct
reflection of their teachers’ methodological preference related to early literacy.
The two teachers were selected on several criteria, one of which included
their ability to explicitly articulate their literacy beliefs and philosophy. Miss S’s
methodological preference was skills-based, while Miss W’s was that of whole
language. Interestingly, Miss S. stated her belief about how children learn to read
being attributed to “seeing other people read” (p. 45) as well as the early use of a
programmed phonics series. Miss S. instructed her students by utilizing the Alpha
Time phonics series and believed that the program provided students with “a good
sense of phonics” (p. 45). Miss S’s instruction consisted of introducing and working
on one letter a week with instructional activities that included discussion with the
students about the letter(s), sounding out of the letter(s), a story about the letter, letter
activity packets, letter formation, artwork, coloring, animal facts that begin with the
letter under study, and sight words. The focus of instruction for Miss S. appeared to
stem from both phonological awareness and alphabetic activities, thereby, clearly
defining her explicit and systematic approach to teaching to be a reflection of her
skills-based methodological preference.
Conversely, with regard to phonics, Miss W. recalled, “I don’t ever
remember any phonics but maybe it’s because I hated it. I don’t remember any of
that,” (Thomas & Barksdale-Ladd, 1997, p. 44). Miss W. stated her beliefs about
how students learn to read in the following manner: “It’s taking or finding what each
child comes to school with and proceeding from there, rather than having some
55
regimented scheme that you expect children to read or perform or go through,”
(Thomas & Barksdale-Ladd, 1997, p. 45). Miss W. started her early literacy
instruction with materials from the children’s environment and explained to her
students that they already knew how to read (e.g., environmental print). Weekly
instruction for Miss. W. began with one of her students telling her and the class what
they did over the weekend (which was a sentence in length), the aide wrote it on
chart paper and it was later posted on a wall in the classroom. News was read,
discussed, and written with the students and then copied by the students. Miss W.
used the news activity to teach her students about spacing between words, the sounds
that make up the words and the accurate spelling of the words. Miss W. also stated
the following with regard to instruction,
If there’s something particularly that I think will interest them, [for example]
if there is an i-n-g we’ll say anytime you hear the /ing/, it’s always ‘i-n-g.’
Then we’ll talk about how many sentences start with ‘I’ and how many
‘wents’ are in the news that day and how went is spelled and the sounds in
there. (p. 46).
Daily activities included listening stations with books and the teacher reading to the
class. The opportunity to write was incorporated into a center and was also a daily
possibility for the students as was the ability to act out the story that they were
reading.
Additionally, Miss W’s classroom had no desks but moveable chairs and four
large round tables that served as activity centers with chairs around each table.
Against one wall was a set of choir-like risers serving as audience seating for plays.
One corner was filled with colorful puppets and props for plays while another corner
56
displayed old gowns, capes, hats, gloves, and clothing for play-acting. The room had
student stories, pictures, drawings, and photographs of the children acting out their
stories throughout the classroom.
Identification of each of these teachers’ methodological preference is a clear
reflection of their instructional practice. Additionally, the likelihood of Miss W.
delivering early literacy instruction in the same manner as Miss S. and vice-versa is
highly speculative. Furthermore, Thomas and Barksdale-Ladd (1997) concluded the
following: “If you want to know how your children and students will define and
practice literacy, ask teachers to articulate his/her beliefs of how literacy is learned”
(p. 57). Therefore, it might be inferred that the likelihood of Miss. W. implementing
early literacy interventions that require explicit and systematic instruction might be
potentially low—possibly leaving the instructional needs of at-risk readers
unaddressed.
Summary of Findings from the Studies of Teachers’ Methodological Preference to
Reading Instruction
In summary, vastly differing teaching traditions and methods have always
existed in American public schools. Findings from the above noted studies revealed
that a large majority of practicing teachers instruct reading in a manner consistent
with their methodological preference to reading. Furthermore, many teachers also
credited their early literacy experiences as the most influential factor in the shaping
of their methodological preference to reading instruction. Also noted in the study
57
conducted by Richardson, Anders, Tidwell, and Lloyd (1991), teacher beliefs about
how best to instruct reading comprehension served as a predictor as to how teachers
would instruct in their classrooms. However, concern among many remains
regarding teachers’ early literacy instructional practices and the type of pupils
teacher instruction targets. Additional consternation lies in whether or not teachers
with differing methodological preferences towards early literacy instruction will
implement explicit and systematic early literacy interventions that have provided
evidence for improving the skills of at-risk readers (e.g., NICHD, 2000; Slavin,
Madden, Dolan & Wasik, 1996; Torgesen, 2000; Wynne, Ball, Black, Tangel, &
Blachman, 2000).
It was thought that this study of teacher implementation of project
interventions that were rooted in a code-based methodology to reading instruction
would render findings of interest due to the methodological preference to reading
instruction being identified among teacher participants during the course of the
study. Although investigation of the origins of teachers beliefs about how best to
teach reading were not investigated, insight into how teachers’ beliefs about reading
instruction impacted their implementation of project interventions were thought to be
revealed.
Conclusion
As noted, the research indicates that teachers are complex beings that possess
succinct beliefs with regard to early literacy instruction, which in turn, elicit
58
philosophical platforms from which behaviors related to instructional practice
materialize. Teachers’ implementation behavior across content areas appeared to be
sporadic, at best, as well as either facilitated by certain qualities (e.g., administrative
support, etc.) or hindered by barriers to implementation (e.g., lack of time, etc.).
Specific to the research on early literacy instruction, it appears that teachers’
methodological preference related to early literacy instruction is a dominant factor in
terms of the manner in which teachers instruct reading. The majority of teachers
appear to have the need for their instructional practices to match and/or mirror their
beliefs about how best to instruct reading and seemingly do not appear to waver
much beyond their methodological preference to reading in behavior related to
instruction or implementation.
Due to Project PLUS addressing issues related to the barriers of teacher
implementation of effective practices throughout the course of the study,
investigation into the nature and depth of implementation of Project PLUS early
literacy interventions among first grade teachers was thought to garner additional
insight into additional factors that facilitated teacher implementation. In addition,
the literature suggests that teacher beliefs about how best to instruct reading are an
important part of teachers’ instructional practice (Thomas & Barksdale-Ladd, 1997).
Through the documentation of teacher participants’ methodological preference to
reading instruction, further insight into how teacher beliefs impacted their
implementation of code-based project interventions over the course of the study was
also thought to materialize.
59
Last, despite the acknowledgement of the need for investigation of the
relationship of teachers’ beliefs on instructional practice, a low presence of such
studies exists (e.g., Clark & Peterson, 1986; Nespor, 1987; Pajares, 1992). In
addition, while school-wide implementation of reading intervention programs are
commonplace in the literature (e.g., Clay, 1987; Slavin, Madden, Dolan, & Wasik,
1996), studies on the topic of teacher implementation of reading interventions are
less frequent—especially among general educators—and therefore, constitute the
gaps in the literature.
60
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to determine the complex nature of how and
which factors of experienced first grade general education teachers facilitated the
implementation of early literacy interventions for at-risk readers. Overall, the study
sought to answer the following research questions:
1. What is the nature of implementation of Project PLUS early literacy
intervention by the first grade general education teachers in urban
schools?
2. To what degree and with what level of depth did the first grade
general education teachers implement the Project PLUS early literacy
interventions?
3. How do first grade general education teachers’ beliefs impact their
implementation of Project PLUS early literacy interventions?
A mixed methods comparative case study (Creswell, 1994; Patton, 2002; Yin,
1989, 2003) approach was selected for this dissertation study. This mixed methods
research design appeared to be the best means available to describe a phenomenon in
early literacy intervention implementation that was too complex for survey or
experimental strategies alone as suggested by Yin (2003).
Greene, Caracelli, & Graham, (1989) as cited in Creswell (1994) suggest that
mixed methods are “complimentary, in that overlapping and different facets of a
61
phenomenon may emerge (e.g., peeling the layers of an onion, p. 175)” and that
“expansion, wherein the mixed methods add scope and breadth to a study” (p. 175).
Miles and Huberman (1994) contend, “that multiple cases offer the researcher
an even deeper understanding of processes and outcomes of cases, the chance to test
(not just develop) hypotheses, and a good picture of locally grounded causality,” (p.
26). Miles and Huberman (1994) add the following:
“Multiple case sampling adds confidence to findings. By looking at a range
of similar and contrasting cases, we can understand a single-case finding,
grounding it by specifying how and where and, if possible, why it carries on
as it does. We can strengthen the precision, the validity, and the stability of
the findings (p. 29).
Miles and Huberman (1994) posit that strengths of qualitative data are that
“they focus on naturally occurring, ordinary events in natural settings, so that we
have a strong handle on what ‘real life’ is like” (p. 10). Therefore, using the mixed
methods comparative case study approach to examine teachers’ implementation
behavior of early literacy interventions and how teacher beliefs about how best to
instruct reading might impact teachers’ instructional practice was thought to be
informative as well as contribute to the development of further understanding of the
phenomenon of the implementation of effective practices (Creswell, 1994; Lortie,
1975; Pajares, 1992; Patton, 2002; Yin, 2003).
The research questions for this dissertation served as a starting point from
which themes and patterns could emerge related to how teacher participants
implemented project interventions and to what degree and level of depth teachers’
methodological preference to reading instruction influenced their implementation of
62
project early literacy interventions. The study was conducted in the classrooms of
the 6 study participants who participated in Project Partnership Linking University
School-Personnel (PLUS), a collaborative model of professional development
targeted at improving literacy outcomes in urban schools. The research site, Palm
Elementary, was in an urban school district located in a large urban area in Southern
California. Project PLUS personnel provided professional development in the area
of early literacy, created the Project PLUS Intervention Guide (Haager & Dimino,
2001), as well as contributed intervention kits for each teacher participant. The
contents of each kit included a Project PLUS Intervention Guide (Haager & Dimino,
2001) and all of the manipulatives needed to perform the interventions for students
identified as at-risk of reading failure in each of the participating teachers’
classrooms. All six-teacher participants began their participation in Project PLUS in
September 2001 and remained in the study until the end of the academic school year
in June of 2002. All teacher participants received professional development from
Project PLUS personnel from September of 2001 through June 2002.
Project Partnership Linking University / School Personnel (PLUS)
Project PLUS was comprised of four components: professional development
through university-school collaboration, general–special education collaboration,
partnership to design and implement early literacy intervention, and a summer
institute to disseminate the project to other teachers and institutions.
The primary goal of the project was threefold: prevention of reading failure
and overdependence on special education; early identification of learning disabilities
63
and general learning problems; and intervention, specific to student needs and based
on diagnostic assessment (DIBELS; Good & Kaminski, 1996, Good, Kaminski,
Laimon & Johnson, 1992).
The four principles that guided the conceptualization and implementation of
Project PLUS were: university-school collaboration was essential for improving
teacher education, and school practice; schools and universities must foster general
and special education collaboration to better address the needs of students who have
disabilities or at-risk for being identified as such; early intensive remedial
intervention in basic reading, language, and writing skills was essential to improve
the achievement outcomes of students with potential learning disabilities; and family
involvement in literacy practices was essential to improving literacy outcomes for
students with learning disabilities or those at risk for being identified as such.
Components of the intervention program included assessment of basic
literacy skills through the use of four of ten brief measures designed for progress
monitoring and early identification of children with reading problems known as the
Dynamic Indicators of Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS; Good & Kaminski, 1996,
Good, Kaminski, Laimon & Johnson, 1992), and systematic, intensive literacy
support for individuals with learning disabilities or at-risk of having learning
disabilities. Intervention activities were in the instructional areas of: phonological
awareness, alphabetic principle, and reading fluency with connected text. Student
outcomes from the assessments in these instructional areas were produced on the,
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) Student Outcome Sheet
64
in the areas of letter naming fluency (LNF); phonemic segmentation fluency (PSF);
nonsense word fluency (NWF; decoding and blending); and oral reading fluency
with connected text (ORF) and were utilized in this study. Numerical scores for each
of the four tasks reflected the number of correct responses given by each pupil in a
timed minute. Contingent on a numerical range, pupils were identified in one of
three categories with regard to achieving the benchmark for each skill area;
established, emerging, or deficit. The category of established indicated that a pupil
had achieved the benchmark and was not in need of intervention instruction. The
category of emerging indicated that a pupil was “emerging” to the benchmark and
would benefit from intervention instruction. However, Project PLUS stressed that
priority of intervention instruction be given to pupils “at-risk,” as “emerging” pupils
were not perceived as being as critical a group. The category of deficit indicated that
a pupil was “at-risk” in the skill area and was in need of intervention instruction.
Due to DIBELS student data not being unavailable until the following school
year, only data from the first two DIBELS assessment periods were evaluated.
Further, student data was not evaluated with regard to student gains.
The DIBELS measures were tested for reliability and validity with regard to
their sensitivity in their ability to be predictive of reading progress and to identify
students who are not making progress in acquiring critical early literacy skills
(Kaminski & Good, 1996).
Table 1 identified the benchmark levels set forth by the Project PLUS for first
grade.
65
Table 1
Project PLUS First Grade DIBELS Measures with Benchmark Levels
Big Idea in
Early
Literacy
DIBELS
Measures
Benchmarks
Established Emerging Deficit
Risk
Indicator
Letter naming
Fluency (LNF)
>47
letters/minute
>14
letters/minute
<14
letters/minute
Phonological
Awareness
Phonemic
Segmentation
Fluency (PSF)
35-45
correct/minute
10-34
correct/minute
<10
correct/minute
Alphabetic
Principle
Nonsense
Word Fluency
(NWF)
40
correct/minute
20-39
correct/minute
<20
correct/minute
Fluency with
Connected
Text
Oral Reading
Fluency (ORF)
40
words/minute
10-39
words/minute
<10
words/minute
Project PLUS employed a professional development model, which through
university-school collaboration, helped to develop and implement early literacy
interventions as well as improve early literacy outcomes for at-risk K-2 learners from
urban, high poverty backgrounds through teacher development at the inservice level.
University faculty steadily delivered in-service to general education teachers in
66
Kindergarten through second grade to help facilitate intensive, systematic and
effective instruction and individualized intervention for students considered at
highest risk of being identified as having learning disabilities prior to a formal
referral.
Lastly, although Project PLUS was not investigated as a whole in this
dissertation study, the three listed features below served as a basis for why Project
PLUS was incorporated into this investigation: (a) the early literacy interventions
that were included in the project were effective research-based practices; (b) in-depth
trainings in the conceptual and instructional areas to include the interpretation of the
DIBELS student outcome sheet was provided to all project participants; and (c)
project personnel was responsive to any and all needs of the participants throughout
the duration of the project.
Participants
The classrooms where the study took place were located in an urban school
district that serves approximately 23,000 students in grades Kindergarten through 12
and employs a total of 1,100 teachers (Educational Demographics Office, CBEDS,
2003). The classrooms studied were part of an elementary school within this urban
school district that served approximately 840 students in grades K through 6; 71% of
which participated in the federal free and reduced lunch program. The overall
student population of the elementary school studied consisted of 56.3% Hispanics,
32.3% African Americans, 8.9% Caucasian, 1.1% Asian, 0.8% Filipino, and 0.6%
Pacific Islander. Approximately 29.1% of the total student population of the urban
67
elementary school was considered to be non-native English speaking (Educational
Demographics Office, CBEDS, 2003). The elementary school, from which the
classrooms under study were a part, was on a traditional calendar.
All of the first grade general education teachers, a total of 6 female first grade
general education teachers, from the same urban elementary school volunteered to
participate in the study. First grade teachers were selected to participate in this study
because first grade has been identified by the state of California as the grade
designated to begin formal reading instruction (NCLB; Public Law No. 107-110, 115
Stat. 1425, 2002). Each participant committed to completing the Teacher Attitudes
about Early Reading and Spelling Survey (Bos & Mather, 1997), the Biographical
Questionnaire, and to two scheduled formal intervention observations during which
a Project PLUS Intervention Observation Form (Haager, 1999) was completed by
the researcher for each observation. Each participant communicated directly with
the researcher in-person to set up the formal intervention observations. A
pseudonym was given to the research site, Palm Elementary School. Pseudonyms
were also assigned to the teachers Regina, Barbara, Tanya, Irma, Sandy, and Marcie
to ensure their anonymity. The teaching experience among the first grade teaching
staff ranged from 4 to 30 years. All teacher participants had a minimum of three
years teaching experience at the first grade level and all of the case study participants
taught regular first grade education. All participants held either a lifetime or a
professional clear CLAD credential. A summary of teachers’ teaching experience
and additional education is presented in Table 2.
68
The teachers’ ethnicities were identified as the following: five Caucasians,
and one Asian. An overview of each teacher’s ethnicity is also included in Table 2.
All participants began their participation in the study at the same time—September
of 2001.
Table 2
Overview of Participants’ Teaching and Educational Experience, Ethnicity and
Additional Training
____________________________________________________________________
Participants Years of Teaching Years of Teaching Ethnicity Additional
Experience First Grade Training
Regina 5 4 Caucasian
Barbara 4 4 Caucasian
Tanya 15 3 Caucasian M.S. Ed.
Irma 30 27 Asian Gifted
Instruction
Certificate
Sandy 8 8 Caucasian
Marcie 6 6 Caucasian
____________________________________________________________________
Instrumentation
A mixed methods approach was used for this study. Qualitative and
quantitative measures were developed and used to obtain information from each of
the case study participants. Patton (2002) and other researchers (Miles & Huberman,
1994; Yin, 2003) posit that triangulation strengthens a study by combining methods
69
and that it is “ideal” in its ability to provide “cross-data validity checks” (pp. 247,
248). Patton (2002) suggests that data triangulation can be achieved when there is
“use of a variety of data sources in a study” (p. 247). Miles and Huberman (1994)
also add that combining different data types, qualitative and quantitative, will also
increase triangulation.
Instrumentation for the study consisted of one Teacher Attitude about Early
Reading and Spelling Survey (Bos & Mather, 1997; Appendix A); one Biographical
Questionnaire (Appendix B); and two Project PLUS Intervention Observation
Forms (Haager, 1999; Appendix C). Each participating teacher was also provided
additional student information from the measure, Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early
Literacy Skills (DIBELS; Good & Kaminski, 1996; Good, Kaminski, Laimon &
Johnson, 1992; Kaminski & Good, 1996; Appendixes D-J).
The Teacher Attitudes about Early Reading and Spelling Survey
The Teacher Attitudes about Early Reading and Spelling Survey was created
by Bos and Mather (1997) and was originally adapted from an instrument developed
by DeFord (1985). This instrument measures teachers’ attitudes toward statements
representative of a more explicit, structured language approach to reading instruction
(e.g., code-based (CB) instruction) in comparison to an instructional approach that is
representative of a more implicit, whole-language approach (e.g., meaning-based
(MB) or holistic instruction). Teacher participants rated each of the 25 items on a 6-
point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree). A middle
70
neutral point was not included, so that teachers were forced to at least mildly agree
or mildly disagree. If they had no opinion at all or did not understand the statement,
they were asked to leave the item blank. To ensure that the intent of the survey was
not completely apparent, several statements were added that were more neutral and
not strongly representative of any particular methodological preference.
Prior to conducting this study, this instrument, Teacher Attitudes about Early
Reading and Spelling Survey, (Bos & Mather, 1997), was administered to 41
practicing teachers in an initial field test. The factor analysis, using iterated principal
axes extraction and varimax rotation, indicated that two factors emerged: explicit,
code-based instruction, with an explained variance of 24%; and implicit, holistic
instruction, with an explained variance of 16%. Loadings on the factor
corresponding to explicit code-based instruction were consistently higher than on the
factor corresponding to implicit holistic instruction. The instrument was found to be
reliable (Cronbach’s alpha = .74; Bos, Mather, Narr, & Babur, 1999; Mather, Bos, &
Babur, 2001).
Biographical Questionnaire
The researcher developed the Biographical Questionnaire with assistance
and oversight of the Principal Investigator of Project PLUS. Any required or
recommended revisions to this instrument were made prior to its utilization. The
questionnaire consisted of two sections: The first section contained a combination of
open-ended questions that concentrated on gaining information related to why
71
teachers taught first grade, what they perceived the pluses and challenges to be
specific to teaching first grade and as participants of Project PLUS. Closed
questions specific to teachers’ demographic data related to their gender, age,
teaching experience, educational level, degree(s) earned, and teacher held credentials
were also included in the first section.
In the second section, teachers were asked to rate each of the 13 items on a 5-
point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Below
each item to be rated, spaces were provided so that participants were availed the
opportunity to make comments about the topic. The second section of the
Biographical Questionnaire sought to identify the following: (a) information about
the frequency with which teacher participants implemented Project PLUS early
literacy interventions; (b) teacher perception of support from Project PLUS,
administrators and colleagues; (c) information related to which aspects and/or
components of Project PLUS teacher participants utilized and integrated into their
classroom practice as well as intended to sustain (e.g., information or techniques
from demonstration lessons; DIBELS assessment); (d) teacher perceived confidence
and skill with regard to assessment of deficit areas, comprehension of literacy
components, and implementation of project interventions; and (e) teacher perception
of intervention students’ growth. However, due to teacher implementation of project
interventions being the focus of this study, Item 14 and information related to
teachers’ background was utilized from the Biographical Questionnaire. Prior to
this study, this instrument was not tested for reliability or validity.
72
The Project PLUS Intervention Observation Form
The Project PLUS Intervention Observation Form was developed by, Dr.
Diane Haager, (1999) the Principal Investigator of Project PLUS, for the purpose of
gathering specific information related to the implementation of Project PLUS early
literacy interventions. It was thought that through the use of The Project PLUS
Intervention Observation Forms the reality of actual teacher implementation of the
project interventions to students would be captured to the greatest extent possible.
The Project PLUS Intervention Observation Form was comprised of two pages: The
first page contained eight items and required the researcher to place a check next to a
given response that best characterized the factors of the observation: Item 1
identified the area of student instructional need according to the DIBELS student
outcome sheet; Item 3 identified the area of actual instruction; Item 2 identified who
provided the intervention instruction; Item 4 identified the materials utilized during
implementation of project interventions; and Item 8 identified the duration of the
activity. Item 5 identified the level of student engagement during intervention
instruction; Item 6 identified student correct response to intervention activity; and
Item 7 identified student response to the pace of activity instruction. However, for
the purposes of this study, Item 7 was not investigated because it was not relevant to
the study. Spaces were provided below each of the items for the notation of
comments. This section also included a rating code ranging from 0 (none of the
students) to 3 (all of the students), for Item 5, Item 6, and Item 7, which the
researcher could utilize for accuracy in the portrayal of what was observed.
73
The second page of this instrument was designed to draw attention to the
context of the classroom as well as the interventions and consisted of four questions
that required the researcher to fill in the spaces under each of the four items with
descriptions of what was observed: Item 1 asked the researcher to, “Describe the
content of the interventions”; Item 2 asked the researcher to, “Describe the classroom
activities taking place (other than the intervention)”; Item 3 asked the researcher to
“Describe what each adult is doing in the classroom”; and Item 4 asked the
researcher to, “Debrief with the teacher.” Although Item 2 and Item 3 provided
descriptive accounts for the context of the classroom, central to this investigation
were Item 1 and Item 4 from the second page and Item 1, Item 2, Item 3, Item 4,
Item 5, Item 6, and Item 8 from the first page. Prior to this study, this instrument
was not tested for reliability or validity.
Procedures
One Teacher Attitudes about Early Reading and Spelling Survey (Bos &
Mather, 1997; Appendix A) was administered by Project PLUS personnel during a
professional development training session in May of 2002 and was completed by
each teacher participant during a training session. The researcher gave each teacher
participant one Biographical Questionnaire (Appendix B) on June 4, 2002 and
collected each of the questionnaires on June 10, 2002.
Project PLUS Intervention Observation Forms (Haager, 1999; Appendix C)
were completed twice a year by the researcher and/or the Project PLUS associate
74
during the scheduled formal intervention observation times. The duration of each of
the conducted formal intervention observations ranged from 35 to 65 minutes.
Although this study spanned over one academic year, teacher implementation
of project interventions was generally observed within a seven-month period. The
first of the two intervention observations was conducted in either December 2001 or
January 2002 and the second in March of 2002 for all study participants with the
exception of Sandy who was observed for her second observation in May of 2002.
The months selected for participant observations: December, January and March,
were decided upon by Project PLUS personnel, the researcher, and the school
administrator. Project PLUS personnel as well as the researcher were in agreement
that scheduling the first observation to take place in either December 2001or January
2002 would allow the participants enough time to get acquainted with the Project
PLUS early literacy interventions and materials; to complete Project PLUS training;
to request demonstration lessons of the early literacy interventions; and to solicit and
receive any assistance they felt they might have needed from project personnel, to
include the researcher, in order to be successful with any and all facets of the
implementation process. Moreover, the month of March was selected for the second
observation primarily to avoid conflict with other scheduled activities both school
wide and across all first grade classrooms such as Spring Break, testing, and planned
fieldtrips.
Table 3 presents an overview of each of the case study participant’s
scheduled intervention observation dates.
75
Table 3
Overview of Participants’ Scheduled Intervention Observation Dates
Participants Date of First Observation Date of Second Observation
Regina January 16, 2002 March 20, 2002
Tanya January 16, 2002 March 20, 2002
Marcie January 17, 2002 March 19, 2002
Barbara December 12, 2001 March 19, 2002
Irma December 12, 2001 March 20, 2002
Sandy December 12, 2001 May 2, 2002
____________________________________________________________________
Note: Sandy, who originally scheduled her second observation to be conducted on
March 19, 2002, was not actually observed until May 2, 2002.
In addition, each participating teacher was also provided student information
from the measure, Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS;
Good & Kaminski, 1996; Good, Kaminski, Laimon & Johnson, 1992; Kaminski &
Good, 1996), which Project PLUS personnel administered three times a year;
September 2001, January 2002, and June 2002, to each case study participants’
whole class. Each teacher participant’s student scores were recorded onto what the
project called, DIBELS student outcome sheets (Appendixes D-J). Pupils’ outcomes
76
were compared to benchmark levels after each of the first two assessment periods
and intervention instruction on behalf of the participants was to ensue accordingly.
An overview of the data collection schedule is presented in Table 4
Table 4
Data Collection Schedule
Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April May June
2001 2001 2001 2001 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002
___________________________________________________________________
Lastly, the researcher or a Project PLUS associate conducted informal walk-
throughs, approximately four times a month for each case study participant from
September of 2001 through June of 2002. During the walk-throughs informal
dialogue took place between the researcher, the case study participants, and the
students. The primary purpose of the walk-throughs was to establish an active
presence at the school site so that case study participants would have access to the
researcher during the course of the study. Participants were encouraged to converse
openly about their needs and concerns and, when requested, the researcher assisted
the teacher participants with additional demonstration lessons related to
Project
PLUS
Begins
Formal
Intervention
Observations
Formal
Intervention
Observations
TAERS Biographical
Questionnaire
77
implementation of the early literacy interventions; explanations about literacy
concepts; and advice on how to better manage their classrooms. During the time of
informal walk-throughs, routine visits with the site principal; the assistant principal
and support staff were also conducted.
Data Analysis
The techniques utilized in this study allowed the researcher to partake in an
iterative process of reviewing existing data for the purpose of accessing deeper levels
of thought processes throughout the course of data analysis (Miles & Huberman,
1994; Patton, 2002; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Serving as strong guidelines, the Flow
Model best describes the qualitative data analysis utilized in this multiple case study
(Miles & Huberman, 1994). Processes of analysis are described as consisting of
three current flows of activity: data reduction, data display, and conclusion
drawing/verification. Part of the ongoing analysis consisted of the process, “data
reduction” which refers to the selecting, simplifying, focusing, coding, abstracting,
and transforming of data into meaningful patterns and commonality (Miles &
Huberman, 1994).
Of particular interest to the study was the recognition of patterns embedded
in all data and the capturing of these patterns into meaningful findings and
relationships (Patton, 2002; Strauss & Corbin, 1998). Consequently, an inductive
analysis was applied to discover the values of qualitative data. Patterns of traits and
78
sub-traits and categories eventually emerged from the data (Patton, 2002, pp. 453-
454).
A primary method of analysis undertaken by the researcher, and the second
major flow of analysis activity is known as, “data display” (Miles & Huberman,
1994). A “display” is defined as a visual format that presents information
systematically and permits the researcher to draw and verify descriptive conclusions
about the phenomenon in a bounded context as well as take needed action. In this
study, reduced data, when translated into displays, primarily fell into the form of
matrices, which included the use of defined rows and columns.
Data displays were also utilized to exhibit quantitative findings from both of
the instruments that incorporated Likert scales; the Teacher Attitudes about Early
Reading and Spelling Survey (Bos & Mather, 1997); and the Biographical
Questionnaire, which was devised by both the researcher and the principal
investigator of Project PLUS. Multiple tactics for drawing and verifying
conclusions, the third flow of analysis, were used to obtain results. These included:
noting patterns and themes, determining plausibility, clustering, counting, making
contrasts and comparisons, partitioning variables, subsuming particulars into the
general, factoring, noting relations between variables, and finding intervening
variables and building a logical chain of evidence (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Once
conclusions were formed, they were tested by checking representativeness, checking
for researcher effects, triangulating findings (Patton, 2002), weighting the evidence,
79
checking the meaning of outliers, using extreme cases, ruling out spurious relations,
and looking for negative evidence (Miles & Huberman, 1994, p. 263).
The study attempted to answer three major questions. The first research
question was: What is the nature of implementation of the Project PLUS early
literacy interventions with first grade general education teachers?
The first of these questions investigated the nature of the ways and manners
in which the teacher participants actually participated in the implementation of
Project PLUS early literacy interventions on two separate occasions. It was
anticipated that information from the formal intervention observations would identify
a deeper level of the teacher participants’ actual use of the Project PLUS early
literacy interventions such as; a level of familiarity of the intervention steps and
procedures; a level of ability to accurately match an identified area of instructional
need to an appropriate project intervention; and the interaction between teacher
participants and students. For example, teacher participants’ familiarity with the
steps and procedures of the interventions were thought to be evident upon
observation and demonstrated by (a) teacher participants’ ability to move through the
intervention activities at a reasonable pace while keeping in sync with the delineated
steps of the project interventions; (b) the utilization of language that clearly
delineated the directions of the intervention activities; (c) knowledge of the
instructional content contained within the intervention guide; and (d) the appropriate
use of materials specific to project interventions. It was also thought that the data
might also elicit information about whether or not teacher participants’
80
implementation of the Project PLUS early literacy interventions was sustained over
the course of the study as demonstrated by an increased level of familiarity with
more than just a couple of the interventions.
Additionally, responses to the Biographical Questionnaire, although self-
reported, were anticipated to confirm general information about teacher participants
teaching experience as well as reveal each teacher’s actual participation in the
implementation process.
The second two-part research question was: To what degree and with what
level of depth did the first grade teachers implement the Project PLUS early literacy
interventions? First, this question set out to examine with which of the two
methodological preferences to reading instruction, code or meaning based, teacher
participants were most affiliated. It was anticipated that through the Teacher
Attitudes about Early Reading and Spelling Survey (Bos & Mather, 1997) that the
identification of case study participants’ preference towards a code-emphasis or a
meaning-based instructional approach to reading would be established. Additionally,
the data from the formal intervention observations would also potentially identify the
emergence of instructional patterns that would help to solidify the case study
participants’ methodological preference.
Second, this question was to capture whether or not case study participants’
methodological preference to reading instruction was congruent with the
methodological platform on which the Project PLUS early literacy interventions
were based (code-based).
81
The third research question was: How do first grade general education
teachers’ beliefs impact their implementation of Project PLUS early literacy
interventions? The purpose of this question was to explore how participants’
directed their implementation behavior if indeed there was a discrepancy between
their methodological instructional preference, as determined by both the Teacher
Attitudes about Early Reading and Spelling Survey (Bos & Mather, 1997) and data
collected from the observations, and that from which the Project PLUS interventions
were based (code-based). Lastly, this question sought to identify whether or not
specific patterns would emerge among teacher participants’ holding a
methodological preference other than code-based.
An overview of which instruments apply to each research question is
presented in Table 5
Table 5
Overview of the Application of Instrumentation to Research Questions
Instrumentation:
Research Question
1
Research Question
2
Research Question
3
Biographical
Questionnaire
X
Intervention
Observations
X X X
TAERS X X
Descriptive Information of Classroom Environment
Information from Item 2 and Item 3 on the second page of the Project PLUS
Intervention Observation Form (Haager, 1999) was included for the purpose of
82
providing descriptions of the physical appearance of the classroom, contents of the
classroom, instructional focus of the classroom other than Project PLUS early
literacy interventions, and of the activities that other adults in the classroom were
conducting if indeed they were present at the time of the intervention observations.
This information was incorporated into the case study descriptions of each case study
participant for the purpose of defining each classroom setting but was not
incorporated into the formal analysis.
Table 6 provides an overview of the information that was utilized for
descriptive purposes only.
Table 6
Overview of Data Collection for Descriptive Purposes
____________________________________________________________________
Instrumentation Item Purpose:
Observation Form Page 2; Item #2 Classroom Description of
Case Study Participants
Observation Form Page 2; Item #3 Description of adult activity
In the classrooms of Case
Study Participants
Analysis of the First Research Question
The analysis of the first research question began by reviewing the data from
each of the teacher participant’s completed Project PLUS Intervention Observation
Forms (Haager, 1999). As an instrument, the Project PLUS Intervention
Observation Forms (Haager, 1999) identified a multitude of aspects with regard to
83
participants’ implementation behavior. Upon investigation of Item 1, Item 2, Item 3,
Item 4, Item 5, Item 6 and Item 8 on the first page of the observation form and Item 1
and Item 4 on the second page of the observation form, an overwhelming amount of
detail emerged with regard to every nuance of each of the participant’s
implementation practice. Due to the amount of data collected from this instrument,
attempts to reduce data from participants were on going. Participant responses to
Item 1, Item 2, Item 3, Item 4, Item 5, Item 6 and Item 8 on the first page of the
instrument were displayed and analyzed. Data from Item 1 and Item 4 were
analyzed and re-analyzed until clusters of responses emerged that could be classified
as recurring and thereby formed a pattern of reaction. Eventually categories, traits
and sub-traits emerged from participant responses during the flow of data reduction.
Categories, traits and sub-traits were identified as recurring across participants or
sub-groups of participants. Consequently, the researcher noted that inferences could
be drawn from the characteristics of teacher participants’ implementation of Project
PLUS early literacy interventions.
Comments made beneath Item 1, Item 2, Item 3, Item 4, Item 5, Item 6 and
Item 8 on the first page of this instrument were few. The majority of them listed
details such as student names, specified the brand names of utilized materials, and
documented the exact duration of each of the implemented intervention activities. In
addition, this information was also duplicated in Item 1 on the second page of the
same instrument and was included in the content analysis if it was determined to be
relevant to the study. Item 1, Item 2, Item 3, Item 4, Item 5, Item 6 and Item 8 from
84
the first page of this instrument were displayed for each case study participant,
across participants and analyzed.
Analysis Specific to Match of Intervention to Targeted Area of Instructional Need
Analysis of Item 1 and Item 3 on the first page of the Project PLUS
Intervention Observation Form (Haager, 1999) set out to identify teacher
participants’ ability to (a) accurately identify area(s) of students’ instructional needs
via data from the DIBELS student outcome sheets; and (b) match the targeted area of
instruction with an appropriate project intervention.
Areas of instructional need or rather the “Big Ideas” (Smith, Simmons, &
Kameenui, 1998) underlying the Project PLUS early literacy interventions were:
phonological awareness or more specifically phonemic segmentation for Activities
12-19 and identified on the DIBELS student outcome sheet by the indicator PSF
(phonemic segmentation fluency); the alphabetic principal for Activities 20-30 and
identified on the DIBELS student outcome sheet by the indicator NWF (nonsense
word fluency); and fluency with connected text for Activities 31-36 and identified on
the DIBELS student outcome sheet by the indicator ORF (oral reading fluency).
Teacher participant selection of an appropriate intervention to at-risk pupils’ targeted
instructional area(s) would indicate teacher participant knowledge and understanding
of how to effectively remediate for specific early literacy deficits through the use of
explicit Project PLUS early literacy interventions. Details with regard to the
interpretation of the DIBELS outcome sheet for the purpose of identifying student
85
areas of deficit were the focal point of at least two of the Project PLUS training
sessions. Explanation for how to address student deficit areas was also consistently
highlighted during the Project PLUS training sessions as well as was delineated in
the Intervention Guide (Haager & Dimino, 2001).
Equally important for the participants to comprehend, albeit more complex,
was the understanding of the sequence with which these literacy concepts occurred.
Although complete mastery of these concepts or “Big Ideas” on the part of the
teacher participants was not an expectation of the project, research findings of the
necessary components and their sequence for the successful acquisition of literacy
were shared during project training sessions as well as were delineated in the
Intervention Guide (Haager & Dimino, 2001). Therefore, teacher participants who
demonstrated comprehension of these literacy concepts as well as their sequence
were identified as possessing a more profound understanding of the fundamental
building blocks of literacy development.
Responses to these items were also used to cross check findings from the
observations specified in the content analysis of Item 1 and Item 4. Responses to
these items were displayed for each teacher participant, across case, and were
analyzed.
Analysis Specific to Intervention Fidelity
Responses to Item 2, Item 4, and Item 8 of the first page of the Project PLUS
Intervention Observation Form (Haager, 1999) were anticipated to directly address
86
specific aspects of intervention fidelity. Fidelity was defined as the close adherence
to the structure of the treatment or the instructional practice (Gresham, 1989), which
in this case were the Project PLUS early literacy interventions. Part of the treatment,
as determined by Project PLUS, was that the teachers (participants) be those to
implement the Project PLUS early literacy interventions, as they received training,
and participated in demonstration lessons specific to the implementation of the
interventions. Item 2 addressed this aspect of intervention fidelity. Each
participant’s response to this item was displayed and cross-case analysis was
conducted.
Item 4 on the first page of the instrument addressed the appropriate use of
materials during intervention instruction. Project PLUS had supplied a wide
assortment of appropriate materials to all case study participants in September of
2001. In addition, the Intervention Guide (Haager & Dimino, 2001) listed
appropriate materials to be used for each of the interventions—all of which were
provided to the participants. Although the project encouraged the use of their
materials, they were also open to other materials being utilized as long as the
materials were suitable to the selected intervention. The researcher recommended
that if participants were in doubt of the materials they had selected as being suitable,
that they simply ask the researcher or project personnel for confirmation. Each
participant’s response to this item was displayed and cross-case analysis was
conducted.
87
The recommended duration for each intervention activity per Project PLUS
was between 10-20 minutes. Anything less than 10 minutes or more than 20 minutes
was determined to be less effective. Item 8 addressed this aspect of treatment
fidelity. Each participant’s response to this item was displayed and cross-case
analysis was conducted.
A content analysis for responses under Item 1 and Item 4 on the second page
of the instrument was conducted. Although the descriptive accounts incorporated all
aspects of participants’ implementation behavior in Item 1, Item 1 also specified
attention to the adherence to the steps and procedures of each of the interventions as
delineated in the Intervention Guide (Haager & Dimino, 2001). Treatment fidelity
was considered a vital determinant of their effectiveness for at-risk students.
Therefore, in the flow of data reduction, responses were re-analyzed for statements
that referenced steps and procedures of the interventions or from which aspects with
regard to steps and procedures of the interventions could be inferred.
Although broadly based and not entirely designated to target aspects of
fidelity in this study, Item 4 on the second page of the instrument held descriptions
of verbal exchanges that occurred between participants and the researcher(s) after the
formal observations of implementation were conducted. Many of the accounts were
in the form of questions or suggestions from the researcher to the participant that
addressed aspects of intervention fidelity such as the duration of the intervention
activities or the use of certain intervention materials. Therefore, responses to Item 4
were combined with the responses from Item 1, reduced, analyzed and reanalyzed
88
until patterns emerged. Eventually, categories, traits, and sub-traits emerged from
the data that could be classified as recurring.
Analysis Specific to Student Dynamics
Responses to Item 5 and Item 6 of the first page of the Project PLUS
Intervention Observation Form (Haager, 1999) were anticipated to directly address
specific aspects of student behavior related to intervention instruction. Item 5
specifically addressed students’ level of engagement of the targeted instructional
area being addressed through an intervention activity. A rating scale of 0-3 appeared
beneath Item 5 and represented the level of student engagement during intervention
instruction “0” representing the lowest level of engagement and “3” representing the
highest level of engagement. A space for comments was also located beneath Item
5. Comments were identified for one of the six teacher participants and incorporated
into Item 1 on the second page of the observation form. Each participant’s response
to this item was displayed and cross-case analysis was conducted.
Item 6 specifically addressed whether students’ responded correctly or
incorrectly to the intervention activities. A rating scale of 0-3 appeared beneath Item
6 and represented the level of student engagement during intervention instruction “0”
representing the lowest level of engagement and “3” representing the highest level of
engagement. A space for comments was also located beneath Item 6. No comments
were identified for any of the six teacher participants. Each participant’s response to
this item was displayed and cross-case analysis was conducted.
89
The Flow of Data Reduction for Item 1 and Item 4
Data reduction began by the researcher identifying and underlining key terms
in the instructional statements of each of the participants as well as the descriptive
notes taken by the researcher with regard to participant implementation of each of
the implemented Project PLUS early literacy interventions during the time of the
scheduled observations of teacher participant implementation. The process of data
reduction continued through the restatement of key phrases, thus allowing for initial
concepts within the text to emerge. All of the noted concepts emerged to the point of
being classified as recurring, thereby demonstrating the formulation of a pattern.
The next step of data reduction was clustering in which the concepts were
grouped together by similarity. Thereafter, the reduction of clusters took place and
labels were attached to the clusters, a total of 12 clusters or traits emerged.
However, during the stages of data reduction that included clustering and the
reduction of clusters, the emergence of three categories became apparent: Teacher
Adaptation Process, Student Dynamics, and Teacher Attributes.
In addition, each of the five traits contained within the first category Teacher
Adaptation Process appeared to be further reduced into sub-clusters or sub-traits.
Each of the three traits contained within the second category Student Dynamics also
appeared to be further reduced into sub-traits. However, each of the four traits
contained within the third category Teacher Attributes were not further reduced into
sub-traits. Moreover, varied levels within certain sub-traits were achieved across
teacher participants.
90
Further examination of the achieved levels within certain sub-traits across
teacher participants revealed another pattern; it became evident that levels across
participants varied to a reasonable degree. Next, tabulation of the achieved levels
within the sub-traits was conducted across case and comparisons and contrasts were
performed thus allowing for an ordering of the cases to emerge with a thoughtful
pattern that can best be characterized as a User Type. A total of three user types
emerged: Accomplished, Emergent, and Initial.
Self-Reported Implementation
The analysis of each case study participant’s response to Item 14 of the
Biographical Questionnaire was conducted. It was anticipated that responses from
this instrument would match as well as verify the findings of actual implementation
use as reported in each of the teacher participants’ case study. Therefore, the
Biographical Questionnaire was used to quantify the teacher participants’ frequency
of implementation and was compared to the findings in the observations. Self-
reported intervention implementation of the Project PLUS early literacy
interventions was calculated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Each of the teacher participant’s attitudinal response
to Item 14 was displayed in tabular form in correspondence to its numerical value
and analyzed.
Four of the 6 participants included comments under this item. Data reduction
occurred for each case study participant that wrote a comment in the space provided
91
under Item 14. First, the researcher read each response and developed an initial
impression of each teacher participant’s comment initially thinking that comments
would reflect a perceived level of engagement in the implementation process.
However, only one of the four comments addressed this idea. During the flow of
data reduction, the analytic process of coding and recoding took place and eventually
themes and categories emerged for participants’ comments. Statements in response
to this item could be classified as clustered and recurring, thus forming a pattern of
reaction.
Analysis of the Second Research Question
The analysis of data for the second question consisted of teacher participants’
responses to the survey titled, Teacher Attitudes about Early Reading and Spelling
(Bos & Mather, 1997). The function of the survey was to determine which
methodological preference to reading instruction best described each teacher
participant. Each participant’s responses to Item 3, 5, 9, 21, 22, 23, and 24 of the 6-
point Likert scale were calculated with their corresponding numerical value (e.g., 6--
Strongly Agree, 5—Agree, 4—Mildly Agree, 3—Mildly Disagree, 2—Disagree, and
1—Strongly Disagree). The aforementioned item numbers were representative of
explicit or code-based (CB) instruction. Each participant’s responses to Item 8, Item
10, Item 11, Item 16, Item 17, and Item 19 of the 6-point Likert scale were calculated
with their corresponding numerical value (e.g., 6--Strongly Agree, 5—Agree,
4—Mildly Agree, 3—Mildly Disagree, 2—Disagree, and 1—Strongly Disagree).
92
The aforementioned item numbers were representative of implicit or meaning-based
(MB) instruction. For each participant, scores for each of the items that corresponded
to CB and MB instruction were separately added and averaged to render a mean
value for each type of instruction. The highest score that one could achieve for each
type of instruction was 6. The higher of the two scores would determine the case
study participant’s methodological preference toward reading instruction.
In addition, data from the formal intervention observations would be
compared to the data from the TAERS (Bos & Mather, 1997) to determine teacher
participants’ dominant instructional approach to reading instruction.
It was anticipated that the second part of this question would be addressed by
the researcher making a comparison between the case study participants’
methodological preference to reading instruction as determined by the scores
rendered from the survey titled, Teacher Attitudes about Early Reading and Spelling
(Bos & Mather, 1997) and data from the observations to a code-based approach—of
which the Project PLUS early literacy interventions are rooted. A determination of
whether or not teacher participants’ instructional methodology was congruent with
project based intervention methodology was noted.
Analysis of Third Research Question
To explore how participants’ directed their implementation behavior if indeed
there was a discrepancy between their methodological preference to reading
instruction (meaning-based) and that of the project interventions (code-based),
93
findings from the content analyses of both Item 1 and Item 4 on the second page of
the Intervention Observation Form (Haager, 1999) would be utilized to (a) identify
possible confirmation or negation of the methodological preference as identified by
the TAERS (Bos & Mather, 1997), and (b) to note the discrepancies and/or nuances
of the details of instruction of Project PLUS early literacy interventions as delivered
by each case study participant during each of the two observations.
Table 7 presents an overview of the data collected from each case study
participant and the analytic procedures utilized for each research question.
Table 7
Overview of Data Collection and Analysis Procedures For Research Questions
____________________________________________________________________
Instrumentation Analysis of Research Question 1 Purpose:
Observation Form Data Reduction: Page 2; Content Analysis Participant Familiarity of
Item #1 and #4 Steps and Procedures
(Intervention Fidelity)
Pedagogical Content
Observation Form Data Display: Page 1; Item #2, #4, and #8 Intervention Fidelity
Observation Form Data Display: Page 1; Item #5 and #6 Student Dynamics
Observation Form Data Display: Page 1; Item #1 and #3 Pedagogical Content
Underlying PPLUS Early
Literacy Interventions/fidelity
Questionnaire Data Display: Item #14 Self-Reported Implementation
Data Reduction: Teacher Comments
94
“Table 7: Continued”
__________________________________________________________________
Instrumentation Analysis of Research Question 2 Purpose:
Addresses Part I of Question:
TAERS Data Displays: Identification of Participants’
Items 3, 5, 9, 21, 22, 23, and 24 = CB Methodological Preference to
Items 8, 10, 11, 16, 17, and 19 = MB Reading Instruction
Observation Form Data Reduction: Page 2; Content Analysis Identification/Determination
Item #1 and #4 of Participants’
Methodological Preference to
Reading Instruction
Addresses Part II of Question:
TAERS Data Displays Determination of Congruency
Observation Form Data Reduction: Determination of Congruency
Page 2; Content Analysis of Item #1 and #4
____________________________________________________________________
Instrumentation Analysis of Research Question 3 Purpose:
____________________________________________________________________
TAERS Data Displays Note Discrepancy of
Methodological Preference to
Reading Instruction
Observation Form Data Reduction: Note Discrepancies/Nuances/
Page 2; Content Analysis of Item #1 and #4 Details to Instruction
__________________________________________________________________________________
Summary
In summary, a mixed methods comparative case study was used first, to
explore how six first grade general education teachers implemented Project PLUS
early literacy interventions; second, to investigate the degree with which first grade
general education teachers implemented the Project PLUS early literacy
95
interventions; and three to note how intervention implementation was directed if a
teachers’ methodological preference to reading instruction was identified as
meaning-based rather than code-based—the instructional framework of the project
interventions. A mixed methods comparative case study approach was selected so
that rich accounts of teacher participants’ implementation of project interventions
that took place within naturalistic settings would transpire (Patton, 2002; Yin, 1989,
2003).
Data analysis for this study included three dimensions: a description of the
actual implementation of Project PLUS early literacy interventions on the part of
teacher participants; a representation of the teacher participants’ methodological
preference to reading instruction; and how teachers’ methodological preference to
reading instruction impacted the implementation behavior of Project PLUS early
literacy interventions. The key factors of each dimension were: (a) teacher as
implementer of Project PLUS early literacy interventions; and (b) how teachers’
beliefs about the best methodology for reading instruction impacted and/or directed
their implementation behavior. It was felt that each of these factors would be
integrally related to how and why case study participants decided whether or not the
Project PLUS early literacy interventions were meaningful to their early literacy
instructional practice.
96
CHAPTER 4
FINDINGS
Introduction
Chapter four of this dissertation describes the findings of this study. The
order in which the findings are presented includes: six case study descriptions;
descriptions of emergent domains, characteristics and sub-characteristics; cross case
analysis of how emergent domains, characteristics and sub-characteristics transpired
among teacher participants; descriptions of specific user types: Accomplished,
Emergent, and Initial; the identification of teachers’ methodological preference to
reading instruction (TAERS, Bos & Mather, 1997); and how teacher implementation
behavior was directed in the participants that were identified as having a
methodological preference to reading instruction other than code-based.
Case Study Descriptions
The following section will provide a description of how each of the
participants implemented Project PLUS early literacy interventions. Details about
each of the participant’s teaching experience, teacher characteristics, instructional
environment, and instructional approach will be described.
Case Study Participant: Regina
Regina, a teacher with a total of 5 years of teaching experience, four of which
had been dedicated to first grade, demonstrated a keen understanding of the early
97
literacy principles and concepts taught during the Project PLUS early literacy
trainings. In the course of data collection, it was evident that Regina capitalized on
general information, specific instructional content, the utilization of materials
provided to her not only by Project PLUS trainings but also during demonstration
lessons and through her inquisitions to project personnel for detailed information
whenever the need arose. Regina consistently expressed belief in the effectiveness
of Project PLUS early literacy interventions and exhibited a very positive attitude
about them. During the debriefings or while our paths crossed in the hallway she
would often remark, “they’re [the interventions] working. I tell you, the students are
getting it. You’ve got to love that.” Additionally, when observed, her students
appeared to be very comfortable and experienced with the classroom procedures that
were required for implementation of the interventions. The students were also very
familiar with a multitude of the project’s interventions. The portrait of Regina that
follows will provide a more complete picture of her classroom, of her as an
implementer of Project PLUS early literacy interventions, and of some of the
nuances to her instruction with her at-risk student participants in the intervention
groups.
Teacher Characteristics
Unique to Regina was her genuine receptivity to improving the reading
ability of her at-risk readers. Regina loved to read and loved teaching first grade due
to her ability to see “the light go on in my [her] students after they’ve read something
98
that they’ve enjoyed or learned through a book.” She eagerly participated in all of
the project’s training sessions and often asked project personnel many questions
pointed to the specifics of implementation of the interventions during the training
sessions. For example, in the first training session Regina asked project personnel if
implementation of the interventions could be conducted as a center activity. She was
also the first participant to schedule a meeting with me to assist with the
interpretation of the DIBELS student outcome sheet. During our meeting Regina
provided me with an accurate interpretation of her at-risk students, their targeted
instructional areas, and a cohesive plan for how to address their needs through
applicable interventions located in the Intervention Guide (Haager & Dimino, 2001).
I noted that reassurance rather than guidance was needed due to Regina’s thorough
understanding of the goals of the project. Regina was articulate and appeared to
have the ability to assimilate information quickly.
Instructional Environment
Upon initial entrance into Regina’s classroom the feeling of structure,
organization, and a no-nonsense approach to instruction was evident. Regina, was
consistently friendly, and personable in expression and always demonstrated a sense
of purpose and knowledge about students’ academic, emotional and family history as
well as their strengths and weaknesses.
The classroom consistently appeared to be clean, orderly, attractive, and well
managed. The classroom setting was bright and airy with beautifully restored
99
hardwood flooring and a northern wall of glass windows, which nearly reached from
the floor to the ceiling and allowed for an abundance of natural sunlight possibly
contributing to the overall cheery atmosphere of the classroom. In the front of the
classroom lining the area above Regina’s white boards were Open Court Reading
Sound Spelling Cards (McGraw Hill). In front of the white boards in the front of the
classroom was a rug area where whole group activities as well as some instruction
took place.
Student desks were clustered into four groups of six and were dispersed
evenly throughout the middle of the classroom. These seating clusters served as both
work areas in which students could work independently as well as together with
classmates or an adult. There were also two kidney tables; one was located in the
front and center portion of the classroom and the other towards the west-front corner
of the classroom. The teacher and/or aide provided small group instruction at these
tables, and incidentally, this was where I observed the implementation of Project
PLUS early interventions. There were other clearly designated areas around the
classroom such as, a classroom library that was located toward the northeast corner
of the classroom; a listening center in the northwest corner of the classroom; a
writing center side-by-side a fluency center along the western wall and an area
designated for students’ “Super Star” work along the eastern wall of the classroom.
Also along the eastern wall of the classroom more toward the classroom’s entrance
was a display of charts; one listed the students’ duties which appeared to rotate
among the students, one displayed the classroom rules, one listed student groups
100
which appeared to not be fixed, and one displayed a cycle of rotation complete with
arrows of which center to move to and from. Each of the center areas had
corresponding materials readily available for students to easily access and utilize.
Additionally, a daily routine was neatly written out on a portion of the white board in
the front of the classroom allowing the students to reference the day’s activities at-a-
glance and at any time.
Instructional Approach
Regina conducted a total of four Project PLUS early literacy
interventions—two intervention activities per observation. Each of the four observed
interventions were within the Project PLUS recommended 20-minute time frame.
Each of the activities effectively utilized either Project PLUS provided materials or
supplemental materials.
Additionally, Regina accurately identified her at-risk students and their
deficit areas per the DIBELS student outcome sheet and provided to those students
direct instruction to the targeted areas during each observation. Regina also
accurately identified her “emergent” students, those who were not at-risk but that,
nonetheless, had not approached benchmark and addressed their needs directly
during her last three implemented Project PLUS interventions. Addressing the
“emergent” students was not a requirement of Project PLUS.
An obvious strength of Regina’s implementation was her understanding of
pedagogical content related to the Project PLUS early literacy interventions. Regina
101
clearly understood the underlying principles of each of the interventions that she
conducted as well as the concepts that both preceded and followed them. Her
accuracy of the progression of the implementation of Project PLUS early literacy
interventions was also apparent not only for her at-risk group, but for her emergent
group as well. For example, Regina moved smoothly from her initial interventions,
Activity 5 and Activity 6 in the concept area of phonemic awareness, to one in the
concept area of the alphabetic principle, Activity 24, and ended with an intervention
activity in fluency, Activity 31. Regina’s understanding of the conceptual
progression was one that was emphasized in the project and was also made known in
a statement that she made to me during a debrief that took place at the conclusion of
her second observation:
You know, in case you were wondering, I decided to conduct a quick
intervention that recapped the alphabetic principle prior to a fluency
intervention for only half of the intervention group because although these
students are close to exiting the emergent group in the alphabetic principle,
they still need to demonstrate more stability in order for me to be satisfied
and before I can expect them to gain a complete grasp of the next needed skill
at hand which just so happens to be fluency.
Upon hearing Regina’s explanation, I was convinced that not only did Regina have a
clear understanding of the concepts underlying the interventions as well as
established expectations, but also that she was very capable of utilizing the
terminology appropriately, with confidence and ease.
Regina also demonstrated great familiarity with each of the implemented
interventions. She guided the students each step of the way as they utilized their
fingers then color tiles to segment words by phoneme during the first observation.
102
She also moved the students from shared practice to independent practice very
efficiently during this exercise. During the second observation, Regina also
effectively guided the students through their use of letter tiles when they matched the
sounds in the words to their corresponding letters.
Additionally, during both observations, Regina consistently appeared to be
well prepared and organized. When letter tiles were required for an intervention
activity, the appropriate letter tiles were readily available for each student. No time
was spent on locating missing tiles, or sorting through tiles that were irrelevant to the
intervention. All of the letter tiles in Regina’s classroom were placed in wooden
boxes (not provided by Project PLUS) that identified each letter’s compartment with
a sticker (not provided by Project PLUS) so that the location of a letter was easily
comprehensible and quickly accessible to all of her students. The wooden boxes
were located next to the kidney table on a shelf with other intervention materials.
The students appeared to be very familiar with all of the Project PLUS intervention
materials, where they were located, and demonstrated a sense of respect with regard
to material use.
In each of Regina’s observations, there was a game-like approach to her
implementation style. For example, during her implementation of Activity 5, Regina
had the students pull materials out of a velvety black bag keeping their eyes closed
until the intervention material(s) had been fully removed and would proceed to have
the all of the members of the intervention group vocalize the word to be segmented
and then blended. Regina also incorporated both a “teacher pile” and a “child’s pile”
103
when conducting intervention Activity 31 and the student(s), depending on the
accuracy of their response(s), would have to place the card into the pile of the player
who “won” the card. Upon each observation, the students appeared to be eager to
identify the word or letter and clearly expressed excitement when participating in
what they perceived to be “games” rather than intervention activities.
Moreover, Regina’s attitude toward the interventions was very positive as
illustrated in a comment to her students: “You boys and girls are so lucky to have
these interventions to learn from. They are so fun and they make you smarter and
smarter and much better readers.” Regina also appeared to rejoice when her students
responded correctly to the task and often made comments reflecting that sentiment.
For example, two phrases that I often heard when a student did respond accurately
was, “Good job [name of student]!” “Nice going [name of student]!”
During implementation of each of the interventions, all of Regina’s students
participated in center activities. Students who read books in the library were
participants of the “Library Center,” and students who listened to books on tape were
participants of the “Listening Center,” and so on. The at-risk readers received their
explicit systematic instruction from Regina when they were in the “Skill Building”
center. At the start of implementation of the activities, Regina set a timer for
approximately 16 minutes and when the timer sounded to indicate that time was up,
all of the students who were and were not part of the intervention group knew that
they had one minute remaining to finish the task, clean up, and rotate forward to the
next center. The transitions appeared to be effortless and clearly understood by all of
104
the students allowing Regina to continuously work with rotations of at-risk students
uninterruptedly. The added feature of displaying a chart that identified who was
supposed to be where appeared to be very facilitative for the implementation process.
Regina consistently alternated how she grouped her students for instruction:
pairing, dyads, triads, working with student participants independently, or as a whole
group were some of the configurations that I saw during the observations.
Conversely, Regina’s implementation of the interventions was consistently explicit
and direct. Whatever the grouping, Regina’s students were highly engaged,
responded accurately, had fun, and were eager to participate in each Project PLUS
interventions.
During the first observation no other adults were present in the classroom.
During the second observation, Regina’s aide was in the classroom correcting and
checking off the students’ homework. During both observations, the non-
intervention students were working on completing a previous assignment such as
writing a story that incorporated a specific sequence of events, were engaged in a
Math Center activity that involved the use of unifix cubes, played the Phonics Game
or completed sentence worksheets independently or with a partner at their desk—all
of which considered to be center activities.
Case Study Participant: Barbara
Barbara had the least amount of teaching experience of all case study
participants amounting to four years, but did have as much first grade teaching
105
experience as Regina and one more year of first grade experience than Tanya.
Barbara was a teacher that could be characterized as one who expressed self-doubt
and inadequacy about her ability to implement the Project PLUS early literacy
interventions, but nonetheless demonstrated accurate use and understanding of the
pedagogical concepts that underlie Project PLUS early literacy interventions as well
as their sequence. She was also one of the two case study participants that asked me
and other Project PLUS personnel for additional suggestions on how to more
effectively manage her classroom. With the exception of a classroom voice level
that was quite loud, it was evident that Barbara had established very detailed
classroom procedures for all students when it came time for her at-risk group to
receive intervention instruction thus characterizing her classroom and students as
being very well managed. Each of her students knew where they needed to be and
which activity that they were to complete while the Project PLUS students joined her
for intervention activities.
What follows will be a portrait of Barbara that will provide a more complete
depiction of her classroom, of her as an implementer of Project PLUS early literacy
interventions, and of some of the particulars to her instruction with her at-risk
students involved in the intervention groups.
Teacher Characteristics
A strong characteristic of Barbara as a case study participant also obvious
with regard to her implementation practice was her conscientious nature. Due to
106
Barbara’s insistent request to assist her with the reduction of the noise level in her
classroom so that she could better focus on the implementation of project
interventions, myself and one other Project PLUS personnel member made a few
suggestions. The first was that Barbara was to tell her students to speak in a 6” voice
while inside the classroom. The consequence to them not abiding by this rule would
result in them sitting next to the teacher for two minutes. Another suggestion
followed a team-like approach whereby the teacher set the timer for five minutes and
with each 30-second or one-minute “ding” of the timer the teacher and students
assess the noise level. If the noise level was considered by the teacher to be
acceptable than the students would receive a tally on the YOU-ME “T” chart. If not,
the teacher was to receive the tally. By day’s end, if the students had earned more
tallies than the teacher, a ticket would be awarded to the students that could be
applied to a classroom reward such as ten extra minutes of free time, extra recess
time, or a night without homework. These recommendations were made while
keeping in mind the characteristics of Barbara’s instructional style. It was also
suggested that she add whichever recommendation she selected onto the existing
charts listing specific behaviors to be followed along with the consequence(s) if they
were not.
Instructional Environment
Upon entrance into Barbara’s classroom, it became clear that Barbara had
many systems in place. To the right side of the entrance along the eastern wall, there
107
was a chart that listed the behaviors that students were expected to follow while
inside the classroom. There was also a chart beneath it that listed consequences for
not following the rules. Next to those two charts was a color-coded chart listing
names of the students in groups. Among these four groups, two included Barbara’s
at-risk readers. Like Regina, there was also a rather large chart that displayed a
system of rotation for the student groups. There was a listening center along the
same wall with an abundance of books on tape and a very organized system in which
reading levels were color-coded and in correspondence with the four student groups-
-meaning that each group of students knew which books they were to select from if
assigned to the listening center.
Along the northwest corner of the room was a library. Two bean bag chairs
and two long but low bookcases created a quaint place for library book reading to
take place. The library books were also color-coded and in correspondence to the
four student groups, again, making it easy for students to select books that were
targeted at their instructional reading levels. Along the northern back wall of the
classroom there was a Math center where assorted math materials were located. In
the northwest corner there was Science center where experiments that had been
conducted as a class were left on display for further exploration and information
gathering relevant to it such as books on volcanoes and pieces of hardened lava that
could be handled. Behind the entire northern wall of the classroom there were also
windows that began from approximately three feet from the floor and nearly
extended to the ceiling.
108
Along the western wall was a small Art center and closets designated for
students’ belongings as well as storage for a multitude of other materials to include
textbooks and Science kits. Taped onto the outside of the closets was a wide range
of student work displayed for all to see.
In the center of the classroom were two rows of eleven desks with chairs that
sat behind them. A teacher’s desk in the front of the two rows of desks and a kidney
table to the east of the teacher’s desk. An additional rectangular table was to the
west of the teacher’s desk and held an overhead projector with an assortment of
additional materials to include Project PLUS early literacy intervention materials.
White boards were on the southern wall behind the teacher’s desk and tables just
described and lining the top part of the white boards were Open Court Reading
Sound Spelling Cards (McGraw Hill).
Barbara’s classroom, like Regina’s, had undergone a refurbishment that
included the restoration of hardwood flooring that appeared smooth and highly
polished. While the classroom appeared to convey a feeling of high activity, it was
balanced with a sense of structure and clear guidelines for all students to follow.
Instructional Approach
Barbara eagerly implemented a total of four interventions in her two
observations. Each of her observed interventions was within the Project PLUS
recommended 20-minute time frame. The first observation included one Project
PLUS intervention activity, while the second observation included three intervention
109
activities (10 minutes each). Each one of the observed activities effectively
incorporated the utilization of either Project PLUS provided materials or
supplemental materials. More importantly, Barbara, like Regina, accurately
identified both her at-risk and emergent students along with their deficit areas per the
DIBELS student outcome sheet, grouped them, and provided direct instruction to
those students in their targeted areas during each observation.
The ease with which the students rotated from center to center and task to
task in Barbara’s classroom was notable and appeared to allow Barbara the freedom
to exercise either extending or shortening intervention activities as she saw fit. With
two claps of her hands, Barbara would state, “students you have 60 seconds to
prepare for the shift,” and like clock work, students would clean up, line up on the
blue strips of tape that were placed on the floor by their centers, reference the large
rotation chart if need be and be on their way to the next designated area. Like
Regina, Barbara’s students appeared acutely aware of the cycle of rotation of which
they were expected to participate and did so effortlessly.
Barbara’s comprehension of the underlying principles of each of the
interventions that she conducted as well as the concepts that both preceded and
followed them was also apparent in her ability to accurately progress with the
sequence in which she implemented the interventions for both her at-risk and
emergent groups. During Barbara’s first observation, she implemented Activity 12
to her at-risk group. This intervention was in phonemic awareness and students were
required to segment spoken words by sound. During the second observation, three
110
months later, she implemented Activity 22 and Activity 23, interventions in the
conceptual area of the alphabetic principle; a concept that follows the manipulation
of phonemes at the level of sound. The last intervention activity that Barbara
implemented was Activity 31, an intervention in fluency. Barbara progressed
through the interventions with accuracy, clarity and knowledge. She, like Regina,
was very aware of intervention objectives and how, when understood and gained by
students, they signaled to progress forward with the next conceptual principle. A
comment that Barbara made to me illustrated this point.
My emergent students haven’t quite met the benchmark yet in the alphabetic
principle, but I think that they’re ready for fluency activities… They’re
independent now when we work on sound symbol interventions and they’re
not making any mistakes. They’ve also gotten really quick. I mean they
match the letter tiles to their sounds just as quickly as I do and sometimes
beat me… That is why I included all of the emergent students in the fluency
activity.
Although at times the emergent students appeared visibly challenged during the
fluency activity, they clearly understood the task and stated the majority of the words
on the flash cards with accuracy.
One of Barbara’s strengths with regard to implementation was her familiarity
of the delineated steps to the Project PLUS early literacy interventions. Barbara and
her students were clearly familiar with every aspect of the conducted interventions.
In each lesson, Barbara had the ability to break down the interventions into their
suggested steps, explicitly modeled the steps and progressed with the lesson in stages
from shared practice, to guided practice, and ultimately to independent practice. The
111
coordination and ease with which Barbara implemented the interventions appeared to
have only been possible through continued use of them.
Additionally, during both observations, Barbara was well prepared and
organized. All of the necessary materials were readily available for her students.
Many of the items needed for the interventions were placed inside three clear plastic
tubs. The three tubs were located on the rectangular table along with other
intervention materials. The students appeared to be very familiar with all of the
Project PLUS intervention and supplemental materials, where they were located,
how to retrieve them, and demonstrated extraordinary savvy with regard to their use.
For example, during the second observation, before Project PLUS students sat down
at the table where the interventions were to be conducted, they asked the teacher
which materials they needed to retrieve. When Barbara responded, “Today we are
going to need letter tiles and timers,” two selected students directed themselves to a
tub that contained letter tiles and to another tub that contained timers. The Project
PLUS students asked no further questions, quickly retrieved the materials, handed
them to the teacher and sat down.
Upon observation, it was apparent that the students had exposure as well as
past experience with the interventions as a multitude of supplemental materials along
with Project PLUS materials were incorporated appropriately into the interventions.
All of the at-risk students utilized fingers, color and letter tiles, slinkies, hand signals,
flash cards, Open Court stories, picture cards, high frequency word charts, and
timers.
112
Barbara’s students might also have interpreted the interventions to be more
like games as one of the student participants commented when eagerly arriving to the
intervention group to receive intervention instruction, “Oh good, it’s official game
time!” The interpretation of the interventions as being games may have been due to
Barbara often changing the intervention tool. For example, during the second
observation in the 10 minutes of instruction on the alphabetic principle the students
utilized hand signals, letter tiles, slinkies and letter tiles again. Student participants
were often physically engaged during intervention activities through the
manipulation of their own bodies, letter tiles or slinkies. Students were allowed to
stand when they were using their hand signals, and kneel on their chairs when
moving the letter tiles. During the segmentation activity when hand signals were
requested a student participant was bending at the knees when he stated, “I like to
move!” Although physical movement was not the norm during intervention
instruction, it appeared to be enjoyed by all of Barbara’s student participants and did
not interfere with the objectives set forth by both Barbara and the project.
Additionally, the manner with which the students handled the intervention materials
was illustrative of obvious experience through their familiarity and knowledge of
certain materials pertaining to certain interventions. For example, at the beginning
of the phoneme segmentation intervention, students knew that color tiles were
among one of the materials appropriate for the intervention and demonstrated this by
reaching for them after asking the teacher whether or not they would be using
fingers, hand signals, or color tiles.
113
Barbara most often instructed her small intervention groups with a whole-
group and direct instruction approach. During both of the observations, Barbara
routinely called on each of her students to demonstrate their understanding of the
interventions steps. Although Barbara assisted her students one-on-one whenever
the need arose, students consistently responded correctly, were highly engaged,
appeared to be extremely familiar with as well as enjoyed all of the observed Project
PLUS early literacy interventions.
During the first and second observation the non-intervention students were
assigned to either the Art or Math centers. In the Math center they worked on
fractions. In the Art center many of the students were focused on creating artwork
needed for the cover of a story they had previously written. Some students, while
working on their art projects, elected to work independently at their desks. During
the interventions, there were no other adults present in Barbara’s classroom.
Case Study Participant: Tanya
Although Tanya was a teacher with a total of 15 years of teaching experience,
only four years had been at the first grade level making Tanya the least experienced
first grade teacher out of all of the case study participants. Almost half of Tanya’s
teaching experience was in the area of physical education at the high school level.
The remainder of her teaching experience was divided evenly between teaching in
the upper and primary grades. It is also important to note that Tanya was the only
114
case study participant who had transferred in from another school, making the year
under study her first year at the school site.
In the course of the year, Tanya’s positive attitude and enthusiasm over the
Project PLUS early literacy interventions never waned. Tanya consistently
communicated her excitement about how wonderful and helpful she thought the
Project PLUS early literacy interventions were to her at-risk students. Although
there was still more for Tanya to grasp related to effective implementation of the
interventions, she continued to grapple with the challenges and roadblocks that she
faced while learning how to improve upon her implementation practice. Tanya also
demonstrated continued growth and progress over the course of the study.
Upon observation of Tanya’s implementation of the interventions, her
intervention students appeared to enjoy and be engaged in the project’s intervention
activities. A portrait of Tanya’s classroom, her as an implementer of Project PLUS
early literacy interventions, and of some of the nuances of her instruction will follow.
Teacher Characteristics
One of the Tanya’s greatest strengths was her positive outlook not only with
regard to the Project PLUS early literacy interventions and the favorable impact she
believed that they had on her students’ growth and progress, but with regard to all of
the work that she knew was ahead of her in order for her students to become
successful and independent readers by the end of they year. It was known among
both administration and colleagues that Tanya’s classroom was comprised of some
115
very difficult to manage students. Two of Tanya’s students were being evaluated for
placement in a classroom for severely and emotionally disturbed students, two
students were also being evaluated for special education, and two students were
receiving counseling services at school for emotional and behavioral support.
At the beginning of the school year it was decided by the administration as
well as the support personnel that Tanya would be the recipient of additional support
from the administration and/or support personnel whenever they were able to provide
it, as there was also general concern about Tanya’s ability to effectively manage the
students in her classroom. Therefore, at the request of the administration, I and one
other Project PLUS associate occasionally observed Tanya in her classroom and
offered her suggestions on management and instructional strategies such as creating
and posting student groups according to the DIBELS student outcome sheets, posting
student rotations, listing classroom rules and consequences, generating ideas for
center activities, listing procedures for centers and suggesting that students practice
both the rotation procedures as well as appropriate behaviors for participation in the
center activities.
Upon each observation related to Tanya’s ability to effectively manage,
efforts on her part were evident. Although Tanya still had more to learn, throughout
the year, she had increasingly demonstrated effort and progress toward her goal of
improving her ability to effectively manage her students as well as instruction; charts
listing student groups and center rotations were visible for all students to view,
students more thoroughly understood the behaviors that were expected when
116
participating in center activities, and the number of students who walked around the
classroom aimlessly had reduced to being more of a rare occasion than a daily
occurrence. Furthermore, Tanya continuously challenged herself to familiarize
herself with a multitude of the projects early literacy interventions and incorporated
more of them into her implementation observations than any other case study
participant.
Instructional Environment
Upon initial entrance into Tanya’s classroom located on the second story just
behind the stairwell, it was apparent that issues of classroom management and
student behavior were present. Many students appeared to be out of their seats
walking from student desk to student desk to chat or play with classmates. Other
students were meandering throughout the classroom picking up books from shelves
or going through miscellaneous materials that were located in various parts of the
classroom. There were two groups of three students on the rug area located in the
center of the classroom in front of the white boards that were sorting through
flashcards. Other students remained quietly at their desks as if awaiting instructions
on what to do next. When my eyes finally locked into Tanya’s whereabouts, they
found her implementing a Project PLUS early literacy intervention to a few select
students at a kidney table located along the western side of the classroom. The
position in which Tanya was sitting compromised her ability to see the majority of
117
her students and she appeared to be entirely engrossed in the implementation process
of the interventions.
During my second classroom observation, the majority of non-intervention
students were located at and participating in a center activity. It was also obvious
that Tanya had attempted to increase upon her classroom management as centers
were in place and were more clearly delineated. Task cards specifying the activities
that students were expected to complete at each center were also present—something
that had been absent upon initial visit to Tanya’s classroom. However, the ability for
students to remain “on-task” was a significant challenge and a device that marked
time was also absent.
Further perusal of Tanya’s room identified a listening center along the eastern
wall, a classroom library in the northeast corner and a storage area and file cabinets
in the northwest corner of the classroom. With the exception of a couple of reading
posters and the Open Court Reading Sound Spelling Cards (McGraw Hill) that were
placed above the white board in the front of the classroom, the classroom walls were
bare. There were no charts that listed expected student or school behaviors, no chart
that listed consequences for not following the rules, and no chart that listed students
in any particular group or identified rotations nor were there any visible student
artifacts. However, there were an abundant amount of materials in boxes that
claimed the tops of several tables and desks to the front and rear of the classroom.
Tanya explained that the contents of those boxes were all of the materials needed for
the district’s reading and math programs. She added that the manner in which they
118
appeared was the exact manner in which they were provided to her by the school’s
support personnel and that, due to the move, she had not had the sufficient time
needed to go through them more thoroughly to organize them.
Along the northern wall of the classroom, were the long and lovely glass
windows that began from approximately three feet from the floor and nearly
extended to the ceiling.
In the center of the classroom were two rows of desks. The first row, the row
closest to the front of the classroom, had two separate pods each comprised of six
desks. In each pod, the six desks were divided into three and faced each other to
create the shape of a rectangle. In the second row there were ten desks that formed a
long and solid row behind the two pods. A teacher’s desk was located west of the
rug area.
Tanya’s classroom, like Regina and Barbara’s, had also undergone
refurbishment that included the restoration of hardwood flooring that was absolutely
beautiful. However, the light fixtures in Tanya’s room were still in need of repair as
was the ability to heat the classroom. While the classroom appeared to convey a
feeling of disarray, Tanya acknowledged that work needed to be done in order to
create and maintain a classroom where students were on-task and making progress
toward end of the year goals.
119
Instructional Approach
Tanya conducted each of the Project PLUS early literacy interventions.
Tanya’s first observation, which included two intervention activities, lasted a total of
45 minutes in duration, which exceeded the Project PLUS recommended 10-20
minute time frame. However, the second observation revealed improvement in this
area. The second observation included four Project PLUS intervention activities, all
of which ranged in duration from 10-13 minutes and included one rotation of
students. Tanya was obviously eager to implement a number of the Project PLUS
early literacy interventions and conducted them within the recommended time frame.
However, the effectiveness of implementing multiple intervention activities would
be contingent upon the needs of those receiving them. In Tanya’s case, although she
displayed an ability to implement two of the four interventions during her second
observation with great skill, the intervention group that she constructed included
only one at-risk student identified on the DIBELS student outcome sheet. Unlike the
findings in Tanya’s first observation: her ability to accurately identify and group her
at-risk students, accurately identify targeted areas of instruction, and the selection
and implementation of an appropriate intervention; her second observation reflected
the opposite. In fact, during the second observation achieving these four skills
remained a significant challenge for Tanya during each of the rotations.
Moreover, Tanya’s understanding of the pedagogical content underlying the
interventions can best be described as developing. During Tanya’s first observation
it appeared as though she was familiar with the objectives behind the conducted
120
intervention activities. Tanya progressed effortlessly from one activity to the next,
continuously building on the conceptual skills of the alphabetic principle that were
required for the success of the selected intervention activities (e.g., progressing from
spelling two sound words to spelling three sound words). However, the sequence
with which Tanya implemented the interventions to her at-risk students during the
second observation was inaccurate and perhaps an indication of only partial
comprehension of the pedagogical concepts underlying the interventions. For
example, during the second observation, Tanya implemented project interventions
that were specific to developing and reinforcing skills related to phonemic awareness
with an activity on phoneme segmentation—a concept that precedes the alphabetic
principle—the content of the interventions that she conducted during her first
observation. Additionally, according to the DIBELS student outcome sheet,
phoneme segmentation was not identified as a concept in great need of instruction;
however, concepts rooted in the areas of the alphabetic principle and fluency was
and should have guided Tanya’s instruction. A depiction of a more thorough
conceptual understanding would have been for Tanya to have implemented
interventions related to phonemic awareness during her first observation and
interventions specific to the alphabetic principle and/or fluency during her second
observation. Tanya also implemented the interventions to many of the same students
she identified during her first observation during her second observation, albeit only
one of the students actually demonstrated a need for instruction in the area.
However, during conversation with me at the conclusion of each observation,
121
Tanya’s understanding of the concepts was thought to be generating. One of
Tanya’s comments reflected the following:
I didn’t know that by applying a sort of recipe that you could teach problem
readers to read. It’s really a matter of knowing what ingredients you need to
add and when to add them in order for the meal to come out right…DIBELS
assessments tell us what ingredients we need for the recipe and implementing
the interventions is like putting all of the ingredients together…if you do it
right and follow all of the directions chances are you’re going to have a great
meal or a good reader.
It was also thought that due to Tanya being the least experienced with the curricular
content of first grade, that perhaps Tanya’s approach to gaining a deeper
understanding of the pedagogical concepts might have been through the actual
implementation process itself as well as the act of reflection that Tanya often
engaged in with experienced on-site support staff and project personnel.
Tanya’s use of Project PLUS as well as supplemental materials was only
partially successful. In her first observation, she utilized Project PLUS letter tiles
effectively in each of the two intervention activities. However, during the first
intervention activity of the second observation Tanya utilized Project PLUS picture
cards in a very ineffective manner. It was apparent that Tanya needed to sort
through the picture cards prior to their use so that the utilization of them would have
reinforced the concept of segmentation rather than cause confusion due to the
students’ need for explanation about how to approach consonant blends prior to this
exercise. However, the second and third intervention activities that were conducted
in the second observation did utilize the Project PLUS pictures cards effectively in
that the at-risk students were easily able to identify both initial and medial sounds of
122
the words being displayed. However, the last intervention activity, which required
the students to identify short and long vowel sounds in the words generated from the
picture cards rendered fruitless as the students were confused about which sound(s)
to identify within the word. For example, one student participant stated, “I’m
confused. Which sound am I suppose to find? The first sound or the ending sound?”
Throughout both of Tanya’s observations, the intention to instruct the
interventions according to intervention manual and training was evident. Tanya
verbalized the procedures to four of the six interventions that she was in the process
of implementing. An example of this is made clear in a comment that she made
during her first observation, “I remember in training, Joe stated that I need to place
these tiles opposite of me so that the children can see them—that means that they’ll
be backwards for me.” For the majority of the time, the utterances were consistent
and accurately recalled many of the steps and procedures of the interventions, which
indicated that Tanya was indeed familiar with the intervention activities listed in the
guide. Tanya’s instruction, albeit fragmented at times, was consistently explicit.
One of the characteristics that best defined Tanya with regard to the
implementation process was her positive attitude toward the interventions. Upon
both observations, I heard Tanya repeatedly express to her students how fantastic she
felt the interventions were and how much they would help them in their ability to
become “terrific readers.” She continuously asked me and other Project PLUS
personnel for more interventions and was highly motivated to implement them.
Additionally, the majority of Tanya’s non-intervention students appeared eager to
123
participate in the interventions and frequently asked me when their turn to participate
in the interventions would arrive. It was evident that there was a high priority placed
on the implementation of the interventions and that the majority of Tanya’s students
felt like they were missing out on something special if they were not included in an
intervention group.
Like Regina and Barbara, Tanya implemented some of the interventions
during her second observation in a game-like manner. When the student gave the
correct response to the task, Tanya gave the student the picture card(s), thereafter;
each child would count up their cards. The student with the highest number of cards
was deemed the winner of that particular task and applauded by both their classmates
and Tanya.
Tanya appeared to be well prepared and organized for her first observation.
The intervention manual was present and the letter tiles required for the activities
were pre-sorted and located atop the tables prior to the students arriving. All of the
intervention materials were kept inside the box that was given to all of the
participants by the project and was consistently kept underneath the table where she
implemented the intervention. During her second observation, Tanya appeared to be
only fairly prepared and organized. Although the picture cards were present for all
four interventions, pre-sorting them so that each of the cards reinforced the
interventions’ objectives would have been more beneficial and perhaps prevented
some of the confusion that the students experienced in two of the four intervention
124
activities. Nuances of these particular interventions surfaced that might not have if a
trial run of them or prior implementation of them had previously occurred.
During each of the two observations, Tanya instructed her small intervention
groups as a whole group using direct instruction and assisted students one-on-one
within the group if the need arose. In addition, Tanya’s students appeared to be
familiar with some of the observed interventions and unfamiliar with others. For
example when Tanya conducted the interventions using the picture cards, many of
the students behaved as though it was the first time they had seen them. Upon initial
sight of the picture cards, students were pulling them from the teacher’s hand or
adjusting their bodies so that they could get a better look at them—a more common
response to the cards when being observed for the very first time. “That doesn’t look
like a boy” and “That’s a neat ball” were some of the comments that were heard in
response to intervention students seeing the picture cards during the second
observation. However, the majority of students responded correctly to almost two-
thirds of the observed interventions and was consistently engaged in all of the
observed interventions.
During the first observation there were no other adults present in Tanya’s
classroom. During the second observation there was an aide working with a group of
students with the reading of their decodable books.
125
Case Study Participant: Irma
Irma was a teacher with a total of 30 years of teaching experience with 27
years at the first grade level, making Irma the most experienced first grade teacher
out of all of the case study participants.
Irma was a veteran teacher who appeared to process and implement the
interventions at her own pace. It appeared to me that Irma’s approach to
implementation was methodical; her approach to implementation began with the first
of the “Big Ideas” listed in the intervention guide and progressed to the next “Big
Idea” thereafter. Although Irma faced some challenge with regard to matching
students’ targeted instructional area with an appropriate intervention, she
demonstrated continued growth and progress over the course of the study.
A portrait of Irma’s classroom, her as an implementer of Project PLUS early
literacy interventions, and particulars of Irma and her pupils will follow.
Teacher Characteristics
One of the aspects about Irma as an implementer as well as a seasoned
veteran was her receptivity to learning about the Project PLUS interventions and
how best to implement them. Irma appeared genuine in our interactions and
expressed interest in learning more about the underlying principles behind the
interventions as well as their corresponding skills. I recognized Irma’s wealth of
knowledge with regard to literacy acquisition and felt that the task was more in line
with giving Irma the appropriate terminology to label what she already knew rather
126
than the introduction to the concepts. Irma often asked me and other Project PLUS
personnel about the incorporation of additional materials that were a part of her
existing curriculum. Irma’s desire to integrate familiar materials into new
intervention activities became apparent during her first intervention observation, she
was the only case study participant to attempt to integrate non-Project PLUS
materials during the first observation.
A notable characteristic about Irma was her soft voice and kind manner.
During both of the observations, Irma’s tone during instruction was gentle and at a
noise level just above a whisper. The majority of the students in Irma’s classroom
appeared to model these same behaviors. I was struck by how efficient, on-task, and
quiet all of the children were in Irma’s classroom. For example, when I entered
Irma’s classroom during the first observation, I saw clusters of students reading
together at their desks while other students read independently. Like clockwork,
each student in the clusters of three took a turn reading a page of their book in a
voice that only their cluster mates could hear. There was no yelling, no squirming
about or silliness, but rather student focus was on the pages that were being read.
Additionally, when a student forgot that it was their turn to read, another student in
the group politely stated, “Johnny, it’s your turn.” The students who read or worked
in clusters with other students continued to characterize this courteous manner
throughout each of the two intervention observations. Other students that read
independently read silently at their desks.
127
Another notable characteristic was how independent Irma’s pupils appeared
to be inside the classroom. Upon each of the two observations, all of the students
were engaged in independent activities and not once did I see a student interrupt the
teacher for direction on what to do or clarification of a task that was assigned or
selected. Moreover, when the intervention group was called to the back of the
classroom, the non-intervention students appeared un-phased and continued to work
independently.
Instructional Environment
Irma’s classroom appeared to be clean, orderly, and effectively managed.
The students appeared to be very well behaved and seemed to understand the tasks
that they were to engage in and complete without a tremendous amount of additional
explanation or support from the teacher.
Upon initial entrance into Irma’s classroom, located on the main floor of the
three-story building, an appreciation of music was apparent. Located near the front
of the classroom on the east side was a large piano, the only piano that any of us
from Project PLUS recalled identifying in the whole school with the exception of the
auditorium. Located on each side of the piano were two different chart-board stands
containing a multitude of charts with lyrics written out. Sheet music along with
books of songs and notes were stacked on top of the piano as were musical scores
located on the piano’s ledge. Another chart board stand on the west side of the
classroom was bulging with poems and chants—an obvious accumulation of
128
materials over the course of thirty years of teaching. On the white board ledges, that
were located in the front of the classroom, were propped up library books and
phonics readers. The reading levels of these books were not apparent to the students.
Irma’s classroom reflected a love of print of either notes or words. Throughout the
course of the study the variety and assortment of books propped up against the white
board ledges would change.
The classroom setting was not as bright as some of the other classrooms due
to trees that stood in front of the long windows blocking the sunlight. Irma’s room
did, however, have the beautifully restored hardwood flooring. Unlike Regina,
Barbara and Tanya’s classrooms, Open Court Reading Sound Spelling Cards
(McGraw Hill) atop the white boards were not present. Additionally, no rug or
whole group area was designated in the classroom.
There were approximately 30 desks in this classroom of 20 students that
formed the shape of a “U.” The inside space of the “U” was described by the teacher
as the location in which she conducted most of her instruction. She expressed her
ability of being able to “see” what her students were doing as reason for the desk
layout. There was one square table located to the rear (south) of the classroom
where Irma conducted to Project PLUS interventions and where she or an aide also
provided additional support for the students who demonstrated need.
Other than the music area, the only other designated area in the classroom
was the library. There were two medium sized bookshelves located along the
western wall that had an abundance of books filling the shelves. Picture books
129
shared the same shelf as chapter books and books whose contents reflected varied
ability levels. Phonics readers were also part of the make-up and were also plentiful.
There was no way of noting what the levels of the books were, as no color or
numerical code existed.
Posters about personal qualities titled “Responsibility,” “Kindness,”
“Respect,” and “Friendship” lined each and every wall in the classroom. No student
work was visible nor were classroom rules or consequences posted. Charts that
identified center activities and student rotations among students were also not
detectable.
Instructional Approach
Irma conducted each of the Project PLUS early literacy interventions as well
as appropriately utilized both supplemental and Project PLUS materials.
Incidentally, Irma was the only case study participant to incorporate supplemental
materials into her first observation. Irma implemented the intervention during her
first observation within the 10-20 minute time frame. However, during her second
observation, her implementation of the intervention took a total of 30 minutes in
duration, which exceeded the Project PLUS recommended 10-20 minute time frame.
Each of Irma’s observations included only one intervention activity.
With regard to accurately identifying the needs of at-risk students per the
DIBELS student outcome sheets and an understanding of the concepts underlying the
interventions, Irma expressed a fair understanding. During her first observation the
130
DIBELS student outcome sheet identified her at-risk students’ needs to be in the
areas of either phoneme segmentation (seven students) or skills related to the
alphabetic principle (ten students). Irma instructed her at-risk students in the area of
onset-rime segmentation—a skill that preceded segmentation by phoneme—as well
as an activity that was listed as one of the first in the intervention guide (Activity 3).
While beginning phoneme segmentation interventions with activities utilizing onset-
rime segmentation was adequate, Project PLUS encouraged interventions within the
concept of phonemic awareness to begin with intervention activities related to
phonemic segmentation. At no time did Project PLUS trainings and/or
demonstration lessons include information or modeling of onset-rime intervention
activities. Moreover, Irma’s implementation of the first intervention appeared to be
unchallenging for her selected intervention students. Student response with regard to
the first observation was correct despite the slim utilization of materials or scaffolds,
thus confirming intervention instruction being targeted below the students’ need
area(s). Instruction appeared to be highly based on verbal instruction—an
instructional approach that is more abstract and often requires a more sophisticated
level of understanding both on the part of the teacher and students. Irma’s ability to
accurately verbalize each of the steps and procedures of the intervention activity
reflected strong familiarity of the intervention. However, in the debrief, I discussed
and reviewed with Irma how to more accurately interpret the DIBELS student
outcome sheet and helped Irma to identify her at-risk students’ area(s) of
instructional need. During the second observation, Irma accurately constructed an
131
intervention group that incorporated all of her lowest emergent scorers in the concept
area of the alphabetic principle and implemented an intervention that addressed their
targeted area of instruction per the DIBELS student outcome sheet, thus indicating
improvement in her ability to accurately interpret student outcome information.
Irma appeared familiar with the steps and procedures of the intervention as
she simultaneously verbalized each new sound she added to the word as she moved a
letter tile to formulate the new word. Irma also demonstrated improvement in her
understanding of the pedagogical concepts underlying the interventions as well as
their sequence through her selection of the intervention. Additionally, a more
thorough level of her conceptual understanding was captured in one of her remarks
in the debrief that took place after the second observation:
I believe that I’m beginning to get this now. The interventions that I need to
pick are those that have to do with the concept that the students show a
weakness in. If a child shows up red in NSF on the DIBELS form then I
know that the concept to work on is the sound-symbol concept [alphabetic
principle]. And, if the student scores show in red in the area of ORF, then I
need to instruct in fluency. Also, the concept of fluency comes after the
alphabetic principle because they need to be able to decode words first...
Like Regina and Tanya, Irma held a positive outlook with regard to the
interventions. In a debrief that followed her second observation, Irma expressed,
“how nice it is [was] to instruct this way. I enjoyed myself and I think that the
students did too.” This statement conveyed a positive attitude toward the
intervention as well as contentment with the approach to instruction. In the same
debrief, Irma also stated that she would like to continue using the interventions the
following year and that with time she would “be better at knowing how to bring in
132
some of my [her] other materials.” Like Barbara, Irma also incorporated materials
that were used during her regular Language Arts instruction.
Irma’s game-like approach to intervention implementation was apparent
during her second observation. After the students stated the sounds of the words
they were building with the teacher, they were then asked to “guess” at the new word
the teacher was creating when she substituted a new ending sound. Upon a correct
response and while Irma was placing the letter tiles that identified the new ending
sounds, the student received a comment from Irma about how smart they were to be
able to identify the new word. Students were excited to participate and clearly
enjoyed guessing at what they thought the new words would be. Although Irma’s
guess-like approach to the intervention activity was not delineated in the intervention
guide, it was successful in capturing student attention and drawing into focus
additional ending sounds to make new words. Irma’s simultaneous movement of the
letter tiles that represented the new word endings during her articulation of them was
also effective as it availed the students’ further exposure to additional sounds and the
letter symbols that represent them.
During both observations, Irma consistently appeared to be well prepared and
organized. Although the first observation did not include the use of any sort of
manipulatives it included a list of words organized by word families with which Irma
appeared familiar. Irma kept the word list in a folder on top of the table where the
implementation of interventions occurred and referenced the list quickly and
confidently. After her use of the word list, the list returned to the folder and was left
133
in the same place from which it was retrieved. Irma’s verbal instruction was also
concise, deliberate, and descriptive, and as though she had rehearsed the
implementation of the activities prior to her actual implementation of them. Initially,
Irma stated the objective of the exercise that was listed in the intervention guide to
her student participants and continued with explicit directions:
Today we are going to learn about sounds and the letters responsible for
making those sounds. First, let’s practice breaking apart words by sound
with our slinkies. Remember, one movement for each sound [students
conduct activity]. Okay, put your slinkies down. Now, I’m going to say a
word. After I say the word I want each of you to say with me each of the
sounds that are in the word. While you do that I want you to move a color
tile for each sound that you hear. We’ll continue doing that until the word is
finished being made [students complete task]. Now, I want you to repeat the
word and the words sounds. While you repeat the sounds of the word, I want
you to watch me place the letter tile that makes that sound down. We will
continue with each sound and letter tile until the word is made. Next, I would
like for you to try and make the word on your own. Once you have made the
word, I will call on you to say the word and the words sounds to the group…
Irma’s directions were clearly understood by her student participants, which
may have may have contributed to her students’ ability to correctly respond to the
majority of the interventions. Upon the second observation, Irma had all of the color
and letter tiles presorted for her student participants prior to them arriving to the
group so that immediate use of them was possible. Additionally, during the second
observation, familiarity of slinkies, color and letter tiles was evident when in use.
Student participants stretched out the slinkies within reasonable limits in order to
prevent them from breaking and color tiles were used in the recommended manner of
each color representing a different sound of a given word. Letter tiles were used last
134
in the sequence and were appropriately utilized to identify the sound that it
represented.
During each of the two observations, Irma consistently instructed her small
intervention groups as a whole group using direct instruction. Throughout the
second observation she asked each individual student in her group to “show her”
(through the use of the manipulatives) their understanding of the task—an aspect of
instruction that was absent from the first observation. However, during both
observations the students appeared to be somewhat unchallenged after having
engaged in the intervention for approximately five minutes. The result of students
being unchallenged during the first implemented intervention was more than likely
due to the intervention being targeted to a skill beneath the one to be targeted.
Perhaps the response of students being unchallenged during the second observation
was attributed to many of the students progressing in status from “at-risk” to
“emerging” for that particular skill. During both intervention observations, student
did respond correctly to the Project PLUS interventions.
During both of the intervention observations no other adults were present in
the classroom and the non-intervention students were seated at their desks reading
quietly by themselves.
135
Case Study Participant: Sandy
Sandy was a teacher with a total of 8 years of teaching experience; all of
which are at the first grade level making Sandy the second most experienced first
grade teacher out of all of the case study participants.
Upon observation, Sandy appeared to the researcher to be the least familiar
with the Project PLUS interventions out of all of the case study participants. During
each of the scheduled observations, Sandy visually appeared surprised to see me.
Sandy’s approach to implementation was indiscriminate and will be detailed below.
Although Project PLUS materials were utilized in each intervention, each
observation revealed unique details about Sandy’s implementation of Project PLUS
interventions. For example, the first intervention that Sandy implemented was not
listed in the Project PLUS intervention guide. The second observation revealed that
the objective behind the Project PLUS intervention on fluency was not clearly
understood by Sandy and was implemented incorrectly. Unlike the other case study
participants, Sandy did not express interest or enthusiasm with regard to the Project
PLUS interventions nor concern about her implementation of the interventions. To
some degree, Sandy did demonstrate improvement with regard to matching students’
targeted instructional area(s) with the interventions that she chose to implement.
However, overall, Sandy did not demonstrate continued growth or progress over the
course of the study. It is also important to note that the researcher had to reschedule
Sandy’s second intervention observation on three different occasions. The first
rescheduling was due to Sandy “not being ready to be observed.” The second
136
rescheduling was due to her wanting to review the material prior to being observed,
and the third was due to illness. A portrait of Sandy’s classroom, her as an
implementer of Project PLUS early literacy interventions, and particulars of her
intervention observations will follow.
Teacher Characteristics
Sandy was one of the friendliest of the case study participants. She was
consistently pleasant to the researcher and was adored by her students. Outwardly,
Sandy appeared willing to engage in the implementation of the Project PLUS
interventions. However, at the scheduled time for the second intervention
observation, March 19, 2002, Sandy expressed that she wasn’t ready to be observed.
Surprised, but willing to accommodate, I rescheduled another time with Sandy for
the second observation to take place, March 28, 2002. While Sandy’s candor was
appreciated, Sandy was the only case study participant to have made this declaration.
Additionally, the next day, March 20, 2002, Sandy had made the request to meet
with me to review the details of the fluency interventions in lieu of being observed
on March 28th. Again, Sandy’s request was accommodated and during the meeting
that took place on March 28, 2002, I reviewed the objectives behind the fluency
interventions as well as their steps and procedures through modeling. I also made
reference to the Intervention Guide (Haager & Dimino, 2001) that each case study
participant was given, however, when Sandy was asked to retrieve hers she stated
that she was unaware of its whereabouts. I never saw Sandy in possession of the
137
guide during any of the intervention observations. At the conclusion of our meeting
on March 28, 2002, Sandy and I rescheduled her second observation to take place on
the April 3, 2002. However, when I arrived to Sandy’s classroom to observe her
second observation a substitute teacher was present due to Sandy falling ill. An
additional meeting took place between Sandy and myself on April 23, 2002, and
again more discussion was exchanged with regard to the fluency intervention
activities. Sandy’s second intervention observation finally took place on May 2,
2002. Seemingly, Sandy appeared interested in learning the Project PLUS
interventions, but I did contemplate whether or not Sandy’s intentions were
authentic.
Instructional Environment
Sandy’s classroom was the only classroom that was located in the basement
of the old, but mostly renovated building. Upon entry into Sandy’s classroom, it was
apparent that her classroom had not been among those that had been refurbished, it
also appeared to be quite a bit smaller than the other classrooms. Old grey carpet
covered what felt like hard concrete floors. The room was dark due to the limited
amount of sunlight that was able to penetrate through the three tiny windows in the
center rear of the classroom. The only aspect of the classroom that looked to have
been improved was the replacement of chalkboards with white boards in the front of
the classroom.
138
Visible in the southwest corner of the classroom was a large curtain with a
sign above it that read, “Puppet Play Area”. Two big bookcases held an abundance
of marionettes of all shapes, sizes, and colors. There were also four large clear
plastic tubs that were full of hand and finger puppets as well as additional clothing
for the puppets. The area was merry with an assortment of colors and designs and
appeared to be the focal point of the classroom.
Along the southern rear wall was a library, a listening area, and two tables
side-by-side that held an assortment of different materials. In the southeast corner of
the classroom was a round table that was used for the implementation of Project
PLUS interventions as well as small group instruction and along the eastern wall
were closets and a storage area. In the front of the classroom, like Irma, Sandy did
not have the Open Court Reading Sound Spelling Cards (McGraw Hill) displayed.
The walls of the classroom were concrete and bare; they did not appear to be
conducive to the adherence of staples or tape—any medium that could be used to
post student work, posters, or bulletin boards.
There were approximately 20 student desks in this classroom of 20 students.
The desks formed two long lines in the center of the classroom that almost reached
the room’s perimeter and that all faced forward toward the white boards.
Although the classroom had somewhat of a dismal appearance, the tone of
the classroom was warm and friendly. Like Sandy, the students, most of which were
second-language learners, were quick to welcome visitors, were visibly joyful, and
appeared eager to learn.
139
Instructional Approach
Out of all the case study participants, Sandy appeared to experience the most
difficulty with implementation of the project’s interventions. In the case of Sandy,
each of her intervention observations revealed that adherence to the interventions and
their objectives was virtually non-existent. In the first observation, the letter
identification exercise that Sandy conducted was self-generated and not part of the
Intervention Guide (Dimino & Haager, 2001) or Project PLUS training. The second
of her observations revealed extreme modification to the intervention to the point of
abolishment in terms of the intervention’s objective set forth by the project.
Although each of the interventions was implemented by the teacher, utilized Project
PLUS materials, and followed the appropriate guidelines with regard to duration (10-
20 minutes), the first implemented intervention included the only student identified
at-risk in the concept area of letter recognition and five others who were identified
on the DIBELS student outcome sheet as having reached benchmark in the skill area.
However, the majority of Sandy’s at-risk students, a total of six, were identified in
the area of the alphabetic principle--a skill that far surpasses skills related to letter
recognition—yet they received no instruction. A more accurate way for Sandy to
have structured her intervention group for the intervention on letter recognition
would have been to include the students who were identified as emerging to the
benchmark. However, an approach more aligned to the project would have been for
Sandy to have worked with her only at-risk student one-on-one and to have grouped
140
all six of her at-risk students and conducted an intervention in the alphabetic
principle.
Instruction of the teacher-generated intervention on letter recognition
included the use of the Project PLUS picture cards. Sandy’s directions to the
students aimed at having them state the name of the initial letter (not the sound) of
the item displayed on the picture card but her directions to the at-risk students were
“what letter do you hear?” The students responded by uttering the letter’s sound.
Increasingly frustrated, Sandy repeatedly reminded the students to state the, “letter
name, not sound.” Paradoxically, during the implementation of this lesson the
opportunity for explicit instruction in the area of phonemic awareness arose due to
the at-risk students responding with letter sounds in lieu of the letter names that she
had requested. However, Sandy was adamant about directing the students away
from this aspect of literacy development. Additionally, the students were instructed
to point to the initial letter of the item displayed on the picture card by pointing to a
letter, however, there were no letters exhibited.
The second part of the activity required the students to place the picture card
into one of three piles; “B,” “C,” or “D.” However, there were no letters displayed
to identify each pile. Rather, it was expected that the students hold these imaginary
letter piles in memory and respond correctly.
In each of the two activities of the first observation, students consistently
appeared confused, were not responding accurately, lost interest rather quickly, and
in some cases appeared frustrated. The teacher displayed an unclear focus as to the
141
objective(s) of the tasks, was ill prepared and organized, and appeared to be
unfamiliar with the steps and procedures of each of the two activities that she herself
had created. It was clear to me that there was little to no preparation prior to the
implementation of the two-part intervention.
During the second observation, the implemented intervention was on fluency.
The intervention group for this activity was comprised of four students; one who
according to the DIBELS student outcome sheet was at-risk, two that were emerging
to the benchmark and one student who had achieved the benchmark. While it was
appropriate to include students that had been identified on the DIBELS student
outcome sheet as emerging into intervention instruction, priority was to have been
placed on students who were identified as being at-risk in an instructional area. In
Sandy’s class there were an additional seven students that had been identified as
being at-risk in the area of fluency but were not included in the intervention group.
Therefore, while Sandy’s participating emerging students would have benefited from
intervention instruction, an intervention group comprised of the students at-risk in
this area would have more accurately reflected the priority of Project
PLUS—addressing the instructional needs of students identified on the DIBELS
student outcome sheet as being at-risk.
Moreover, during the second intervention observation, Sandy missed the
objective of the fluency exercise despite the additional assistance that she received
from me with regard to the objective of the fluency activities as well as their
procedures. Prior to conducting the actual one-minute read that defined Sandy’s
142
selected fluency intervention, Sandy began the exercise by having the students define
vocabulary words contained within the text. Next, Sandy guided the students
through the text paragraph by paragraph identifying and discussing the meaning of
the passage before actually conducting the one-minute read of the passage—an
objective that has to do with comprehension rather than fluency. In fact, 13 of the 15
minutes were spent on reviewing the elements of meaning in the paragraph’s text
rather than building automaticity. Furthermore, this manner of implementation was
never modeled at any time during meetings with the researcher, demonstration
lessons, or Project PLUS training. During the debrief that followed the second
observation I asked Sandy why she spent the time making meaning from the text
rather than building automaticity. Sandy remarked that the majority of her students
were second language learners and that her primary objective was to develop “the
meaning behind the words that they hear in conversation and with the books that we
[they] read.” She insisted that obtaining the meaning of the passage was more of a
priority than how swiftly one could read the passage. Sandy insisted that her
modification to this intervention activity was more important than the objective of
the intervention set forth by Project PLUS. Sandy replied that she thought, “reading
is not about having words become automatic but rather that the meaning of them be.”
Sandy made it clear to me that making meaning from text as well as conversation
was the compass that guided the direction of her instruction.
Sandy did demonstrate accuracy in the procedure for timing the fluency
intervention activity at one-minute. Further, her preparedness for the second
143
implemented intervention was an improvement from her first observation. Sandy
had a timer as well as the appropriate number of copies of the passage available for
the students prior to the implementation of the intervention. However, only three of
the eight students that comprised the intervention group responded accurately to the
intervention and the majority of the students were not engaged in the activity.
During each of the two observations Sandy did not utilize the intervention
guide nor was it visible to me at the time of our meetings. At one point during our
first scheduled meeting to discuss the fluency activity, I asked Sandy to retrieve her
intervention guide in order for her to jot down notes directly into the manual, but she
replied, “I don’t know where that manual is. I know its around here somewhere, I
just need to find it.” Furthermore, other than the timed one-minute fluency read
conducted during the second observation, steps and procedures from the Intervention
Guide (Haager & Dimino, 2001) or Project PLUS training were not followed. In
fact, all of Sandy’s instruction to her small intervention groups was conducted with a
very casual approach; no instructional format was followed. Discussion about events
that students had participated in the day prior as well as other conversational topics
were allowed during the time of intervention instruction.
At the time of both of the intervention observations, there were no other
adults present in the classroom and the non-intervention students were seated at their
desks either working on a worksheet activity or completing a story with the
exception of three students located at the listening center during the second
observation.
144
Case Study Participant: Marcie
All of Marcie’s teaching experience was at the first grade level. Marcie had
six years of first grade teaching experience making her the third most experienced
out of all of the case study participants. Marcie was a teacher that could be
characterized best as a discrepant case study participant. Although she did
implement two intervention activities during each of the two intervention
observations, Marcie was not acquainted enough with the interventions or their
procedures to indicate even infrequent implementation of them. As noted by both
myself and another Project PLUS associate, out of all of the case study participants
Marcie’s instructional pace of the implementation of the interventions was
increasingly slow almost at a pace where one might suspect first time use of the
interventions. Also noted by myself and other Project PLUS personnel was the issue
of Marcie’s “side-talk” through most of the Project PLUS training. What follows
will be a portrait of Marcie that will provide a more complete description of her
classroom, of her as an implementer of Project PLUS early literacy interventions,
and circumstances specific to Marcie.
Teacher Characteristics
Marcie was the most opinionated of all the case study participants. She was
also the daughter of a reading specialist who was trained in Reading Recovery (Clay,
1982, 1985, 1987) within the same school district. Marcie, like her mother, was
perceived by administrators and colleagues to be very proficient in the area of
145
reading due to the interaction that Marcie had with her mother as well as her own
experience as a struggling reader. In the dialogues that took place with me after the
observations, Marcie revealed that as a student she had difficulties learning to read.
She also made comments about the wide array of instructional approaches she
experienced by her teachers’ in their efforts to assist her in becoming an independent
reader. Marcie verbalized that although teachers’ labors were admittedly helpful as
well as kindhearted, she believed that the majority of help came from her mother.
Marcie stated:
My mom always tried to get me to extract the meaning I made out of the
events and activities in my life and to connect that to whatever I was reading.
She said that things would make more sense that way.
Marcie also stated that the use of her mother’s strategy was among the most helpful
toward her success as a reader. She was also the only case study participant to have
another family member working in the same school district.
Instructional Environment
Marcie’s classroom was located on the first floor of the building. Student
artwork adorned the majority of the walls and closets in the classroom. Along the
southern wall of the classroom was the library. The reading area was among the
largest of all of the observed classrooms. Picture, story and chapter books were
located on a multitude of shelves of the two oversized bookcases. The books were
not in any particular order but appeared to be mixed in with one another. There was
a colorful rug that laid in the front and center of the bookcases. Atop the rug were
146
several oversized pillows for students to relax on while reading. The library
appeared to be a strong focal point of the classroom. Photographs of students
reading in the library were stapled and taped on the walls that were a part of the
library area.
In the southeast corner of the classroom was a listening area. There were two
tubs that contained books that were accompanied with audiocassettes. Directions on
how to use the audiocassette player were taped onto the top of the table next to the
audiotape player.
Along the eastern wall was a writing area that contained colored markers,
pencils, colored pencils, pens, stamps, sponges, paint, colored chalk, and a variety of
paper of all different textures and types. High above the windows, along the eastern
wall, were posters displaying the stages of the writing process and others that had
explanations on the use of punctuation.
In the northeast corner of the room was a work area that had a kidney table
with four chairs around it. Along the northern wall were closets for students’
belongings as well as a storage area that among other materials, contained science
kits. Photographs of the students were also located on the closet doors.
In the front of the classroom were white boards with a multitude of markers
and erasers located on their ledges. Several posters about character were posted
above the white board along with several that identified the steps of scientific
inquiry. No posters related to student expectations, behaviors, consequences, or
student centers or rotations were identified in the classroom.
147
In the center of the classroom were four pods that each consisted of six
student desks with chairs behind them. To the northwest of the classroom, in front of
the one of the pods of six student desks, was the teacher’s desk. An additional
rectangular table was to the north of the teacher’s desk and held an overhead
projector with an assortment of additional overhead materials.
Open Court Reading Sound Spelling Cards (McGraw Hill) were not
displayed in this classroom.
Marcie’s classroom, like many of the others, had undergone a refurbishment
that included the restoration of hardwood flooring that appeared smooth and shiny.
Marcie’s room also housed the long lovely windows that allowed the sun’s light to
enter the classroom. Two hanging plants also adorned the room. Overall, Marcie’s
classroom appeared to be student centered as well as student friendly.
Instructional Approach
Each of the four intervention activities was conducted by Marcie and also
appropriately utilized Project PLUS and supplemental materials. During the first
observation staying within neither the recommended time frame of the project nor
the structure of the intervention group occurred for Marcie. However, the two
intervention activities that were observed in the second observation were within the
Project PLUS recommended 20-minute time frame.
During her first observation and unlike any of the other case study
participant, Marcie conducted the interventions to three of her students on a one-to-
148
one basis for approximately eight minutes each. In the dialogue that took place with
me after implementation, I asked Marcie why she implemented the interventions
one-on-one. Marcie expressed to me that she was under the impression that Project
PLUS recommended that teachers implement one-to-one. She stated: “I thought
that’s how the project wanted us to implement the interventions.” To my knowledge
as well personnel from Project PLUS, this type of recommendation was never
requested of the participants. In fact, this type of request ran counter to Project
PLUS’ objective of serving as many at-risk students as effectively possible. For
example, if the DIBELS student outcome sheet identified five students at-risk in the
instructional area of phoneme segmentation, then, it was recommended that all five
students be grouped and be given instruction together as a way to increase the
likelihood of addressing each of the student’s needs. In Marcie’s case, she instructed
two of the three students identified at-risk and one student who was identified as
having reached the benchmark. Although Marcie did instruct two of her at-risk
students, there were an additional eight who were identified at-risk in this skill area
but who did not receive instruction. Like Sandy, Marcie could have more accurately
structured the intervention groups to reflect the findings of the DIBELS student
outcome sheets.
Marcie did not instruct all of her student participants in need of instruction
during her first observation, but did accurately interpret the deficit area according to
the DIBELS student outcome sheet to be in the instructional area of the alphabetic
principle. Marcie also conducted two appropriate intervention activities in the area
149
of the alphabetic principle. However, despite Marcie’s one-to-one instruction,
students appeared unclear about how to respond to her instruction. When responding
to Marcie’s instruction, two her of student participants were confused about what to
do with the letter tiles. One participant made the following comments during
instruction: “What am I suppose to do? Does it [letter tile] go here?” The other
student stated, “Uhm, I forgot, I don’t know what you want me to do.” Student
responses may have been due to Marcie’s instructional delivery of the interventions
being fragmented and too slow in pace.
During Marcie’s second observation, the instructional format changed from
one-on-one to small group. However, she was only somewhat successful with regard
to matching appropriate interventions with targeted instructional areas as indicated
on the DIBELS student outcome sheet. For example, the intervention group that
Marcie composed for the first of the two activities in the alphabetic principle
consisted of a total of five students; one at-risk and four who were identified as
established in the skill area of the alphabetic principle. Again, a more accurate
grouping of students per the DIBELS student outcome sheet would have served
Marcie’s students more appropriately.
Unique to Marcie’s implementation practice was her over emphasis of the
intervention steps and procedures coupled with her extraordinarily slow pace of
instruction during three of the four intervention activities in the alphabetic principle.
Upon observation, it appeared that Marcie was conducting the Project PLUS
interventions for the very first time. The manner in which Marcie modeled the
150
placement of each letter tile while she stated each letter’s sound was consistently
done with unfamiliarity, hesitation, and no fluidity. She also placed the letter tiles in
an upside down fashion when modeling to the students in all of the intervention
activities in the alphabetic principle, which appeared to confuse the students. In
addition, this was a facet of instruction that the project warned against during
training as well as an obvious characteristic of an inexperienced user.
During both observations, Marcie also exemplified an over reliance on the
intervention manual. She referred to it with the constancy of an individual who was
initially trying to learn and utilize its contents simultaneously. It was anticipated by
me and Project PLUS personnel that even low frequency of intervention
implementation would bring upon some familiarity of the interventions’ content and
procedures and require less reliance on the intervention manual due to the procedures
and materials of the interventions being similar if not identical for a majority of the
interventions. However, specific to the second observation of the intervention
activity on the alphabetic principle (Activity 26), the delivery of the implementation
was erratic and at one point was halted due to Marcie’s need to locate the
intervention’s next step in the Intervention Guide (Haager & Dimino, 2001). It was
also apparent that Marcie was not completely familiar with the manual’s layout as
Marcie asked me to help her locate the intervention activity in the manual before she
could continue with her implementation of the intervention.
Moreover, during the second observation, Marcie’s instructional pace was
even slower than both of the alphabetic principle intervention activities conducted in
151
the first observation (Activities 21 and 22). All of the interventions included in the
intervention manual were designed to build upon one another in both concept and
procedure. For example, Activity 21 and Activity 22 in the Intervention Guide
(Haager & Dimino, 2001) were alphabetic principle interventions that involved
spelling words that contained three and four sounds and were both implemented by
Marcie during her first observation. However, during the second observation
Marcie’s implementation of Activity 26, a sequential intervention, built upon four
and five sound words yet Marcie demonstrated no familiarity with the concept,
procedures, or scaffolding of the interventions.
Marcie’s observed behavior during the second observation also lead me to
speculate that perhaps the reason behind Marcie’s slow delivery of instruction was
due to her desire for her students to respond correctly. Some of the students did
respond correctly to some of the tasks although the majority did not. Moreover,
none of the students appeared remotely familiar with the conducted interventions.
Also noted was the idea that the procedures of Marcie’s selected interventions on the
alphabetic principle, all of which followed the same format and if done repeatedly,
would slow rather than accelerate.
An additional finding specific to Marcie’s implementation of Activity 26 was
with regard to her inaccurate use of language. Marcie’s use of language was
inconsistent with the language provided in the intervention manual and ultimately
rendered the intervention’s objective obsolete. For example, instead of Marcie
stating a word that could be built upon by the addition of a consonant blend (fl), for
152
example building the word “flat” from the base word “at,” which students would
create using letter tiles, Marcie began the intervention activity by stating the word
that included the blend (e.g., “flat”) and proceeded to segment the sounds, /a/ and /t/,
but segmented the sound made from the consonant blend as /fl/ thereafter. Marcie’s
implementation of this activity was contrary to instruction given by the project to
teach consonant blends in a segmented manner. The intervention did not build upon
prior intervention activities and again, did not follow the instructional
recommendation made by the project.
In the debrief that followed the observation, I suggested and modeled the
following language, which was also delineated in the Intervention Guide (Haager &
Dimino, 2001, p. 70-71): “What letters represent the sounds that you add to the
word “in” to make the word “spin?” One purpose of the intervention activity, if
done correctly, was for students to learn that new words can be made by adding
initial consonant blends to the following base words: at, an, it, and, am, in, ink, ant,
end, Ed, and us. It was evident upon observation, that neither, Marcie, nor the
students understood the objective of this intervention. Student participants appeared
confused, moved restlessly in their seats with eyes fixed on something outside the
window or unrelated to the intervention activity. Moreover, chatter among the
student participants increased in number as well as volume. Students also responded
incorrectly to the exercise. While some students selected the wrong letter tiles for
the sounds in the words, others generated words that came to mind. For example,
153
when I asked a student participant why he created words such as, “flap,” “flip,” and
“lip” instead of “flat” he stated, “I don’t know. I’m just making up words.”
The second activity included in Marcie’s second observation was a fluency
activity, which Marcie conducted as a whole class activity. Again, Marcie grouping
all of the students at-risk in this skill area would have more appropriately reflected
the findings of the DIBELS student outcome sheet as the four students identified as
being at a “deficit” in this area may have required more personalized instruction.
Student grouping aside, Marcie did effectively incorporate a passage from the
students’ anthology, as supplemental material into this exercise and students
appeared to be the somewhat familiar with the procedures that accompanied the
intervention activity. However, like Sandy, Marcie consistently asked her students
questions about the passage’s meaning at the end of each of the two one-minute
reads—an objective that was contrary to the intervention activity as well as displayed
more of a focus on comprehension rather than automaticity—the objective of the
intervention. Moreover, 8 of the 10 minutes allotted for the fluency intervention was
spent on specifics related to the passage’s vocabulary and text meaning.
Additionally, during instruction, Marcie made reference to how important it was for
students to know the meaning of the words they were reading and that if they did not
understand them to ask her or a neighbor because “understanding what you’re
reading is the most important thing about reading and it is what good readers do.”
After stating her comment, Marcie also entertained several statements from students
that reinforced the importance of making meaning from what was read. Like Sandy,
154
Marcie disregarded the objective behind the fluency activity. In a conversation that
took place at the conclusion of this observation, I asked Marcie about why she asked
the questions about meaning during this activity Marcie replied, “I always ask the
students about the meaning of what they’ve read. After all, what’s the point of
reading if you don’t understand what the author is trying to say.” Like Sandy,
Marcie’s understanding of the objective of the lesson appeared to be secondary to the
priority that she placed on constructing meaning from text.
Marcie did demonstrate preparedness and organization with regard to
materials needed for all of the interventions. All of the letter tiles required for the
activities on the alphabetic principle were presorted and left on the table top that
served to be the students’ work area. Additionally, the anthology that was needed to
effectively implement the fluency intervention activity was easily accessible to the
students.
Throughout the observations, whether Marcie’s instruction was one-on-one
or to a small group, students demonstrated a lack of familiarity with the majority of
the components of the implemented interventions. Marcie’s student participants did
not know how to use the letter tiles. Letter tiles often appeared upside down and in
reverse order. Perhaps this was due to Marcie’s participants wanting to mirror what
she was modeling making the activity more about copying the teacher rather than
learning the objectives behind the interventions. Steps and sequences to the
interventions also appeared to be unfamiliar to the participants. For example, during
the second observation a student stated: “Am I suppose to say the word while I
155
move the tiles and then change the word to another one when I’m done?”
Participants responded to three of the four interventions incorrectly and did not
appear enthusiastic or eager. Additionally, at the time of the observations, no other
adults were present in the classroom and the non-intervention students were assigned
to write stories, draw pictures, create book reports, participate in “word detective”
activities, write in their journals, or read independently.
Emergent Domains and Characteristics Defined
In this dissertation the use of the word, “characteristics” was selected
because it was felt that it best embodied the nuances of teacher implementation
across teacher participants. A total of 3 domains emerged from the 12 emergent
characteristics identified in the data: Teacher Adaptation Process, Student
Dynamics, and Teacher Attributes. Each domain was representative of a general
area where teachers and students demonstrated different strategies, behaviors, and
approaches to implementation. Each characteristic was expressive of an instructional
component to implementation, and each sub-characteristic was expressive of a
specific skill within the instructional component.
Characteristics within two domains, Teacher Adaptation Process and Student
Dynamics emerged for each case study participant. However, characteristics within
the domain, Teacher Attributes, only emerged across some cases. Thorough
examination of the observation data across case revealed that certain clusters of
information were characteristic of larger factors, sometimes even contingent upon
156
them. For example, accurate construction of teacher created student intervention
groups was contingent upon how well the participant interpreted the information
contained in the DIBELS student outcome sheet (e.g., students identified as “at-risk,”
“approaching benchmark,” or “benchmark” to a specified skill area). Further,
accurate selection of a Project PLUS early literacy intervention was contingent upon
the participants’ ability to identify the targeted deficit area of their at-risk students
and then match it to an appropriate intervention from the Intervention Guide (Haager
& Dimino, 2001). As a result most of the identified characteristics that emerged
from the cross case analysis contained additional sub-characteristics within them.
Domain I: Teacher Adaptation Process
The first domain, Teacher Adaptation Process, emerged from five
characteristics: Student Outcome Interpretation; Pedagogical Understanding;
Intervention fidelity; Intervention Familiarity, and Preparation and Organization.
Each of these characteristics was representative of knowledge, analysis, and skills
specific to the conceptual foundation of Project PLUS interventions and to the
implementation of them. Moreover, these characteristics were also thought to be
able to be improved upon through increased use of the interventions over time.
Student Outcome Interpretation
The characteristic, Student Outcome Interpretation, was comprised of four
instructional skills (sub-characteristics): To identify and group at-risk students in the
157
classroom per the DIBELS student outcome sheet; to identify at-risk students’
instructional area(s) of need per the DIBELS student outcome sheet; and to identify
and implement an appropriate Project PLUS early literacy intervention to the
targeted area(s) of instruction. Accomplishing these four skills would result in the
accurate construction of student intervention groups; accurate selection of an
appropriate Project PLUS early literacy intervention(s); and the delivery of
instruction to at-risk students’ targeted area(s) of instruction. Demonstration of a
high level of interpretation was a participant that achieved three or four of these
instructional skills. A moderate level of understanding was the achievement of two
of the four instructional skills. A low level of understanding was participant
achievement of one of the four instructional skills.
Pedagogical Understanding
The characteristic, Pedagogical Understanding, was inclusive of two
important instructional elements (sub- characteristics): The progression of and
within the principles that undergird the Project PLUS early literacy interventions
(e.g., phonological awareness, alphabetic principle, fluency). For example,
intervention students who were initially identified “at-risk” in the skill area of
phonological awareness (e.g., phonemic segmentation) per the DIBELS student
outcome sheet may, after the second assessment period, have progressed to being in
need of instruction in the concept area of the Alphabetic Principle. Due to the
students having been new to the content area, implementation of an intervention that
158
was designed to introduce the students to it (e.g., Activity 20, Spelling Words with
Two Sounds) would have demonstrated accurate progression both of and within the
underlying principle. If however, the implementation of an intervention such as
Intervention Activity 30: Making New Words, was the first implemented
intervention then, demonstration of accurate progression of the concept would have
resulted, but inaccurate progression within the same underlying principle would have
been noted as Intervention Activity 30 assumes implementation of prior
interventions from which subsequent interventions build upon. Moreover,
participants who were familiar with intervention objectives and/or articulated how
and why they selected interventions related to the underlying principles were
considered to have a more thorough understanding of them. Achieving both of these
important elements demonstrated a high level of understanding. A moderate level of
understanding was demonstrated when one of the elements was achieved, and a low
level of understanding was demonstrated when none of the elements were achieved.
Intervention Fidelity
The characteristic, Intervention Fidelity, encompassed four elements (sub-
characteristics) that were specified to Project PLUS recommendations: implementer
of the interventions of which the project recommended be the teacher; appropriate
duration of intervention implementation which the project recommended to be
between 10-20 minutes; appropriate selection of intervention materials of which
Project PLUS provided, materials specified in the Intervention Guide, and during
159
training, or materials that were discussed with project personnel that included me;
and the implementation of the correct steps and procedures specific to the project’s
interventions as delineated in the Intervention Guide and training. Levels of fidelity
were also noted among participants and resulted in the following manner: high,
moderate, and low. For example, during observation, demonstration of a high level
of fidelity was a participant who implemented the intervention for the duration of 10-
20 minutes utilized appropriate intervention materials and followed the correct steps
and procedures to the intervention as delineated in the Project PLUS Intervention
Guide. Therefore, high fidelity was achieved through participant adherence to three
or four of these elements; moderate fidelity was achieved through participant
adherence to two of the four elements; and low fidelity was achieved through
participant adherence to one of the four elements.
Intervention Familiarity
The characteristic, Intervention Familiarity, was comprised of four features
(sub- characteristics) that were delineated in the Intervention Guide (Haager &
Dimino, 2001) and during Project PLUS training: familiarity of the intervention’s
instructional steps and procedures; familiarity of intervention objectives; familiarity
with language specific to the intervention(s), and familiarity with the utilization of
intervention materials. Three levels of familiarity were identified across participants:
high, moderate, and low. Demonstration of a high level of familiarity was achieved
when a participant achieved three or four of these features; a moderate level of
160
familiarity was achieved when a participant achieved two of the four features; and a
low level of familiarity was achieved when a participant achieved one of the four
features.
Preparation and Organization
The characteristic, Preparation and Organization, was comprised of three
sub-characteristics: pre-sorted materials specific to the intervention prior to
implementation; the utilization of an organizational device for intervention materials;
and a designated area in the classroom for materials that was accessible and known
to students. Three levels of familiarity were identified across participants: high,
moderate, and low. A high level of preparedness and organization was achieved
through participant adherence to all three of these sub-characteristics; a moderate
level of preparedness was achieved through participant adherence to two of the three
sub-characteristics; and a low level was achieved through participant adherence to
one of the three sub-characteristics.
Domain II: Student Dynamics
The second domain, Student Dynamics, emerged from three characteristics:
Student Correct Response, Student Engagement, and Student Enjoyment. Each of
these characteristics was reflective of student behavior when they participated in
intervention instruction.
161
Student Response
The characteristic, Student Response, was reflective of how the intervention
students responded to the implemented intervention. For example, if the majority of
students responded accurately to the implemented intervention, then correct
response was noted. Conversely, if the majority of students responded inaccurately
to the implemented intervention, then incorrect response was noted.
Student Engagement
The characteristic, Student Engagement, was reflective of how students
attended to the intervention activities. A high level of engagement was noted when
the majority of students demonstrated a high level of interest in the intervention
activities, listened attentively, stayed on task, and followed directions. A moderate
level of engagement was noted when the majority of students demonstrated an
average interest in the intervention activities, and who more or less listened
attentively, stayed on task, and followed directions. A low level of engagement was
noted when the majority of students did not demonstrate interest in the intervention
activities and who did not listen attentively, stay on task, or follow directions.
Student Enjoyment
The characteristic, Student Enjoyment, was reflective of the enjoyment that
students expressed during the observations. For example, student participants who
chuckled or produced a smile shortly after their turn or that expressed visible
162
excitement upon their turn. However, the degree of enjoyment was not specified.
Rather Student Enjoyment was noted if the majority of the students expressed
enjoyment during the observations. Conversely, if the majority of students did not
express enjoyment during the observations than it was noted as such.
Domain III: Teacher Attributes
The third domain, Teacher Attributes, emerged from four characteristics:
Game-Like Instruction; Positive Attitude toward interventions; Established
Classroom Procedure; and Intervention Modification. Each of these characteristics
was inherent to teachers’ instructional style specific to the instructional approach to
intervention implementation, instructional environment, and attitude toward the
project interventions. Unlike the others, characteristics specific to the domain,
Teacher Attributes, did not consistently emerge across case.
Game-Like Instruction
The characteristic, Game-Like Instruction was noted when the participant
approached the implementation of project interventions with a playful flare. For
example, participants who either introduced a prop into intervention activities (e.g.,
black velvety bag), added the dynamic of friendly competition (e.g., students against
teachers), or incorporated a multitude of intervention materials into an intervention
activity (e.g., used color tiles, then letter tiles, and ended with hand or body
163
movement, etc.) into at least one of their implemented interventions inherited this
characteristic.
Positive Attitude
A second characteristic, Positive Attitude was defined through participant
comments that focused on the good aspects of the interventions (e.g., fun, effective,
students enjoy them, etc.) rather than negative or bad aspects of the project
interventions (e.g., take too much time, too much work, not effective). Although
negative comments such as those listed did not emerge, not all case study
participants commented on the interventions. Therefore, comments like those
documented in case study descriptions (see case descriptions) that reflected a
favorable sentiment specific to the interventions and that were made directly to the
student participants and/or to me were considered.
Established Classroom Procedure
A third characteristic, Established Classroom Procedure encompassed three
elements (sub- characteristics): First, was the use of well-established instructional
centers. For example, centers were clearly delineated through the use of posted or
hanging signs that labeled the dedicated areas (e.g., “Listening Center, “Science
Center,” “Skill Building Center,” etc.). In addition, within each of the centers were
clear and concise directions to the assigned tasks that were either posted or written
on task cards. Necessary materials were also contained within each of the centers.
164
Second, was an established system of rotation from center to center that was
understood and followed by student participants. For example, posted charts and
diagrams that contained student names within their instructional group and directions
for how the groups were to move from center to center were easily made available
for students to reference. Third, was the utilization of a device that marked time and
indicated when the students were to rotate to and from designated centers.
Intervention Modification
A fourth characteristic, Intervention Modification was reflective of a teacher
participant deviating from the project intervention’s original format or original
objective. For example, if a teacher participant omitted steps and procedures from a
project intervention that were considered a vital component of the project
intervention or omitted or changed the objective of a project intervention during
implementation, then modification to the intervention would have occurred.
Table 8 provides an overview of teacher participants’ achieved levels of
emergent characteristics within domains.
165
Table 8
Overview of Participants’ Achieved Levels of Emergent Characteristics within Domains
Emergent Characteristics Across Case
Emergent Characteristics:
Achieved Levels Within Characteristics
Accomplished Emergent Initial
Student Outcome
Interpretation
H H M M L L
Pedagogical
Understanding
H H M M L M
Intervention Fidelity H H M H L L
Intervention Familiarity H H H H L L
Preparation/Organization H H H M L M
Student Response C C C C I I
Student Engagement H H M M L L
Student Enjoyment Y Y Y Y N N
Game-Like Instruction E E E E
Positive Attitude E E E
Established Classroom
Procedure
E E
Intervention Modification E E
Case Study Participants Regina Barbara Tanya Irma Sandy Marcie
H = High C = Correct
M = Moderate I = Incorrect
L = Low Y =Yes
E = Emerged N = No
166
Cross Case Analysis of How Teachers Implemented Project Interventions:
Emergent Characteristics Across Case
Domain I: Teacher Adaptation Process
Student Outcome Interpretation
Although this characteristic emerged across case, the degree with which
teachers accurately interpreted student outcomes varied. Two of the six participants,
Regina and Barbara consistently demonstrated their ability to accomplish each of the
four instructional skills during both observations. For example, during each
observation each of these participants accurately identified their at-risk students,
constructed student intervention groups that included all of their at-risk students
based on instructional need per the DIBELS student outcome sheet and delivered
instruction to the targeted area through the implementation of applicable project
interventions. Further, during the second observation, each of the participants
accurately interpreted student outcomes for both their at-risk and emergent students
and included them in intervention groups. Providing instruction to emergent
students was not a first year goal for the project. Nonetheless, these two participants
accomplished this goal earlier than anticipated and did so mindfully, with accuracy
and without compromise to the instruction of their at-risk students. Regina and
Barbara were considered to have a high level of understanding of how to accurately
interpret student outcomes.
Tanya, Irma, Sandy and Marcie demonstrated mixed results in their ability to
accomplish the four instructional skills (e.g., the identification and grouping of at-
167
risk students, the identification of their targeted instructional area, the selection and
implementation of an appropriate project intervention). Out of these four teachers,
Tanya and Irma were the only participants to have achieved, at least during her first
observation, all four skills successfully. During Tanya’s first observation, she
accurately identified and grouped two of her student participants that were identified
as being at-risk in the alphabetic principle per the DIBELS student outcome sheet.
Tanya also incorporated two additional students into the same group that had no
DIBELS scores due to their absence during the assessment period. However, during
Tanya’s implementation of the first intervention activity, she mentioned that each of
these students had consistently demonstrated extreme difficulty in their ability to
decode when reading aloud, individually or in small group. At the conclusion of the
observation, Tanya also noted that the first of the added students was being evaluated
for admittance into a Special Day Class for severely emotionally disturbed students
and the other for Special Education services. She added that the administration
wanted students who were being evaluated for special services to be included into
the project’s intervention groups when possible.
While Tanya’s first observation was very successful with regard to each of
the sub-characteristics, her second observation was not. During Tanya’s second
observation she conducted four phonemic awareness activities to a group of six
students. However, only one of the six students was identified at-risk in this
instructional area. The remaining five student participants included in this group
168
were identified as having established the benchmark in this area, rendering the
instructional time that they spent in the intervention group as unnecessary.
Like Tanya, Irma demonstrated that she was also capable of achieving the
four sub-characteristics at least once during her two observations. However, unlike
Tanya, Irma improved in these skill areas during her second observation, not her
first. During Irma’s first observation on onset-rime; Activity 3, half of the students
receiving intervention instruction were identified on the DIBELS student outcome
sheet as emerging and the other half as having achieved the benchmark in the area of
phonemic awareness. While it may have been more appropriate for the two
emergent students in the group to receive instruction in phonemic awareness, the
other two were clearly not in need of such instruction. The seven students who were
identified at-risk per the DIBELS student outcome sheet did not receive any
instruction, therefore, rendering the construction of the intervention group
inaccurate. However, during Irma’s second observation marked improvement was
demonstrated with regard to student grouping. Included in Irma’s intervention group
were six students, each identified on the DIBELS student outcome sheet as having
the lowest scores for emerging to the benchmark in the concept area of the alphabetic
principle. Moreover, according to the DIBELS student outcome sheet, there were no
students identified at-risk in this area. As the observation concluded and before I
began to speak of the observation, Irma stated the following:
I wanted to conduct one last lesson with the emergent students that I thought
would benefit from just one more intervention in this area due to them being
the lowest scorers and to just make sure that each of them has this concept
under their belt or is at least more familiar with it. I know that I could’ve
169
done an intervention in fluency because that is where a lot of my students fell
on DIBELS, but I knew that I would feel better going over this first due to
them all being able to improve with practice. Tomorrow or next week we’ll
work on fluency.
Irma’s explanation of why she elected to implement Activity 24 in the conceptual
area of the alphabetic principle validated both the construction of the group and her
understanding of how to accurately interpret the DIBELS student outcome sheet.
Due to both Tanya and Irma having demonstrated their ability to accurately achieve
each of these skills during one observation, both Tanya and Irma were considered to
have a moderate level of understanding of the skills.
Sandy improved in the areas of accurately identifying and implementing
appropriate interventions but like Marcie continued to struggle in the ability to
accurately identify and group at-risk students. For example, the intervention that
Sandy implemented during her first observation was on letter identification,
however, according to the DIBELS student outcome sheet only one of six students
demonstrated a need in this area. Moreover, the other five students were identified
as having reached the benchmark for this particular skill. During Sandy’s second
observation she implemented an intervention activity in the area of fluency, Activity
32, and while there were a total of eight students that were identified on the DIBELS
student outcome sheet at-risk in this area, Sandy comprised a group of four students;
one student who was at-risk, two students who were emerging to the benchmark, and
one who had achieved the benchmark. Furthermore, when I asked Sandy why she
had grouped her students in this manner she remarked, “I felt that they [intervention
170
students] could use the instruction. I think that they [intervention students] are at-
risk in almost every area.” After hearing Sandy’s explanation of how she grouped
her students, I speculated about whether or not she truly understood how to interpret
the DIBELS student outcome sheet as well as her examination of it outside of our
meetings. It was thought that when it came to the construction of student groups that
Sandy, like Marcie, placed their priority on matters unrelated to Project PLUS.
During Marcie’s first observation, her ability to achieve these four sub-
characteristics was somewhat compromised due to her conducting the interventions
on a one-to-one basis. As a result, the total number of students Marcie instructed
during the recommended time frame was three; two of which were identified at-risk
in the alphabetic principle, and one identified as having achieved the benchmark for
this particular skill. However, an additional eight students were identified at-risk in
the area of instruction per the DIBELS student outcome sheet but did not receive
instruction. During Marcie’s second observation, which consisted of two
intervention activities, the first in the alphabetic principle and the second in fluency,
Marcie moved away from the format of one-on-one instruction in favor of small and
whole group instruction and was partly successful in her selection of appropriate
interventions. However, Marcie, like Sandy, struggled with her ability to group
students in an effective manner. For example, during implementation of the first of
the two activities, Marcie grouped together a total of five students, four students who
were identified as having achieved the benchmark and one student, the only student,
who was identified at-risk in the area of the alphabetic principle. Moreover, during
171
the implementation of Marcie’s second activity on fluency, she included the whole
class when the four students identified on the DIBELS outcome sheet might have
benefited from more personalized instruction. Due to the least amount of skills
consistently being achieved in the course of the intervention observations, the level
of understanding that both Sandy and Marcie had was considered to be low.
Overall, only two of the six participants, Regina and Barbara, consistently
demonstrated competency in the ability to accurately identify and group their at-risk
students, identify targeted areas of instructional need and select and implement an
appropriate intervention; two participants, Tanya and Irma, accurately identified and
grouped their at-risk students, identified their targeted area of instructional need and
selected and implemented an appropriate intervention activity during at least one
observation; and two participants, Sandy and Marcie, demonstrated significant
inconsistency in their ability to achieve any of the four instructional skills
effectively.
Pedagogical Understanding
Both Regina and Barbara demonstrated a very clear understanding of the
concepts underlying the interventions as well as the appropriate progression of
interventions within each concept. Initially, each of these participants appropriately
implemented interventions in the concept area of phonological awareness (the
understanding of the different ways that spoken language can be broken into smaller
components) and then proceeded with the implementation of interventions in the
172
concept area of the alphabetic principle (knowledge that words are made up of
sounds which are represented by letters). In addition, the progression of the
interventions within each concept was also accurate and demonstrated further
understanding of the continuum of complexity within each of the concepts. For
example, Regina’s implemented interventions were Activities 5 and 6 while Barbara
implemented Activity 12 in the area of phonemic awareness. During the second
observation, Regina and Barbara each implemented interventions in the subsequent
areas of the alphabetic principle and fluency. Additionally, in the course of
conversations with me, each of these participants effectively communicated their
understanding of these concepts. For example, Regina stated the following:
It’s interesting to see how all of reading pieces fit together like a puzzle. I
never really paid attention to how I learned to read, ever since I can
remember I’ve just been able to do it. But I know that’s not true for all kids.
Since the project, I feel like I have the knowledge I need about the
fundamentals that kids need to know and how they [concepts] build on each
other like how phonemic awareness builds and prepares for success in the
alphabetic principle and how that [the alphabetic principle] serves as a
stepping-stone for fluency. The interventions build that way too, they’re
always progressing!
Regina and Barbara were considered to have a high level of understanding of the
concepts.
Despite Tanya having implemented interventions in somewhat of a reversed
order according to her students’ needs (e.g., implementation of an intervention in
phonological awareness during her second observation and the implementation of an
intervention in the alphabetic principle during her first observation), Tanya’s
understanding of the concepts underlying the interventions, like Irma’s, was
173
interpreted as developing due to the revelation of detailed information about their
thinking process during our dialogues that took place at the conclusion of each of the
observations (see case descriptions). Additionally, both Tanya and Irma selected
interventions that conceptually built upon one another. For example, Tanya selected
and implemented two appropriate intervention activities during her first observation:
Activity 20 and Activity 21. These interventions increased the number of sounds in
words that students were instructed to spell (e.g., Activity 20 Spelling Words With
Two Sounds; and Activity 21 Spelling Words With Three Sounds). Irma first
implemented and intervention in the area of phonemic awareness, Activity 3, and
during her second observation accurately moved into the next conceptual area of the
alphabetic principle with Activity 24. However, specific to Tanya and the unique
order in which she implemented the interventions, I asked her why she chose to
conduct intervention activities in the area of phonemic awareness after she had
conducted interventions in the subsequent conceptual area prior. She stated, “I
wasn’t familiar with them [interventions in phonemic awareness] and I want to
understand how all of these pieces fit together. I kind of need to get it before I can
expect the students to.” Tanya and Irma were considered to have a moderate
pedagogical understanding of the concepts underlying the project interventions.
Based upon the interventions that Marcie selected for implementation during
the observations, Marcie also demonstrated understanding of both the pedagogical
content underlying and within the conceptual principles. For example, Marcie
initially implemented Activities 21 and 22 in the alphabetic principle and proceeded
174
to Activity 26 within the same principle during her second observation, an indication
that she was building on the conceptual principles required for fluency.
Additionally, during her second observation, Marcie conducted an intervention in
area of fluency, again, an indication of an awareness of a conceptual progression
through the implementation of applicable interventions. However, speculation as to
how thorough of an understanding remained due to the lack of familiarity she
exhibited with regard to every aspect of the interventions, their objectives, and their
implementation. As more thoroughly described in the first section of this chapter,
Marcie appeared extraordinarily disconnected with the instructional content of each
of her conducted interventions. In fact, Marcie needed to read the intervention
manual verbatim in order to conduct each of the interventions. Moreover, she
omitted the objective of the fluency intervention (automaticity) in favor of meaning
making and not once made reference to any of the objectives of the interventions that
she implemented or their conceptual principles in the dialogues that took place after
the observations. Although Marcie was very talkative about personal information
(e.g., her struggles as a young readers), her comments made with regard to project
interventions were unelaborated. For example, at the end of her first observation I
asked Marcie about what she thought about the interventions. She responded, “you
take what you like and leave the rest.” It appeared that Marcie did not care much
about garnering any information made available to her from the project or in the
interventions. Moreover, Marcie exhibited almost an opposing perspective toward
175
the methodological approach that the project had to reading. For example, in a
dialogue that took place before Marcie’s second observation she commented:
You know if it [intervention activity] works I use it and if it doesn’t I don’t. I
think there are a lot of kids out there like me…kids that need to know what
things mean in order to get it.
As a result, Marcie’s pedagogical understanding, at best, was considered to be
debatable. However, I was unable to overlook Marcie’s numerous inconsistencies
with regard to implementation, her understanding of intervention objectives and
concluded her pedagogical understanding to be, at best, moderate.
Like Marcie, Sandy also demonstrated an inaccurate conceptual
understanding of fluency. Although the concept is defined as the combination of
reading speed, reading accuracy and prosody, Sandy, like Marcie, spent the majority
of the time trying to extract meaning from text. Additionally, upon Sandy’s first
observation, concepts and objectives of her self-generated interventions were never
identified despite my requests for them. Both Sandy’s level of pedagogical
understanding of the concepts underlying the project’s interventions was considered
to be low.
Intervention Fidelity
Regina and Barbara successfully achieved every element in this
characteristic; they each implemented the interventions (Item 2), utilized appropriate
intervention materials (Item 4), and implemented the interventions within the
recommended time frame of 10-20 minutes (Item 8). In addition, they each
176
accurately followed the steps and procedures delineated by the project through
trainings, demonstration lessons and the intervention guide for each of the
interventions that they implemented. For example, the first piece of information that
was shared with intervention students was the purpose behind the intervention
activity. Barbara was heard saying the following when beginning with the
implementation of Activity 22: “Today your going to improve your understanding
that sounds are represented by letters in the alphabet, that letters represent the
sequence of sounds in words, and your ability to spell four-sound words,”
(Intervention Guide, p. 63). Regina and Barbara also incorporated relevant materials
and followed the listed procedures delineated in the intervention manual that very
explicitly directed student action. Regina and Barbara’s level of intervention fidelity
with regard to each of the four aspects (e.g., teacher as implementer, duration,
materials, and adherence to intervention steps and procedures) was considered to be
high.
Tanya, Irma, and Marcie appeared to struggle with keeping to the time frame
recommended by the project. Tanya and Irma had a tendency to exceed the time
frame while Marcie reduced it. For example, during Tanya’s first implementation of
the interventions she implemented for a total of 45 minutes in duration while the
recommended time frame was 10 to 20 minutes. However, Tanya demonstrated
improvement during her second observation when she implemented four different
interventions, all of which were approximately 10 minutes in duration. Irma
experienced the opposite of Tanya. During Irma’s first implementation observation,
177
she implemented within the 10-20 minute time frame. However, during her second
observation she exceeded it by approximately 10 minutes. During Marcie’s first
observation, she implemented the interventions to each of the three students for
approximately 8 minutes; her duration of implementation was under the
recommended time frame. However, she too, like Tanya improved upon this aspect
of implementation. Sandy was within the recommended time frame for each of the
implemented interventions.
With regard to materials, Tanya might have selected a better intervention tool
for two of the four intervention activities she implemented during her second
observation. Students exhibited difficulty in successfully identifying the consonant
blends, short and long vowel sounds contained within the picture cards. Irma and
Marcie utilized the materials suggested in the intervention guide and therefore
selected appropriate materials for each of their implemented interventions.
Therefore, Irma and Marcie’s level of intervention fidelity with regard to teacher as
implementer, duration and materials was considered to be high while Tanya’s was
considered to be moderate.
While Tanya and Irma’s adherence to intervention steps and procedures was
accurate, Sandy’s was not. Steps and procedures for Sandy’s self-generated
intervention on letter recognition were unknown. However due to the fractured and
disorganized implementation of her self-generated intervention, the absence of steps
and procedures for that intervention was highly likely, as was a rehearsal of the
implementation of it prior to observation. Like Marcie, Sandy’s ability to correctly
178
follow the steps of the fluency intervention during her second observation was not
successful. During each of Marcie’s implemented interventions in the alphabetic
principle effort to follow the steps and procedures of intervention activities was
made, but was not considered to be accurate due to the retarded instruction that
altered transition from one step to the next within each of her implemented
interventions. While Tanya and Irma’s level of intervention fidelity with regard to
the adherence to intervention steps and procedures was considered to be high, Sandy
and Marcie’s level specific to this aspect of fidelity was considered to be low.
However, when each aspect of fidelity was considered (e.g., teacher as
implementer, duration, intervention materials, adherence to intervention steps and
procedures), the adherence to intervention steps and procedures was weighted more
heavily as inadvertence to intervention steps and procedures directly affected the
intervention objective (e.g., Sandy and Marcie’s implementation of the fluency
activity). Therefore, like Regina and Barbara, it was concluded that Irma’s
intervention fidelity was high, Tanya’s was moderate and Sandy and Marcie’s was
low.
Intervention Familiarity
Regina, Barbara, and Irma demonstrated strong familiarity with the steps,
procedures, and objectives of each of their implemented intervention activities. With
ease and fluidity, each of these participants verbalized the steps out loud to the
intervention students while simultaneously modeling for their students an accurate
179
movement of intervention materials (e.g., fingers, color tiles, hand signals, letter
tiles). For example, after Regina stated the objective behind Activity 24, she
effortlessly as well as systematically guided the students in the following manner:
Boys and girls, today we’re going to make new words by adding a letter and
its sound to the beginning of the words that I say to you. First, I’m going to
say a word that I want you to repeat. Say “it” (the students repeated the
word). Next, I want you to move your letter tiles while you say each of the
sounds that make up that word. Watch me. The word is “it” (she verbalized
the sound /i/ as she moved letter tile “i” and verbalized the sound /t/ as she
moved letter tile “t”), now put or blend the sounds together (she verbalized /i/
/t/, /it/. Let me see you do it (students mimicked what Regina modeled).
Now, I’m going to make a new word by adding a sound to the beginning of
the word (she verbalized /s/ as she moved the letter tile “s” to the beginning
of the word “it” and then verbalized /s/ /i/ /t/, what’s the new word? Students
responded /sit/. Very good! Any questions on what you’re suppose to do?
Students responded, “no”. Okay, next word, “at”…
During Regina’s implementation of this activity she elaborated on the additional idea
that all of the letters that were being added to make new words were consonants. At
no time did Regina hesitate or halt due to her unfamiliarity of intervention
objectives, steps or procedures. In fact, the only time that she referenced the
intervention guide during implementation was when she selected the words from the
word list. Barbara and Irma also implemented interventions in a similar manner.
While Regina and Barbara each implemented a total of four interventions (two per
observation), Irma implemented a total of two interventions (one per observation).
Regina, Barbara, and Irma’s level of familiarity with the interventions was
considered to be high.
Tanya was unique in that she was the only participant to have implemented a
total of six interventions during her two observations: two interventions during her
180
first observation and four during her second. Tanya demonstrated strong familiarity
of the steps, procedures and objectives for the first two interventions during her first
observation and the second and third implemented interventions in her second
observation (4 of 6 interventions). However, she demonstrated some ambiguity with
instruction of interventions one and four during her second observation (e.g., the
identification of the sounds in the picture card words and the identification of short
and long vowel sounds in the picture card words). Due to the identification of the
short and long vowel sounds not being part of the original intervention activity but
rather an elaboration of the activity on the part of Tanya, it was considered an actual
strength as Tanya demonstrated enough familiarity with the intervention to elaborate
on an existing intervention activity without compromise to the actual structure of the
intervention. What appeared to confuse Tanya was the inconsistent response of her
students with regard to these added activities. For example, when one of the students
responded inaccurately, Tanya responded, “Don’t let this exercise confuse you, it’s
just like the others that we’ve done. We’re just trying to identify different sounds in
the word.” Moreover, when the total number of interventions that Tanya
implemented and her awareness of intervention objectives were considered,
demonstration of her familiarity of them was predominantly strong. Tanya’s level of
familiarity with the interventions was also considered to be high.
As described in earlier sections Sandy, like Marcie, demonstrated some
familiarity with the procedures of only one of their implemented interventions,
fluency. However, each of them demonstrated no familiarity with that intervention’s
181
objective. Moreover, Sandy did not demonstrate any familiarity with any of the
elements of her self-generated intervention activities. In addition, Marcie’s
implementation of all of her intervention activities was extremely delayed and
fragmented as was her misuse of language and demonstrated that she was unfamiliar
with the majority of intervention steps, procedures, or objectives. Sandy and
Marcie’s level of familiarity with the interventions was considered to be low.
Preparation and Organization
The findings in this greatly varied across participants. Regina and Barbara
were the only two participants to have consistently and effectively pre-sorted
intervention materials prior to each of their implemented interventions, to have
consistently utilized some sort of organizational device to store all of the intervention
materials, and that dedicated an area inside the classroom for them. With the
exception of Tanya not pre-sorting intervention materials for two of the four
interventions implemented during her second observation, she was successful at
utilizing an organizational device for all of the materials as well as kept them in the
same place (e.g., inside the box given to her by the project which remained under her
table). Regina, Barbara, and Tanya’s level of preparedness and organization was
considered to be high.
Irma and Marcie did pre-sort the intervention materials prior to the arrival of
the students for both observations. Sandy did not pre-sort any of the intervention
materials during her first observation but did for her second observation. However,
182
Irma, Sandy, and Marcie did not utilize an organizational device for the intervention
materials or designate an area inside the classroom for them. Irma and Marcie’s level
of preparedness and organization was considered to be moderate while Sandy’s was
considered to be low.
Domain II: Student Dynamics
Student Response
Students in Regina, Barbara, and Irma’s intervention groups consistently
responded accurately. With the exception of Tanya’s two extended intervention
activities, the majority of Tanya’s students also responded accurately. For example,
the intervention students in these groups accurately responded to the directions given
by their teachers to move intervention tools (e.g., color tiles, hand signals, slinkies,
letter tiles) while simultaneously stating their corresponding sounds or letter names.
Moreover, the majority of the students in these intervention groups very rarely
responded incorrectly. Conversely, throughout most of the intervention activities,
students in Sandy and Marcie’s groups responded inaccurately, perhaps due in part to
the fragmented instruction that they received. In Sandy’s class, students were
observed stating letter sounds when they were asked to state letter names. Students
were also involved in conversation with one another during the time of
implementation. Marcie’s students responded to interventions in the alphabetic
principle with the wrong letter tiles. For example, during Marcie’s implementation
of Activity 21, she asked the students to create the word “bug.” One of the
183
intervention students generated the word “bum” while another created the word
“bam.” A student sitting next to the student who made the word “bam” blurted out,
“Viva La Bam!” This type of response to the interventions was not observed in
intervention groups other than Sandy and Marcie’s. It was speculated that the reason
behind the behavior of Marcie’s intervention students was because of the time that
lapsed between directions. Marcie’s students were also engaged in conversation
throughout the intervention activities.
Student Engagement
At-risk and emerging students that were in both Regina and Barbara’s
intervention groups appeared to be highly engaged during each of the four
intervention activities. Students’ were busily attending to the tasks, consistently had
their eyes on their teachers while they listened attentively to directions. No side
talking was noted for students in either of these teachers’ intervention groups.
Students in both Tanya and Irma’s intervention groups appeared to be
moderately engaged during both observations. During the second observation,
students in Tanya’s intervention groups expressed some confusion during two of the
extended intervention activities, which led some of the students to distraction.
Chitchat between students would ensue but within seconds Tanya quickly brought
them back to task. During Irma’s first observation, students were initially noted as
moderately engaged but appeared to lose interest in the activity over time. Some of
Irma’s students, rocked back and forth in their chairs, quietly looked up at the
184
ceiling, or silently stared off into space as she verbalized the directions to the task
that appeared to be fairly easy for the students. During Irma’s second observation,
students were initially noted as highly engaged while they eagerly guessed at the
newly constructed words the teacher generated, but in the course of a few minutes
they appeared to lose interest in the activity. It appeared that once the students
caught on to the manner in which the words were created, they began to look at each
other and giggle. A couple of sighs were also noted among two of the intervention
students.
During each of the two observations, students in both Sandy and Marcie’s
group demonstrated low levels of engagement. Students in both groups did not
appear to be interested in the intervention activities but did demonstrate a strong
desire to share personal information to the group and me. For example, during
Sandy’s implementation of the intervention, “Miguel” wanted his classmates and me
to know that he was from Guatemala and not Mexico and that before coming to the
United States he lived on a “rancho” and had a horse. Specific to Marcie’s second
observation, students also appeared engaged in conversation with each other. During
Marcie’s implementation of the first activity, “Kent” shared information about his
cousin’s birthday party that he would attend over the weekend. Conversation among
other intervention students began to mount. However, Marcie appeared unaware of
the distraction. The majority of Marcie’s intervention students appeared unengaged
for three of the four-implemented interventions. The students in Sandy and Marcie’s
185
intervention groups were considered to have low engagement in the intervention
activities.
Student Enjoyment
Student enjoyment of the interventions was apparent for students in Regina,
Barbara, Tanya, and Irma’s groups. Smiles appeared on the students’ faces after
having received praise for their efforts and responses to the tasks. Examples of some
of the statements of praise that students clearly enjoyed were, “Good job!” “Nice
going [name of student}!” “You’re so smart!” “You got it!” Bodies were also
relaxed and responsive when the opportunity for them to model to the group arose.
Student enjoyment was also apparent for both Sandy and Marcie’s group, but not
with regard to the interventions. It appeared that the intervention students’ greatest
enjoyment was when they were involved in conversation with one another.
Domain III: Teacher Attributes
Game-Like Instruction
The characteristic, Game-Like Instruction emerged for four of the six
participants: Regina, Barbara, Tanya, and Irma. This approach to instruction was
noted when the participant added a playful flare into at least one of their
implemented interventions. Props, the construct of friendly competition, and the
utilization of multiple materials were examples specific to this trait. For example,
both Regina and Tanya incorporated the dynamic of friendly competition through the
186
incorporation of team play: Regina’s students were given the challenge of playing
against the teacher and for their teammates while Tanya’s students played against
each other. Irma’s students happily guessed at the new words she created; and
Barbara used a multitude of materials, both project and non-project, in the short
duration of 10-minutes that allowed for the interpretation of them as games by
several of her intervention students. Barbara utilized the most materials as well as
had the largest assortment of them.
Positive Attitude
A second characteristic, Positive Attitude also emerged for half of the
participants: Regina, Tanya, and Irma. A positive attitude was defined through
participant comments that reflected upon project interventions as a positive force
with regard to reading instruction. For example, Regina’s comments expressed
belief as well as excitement with regard to project interventions (e.g., “You boys and
girls are so lucky to have these interventions to learn from. They are so fun and they
make you smarter and smarter and much better readers”). Tanya’s comments
reflected a belief in the power that the interventions’ had on generating great readers
(e.g., “These interventions are going to turn you into terrific readers”). Irma’s
comments reflected delight and enjoyment with regard to the instruction of project
interventions (e.g., “how nice it is [was] to instruct this way. I enjoyed myself and I
think that the students did too”).
187
Established Classroom Procedure
A third characteristic, Established Classroom Procedure emerged for two of
the six participants: Regina and Barbara. This characteristic encompassed three
elements (sub-characteristics): First, was the use of well-established instructional
centers. For example, centers were easily identified inside the classrooms of both
Regina and Barbara by way of signs that labeled the dedicated areas (e.g., “Listening
Center, “Science Center,” “Skill Building Center,” etc.). In addition, Regina and
Barbara also placed within each of their centers pieces of paper or task cards that
contained all of the necessary directions and materials for the completion of the
assigned task(s). Second, was an established system of rotation from center to center
that was understood and followed by student participants. For example, each of
these teacher participants posted charts that listed student names within teacher
generated groups Directions for how the groups were to move from center to center
were made visual through posted diagrams on walls. Third, was the utilization of a
device that marked time and indicated when the students were to rotate to and from
designated centers. Regina’s used a kitchen timer that she set for 16 minutes in
which center activities would take place while Barbara used a hand clap and her
voice to indicate the intervals of center time.
Intervention Modification
A fourth characteristic, Intervention Modification emerged for two of the six
participants: Sandy and Marcie. This characteristic was reflective of deviation from
188
the delineated steps and procedures of the interventions as well as the objectives of
the interventions during implementation. While Sandy conducted her own
intervention activity during her first observation, during their second observation
both Sandy and Marcie modified the Project PLUS early literacy intervention of
fluency to the point of which the intervention objective was omitted. Due to the
unfamiliarity of the design, objectives, and procedures behind Sandy’s first self-
generated implemented intervention, discourse of its modifications could not be
made. However, during Sandy’s second implemented intervention of a fluency
activity, like Marcie, modification to the intervention objective of automaticity was
made in favor of their over arching objective of making meaning from text. In
addition, it might also be considered that modifications were made and objectives
were absent for the other three interventions that Marcie implemented due to her
sluggish and delayed implementation of them.
Cross Case Analysis of Teachers’ Methodological Preference to Reading Instruction
and Implementation of Project Interventions
Cross case analysis of the relationship of implementation of Project PLUS
early literacy interventions and methodological preference among participants was
examined. The following section will provide a description of teacher
implementation through user types, the identification of a user type for each of the
participants, participants’ mean values for code and meaning-based approaches to
reading instruction as described in Chapter 3, participants’ methodological
preference to reading instruction, the compatibility of their methodological
189
preference to that of project interventions, and participants’ self-reported
implementation.
Introduction of User Types
Upon cross case analysis a number of factors emerged from the data that
distinguished the implementation of Project PLUS early literacy interventions.
Closer examination of the data revealed that many of the levels achieved within the
domains emerged more favorably as well as consistently for some participants than
others revealing different levels of implementation. For example, both Regina and
Barbara, accomplished users, were characteristic of a different level of user type due
to the number of characteristics and sub-characteristics within the domains that
emerged for them at high levels. Moreover, additional characteristics specific to
implementation transpired for them and not for other user types. Tanya and Irma,
emergent users, achieved lower levels of characteristics within emergent domains
than accomplished users, but achieved higher levels of characteristics within
emergent domains than Sandy and Marcie, initial users. Emergent users, like
accomplished users also had additional characteristics emerge. Initial users,
achieved the lowest level of characteristics within emergent categories and did not
have additional characteristics that facilitated implementation emerge. Due to the
variances within achievement levels of characteristics within emergent domains as
well as the emergence of additional characteristics, the utilization of a “user type” to
190
implementation materialized: Accomplished, Emergent, and Initial. A description of
each user type is as follows:
Accomplished User
Specific to this user type was the number of times that the sub-characteristics
within the characteristics were consistently achieved at high levels during each of the
intervention activities during both of the observations. In the case of the
accomplished users, both Regina and Barbara each implemented a total of four
interventions, two intervention activities per observation. During the implementation
of the four interventions, all of the sub- characteristics within each of the
characteristics were achieved at a level much greater than the participants identified
in other user types. For example, within the emergent trait, Student Outcome
Interpretation, the accomplished users exhibited a keen understanding of how to
interpret student outcomes per the DIBELS student outcome sheet and performed all
four instructional skills (sub-characteristics) accurately—meaning that all of their at-
risk students were consistently as well as accurately identified and grouped for each
of the conducted intervention activities and they each received instruction that
addressed their targeted instructional needs through the implementation of a project
intervention that addressed their targeted instructional area. As described earlier,
implementation of each of the project interventions also appeared effortless on the
part of the participant and student participants appeared to consistently be highly
engaged.
191
Two additional characteristics and the sub-characteristics within them also
emerged for this user type: Established Classroom Procedure and Game-Like
Instruction. While the first characteristic and the sub-characteristics within it only
emerged for the accomplished users, the second characteristic and sub-characteristics
also emerged for the emergent user type.
Lastly, the two teacher participants that constituted this user type were the
least experienced teachers out of all of the participants; Regina with a total of 5 years
teaching experience and Barbara with a total of 4 years teaching experience. In
addition, each of the accomplished users had a total of 4 years first grade teaching
experience.
Emergent User
Specific to this user type was the low number of times that the sub-
characteristics within the characteristics were achieved at high levels and the
frequent number of times that sub-characteristics were achieved at moderate levels
during each of the intervention activities during both of the observations. Rather, the
participants that were included in this user type, Tanya and Irma, were considered to
be developing in their ability to more consistently achieve the sub-characteristics
within the characteristics at higher levels and did demonstrate the ability to improve
their instructional skills over the course of the study. In the case of the emergent
users, Tanya implemented a total of six interventions; two during her first
observation and four during her second while Irma conducted one intervention
192
during each observation. Although the total number of interventions was equal to
the total number of the accomplished users, only some of the sub-characteristics
within the characteristics were achieved at distinguishable levels. In addition,
although it was Tanya to have implemented more of the interventions than Irma,
each of the participants was consistent with regard to achieving medial levels within
the sub-characteristics. However, all of the levels achieved for the sub-
characteristics of this user type were consistently much greater than the participants
identified as initial users. For example, within the emergent trait, Student Outcome
Interpretation, the emergent users exhibited a fair or developing understanding of
how to interpret student outcomes per the DIBELS student outcome sheet and
performed all four instructional skills (sub-characteristics) with a mixed
understanding—meaning that not all of their at-risk students were consistently and
accurately identified or grouped for each of the conducted intervention activities, nor
was instruction consistently targeted toward their instructional needs through
implementation of an appropriate project intervention. Moreover, implementation of
each of the project interventions, while not interruptive of intervention goals,
appeared to be less fluid than participants identified as accomplished users. Students
also appeared engaged while the intervention students in the accomplished users
groups appeared to be highly engaged.
Like the accomplished user types, two additional characteristics and the sub-
characteristics within them also emerged: Game-Like Instruction and Positive
Attitude. While the first characteristic and the sub-characteristics within it also
193
emerged for the accomplished users, the second characteristic only emerged for the
emergent user type.
Lastly, the two teacher participants that constituted this user type were among
the most experienced teachers of all the teacher participants; Irma with a total of 30
years teaching experience and Tanya with a total of 15 years teaching experience.
However, while Irma had 27 years of first grade teaching experience, Tanya had only
3 years first grade teaching experience—making her the least experienced of all the
teacher participants with regard to first grade instruction.
Initial User
Specific to this user type was the consistent number of times that the sub-
characteristics within the characteristics were achieved at low levels during the
observed intervention activities. Participants that were included in this user type,
Sandy and Marcie, rarely achieved even a medial level of achievement with regard to
the sub-characteristics. Unlike emergent users, initial users were not considered to
be developing in their ability to more consistently achieve the sub-traits at higher
levels. In fact, initial users who implemented a total of five interventions appeared
to ignore project goals as well as intervention objectives. Moreover, all of the levels
achieved for the sub-characteristics of this user type were consistently much lower
than the participants identified as emergent users and vastly lower than those
identified as accomplished users. For example, within the emergent trait, Student
Outcome Interpretation, initial users exhibited a poor understanding of how to
194
interpret student outcomes per the DIBELS student outcome sheet and performed all
four instructional skills (sub-characteristics) with meager understanding—meaning
that the majority of at-risk students in the intervention groups were not consistently
or accurately identified or grouped for each of the conducted intervention activities
nor were they consistently given instruction that addressed their targeted
instructional needs through the implementation of project interventions. Moreover,
implementation of each of the project interventions exhibited no fluidity and was
hard for the students to follow therefore, resulting in their disengagement of them.
Like the accomplished and emergent user types, one additional characteristic and the
sub-characteristics within it emerged: Intervention Modification. However, unlike
the emergence of a characteristic that appeared to facilitate implementation,
intervention modification appeared to hinder it (see case descriptions for Sandy and
Marcie). Initial users also exhibited little to no growth over the course of the study.
Case ordering of the participants by determined user type was as follows:
Regina and Barbara were determined to be accomplished users; Tanya and Irma
were determined to be emergent users; Sandy and Marcie were determined to be
initial users.
Lastly, the two teacher participants that constituted this user type had medial
experience out of all of the teacher participants; Marcie with a total of 6 years
teaching experience and Sandy with a total of 8 years teaching experience.
Uniquely, each of the initial users total teaching experience was at the first grade
level.
195
Methodological Preference to Reading Instruction
In order to identify the methodological preference to reading instruction for
each participant, the instrument, Teacher Attitudes about Early Reading and Spelling
Survey (TAERS; Bos & Mather, 1997), was administered.
Initially, a mean value was calculated for each of the case study participants.
According to the TAERS (Bos & Mather, 1997), the highest of the determined mean
values determined the methodological preference to reading instruction. Although
varied, the results of the TAERS (Bos & Mather, 1997) revealed that all of the case
study participants had a preference for code-based instruction to reading. However,
after the mean values were determined for the case study participants via the TAERS
(Bos & Mather, 1997), data from the formal intervention observations was reviewed,
compared, and analyzed to determine the consistency of participants’ methodological
preference to reading instruction.
Case study participants who were determined by the TAERS (Bos & Mather,
1997) and the formal intervention observations to have consistently maintained a
code-based approach to reading instruction were Regina, Barbara, Tanya and Irma.
Each of these participants implemented the Project PLUS early literacy interventions
in a similar manner. Code-based participants implemented the interventions with a
moderate to strong ability to interpret student outcome data, demonstrated a
moderate to strong pedagogical understanding of the concepts that underlie the
interventions, demonstrated moderate to strong intervention fidelity, demonstrated
moderate to strong familiarity with the interventions, demonstrated moderate to
196
strong preparation and organization with regard to intervention materials, elicited
correct response from the majority of the intervention students, elicited mild to high
student engagement as well as student enjoyment from intervention students.
Further, code-based participants also instructed with an approach that was
systematic, direct, explicit and consistent with the adherence to project objectives as
delineated in the intervention guide and in the training sessions.
According to the TAERS (Bos & Mather, 1997) Sandy and Marcie were
determined to have a preference to reading instruction that was code-based.
However, observation of their implementation revealed the absence of a majority of
the instructional components exhibited by the code-based participants. More
specifically, maintenance of intervention objectives was unclear or overrun by
participant elected objectives that conflicted with those of the project. For example,
during implementation of a fluency intervention, each of the two case study
participants instructed either the intervention students or the whole classroom of
students to identify the meaning of the text—an objective that was not a component
of the Project PLUS early literacy interventions. In fact the objective of identifying
the meaning from text ran counter to the activity of developing automaticity as well
as the procedures of reading as many words as possible in a given minute,
subtracting errors and then calculating a “fluency” score. Emphasis of the
importance of making meaning from text was also reflected in the comments that
each of these participants made during the debriefings. However, making meaning
from text is the primary purpose of a meaning-based approach to reading instruction
197
(Goodman, 1986; Weaver, 1990). Furthermore, their implementation of other
project interventions appeared not to mirror any of the characteristics identified for
the code-based participants but did appear haphazard, inconsistent, and fragmented.
Additionally, both Sandy and Marcie scored the highest on the TAERS (Bos
& Mather, 1997) for a meaning-based approach to reading instruction out of all of
the case study participants (Marcie 5.0; Sandy 4.83). Equally important to note is
that the mean value difference between the two methodological approaches (code-
based and meaning-based) to reading instruction for Sandy and Marcie were closest
in range out of all of the case study participants with a difference of less than .5.
Upon initial thought was the possible implication that perhaps a dual approach to
reading instruction was the case for these two participants during implementation of
the interventions. However, when all of the data was considered, it appeared that
their overall approach to reading instruction was more aligned to a meaning-based
methodology.
Table 9 displays the results of the TAERS (Bos & Mather, 1997) and is
organized by the mean difference from highest to lowest. Also displayed are the
mean values for code-based and meaning-based instruction, the determined
methodological preference and user type for each of the case study participants.
198
Table 9
Participant Mean Values (TAERS; Bos & Mather, 1997); Methodological Preference and User Type
Participant
Name
Code-Based
Instruction
Meaning-Based
Instruction
Mean
Difference
Methodological
Preference
User Type
Regina 5.43 2.83 2.6 Code-based Accomplished
Barbara 5.71 3.83 1.88 Code-based Accomplished
Tanya 6.00 4.5 1.5 Code-based Emergent
Irma 5.14 3.83 1.31 Code-based Emergent
Sandy 5.29 4.83 .46 Meaning-based Initial
Marcie 5.29 5.0 .29 Meaning-based Initial
Compatibility of Methodology to Interventions
An additional aspect was to examine whether or not each of the participants’
methodological preference to reading instruction was aligned to the instructional
platform of which the Project PLUS early literacy interventions were based (code-
emphasis). If a difference between the two occurred, the methodological approach
that appeared more dominant during implementation was noted. Moreover,
speculation about a potential relationship between the case study participants’
methodological preference and their implementation of Project PLUS early literacy
interventions also existed.
The results of the TAERS (Bos & Mather, 1997) and the data from the
observations revealed that all but two of the case study participants, Sandy and
Marcie, consistently held a methodological preference that was code-based. Regina,
Barbara, Tanya and Irma implemented the interventions explicitly, cohesively, and in
a manner compatible with project objectives. However, Sandy and Marcie
implemented the project interventions in a manner that was found to be erratic,
199
incoherent, and contradictory to project objectives (e.g., meaning making during a
fluency intervention). Familiarity of steps and procedures to project interventions
was also found to be especially lacking for both Sandy and Marcie. A difference in
intervention implementation for Sandy and Marcie, two participants who held a
meaning-based instructional approach to reading, was notably apparent.
While participants Regina, Barbara, Tanya, and Irma were found to have a
methodological preference compatible with Project PLUS early literacy
interventions, Sandy and Marcie were not.
Table 10 displays the participants’ determined methodological preference and
its compatibility with code-based Project PLUS interventions.
Table 10
Participants Methodological Preference and Compatibility to Project Interventions
Participant Name Determined
Methodological
Preference
Compatibility to PPLUS
Interventions
Regina Code-based Yes
Barbara Code-based Yes
Tanya Code-based Yes
Irma Code-based Yes
Sandy Meaning-based No
Marcie Meaning-based No
Emergent Pattern Across Case and Determinants
Upon closer analysis and as observed with the identification of user types, an
additional pattern presented itself and was one of a stair-step nature relative to the
determined methodological preference of the case study participants, compatibility
200
of participant methodological preference to a code-based platform, the mean value
difference between the two methodological preferences, and the determined user
type of the case study participants. The greater the mean difference between code-
based and meaning-based preferences to reading instruction, the greater the ability
participants demonstrated in each of the characteristics within emergent domains that
lead to strong implementation: interpretation of student data, pedagogical
understanding, intervention fidelity, intervention familiarity, preparation and
organization, accurate student response, high student engagement, student
enjoyment, game-like instruction, positive attitude, and established classroom
procedure. More simply stated the greater the mean difference between code-based
and meaning-based instructional methodologies, the better the implementation of
project interventions.
Table 11 displays an emergent pattern across participants’ methodological
preference, the compatibility of their methodological preference to that of project
interventions, the mean difference between the two methodologies, and determined
user types.
201
Table 11
Participants’ Methodological Preference, Compatibility to Project Interventions,
Mean Difference, and Determined User Type
Participant
Name
Determined
Methodological
Preference
Compatibility
to PPLUS
Interventions
Mean
Difference
Determined
User Type
Regina Code-based Yes 2.6 Accomplished
Barbara Code-based Yes 1.88 Accomplished
Tanya Code-based Yes 1.5 Emergent
Irma Code-based Yes 1.31 Emergent
Sandy Meaning-based No .46 Initial
Marcie Meaning-based No .29 Initial
Participant’s participants’ mean difference between a meaning-based and
code-based methodological preference to reading instruction and their determined
user type (N = 6) are displayed in Figure 2.
202
Figure 2. Participants’ Mean Difference Between Reading Methodologies
Self-Reported Implementation of Project PLUS Early Literacy Interventions
Cross-case analysis of self-reported teacher implementation (Item 14 of the
Biographical Questionnaire) revealed that the majority of the case study participants
reported their use at a level of four out of a possible five. Regina, Irma, Sandy and
Marcie reported their implementation of the Project PLUS early literacy
interventions at a level of four. Tanya reported her level of implementation at a five
and Barbara at a level of three. With the exception of Regina, Tanya and Irma
Marcie Sandy Irma Tanya Barbara Regina
Code-Based
Meaning-Based
Mean Difference
Initial Emergent Accomplished
2.6
1.88
1.5
1.31
.46
.29
203
findings from the self-reported implementation data was inconsistent with what was
actually observed by the researcher during the observations. Based on the findings
from the observations of the participants’ implementation practice, the researcher
believed that Barbara implemented at a higher level than three and that Sandy and
Marcie implemented at a level less than four.
Table 12 displays an overview of case study participants’ self-reported
implementation of the Project PLUS early literacy interventions.
Table 12
Self-Reported Implementation of Project PLUS Early Literacy Interventions
Teachers (Case Study Participants)____________
Teachers R B T I S M
Strongly Agree = 5 X
Agree = 4 X X X X
Undecided = 3 X
Disagree = 2
Strongly Disagree = 1
Self-Reported Implementation Across Other Determinants
Although self-reported data did not appear to be accurate for three of the six
case study participants, an overview of case study participants’ self-reported
implementation of Project PLUS early literacy interventions and their relationship to
other participant determined factors was noted.
Table 13 displays the participants’ self-reported implementation, their
determined methodological preference to reading instruction, their compatibility to
204
Project PLUS early literacy intervention methodology, their mean difference, and
their determined user type.
Table 13
Self-Reported Use of the Interventions Across Other Participant Determinants
Participant
Name
Determined
Methodological
Preference
Compatibility
to PPLUS
Interventions
Mean
Difference
Determined
User Type
Self-
Reported
Use
Regina Code-based Yes 2.6 Accomplished 4
Barbara Code-based Yes 1.88 Accomplished 3
Tanya Code-based Yes 1.5 Emergent 5
Irma Code-based Yes 1.31 Emergent 4
Sandy Meaning-based No .46 Initial 4
Marcie Meaning-based No .29 Initial 4
Interestingly, Barbara, a teacher participant that was determined to be an
accomplished user rated herself lower than what was observed by the researcher.
Additionally, both initial users, Sandy and Marcie, rated themselves at higher levels
than what was observed by the researcher. For half of the teacher participants,
Regina, Tanya, and Irma, it appeared that self-reported use of project interventions
was reflective of what the researcher observed. Overall, when researcher
observation was considered with regard to the rating of teacher implementation,
other determinants appeared to be relatively consistent and implied that a rating of
“4” or above was consistent with teachers who held a code-based methodological
preference to reading instruction; that their methodological preference was
compatible with project interventions; that their mean difference was greater than
(1.0); and were determined to either be an accomplished or emergent user type.
205
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
Introduction
Chapter five of this dissertation discusses the findings of this study. First a
brief overview of the study findings is provided. Thereafter, user types and the
characteristics inherent to them and teacher participants’ methodological preference
to reading instruction and implementation of project interventions are discussed.
Next, a conclusion of the study findings is provided. Implications for the researcher,
programs of teacher education, the practitioner, professional development, school
administrators, student achievement, and for future research conclude this chapter.
Overview of Study Findings
Due to the inconsistent implementation of effective practices identified in the
literature (e.g., Jenkins & Leicester, 1992; Klingner, Ahwee, Pilonieta, & Menendez,
2003; Pressley & El-Dinary, 1997), this study was conducted to determine how and
to what degree six first grade general education teachers implemented Project
Partnership Linking University / School Personnel (PLUS) early literacy
interventions for at-risk readers. After a yearlong investigation that employed a
mixed methods comparative case study (Creswell, 1994; Patton, 2002; Yin, 1989,
2003), three significant findings emerged. First, three domains, the characteristics
and sub-characteristics within them emerged: Teacher Adaptation Process, Student
Dynamics, and Teacher Attributes. Second, the domains, their characteristics and
206
sub-characteristics emerged in a discernable pattern that generated specific user
types to implementation among the teacher participants: Accomplished, Emergent,
and Initial. Accomplished users (33%) implemented the interventions most
effectively, emergent users (33%) with moderate effectiveness, and initial users
(33%) with poor effectiveness. Third, the degree of teacher participants’
methodological preference to reading instruction appeared to directly influence
implementation of Project PLUS early literacy interventions. The greater the mean
difference between two instructional approaches to reading instruction (i.e. code-
based and meaning-based) the more or less effective implementation of project
interventions. Findings from this study also support the idea that teachers’
methodological preference to reading instruction would impact their implementation
behavior of Project PLUS early literacy interventions. Moreover, I suspected that
the more closely teachers’ methodological preference aligned with code-based
instruction the more likely higher levels within the characteristics would be
achieved. More specifically, implementing teachers would demonstrate higher levels
of accuracy in matching appropriate interventions to the targeted skill areas as
determined by DIBELS student outcomes as well as higher levels of intervention
fidelity.
Discussion
The means by which we engage teachers in the implementation of research-
based practices continues to be a concern among educators and non-educators alike
207
(NICHD, 2000). This study sought to investigate how six first grade general
education teachers in an urban school setting would implement research-based
practices to their students in heterogeneous general education classrooms that
included some students with special needs. Findings from this study indicated that
implementation effectiveness of project interventions varied across teacher
participants. Specifically, three distinct user types encompassing different ability
levels emerged through analysis across participants during the course of the yearlong
study with relative consistency: Accomplished (33%), Emergent (33%) and Initial
(33%). Although the identification of three implementer types (e.g., HI high
implementer, MI moderate implementer, and LI low implementer) has already been
identified in the literature (Klinger et al., 2003), definitions of the characteristics that
constitute distinguished user types have yet to be noted. Unlike the work of Klingner
et al. (2003), findings from this study did not determine the user types by the
frequency with which they implemented the interventions rather each user type was
established by the degree with which the sub-characteristics within the emergent
characteristics were achieved. Moreover, the identified emergent characteristics
were not necessarily categorized as being either a facilitator or barrier to
implementation. However, some emergent characteristics were found to be
facilitative to implementation and were noted as such.
208
Accomplished Users
Accomplished users had the least amount of teaching experience out of all
teacher participants, but were the most effective of implementers and were reflective
of consistently achieving high levels or the equivalent for all of the sub-
characteristics within all emergent characteristics. The characteristics, student
outcome interpretation and pedagogical understanding specific to the domain,
Teacher Adaptation Process, appeared to be considerably more difficult for
participants to achieve than other emergent characteristics and created the first of
three divides among users types. Specific to the characteristic, student outcome
interpretation, the level of difficulty was thought to be due to the multitude of
simultaneous skills that were required (e.g., accuracy with regard to interpretation of
student outcomes was mandatory for the accurate construction of intervention groups
and the selection and implementation of an appropriate intervention). Although
findings from the Jenkins and Leicester (1992) study identified the ability for
teachers to match their student’s problem area in reading to an appropriate reading
intervention at the strength of 70%, findings from this study indicated the contrary.
Only two of the six participants (33%), the accomplished users, were able to
consistently perform this task for each of their implemented interventions—meaning
that this was the only user type to have appropriately instructed 100% of their
students identified at-risk 100% of the time.
In addition, it also appeared that the ability to achieve the sub-characteristics
specific to the characteristics, student outcome interpretation and pedagogical
209
understanding set the tone for participants’ overall ability to implement interventions
effectively. For example, when teachers demonstrated the ability to select
appropriate interventions during their observations that progressed from basic to
more complex and accurately sequenced the conceptual principles (e.g.,
phonological awareness, alphabetic principle, and fluency), high levels were
achieved. Moreover, when the sub-characteristics within the characteristics student
outcome interpretation and pedagogical understanding were achieved at high levels
two additional characteristics established classroom procedure and game-like
instruction within the domain Teacher Attributes emerged and appeared to facilitate
effective implementation. Further, when the sub-characteristics within the
characteristics student outcome interpretation and pedagogical understanding were
achieved at moderate levels two additional characteristics game-like instruction and
positive attitude within the domain Teacher Attributes emerged and appeared to
facilitate effective implementation. However, when the sub-characteristics within
the characteristics student outcome interpretation and pedagogical understanding
were achieved at low levels one additional characteristic intervention modification
within the domain Teacher Attributes emerged and appeared to hinder effective
implementation. The emergent pattern of implementation across user types is of
importance for two reasons: First, it demonstrated that teachers implemented
instructional practices to the level that they understood the function and
interpretation of the instructional tool (e.g., DIBELS student outcome sheet).
Second, and of equal importance, it demonstrated that teachers implemented
210
instructional practices to the level of which they understood the conceptual principles
underlying them.
The characteristic, established classroom procedure within the domain,
Teacher Attributes, emerged only for the accomplished users and was thought to
assist with the facilitation of intervention implementation. This characteristic is best
described as the implementation of project interventions being recognized as an
instructional center and integrated into an existing framework of rotating self-
contained and well-established instructional centers. This type of instructional
format facilitated the implementation of interventions because intrinsic to it was the
allocation of instructional time dedicated to project interventions. This is quite
significant due to frequent notations in the literature of the lack of instructional time
that teachers feel they have to take on additional instructional practices (e.g., Ayres,
et al., 1994; Gersten, Vaughn, Deshler, & Schiller, 1997; Jenkins, & Leicester, 1992;
Klingner et al., 2003; Kovaleski, Gickling, Morrow, & Swank, 1999; Pressley & El-
Dinary, 1997).
The characteristic, game-like instruction emerged for both the accomplished
and emergent users. This characteristic is best described as a playful approach to
instruction. The presence of this emergent characteristic appeared to elevate student
curiosity thereby increasing the levels of both student engagement and student
enjoyment. According to Klingner et al. (2003), the most frequently marked
facilitator in teachers’ logs in support of implementation across teachers was,
“students liked it [intervention],” (p. 423). Sparks (1988) also noted that witnessing
211
changes in student performance and behavior, at the time of instruction, can serve as
a powerful motivator in teachers’ attitudes toward new techniques or practices
therefore facilitating implementation.
Emergent Users
Emergent users were among the most experienced teachers of all the teacher
participants, however, while Irma had 27 years of first grade teaching experience,
Tanya only had 3 years first grade teaching experience—making her the least
experienced of all the teacher participants with regard to first grade instruction.
Users in this category were noticeably less consistent than the accomplished users
but more proficient than initial users in achieving sub-characteristics in the first two
characteristics: student interpretation outcome and pedagogical understanding
identified under the domain, Teacher Adaptation Process, and therefore marked the
second divide among user types. However, emergent users did achieve the sub-
characteristics for these two characteristics during one of the two observations.
Overall, emergent users instructed 29% of their students identified at-risk—a
substantial difference between the percentage of at-risk students addressed in the
intervention groups of the accomplished users. Rather than the accelerated,
thorough, and consistent manner that accomplished users immediately exemplified
with regard to achieving these sub- characteristics, emergent users exhibited more of
a progressive pattern. It appeared that emergent users were representative of a
finding in the work of Gersten, Morvant, and Brengelman (1995) on their study of
212
the use of coaching as a way to bring research based teaching practices into general
education classrooms and was described as “The Up-and-Down Nature of Change”
(p. 59):
Regardless of the level of teacher experience, a recurrent issue was that the
change process proceeded in a decidedly irregular fashion. At times,
instructional strategies were…implemented in a consistent fashion; at other
times, the strategies were ignored, or used in an intermittent fashion. We
observed numerous instances of day-to-day variation…(p.59)
The variable nature of the change process is important to keep in mind when
observing teachers engaged in the implementation of new practices take an
unexpected step back in the implementation process. Moreover, one step back in the
process did not necessarily indicate implementation effectiveness to be on a
downward path. For example, while one of the emergent users improved in her
ability to achieve the sub- characteristics during her second observation, a more
expected pattern of improvement over time, the other emergent user achieved the
sub- characteristics during her first observation but not during her second. While the
inconsistent pattern may have initially been cause for alarm, a more comprehensive
examination of the implementation of the emergent user revealed a more developed
pedagogical understanding of the conceptual principles underlying interventions.
Although more effective instruction would have included the instruction of the
concepts underlying the interventions in sequence, revisiting the preceding concept
of phonemic awareness availed the emergent user to a more thorough understanding
of the concepts and their functions. Ultimately, the emergent user’s ability to
accurately extend upon the phonemic awareness intervention by directing students to
213
identify additional sounds within the words demonstrated a more sophisticated level
of understanding of the conceptual principle. It also required additional
manipulation of letter sounds on the part of the students—the primary objective
behind phonemic awareness activities.
In addition, the emergent user’s undulating road to implementation as well as
her desire to experience all of the interventions so that she could better understand
“how all of these pieces fit together…” appeared logical when early findings from
the work of Joyce and Showers (1982) were considered. In their attempt to highlight
the importance of transferring knowledge gained from professional development to
actual classroom practice they drew a parallel to the teaching of athletic skills that
athletes were to deliver out on the field. A potential experience that athletes might
encounter while trying to integrate the new skill was described:
There are going to be so many things in your head that your muscles just
aren’t going to respond like they should for awhile…You’ve got to
understand that the best way to get through this is to relax, not worry about
your mistakes, and come to each practice and each meeting anxious to learn
(p.7).
This portrayal of how one might respond to the tackling of new practices,
albeit in different order, clearly illuminated the change process that both emergent
users appeared to have taken with regard to the implementation of new practices.
An additional emergent characteristic specific to the emergent user type was
a positive attitude toward project interventions. Despite the challenges emergent
users faced in various aspects of implementation (e.g., achieving sub-characteristics
of student outcome interpretation, they never lost momentum or moved away from
214
their optimistic outlook with regard to project interventions. Although not to the
degree of the accomplished users, emergent users were steadfast in their pursuit to
persevere and eventually demonstrated a more thorough understanding of the
conceptual principles underlying project interventions and/or the implementation
process. Interestingly, findings from the study conducted by Klingner et al., (2003)
also identified this characteristic for the group of teacher participants that were
among the highest of implementers and who appeared to in the face of obstacles,
“turn lemons into lemonade” (p. 425). The quality of a positive attitude is
potentially significant as the impetus for it may actually indicate a level of
commitment that teachers have toward the implementation of new practices and/or
mindset that perceives the road to effective implementation as a potentially rocky
process rather than an finely polished end product.
Emergent users did not receive any more support from project personnel
specific to matters of implementation than the accomplished users and received less
support from project personnel specific to implementation than initial users. While
more formal approaches to feedback and project support might have been more
beneficial (e.g., Gersten, Morvant, & Brengelman, 1995; Joyce & Showers, 1980,
1982) findings from this study indicated that informal and as-needed dialogue related
to specific problem areas of implementation appeared to suffice among
accomplished and emergent user types.
215
Initial Users
Initial users had the second and third greatest amount of first grade teaching
experience out of all of the participants yet characteristic of this user type was the
extreme difficulty teacher participants appeared to have in their ability to
consistently achieve any of the sub-characteristics within the characteristics across
domains at even a moderate level. The overwhelming majority of their achieved
levels for all of the emergent characteristics were low or the equivalent, therefore
marking the third divide among user types. Specific to the characteristic, student
interpretation outcome initial users relied more on anecdotal resources such as
feelings or assumptions about student progress (e.g., Sandy’s comment, “I felt that
they [intervention students] could use the instruction. I think that they [intervention
students] are at-risk in almost every area”) rather than project resources that clearly
indicated problem skill areas (e.g., DIBELS student outcome sheet) for the
placement of students into intervention groups. This is of extraordinary importance
as reliance on anecdotal evidence for instructional purposes has been noted in the
literature as insufficient (Nespor, 1987). Moreover, while a total of four at-risk
students were grouped and received intervention instruction, albeit undirected and
less effective instruction, initial users failed to instructionally address the additional
25 students identified at-risk per the DIBELS student outcome sheet. It was
considered to be very likely that examination of the DIBELS student outcome sheet
outside of the project trainings or for the purposes of student placement never
occurred. This user type only addressed 14% of their identified at-risk student
216
population—48% less than the total number of students that emergent users
instructed.
Additionally, initial users were unable to demonstrate consistency with
regard to the characteristic, pedagogical understanding. Although it was thought
that Marcie appeared to have a stronger understanding of both the pedagogical
content underlying and within the conceptual principles than Sandy, the delivery of
instructional content on the part of the initial users was so deficient that it could not
be ignored. For example, directions to students were unclear, poorly articulated,
markedly slowed, halted, and included irrelevant side-chatter from intervention
students. Steps and procedures to interventions were unfocused and also
inadequately delineated if at all followed. In addition, intervention objectives
appeared not to be clearly understood or given priority, which in turn modified the
project interventions from their original form (e.g., fluency objective of automaticity
was overridden by initial users’ objective of making meaning from text). As a result,
the characteristic, intervention modification emerged specifically for this user type
and meant that the interventions were modified to the point of being unrecognizable.
Gresham (1989) would argue that implementing an intervention with poor adherence
to its original design would result in minimizing program and/or intervention
effectiveness.
Modification to interventions on the part of teacher participants also appeared
in a study conducted by Pressley and El-Dinary (1997) where they found that the
variation of the comprehension strategies, when implemented, were much different
217
from their original design. Pressley and El-Dinary (1997) attributed the variations of
the instructional strategies to “teachers’ clear belief that their students would not
learn the comprehension strategies without much instruction, guidance and practice”
(p. 487). They added that the emphasis on the interpretation of the comprehension
strategy “was more in keeping with the teachers’ beliefs about the nature of
comprehension” (p. 487). However, while Pressley and El-Dinary (1997) suggested
that teacher modifications to their comprehension strategies were more of an
enhancement than a detriment to their “goals in the research effort” (p. 487) we
found the opposite to be true. Moreover, Klingner et al. (2003) also identified the
characteristic, intervention modification, for their moderate implementers (“MI”
teachers; p. 420) rather than their low implementers (“LI” teachers; p. 420).
Consequently, intervention fidelity was identified in the study conducted by Klingner
et al. (2003) to be the lowest for the MIs and lowest among the initial users in this
study.
The indifferent approach to implementation that initial users demonstrated
was speculated to be due to the initial users’ primary interest, which each articulated
as meaning making from text—an objective not relevant to project interventions.
Throughout each of the two observations, initial users appeared to be emotionally,
intellectually, and physically removed from any of the concerns, objectives, and
goals set forth by the project with regard to intervention teaching tools (DIBELS),
intervention instruction, or intervention objectives. This ambivalence toward
effective practices is a critical aspect to consider as the literature has identified the
218
importance of stakeholder buy-in for the success of implementation practices
(Fullan, 1991, 1993; Guskey, 2000; Pressley & El-Dinary, 1997). Unfortunately,
however, despite efforts to foster implementation of effective practices it appears
that the actual numbers of teachers choosing to effectively implement them are low
(Klingner et al., 2003). It might also be considered that repeated visible disinterest in
the implementation process on the part of teacher participants might potentially mean
poor implementation. Perhaps further exploration into the initial users’ opinions,
feelings, and experiences with regard to project interventions and the implementation
process would garner relevant information on how to improve and/or increase
effective implementation.
Teacher Participants’ Methodological Preference to Reading Instruction and
Implementation of Project Interventions
Findings from this study indicated that teacher participants implemented
Project PLUS early literacy interventions to the degree that their beliefs aligned with
the instructional methodology in which the project interventions were rooted—a
code-based reading methodology. Similar to those of Richardson, Anders, Tidwell
and Lloyd (1991), findings from this study suggest that teacher beliefs are reciprocal
to teachers’ thought processes that include teacher planning, interactive thoughts,
decisions, and instructional actions and thereby confirm the theoretical construct
proposed by Clark and Peterson (1986). More specifically, as determined by the
TAERS (Bos & Mather, 1997) the greater or the lesser the difference between mean
219
values for the two methodological preferences—code and meaning based
instruction—the stronger or weaker the implementation of the project’s code-based
early literacy interventions. For example, accomplished users demonstrated the
greatest mean difference between code- and meaning-based reading methodology
(mean difference 2.6 and 1.88) confirming their instructional preference as code-
based and were overwhelmingly the most effective implementers of project
interventions. Emergent users demonstrated a moderate mean difference between
the two methodologies (mean difference 1.5 and 1.31) confirming their instructional
preference of both code-and-meaning-based instruction as moderate and
implemented the project interventions with moderate effectiveness. Initial users
demonstrated the smallest mean difference between the two methodologies (mean
difference .46 and .29) confirming their instructional preference as meaning-based
and were the least effective of implementers of the project interventions. All
emergent characteristics under the domains, Teacher Adaptation Process (e.g.,
intervention fidelity, etc.) and Student Dynamics (e.g., student response, etc.)
continued to emerge in direct response to teacher beliefs about how best to instruct
reading. Therefore accomplished users achieved the highest levels within emergent
characteristics; emergent users achieved moderate levels within emergent
characteristics, and initial users achieved low levels within emergent characteristics.
In conjunction with Clark and Peterson (1986), Nespor (1987) suggests that
the varied levels of achievement among user types could be the result of “teachers’
conceptions of subject matter” (p. 319), and the “values placed on the course content
220
by the teachers…” (p. 319). Nespor (1987) more precisely described the “values”
that teachers ascribe to certain practices as a result of teachers’ belief systems—more
specifically, the “affective” (e.g., feelings, p. 319) and “evaluative” (subjective
evaluation, p. 319) components of their belief systems. The notion claimed by
Nespor (1987) was thought to further explain the user types differentiated levels of
effectiveness with regard to project implementation. For example accomplished
users expressed feelings related to the positive effect that intervention
implementation was having on students reading ability (e.g., they’re [the
interventions] working. I tell you, the students are getting it. You’ve got to love
that!”), as well as subjective evaluation of student progress. The accomplished
users’ comments illustrated the point of subjective evaluation well:
You know, in case you were wondering, I decided to conduct a quick
intervention that recapped the alphabetic principle prior to a fluency
intervention for only half of the intervention group because although these
students are close to exiting the emergent group in the alphabetic principle,
they still need to demonstrate more stability in order for me to be satisfied
and before I can expect them to gain a complete grasp of the next needed skill
at hand which just so happens to be fluency.
My emergent students haven’t quite met the benchmark yet in the alphabetic
principle, but I think that they’re ready for fluency activities… They’re
independent now when we work on sound symbol interventions and they’re
not making any mistakes. They’ve also gotten really quick. I mean they
match the letter tiles to their sounds just as quickly as I do and sometimes
beat me… That is why I included all of the emergent students in the fluency
activity.
Interestingly, however, the majority of comments made by emergent users
expressed a different focus. For example, unlike the subjective evaluation of student
progress with regard to project interventions identified for the accomplished users,
221
emergent users appeared to be primarily fixed on their own progress of acquiring
new instructional concepts and skills and therefore provided more of a self-subjective
evaluation than a subjective evaluation. For example:
I believe that I’m beginning to get this now. The interventions that I need to
pick are those that have to do with the concept that the students show a
weakness in. If a child shows up red in NSF on the DIBELS form then I
know that the concept to work on is the sound-symbol concept [alphabetic
principle]. And, if the student scores show in red in the area of ORF, then I
need to instruct in fluency. Also, the concept of fluency comes after the
alphabetic principle because they need to be able to decode words first...
Additional comments made by the other emergent user added to the aforementioned
idea:
I didn’t know that by applying a sort of recipe that you could teach problem
readers to read. It’s really a matter of knowing what ingredients you need to
add and when to add them in order for the meal to come out right…DIBELS
assessments tell us what ingredients we need for the recipe and implementing
the interventions is like putting all of the ingredients together…if you do it
right and follow all of the directions chances are you’re going to have a great
meal or a good reader.
I remember in training, Joe stated that I need to place these tiles opposite of
me so that the children can see them—that means that they’ll be backwards
for me.
Emergent users also made comments about the positive impact they felt that the
project interventions had on their intervention students (e.g., the interventions would
assist intervention students into becoming “terrific readers”).
Initial users expressed feelings of opposition with regard to project
objectives. For example, one of the initial user’s commented on how she felt that her
primary objective was to develop “the meaning behind the words that they [students]
hear in conversation and with the books that we [they] read.” She also insisted that
222
having her students obtain the meaning of the passage was more of a priority than
how swiftly one could read the passage—the objective of the intervention set forth
by Project PLUS. She also stated that, “reading is not about having words become
automatic but rather that the meaning of them be.”
Comments of the other initial user also expressed the importance of making
meaning from text: “Understanding what you’re reading is the most important thing
about reading and it is what good readers do; ” “I always ask the students about the
meaning of what they’ve read. After all, what’s the point of reading if you don’t
understand what the author is trying to say.”
My mom always tried to get me to extract the meaning I made out of the
events and activities in my life and to connect that to whatever I was reading.
She said that things would make more sense that way.
Accomplished Users
Dialogue of the three user types clearly typified the thought processes posited
by Clark and Peterson (1986) as being reciprocative to teacher beliefs and also
appeared to support the findings of the TAERS (Bos & Mather, 1997). Apparent in
the dialogue of the accomplished users was an acute level of ability with regard to
several important factors of effective intervention implementation. Accomplished
users appeared to have a remarkable and concise understanding of how to interpret
student outcomes as well as how to target the instructional needs of both their at-risk
and emerging students through intervention instruction. Accomplished users also
demonstrated a heightened understanding of the conceptual principles underlying the
interventions that availed them the opportunity to conduct the interventions
223
progressively as well as accurately. Further, the comments made by this user type
reflected the belief that gains in reading achievement among their intervention
students were possible through the implementation of project interventions. This
finding appears to concur with that identified in the study conducted by Klingner et
al., (2003) where the second most frequent reason behind teacher selection of a
particular instructional practice was because “they [teachers] believed the strategy
would improve their students’ reading abilities” (p. 420).
Further, the characteristic, established classroom procedure characterized the
methodical overall approach to teaching (e.g., instructional centers, clearly displayed
charts and diagrams indicating placement and directions to students) that allowed for
a seamless as well as immediate integration of intervention implementation into
existing instruction. This is important because according to Gersten, Vaughn,
Deshler, and Schiller (1997), “instructional practices endorsed by researchers must
reflect and fit within the details of day-to-day classroom instruction.” (p. 469).
Upon initial thought it was considered that teachers’ instructional style alone might
have accounted for the effective implementation of project interventions due to the
compatibility of the interventions’ instructional format (e.g., delineated interventions
objectives, steps and procedures and recommended materials) to the overall approach
that accomplished users took toward instruction. However, when the dialogues
between the accomplished users were reviewed it was apparent that the
accomplished users had made a significant emotional (e.g., effort to make instruction
exciting and fun for intervention students), intellectual (e.g., verbal pedagogical
224
explanations for why they implemented the interventions they did), and instructional
investment (e.g., the purchasing of additional materials or storage containers for
intervention materials) with regard to intervention implementation too great to be
overlooked. The type of commitment that the accomplished users demonstrated also
appeared to further confirm the finding of McGill-Franzen (1994) whereby the
strength of teacher beliefs determined how much of themselves they were willing to
invest in the given lesson, which for the accomplished users was considerably robust.
Additionally, the characteristic game-like instruction emerged for teachers
whose beliefs in the project interventions were in strong to moderate alignment with
code-based reading instruction. This characteristic reflected intervention instruction
as fun and exciting and was also noted as increasing student engagement and
enjoyment. Clark and Peterson (1986) have made the claim that what teachers
believe as being good instruction for their students is what they are more likely to
implement. Therefore, in addition to the enhancement of the delivery intervention
instruction potentially being the result of student response to them, consideration of
the importance of intervention instruction on the part of teachers was thought to have
an equal role. The comment made by an accomplished user, “You boys and girls are
so lucky to have these interventions to learn from. They are so fun and they make
you smarter and smarter and much better readers” and the comment made by an
emergent user “How nice it is [was] to instruct this way” clearly reflected teacher
beliefs about intervention instruction being “good instruction” (Clark & Peterson,
1986, p. 256).
225
While the aforementioned factors were thought to connote intervention
acceptance on the part of the accomplished users (Sparks, 1988) as well as facilitate
intervention implementation, additional aspects must also be taken into
consideration. For example, due to the accomplished users being among the newest
to the profession it was thought that their advanced understanding of the
interventions underlying concepts was perhaps the result of their formal university
training specific to coursework in literacy instruction and/or relevant professional
development experiences. This is of importance as teacher knowledge has been
identified in the literature as one of the most needed components for effective early
literacy instruction (Mather, Bos, & Babur, 2001). Moreover, additional factors not
explored in this study, but nonetheless identified as facilitators to implementation
include administrative support (Guskey, 2000; Klingner et al., 2003; Klingner,
Vaughn, Hughes, & Arguelles, 1999) conceptual and technical support (Gersten,
Vaughn, Deshler, and Schiller (1997), and collegial support (Englert & Tarrant,
1995; Gersten, Vaughn, Deshler, and Schiller (1997), Klingner et al., 2003).
Emergent Users
Dialogue of the emergent users was interesting and more difficult to interpret.
Like the TAERS (Bos & Mather, 1997), examination of the dialogue appeared to
reflect more of a neutral stance to instructional reading methodology. Comments
made by this user type illustrated the process they experienced to gain further
understanding of the instructional elements necessary for effective intervention
226
implementation, but not necessarily a commitment to intervention implementation.
On one hand, this user type demonstrated interest and a degree of effort that could be
translated into a fair level of buy-in. For example, emergent users utilized accurate
project terminology, verbalized delineated steps for the accurate identification of
intervention students and use of materials, and provided a description of overall
project objectives through the use of a metaphor—skills that transpired through the
mental attention of them. Additionally, comments about the project interventions
increasing student ability with regard to reading were also made and growth over the
course of the study was noted with regard to this user types ability to implement
project interventions more effectively. However, the code-based conceptual and
instructional elements of the project interventions (e.g., phonemic awareness,
alphabetic principle, etc.) were approached in a manner that reflected minimal
comprehension or prior use of them. While the unfamiliarity of the instructional
components of the interventions could be attributed to the use of another
methodological approach to reading instruction, a lack of understanding the
intervention components was thought to be more likely due to the inexperience that
emergent users demonstrated with regard to intervention particulars at the onset of
the study. In addition, the consistent enthusiasm and growth that emergent users
demonstrated toward project interventions over the course of the study further
confirmed their interest in intervention implementation. Additionally, it was thought
that through additional conceptual and instructional support elevation of the
227
understanding of the intervention components for emergent users would increase
(Klingner et al., 2003; Pressley &El-Dinary, 1997).
The characteristic, positive attitude only emerged for teachers whose beliefs
were in moderate alignment with code-based reading instruction. While this
characteristic did not appear to be necessary for the most effective implementation of
project interventions it was thought to have prompted further implementation on the
part of teachers who encountered some turbulence in the implementation process
(e.g., inaccurate interpretation of student outcomes, selection of inaccurate
intervention activities, etc.). For example, during one of the debriefings with an
emergent user the following comment was made: “I enjoyed myself and I think that
the students did too.” This statement appeared to convey a positive attitude toward
intervention instruction. During the same debrief, the emergent user continued with
her remarks about how she wanted to continue her use of the project interventions
the following year as well as wanted to get, “better at knowing how to bring in some
of my [her] other materials.” It was thought that the aforementioned mindset on the
part of the emergent users was due to their beliefs having at least some alignment to
project interventions and therefore possibly continuing the implementation of project
interventions after the study concluded. Lastly, the quality of a positive attitude was
considered to potentially serve as a visible indicator of the teacher participants who
were willing and open to the possibilities of intervention implementation.
228
Initial Users
Dialogue of the initial users appeared to also reflect the findings of the
TAERS (Bos & Mather, 1997). This user type was consistently adamant about the
importance of making meaning from text. Comments reflected dissention with code-
based instructional reading methodology. In addition, this user type expressed little
to no interest in the project interventions and all that they entailed (e.g., conceptual
principles, the intervention guide, materials, etc.) or in the implementation of them.
Moreover, the characteristic, intervention modification transpired exclusively for this
user type. It was not surprising that teachers in this user type modified the project
interventions to more clearly reflect their emphasis of meaning making. However,
aside from the misalignment of the methodological preference between the initial
users and the code-based interventions was the idea that perhaps teachers in this user
type did not feel as though intervention instruction was an appropriate instructional
strategy for their grade level or that it fit in well with their existing reading program
or student goals (Klingner et al., 2003). In Sandy’s case, the student population
included several second language learners that had varying degrees of English
speaking abilities. Although one could argue that intervention instruction is among
the most effective instruction for a second language population (Sadoski & Willson,
2006), speculation as to how and when to begin intervention instruction may also
persist.
Although other factors must also be considered with regard to effective
implementation of instructional practices, teacher held beliefs about how best to
229
teach reading appeared to play a significant role in the effective implementation of
project interventions. Moreover, teachers’ beliefs may ultimately determine whether
or not or to the degree with which implementation of any instructional practice will
ultimately occur. Therefore, if the most effective or even moderate effectiveness
with regard to implementation is needed and/or expected than the importance of
identifying teacher beliefs prior to commitment of an instructional reform effort that
requires teacher implementation must be given serious consideration.
Conclusion
Findings from this study supported the idea that teachers’ methodological
preference to reading instruction would impact their implementation behavior of
Project PLUS early literacy interventions and also provided evidence for Clark and
Peterson’s (1986) cognitive psychological model of Teacher Thought and Action
whereby teachers’ beliefs were reciprocal in relationship to teachers’ instructional
behavior. Further, the more closely teachers’ methodological preference aligned
with code-based reading methodology the more likely the teachers demonstrated a
high level of familiarity with intervention steps and procedures, a high level of
accuracy in matching an appropriate intervention to the targeted skill area as
determined by DIBELS student outcomes; overall, a high level of intervention
fidelity. Teachers’ beliefs about how best to instruct reading appeared to be a
significant finding as each of the sub-characteristics within the emergent
characteristics across domains was achieved in direct correspondence to the degree
230
of belief that teachers held about code-based reading methodology—the basis of the
project interventions.
However, like Klingner et al. (2003), interpretation of the results of this study
is mixed. I am not sure whether to express joy for the overwhelming ability that the
accomplished users (33%) demonstrated in their ability to effectively implement the
project interventions and the moderate ability demonstrated by the emergent users
(33%) who appeared enthusiastic about implementation or whether to feel concern
for the anticipated growth of the emergent users and the lack thereof with initial
users (33%). Despite efforts to increase implementation of effective practices
through the provision of specialized training, demonstration lessons, materials and
support personnel throughout the course of a year, project interventions were
consistently implemented or “owned” by one third (33%) of the total participants.
Similar findings were also noted in the El-Dinary and Schuder (1993) study when
only two of seven teachers were found to have consistently implemented reading
comprehension strategies. El-Dinary and Schuder (1993) stated that teacher
acceptance of their interventions was needed in order for the interventions to be
implemented and like others (e.g., Sparks, 1988) defined teacher acceptance as the
compatibility of interventions to teacher philosophy of teaching. Findings from this
study support the claim of the need for interventions to be aligned to teacher
philosophy—especially with regard to reading instruction. However, the
acknowledgement of other factors (e.g., teachers’ lack of understanding the
intervention components, intervention instruction not being perceived as an
231
appropriate instructional strategy for grade level, etc.) must also be considered as
possible contributors to partial or lack of implementation. Moreover, it was also
concluded that emergent and initial users in this study were perhaps in need of more
assistance in learning how to implement the interventions than was provided.
Nonetheless, when one considers the amount of resources dedicated for such a study,
cost effectiveness needs to be considered.
Lastly, sub- characteristics within the domain, Teacher Adaptation Process,
namely the characteristics, student outcome interpretation and pedagogical
understanding appeared to be the most critical with regard to overall effectiveness of
implementation as well as the most difficult for the majority of teacher participants
to achieve. More specifically, teacher knowledge, analytical skills and commitment
to improving reading instruction appeared to be vital contributors of overall
effectiveness of intervention instruction and must be allowed to develop in teachers
if effective implementation of any instructional practice is to be improved upon or
achieved.
Implications for the Researcher
Similar to the findings in the work of Klingner et al., (2003), was the
conclusion that the most critical user type to study would be the emergent users or
the group that Klinger et al., (2003) refer to as the moderate implementers (MIs).
Despite the best efforts to provide effective professional development, findings from
several studies suggest that there will be teachers who represent each end of the
232
continuum (El-Dinary & Schuder, 1993; Jenkins & Leicester, 1992; Klingner et al.,
2003). For example, at one end of the continuum there will be teachers who will
implement and put into practice the new instructional practices they learn even if the
need to overcome obstacles exists. However, at the other end of the continuum there
will be teachers who will not implement the practices, despite additional support.
Therefore, the conclusion was drawn that it is those teachers in the middle, the
emergent users, who would seem most likely to go either way with regard to the
effective implementation of instructional practices and for whom additional support
becomes vital.
More can be done to assist the emergent users with regard to effective
implementation. Data from the Klingner et al., (2003) study suggested that their
moderate implementers (MIs) would have benefited from “our [researcher] weekly
presence in their classrooms, more administrative support, more assistance learning
the critical components of the strategies and more information about student
benefits” (p. 426). Interestingly, the weekly presence of the researcher as well as
assistance in learning the components of the interventions was provided for the
implementing teachers but did not appear to make a difference in the outcome of the
range in effectiveness of intervention implementation. However, perhaps the right
type of support was not offered to the emergent and initial users. For example, as
cited in Gersten, Morvant, and Brengelman (1995), McLaughlin (1990) identified
that if change efforts were to have an impact on classroom practice, individuals were
needed who could provide “the ongoing and sometimes unpredictable support
233
teachers needed” (p. 12). Additionally, in the study conducted by Gersten, Morvant
and Brengelman (1995) “support” for their teacher participants included “feedback
on the use of new techniques, empathy, and collegial discussion of the impact of the
new techniques and strategies on students” (p. 53). Perhaps the inclusion of regular
more in-depth immediate feedback and collegial discussions related to the use and
impact of the interventions on student participants would have improved the level
with which emergent and initial users implemented the project interventions.
Further, Sparks (1988) found that two out of the three reasons that teachers gave for
the insistence on the continuation of teacher practices in lieu of new instructional
practices were (a) teachers did not believe in the value of the changes, and (b) that
the changes would not be good for students. Perhaps more of a focus on defining
what changes might occur as a result of intervention implementation as well as why
and how they would have benefited student participants would have prompted and/or
encouraged teachers to further implement project interventions.
Implications for Teacher Education Programs
Although one mixed methods comparative case study cannot provide a sound
basis for the practice of effective implementation of instructional practices, the
accomplished users in this study brought forth the relevance of the need for quality
instruction in our nation’s teacher education programs. In this study, accomplished
users were identified as the teachers with the least amount of overall teaching
experience yet they demonstrated the strongest abilities with interpretation of student
234
outcomes, the comprehension of the conceptual principles responsible for successful
literacy acquisition (NICHD, 2000), and achieved the highest levels possible for all
of the sub-characteristics within characteristics across emergent domains (e.g.,
student outcome interpretation, pedagogical understanding, intervention fidelity,
intervention familiarity, etc.). While the conclusion was not drawn with regard to
accomplished users being the teachers who were the last to attend university
coursework in the teaching profession, they were the newest to the teaching
profession. Consequently, the qualities identified for the accomplished users
suggested two important factors: First, was the necessity for teacher knowledge of
the recommended components of literacy acquisition for at-risk readers (NICHD,
2000; Smith, Simmons, & Kameenui, 1998). Second, was the necessity for teachers
to obtain the required skills for the accurate interpretation of student outcomes
through assorted teaching tools (e.g., DIBELS student outcome sheets) that assist in
guiding instructional practice (Good, Kaminski, & Dill, 2001; Good, & Kaminski,
1996).
Perhaps teacher education programs more thoroughly addressing the
conceptual frameworks from which a variety of early literacy interventions emerge
(Adams, 1990; Clay 1982; NICHD, 2000; Smith, Simmons, & Kameenui, 1998),
investigating an array of instruments that are used to monitor students’ literacy
progress, and providing scientific evidence on the effects of intervention instruction
would better prepare pre-service teachers to more thoroughly engage in the process
of instructing literacy to all students more effectively. Furthermore, the university
235
setting might also provide pre-service teachers with the opportunity to further
explore, identify, sort, and solidify the specifics of the aforementioned content and
skill areas that transpire as a result of the different methods of discourse often
encountered in institutions of higher education. This is of great importance as the
information related to literacy and literacy instruction is multifaceted and is often
assumed as known upon entrance into the teaching profession.
Implications for the Practitioner
Allington (1990) suggested that what teachers believe reading and writing to
be affects how they will teach literacy processes to young children. Thomas and
Barksdale-Ladd (1997) explored the impact of teachers’ beliefs about literacy
instruction and their impact on how children come to understand and define literacy.
Thomas and Barksdale-Ladd (1997) concluded that children’s understanding of
literacy reflected their teachers’ beliefs and practices. Thomas and Barksdale-Ladd
(1997) concluded the following:
The children’s definition of literacy processes and their resultant
products mirrored somewhat their teachers’ beliefs of reading, writing, and
learning. The skills-based classroom produced students who viewed reading
and writing as skills to be mastered, produced students who viewed
themselves as not comfortable to compose perhaps because they had not
mastered the required skills. Whole language students pursued reading and
writing as communication processes or a search for meaning. Whether whole
language or traditional seeds were planted, children tended to respond and
perform in accordance with their teachers’ instructional practices (p. 58).
Although not entirely conclusive, findings from this study also suggest that
the level of effectiveness that teachers implemented project interventions reflected
236
their methodological preference to reading instruction (see results of the TAERS,
Bos & Mather, 1997). Further, findings from this study support those in the study
conducted by Thomas and Barksdale-Ladd (1997) where the omission of certain
instructional elements during instruction occurred as a result of a teacher’s differing
beliefs on how best to instruct reading. Although more information and evidence on
the part of teacher participants in this study is needed, it did not appear that teachers
deviated from their preferred method of reading instruction. The attempt to alter the
instructional elements of the project interventions was not found among the
accomplished users, those most aligned to code-based instruction. Emergent users
were found to encounter some difficulties with the instructional components of the
interventions but with support continuously made strides toward more accurate
intervention instruction. Initial users, those least aligned to code-based instruction,
modified the interventions to more appropriately reflect their meaning-based
methodological preference, which meant that they too did not appear to deviate from
their belief about how best to teach reading. Contemplation about whether
implementation effectiveness of project interventions was a by-product of teacher
beliefs is astounding. It appears as though teacher beliefs do have a stronghold on
instructional practice. However, further investigation is needed to identify whether
other factors are equal to teacher beliefs with regard to the implementation of
instructional practices. Some researchers would suggest that teacher beliefs are
indeed what drive teachers’ instructional practice (Clark & Peterson, 1986; Nespor,
1987; Pajares, 1992). Nespor, (1987) would further suggest that other factors (e.g.,
237
teacher knowledge) are less powerful. Moreover, the finding of teacher participants
appearing not to have altered their intervention instruction from their beliefs on how
best to teach reading confirms the inference made by Nespor (1987) whereby
changes in beliefs are largely attributed to intrinsic shifts in individuals that are
largely unknown rather than empirical evidence that supports one instructional
practice over another.
Consequent to what was noted above triggers a vital question: What might
constitute a shift in teacher beliefs about how best to instruct reading? Researchers
offer some guidance in response to this question. First, Lortie (1975) like Thomas
and Barksdale-Ladd (1997) suggest that not until pre-and-in-service teachers engage
in personal examination to include past literacy experiences will the internalizations,
preconceptions, and preferences about the subjects and the manner in which they are
taught be illuminated. Second, Lortie (1975) and others (e.g., Pajares, 1992; Roe &
Thomas & Barksdale-Ladd, 1997; Vukelich, 1998) further posit that not until these
internalizations, preconceptions and preferences are known on the part of pre-and-in-
service teachers will the potential for the comprehension and integration of other
instructional methodologies be possible. Therefore, upon initial engagement of any
reading reform effort should be the identification and acknowledgement of any and
all teacher held beliefs about how best to instruct reading. Teachers’ awareness of
their beliefs about how best to instruct reading will not only contribute to the
knowledge base on what we know about beliefs and the role that they play with
regard to instructional practice but awareness of teachers’ own beliefs might also
238
assist them in their ability to (a) more concisely communicate the details about the
beliefs they hold about reading instruction (e.g., when and how their beliefs
originated; if their beliefs have ever changed; why, when, and how their beliefs
changed, etc.), (b) engage in meaningful conversation with other educators, (c) more
effectively analyze and compare new and existing instructional reading practices to
their own, (d) anticipate potential conflicts with the use of certain instructional
reading practices, and (e) draw conclusions about why or why not certain
instructional practices were implemented. Ultimately, it might be that a series and
integration of factors such as the above noted call into question and prompt shifts in
teachers existing beliefs about how best to instruct reading.
Another point of interest lies in the finding of the least experienced teachers
being identified as the most effective implementers, the accomplished users. Why is
this so? Teacher held beliefs aside; perhaps this is due in part to the coursework,
instructional exposure and/or research on reading practices that the accomplished
users encountered in the Teacher Education programs they attended. An additional
possibility, albeit contrasting, may be that adherence to an instructional manual that
delineates objectives, steps and procedures that are supported by research serves
more as a life-saving device early in a teaching career when teachers have been
described as “tentative and somewhat overwhelmed by the realities of the classroom”
Gersten, Morvant, & Brengelman, 1995, p. 62).
Equally as intriguing is that the veteran teachers were identified as the
emergent users—implementers that were in the process of developing more of an
239
understanding of the literacy concepts that promote reading ability and success.
While it might be suggested that veteran teachers might engage in a process of
learning and giving new labels to instructional concepts and practices that are
already known to them, speculation as to why the veteran teachers in this study did
not implement with more effectiveness persists.
Implications for Professional Development
While Project PLUS offered as well as recommended that teacher
participants attend an intensive weeklong training during the summer for the
purposes of (a) familiarizing teacher participants with the conceptual principles
underlying the project interventions, (b) to discuss intervention objectives, (c) to
practice intervention steps and procedures, (d) to practice intervention
implementation with project materials, (e) to practice DIBELS assessment, scoring
procedures and accurate interpretation of student outcomes, (f) to discuss project
goals and expectations, and (g) to discuss the integration of intervention instruction
into existing teaching practices, not every teacher participant attended. However, to
insure that each teacher participant was equally experienced with the aforementioned
project intervention elements, an intensive two-day training during the beginning of
the school year was added, as were additional trainings and/or demonstration lessons
throughout the year. Assistance upon request with regard to project aspects was also
consistently available to teacher participants throughout the year. Additionally, while
the project’s paradigm of professional development emphasized a university-school
240
collaboration, involvement of school administrators, researchers, and teachers only
materialized during initial training sessions. Thereafter, meeting in unison regularly
did not occur. While the model of professional development was well preconceived
and thought to be sufficient, a similar finding in the work of Klingner et al., (2003),
was the conclusion that emergent and initial users may have benefited from
additional support in learning how to implement the interventions than was provided.
While Englert and Tarrant (1995) purport that “the process of developing
collaborative communities that support professional development and educational
change take time” (p. 335), diligence with guiding professional development in that
direction might have improved upon intervention implementation for both emergent
and initial users. Characteristic of collaborative communities is the ability for
teachers, researchers, and administrators to regularly as well as openly dialogue
about the benefits, concerns, problems, and conflicts that transpire as they engage in
the implementation process of a new instructional practice. Ayres, Meyer, Erevelles,
and Park-lee (1994) have found that the practitioners “expected to implement
innovations within existing educational programs typically have not been asked for
their perspective on the implementation process” (p. 85). Allowing for this process
to occur makes considerable sense when it is ultimately the teachers who will
determine the fate of any instructional practice to be implemented. Moreover, as
cited in Gersten, Vaughn, Deshler, and Schiller, (1997), Englert and Tarrant, (1995)
purport “to build conceptual understanding of an innovation, and to apply this
knowledge to their own classrooms, teachers must have opportunities to discuss the
241
new interventions with colleagues, to learn about their underlying concepts and
intentions, and to understand changes in student learning due to the shifts in
instruction (p. 470). Perhaps the scheduling of regular monthly meetings with
teachers, school administrators, and project researchers to discuss the experiences
with intervention implementation would have illuminated critical areas (e.g., the
facilitation of intervention implementation through the use of instructional centers)
that could have been addressed and improved upon sooner and thereby potentially
have increased more favorable results. Furthermore, it is now believed that without
the provision of ongoing discourse among teacher participants, researchers, and
school administrators, that two of the three faulty assumptions; (a) “educators will
accept and implement effective ways of teaching once they know what they are” (p.
467), and (b) “effective practices can be implemented with few adjustments by
teachers “(p. 467) identified by Gersten, Vaughn, Deshler, and Schiller, (1997) are
not being heeded.
The incorporation of peer coaching (Joyce & Showers, 1982; 2002) might
also serve to assist in the development of an increased understanding of the
implementation process as teachers will be given the opportunity to “think through”
(Gersten, Vaughn, Deshler, and Schiller, 1997, (p. 467) the intervention elements
and compare the differences in teaching practices with another colleague. Several
researchers have concluded that ongoing technical and conceptual support is needed
if new instructional practices are to transfer into existing practice as well as sustain
(Gersten, Vaughn, Deshler, and Schiller, 1997; Jenkins & Leicester, 1992; Showers,
242
1987). Furthermore, the use of peer coaching might also provide teachers with
regular feedback from a peer and/or administrator who is potentially encountering
some of the same issues or a researcher who is knowledgeable in the new
strategies—both of whom offer valuable as well as explicit guidance (Joyce &
Showers, 2002). Without conceptual and technical feedback, Gersten, Vaughn,
Deshler, and Schiller, (1997) posit that implementation of new practices is very
likely to be “erratic” (p. 470).
Implications for School Administrators
Perhaps a missing link with regard to this study was the lack of
administrative involvement in the undertaking of implementing new instructional
practices. Although the role of school administrators was not investigated in this
study, the lack of administrative presence was thought to possibly translate into a
lack of support of intervention implementation for some teachers. This is of
importance as Klinger et al., 2003) found that among the highest implementing
teachers was the identified facilitator of administrative support. In the same study
and equally as interesting, was the claim of no administrative support among the
moderate implementers. Confirmation of administrative support being a critical
factor in the facilitation of implementation and sustainment of new instructional
practices has been repeatedly identified in the literature (e.g., Ayres, Meyer,
Erevelles, & Park-Lee, 1994; Fullan, 1991, 1993; Gersten, Vaughn, Deshler, &
Schiller, 1997; Guskey, 2000). Furthermore, some teacher participants may have
243
also interpreted the lack of administrative presence as a lack of priority for
intervention implementation. In a study conducted by Klinger, Vaughn, and Hughes,
(1999), teachers acknowledged the impact of the principal’s support and suggested
that without classroom visitations, the attendance of meetings, “principal pushing”
(p. 268), and the support of needed resources (e.g., in-services, materials, and time)
that the likelihood of continuing with the implementation of new strategies “would
have left them [teachers] to their own devices” (p. 268) and the message of the
practices importance would not have been heard.
An entirely different idea with regard to school administrators and the user
types identified in this study is that perhaps certain teachers are more inclined to
instruct certain types of students more effectively. Although teachers’ instructional
strengths may not equate to teachers’ instructional preference with regard to grade
level and student ability levels, the question is pondered, “Might teacher assignments
be based on teachers’ instructional strengths?” Teachers who characterize the traits
of the accomplished users might be more appropriate for teaching students at-risk of
reading failure, preferably in the earlier grades. In turn, initial users might be best
utilized in classrooms where intervention among students is not necessary. Although
potentially controversial as well as inconvenient, this mode of operation might
prompt the reconfiguration of class assignments among teachers but might also
improve upon student outcomes for readers most at-risk of reading failure.
244
Implications for Research on Student Achievement
Although student achievement was not investigated in this study,
accomplished users were found to implement the interventions with the high fidelity.
This is of importance as Kovaleski, Gickling, Morrow, and Swank (1999) found that
greater levels of academic performance only occurred when their schools
implemented the Instructional Support Teams (ISTs) process to a high degree.
Additional studies also confirm the findings posited by Kovaleski, Gickling,
Morrow, and Swank (1999) (Gresham, 1989; Klingner et al., 2003; Stallings, 1985).
Therefore, the conclusion might be made that student gains would only occur among
the students of the accomplished users.
Implications For Future Research
Although findings from this study indicated that teachers effectively
implemented project interventions to a degree consistent with their methodological
preference to reading instruction, additional research is needed to determine how and
when teachers beliefs related to reading and reading instruction originated. In
addition, further investigation with regard to the circumstances under which teacher
beliefs shift about reading instruction would be beneficial to the research
community, teacher education programs, reading leaders, planners of professional
development and practitioners as through a deeper understanding of how beliefs
affect important instructional practices might serve to increase them among students
most in need. Perhaps further qualitative investigation of implementing teachers’
245
early literacy experiences will also avail further understanding of the complex issue
of teacher implementation of effective research-based practices.
It also appears that additional research is needed on how to more thoroughly
engage teachers with different methodological preferences to reading instruction in
the effective implementation of instructional reading practices. Englert and Tarrant
(1995) suggest that, “the teacher-researcher community can result in deeper, more
long-lasting changes than is possible in traditional staff development or teacher
preparation programs” (p. 334). While the outcome of Englert and Tarrant’s (1995)
use of this paradigm provided favorable results, like the professional development
model of Project PLUS, it emphasized more of a university-school
collaboration—meaning that the role school administrators play is loosely defined.
While Klinger et al., (2003) suggest that “there must be “buy-in” by stakeholders at
multiple levels” (p. 427) for large-scale implementation to occur, it is also believed
that “buy-in” at multiple levels for this mixed methods comparative case study
would have resulted in more effective implementation of project interventions across
participants. Perhaps conducting a study that placed an emphasis on the
development of a collaborative culture that included regular and frequent meetings
with district leaders, school administrators, reading leaders, teachers, and researchers
would (a) send a clear message that the implementation of research-based
instructional practices is of paramount importance as well as is expected; (b) allot the
time necessary for imperative activities to take place (e.g., teacher examination of
beliefs with regard to reading instruction, to practice instructional practices, to
246
familiarize oneself with needed instructional materials, etc.); (c) provide a forum in
which interactive dialogue can take place as well as be respected (e.g., discussion
about beliefs about how best to teach reading, expectation of student gains, problem
solving logistics, etc); (d) serve as a system of accountability among all stakeholders;
(e) monitor student gains, (f) provide the platform from which peer coaching could
emerge, and would therefore provide teachers with the conceptual and technical
support that is required for implementation success (Gersten, Vaughn, Deshler, &
Schiller, 1997).
Summary
In summary, the implementation of effective practices is identified in the
literature as poor or lacking (e.g., Klingner, Ahwee, Pilonieta, & Menendez, 2003).
The questions of how and to what degree six first grade general education teachers
implemented project interventions as well as the determination of impact teachers’
beliefs about how best to instruct reading had on teacher implementation of Project
PLUS early literacy interventions for at-risk readers over a yearlong period was
explored through a mixed methods comparative case study (Patton, 2002; Yin, 1989,
2003). The study yielded three significant findings: First, three domains, the
characteristics and sub-characteristics within them emerged: Teacher Adaptation
Process, Student Dynamics, and Teacher Attributes. Second, sub-characteristics
within each of the characteristics were achieved at discernable levels among teacher
participants and thereby revealed a distinct pattern of user types: Accomplished,
247
Emergent, and Initial. In addition, sub-characteristics within the domain Teacher
Adaptation Process appeared to be the most challenging for teacher participants to
achieve—especially sub-characteristics within the characteristics, student outcome
interpretation and pedagogical understanding. Teacher participants achieving high
levels of the sub-characteristics within the characteristics student outcome
interpretation and pedagogical understanding implemented project interventions
more effectively. In sum, accomplished users (33%) implemented the interventions
most effectively and instructed 100% of their at-risk learners 100% of the time;
emergent users (33%) implemented the interventions with moderate effectiveness
and instructed 29% of their at-risk learners; and initial users (33%) implemented the
interventions with poor effectiveness and instructed only 14% of their at-risk
learners. Third, teacher implementation of project interventions also appeared to
correspond to teacher participants’ mean difference between code-and-meaning-
based reading instruction— meaning that the greater the mean difference between
code-based and meaning-based instruction the more or less effective the
implementation of project interventions. Therefore, findings from this study suggest
support for the initial idea of teachers’ methodological preference to reading
instruction impacting teacher implementation behavior of Project PLUS early
literacy interventions.
Lastly, implications for the researcher, programs in teacher education, the
practitioner, leaders in professional development, school administrators, student
achievement, and future research were given.
248
REFERENCES
Abeti, J. (2004). The no child left behind act and English language learners:
Assessment and accountability issues. Educational Researcher, 33(1) 4-14.
Adams, M. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Algozzine, B., & Wood. K. D. (1994). Reading and special education in the twenty
first century: Time to unify perspectives. In K. D. Wood. & B. Algozzine
(Eds.), Teaching reading to high-risk learners (pp. 1-8). Needham Heights,
MA: Allyn and Bacon
Allinder, R. M. (1996). When some is not better than none: Effects of differential
implementation of curriculum-based measurement. Exceptional Children,
62(6), 525-535.
Allington, R. L. (1995). Literacy lessons in the elementary schools: Yesterday, today
and tomorrow. In R. L. Allington & S. A. Walmsley (Eds.), No quick fix:
Rethinking literacy programs in America’s elementary schools (pp. 1-15).
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
At-risk. (n.d.). Retrieved October 24, 2003, from
http://www.nwrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/students/atrisk/at5def.htm
Artley, A. S., & Hardin, V. B. (1975). Inventory of teacher knowledge of reading.
Columbia, MO: Lucas Brothers.
Ayers, B.J., Meyer, L. H., Erevelles, N., & Park-Lee, S. (1994). Easy for you to say:
Teacher perspectives on implementing most promising practices. JASH,
19(2), 84-93.
Berry, B., Hoke, M., & Hirsch, E. (2004). The search for highly qualified teachers.
Phi Delta Kappan, 85(9), 684-689.
Blachman, B., Ball, E., Black, R., & Tangel, D. (1994). Kindergarten teachers
develop phoneme awareness in low-income, inner-cit classrooms: Does it
make a difference? Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-
18.
Bos, C., & Mather, N. (1997). Project RIME. Reading Instructional Methods of
Efficacy (Performance Report No. 2). Tuscon: University of Arizona,
Department of Special Education, Rehabilitation, and School Psychology.
249
Bos, C. S., Mather, N., Narr, R. F., & Babur, N. (1999). Interactive, collaborative
professional development in early literacy instruction. Learning Disabilities
Research and Practice, 14(4), 227-239.
Boyd, V. (1992). School content: Bridge or barrier to change? Austin, TX:
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Brown, I. S., & Felton, R. H. (1990). Effects of instruction on beginning reading
skills in children at risk for reading disability. Reading and Writing, 2, 223-
241.
Brown, D., & Rose, T. (1995). Self-reported classroom impacted of teachers’
theories about learning and obstacles to implementation. Action in Teacher
Education, 17(1), 20-29.
Burns, S., & Snow.,C.E. (1999). Reading and literacy: Teachers using reading
research in classrooms. Teaching and Change, 6(2), 139-145.
Chall, J. (1967). Learning to read: The great debate. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
Clandinin, D. J., & Connelly F. M. (1987). What counts as personal in studies of the
personal. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 9(6), 487-500.
Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M.C.
Wittrock (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 255-296). New
York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Clay, M. (1979). The early detection of reading difficulties: A diagnostic survey with
recovery procedures. Exeter, NH: Heinemann.
Clay, M. (1982). Observing young readers: Selected papers. Exeter, NH:
Heinemann.
Clay, M. (1985). The early detection of reading difficulties. Auckland, New Zealand:
Heinemann.
Clay, M. (1987). Implementing reading recovery: Systemic adaptations to an
educational innovation. New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 22(1),
35-58.
250
Clay, M. (1990, April). Reading recovery in the United States: Its successes and
challenges. Paper presented at the AREA annual meeting, Boston, MA.
Clay, M. (1990). The reading recovery programme, 1984-88: Coverage, outcomes
and education board district figures. New Zealand Journal of Educational
Studies, 25(1), 61-67.
Clay, M. (1993). Observation survey: Of early literacy achievement. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
Clay, M. (1993). Reading recovery: A guidebook for teachers in training.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Clay, M. (1994). Reading recovery: The wider implications of an educational
innovation. Literacy, Teaching and Learning, 1(1), 121-141.
Clay, M. (2002). An observation survey: Of early literacy achievement.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Cobb, J. B. (2000). Impact of major field of study on tutors’ performance: A literacy
intervention program for at-risk fourth graders. Journal Reading Education,
25(3), 22-31.
Critical issue: Providing effective schooling for students at-risk. (n.d.). Retrieved
October 24, 2003, from
http://www.nwrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/students/atrisk/at600.htm
Darling-Hammond, L. (1999). Target time toward teachers. Journal of Staff
Development, 20(2), 31-36.
DeFord, D. E. (1985). Validating the construct of theoretical orientation in reading
instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 361-367.
DeFord, D. E., Lyons, C. A., & Pinnell, G. S. (1991). Bridges to literacy: Insights
from the reading recovery program. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis: A user-friendly guide for social scientists.
New York, NY: Routledge.
Dole, J. A., Brown, K. J., & Trathen, W. (1996). The effects of strategy instruction
on the comprehension performance of at-risk students. Reading Research
Quarterly, 31, 62-88.
251
Druian, G., & Butler, J. A. (1986). Effective schooling practices and at-risk youth:
What the research shows. Retrieved October 24, 2003, from
http://www.nwrel.org
Duffy, G. C., & Metheny, W. (1979). Measuring teachers’ beliefs about reading.
East Landing, MI: Michigan State University, Institute for Research on
Teaching.
Dyer, S. A., & Binkney, R. (1995). Estimating cost-effectiveness and educational
outcomes: Retention, remediation, special education and early intervention.
In R. L. Allington & S. A.Walmsley (Eds.), No quick fix: Rethinking literacy
programs in America’s elementary schools (pp. 61-77). New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
El-Dinary, P. B., & Schuder, T. (1993). Seven teachers’ acceptance of transactional
strategies instruction during their first year using it. The Elementary School
Journal, 94(2), 208-219.
Elmore, R. F. (1996). Getting to scale with good educational practice.
Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 1-26.
Englert, C. S., & Tarrant, K. L. (1995). Creating collaborative cultures for
educational change. Remedial and Special Education, 16(6), 325-336.
Feng, J., & Etheridge, George W. (1993, April). Match or mismatch: Relationship
between first-grade teachers’ theoretical orientation to reading and their
reading instructional practices. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association, Atlanta, GA.
Foorman, B. R., Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Schatschneider, C., & Mehta, P.
(1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure
in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 37-55.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1998). Researchers and teachers working together to
adapt instruction for diverse learners. Learning Disabilities Research and
Practice, 13(3), 126-137.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Harris, A. H., & Roberts, P.H. (1996). Bridging the research
to-gap with mainstream assistance teams: A cautionary tale. School
Psychology Quarterly, 11, 244-266.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2001). Principles for sustaining research-based practice in
the schools: A case study. Focus on Exceptional Children, 33(6), 1-14.
252
Fullan, M. (1983). Evaluating program implementation: What can be learned from
the follow-through. Curriculum Inquiry, 13, 215-227.
Fullan, M. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Fullan, M. (1993). Change forces: Probing the depths of educational reform.
New York, NY: The Falmer Press.
Fullan, M. (1999). Change forces: The sequel. Philadelphia, PA: The Falmer Press.
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gersten, R., & Brengelman, S. U. (1996). The quest to translate research into
classroom practice. Remedial and Special Education, 17(2), 67-74.
Gersten, R., Chard, D., & Baker, S. (2000). Factors enhancing sustained use of
research based instructional practices. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
33(5), 445-457.
Gersten, R., Morvant, M., & Brengelman, S. (1995). Close to the classroom is close
to the bone: Coaching as a means to translate research into classroom
practice. Exceptional Children, 62(1), 52-66.
Gersten, R., Vaughn, S., Deshler, D., & Schiller, E. (1997). What we know about
using research findings: Implications improving special education practice.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(5), 466-476.
Goetz, S. K., McElroy, L., & Beach, S. (1997). At-risk readers: Part II—Breaking
the cycle. Reading Psychology, 18(4), 371-381.
Good, R. H. & Kaminski, R. A. (1996). Assessment for instructional decisions:
Toward a proactive/prevention model of decision making for early literacy
skills. School Psychology Quarterly, 11, 326-336.
Good, R. H., Kaminski, R. A., & Hill, D. (2000). Ruining our predictions: Attaining
successful reading outcomes for students at-risk for reading difficulties.
Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.
Good, R. H., Kaminski, R.A., & Dill, S. (2001). DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency.
In R.H. Good & R.A. Kaminski (Eds.), Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early
Literacy Skills (5
th
ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of
Educational Achievement.
253
Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R.A. (2001). Nonsense Word Fluency.
In R.H. Good & R.A. Kaminski (Eds.), Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early
Literacy Skills (5
th
ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of
Educational Achievement.
Good, R. H., Kaminski, R.A., & Smith, S. (2001). Phoneme Segmentation Fluency.
In R.H. Good & R.A. Kaminski (Eds.), Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early
Literacy Skills (5
th
ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of
Educational Achievement.
Good, R,. Kaminski, R., Laimon, D., & Johnson, D. (1992). Advances in assessment
for the primary prevention of early academic problems. Eugene, OR:
University of Oregon.
Gove, M. K. (1981). The influence of teachers’ conceptual frameworks of reading on
their instructional decision making. ( Doctoral dissertation, Kent University,
1981). Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 2996A.
Gove, M. K. (1983). Clarifying teachers’ beliefs about reading. The Reading
Teacher, 37, 261-268.
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual
framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation
and Policy Analysis, 11(3), 255-274.
Gresham, F. M. (1989). Assessment of treatment integrity in school consultation and
prereferral intervention. School Psychology Review, 18(1), 37-50.
Guskey, T. R. (2000). Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press, Inc.
Haager, D. (Personal communication, May 1, 2005).
Haager, D. (1999). Project PLUS Intervention Observation Form. Unpublished
instrument, California State University Los Angeles.
Haager, D., & Dimino, J. (2001). Reading intervention guide. Los Angeles, CA:
Project Plus.
Haager, D., & Windmueller, M. P. (2001). Early reading intervention for English
language learners at-risk for learning disabilities: Student and teacher
outcomes in an urban school. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 235-250.
254
Hall, D. P., Prevatte, C., & Cunningham, P.M. (1995). Eliminating ability grouping
and reducing failure in the primary grades. In R. L. Allington & S.
A.Walmsley (Eds.), No quick fix: Rethinking literacy programs in America’s
elementary schools (pp. 137-158). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Harris, T. L., & Hodges, R. E. (1995). The literacy dictionary: The vocabulary of
reading and writing. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Hiebert, E. H., & Taylor, M. B. (1994). Getting Ready Right From the Start.
Needham Heights, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.
Hines, R. (2001). Inclusion in middle schools (Report No. EDO-PS-01-13).
Champaign, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood
Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 459000).
Hollins, E. (Personal communication, November 15, 2003).
Jackson, J. B., Paratore, J. R., Chard, D. J., & Garnick, S. (1999). An early
intervention supporting the literacy learning of children experiencing
substantial difficulty. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 14(4),
254-267.
Jenkins, J. R., & Leicester, N. (1992). Specialized instruction within general
education: A case study of one elementary school. Exceptional Children,
58(6), 555-563.
Jimenez, R. T. (2002). Fostering the literacy development in Latino students. Focus
on Exception Children, 34(6), 1-10.
Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from
first through forth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437-447.
Kaminski, R. A. & Good, R. H. (1996). Toward a technology for assessing basic
early literacy skills. The School Psychology Review, 25(2), 215-227.
Kaminski, R.A., & Good, R.H. (2001). Letter Naming Fluency.
In R.H. Good & R.A. Kaminski (Eds.), Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early
Literacy Skills (5
th
ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of
Educational Achievement.
Kazdin, A. E., French, N. H., & Sherick, R. B. (1981). Acceptability of alternative
treatments for children: Evaluation of impatient children, parents and staff.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 49, 900-907.
255
Kazdin, A. E., & Cole,P. M. (1981). Attitudes and labeling biases toward behavior
modification: The effect of labels, content and jargon. Behavior Therapy, 12,
56-58.
Kealey, K. A., Peterson, A. V., Gaul, M. A., & Dinh, K. T. (2000). Teacher training
as a behavior change process: Principles and results from a longitudinal
study. Health Education and Behavior, 27(1), 64-81.
Klingner, J. K., Ahwee, S., Pilonieta, P., & Menendez, R. (2003). Barriers and
facilitators in scaling up research-based practices. Exceptional Children,
69(4), 411-429.
Klingner, J. K., & Vaughn, S. (1999). Promoting reading comprehension, content
learning, and English acquisition through collaborative strategic reading
(CSR). The Reading Teacher, 52(7), 738-747.
Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., Arguelles, M., Hughes, M. T., & Leftwich, S. A. (2004).
Collaborative strategic reading: “Real-world” lessons from classroom
teachers. Remedial and Special Education, 25(5), 291-302.
Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., & Hughes, M. T., & Arguelles, M. E. (1999). Sustaining
research-based practices in reading: A 3-year follow-up. Remedial and
Special Education, 20(5), 263-274.
Kovaleski, J. F., Gickling, E. E., Morrow, H., & Swank, P. R. (1999). High versus
low implementation of instructional support teams: A case for maintaining
program fidelity. Remedial and Special Education, 20(3), 170-183.
Lennon, J. E., & Slesinski, C. (1999). Early intervention in reading: Results of a
screening and intervention program for kindergarten students. The School
Psychology Review, 28(3), 353-364.
Lenski, S. D., Wham, M. A., & David, G. (1998). Literacy orientation survey: A
survey to clarify teachers’ beliefs and practices. Reading Research and
Instruction, 37(3), 217-236.
Levin, B. B. (2001). Lives of teachers: Update on a longitudinal case study. Teacher
Education Quarterly, 28(3) 29-47.
Linek, W. M., Nelson, O. C., & Sampson, M. B. (1997). Developing beliefs about
literacy instruction: A cross-case analysis of preservice teachers in traditional
and field based settings. Reading Research and Instruction, 38(4), 371-386.
256
Little, J. W. (1982). Norms of collegiality and experimentation: Workplace
conditions of school success. American Educational Research Journal, 19(3),
325-340.
Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers’ professional development in a climate of educational
reform. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129-151.
Lortie, D. C. (1975). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago, IL: The
University of Chicago Press.
Madden, N. A., Slavin, R. E., Karweit, N. L., Dolan, L. J., & Wasik, B. A. (1993).
Success for all: Longitudinal effects of a restructuring program for inner-city
elementary schools. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 123-148.
Malouf, D. B., & Schiller, E. P. (1995). Practice and research in special education.
Exceptional Children, 61(5), 414-424.
Mather, N., Bos, C. S., & Babur, N. (2001). Perceptions and knowledge of preservice
and inservice teachers about early literacy instruction. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 34(5), 472-482.
Maxwell, J. A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
McCutchen, D., Abbott, R., & Green, L. (2002). Beginning literacy: Links among
teacher knowledge, teacher practice, and student learning. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 35(1), 69-86.
McGill-Franzen, A. (1994). Compensatory and special education: Is there
accountability for learning and belief in children’s potential? In E. H. Hiebert
& M. B. Taylor (Eds.) Getting Ready Right From the Start (pp. 13-35).
Needham Heights, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.
McGraw-Hill Companies, (2002). Results with open court reading. (Report No.
UDO34975). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED464189).
McRae, D. J., (2002). Research findings 2002. Retrieved January 13, 2003, from
http://www.sra4kids.com
Miles, B. M., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
257
Moats (1994). Knowledge of language: The missing foundation for teacher
education. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 81-102.
Morrow, M. L., & O’Connor, E. M. (1995). Literacy partnerships for change with
at-risk kindergartners. In R. L. Allington & S. A.Walmsley (Eds.), No quick
fix: Rethinking literacy programs in America’s elementary schools (pp. 97-
115). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Moustafa, M. (1997). Beyond traditional phonics. Baltimore, MD: Heinemann
Publishing.
Moustafa, M., & Land, R. (2001, November). The effectiveness of “Open Court” on
improving the reading achievement of economically-disadvantaged children.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council of Teachers of
English, Baltimore, MD.
NAEP. (2005). Retrieved October 10, 2006, from
http://www.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (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 (NIH Publication No. 00-4769).
Washington, D.C: U.S. Government Printing Office.
National Research Council. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young
children. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences Press.
Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. J. Curriculum
Studies, 19(4), 317-328.
Nierstheimer, S. L., Hopkins, C. J., Dillon, D. R.., & Schmitt, M. C. (2000).
Preservice teachers’ shifting beliefs about struggling literacy learners.
Reading Research and Instruction, 4(1), 1-16.
Nisbett, R., & Ross, L. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcomings of
social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
No child left behind. (2003). Retrieved March 4, 2004, from
http://www.ed.gov/print/nclb/overview/welcome/index.html
O’Connor, R. E. (1999). Teachers’ learning ladders of literacy. Learning Disabilities
Research and Practice, 14, 203-214.
258
Olson, J. (1981). Teacher influence in the classroom: A context for understanding
curriculum translation. Instructional Science, 10, 259-275.
Olson, J., & Singer, M. (1994). Examining teacher beliefs, reflective change, and the
teaching of reading. Reading Research and Instruction, 34(2), 97-110.
Pajaras, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and education research: Cleaning up a messy
construct. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 307-332.
Palardy, M. J. (1998). The effects of teachers’ expectations on children’s literacy
development. Reading Improvement, 35(4), 184-186.
Patton, Q. P. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Peck, S., & Serrano, A. (2002, April). Open court and english language learners:
Questions and strategies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
American Association for Applied Linguistics, Salt Lake City, UT.
Pettig, K. L. (2000). On the road to differentiated practice.
Educational Leadership, 14-18.
Pikulski, J. (1994). Preventing reading failure: A review of five effective programs.
The Reading Teacher, 48(1), 30-39.
Pinnell, G. S. (1989). Reading recovery: Helping at-risk children learn to read. The
Elementary School Journal, 90(2), 161-183.
Pinnell, G. S., DeFord D. E., Lyons, C. A. (1988). Reading recovery: Early
intervention for at-risk first graders. Arlington, VA: Educational Research
service.
Pinnell, G. S., Fried, M. D., & Estice, R. M. (1991). Reading recovery: Learning
how to make a difference. In D. E. DeFord, C. A. Lyons, & G. S. Pinnell
(Eds.), Bridges to literacy: Learning from reading recovery (pp. 11-35). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pinnell, G. S., Lyons, C. A., DeFord D. E., Bryk, A., & Selzer, M. (1994).
Comparing instructional models for the literacy education of high-risk 1
st
graders. Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 9-39.
Pressley, M. (1998). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching.
New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
259
Pressley, M., & El-Dinary, P. B. (1997). What we know about translating
comprehension-strategies instruction research into practice.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(5), 486-499, 512.
Profiles and Reports. (2005). Retrieved May 7, 2005, from
http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/Navigation/
Quatroche, D. J. (1999). Helping the underachiever in reading. (Report No. EDO
CS99-02). Bloomington, IN: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading, English and
Communication. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED434331).
Rebell, M. A., & Hunter, M. A. (2004). Highly qualified teachers: Pretense or legal
requirement. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(9), 691-696.
Richards, J. (2001, July). What do teachers and students think and know about
reading? An exploratory study. Paper presented at the European Conference
on Reading, Dublin, Ireland.
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.
Roe, M. F., & Vukelich, C. (1998). Literacy histories: Categories of influence.
Reading Research and Instruction, 37(4), 281-295.
Rokeach, M. (1970). A theory of organization and change. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey Bass Publishers.
Rubin H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (1995). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Rust, F. O. (1994). The first year of teaching: It’s not what they expected. Teaching
and Teacher Education, 10(2), 205-217.
Sadoski, M., & Willson, V. (2006). Effects of a Theoretically
Based Large-Scale Reading Intervention in a Multicultural Urban School
District. American Educational Research Journal, 43(1), 137-154.
Schacter, J. (2001). Reading programs that work: An evaluation of kindergarten
through-third grade reading instructional programs. ERS Spectrum 19(4), 12-
25.
260
Scott, O. (1973). The inventory of student perceptions of instruction: Its history,
characteristics, and uses. Paper presented at the 12
th
Southeastern Invitational
Conference on Measurement in Education, Blacksburg, Virginia.
Shavelson, R. J. (1976). Teachers’ decision making. In N. L. Cage (Eds.), The
psychology of teaching methods (pp. 372-414). Chicago, IL: The University
of Chicago Press.
Short, R. A., Frye, B. J., & King, J. R. (1999). Connecting classrooms and early
interventions. Reading Research and Instruction, 38(4), 387-400.
Simmons, D. C., Kuykendall, K., King, K., Cornachione, C., & Kameenui, E. J.
(2000). Implementation of a school wide reading improvement model: “No
one ever told us it would be this hard!” Learning Disabilities Research and
Practice, 15(2), 92-100.
Slavin, R. E. (1998). Can education reduce social inequity? Educational
Leadership, 55(4), 6-10.
Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Dolan, L, A., & Wasik, B, A. (1996). Every child,
every school: Success for all. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc.
Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Karweit, N. L., Dolan, L, A., & Wasik, B, A. (1994).
Success for all: Getting reading right the first time. In E. H. Hiebert & M. B.
Taylor (Eds.) Getting Ready Right From the Start (pp. 125-147). Needham
Heights, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.
Smith, S. B., Simmons, D. C., & Kameenui, E. J. (1998). Phonological Awareness:
Instructional and Curricular Basics and Implications. In E. H. Hiebert & M.
B. Taylor (Eds.) What Reading Research Tells Us About Children With
Diverse Learning Needs (pp. 130-140). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in
young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Sparks, G. M. (1988). Teachers’ attitudes toward change and subsequent
improvements in classroom teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology,
80(1), 111-117.
Stake, R. E. (1995). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook
of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
261
Stanovich, P. J., & Stanovich, K. (1997). Research into practice in special education.
The Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 477-481.
Stallings, J. (1985). A study of implementation of Madeline Hunter’s model and it’s
effects on students. The Journal of Educational Research, 78(5), 325-337.
Stone, C. A. (1998). Moving validated instructional practices into classroom:
Learning from examples about the rough road to success. Learning
Disabilities Research and Practice, 13(3), 121-125.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1995). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N.
K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basic qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Taylor, B., Strait, J., & Medo, M. A. (1994). Early intervention reading:
Supplemental instruction for low-achieving students provided by first-grade
teachers. In E. H. Hiebert & M. B. Taylor (Eds.) Getting Ready Right From
the Start (pp. 107-121). Needham Heights, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.
Taylor, B., Short, R., Shearer, B., & Frye, B. (1995). First grade teachers provide
early reading intervention in the classroom. In R. L. Allington & S.
A.Walmsley (Eds.), No quick fix: Rethinking literacy programs in America’s
elementary schools (pp. 159-176). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. (1999). A nation still at risk (Report No.
ED429988). College Park, MD: ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and
Evaluation. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 99 CO 0032).
Thomas, K. F., & Barksdale-Ladd, M. A. (1997). Plant a radish, get a radish: Case
study of kindergarten teachers’ differing literacy belief systems. Reading
Research and Instruction, 37(1), 39-60.
Torgesen, J. K. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in
reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities
Research and Practice, 15(1), 55-64.
Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (1997). The prevention and
remediation of severe reading disabilities: Keeping the end in mind. Scientific
Studies of Reading, 1, 217-234.
262
Torgesen, J. K., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Rose, E., Lindamood, P., Conway,
T., & Garvan, C. (1999). Preventing reading failure in young children with
phonological processing disabilities: Group and individual responses to
instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 579-593.
Vaughn, S., Klingner, J. K., & Hughes, M. (2000). Sustainability of research-based
practices. Exceptional Children, 66(2), 163-171.
Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E. R., Small, S. G., Pratt, A., Chen, R., &
Denckla, M. B. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and
readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for
distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of
specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4), 601-
638.
Walmsley, S. A., & Allington, R. L. (1995). Redefining and reforming instructional
support programs for at-risk students. In R. L. Allington & S. A.Walmsley
(Eds.), No quick fix: Rethinking literacy programs in America’s elementary
schools (pp. 19-44). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Walp, T. P., & Walmsley, S. A. (1995). Scoring well on tests or becoming genuinely
literate: Rethinking remediation in a small rural school. In R. L. Allington &
S. A.Walmsley (Eds.), No quick fix: Rethinking literacy programs in
America’s elementary schools (pp. 177-196). New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Wasik, B. A., & Slavin, R. E. (1993). Preventing early reading failure with one-to
one tutoring: A review of five programs. Reading Research Quarterly, 28(2)
179-200.
Weaver, C. (1990). Understanding whole language: From principles to practice.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Wolcott, H. F. (2001). Writing up qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Wood, K. D., & Algozzine, B. (1994). Teaching reading to high-risk learners: A
unified perspective. In K. D. Wood, & B. Algozzine (Eds.), Reading and
special education in the twenty-first century: Time to unify perspectives (pp.
1-8). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Woodward, J., & Gersten, R. (1992). Innovative technology for secondary learning
disabled students: A multi-faceted study of implementation. Exceptional
Children, 58, 407-421.
263
Witt, J. (1986). Teachers’ resistance to the use of school-based interventions. Journal
of School Psychology, 24, 37-44.
Witt, J., & Martens, B. K. (1983). Assessing the acceptability of behavioral
interventions used in classrooms. Psychology in the Schools, 20, 510-517.
Wynn, E., Ball, E., Black, R., Tangel, D., & Blachman, B. (2000). Road to the
code: A phonological awareness program for young children. Baltimore,
MD: Brookes Publishing,.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Applications of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage Publications.
Zancanella, D. (1991). Teachers reading/readers teaching: Five teachers’ personal
approaches to literature and their teaching of literature. Research in the
Teaching of English, 25(1), 5-32.
264
APPENDIX A:
TEACHER ATTITUDE ABOUT EARLY READING AND SPELLING SURVEY
Project RIME
Department of Special Education and Rehabilitation
The University of Arizona
Name:___________________________ Date:____________________
Teacher Attitudes about Early Reading and Spelling
1,2
Directions: As a teacher, think about what you believe about reading and spelling
instruction. Circle the response that best indicates to what degree you agree with
each item. If there is an item that you do not know how to answer, you may
omit it.
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Mildly
Agree
Mildly
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
1. Ability to rhyme words is a strong
predictor of early reading success.
SA A MA MD D SD
2. Letter Recognition is a strong
predictor of early reading success.
SA A MA MD D SD
3. Poor phonemic awareness
(awareness of individual sounds in
words) inhibits learning to read.
SA A MA MD D SD
4. Encouraging the use of invented
spelling can help children
develop phonemic awareness.
SA A MA MD D SD
5. K-2 teachers should know how to
teach phonological awareness i.e.,
knowing that spoken language can be
broken down into smaller units
(words, syllables, phonemes).
SA A MA MD D SD
6. Individual differences in
phonological awareness in children
can help explain reading growth
during primary grades.
SA A MA MD D SD
7. A teacher should not be concerned
when early readers’ miscues do not
change meaning.
SA A MA MD D SD
8. When early readers do not know
how to pronounce a word, the most
beneficial strategy to suggest is to use
the context.
SA A MA MD D SD
9. When early readers do not know
how to pronounce word, one good
strategy is to prompt them to sound it
out.
SA A MA MD D SD
265
1. Development of this assessment was supported in part by federal grant H029K0061 (Project RIME)
from the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs.
2. Selected items were adapted from DeFord, D.E. (1985). Validating the construct of theoretical
orientation in reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 351-367.
10. Learning to use context clues
(syntax and semantics) is more
important than learning to use
grapho-phonic cues (letters and
sounds) when learning to read.
SA A MA MD D SD
11. A significant increase in oral
reading miscues is usually related to a
decrease in comprehension.
SA A MA MD D SD
12. Beginning readers need to
encounter a new word a number
of times to ensure it will become a
part of their sight vocabulary,
SA A MA MD D SD
13. Poor memory for the visual
features of words affects
development in word identification.
SA A MA MD D SD
14. Visual memory for the features
of words is essential for accurate
spelling.
SA A MA MD D SD
15. Transpositions (e.g., “saw” for
“was”) remain a persistent problem
for a few children when reading.
SA A MA MD D SD
16. Materials for early reading
should be written in natural language
without regard for the difficulty of
vocabulary.
SA A MA MD D SD
17. Basic skills should never be
taught in isolation.
SA A MA MD D SD
18. The development of word
identification and are closely related.
SA A MA MD D SD
19. For fluent reading, rapid
identification of whole words is
necessary.
SA A MA MD D SD
20. Reading comprehension is
related to fluent word identification.
SA A MA MD D SD
21. Controlling text through
consistent spelling patterns (The fat
cat sat on a hat.) is a method by
which some children can most easily
learn to read.
SA A MA MD D SD
22. K-2 teachers should know how to
teach phonics.
SA A MA MD D SD
23. Phonic rules and generalizations
should be taught to early readers.
SA A MA MD D SD
24. Phonics instruction can help a
child improve spelling abilities.
SA A MA MD D SD
25. Children who make repeated
spelling errors are likely to benefit
from systematic instruction.
SA A MA MD D SD
266
APPENDIX B:
BIOGRAPHICAL QUESTIONNAIRE
#___________
Biographical Questionnaire
1. Gender: Please circle one. Female Male
2. What do you perceive my role as being?
a. Consultant b. Administrator c. Teacher d. Mentor
3. Why are you a first grade teacher?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
4. What are the pluses and challenges of being a first grade teacher?
Pluses_______________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
Challenges___________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
5. I feel supported (e.g., responsive to your needs, accessible, available, informative,
etc.) by my administrator(s)?
Please circle one. SA = Strongly Agree
A = Agree
U = Undecided
D = Disagree
SD = Strongly Disagree
Comments:
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
267
6. How many years total have you been teaching? Please specify primary and upper
grades within elementary education. Also include total years taught in middle and
high school, college, university and adult education.
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
7. What is your current educational level?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
8. What is your last degree earned?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
9. What credentials do you hold?
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
10. Age of participant____________________
11. Described what you liked about being a participant in Project PLUS.
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
12. Describe what you liked least about being a participant in Project PLUS.
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
13. What would you do to improve Project PLUS? Please describe.
268
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
14. I engaged in Project PLUS reading interventions.
Please circle one. SA = Strongly Agree
A = Agree
U = Undecided
D = Disagree
SD = Strongly Disagree
Comments:___________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
15. I felt supported by Project PLUS personnel.
Please circle one. SA = Strongly Agree
A = Agree
U = Undecided
D = Disagree
SD = Strongly Disagree
Comments:___________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
16. I integrated information given during Project PLUS trainings, in-services, demo
lessons, and/or interaction(s) that I had with Project PLUS personnel into my
teaching.
Please circle one. SA = Strongly Agree
A = Agree
U = Undecided
D = Disagree
SD = Strongly Disagree
Comments:___________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
269
17. I am better able to assess my students for possible deficits in reading as a result
of Project PLUS.
Please circle one. SA = Strongly Agree
A = Agree
U = Undecided
D = Disagree
SD = Strongly Disagree
Comments:___________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
18. I am better able to implement reading interventions as a result of Project PLUS.
Please circle one. SA = Strongly Agree
A = Agree
U = Undecided
D = Disagree
SD = Strongly Disagree
Comments:___________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
19. Project PLUS helps me to better understand the literacy concepts that build
successful readers.
Please circle one. SA = Strongly Agree
A = Agree
U = Undecided
D = Disagree
SD = Strongly Disagree
Comments:___________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
20. I feel more skilled and confident in the area(s) of assessment, intervention, and
teaching reading as a result of Project PLUS.
Please circle one. SA = Strongly Agree
A = Agree
U = Undecided
D = Disagree
SD = Strongly Disagree
Comments:___________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
270
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
21. Project PLUS personnel made regular visits to my site.
Please circle one. SA = Strongly Agree
A = Agree
U = Undecided
D = Disagree
SD = Strongly Disagree
Comments:___________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
22. I collaborated with my colleagues more about reading, reading assessment,
and/or interventions as a result of Project PLUS.
Please circle one. SA = Strongly Agree
A = Agree
U = Undecided
D = Disagree
SD = Strongly Disagree
Comments:___________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
23. I will continue to use DIBELS for assessment in the future.
Please circle one. SA = Strongly Agree
A = Agree
U = Undecided
D = Disagree
SD = Strongly Disagree
Comments:___________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
24. I have seen growth in my at-risk students as a result of Project PLUS
interventions.
Please circle one. SA = Strongly Agree
A = Agree
U = Undecided
D = Disagree
SD = Strongly Disagree
271
Comments:___________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
25. Project PLUS has become a needed part of my reading program.
Please circle one. SA = Strongly Agree
A = Agree
U = Undecided
D = Disagree
SD = Strongly Disagree
Comments:___________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________
272
APPENDIX C:
PROJECT PLUS INTERVENTION OBSERVATION FORM
Project PLUS 2001-2002
Intervention Observation
School __________
Teacher Grade____ Date __________ Time ______________
For items 5-8 below, rate the extent to which you observed the following group
behaviors. Code Rating: 0 = none of the students, 1 = some of the students, 2 =
most of the students, 3 = all of the students.
1. Areas of student need according to the
student data sheet.
__ Phon Awareness __ Alphabetic Principle
__ Fluency __ ELD ___Other
5. The activities keep the students
focused on the skill being addressed.
0 1 2 3
Comments: Comments:
2. Who provided the intervention?
__Teacher __ Paraprofessional
__ Project PLUS staff __ RSP-1
6. Students are responding correctly.
0 1 2 3
Comments: Comments:
3. Areas of instruction:
__ Phon Awareness __ Alphabetic
Principle
__ Fluency __ ELD
__ Other
7. The pace and variety of activities
keep the students engaged.
0 1 2 3
Comments: Comments:
4. Materials Used
__ Open Court __ Project PLUS
__ Supplemental __ RSP-1
8. Duration
__ Ten minutes or less __ 20-30 minutes
__ 10-20 minutes __ 30-40 minutes
Comments: Comments:
273
Classroom Context
Observations are conducted during workshop time. We are looking for information
about intervention with at-risk students. In addition, we are looking at the context of
the classroom instruction.
1. Describe the content of the intervention.
2. Describe the classroom activities taking place (other than the intervention).
3. Describe what each adult is doing in the classroom.
4. Other
Debrief with the teacher:
APPENDIX D: DIBELS OUTCOMES FOR REGINA’S PUPILS
Last Name First Name LNF1 LNF2 LNF3 PSF1 PSF2 PSF3 NWF1 NWF2 NWF3 ORF2 ORF3
Avendano Justine 23 65 80 61 75 75 15 47 68 37 80
Benavides Jazmine 13 23 37 75 75 75 10 26 35 6 7
Conell Brian 63 70 74 20 50 62 65 72 71 46 71
Cuatt Christopher 25 37 46 8 54 50 13 38 43 10 11
Farrar Jeffery 54 77 96 37 75 75 47 57 78 9 53
Glover Christopher 34 57 63 55 75 72 40 72 93 46 82
Gomez Danielle 52 71 71 69 75 75 42 53 67 40 58
Gonzalez Marlene 38 52 54 57 75 76 28 35 38 15 26
Guaglianone Essance 46 60 68 75 75 75 4 36 57 8 12
Gunawardena Luminda 24 54 41 9 53 68 13 62 76 40 82
Gurrola Juanita 38 49 73 75 75 74 33 34 49 16 24
Jones Shamari 38 48 68 42 58 65 26 34 72 9 46
Lopez Brandon 64 75 61 63
Lukasiewicz Devon 85 98 91 75 70 75 41 102 138 56 113
McCoy Nia 60 95 101 24 75 74 45 58 88 83 100
Munoz Luis 40 66 69 68 68 75 46 144 137 91 118
Nunez Micael 36 55 79 50 75 75 23 53 78 18 56
Penate Alexander 48 75 72 26 75 75 23 58 96 83 98
Rude Billie 42 61 65 63 71 69 40 45 54 27 54
Williams Jr. Clifton 37 39 46 7 10 20 6 32 20 7 9
274
APPENDIX E: DIBELS OUTCOMES FOR BARBARA’S PUPILS
Last Name First Name LNF1 LNF2 LNF3 PSF1 PSF2 PSF3 NWF1 NWF2 NWF3 ORF2 ORF3
Aguirre Isabella 31 56 53 21 62 59 9 37 42 19 44
Boyd Breanna 74 75 37 56 31 52 10 48
Chavarria Emily 39 64 63 46 55 68 39 61 79 38 62
Chavez Henry 45 81 76 8 63 48 28 59 80 33 66
Freeman Hassanah 56 46 67 41 66 61 28 31 59 17 60
Harmon Mikayla 35 80 86 41 63 70 36 69 81 34 76
Macias Eric 53 61 67 59 61 68 18 32 41 15 59
Mendoza Kelly 67 71 77 53 58 61 56 54 129 59 114
Morgan Gabriel 55 66 83 31 63 60 58 72 118 43 77
Norman Briana 41 49 65 27 61 63 5 26 51 5 18
Phillips Anthannes 48 69 78 39 61 66 47 87 137 54 81
Ranitu Asenaca 13 41 51 7 54 66 20 26 27 5 12
Renfroe Tai 38 47 63 51 61 60 25 32 66 16 43
Rosales Shirly 36 66 62 41 63 68 44 80 86 62 79
Salley Trevor 72 79 73 49 72 71 65 91 104 53 104
Smith Derek 38 45 64 42 64 59 28 42 56 21 55
Stafford Michael 40 54 58 6 10 12 19 30 44 13 33
Valmonte Alejah 65 78 75 41 64 64 46 70 56 39 73
Wormley Shaun 43 60 65 52 58 61 28 58 66 43 63
275
APPENDIX F: DIBELS OUTCOMES FOR TANYA’S PUPILS
Last Name First Name LNF1 LNF2 LNF3 PSF1 PSF2 PSF3 NWF1 NWF2 NWF3 ORF2 ORF3
Bostick Marisa 78 72 32 52 25 85 38 89
Boucher Donald 41 61 55 54 51 56 73 52 87 79 88
Cano Amanda 42 58 64 8 7 7 25 32 38 9 12
Carter Jahad 37 42 19 38 11 33 5 7
Corona Ernesto 45 56 68 51 57 51 34 59 88 32 57
Diaz Gabriel 52 68 74 33 70 63 36 39 51 22 36
Gable Blayr 47 59 35 51 25 40 14 22
Gilchrist Tyrell 51 47 67 14 18 36 26 44 51 20 33
Gonzalez Rapheal 52 39 55 30 51 62 15 28 49 11 14
Hamilton Ashley 35 64 65 48 67 66 50 54 90 42 62
Harris Natalie 45 64 66 30 71 67 25 50 66 11 42
Hunt-Cooks David 62 12 27 10
Johnson Ciara 10 25 39 7 23 32 5 20 28 2 8
Kirkwood Jimeel 85 25 71 56
Orozco Michael 50 13 14 10
Patterson Ebonee 48 60 70 26 52 52 29 40 76 40 63
Perez Jr. Miguel 53 78 82 68 57 70 58 66 100 64 65
Robles Isabel 37 49 66 49 44 58 31 38 38 20 39
Tolliver Ryan 42 66 67 56 49 70 45 60 54 25 51
276
APPENDIX G: DIBELS OUTCOMES FOR IRMA’S PUPILS
Last Name First Name LNF1 LNF2 LNF3 PSF1 PSF2 PSF3 NWF1 NWF2 NWF3 ORF2 ORF3
Andrews Brooke 43 69 94 0 41 56 0 31 49 35 90
Baker III Ronald 27 49 60 23 31 75 2 46 87 12 31
Epps Jalen 19 52 60 15 56 75 28 61 87 34 78
Guaglianone Ebony 43 61 70 20 75 75 9 46 87 12 31
Jimenez Suzzeth 48 49 70 30 55 75 24 61 102 33 90
Joyce Terrell 43 48 80 55 74 75 25 37 87 8 39
Kinney Cheyanne 15 45 70 0 65 75 0 34 43 6 26
Matters Rachel 39 43 70 2 75 75 0 43 72 27 90
Mc Intyre Brian 65 41 70 38 37 75 34 34 72 15 63
McGehee Jamie 42 52 80 0 75 75 9 42 58 15 66
Paredes Kayla 41 57 56 0 31 75 0 43 43 18 38
Ponce Francisco 66 69 28 12
Ranitu Samisoni 32 48 70 14 61 75 20 45 43 13 25
Rodriguez Derek 52 70 80 0 41 75 59 72 102 69 116
Saddler Senniah 44 74 90 2 45 75 11 31 102 38 102
Sharp Anjay 48 57 61 30 56 75 16 51 72 18 61
Thomas Davian 41 52 50 19 47 75 13 33 43 19 22
Tucker Joelle 52 60 70 13 59 75 31 45 87 27 90
Ulloa Perez Kenny 42 47 0 10 13 0 33 26 23 0 0
Walker Charles 46 26 27 0
277
APPENDIX H: DIBELS OUTCOMES FOR SANDY’S PUPILS
Last Name First Name LNF1 LNF2 LNF3 PSF1 PSF2 PSF3 NWF1 NWF2 NWF3 ORF2 ORF3
Aguilar Fernando 26 43 43 14 44 55 11 38 38 7 29
Aguila Celeste 43 44 55 59 33 34 11 22
Arroyo Diego 19 57 57 24 46 61 31 52 57 16 59
Cabral Karina 25 30 40 20 37 59 18 21 38 4 6
Carranza Jacqueline 54 82 78 45 51 70 46 86 98 41 86
Chavez Sanchez Miguel 49 51 48 39 58 75 27 41 51 0 19
Diaz Janet 26 42 62 36 61 71 34 40 54 14 41
Frausto Daniel 32 49 50 39 56 69 28 39 61 18 44
Garcia Jr. Oscar 53 60 69 45 52 52 60 60 83 62 82
Guzman Miguel 34 38 43 40 64 61 23 46 46 0 15
Jimenez Medelli Gabriela 19 36 38 37 50 71 23 25 44 5 15
Juarez Graciela 20 60 55 44 50 68 37 45 67 12 20
Lobos Evelyn 7 33 56 0 62 73 0 43 62 8 22
Martinez Carlos 29 37 40 11 56 51 15 24 32 7 7
Ochoa-Santos Ivan 48 73 56 33 56 62 6 51 67 13 32
Oliveros Nesly 8 2 21 0
Rodriguez Jose 19 36 42 36 65 72 34 34 29 7 11
Ruiz Tiffany 59 59 75 59 44 28 11 24
Vega Xenia 33 45 55 36 58 65 17 38 39 13 22
278
APPENDIX I: DIBELS OUTCOMES FOR MARCIE’S PUPILS
279
Last Name First Name LNF1 LNF2 LNF3 PSF1 PSF2 PSF3 NWF1 NWF2 NWF3 ORF2 ORF3
Aceves Nataly 46 68 64 40 54 53 37 50 44 17 38
Bruno Randy 46 59 66 11 42 54 19 29 59 16 50
Carrillo Jr. Pablo 41 58 81 58 58 59 27 40 58 8 25
Collier Larry 61 68 73 47 71 58 20 37 30 21 37
Cortez Andrea 37 52 57 39 54 67 15 30 45 6 31
Fielder Jr. Robert 22 64 82 6 58 39 18 45 68 13 49
Fierro Raul 16 47 56 19 50 57 3 54 74 10 24
Gonzalez Peter 43 67 77 31 30 66 21 52 71 17 40
Lopez Garcia Shirley 33 59 78 47 52 57 30 57 67 11 34
Lowery Kent 56 68 80 53 62 65 36 58 80 46 74
Mackey Cabrea 53 77 90 12 53 45 4 54 141 38 80
Magdaleno Aime 27 50 65 0 52 47 14 40 51 21 50
Martinez Corte Gerardo 14 39 47 8 54 53 10 21 36 3 12
Montelongo Sandra 36 61 77 42 50 60 14 39 56 11 28
Nunez Jose 54 76 74 23 64 55 39 62 87 31 44
Pitones Cesar 42 51 58 21 43 52 11 17 31 6 13
Rutherford Jordan 55 57 60 27 49 40 19 42 43 10 24
Sinoryan Hakop 60 61 48 32 39 50 61 61 55 51 64
Takano Junki 43 75 73 37 75 56 28 62 53 61 37
Thomas Scotiana 58 72 83 20 60 59 23 31 43 46 71
280
APPENDIX J:
CODEBOOK FOR DIBELS STUDENT OUTCOMES
DIBELS CODEBOOK
FIRST GRADE BENCHMARK GOALS FOR DIBELS MEASURES
Student's last name
Student's first name
First grade time 1: Letter naming fluency raw score
First grade time 2: Letter naming fluency raw score
First grade time 3: Letter naming fluency raw score
First grade time 1: Phoneme segmentation fluency raw score
First grade time 2: Phoneme segmentation fluency raw score
First grade time 3: Phoneme segmentation fluency raw score
First grade time 1: Nonsense word fluency raw score
First grade time 2: Nonsense word fluency raw score
First grade time 3: Nonsense word fluency raw score
First grade time 2: Curriculum based measure/Oral reading fluency words read accurately per minute
First grade time 3: Curriculum based measure/Oral reading fluency words read accurately per minute
First Grade Benchmarks For LNF
At-Risk <14
letters/minute
Emerging >14
letters/minute
Benchmark >47
letters/minute
First Grade Benchmarks For PSF
At-Risk <10
correct/minute
Emerging 10-34
correct/minute
Benchmark 35-45
correct/minute
First Grade Benchmarks For NWF
At-Risk <20
correct/minute
Emerging 20-39
correct/minute
Benchmark 40
correct/minute
First Grade Benchmarks For ORF
At-Risk <10
words/minute
Emerging 10-39
words/minute
Benchmark 40
words/minute

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Teacher implementation of effective practices is identified in the literature as poor or lacking (e.g., Jenkins & Leicester, 1992

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Homework beliefs and practices of middle school teachers in relation to structure-based standards for the English language development content area

PDF

The successes and challenges of response to intervention: a case study of the impact of RTI implementation

PDF

An examination of response-to-intervention as a framework for school improvement: educators' perpectives regarding implementation

PDF

The effectiveness of the literacy for success intervention at Wilson Middle School

PDF

Teachers’ perceptions of strategies and skills affecting learning of gifted 7th graders in English classes

PDF

Internationalizing education: a study of the impact of implementing an international program on an urban elementary school

PDF

The implementation of online learning for ESL programs: factors and perspectives

PDF

The interaction of teacher knowledge and motivation with organizational influences on the implementation of a hybrid reading intervention model taught in elementary grades

PDF

The effects of a multi-linguistic diagnostic spelling intervention on the writing achievement and writing self-perception beliefs of secondary students: phonology, orthography, and morphology

PDF

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

PDF

The nature of a literacy-based tutoring program for at-risk youth: mentorship, professional development, and implementation

PDF

Narrowing the achievement gap: Factors that support English learner and Hispanic student academic achievement in an urban intermediate school

PDF

Beliefs and perceptions of DPRK teachers of English towards CLT instruction and factors that influence program implementation

PDF

Quality literacy instruction in juvenile court schools: an evaluation study

PDF

Media literacy education: a qualitative inquiry into the perspectives teachers hold about teaching media literacy

PDF

Bridging the empathy gap: a mixed-method approach to evaluating teacher support in bullying prevention and intervention at an urban middle school in India

PDF

Teacher perception on positive behavior interventions and supports’ (PBIS) cultivation for positive teacher-student relationships in high schools: an evaluation study

PDF

Increasing the number of minoritized teachers in the Apex public schools: an evaluation study

PDF

The intersection of teacher knowledge and motivation with organizational culture on implementing positive psychology interventions through a character education curriculum

PDF

A curriculum for faculty implementation of culturally relevant instruction in a community college classroom

Asset Metadata

Creator Reinoso-Lasley, Marta (author)

Core Title Inside out: teacher factors that assist in the facilitation of the implementation of early literacy interventions for at-risk first graders in an urban school

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Curriculum

Publication Date 11/29/2006

Defense Date 10/12/2006

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

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,reading instruction,reading methodology,teacher beliefs,teacher implementation behavior

Language English

Advisor Ragusa, Gisele (committee chair), Hirabayashi, Kimberly (committee member), Rueda, Robert S. (committee member)

Creator Email mreinoso20@hotmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-m197

Unique identifier UC1226313

Identifier etd-ReinosoLasley-20061129 (filename),usctheses-m40 (legacy collection record id),usctheses-c127-44560 (legacy record id),usctheses-m197 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-ReinosoLasley-20061129.pdf

Dmrecord 44560

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Reinoso-Lasley, Marta

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Repository Name Libraries, University of Southern California

Repository Location Los Angeles, California

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu