Learning About Teachers’ Literacy Instruction From Classroom Observations
dc.contributor.author | Kelcey, Ben | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Carlisle, Joanne F. | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2013-07-08T17:45:26Z | |
dc.date.available | 2014-09-02T14:12:52Z | en_US |
dc.date.issued | 2013-07 | en_US |
dc.identifier.citation | Kelcey, Ben; Carlisle, Joanne F. (2013). "Learning About Teachers’ Literacy Instruction From Classroom Observations." Reading Research Quarterly (3): 301-317. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/98775> | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 0034-0553 | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 1936-2722 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/98775 | |
dc.description.abstract | The purpose of this study is to contribute to efforts to improve methods for gathering and analyzing data from classroom observations in early literacy. The methodological approach addresses current problems of reliability and validity of classroom observations by taking into account differences in teachers’ uses of instructional actions (e.g., modeling) in specific skill areas (e.g., fluency, reading comprehension). The findings from observations of second‐ and third‐grade teachers’ literacy instruction showed that teachers’ instructional actions differed by literacy skill area and were more consistent within than across skill areas. Furthermore, teachers’ uses of instructional actions in a given skill area were more strongly associated with students’ gains in achievement in that skill area than were teachers’ uses of actions across all skill areas. The approach offers significant improvements in methods to identify features of effective literacy instruction. 本研究旨在改善早期读写教学课堂观察研究的资料蒐集方法和分析方法。这方法学研究针对当前有关课堂观察的可靠性和有效性问题,并考虑到教师在一些特定技能领域(例如,流畅度、阅读理解)方面所采取不同教学行动(例如,示范)上的差异。从二和三年级教师的读写教学课堂观察所得的研究结果显示,教师在教授不同读写技能时,其教学行动是有所差异的,而他们的教学行动,在各读写技能领域内的一致性却比跨读写技能领域的一致性较高。此外,教师在某一读写技能领域内所采用的教学行动,与学生在该技能上所取得的进步成绩有较强的关联,而在跨技能领域所采用的教学行动,与学生在这些技能上所取得的进步成绩的关联则较弱。这研究方法能识别出有效读写教学的特点,显著地改进了这方面研究的资料蒐集方法和分析方法。 El propósito de este estudio es contribuir a los esfuerzos de mejorar los métodos de recoger y analizar información de las observaciones de clases de alfabetización temprana. El acercamiento metodológico aborda los problemas recientes de confiabilidad y validez de las observaciones de clases tomando en cuenta las diferencias entre las acciones de adiestramiento (por ejemplo, modelar) que los maestros usan en áreas específicas de destrezas (por ejemplo, fluidez, comprensión de lectura). Los hallazgos de las observaciones de la instrucción de alfabetización de maestros de segundo y tercer grado mostraron que las acciones de adiestramiento de los maestros eran diferentes dependiendo del área de destreza y eran más constantes dentro de áreas de destreza que a través de ellas. Además, el uso de acciones de adiestramiento de los maestros en cualquier destreza específica se asociaba más con el mejoramiento de los estudiantes en dicha destreza que en sus acciones de adiestramiento a través de todas las áreas. Este acercamiento ofrece mejoras considerables en los métodos para identificar elementos de la instrucción efectiva. تهدف هذه الدراسة إلى مساهمة الجهود الرامية إلى تحسين طرق جمع المعطيات وتحليلها المأخوذة من ملاحظات غرفة الصف في التعلم المبكر. ويعالج هذا المدخل المنهاجي المشاكل الجارية بصدد ثبات ملاحظات غرفة الصف وصدقها من خلال مراعاة الاختلافات في أنشطة المعلمين التعليمية (مثل تقليد السلوك) في مجالات معينة (مثل مرونة القراءة والاستيعاب). وقد بينت نتائج الملاحظات من تعليم معرفة القراءة والكتابة لدى معلمي الصفين الثاني والثالث أن أنشطة المعلمين التعليمية اختلفت حسب مجال مهارة التعلم وكانت أكثر تطابقاً ضمن مجالات المهارات من عبرها. وبالإضافة إلى ذلك، حظت استخدامات الأنشطة التعليمية لدى المعلمين في مجال مهارة معين بأكثر ترابطاً مع تقدمات الطلاب في الإنجاز في مجال المهارة هذا من استخدامات الأنشطة لدى المعلمين عبر كل مجالات المهارة. توفر هذه الطريقة تحسنات ملحوظة فيما يتعلق بالطرق لتعيين معالم تعليم معرفة القراءة والكتابة الفعالة. Цeль иccлeдoвaния – дoпoлнить и coвepшeнcтвoвaть cyщecтвyющиe мeтoды cбopa и aнaлизa дaнныx o cтaнoвлeнии гpaмoтнocти. Для peшeния пpoблeм вaлиднocти и нaдeжнocти дaнныx, пoлyчaeмыx в пpoцecce нaблюдeний нa ypoкax, пpeдлaгaeтcя мeтoд, yчитывaющий paзличия в yчeбныx дeйcтвияx yчитeлeй (нaпpимep, мoдeлиpoвaния) пpи paзвитии oпpeдeлeнныx нaвыкoв (нaпpимep, бeглocти чтeния или пoнимaния пpoчитaннoгo). Peзyльтaты нaблюдeний зa yчитeлями втopыx и тpeтьиx клaccoв пoкaзaли, чтo для paзвития paзныx нaвыкoв yчитeля иcпoльзyют caмыe paзныe yчeбныe дeйcтвия, oднaкo, paзвивaя oдин и тoт жe нaвык, oни дeйcтвyют cxoдным oбpaзoм. Кpoмe тoгo, дeйcтвия yчитeлeй, cвязaнныe в coзнaнии yчeникoв c oпpeдeлeнным нaвыкoм, бoлee знaчимы, чeм дeйcтвия, кoтopыe oни пpимeняют пpи cтaнoвлeнии цeлoгo pядa paзличныx нaвыкoв. Дaнный пoдxoд cyщecтвeннo coвepшeнcтвyeт мeтoды для oпpeдeлeния нaибoлee эффeктивнoгo oбyчeния гpaмoтнocти. Cette étude a pour but de contribuer aux efforts réalisés pour améliorer le recueil et l'analyse des données provenant des observations relatives à l'entrée dans l’écrit. L'approche méthodologique présentée concerne les problèmes courants de fidélité et de validité des observations faites en classe, en prenant en compte les différences d'utilisation par le maître de ses interventions pédagogiques (par exemple, recourir à un modèle) dans des domaines de compétence bien définis (par exemple, la lecture courante, la compréhension de la lecture). Il est apparu, dans des observations de la littératie en 2 e et 3 e année, que les interventions pédagogiques des enseignants ne sont pas les mêmes selon la compétence en littératie considérée et qu'elles sont plus constantes pour un domaine donné que d'un domaine à l'autre. De plus, les interventions pédagogiques des enseignants dans un domaine de compétence donné sont liées plus fortement aux progrès des élèves dans ce domaine de compétence qu'aux interventions pédagogiques des maîtres dans l'ensemble des domaines de compétence. Cette approche propose des améliorations significatives dans les méthodes visant à identifier les caractéristiques d'un enseignement efficace de la littératie. | en_US |
dc.publisher | Wiley Periodicals, Inc. | en_US |
dc.publisher | University of Chicago Press | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Comprehension | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Decoding | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Research Methodology | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Strategies, Methods, and Materials | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Instructional Strategies, Teaching Strategies | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Vocabulary | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Writing | en_US |
dc.subject.other | To Learners in Which of the Following Categories Does Your Work Apply? | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Childhood | en_US |
dc.title | Learning About Teachers’ Literacy Instruction From Classroom Observations | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.rights.robots | IndexNoFollow | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevel | Education | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbtoplevel | Social Sciences | en_US |
dc.description.peerreviewed | Peer Reviewed | en_US |
dc.description.bitstreamurl | http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/98775/1/rrq51.pdf | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1002/rrq.51 | en_US |
dc.identifier.source | Reading Research Quarterly | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Roehler, L.R., & Duffy, G.G. ( 1991 ). Teachers’ instructional actions. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 861 – 910 ). New York: Longman. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Webb, N.M., Shavelson, R.J., & Haertel, E.H. ( 2006 ). 4 reliability coefficients and generalizability theory. In C.R. Rao (Vol. Ed.) & S. Sinharay (Vol. & Gen. Ed.), Handbook of statistics: Psychometrics (Vol. 26, pp. 81 – 124 ). Amsterdam: North‐Holland. doi: 10.1016/S0169‐7161(06)26004‐8 | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Foorman, B.R., & Torgesen, J. ( 2001 ). Critical elements of classroom and small‐group instruction promote reading success in all children. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16 ( 4 ), 203 – 212. doi: 10.1111/0938‐8982.00020. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Fox, J.P. ( 2010 ). Bayesian item response modeling: Theory and applications. New York: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978‐1‐4419‐0742‐4. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Good, T.L., & Mulryan, C. ( 1990 ). Teacher ratings: A call for teacher control and self‐evaluation. In J. Millman, & L. Darling‐Hammond (Eds.), The new handbook of teacher evaluation: Assessing elementary and secondary school teachers (pp. 191 – 215 ). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Guthrie, J.T. ( 2004 ). Teaching for literacy engagement. Journal of Literacy Research, 36 ( 1 ), 1 – 30. doi: 10.1207/s15548430jlr3601_2. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Guthrie, J.T., Wigfield, A., Humenick, N.M., Perencevich, K.C., Taboada, A., & Barbosa, P. ( 2006 ). Influences of stimulating tasks on reading motivation and comprehension. The Journal of Educational Research, 99 ( 4 ), 232 – 246. doi: 10.3200/JOER.99.4.232‐246. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Hambleton, R.K., & Swaminathan, H. ( 1985 ). Item response theory: Principles and applications. Boston: Kluwer‐Nijhoff. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Hill, H.C., Charalambous, C., & Kraft, M.A. ( 2012 ). When rater reliability is not enough: Teacher observation systems and a case for the generalizability study. Educational Researcher, 41 ( 2 ), 56 – 64. doi: 10.3102/0013189X12437203. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Hoffman, J.V. ( 1991 ). Teacher and school effects in learning to read. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 911 – 950 ). New York: Longman. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Hoffman, J.V., Maloch, B., & Sailors, M. ( 2011 ). Researching the teaching of reading through direct observation. In M.L. Kamil, P.D. Pearson, E.B. Moje, & P.P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp. 3 – 33 ). New York: Routledge. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Hoffman, J.V., Sailors, M., Duffy, G.R., & Beretvas, S.N. ( 2004 ). The effective elementary classroom literacy environment: Examining the validity of the TEX‐IN3 observation system. Journal of Literacy Research, 36 ( 3 ), 303 – 334. doi: 10.1207/s15548430jlr3603_3. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Hoover, H.D., Dunbar, S.B., Frisbee, D.A., Oberly, K.R., Ordman, V.L., Naylor, R.J., et al. ( 2003 ). Iowa Test of Basic Skills: Guide to research and development. Ithaca, IL: Riverside. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Klein, S.P., & Stecher, B.M. ( 1998 ). Analytic versus holistic scoring of science performance tasks. Applied Measurement in Education, 11 ( 2 ), 121 – 137. doi: 10.1207/s15324818ame1102_1. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Messick, S. ( 1989 ). Validity. In R.L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement ( 3rd ed., pp. 13 – 104 ). New York: Macmillan. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | MET Project. ( 2012 ). Gathering feedback for teaching: Combining high‐quality observations with student surveys and achievement gains. Seattle, WA: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Retrieved April 26, 2013, from www.metproject.org/downloads/MET_Gathering_Feedback_Research_Paper.pdf | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | MET Project. ( 2013 ). Ensuring fair and reliable measures of effective teaching: Culminating findings from the MET project's three‐year study. Seattle, WA: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Retrieved April 26, 2013, from www.metproject.org/downloads/MET_Ensuring_Fair_and_Reliable_Measures_Practitioner_Brief.pdf | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | 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, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Pianta, R.C., & Hamre, B.K. ( 2009 ). Conceptualization, measurement, and improvement of classroom processes: Standardized observation can leverage capacity. Educational Researcher, 38 ( 2 ), 109 – 119. doi: 10.3102/0013189X09332374. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Pianta, R.C., La Paro, K.M., & Hamre, B.K. ( 2008 ). Classroom Assessment Scoring System manual, pre‐K. Baltimore: Brookes. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Piasta, S.B., Connor, C.M., Fishman, B.J., & Morrison, F.J. ( 2009 ). Teachers’ knowledge of literacy concepts, classroom practices, and student reading growth. Scientific Studies of Reading, 13 ( 3 ), 224 – 248. doi: 10.1080/10888430902851364. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Porter, A.C., & Brophy, J. ( 1988 ). Synthesis of research on good teaching: Insights from the work of the Institute for Research on Teaching. Educational Leadership, 45 ( 8 ), 74 – 85. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Pressley, M., Wharton‐McDonald, R., Raphael, L.M., Bogner, K., & Roehrig, A. ( 2002 ). Exemplary first‐grade teaching. In B.M. Taylor, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Teaching reading: Effective schools, accomplished teachers (pp. 73 – 88 ). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Rasinski, T.V., Reutzel, D.R., Chard, D., & Linan‐Thompson, S. ( 2011 ). Reading fluency. In M.L. Kamil, P.D. Pearson, E.B. Moje, & P.P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp. 286 – 319 ). New York: Routledge. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Rasinski, T., Homan, S., & Biggs, M. ( 2009 ). Teaching reading fluency to struggling readers: Method, materials, and evidence. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 25 ( 2/3 ), 192 – 204. doi: 10.1080/10573560802683622. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Raudenbush, S.W., & Bryk, A.S. ( 2002 ). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods ( 2nd ed. ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Barr, R., Dreeben, R., & (with Wiratchai, N. ). ( 1983 ). How schools work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Bartholomew, D.J., & Knott, M. ( 1999 ). Latent variable models and factor analysis ( 2nd ed. ). London: Arnold. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Brady, S.A. ( 2011 ). Efficacy of phonics teaching for reading outcomes: Indications from post‐NRP research. In S.A. Brady, D. Braze, & C.A. Fowler (Eds.), Explaining individual differences in reading: Theory and evidence (pp. 69 – 96 ). New York: Psychology. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Brophy, J., & Good, T.L. ( 1986 ). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In M.C. Whittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching ( 3rd ed., pp. 328 – 375 ). New York: Simon & Schuster. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Cameron, C.E., Connor, C.M., & Morrison, F.J. ( 2005 ). Effects of variation in teacher organization on classroom functioning. Journal of School Psychology, 43 ( 1 ), 61 – 85. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2004.12.002. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Cameron, C.E., & Morrison, F.J. ( 2011 ). Teacher activity orienting predicts preschoolers’ academic and self‐regulatory skills. Early Education and Development, 22 ( 4 ), 620 – 648. doi: 10.1080/10409280903544405. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Carlisle, J.F., Kelcey, B., Berebitsky, D., & Phelps, G. ( 2011 ). Embracing the complexity of reading instruction: A study of the effects of teachers’ instruction on students’ reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15 ( 5 ), 409 – 439. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2010.497521. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Connor, C.M., Morrison, F.J., Fishman, B.J., Ponitz, C.C., Glasney, S., Underwood, P.S., et al. ( 2009 ). The ISI classroom observation system: Examining the literacy instruction provided to individual students. Educational Researcher, 38 ( 2 ), 85 – 99. doi: 10.3102/0013189X09332373. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Connor, C.M., Morrison, F.J., & Petrella, J.N. ( 2004 ). Effective reading comprehension instruction: Examining child × instruction interactions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96 ( 4 ), 682 – 698. doi: 10.1037/0022‐0663.96.4.682. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Correnti, R., & Rowan, B. ( 2007 ). Opening up the black box: Literacy instruction in schools participating in three comprehensive school reform programs. American Educational Research Journal, 44 ( 2 ), 298 – 339. doi: 10.3102/0002831207302501. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Douglas, K. ( 2009 ). Sharpening our focus in measuring classroom instruction. Educational Researcher, 38 ( 7 ), 518 – 521. doi: 10.3102/0013189X09350881. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Duffy, G.G., Roehler, L.R., & Rackliffe, G. ( 1986 ). How teachers’ instructional talk influences students’ understanding of lesson content. The Elementary School Journal, 87 ( 1 ), 3 – 16. doi: 10.1086/461476. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Foorman, B.R., & Connor, C.M. ( 2011 ). Primary grade reading. In M.L. Kamil, P.D. Pearson, E.B. Moje, & P.P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp. 136 – 156 ). New York: Routledge. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Foorman, B.R., Schatschneider, C., Eakin, M.N., Fletcher, J.M., Moats, L.C., & Francis, D.J. ( 2006 ). The impact of instructional practices in grades 1 and 2 on reading and spelling achievement in high poverty schools. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31 ( 1 ), 1 – 29. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.11.003. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Rosenshine, B. ( 1995 ). Advances in research on instruction. The Journal of Educational Research, 88 ( 5 ), 262 – 268. doi: 10.1080/00220671.1995.9941309. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. ( 1984 ). Classroom instruction in reading. In P.D. Pearson, R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 745 – 798 ). New York: Longman. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Seidel, T., & Shavelson, R.J. ( 2007 ). Teaching effectiveness research in the past decade: The role of theory and research design in disentangling meta‐analysis results. Review of Educational Research, 77 ( 4 ), 454 – 499. doi: 10.3102/0034654307310317. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Shanahan, T., Callison, K., Carriere, C., Duke, N.K., Pearson, P.D., Schatschneider, C., et al. ( 2010 ). Improving reading comprehension in kindergarten through 3rd grade: A practice guide (NCEE 2010–4038). Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Shavelson, R.J., Webb, N.M., & Burstein, L. ( 1986 ). Measurement of teaching. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching 3rd ed. (pp. 50 – 91 ). New York: Simon & Schuster. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Shulman, L.S. ( 1987 ). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57 ( 1 ), 1 – 23. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Snow, C.E. ( 2002 ). Reading for understanding: Toward an R&D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Snow, C.E., Burns, M.S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.) ( 1998 ). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Stodolsky, S.S. ( 1990 ). Classroom observation. In J. Millman, & L. Darling‐Hammond (Eds.), The new handbook of teacher evaluation: Assessing elementary and secondary school teachers (pp. 175 – 190 ). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Taylor, B.M., Pearson, P.D., Peterson, D.S., & Rodriguez, M.C. ( 2003 ). Reading growth in high‐poverty classrooms: The influence of teacher practices that encourage cognitive engagement in literacy learning. The Elementary School Journal, 104 ( 1 ), 3 – 28. doi: 10.1086/499740. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Taylor, B.M., Pearson, P.D., Peterson, D.S., & Rodriguez, M.C. ( 2005 ). The CIERA school change framework: An evidence‐based approach to professional development and school reading improvement. Reading Research Quarterly, 40 ( 1 ), 40 – 69. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.40.1.3. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | U.S. Department of Education. ( 2002 ). Guidance for the Reading First program. Washington, DC: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved April 26, 2013, from www2.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/guidance.pdf | en_US |
dc.owningcollname | Interdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed |
Files in this item
Remediation of Harmful Language
The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.
Accessibility
If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.