UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The classroom impact of Reading Recovery training : examining restated Reading Recovery-based teacher… Stouffer, Joseph 2015

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2015_september_stouffer_joseph.pdf [ 8.82MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0166302.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0166302-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0166302-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0166302-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0166302-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0166302-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0166302-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0166302-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0166302.ris

Full Text

 THE CLASSROOM IMPACT OF READING RECOVERY TRAINING: EXAMINING RESITUTATED READING RECOVERY-BASED TEACHER LEARNING  by Joseph Stouffer  M.Ed., Brandon University, 2006  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF  Doctor of Philosophy in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Language and Literacy Education)  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver)  June 2015  © Joseph Stouffer, 2015  ii Abstract  Responding to calls for more effective teacher preparation for teaching early literacy, this descriptive study examines if and how teacher learning from Reading Recovery training can be applied within whole-class contexts. Reading Recovery is an early literacy intervention developed by Marie Clay and is implemented internationally to assist Grade One children having difficulty developing early literacy skills. Teachers are trained to deliver one-to-one instruction by attending professional development sessions over one school year in an apprentice-style of learning. Using an online survey instrument, 53 Canadian Kindergarten, Grade One, or Grade Two teachers who had completed Reading Recovery professional development in the three years prior to the study were asked to describe if and how Reading Recovery training had influenced their instructional procedures, language, knowledge or beliefs when teaching English Language Arts in their classrooms.  Additionally, three Manitoba survey respondents volunteered as case study participants and were observed weekly over a three-month period in their classrooms.  The survey and case study findings show participants appropriated many procedures and language from Reading Recovery during different reading and writing activities. More significantly, they described being more capable of formatively assessing students and how their knowledge and beliefs about literacy instruction had shifted, or developed, in ways that reflected those of Reading Recovery. The case study observations revealed that rather than simply transferring knowledge gained from the Reading Recovery training, teachers took this knowledge and applied it in individual ways in their classrooms, essentially resituating their learning into what is termed their personal theory of literacy instruction.  iii The participants depict Reading Recovery’s model of professional development being particularly potent to their learning. They described how Reading Recovery training increased their confidence and effectiveness in literacy instruction, a finding that could add to discussions of both in- and pre-service teacher professional development.  iv Preface  This dissertation is an original intellectual product of the author, J. Stouffer. This research was covered by UBC Ethics Certificate number H12-0078.  v Table of Contents  Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... ii Preface ........................................................................................................................................... iv Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................... v List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. xiii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ xvii List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................... xviii Glossary ...................................................................................................................................... xix Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................... xxi Dedication ................................................................................................................................. xxiii Chapter  1: Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1 Reading Recovery: Program, Research, Teacher Training ..................................................... 4 The Reading Recovery intervention. .................................................................................. 5 Research on Reading Recovery. ......................................................................................... 6 Reading Recovery’s model of teacher training. .................................................................. 8 Locating the Researcher ........................................................................................................ 10 Qualities of Reading Recovery Model that Render It Promising as Research Venue .......... 12 Further Suggestions of Reading Recovery’s Potential Transferability to Classroom Settings ............................................................................................................................................... 16 Operationalizing Teacher Learning ...................................................................................... 19 vi Research Questions ............................................................................................................... 20 Chapter  2: Theoretical Frame .................................................................................................. 22 Andragogy: Adult Learning .................................................................................................. 22 A Sociocultural Perspective of Learning .............................................................................. 24 Situated Learning .................................................................................................................. 25 Viewing Reading Recovery through the lens of situated learning. .................................. 30 Transfer of Learning ............................................................................................................. 34 Chapter  3: Reading Recovery: Clay’s Theory and Curriculum for Teachers-in-Training 40 A Knowledge Base for Reading Recovery Teachers: Clay’s Theory of Literacy Processing ............................................................................................................................................... 40 The power of individual instruction. ................................................................................. 43 Acceleration of children’s learning. .................................................................................. 45 Reciprocal gains of reading and writing. .......................................................................... 45 Independence. ................................................................................................................... 47 Building the foundation for a self-extending system. ....................................................... 48 The Reading Recovery Curriculum for Teacher Training: Procedures, Language, and Beliefs ................................................................................................................................... 49 Teaching procedures. ........................................................................................................ 49 Observation techniques. ................................................................................................ 49 General teaching procedures. ........................................................................................ 50 Critical evaluation of teaching. ..................................................................................... 53 Program implementation. .............................................................................................. 55 Suggested language. .......................................................................................................... 55 vii Beliefs. .............................................................................................................................. 57 Zealotry within the Reading Recovery community. ..................................................... 57 Signposts of Reading Recovery learning. ......................................................................... 59 Chapter  4: Review of Relevant Research ................................................................................ 62 Research on the Characteristics of Exemplary Primary Literacy Teachers .......................... 62 Research-reported procedures of EPLTs. ......................................................................... 66 The knowledge of EPLTs. ................................................................................................ 71 The beliefs of EPLTs. ....................................................................................................... 73 Research on the Pre-Service Training of Primary Literacy Teachers ................................... 76 Historical perspective of pre-service literacy teacher education: Training versus teaching future teachers. .................................................................................................................. 76 Reading paradigms’ influence of teacher education. ........................................................ 81 Suggested approaches towards the redesign of teacher education. ................................... 87 Divesting from traditional models of teacher education. .............................................. 87 Testing new teachers. .................................................................................................... 89 Investing in teacher education. ..................................................................................... 90 Research on the Effectiveness of Reading Recovery ........................................................... 93 Research that argues Reading Recovery’s positive effects to children. ........................... 94 Two reviews of Reading Recovery research. ............................................................... 97 Critiques of Reading Recovery research. .......................................................................... 98 Research on Reading Recovery Training Effects to Reading Recovery Teachers ............. 103 Research on the Effects of Reading Recovery Training to Classroom Teachers ............... 110 Chapter  5: Methodology .......................................................................................................... 114 viii Design: Qualitative Descriptive Study ................................................................................ 114 Surveys. ........................................................................................................................... 117 Descriptive case studies. ................................................................................................. 119 Compatibility of survey and case study methods. .......................................................... 120 Survey ................................................................................................................................. 122 Survey instrument. .......................................................................................................... 122 Participants. ..................................................................................................................... 125 Reciprocity. ..................................................................................................................... 131 Data collection. ............................................................................................................... 132 Data management ............................................................................................................ 132 Analysis. .......................................................................................................................... 133 Reliability and validity. ................................................................................................... 135 Case Studies ........................................................................................................................ 137 Case study instruments. .................................................................................................. 137 Sites/participants. ............................................................................................................ 138 Case study participants: Bev. ...................................................................................... 141 Case study participants: Nancy. .................................................................................. 143 Case study participants: Susan. ................................................................................... 145 Data collection. ............................................................................................................... 147 Reciprocity. ..................................................................................................................... 149 Data management. ........................................................................................................... 149 Analysis. .......................................................................................................................... 150 Cross-case analysis. .................................................................................................... 152 ix Reliability and validity. ................................................................................................... 153 Cross-method analysis. ................................................................................................... 155 Safeguards Against Researcher Bias .................................................................................. 156 Chapter  6: Results: Survey ..................................................................................................... 159 Responses to Likert-Scale Questions .................................................................................. 159 Participants’ rating of the classroom utility of Reading Recovery training. ................... 159 Responses to Open-Ended Questions ................................................................................. 162 Classroom activities reported to be influenced by Reading Recovery. .......................... 163 Reading Recovery application within various classroom groupings. ............................. 163 Reading Recovery’s reported influences to reading versus writing instruction. ............ 166 Reading Recovery-influenced dimensions of teachers’ learning. ................................... 167 Commonly reported influences to participants’ procedures. ...................................... 168 Commonly reported influences to participants’ language. ......................................... 171 Commonly reported influences to participants’ knowledge. ...................................... 172 Commonly reported influences to participants’ beliefs. ............................................. 175 Participants’ valuing of Reading Recovery’s model of professional development. ....... 176 Reported influences to participants’ classroom literacy instruction apart from Reading Recovery. ........................................................................................................................ 179 Chapter  7: Results: Bev’s Case Study: “I am much more confident in my ability to help all students learn to read.” ........................................................................................................ 181 A Morning in Bev’s Classroom .......................................................................................... 182 Bev’s Transferal of Reading Recovery Procedures and Language .................................... 189 Congruence of Bev’s survey responses and classroom observations. ............................ 197 x Reading Recovery’s Influence to Bev’s Knowledge and Beliefs ....................................... 198 Bev’s Integration of Reading Recovery Learning into her Classroom Literacy Instruction ............................................................................................................................................. 200 Chapter  8: Results: Nancy’s Case Study: “What can this child do and how can I help him move on to the next part? I think that’s a crucial thing in everything that we do with our kids.” ...................................................................................................................................... 203 A Morning in Nancy’s Classroom ...................................................................................... 203 Nancy’s Transferal of Reading Recovery Procedure and Language .................................. 212 Congruence of Nancy’s survey responses and classroom observations. ........................ 220 Reading Recovery’s Influence to Nancy’s Knowledge and Beliefs ................................... 221 Nancy’s Integration of Reading Recovery Learning into Her Classroom Literacy Instruction ............................................................................................................................................. 228 Chapter  9: Susan’s Case Study: “You’re constantly observing and you’re constantly processing what you see and then making the next steps and doing it immediately.” ... 231 A Morning in Susan’s Classroom ....................................................................................... 231 Susan’s Transferal of Reading Recovery Procedures and Language ................................. 241 Congruence of Susan’s survey responses and classroom observations. ......................... 248 Reading Recovery’s Influence to Susan’s Knowledge and Beliefs .................................... 249 Susan’s Integration of Reading Recovery Learning into Her Classroom Literacy Instruction ............................................................................................................................................. 259 Chapter  10: Results: Cross-Case Analysis ............................................................................ 263 Recurring Reading Recovery Procedures ........................................................................... 263 Recurring Reading Recovery Language ............................................................................. 265 xi Recurring prompts in guided reading. ............................................................................ 266 Recurring Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words prompts. ....................................... 267 Recurring themes among adoption of Reading Recovery language. .............................. 267 Overlying Reading Recovery Knowledge .......................................................................... 268 Increased understanding of children’s literacy development. ......................................... 269 Increased understanding of formative assessment. ......................................................... 270 Overlying Reading Recovery Beliefs ................................................................................. 270 Perception of increased effectiveness as a classroom teacher. ....................................... 271 Increased urgency in teaching. ........................................................................................ 271 Openness to ongoing learning. ........................................................................................ 272 Common Influence to Case Study Teachers’ Classroom Literacy Instruction ................... 273 Situating Reading Recovery learning into the classroom context. ................................. 273 Chapter  11: Results: Cross-Method Analysis ....................................................................... 275 Survey- and Case Study-Shared Reading Recovery Procedures ........................................ 275 Survey- and Case Study-Shared Reading Recovery Language .......................................... 277 Survey- and Case Study-Shared Reading Recovery Knowledge ....................................... 278 Survey- and Case Study-Shared Reading Recovery Beliefs ............................................... 280 Generalizabilty, Explorability, and Representability of Cross-Method Results ................. 281 The Resituation of Reading Recovery Learning ................................................................. 282 Comparing Cross-Method Results to Research-Based Characteristics of EPLTs .............. 287 Cross-method- and EPLT-common procedures. ............................................................. 288 Cross-method- and EPLT-common knowledge. ............................................................. 289 Cross-method- and EPLT-common beliefs. ................................................................... 289 xii Chapter  12: Discussion ............................................................................................................ 291 Implications of Findings to Theory ..................................................................................... 291 Personal theory of literacy instruction. ........................................................................... 292 Implications of Findings to Classroom Literacy Instruction .............................................. 295 Implications of Findings to Teacher Education .................................................................. 298 The exemplary aspects of Reading Recovery professional development. ...................... 299 Current examples of Reading Recovery-like teacher preparation. ................................. 306 Implications of Findings to Future Research ...................................................................... 307 References .................................................................................................................................. 309 Appendices ................................................................................................................................. 336 Appendix A Survey Instrument .................................................................................................. 336 Appendix B Interview Protocols ................................................................................................. 343 Stage 1: Focused Life History ............................................................................................. 343 Stage 2: Details of the Experience ....................................................................................... 343 Stage 3: Reflection of Meaning ........................................................................................... 344 Appendix C Coding Manual ....................................................................................................... 345 Appendix D Supplemental Tables .............................................................................................. 353 Appendix E Supplemental Figures ............................................................................................. 395 Appendix F Maps of Case Study Teachers’ Classrooms ............................................................ 398  xiii List of Tables  Table 1.1 Reading Recovery Training: Staff Development Quality as Defined by Fogarty & Pete (2009) ............................................................................................................................................ 14	  Table 2.1 Schunk’s (2004) Types of Learning Transfer ............................................................... 35	  Table 3.1 Explicit and Suggestion Supported Reading Recovery Teaching Procedures ............. 52	  Table 3.2 Reading Recovery Principles with Corresponding Prompts in Literacy Lessons Part II (Clay, 2005b) ................................................................................................................................ 56	  Table 3.3 Reading Recovery Training Intended Learning Outcomes for Teachers ..................... 59	  Table 3.4 Observable Procedures that May Be Based in Reading Recovery Training ................ 60	  Table 3.5 Observable Language that May Be Based in Reading Recovery Training .................. 61	  Table 4.1 Required Reading Instruction Course Work in Canadian Universities, 2005 ............. 85	  Table 4.2 Scientific Studies of Reading Recovery Accepted by What Works Clearinghouse Review ........................................................................................................................................... 95	  Table 4.3 Outcomes for Canadian Reading Recovery Students 2012-2013 ............................... 101	  Table 5.1 Overview of Research Questions, Methods, and Participants .................................... 117	  Table 5.2 Gable’s (1994) Relative Strengths and Weaknesses of Survey and Case Study Research Methods ....................................................................................................................................... 121	  Table 5.3 Summary of Invited, Participating, and Active Reading Recovery Teachers by Province/Territory ...................................................................................................................... 127	  Table 5.4 Grades Taught by the Survey Participants ................................................................. 129	  Table 5.5 Participants’ Years of Experience Teaching Their Current Grade ............................ 130	  Table 5.6 Participants’ Total Years Teaching Experience ......................................................... 130	  xiv Table 5.7 Participants’ Years Teaching Primary Grade(s) Prior to Training in Reading Recovery ...................................................................................................................................... 131	  Table 5.8 School Year That Participating Teachers Trained in Reading Recovery ................... 131	  Table 5.9 Example of Different Occurrences of a Reading Recovery Concept/Principle Coded in Different Domains of Transfer .................................................................................................... 134	  Table 5.10 Summary of Survey Cooperation by Province and Total ......................................... 136	  Table 6.1 Types of Reported Classroom Activities (Frequency of Response) ............................ 164	  Table 6.2 Varying Group Size in Classroom Reading Recovery Transfer ................................. 164	  Table 6.3 Modalities of Reading Recovery-Influenced Literacy Instruction Reported in Survey Responses .................................................................................................................................... 166	  Table 6.4 Commonly Reported Reading Recovery-Influenced Procedures ................................ 168	  Table 6.5 Commonly Reported Reading Recovery Language Used in Classrooms ................... 171	  Table 6.6 Commonly Reported Reading Recovery Influences to Teachers’ Knowledge ............ 173	  Table 6.7 Commonly Reported Reading Recovery Influences to Teachers’ Beliefs ................... 175	  Table 7.1 Bev’s Interview Comments Regarding Reading Recovery Training’s Influence to Language ..................................................................................................................................... 195	  Table 8.1 Nancy’s Interview Comments Regarding Reading Recovery Training’s Influence to Language ..................................................................................................................................... 220	  Table 9.1 Susan’s Interview Comments Regarding Reading Recovery Training’s Influence to Language ..................................................................................................................................... 248	  Table 10.1 Common Cross-Case Knowledge Themes ................................................................ 269	  Table 10.2 Common Cross-Case Belief Themes ......................................................................... 270	  Table 11.1 Reading Recovery-Influenced Procedures in Survey and Case Study Findings ...... 276	  xv Table 11.2 Reading Recovery-Influenced Language in Survey and Case Study Findings ......... 277	  Table 11.3 Reading Recovery-Influenced Knowledge in Survey and Case Study Findings ....... 278	  Table 11.4 Reading Recovery-Influenced Beliefs in Survey and Case Study Findings .............. 280	  Table D.1 Reviewed Studies of Exemplary Primary Literacy Teachers ..................................... 353	  Table D.2 Summary of Demographic Information for Survey Participants ............................... 356	  Table D.3 Likert-scale Questions Responses Cross-Referenced with Province, Region, Training Year, and Grades Taught by Participants .................................................................................. 358	  Table D.4 Reading Recovery Concept/Principle Occurrences in Domains of Reading Recovery Transfer from Surveys ................................................................................................................. 361	  Table D.5 Survey-Reported Additional Influences to Classroom Literacy Instruction .............. 363	  Table D.6 Observed Reading Recovery-Like Procedures in Bev’s Classroom .......................... 364	  Table D.7 Observed Reading Recovery Language in Bev’s Classroom ..................................... 370	  Table D.8 Bev’s Reported and Observed Classroom Activities Influenced by Reading Recovery ..................................................................................................................................................... 375	  Table D.9 Bev’s Reported and Observed Transferred Reading Recovery Procedures and Language ..................................................................................................................................... 377	  Table D.10 Bev’s Reported Reading Recovery Knowledge Influences ...................................... 378	  Table D.11 Bev’s Reported Reading Recovery Belief Influences ............................................... 380	  Table D.12 Common Transferred Reading Recovery Procedures amidst Three Case Studies .. 382	  Table D.13 Cross-Case Prompts Resembling Reading Recovery Language ............................. 385	  Table D.14 Cross-Case Themes in Teacher’s Discussion of the Transferal of Reading Recovery Language ..................................................................................................................................... 389	  xvi Table D.15 Comparison of Research-Based Characteristics of EPLTs to Reading Recovery-Influenced Learning by Survey and Case Study Participants ..................................................... 390	  xvii List of Figures 	  Figure 1.1. Attributes of Teachers’ Learning Explored in this Study ........................................... 20	  Figure 5.1. Regions of Province of Participating Teachers ........................................................ 129	  Figure 6.1. Summary of Responses to Likert-Scale Agreement Statements in Survey .............. 160	  Figure 6.2. Summary of Responses to Statement, “How often do you notice yourself using ‘Reading Recovery’ language in the classroom?” from Survey ................................................. 162	  Figure 12.1. Personal Theory of Literacy Instruction ................................................................. 293	  Figure E.1. Agreement with the Questionnaire Statement “Since my Reading Recovery training, my effectiveness as a classroom teacher has changed” by Grade .............................................. 395	  Figure E.2. Co-Occurrences Group Size/Mode and Group Size/Reading Recovery Transfer in Survey Responses ....................................................................................................................... 396	  Figure E.3. Co-Occurrence of Modality and Reading Recovery Transfer in Survey Responses 397	  Figure F.1. Map of Bev’s Classroom .......................................................................................... 398	  Figure F.2. Map of Nancy’s Classroom ...................................................................................... 399	  Figure F.3. Map of Susan’s Classroom ....................................................................................... 400	     xviii List of Abbreviations  CIRR: Canadian Institute of Reading Recovery CLLRN: Canadian Language & Literacy Research Network DIBELS: Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills EAL: English as an additional language learner EPLTs: Exemplary primary literacy teachers OECD: Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development OISE: Ontario Institute of Educational Studies (University of Toronto) HRSW: Hearing and recording sounds in words procedure IRA: International Reading Association JS: Joseph Stouffer (used to indicate my discourse versus the participants’ during interviews) MSV: Meaning, structural, visual information RRCNA: Reading Recovery Council of North America RRNZ: Reading Recovery New Zealand U.S.: United States of America WWC: What Works Clearinghouse ZAD: Zone of actual development ZPD: Zone of proximal development xix Glossary  Below, I define how I am using terms that described common contexts for classroom literacy instruction in this study. Demonstration writing: The teacher composes and/or transcribes a piece of writing in front of students with the purpose of teaching them about the writing process. Explicit instruction: The teacher isolates a sub-skill of the reading or writing process (e.g., checking writing for capitalization of proper nouns) and teaches it as a separate lesson. Guided reading: The teacher coaches students as they read and respond to a text with the intent of supporting and improving their strategic processing as they read. Guided reading is often delivered to a small group of students who may read the same text, but each has their copy. The content of the lesson is often set by the students’ responses. Guided writing: The teacher coaches students as they write and revise text with the intent of supporting and improving their strategic processing as they write. The content of the lesson is often set by the students’ ideas and responses. Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words: A word-solving strategy in writing in which the student says a word aloud slowly and tries to represent each heard phoneme in print. Home reading: Teacher-assigned or student-selected texts that students take home to read. Literacy centres: Independent literacy activities which student undertake, usually during periods when the teacher is working with small groups or one-on-one with students. Print literacy: Reading or writing printed text Self-selected reading: Students select texts and read them independently Shared reading: The teacher reads a text with students xx  Shared writing: The teacher writes a text with students Teacher read-aloud: The teacher reads a text to the students Teacher/student conference: The teacher meets with one student to discuss, assess the student’s progress, or set goals around a read or written text.  Word Work: Teaching spelling patterns and general ways words are constructed in English.  Writer’s Workshop: An instructional framework for teaching writing. Students work on composing and writing their own pieces, while the teacher intermittently provides mini-lessons and holds teacher/student conferences. xxi Acknowledgements  I thank my supervisor, Dr. Victoria Purcell-Gates for her continuous encouragement and sharing her immeasurable wisdom and experience. Thank you for many invaluable learning opportunities and patiently nurturing me towards seeing the world through the eyes of a researcher.  I am very grateful for the assistance of my committee at the University of British Columbia, Dr. Maureen Kendrick, and Dr. Marianne McTavish. Your questions and feedback have greatly strengthened my work. Additionally, I wish to thank all of my instructors at the University of British Columbia, particularly, Dr. Theresa Rogers for her ongoing support and encouragement.  I wish to deeply thank all of the Reading Recovery professionals who gave of their time to participate in this study. A heartfelt thanks you to Susan Burroughs and the Canadian Reading Recovery Trainers and Teacher Leaders for their assistance and support. I am very grateful for the teachers who took time to participate in this study. In particular, I thank the three case study participants: Bev Mitchell, Nancy Miller, and Susan Hicks. I am indebted for your generously opening your classroom doors.   I have been fortunate to work alongside many skillful and inspiring teachers and administrators throughout my teaching career. I wish to thank Mr. Dale Peake and Mr. Jerry Storie for their encouragement and Ms. Dale Severyn, for being a wonderful mentor and a valued friend. My thanks to Ms. Marg Janssen who took a tremendous leap of faith in me at a perfect time.  xxii Finally, thank you to my partner, Dr. Greg Boguski, who has unceasingly supported me in my pursuit of this degree. I could not have done this without your sacrifice and encouragement.  xxiii Dedication  For the many teachers who, like me, asked, “How do you teach someone to read?”  Chapter 1, Introduction 1 Chapter  1: Introduction Success in literacy development has long been associated with affordances across many domains, including employment, standard of living, and health (Maxwell & Teplova, 2007; Statistics Canada & Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development [OECD], 2005). Although some conceptualizations of literacy have evolved to include broader, multiple (Street, 1984) and multi-modal representations of meaning (Cope & Kalantzis, 2000), competence in print literacy (reading and writing printed text) is generally assumed as an essential skill in contemporary societies that require reading and writing texts across many domains of social activity. It is generally agreed that print literacy must be learned within some type of educational context1. Thus, issues of print literacy instruction and the teachers who deliver it become critical. The way that teachers structure learning environments and how the children spend their time influence the reading proficiency that students attain (Leinhardt, Zigmond, & Cooley, 1981; Cunningham & Allington, 2007, Rowe, 1995). As well, a strong predictive relationship has been shown between early reading achievement and later achievement as a reader and writer (Juel, 1988; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998; Stanovich, 1986). Therefore, it follows that the level of competence of children’s first literacy teachers in schools is a key factor to children’s future success becoming literate community members. Within the large volume of research that has been produced investigating correlational and predicative factors of children’s reading                                                 1The exception would be the relatively few documented cases of ‘self-taught’ readers who appear to learn to read before they start school. However, research has shown that parents of such learners provide key instruction at teachable moments in response to questions from their children (Durkin, 1968).	  Chapter 1, Introduction 2 development, “Overwhelmingly, there is evidence that teacher quality matters” (Bean & Morewood, 2007, p. 374). In both Canada (Canadian Language & Literacy Research Network [CLLRN], 2009) and the United States [U.S.] (Darling-Hammond, 2010; Lacina & Collins Block, 2011; Walsh, Glaser, & Wilcox, 2006), critics have argued that too many children are failing to achieve a satisfactory level of literacy development, and one avenue to lifting literacy achievement lies in “the need to improve teacher preparation in the area of reading development and reading instruction, and to improve the quality of literacy-related instruction in Canadian classrooms” (CLLRN, 2009, p. 5). Lacina and Collins Block (2011) believe “the need to prepare the best literacy teachers has never been greater” (p. 319). Donders and Cowley (2006) suggest that a “substantial proportion of Canada’s new teachers may enter their first elementary school classroom with little, if any, understanding of effective reading instruction methods” (p. 9). They found a majority of 75 surveyed Canadian school district superintendents held the opinion that their newly trained elementary teachers are not effective at teaching reading. Most of the negatively responding superintendents felt that their new hires lacked a sufficient understanding of the mechanics of reading. As well, the majority (81%) of the superintendents in their study expressed the opinion that more pre-service training in literacy instruction was necessary to better prepare new teachers for the workplace expectations of their districts. From these findings, they conclude, “the content of Canadian language arts instruction courses may not be particularly effective” (p.10). While this viewpoint may not be universal, it has also been suggested that the Canadian research base assessing the preparation and skill-level of literacy teachers is presently insufficient  (Purcell-Gates & Tierney, 2009). Chapter 1, Introduction 3 Darling-Hammond (2010) also criticizes the “American tradition of under-investing in preparation” (p. 196) of its teachers. She feels that many teachers’ lack of content knowledge and the skills required to effectively deliver quality literacy instruction are compelling reasons to look at overhauling present systems of teacher training.  Risko and her colleagues (2010) sought to identify the components of effective early literacy teacher preparation in their large-scale review of teacher education programs across the U.S. What they found problematic was “our understanding of how prospective teachers learn to teach has increased during the last 30 years, but findings are contradictory or insufficient for providing explanatory power about features of effective teacher education programs” (p. 303).  They concluded further research was still required that would add to our understandings of what such features might be. Many U.S.-based organizations, including the American Educational Research Association, the International Reading Association (IRA), the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, and the National Academy of Education are in agreement that a new design for teacher training is needed to better prepare future literacy teachers. This consensus has spurred recent reports and positions on the professional preparation of teachers in literacy education (Anders, Hoffman, & Duffy, 2000; Harmon et al., 2001; Hoffman & Pearson, 2000; Hoffman, J., Roller, C. & the National Commission on Excellence in the Preparation of Elementary School Teachers for Reading Instruction, 2001; IRA, 2003, 2010; Lacina & Collins Block, 2011; Lenski, Grisham, & Wold, 2006, Snow, Griffin, & Burns, 2005, Strickland, Snow, Griffin, Burns, & McNamara, 2002).  In a U.S. national research report, Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, Snow, Burns, and Griffin (1998) identify enhancing teacher education as a key strategy in Chapter 1, Introduction 4 improving reading instruction and thus reading outcomes for children. Similarly, the Language and Literacy Researchers of Canada (2008) hold the position that teachers “should have specialized education in language and literacy pedagogy” and “develop extensive knowledge of language and literacy development and process” (p. 1). While there seems to be general consensus that improvements are required to better prepare future literacy instructors, there also seems to be little understanding or agreement as to what direction this redesign should take. One avenue of investigation to contribute to discussion of this redesign may be to study in-service teacher professional programs designed to train teachers to deliver literacy interventions. I contend if an intervention has proven successful in assisting struggling readers and writers and teachers report that the professional development associated with the intervention has application to classroom instruction, it seems worthy to explore what, if any, positive effects and classroom applications the training held. Further, we should ask whether the effects of the training are commonplace and assistive to classrooms enough to suggest other teachers could benefit from similar training to develop their skills in providing more effective literacy instruction. I propose one such investigation-worthy model is the year-long teacher-training of Reading Recovery®2 (Clay, 2005a; Canadian Institute of Reading Recovery [CIRR], 2006).  Reading Recovery: Program, Research, Teacher Training Reading Recovery is an early, short-term literacy intervention, developed by Marie Clay (2005a). Clay, a New Zealand developmental psychologist, drew upon her seminal 1960’s research, in which she systematically observed 100 Grade One children as they learned to read. She noted that observable behaviours such as the rate at which students began to follow the                                                 2 Reading Recovery is a trademarked early literacy intervention instituted in Canada by the Canadian Institute of Reading Recovery (CIRR).  Chapter 1, Introduction 5 directional rules in English text or understood that one printed word corresponded with a spoken word contributed to their overall rate of reading development. She also noted misunderstandings that different children had with learning to navigate print during reading and writing events. These observations led to a reliable system for identifying children who would likely struggle in reading and writing in schools, The Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement (Clay, 2002). Clay followed this research with the development of the Reading Recovery intervention as a preventive measure against literacy failure for school systems. Through a process that involved Clay and her colleagues watching and discussing each other teach one child at a time through a one-way mirror, Clay developed the teaching procedures (informed by her theory of literacy processing, 2001) that are used in present-day Reading Recovery in 13 countries, and have since been adapted from English to Spanish, Canadian French, and Danish implementations (Watson & Askew, 2009). The Reading Recovery intervention. Reading Recovery teachers implement The Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement (Clay, 2002) to compare the early literacy skills of struggling Grade One students nominated by their teachers. Using this data and national-based stanines, school teams rank nominated Grade One students in each school and select the lowest-achieving child for every available Reading Recovery teaching slot. Once selected, the student receives a daily, 30-minute individual lesson with a Reading Recovery teacher for an average 12-18 week period to supplement the literacy instruction they also receive in their classroom. At the end of the child’s series of Reading Recovery lessons, The Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement is implemented again to gauge the student’s progress and to provide comparative pre- and post-intervention data.  When one student finishes his/her series of lessons, the next-lowest student is taken into the now available Reading Recovery lessons.  Chapter 1, Introduction 6 The Canadian implementation of Reading Recovery has the following organizational structure: certified teachers, who undergo year-long training facilitated by a Teacher Leader, teach children Reading Recovery. Reading Recovery Trainers train Teacher Leaders over a year in a major city centre at one of the four Canadian divisions of the CIRR. Trainers oversee the implementation within Canada’s four regional divisions (Mountain Pacific, Western, Central, and Atlantic), having trained themselves over one year at an accredited university site in the U.S. or New Zealand. The Canadian Institute of Reading Recovery, embodied in a national representative board of directors, holds the Canadian trademark for the implementation of Reading Recovery. The CIRR’s responsibilities include the oversight of licensed implementations of Reading Recovery across Canada, managing annual national data collection and report or outcomes, the organization of an annual national Teacher Leader professional development forum, and an annual National Reading Recovery and Early Literacy Conference.  In Canada, the Scarborough Board of Education first implemented Reading Recovery in Ontario in 1988 (Huggins, 2007). By 1992, the national implementation had grown such that a national coordination system was required. With the assistance of Marie Clay, the Canadian Institute of Reading Recovery (CIRR) was established. By the 2012-2013 school year, 1,078 Reading Recovery teachers provided Reading Recovery lessons to 9,462 Canadian children, who are among 168,861 Canadian children who have received the intervention since the inception of systematic national data collection in 1995-96 (CIRR, 2013). Research on Reading Recovery. Reading Recovery has been widely implemented in both Canada and the U.S. and has been positioned as an effective measure to improve the reading and writing of struggling Grade One students (Assad & Condon, 1996; Baene, Bernhole, Dulaney, & Banks, 1997; Center, Wheldall, Freeman, Outhred, & McNaught, 1995; D’Agostino & Murphy, Chapter 1, Introduction 7 2004; Gómez-Bellengé, 2002; Iverson & Tunmer, 1993; Pinnell, DeFord, & Lyons, 1988; Pinnell, Lyons, DeFord, Bryk, & Seltzer, 1994; Schwartz, 2005; Wasik & Slaving, 1993; What Works Clearinghouse [WWC], 2007a, 2007b; see Chapter 4). Annual data collected in Canada by the Canadian Institute of Reading Recovery has reported that within a 12 to18-week period of instruction, the majority of Reading Recovery children returns to national average levels of reading and writing skills and they are expected to continue to expand their literacy skills back in a regular classroom setting (CIRR, 2013). If, as Reading Recovery reports, trained teachers are able to assist children who initially struggled in their classroom setting, they might have gained some additional skills and knowledge that make them more effective as literacy instructors in addition to having the advantage of working in a one-teacher-to-one-child setting. Perhaps, within the teacher learning intended by Reading Recovery training are factors that could be assistive to a broader audience of classroom teachers or teacher candidates as well. However, Reading Recovery has been critiqued and its reported outcomes and cost-effectiveness challenged (Iversen, Tunmer, & Chapman, 2005; Tumner, Chapman, Greaney, Prochnow, & Arrow, 2013). Within those critiques, the high costs associated with training a teacher over a school year and providing individual instruction to children are unjustifiable to some. Schools systems may elect to provide early literacy support to children in other existing formats, such as small group instruction (e.g., Leveled Literacy Intervention, [Fountas & Pinnell, 2009]) when Reading Recovery is deemed unaffordable. Perhaps Reading Recovery could be shown to have influence to teachers who return to classroom teaching and, in doing so, benefit a far greater number of students. If so, then it could be argued that cross-contextual professional Chapter 1, Introduction 8 benefits of Reading Recovery training extend the cost effectiveness of the program when trained teachers return to teach in classroom settings. While Reading Recovery’s reports of enhanced literacy skills following Reading Recovery instruction suggest that its training seems to enhance its teachers’ capacity to work individually with struggling children, it is unclear if and how elements of this training would transfer from the one-to-one setting of Reading Recovery to classroom practice. Research that searches for such evidence could contribute to discussions concerning the redesign and improvement of teacher preparation in early literacy instruction. Reading Recovery’s model of teacher training. A noted feature of the Reading Recovery intervention is the year-long training3 it provides teachers. Pikulski (1994) argues that “Professionally prepared, accomplished teachers are the mainstay of successful early intervention programs” (p. 38).  Pinnell, Smith-Burke, and Worden (2002) add, “Reading Recovery is unusual in linking staff development to student outcomes over time with the aim of improving the teaching of children” (p. 19). Having been selected by their school districts4, Canadian teachers begin their training by attending the equivalent of two days of in-service professional development sessions, usually within the first two weeks of a school year. These first sessions focus on the administration of The Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement and Running Records (Clay, 2002) the principle assessment instruments used in Reading Recovery.                                                  3 In the Reading Recovery community, the professional development is often referred to as “training” and teachers undertaking the professional development are referred to as “teachers-in-training”. 4In Canada, most school districts post Reading Recovery positions as employment opportunities within the districts and use an interview-based selection process.	  Chapter 1, Introduction 9 Once trained in the assessment and selection procedures, teachers immediately select and begin to work with 4 different children daily. Through the training year, groups of teachers-in-training attend bi-weekly 2.25-hour professional development sessions facilitated by a Teacher Leader. During these sessions, the teachers-in-training learn about and discuss Reading Recovery teaching procedures and their theoretical underpinnings (see Chapter 3). As part of each session, two of the teachers from the group will each teach one of their students a live, 30-minute lesson behind a one-way screen, commonly referred to by the Reading Recovery community as “teaching behind the glass.” The rest of the group observes the demonstration lessons and discusses how the lessons relate to a topic at hand and their own teaching.  When not seated “at the glass” observing and discussing concepts raised by the demonstration lessons, the training classes are seated in chairs in a circle. This configuration is designed to facilitate equal discussion amongst all of the teachers and the Teacher Leader, as opposed to a lecture style of seating (Teacher Leader at front, training teachers in rows of desks). Four texts are used throughout the training year of Reading Recovery. In An Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement Clay (2002) provides guidance in the assessment instruments used by Reading Recovery teachers. The text, Becoming Literate, (Clay, 1991) provides an expanded discussion of Clay’s general theory of literacy development. Literacy Lessons Designed for Individuals, Part One (Clay, 2005a) provides an overview of the intervention and its underlying principles for both teachers and administrators. Finally, Literacy Lessons Designed for Individuals, Part Two (Clay, 2005b) provides the main reference for the teaching procedures and teaching prompts used in Reading Recovery. Chapter 1, Introduction 10 Reading Recovery has been widely implemented in Canada, the U.S., Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom (Askew & Gaffney, 1999; Watson & Askew, 2009). I viewed these implementations as indicators that Reading Recovery was deployable in a large variety of educational systems. In examining potential transferability of teachers’ learning, I wanted to examine an intervention that was applicable to teachers in a wide variety of contexts. Otherwise, considerations of the generalizability of my findings would be more limited to educational systems that closely resembled the Canadian districts in this study. According to these reports, Reading Recovery has been successfully implemented in countries with school systems that vary significantly from the North American tradition. Also related to this study, internationally, teachers who have experienced different models of pre-service teacher education are trained under a common curriculum developed by Reading Recovery. If one accepts Reading Recovery’s reports of successful intervention across international settings, then it also seems plausible that its model of teacher training might also be influential to teachers from various types of pre-service programs. Locating the Researcher It is critical that I disclose my professional history, most recently as a literacy coach and consultant (2011-present), Reading Recovery Teacher Leader (2006-2010), Reading Recovery teacher (2004-2006), and classroom teacher (1993-2006). I have taught literacy as a primary classroom teacher, undergone the year-long process of Reading Recovery training as a classroom teacher, taught children in Reading Recovery, completed the year-long training for certification as a Teacher Leader, trained groups of teachers to become Reading Recovery teachers, provided continuing professional development to both Reading Recovery teachers and classroom teachers and, while a Teacher Leader, taught undergraduate courses in early literacy pedagogy at Brandon Chapter 1, Introduction 11 University. Each of these experiences shapes my perspective and value of Reading Recovery training and gives me an insider view of the process from multiple perspectives – the teacher, the trainee, and the teacher-trainer of both pre- and in-service teachers (Stouffer, 2006, 2010). My experience in Reading Recovery in roles as teacher and Teacher Leader are both informative and problematic to this inquiry. Because of the descriptive design of this study (see Chapter 5), I contend that more than a casual understanding of the Reading Recovery philosophy and its teacher-training is required. Without an in-depth knowledge of the program, it would be difficult to identify some knowledge, procedures, language, and beliefs that are presented to teachers during the training year. With an insider perspective of the training of new Reading Recovery teachers, I may be able to detect potentially transferred aspects that a less-familiar observer might accredit to other sources or not recognize as hallmark to Reading Recovery. On one hand, my detailed familiarity with the program is advantageous as it broadens the scope of this inquiry and may lead to a more in depth description of Reading Recover’s transferability. However, my experience with the intervention is also challenging to the design of this study because of a personal bias. During two year’s work as a Reading Recovery teacher and, in particular, four years as a Teacher Leader, I have come to believe that Reading Recovery is an effective early literacy intervention and have seen my own training as valuable to my professional development. While I assert that a deep understanding of the program is assistive to undertaking this inquiry, I also acknowledge that my having participated in the training makes it impossible for me to not have an opinion.  Also, I temper my admission of bias by pointing out to the reader that I have not been employed in any Reading Recovery position nor worked directly with any Reading Recovery organization or personnel for the last five years. During these past five years, I have worked with Chapter 1, Introduction 12 Kindergarten-Grade Six teachers, supporting literacy instruction in classrooms. I have also been contracted to train teachers across Canada to implement a small group intervention, Fountas and Pinell’s (2009) Leveled Literacy Intervention, which some Canadian school districts have implemented as an alternative to Reading Recovery. Because of my lack of involvement with the Reading Recovery professional community for the past five years and my current position, I can assuredly state that I have no professional stake in the outcome of this research that would influence me to promote Reading Recovery.  Further, while I acknowledge Clay as a major influence, I also regularly draw upon many others’ work outside of Reading Recovery to inform my practice in literacy instruction (e.g., Regie Routman, Lucy Caulkins, Nell Duke, P. David Pearson, Sharon Taberski, Louise Rosenblatt, Tony Stead, Chris Tovani, Lori Jamison Rog, Irene Fountas, Gay Su Pinnell, Steve Peha, Ruth Culham, Gail Boushey, and Joan Moser). Nonetheless, as part of my inquiry’s design, I have taken steps to prevent my bias influencing my collection of data and my analysis (see Chapter 5: Safeguards Against Researcher’s Bias). Qualities of Reading Recovery Model that Render It Promising as Research Venue My decision to investigate if Reading Recovery training has potential to influence classroom instruction is based upon particular characteristics of the intervention. First, within its organization, Reading Recovery maintains tight controls ensuring consistent implementations, specifically in regards to its model of teacher training (CIRR, 2006, Clay, 2005a; RRCNA, 2008). Reading Recovery-trained teachers have a common model of professional development, regardless of the region or country in which they train. This consistency reduces confounding factors in my assessment of the transferability of Reading Recovery training in a Canadian context (CIRR, 2006). Chapter 1, Introduction 13 In both Canada and the U.S., National Standards and Guidelines documents (CIRR, 2006; RRCNA, 2008) are used to inform and regulate the implementations of Reading Recovery, including the training of teachers. These documents are intended to ensure standardized realizations of Reading Recovery with the intent of optimizing outcomes for children and maximizing the cost-effectiveness of the intervention.   The Standards and Guidelines documents (CIRR, 2006; RRCNA, 2008) are publically accessible documents, which provide: 1. The mission statement, purpose, and responsibilities of the CIRR or RRCNA, as members of the Reading Recovery international community. 2. The structure of the Reading Recovery organization from a school to international scale.  3. The role of school teams in supporting Reading Recovery implementations. 4. Principles for the unbiased, needs-based selection of children to participate in Reading Recovery. 5.  Preparation procedures for the establishment of Teacher and Teacher Leader Training Centers. 6. Criteria and principles for the selection of teachers to be trained as Reading Recovery teachers, and personnel to be trained as Teacher Leaders and Trainers. 7. Standards and guidelines for teachers in training, training classes, trained teachers, Teacher Leaders and Trainers (in training and experienced). 8. A code of ethics for Reading Recovery professionals. In these documents, standards refer to mandatory conditions of implementations, with variances requiring the written permission of the CIRR or RRCNA. Guidelines are strongly recommended conditions, but do not require permission for exemption. As part of Reading Chapter 1, Introduction 14 Recovery’s practice, agreed compliance with the Standards and Guidelines is a requirement for a school district’s continued use of the trademarked intervention. In my opinion, an additional strength of Reading Recovery lies in the design of its teacher preparation. Fogarty and Pete (2009), through a review of the research in professional learning, school change, and standards of high quality staff development identify seven protocols as components that are particularly important for successful professional learning communities. Referring to these protocols as the syllabus of seven, they argue, “regardless of what models of professional learning are implemented, these seven elements anchor the experiences for lasting impact” (p. 32). In Table 1.1, I compare features of the Reading Recovery Teacher Training to Fogarty and Pete’s seven protocols: Table 1.1 Reading Recovery Training: Staff Development Quality as Defined by Fogarty & Pete (2009) Fogarty & Pete Protocol Requirements of Protocol Features of Reading Recovery Teacher Training 1. Sustained  Long-term implementation plan that occurs consistently and continually over time. Fewer school-wide initiatives and more team initiatives. • Sessions are spread throughout a 1-year period • Reading Recovery personnel’s focus of professional development during training year • Reading Recovery teachers encouraged to become part of school literacy teams 2. Job-embedded  Immediate help accessible to teachers. Peer coaching, expert coaching, teacher facilitators, and lead teachers needed. • Teacher Leaders facilitate professional development sessions, make school visits to individual teachers-in-training • Peer coaching and feedback provided during teaching behind the glass 3. Collegial  Teachers work with peers in teams.  • Reading Recovery teachers meet in teams both in training and continuing service years 4. Interactive  Active, engaged, interactive learning. Exposure to continual and guided practice that is application-orientated. • Uses professional conversation as learning vehicle.  • Expectation to shift theory into practice in context of teaching 5. Integrative  Different modes of communication and learning: face to face, internet, web-based • Group and individual discussions • Viewing of demonstration lessons at each professional development session • Access to Teacher Leaders and colleagues via email • Online learning support (webinars, documents, journal articles) on the Reading Recovery Council of North America’s website: www.rrcna.org 6. Practical  Must hold relevance and practicality to learners. Must allow time for participants to make real-world connections. • Discussion of theory in terms of relevance to work with children • Demonstration lessons at every professional development session Chapter 1, Introduction 15 Fogarty & Pete Protocol Requirements of Protocol Features of Reading Recovery Teacher Training • Opportunity to try new pedagogy with own students and assess its effectiveness 7. Results-oriented  Measurable results to confirm research-based, teacher-tested, proven best practice should replace other practices. • Student data is collected and examined pre-, during, and post-intervention • Belief statement of using results as standard for judging the effectiveness of the program • Recent new editions of training texts (Clay, 2005a, 2005b) which incorporate new research and corresponding new practice  Reading Recovery training appears to meet Fogarty and Pete’s seven protocols, thus providing a reasonable model to explore promising elements of teaching reading and writing. Clay (2005a) designed Reading Recovery as an individual, pullout-style (i.e. the student leaves the classroom to receive their Reading Recovery lesson) literacy intervention, not intending it for classroom instruction. She defends Reading Recovery’s one-child-to-one-teacher when she writes: There is particular opportunity for revision and reworking in the one-to-one teaching situation. Child and teacher talk about reading and writing as it occurs. There is opportunity for the child to initiate dialogue about his response as he works and for the teacher to help in many different ways.  (2005b, p. 116) Clay is vigorous in her defense of the individualized instruction in her literature and her insistence upon fidelity to the Standards and Guidelines documents. By protecting the one-teacher-to-one child model, she guards against school districts’ temptation to alter the delivery of lessons in order to cut costs. According to Reading Recovery advocates, doing so would undermine the potency of the intervention. However, while Reading Recovery was not designed for general classroom instruction, there are suggestions from the field that imply Reading Recovery training may have carry-over effects to classroom instruction.  Chapter 1, Introduction 16 Further Suggestions of Reading Recovery’s Potential Transferability to Classroom Settings From my experience, a frequent comment made by Reading Recovery teachers-in-training who are also classroom teachers is that Reading Recovery training has changed their instructional practices in a classroom context. I wish to better understand if and how teachers transfer Reading Recovery-based learning from a one teacher/one student setting to classroom settings when they teach classroom English Language Arts after training in Reading Recovery. As well, teachers may declare shifts in their understanding or beliefs towards literacy instruction stemming from Reading Recovery training.  There have also been indications that professionals familiar with Reading Recovery expect that aspects of Reading Recovery training transfer to the whole classroom. The Canadian Standards and Guidelines (CIRR, 2006) house the suggestion that teachers should “return to regular classroom teaching after 4 to 5 years teaching Reading Recovery” (p. 16). Reading Recovery personnel state the rationale for this guideline was to encourage the formation of a cycle of teacher training within a school district, so that more personnel could benefit from the training and well-trained teachers were returning to classrooms where their specialized training could be put towards informing their classroom practice. However, this expected benefit has never been systematically studied to date in Canada. Darling-Hammond (2010) gives the example of a U.S. school district, which, as part of a comprehensive approach to redesigning its literacy instruction provided “Reading Recovery training for an ever-widening circle of teachers creating the first foundations of the teacher development initiative. This effort was used to improve teachers’ knowledge about how to teach reading to their entire classrooms of students, in addition to providing one-on-one tutoring to students with special reading needs” (p. 231). Chapter 1, Introduction 17 The Rolling River School Division in Manitoba, Canada has adopted a policy of targeted training in Reading Recovery. Since beginning its implementation of Reading Recovery in the 2008-2009 school year, the division has only offered the training to Grade One teachers, with the policy that trained teachers will continue to teach both Reading Recovery and Grade One English Language Arts (personal communication, Marg Janssen, Assistant Superintendent, Rolling River School Division, June, 2008). Believing that the training will have benefit to Grade One teachers and their students’ literacy acquisition, the Division has continued to train a Grade One teacher from a different school each year. Following the 2000 release of the U.S. National Reading Panel’s reports on research-based methods of teaching reading, Doyle and Forbes (2003; Forbes & Doyle, 2004) reviewed Reading Recovery practice. They concluded that Reading Recovery’s teacher training included both theoretical and practical components that met the National Reading Panel’s five essential elements of reading instruction: phonemic awareness instruction, phonics instruction, fluency instruction, vocabulary instruction, and comprehension instruction. In addition, they argued, Reading Recovery also provided instruction to foster children’s literacy processing, or the coordination of their knowledge and decision-making while reading and writing continuous texts. It is noteworthy that the National Reading Panel’s review was in reference to the essential elements of classroom reading instruction. If Reading Recovery training addresses each of the five elements, as Doyle and Forbes claim, then it merits investigation if and how teachers interpret this learning when they shift from the one-to-one teaching milieu of Reading Recovery to whole class setting. Are the teachers able to transport or transform their learning about instruction of phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension from Reading Recovery to classroom practice? Chapter 1, Introduction 18 The work of other highly regarded authors of literacy teacher professional materials (e.g., Cunningham & Allington, 2007; Johnston, 1997; Routman, 2003) shows evidence of some expected transfer of Reading Recovery procedures to classrooms (e.g., the taking and analysis of running records as a formative reading assessment). These authors and others seem to have drawn upon Clay’s theory or their own professional experience in Reading Recovery to inform parts of their perspectives of classroom literacy instruction. Current examples which house Clay’s influence are professional books by American authors Irene Fountas and Gay Su Pinnell  (e.g., Guided Reading [1996], When Readers Struggle [2009]), their Benchmark Assessment of reading (2011) and their small-group literacy-intervention, Leveled Literacy Intervention (2009). These two authors were Reading Recovery trainers before they developing their own work and acknowledge their indebtedness to Clay’s theory and its pervasive influence to their writing. These materials are widely sold in both Canada and the U.S. and their popularity has likely extended the influence of Marie Clay beyond Reading Recovery. As Clay’s work is well known, aspects of Reading Recovery training may also already be present in some Canadian faculties of education, but the prevalence of Clay’s theories across institutions has not been examined. Likely, the presence of Reading Recovery-like practices in a faculty of education will hinge upon individual faculty member’s familiarity with and opinion of Reading Recovery or their use of other authors’ materials in their courses that draw from Clay.  Therefore, it is possible that some teachers may be exposed to some of Clay’s theories and methodology or different theories with aspects similar to Clay prior to being trained in Reading Recovery – either in their undergraduate training or in other in-service professional development. In this study, it will be important to ask the teachers to report what they believe to be the source of any Reading Recovery-like practices in their classrooms. Chapter 1, Introduction 19 Importantly to the field, if beneficial aspects of Reading Recovery knowledge and practice can migrate to classroom contexts then therein lies some knowledge and skills that should be considered in the light of pre-service teachers’ preparation. Perhaps Reading Recovery will emerge as a potential contributor in addressing issues surrounding the training of future primary literacy teachers or the continued professional development of in-service teachers. Operationalizing Teacher Learning In preparation for this inquiry, I reviewed recent research examining the characteristics of exemplary primary literacy teachers (see Chapter 4). I noted that those researchers were describing teachers in three different ways: their knowledge, procedures, and beliefs (i.e. what teachers knew or understood; what they did in their classrooms; and what the researchers had deemed the teachers had attached importance to). This view gave a more multi-dimensional perspective on transfer that I could apply to my investigation of the transportability of Reading Recovery training to classroom environments (Figure 1.1). As well, Reading Recovery incorporates specific language into its pedagogy that can also be observed. In this study, I observe and discuss teacher learning within these four categories: procedures, knowledge, language, and beliefs. I view each of these attributes as an influence on the others. For example, what teachers understand about how literacy develops will impact the teaching procedure they select or what they say to students. As well, the beliefs the teacher holds about students and literacy education in general will also influence what they do and say (Richardson & Placier, 2001). The reverse can also hold true. For example, if a teacher has been faithfully implementing a program, over time, this experience can influence what they come to believe to be important about literacy Chapter 1, Introduction 20 instruction and what they say to students. Their knowledge is shaped according to what they came to understand from their personal history of practice.  Figure 1.1. Attributes of Teachers’ Learning Explored in this Study   Research Questions In my dissertation research, I investigate if and how teacher learning acquired in Reading Recovery training transfers to the context of primary (Kindergarten, Grade One, or Grade Two) classroom literacy instruction.  Chapter 1, Introduction 21  This dissertation study seeks to answer the following questions: 1) Do primary teachers report Reading Recovery training influences their classroom literacy instructional practices? If so, what influences do they report? 2) If primary teachers report Reading Recovery training as an influence to their classroom literacy instructional practices, what Reading Recovery-like teaching procedures, language, knowledge, or beliefs are observable or reported when the classrooms are systematically observed? 3) What does literacy instruction look like in the cases of three primary teachers who are incorporating Reading Recovery-like practices to their classroom literacy instruction? To present and discuss my findings, I have organized the dissertation into the following structure: Chapter 2: An overview of the theoretical frames in which the study is situated; Chapter 3: An overview of Reading Recovery’s curriculum for teacher learning and its underlying theory; Chapter 4: A review of research relevant to this inquiry; Chapter 5: An overview of the methodology of the study; Chapter 6: A presentation of the survey research findings; Chapters 7, 8, and 9: A presentation of case studies for three teachers; Chapter 10: A cross-case analysis; Chapter 11: A cross-method analysis; and Chapter 12: A discussion of the findings and their significance.  Chapter 2, Theoretical Frame 22 Chapter  2: Theoretical Frame In this study, I explore the transferability of learning of Reading Recovery concepts from one context, the year-long Reading Recovery training, to another – that of the classroom. I frame my discussion within theories of andragogy (i.e. adult learning), sociocultural theories of learning (specifically, situated learning), and the transfer of learning. First, I wish to operationalize how I view and discuss adults’ learning within a social context and how the transfer of learning has been described. In the next chapter, I turn to Clay’s theory of literacy processing, which frames my observations in this inquiry. Andragogy: Adult Learning Andragogy, or adult learning, has been described by Knowles (1984) who distinguishes it from pedagogy, the learning of children. Both terms, andragogy and pedagogy, have Greek origins, with andragogy signifying man-leading and pedagogy meaning child-leading. In this study, I am examining the learning of adults, specifically teachers who have trained in Reading Recovery. While the Reading Recovery training centers on early literacy pedagogy, it is the teachers-in-training’s learning that is of interest. Knowles outlined ways that adult-learners differ from child-learners.  Knowles (1984) assumes that as people mature, they develop their self-concept in that they move from seeing themselves as a dependent personality to discovering themselves as a self-directed being. Because of this self-concept, adult learners feel more empowered to choose what they are going to learn and want to be involved in the planning and evaluation of instruction. As such, adult learners are more likely to question or challenge their teachers. Often, adults need an explanation as to why specific things are going to be taught. Adult learners also develop an Chapter 2, Theoretical Frame 23 internal motivation to learn. Knowles describes adult learning as more problem-centered than content-orientated. Andragogy also incorporates the adage “With age comes experience.” Over their lives, adults accumulate many experiences (both successes and failures) and refer to them as a resource for learning. Therefore, from an adult-learning perspective, experience, including mistakes, provides the basis for learning. Adult-learners should be provided opportunities to put learning into action to develop their experience to inform their own learning. I also assume that neither teacher knowledge nor practices are static entities. Roskos and Vukelich (1998) argue, “Teachers mature professionally, and as they do, their pedagogical ideas and understandings change” (p. 255). I view the enactment and quality of literacy teaching as an evolving process for individual teachers.  Adult learning is seen as more effective when it is task-orientated as opposed to memorization. As well, Knowles (1984) encouraged adult learning to be more exploratory, so that learners could discover things and learn from their early mistakes. In Knowles’ view, the teacher of adults would set learners off with enough information to get started, but later provide feedback and assistance based on the adults’ experiences trying the task. Finally, adult learning, as mentioned is problem centered, and adults’ learning becomes increasingly orientated towards pressing tasks and problems within their social roles. Knowles (1984) states that adults are most interested in learning that has immediate application to their job or personal life. This differs from child-learning, where the application of learning is often postponed (e.g., “You’ll need to know this when you grow up.”). Adults are more likely to engage in learning activities when they see real-life purpose and when they are allowed to practice the actual activity. Chapter 2, Theoretical Frame 24 Knowles (1984) view of adult learning takes into account the social roles of adult learners. Other theories have extended their consideration into how the social context shapes and defines learning. A Sociocultural Perspective of Learning Differing from behaviorist or cognitive models of learning, which are concerned with the observable artifacts and thinking processes associated with learning, a sociocultural perspective views learning as socially situated (Vygotsky, 1978). From this viewpoint, social interactions as well as imbedded cultural expectations and rules create the boundaries of the learning contexts and define the roles of both learners and teachers.  The work of Vygotksy (1978) is most closely identified with the development of sociocultural theory. Wertch (1991) describes the major premise of a sociocultural view of learning is that learning, or individual development, has its origins in social sources. Learners acquire new strategies and perspectives about the world stemming from their experiences working with others. A sociocultural stance considers what both the teacher and learner bring to the learning task, and how the overall social context shapes the teacher/learner interaction. Vygotsky writes, “Learning awakens a variety of internal developmental processes that are able to operate only when the [learner] is interacting with people in his environment and with his peers” (p. 90).  A seminal concept brought forward by Vygotsky (1978) is the explanation of learning as socially mediated, and occurring through well-timed explicit instruction from a more knowledgeable other. He describes children’s knowledge and skills with the terms Zone of Actual Development (ZAD), what a learner could control independently, and a Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), wherein the learner could successfully complete a task, but with the Chapter 2, Theoretical Frame 25 assistance of a more capable other. In Vygotsky’s view, the most rapid gains can be made when a teacher arranges to maximize the instructional time spent within the learner’s ZPD. However, at this level of challenge, the learner will require some degree of support from the teacher in order to successfully complete the task at hand. Drawing on this theory, Wood, Bruner, and Ross (1976) first suggested a metaphor of a scaffold used in construction to describe the evolving support the teacher provides the learner. The teacher’s support is seen as a flexible, temporary, and customized framework put into place to support the learner. As the learner gains competence with a task, the teacher can gradually remove the supports. This interaction with the learner, and the teachers’ judgments of how much support to provide and when to gradually fade the assistance is what Wood and colleagues coined as providing scaffolded instruction.  Drawing on a contemporary sociocultural theory, situated learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991), I consider the teacher learning and the context for learning within and beyond the Reading Recovery community.  Situated Learning Within the theory of situated learning (Lave & Wenger, 1991) teacher learning and the effectiveness of practice are examined taking into account the community of practice in which learning occurs. “A community of practice is a set of relations among persons, activity, and world, over time and in relation with other tangential and overlapping communities of practice” (p. 98).  Lave and Wenger (1991) see this theory as a bridge between two opposing schools: one that sees cognitive actions, including learning (e.g. Piaget’s theory of cognitive development, [Wadsworth, 2004]), as the primary focus of study and another that first examines social actions and views learning as merely a side-effect of participating in social practices (e.g., Bandura’s Chapter 2, Theoretical Frame 26 (1963) social learning theory).  Lave and Wenger suggest a more dynamic relationship between learning and the social context: In summary, rather than learning by replicating the performances of others or by acquiring knowledge transmitted in instruction, we suggest that learning occurs through centripetal participation in the learning curriculum of the ambient community. Because the place of knowledge is within a community of practice, questions of learning must be addressed within the developmental cycles of that community, a recommendation which creates a diagnostic tool for distinguishing among communities of practice. (p. 100) Knowledge is seen as belonging to communities, as the communities themselves provide the interpretive support necessary to make sense of ideas, values, and the heritage of the community. Further, the community defines its own social structure of practice. The hierarchy of learners and teachers, power relationships, the conditions of legitimacy, what is acceptable and what is offensive – all constrain what can and should be learned within the community. Through the process of legitimate peripheral participation, or a novice’s partaking in the authentic practices of a collective, a novice will move towards becoming a full participant in that group. “This central concept denotes the particular mode of engagement of a learner who participates in the actual practice of an expert, but only to a limited degree and with limited responsibility for the ultimate product as a whole” (p. 14). Lave and Wenger add to a basic conceptualization of apprenticeship by not only considering the actions and knowledge of the master and the apprentice, but also draw back to examine the cultural background in which an apprenticeship unfolds. It is this understanding of the cultural backdrop behind learning that Chapter 2, Theoretical Frame 27 distinguishes legitimate peripheral participation from describing a learning context as an apprenticeship. For example, describing the learning undertaken by a novice potter learning by working alongside an artisan as an apprenticeship would imply that the novice learned by watching the potter then making his own attempts. The novice would improve by responding to the feedback of the master, gaining mastery over an extended period of cycles of practice, observation, and critique from the more knowledgeable other. From the vantage point of legitimate peripheral participation, the observation, practice, and feedback are still present, but they are all bound within the learning community’s culture. Considering this example, what is appropriate for the master to say to the student and vice versa? What is the student expected and allowed to do at different points of time? How will the quality of the students’ work be assessed? What qualities of both the product and the potter are valued over others? When and how much knowledge does the master share with the student? What qualifies an individual within the community to be considered a master? These types of cultural restraints define the role a legitimate peripheral participant, that is, what it means to be a learner in this community and what can be learned.  Lave and Wenger (1991) view situated learning not only as a means of more clearly defining learning contexts, but as a setting in which deeper understandings of knowledge develop. Most of their examples described adult learners and settings of adult education. While this theory could be applied to younger learners, its focus on adults lends itself well to this study and the learning of teachers involved in Reading Recovery. In a situated learning context, tools are not seen merely as by-products of learning, but as means to construct knowledge through their use. Brown, Collins, and Dugid (1989) explain, “People who use tools actively rather than just acquire them, by contrast, build an increasingly Chapter 2, Theoretical Frame 28 rich implicit understanding of the world in which they use the tools and of the tools themselves” (p. 33). When learning is purposeful and able to be put into practice in a real world context, engagement and competence benefit. Contrasting the classic school child’s lament of “Why do we have to learn this?”, situated learning places learners in authentic conditions were real world applications are present throughout and beyond the acquisition of skills and knowledge. Situated learners acquire the “why” of learning (as it is defined by the community of practice) the “what” and “how” through their undertaking their community’s legitimate practices. In this context, learners come to not only better understand procedures themselves, but also see how these practices fit into the community’s microverse and how that community fits into the larger world. As well, differing perspectives amongst the participants are believed to mediate their learning. Two learners may seem to undertake the same training “experience” but will come away with different understandings and reactions. From a situated learning viewpoint, learners are conceptualized as learning through the filter of their experience and beliefs. In a classroom of many students, each is seen as viewing the lesson through their own tinted glasses.  What may resonate deeply with one learner may only create a superficial reaction from another.  The learners are not merely viewed as empty vessels into which knowledge is poured, but as carrying experience which are catalysts to their own learning. The cultural baggage that each learner carries will affect their experience as they situate themselves within the community of learning. Each learner must determine “Who am I?” within the boundaries of the community’ practice. Lave and Wenger (1991) treat “verbal meanings as the product of speakers’ interpretive activities, and not merely as the ‘content’ of linguistic forms” (p. 15). From this viewpoint, understandings are constructed during daily practice (i.e. a learning curriculum) not merely as a product of a syllabus telling them what they should know (i.e. a teaching curriculum). In this Chapter 2, Theoretical Frame 29 light, knowledge can construed as a pliable construct of the community, a more “I can’t explain it, you had to be there” viewpoint. That is to say, the experiences of community practice undertaken by learners help them define and articulate the knowledge of the community. A shared experience of cultural practice build and define the community’s knowledge in an evolving fashion. The novice extends their understanding within the community by living the shared experience of the other members of the community. Knowledge is nurtured within the community by talking with another who has walked the same path. Obstacles to legitimate peripheral participation include access and sequestration. Examining a community’s practice of sharing its knowledge with others includes who is allowed access to the community. What controls and standards does a community have in place to maintain who will and will not be accepted? Do the newcomers come into frequent contact with the well-experienced members of the community? In order for any community of practice to continue to exist, it must accept some new members, but the controls placed around access will shape its size and growth. Another phenomenon impacting the legitimate peripheral participation in some communities is the practice of sequestering the newcomers; that is, removing new members either from participating in the legitimate activities of the community (e.g., the novice washes the master hunter’s car while he hunts) or allowing them practice of the legitimate activity, but removing them to the periphery (e.g., the novice practices on a target range while the hunters go hunting). In either case, the cultural practices of the community dictate the treatment and scope of practice of the newcomers. Restricting, resituating, or modifying their legitimate practice however, would dampen the learning that occurs until they are accepted into the community’s regular routines. Chapter 2, Theoretical Frame 30 Viewing Reading Recovery through the lens of situated learning. Reading Recovery training is delivered in an apprenticeship model and a socially mediated milieu. In the Reading Recovery context, teachers learn the pedagogy of the intervention through the process of teaching children, coming to assume the role of a Reading Recovery teacher, and evolving in their practice throughout the year of training. Each Reading Recovery teacher-in-training’s experience working with individual children, their personal response to the training sessions and conversations, and the social structure within which the training is conducted will all shape the learning that the training experience facilitates.  Gaffney and Anderson (1991) identify two tiers of scaffolding within the processes of teaching and learning in the context of teachers training to become Reading Recovery teachers. The first tier is support that a teacher provides a child in the process of learning, while the second tier is comprised of the support the teacher herself receives as she learns to assist the child.  In Reading Recovery training, Teacher Leaders serve as the more expert other, guiding novice Reading Recovery teachers, extending their understandings, and supporting their initial efforts to master new instructional methods. This learning very much takes place in a social context, and is delivered in what appears to be a conversation between colleagues (Forbes & Briggs, 2001) centering around live demonstration lessons that are built into each training session and the teachers’ own work with children. Over time, as the teachers-in-training gain more control over their growing knowledge, they assume a larger contributing role in the conversations of the training sessions, and the Teacher Leader releases this responsibility to them. At various points of a session, different teachers-in-training will assume the role of verbalizing the community’s knowledge, speaking Chapter 2, Theoretical Frame 31 from their own relevant experience or articulating their understanding of a concept being tousled by the group.  Swartz (1998) identifies a tension inherent in the training process of Reading Recovery. Taking the stance that communities of practice are defined by the communities’ standards and practices, he acknowledges that a period of socialization, or training, as it is referred to in the Reading Recovery community, is required for new members to join. “New members bring knowledge and expertise that both facilitate their learning and enrich the community. But a community of practice can’t expand and maintain its identity if new members aren’t helped to recognize and adhere to the standards of the community” (p.2). The Reading Recovery training model is somewhat of a dichotomy, incorporating elements of both training and inquiry. While the term “training” implies a teacher-led model of learning, “inquiry” would suggest a more collaborative approach to learning. Often, especially during the initial stages of training, when teachers are first joining the Reading Recovery community, information is shared via a more explicit, teacher-to-learner instructional path from the Teacher Leader to the teachers-in-training. However, group conversations and demonstration lessons are inherent throughout the training year, which fit more readily into an inquiry style of learning (Pinnell, 1994). Schwartz (1998) points out:  Instructional decisions and actions are based on observation and interpretation of the child’s literacy performance. While this is a general principle of instruction in Reading Recovery, there is no precise way to specify how this is to be done. Specific, detailed training is not possible. Group discussion during and after demonstration lessons helps link this knowledge into systems that support instruction. This is authentic inquiry. (p. 3) Chapter 2, Theoretical Frame 32 Teachers’ level of comfort and engagement within the Reading Recovery training may then, in part, hinge upon the degree of tension they feel as they navigate between socializing and collaborative aspects of the training. Individual teachers will hold different expectations of how professional development should unfold. Where one teacher may prefer a more direct approach (i.e., “Tell me what to do.”) another may be more suited to more open-ended inquiry (i.e., “What do I think about that?”). As a result, as the training year progressively shifts from a more direct Teacher Leader-led style to one of more authentic inquiry between the whole group, different teachers may feel more or less comfortable with the learning format as the training comes closer or drifts away from alignment with their preferred style of learning. Also and very importantly, the overlying social aspect (i.e. training teachers working relationships with the Teacher Leader and the other teachers) will also mediate individual experience in the training year. As teachers take on new learning, their perception of the competence, supportiveness, and likeability of the Teacher Leader and their colleagues will all shape their impressions and participation in the training. As part of its design, Reading Recovery (CIRR, 2006) ideally trains experienced classroom teachers. These teachers arrive at their first Reading Recovery professional development sessions carrying their experiences, knowledge, and beliefs about children, learning, and literacy instruction. While some of the teacher’s pre-held positions are often confirmed and explored in more depth, other assumptions may be challenged and new ideas may surface in the process of teaching and learning under the umbrella of Clay’s theory of literacy processing (see Chapter 3). Clay’s conception of literacy development houses concepts that might initially conflict with some viewpoints of the teachers in a training class. Chapter 2, Theoretical Frame 33 From the onset of the training, teachers are expected to base their instructional decisions upon their consideration of a child’s needs against their understanding of Clay’s general theory. Clay (2005b) writes: One teacher and one child work together in ways that allow a myriad of instructional adjustments to be made. From the recommended procedures a teacher selects those that she requires for a particular child with a particular problem at a particular moment in time. There are no set teaching sequences: there is no prescription to learn this before that. A highly appropriate recommendation for one child could be an unnecessary one for another child. The teacher must select the activities needed by a particular child after working with him, observing his responses, and thinking about what he needs to learn next. (p. 2) Schwartz (1998) frames a tension within the knowledge base of Reading Recovery between problems versus answers that must be negotiated by teachers. Often, he states, there is not a fixed, concrete answer in the context of teaching children in Reading Recovery. Rather, situations that call for teacher action are presented as problems, which need to be solved on a case-by-case basis. In Schwartz’s view, Reading Recovery endeavors to position the teacher as a decision-maker, as opposed to a script-follower.  In this inquiry, I am interested in how knowledge and skills acquired in Reading Recovery fit within teachers’ learning communities in classrooms. It is important to clarify that the theory of situated learning does not preclude the notion of the teachers transporting skills and knowledge from one setting to another. As Putnam and Borko (1997) contest, “The situative perspective is not argument against transfer, however, but an attempt to recast the relationship between what people know and the settings in which they know – between the knower and the Chapter 2, Theoretical Frame 34 known” (p. 12).  As learners participate in a new social context, they may employ some common tools or find different applications of familiar tools. “The question seems to be how one describes the detachability of these skills from the participatory contexts in which they were acquired” (Lave & Wegner, 1991, p. 19). To better describe how teachers transport or modify skills between contexts, I now turn to work that examines the transfer of learning. Transfer of Learning In the last three decades, cognitive research has had a far greater influence on educational theory (Bransford, Brown, & Cocking, 2004). For example, research in cognitive psychology has more clearly defined the nature of competent performance and principles of how knowledge is organized. Additional work in social psychology, cognitive psychology, and anthropology has asserted that the contexts and spaces of learning are bound by particular sets of cultural and social norms and expectations. These settings influence learning and the transfer of learning in powerful ways. Early in the twentieth century, Thorndike and Woodworth (1901) introduced the notion of the transfer of learning, which they described as the dependency of human performance and learning on prior experience. That is, our prior learning shapes our response and capacity in novel situations from which the initial learning occurs. More contemporary discussions of the nature of learning transfer view transferability as a signpost of the quality of learning. Bransford, Brown, and Cocking suggest (2004): Measures of transfer play an important role in assessing the quality of people’s learning experiences. Different kinds of learning experiences can look equivalent when tests of learning focus solely on remembering (e.g., on the ability to repeat previously taught facts or procedures), but they can look quite different when tests Chapter 2, Theoretical Frame 35 of transfer are used. Some kinds of learning experiences result in effective memory but poor transfer; others produce effective memory plus positive transfer. (p. 51) Joyce and Showers (1984) conceptualize the transfer of teaching skills as teachers demonstrating skills in multiple, specific contexts. Schunk (2004) has further categorized different types of learning transfer, dependent on the nature of the previous learning and the new context (Table 2.1). Schunk (2004) delineates near and far transfer as different based on the similarity or dissimilarity of the context where skills were acquired and the new context where they are eventually applied. For example, students who apply the skill of equivalent fractions at home to measure ingredients for a recipe are transferring skills to a much different setting and context than learning about fractions at school. Table 2.1 Schunk’s (2004) Types of Learning Transfer Type of Transfer of Learning Characteristics Near Original and transfer contexts are similar Far Original and transfer contexts are dissimilar Positive What is learned in one setting enhances learning in another Negative What is learned in one setting hinders or delays learning in the another Figural Uses some aspect of initial learning to think about a problem in a new setting Low Road Transfer of well established skills in a near automatic fashion High Road Transfer involves the learning consciously formulating ways in which previous learning can be applied to the new setting  In different situations, previous learning can be both positive and negative towards transfer. In some cases, prior knowledge assists the learner in a new context, while in others it is confusing. A person used to using a Windows platform on a computer may later find that previous experience confuses them when they are first navigating an Apple computer. A repeated routine acquired in the Windows setting, for example, quitting an application by clicking the Chapter 2, Theoretical Frame 36 corner ‘X’ icon when transported to the Apple screen appears to accomplish the same effect when clicking the corner red button. However, Windows users may be surprised that while the Apple window has closed, the application is still running. The habits of one setting may mislead and frustrate learners while in the process of learning familiar skills in a new setting – especially if their automatic responses result in undesired results. However, in other cases, prior learning can assist the learner in a new setting. In a positive transfer, a person might find their prior experience using an iPad extremely helpful in their learning how to use a brand new iPhone.  Literal and figural transfers designate either transfer of intact skills in the literal case or, in the case of figural transfer, one uses general knowledge from previously learned skills to solve a problem in a new setting. Schunk states that in order to make a figural transfer the learner must first draw an analogy between the old and new setting to apply the appropriate prior knowledge towards solving the new task at hand.  Finally, Schunk (2004) describes an automatic, or unconscious transfer of well-learned skills in what he terms a low road transfer. Here, the learner directly applies what he has previously learned spontaneously, as an instinctive response to a new situation. Conversely, when the learner adapts acquired knowledge into a new situation, a high road transfer is occurring. In this study, I am not only looking for examples of low road, that is, exact replications of Reading Recovery principles and procedures, but also will consider how teachers are modifying elements of Reading Recovery for use in a whole class context.   It has been argued that the transfer of problem-solving strategies (Crowley & Siegler, 1999) requires that the learner have a deep understanding of the strategy plus conditional knowledge of its potential applications. Learners gain this conditional understanding as they Chapter 2, Theoretical Frame 37 expand in their ability to articulate the nature of the strategy. That is, the more deeply one understands a strategy, the more flexibly and broadly the learner can apply it in other contexts. Bransford, Brown, and Cocking (2004) theorized four key elements of learning transfer: the necessity of initial learning, the importance of abstract and conceptual knowledge, the conception of learning as an active and dynamic process, and the notion that all learning is transferred. For each element, I discuss how teacher learning in the context of Reading Recovery training might be supported to transfer.  First, for transfer to occur, some initial learning must occur. As opposed to simple memorization, transfer is more likely to occur when the learner obtained deeper understanding of concepts. Practical use of knowledge and motivation are also seen as enhancements to learning transfer. Developing meta-cognition, or the awareness of how one thinks and learns is seen as important to increasing both learning and transfer. From this viewpoint, the multiple and frequent opportunities in the Reading Recovery training to discuss and challenge teachers’ understandings of underlying knowledge would be seen as a potential enhancer to transfer. However, the depth of understanding that each individual teacher constructs would also play into their capacity to adapt Reading Recovery learning back within a classroom setting.   Second, learning in multiple contexts provides the learner the capacity to identify key elements of concepts and to develop more flexible representations of that knowledge. Developing deep versus shallow levels of understanding enable transfer between more widely varied settings. Learning to distinguish core elements from more trivial details in knowledge renders that knowledge more transferable. During the Reading Recovery training year, teachers provide individual instruction to four different children daily and begin work with a new student immediately when one student completes his/her series of lessons (CIRR, 2006). Although a Chapter 2, Theoretical Frame 38 child’s series of lessons may be extended during the training year beyond the normal 12- to 18-week period, it is not uncommon for training teachers to work with eight or more different children during the training year. As well, training and continuing teachers in Reading Recovery have the opportunity to observe and discuss the live, “behind the glass” teaching of two different children at each Reading Recovery professional development session. Each of these components of the structure of Reading Recovery training expose the teachers to and require the teachers’ consideration of Reading Recovery pedagogy within the context of different learners. A key skill, according to proponents of Reading Recovery, is the teacher’s ability to formatively assess different children and tailor their instruction according to the needs of a child. To develop this skill beginning in the training year, the teachers are asked to examine what they have learned in the training and apply this knowledge in a case-by-case approach. Third, Bransford, Brown, and Cocking (2004) agree with Schunk (2004) in that previous learning can either help or hinder new learning. The compatibility of the new knowledge with the old and the degree of similarity between learning contexts could facilitate or frustrate new learning or the application of old knowledge in a new setting. I acknowledge that individual teachers’ prior knowledge, beliefs, and history of practice will shape the nature and degree of change brought about by the Reading Recovery training. Some teachers may find Reading Recovery training compatible with their previous practices. Other teachers may have held a different theoretical stance (e.g., they taught reading mainly through the presentation of high quality children’s literature without an emphasis on direct instruction) and find themselves in conflict with the paradigms of Reading Recovery. Cultural practices are seen as having a strong role in connecting old and new learning – for example, if a teacher customarily activated prior knowledge in a classroom before introducing Chapter 2, Theoretical Frame 39 new material, this practice might assist them in understanding Clay’s (2005b) approach towards orienting a struggling reader to a new text before reading. However, new Reading Recovery teachers with a teaching tradition that greatly differs from the practices found in Reading Recovery might find it difficult to accept ideas from their training.  Finally, transfer of learning is seen as the ultimate goal of any learning. Learning that occurs in schools for example, is seen as outwardly destined for application in the world beyond school. Teachers are encouraged to develop tools in their students to help them “choose, adapt, and invent tools for solving problems” (p. 78). Learning for learning’s sake (i.e. memorization of facts) is not regarded as the goal of teaching. The authors argue that learning should lead to skills and knowledge that were applicable to real world contexts. In this light, teachers should only transfer learning from Reading Recovery that they felt had application to the contexts of their classrooms. The degree of transfer would hinge upon an individual’s teacher’s assessment of the value of Reading Recovery-learning to their own classroom practice. Working within this theory, the degree and depth to which teachers understand Reading Recovery pedagogy will influence their transfer of skills into classroom settings. Teachers will also navigate the varying contexts between teaching in a one-to-one setting in Reading Recovery and the different contexts found in a classroom (e.g., small group, whole class). Where there may be sometimes a seemingly automatic transfer of skills between similar contexts (e.g., providing feedback to a single child reading in a classroom) there may be different degrees of transfer when the connection between the Reading Recovery and classroom context is more abstract (e.g., reading a story to an entire classroom). Individual teachers then, following this line of thought on transfer of learning, may vary in the situations, degrees, and frequency of transfer of Reading Recovery skills to their own classrooms. Chapter 3, Clay’s Theory and Curriculum for Teachers-in-Training 40 Chapter  3: Reading Recovery: Clay’s Theory and Curriculum for Teachers-in-Training  Given that this study focuses on teacher learning originating in the training provided by Reading Recovery, it is necessary to provide the reader with some detail of the intended learning outcomes of Reading Recovery’s teacher training and describe the instructional procedures, language, and philosophies associated with the program. In this chapter, I outline Reading Recovery’s syllabus according to what I have established as dimensions of teacher learning (i.e. procedures, language, knowledge, and beliefs; see Chapter 1) to operationalize potential signposts of Reading Recovery-based teacher learning that could be reported or observed within this study’s data. A Knowledge Base for Reading Recovery Teachers: Clay’s Theory of Literacy Processing Reading Recovery training and practice are situated with Clay’s (1991, 1998, 2001, 2005a) theory of literacy processing, which is described as foundational to the procedures (Clay, 2005a, 2005b) implemented by Reading Recovery teachers. Askew and Gaffney (1999) discuss one of Reading Recovery training’s positive impacts on teachers was their increased knowledge of literacy processes and development. A major component of the intended learning of Reading Recovery training is that teachers “develop their understanding of reading and writing processes” (NZRR, 2010b, Tutor Information: Objectives of the Teacher Training Course).  In Clay’s (1991, 1998, 2005a) theory, children are seen as emerging into literacy, growing at individual paces and along various paths shaped by their unique experiences, aptitudes, and interests. From this perspective, literacy learning is not viewed as a sequential, lock-step instructional process. While there are essential early skills and knowledge in the development of Chapter 3, Clay’s Theory and Curriculum for Teachers-in-Training 41 reading and writing processes, Clay argues that children may take different paths towards a common outcome of literacy development. Individualized instruction is viewed as more efficient than a universal curriculum or pre-determined sequences of instruction for all learners.  Many of the Reading Recovery teaching procedures are guided by the question, “What do proficient readers do as they problem-solve increasingly difficult texts?” (Clay, 2001, p. 43). Clay (2005b) defines reading as a “message-getting, problem-solving activity that increases in power and flexibility the more it is practiced” (pp. 103-4). Children are viewed as actively constructing their own systems of literacy skills through their negotiation and completion of accumulated reading and writing tasks. Clay presents literacy development mainly from a cognitive stance, stating that there are common and essential bodies of knowledge literacy learners must access. More important, however, is how effectively young readers and writers strategically handle this information to synthesize or produce a text-based meaning. She summarizes the complexity of the a literacy processing system in the following: In a complex model of interacting competencies in reading and writing the reader can potentially draw from all his or her current understanding, and all his or her language competencies, and visual information, and phonological information, and knowledge of printing conventions, in ways which extend both the searching and linking processes as well as the item knowledge repertoire. Learners pull together necessary information from print in simple ways at first . . . but as opportunities to read and write accumulate over time the learner becomes able to quickly and momentarily construct a somewhat complex operating system which might solve the problem. (Clay, 2001, p. 224) Children are seen as undertaking strategic cognitive processes as they read and write text (Clay, 2005b). As they read and write, children make decisions as they search for and use Chapter 3, Clay’s Theory and Curriculum for Teachers-in-Training 42 information from a variety of sources (visual, meaning, structure, audiological), cross-check sources of information against one another, select amongst alternatives, monitor the effectiveness of their decisions, or self-correct errors. “Reading Recovery children are taught to use cues and strategies rather than to memorize skills in order to read fluently” (Hill & Hale, 1991, p. 481). Clay is careful to distinguish the common use of the term “strategy” which may imply a scripted, standard response to a literacy problem (e.g., “When in doubt, sound it out”) from “thinking strategically”, where a child uses what he knows in conjunction with cues in the text to solve problems (e.g., teacher prompts, “What do you expect to see at the beginning?” [Clay, 2005b, p. 108]). Children’s literacy development is viewed through a constructivist lens. “Children construct their personal rules about written language from the print you expose them to” (p. 2). In Clay’s (2005a) theory, children are depicted as cognitively building a literacy processing system, or skills and knowledge that enable literate acts: Children use their brains to attend to certain things, to work out certain things, to find similarities and differences, to build complex processing systems, to use the language they already speak, and to link it to visual squiggles on paper” (p. 3).  Such processes and knowledge emerge, then become internal (Jones, 1995) and ultimately, elusive to the teacher. At best, through careful observation of visible behaviours, a teacher can only make informed assumptions about the nature of a child’s approach to literacy processing, but is cautioned to remain tentative and flexible in those interpretations of the implications of the child’s behaviours.  Six embedded principles (NZRR, 2010a, Teacher Guidesheet: Key understandings) are identified in the Reading Recovery literature as keystone knowledge within Clay’s theory: Chapter 3, Clay’s Theory and Curriculum for Teachers-in-Training 43 1) The power of individual instruction 2) Acceleration of children’s learning 3) Reciprocal gains of reading and writing 4) Independence 5) Building the foundations for a self-extending system The power of individual instruction. Although Clay did not refer to Vygotsky during the development of the intervention, the pedagogy of Reading Recovery has since been described in Vygotskian terms (Clay & Cazden, 1990; Cox, Fang, & Schmitt, 1998; Gaffney & Anderson, 1991; Moore, 1998; Sylva, Hurry, & Peters, 1997) which lend themselves well to describing the individualized and scaffolded (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976) nature of Clay’s approach to literacy instruction. Clay (2005b) argues that the major advantage of individual instruction is its affordance of time and attention for the teacher to design effective instruction for each child. To ensure that the teacher is mindful of a child’s ZAD and ZPD, Reading Recovery intends that teachers spend the first ten lessons getting to know the child and his particular competencies thoroughly, in a period referred to as Roaming Around the Known (Clay, 2005a). Teachers are guided during these initial lessons to stay tightly within the child’s ZAD, consolidating, bringing more fluency and confidence to what the child already knows and, in this getting-to-know-one-another process, try to unearth previously unseen knowledge within the child.  Once regular lessons have commenced, the teacher, through daily assessment and observation, is coached to gear her lessons, feedback, and cues according to the immediate needs of the child. Clay (2005b) writes: The teacher’s prompts and other responses during the reading have two aims:  Chapter 3, Clay’s Theory and Curriculum for Teachers-in-Training 44 a) To improve the processing of information on continuous texts (the orchestration of efficient reading, the pulling together of everything you know) [Zone of Actual Development: ZAD] b) To support the continued expansion of the processing system itself to cope with more features of language [Zone of Proximal Development: ZPD] The teacher helps the child to get to information from print to facilitate the reading of the story in different ways. She must be tentative. She can never be certain what kind of help is needed. (p. 93) This direction from Clay aligns with Vygotsky’s (1978) view of the utility of the ZPD, as he states, “Thus, the zone of proximal development permits us to delineate the child’s immediate future and his dynamic development state, allowing not only for what already has been achieved developmentally but also for what is in the course of maturing” (p. 87).  The Reading Recovery teachers are directed to give attention to both the child’s ZAD (through successful practice of reading and writing familiar texts) and the ZPD (via the challenges to the existing processing system). “In short, an inverse relationship exists between the contribution of the teachers’ resources and the demands that can placed on students as their resources develop. The role of the teacher is to control this shift” (Clay, 2001, pp. 113-14). Clay asserts that the teacher must not work from predetermined assumptions, or instructional sequences that may have worked with other children, but to remain tentative and open to accurately observe the needs of the child at hand. Through this lens, Reading Recovery instruction is viewed as “a system of social interaction organized around the comprehension and production of texts that demonstrably creates new forms of cognitive activity in the child” (Clay & Cazden, 1990, p. 206).  Chapter 3, Clay’s Theory and Curriculum for Teachers-in-Training 45 Lyons, Pinnell, and DeFord (1993) describe how a teacher-in-training’s understanding of their role in instruction may shift from a traditional classroom perspective to what they term an active teaching role: Active teaching in this sense is not the same as planned direct instruction. Like direct instruction, teachers take the initiative to draw students’ attention to critical elements in the reading process. But unlike direct instruction, teachers’ moves must conform to students’ responses and repertoire. Making the decisions related to their active teaching is the most difficult challenge for Reading Recovery teachers. (p. 91) Acceleration of children’s learning. Within Clay’s philosophy, low-progress children need a period of accelerated learning, if they are to close an ever-widening gap between their achievement and that of their peers each year (Clay, 1987, 2005a; Stanovich, 1986). “In order to become an average-progress child he will have to progress faster than his classmates for a time if he is to catch up to them. Acceleration refers to this increase in the rate of progress” (Clay, 2005a, p. 22). In Clay’s view, the child’s accelerated learning is dependent upon “how well the teacher selects the clearest, easiest, most memorable examples with which to establish a new response, skill, principle, or procedure” (p. 23). Acceleration is not seen as a condition that the teacher suddenly switches on. Rather, from the onset of lessons, the Reading Recovery teacher is asked to provide a learning environment where more and more things become familiar and easy to the child and, as a result, his attention can turn to new challenges. In this context, acceleration should occur, as the child uses each day’s successes to empower new learning. Reciprocal gains of reading and writing. Clay (1991, 2005a) views both reading and writing as complex, cognitive processes, which embody the challenge of linking together Chapter 3, Clay’s Theory and Curriculum for Teachers-in-Training 46 invisible spoken language with visible printed symbols. Working from Clay’s theoretical base, Reading Recovery personnel view reading as a complex process of making meaning from printed symbols, and writing as a message-sending act through the recording of meanings in print.  Reading is a message-getting, problem-solving activity, which increases in power and flexibility the more it is practiced. It is complex because within the directional constraints of written language verbal and perceptual behaviours are purposefully directed in some integrated way to the problems of extracting sequences of information from texts to yield meaningful and specific communications. (Clay, 2001, p. 1) Reading and writing are complex processes, within which lay many interconnected sub-processes and knowledge which, from their foundation, need to mature into dynamic, flexible, efficient, and self-extending processing systems, according to Clay (2005a, 2005b). “Familiar marks on the page can be linked to familiar language networks in the brain, and they allow us to make sense of novel messages never read before. Processing activities may involve only one network or many networks ‘talking’ to each other!” (Clay, 2005a, p. 1). In Clay’s theory, reading, writing, and oral language development are reciprocally beneficial to one another and can be both drawn from and built upon explicitly and incidentally by teaching and learning amongst the three modalities of language (Clay, 2004, 2005b, Spiegel, 1995). “Learning to write letters, words and sentences is particularly helpful as the child learns to make the visual discriminations of detail in print that he will use in his reading” (Clay, 2005a, p. 27). However, this association does not occur for all children spontaneously, and may require that a teacher point out these connections. Chapter 3, Clay’s Theory and Curriculum for Teachers-in-Training 47 From this standpoint, Reading Recovery teachers are asked to foster growth in both a child’s reading and writing (and their oral language, as “the child’s ultimate resource for learning to read and write is his spoken language” [Clay, 2005b, p 2]). Reading and writing activities in Reading Recovery lessons, then, should receive equal priority and be seen with equal gravitas by the teachers. Working with Clay’s theory, teachers may become mindful of a child’s strengths in and across language modalities so that competence or knowledge in one mode may be called up to assist the child in another. Independence. Proponents of Reading Recovery argue that one of the indications of success of a literacy intervention is the child’s development of independence. Following this line of thought, children in Reading Recovery are encouraged to make attempts to solve most problems. Clay (2005b) states: Do not establish a pattern where the child waits for the teacher to do the work. The child must learn to take the initiative, make some links, and work at a difficulty. That is the general principle that needs to be established in the first lessons. (p. 107) The Reading Recovery training often highlights the importance of fostering children’s independence. According to Clay: [Reading Recovery] Teachers aim to produce independent readers so that reading and writing improve whenever children read and write. The reader who problem-solves independently has continual access to new learning. Some things become routine and the brain takes over most of the checking and rapidly locates familiar things. The reader is then free to deliberately attend to other things and can, independent of the teacher, extend his own learning. (2005a, p. 40) Chapter 3, Clay’s Theory and Curriculum for Teachers-in-Training 48 Building the foundation for a self-extending system. In the Reading Recovery’s mind’s eye, the goal of literacy instruction should be that teachers aim to produce readers and writers who improve each time they read and write (Clay, 2005a).  Ideally, a child draws from each successful encounter with texts, adding to the repertoire of what he can do, confirming and extending what he knows about printed language, and making more complex levels of performance easy through accumulated successes reading and writing. To develop such a self-extending system requires longer than a single school year. Clay (2005b) points out that: Children completing their Reading Recovery lesson series will not yet have completed the construction of a self-extending system. They are well on the way but they need to continue to be successful readers and writers in their classroom able to access their teacher’s help with oral reading for another 12 to 18 months. (p. 99) Reading Recovery teachers are reminded that their goal is not to arrange for children to construct completed, self-extending systems. Instead, they need watch for the foundations of literacy processing systems that have self-generative capacity so that children can continue to flourish in the context of regular classroom instruction. At the heart of Clay’s theory, individual children may be seen as taking different paths toward a common goal of literacy “success,” varying in their unique experiences, aptitudes, and interests. This view defies the use of a single curriculum or instructional sequence that would seem to promise to benefit all children equally. Clay (2001) is critical of such a view of instruction, stating, “Critics of schools sometimes imply that people have different levels of intelligence but that all people can reach a similar level in reading achievement. These two Chapter 3, Clay’s Theory and Curriculum for Teachers-in-Training 49 expectations are contradictory” (p. 23). Cox and Hopkins (2006) argue that Reading Recovery training provides teachers with “a conceptual understanding of the literacy process as it develops for diverse children” (p. 263), which, in their view, comprises a critical element to both successful intervention and classroom literacy instruction. The Reading Recovery Curriculum for Teacher Training: Procedures, Language, and Beliefs The training year of Reading Recovery is framed within a standard curriculum (CIRR, 2006; Clay, 2004, 2005a, 2005b; Reading Recovery New Zealand [RRNZ], 2010a, 2010b; RRCNA, 2008).  Teaching procedures. Both the guidesheets for teachers and information sheets for Teacher Leaders (NZRR, 2010a, 2010b) identify intended skills for new Reading Recovery teachers. Ideally, through participation in the course, teachers: • Become skilled at using a range of systematic observation techniques to assess and guide children’s reading and writing progress • Become competent at using the specific Reading Recovery teaching procedures • Are able to design individual instruction that assists the child to produce effective strategies for working on text • Are able to critically evaluate their work and that of their peers • Are able to guide the programme and report regularly on its operation in their schools. (NZRR, 2010b, Tutor [i.e. Teacher Leader] Information: Objectives of the Teacher Training Course) Observation techniques. During their first professional development sessions in Reading Recovery, teachers undergo training to administer and interpret Clay’s (2002) Observation Chapter 3, Clay’s Theory and Curriculum for Teachers-in-Training 50 Survey of Early Literacy Achievement. This assessment is designed to capture a snapshot of a child’s current competencies in the emergent phase of literacy. Children are observed undertaking a variety of early reading and writing tasks so that a teacher may gain a sense of a child’s control and understanding of letter identification, concepts about printed language, reading/writing vocabulary, and letter/sound association. These assessments are later used formatively in the design of a child’s early Reading Recovery lessons and, summatively, when pre- and post-intervention scores are compared to measure progress. Teachers are also trained in the taking and analysis of running records of continuous text reading (Clay, 2002). Running records are used to find a child’s beginning instructional text level, but are also recorded during each lesson. The analysis of these daily records is expected to inform the planning of subsequent reading instruction.  General teaching procedures. Reading Recovery teachers are trained to structure each 30-minute lesson using a common, repeated framework of activities (Clay, 2005a): a) Rereading of familiar texts b) Independent reading of yesterday’s lesson’s new text, teacher records running record c) Working with letters and words at magnetic whiteboard d) Composing and writing of a daily message e) Reconstruction of a cut-apart sentence, taken from the daily message f) Introduction to and reading of a new text Applying a standardized lesson frame within an “individualized” program may appear contradictory, but as Anderson (1999) writes: The Reading Recovery teacher is invited to make many decisions, but at the same time to take other lesson features as givens. That there will be boundaries on Chapter 3, Clay’s Theory and Curriculum for Teachers-in-Training 51 decision-making is inevitable; you cannot question everything at the same time. Decisions are impossible unless some conditions are accepted as given, at least provisionally. (p. 7) Some teaching procedures (e.g., Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words [HRSW], pp. 72-81; Making a personal alphabet book for a child, pp. 35-6) provide explicit descriptions of what the teacher says and does in the implementation of the procedure. In the example of HRSW, during the writing portion of the lesson, the teacher draws Elkonin boxes (i.e., one box for each phoneme in the word to be solved) as a scaffold to support the child’s attempt to spell an unknown word. The child articulates the word slowly, while pushing chips, one at a time, into the boxes to help isolate and identify the phonemes so that he can later record matching letters for each sound with minimum assistance required from his teacher to arrive at the conventional spelling of the unknown word. Other procedures, such as the teacher’s introduction of a new text to the child are not as scripted, but instead are guided by suggestions from Clay. For example, how teachers introduce each new text to be read by a child for the first time is left to the teacher’s design with the following suggestions: Having carefully selected a book for a particular child the teacher reads it herself, thinking about the best ways to orient this child to this book. Make the child familiar • With the story [theme], • With the plot, • With the phrases of language that he might never have heard, • With unusual names and new words, Chapter 3, Clay’s Theory and Curriculum for Teachers-in-Training 52 • And with old words used in an unusual way. (p. 91) Teaching procedures that are either described explicitly or with supportive suggestion are listed in Table 3.1. Table 3.1 Explicit and Suggestion Supported Reading Recovery Teaching Procedures Explicitly Described Procedures Suggestion Supported Procedures • Recording directional behaviours (p. 8) • Early teaching of one-to-one voice/print matching (pp. 16-18). • Creating a personal alphabet book for the child (pp. 35-37) • Learning about how words are constructed (pp. 42-45) • The form of the child’s workspace for the daily message (p. 54) • Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words (p. 72-79) • Working with the Cut-up Story (pp. 82-84) • Learning about how words work – solving and constructing words of growing complexity (pp. 140-145) • Assisting children who know little about stories or story telling (pp. 162-163) • Assisting children with sequencing problems (pp. 165-166) • Steps to take when working with children who are finding it hard to accelerate (pp. 180-182) • Modeling directionality of print     (p. 7) • Teaching starting position (p. 9) • Encouraging/discouraging children to point at text while reading (pp. 10-13) • Breaking letters out of words (pp. 19-20) • Using space when writing and assembling cut-up stories (p. 20) • Assisting children’s adaption from one-line to multi-line pages of text (p. 20) • Using a non-lined page for children’s writing (p. 20) • Extending letter identification (pp. 23-29) • Dealing with confusions of visual forms of letters (pp. 29-30) • Fostering fast visual recognition of visual information (p. 31) • Expanding known words in reading and writing (pp. 40-41) • Extending child’s control of oral language (p. 51) • Eliciting a story or conversation with the child (p. 55) • Supporting the child as he writes   (p. 57) • Extending the child’s writing vocabulary (p. 57-59) • Engaging the child in rereading his written story (p. 61-62) • Selecting words for child to add to his written vocabulary (p.64) • Adjusting the level of support in writing through the series of lessons (p. 67) • Selecting words to be solved using Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words (pp. 72-79) • Teacher control of the learning opportunities and level of support in Hearing and Recording Sounds in Words (pp. 72-79) • Teacher control of learning opportunities and level of support in the Cut-Up Story (pp. 82-85) • Choosing texts for children (pp. 89-90) • Orienting children to the new story before reading (pp.90-93) • Supporting and teaching children during the first reading of a text (pp. 92-95) • Taking a running record during the second reading of a text, the next day (p. 97) • Teaching after the second reading (p. 97-98) • Building a collection of familiar texts (p. 98) • Providing opportunities for familiar reading (p. 98) • Selecting appropriate prompts (pp. 115-116) • Linking sound and letter sequences (pp. 118-125) • Taking words apart when reading (pp. 129-132) • Adjusting the level of support when children are solving words (pp. 132-133) • Taking words apart after reading (p. 133) • Solving words through analogy to known words (pp. 133-137) • Learning to solve more advanced words (pp. 145-148) • Demonstrating and fostering fluent reading (pp. 152-157) Chapter 3, Clay’s Theory and Curriculum for Teachers-in-Training 53 Explicitly Described Procedures Suggestion Supported Procedures • Assisting children with strong skills that block learning (pp. 169-172) • Assisting children who find it hard to hear sounds or see letters (pp. 173-174) • Assisting children who find it hard to remember (pp. 175-178) • Assisting children with more than one problem area (pp. 179-180) • Teaching children with low proficiency in English (pp. 182-183)   Clay (2005a) argues that struggling children differ more among themselves than average children learning to read and write, and that their confusions may require different approaches than those used commonly in classrooms. As a goal for a teacher-in-training, Clay suggests that she: Must know of many ways to foster literacy skills, must vary her teaching sequences, and be bold in negotiating short-cuts. To be able to pick and choose among teaching techniques and learning activities, and pull the right one into her lesson at the crucial moment, that teacher must be very familiar with possible teaching alternatives. (p. 26) Clay (2005b) sets out that, in Reading Recovery, “There are no set teaching sequences: there is no prescription to learn this before that. A highly appropriate recommendation for one child could be an unnecessary one for another child” (p. 2). Herein lies a challenge for many teachers training in Reading Recovery: the prospect of teaching an exceptional child without the comfort of a completely preconceived sequence of lessons or scripted responses to “common” occurrences.  Critical evaluation of teaching. Clifford Johnson (2001), in an address to a U.S. national assembly of Reading Recovery Teacher Leaders, stated: [Reading Recovery] Teachers come to understand that acquiring techniques and procedures is not all that is required to teach effectively. What they come to Chapter 3, Clay’s Theory and Curriculum for Teachers-in-Training 54 understand with [the Teacher Leader’s] help is the critical nature of making good teaching decisions for individual children. During behind-the-glass discussions, teachers learn to discuss, question, challenge, and revise their thinking about what is appropriate for struggling readers and writers. Because of [the support of the Teacher Leader] they learn to make better teaching decisions. (p. 23) It would seem teachers training in Reading Recovery are called to both assess and, based on their critique, adjust their instruction to better suit the needs of the children they are teaching. “It is necessary to ensure that change occurs in your teaching during each child’s series of individually designed lessons. Gaining deeper insights about how you are working will lead to greater understanding and more effective teaching decisions” (NZRR, 2010a, Teacher Guidesheet, Reviewing progress: Change over time in teaching). Reading Recovery Trainers, Pinnell, Fried, and Estice (1990) conclude, “In the long run, perhaps the most important benefit of Reading Recovery for teachers is the insight they acquire in the process of analyzing and articulating their own teaching decisions” (p. 289). In addition, teachers are encouraged to use both their Running Records and the notes that they record on daily lesson records as sources of information to inform their instruction. For example, a teacher could review her own records when a child’s progress slowed to look for ineffective patterns in her teaching. The two live demonstration lessons, and the discussions that surround them during each of the professional development sessions, also are meant to facilitate a critical view of the teachers’ own teaching. During these lessons, the observing teachers are to identify decisions, inquire, challenge, and explore alternatives to their colleagues’ decisions during the demonstration lessons as a means of informing their own practice. Witnessing the demonstration lessons Chapter 3, Clay’s Theory and Curriculum for Teachers-in-Training 55 provides the training group with examples of children representing a far wider variety of learners then they would experience in their own teaching.  While the observing teachers may provide some feedback to the demonstration teachers, it is often presented that the major benefactors of the demonstration lessons are the observers. Within the Reading Recovery culture, providing a demonstration lesson for colleagues is viewed as a tremendous gift, as it affords the observers opportunity to learn from a colleague’s example and take from the lesson whatever each observer deems relevant and important to their own teaching. Often in the discussion following the demonstration lessons, observing teachers comment on what implications an aspect of the demonstration lesson held for their own teaching. Comments such as, “Tomorrow, when I teach [child], I’m going to try this”, “You handled [X] well, I have to try that”, “I was wondering why you chose to go that route”, or “You made me think about [X] when I was watching your lesson” are common in a professional development session. Program implementation. Reading Recovery teachers are also tasked with becoming the stewards for the intervention within their schools and communities and, when necessary, providing information about Reading Recovery to other staff in their schools and districts. Teachers-in-training are expected to participate in their schools’ literacy teams (CIRR, 2006), supporting the implementation by working with their school teams to ensure a standard implementation.  Suggested language. As part of the Reading Recovery curriculum, teachers are also presented prompts, which are language the teacher might use in hopes of generating a specific response by the child. Clay is careful to distinguish between the two terms, teaching and prompting, writing, “Give thoughtful attention to the level of help the child needs and decide Chapter 3, Clay’s Theory and Curriculum for Teachers-in-Training 56 when you are prompting for processing or when you should be supplying information that the learner does not have (teaching)” (p. 94). In the Reading Recovery community, specific language, based upon names of procedures, Clay’s theoretical terminology, or quoting the prompts is common in the discourse of Reading Recovery professionals. Each of the chapters of Literacy Lessons Designed for Individuals, Part Two contains several prompts. While there is an appendix of numerous categorized prompts in Clay’s text (2005b, pp. 202-205), many of the prompts appear only in their relevant chapters. Clay designed the text with the intention of maintaining a salient bond between the teaching procedures and their underlying theoretical principles (Table 3.2). Presumably, through this structuring of the text, teachers are steered through a review of the theoretical underpinnings en route to locating a specific prompt.  Table 3.2 Reading Recovery Principles with Corresponding Prompts in Literacy Lessons Part II (Clay, 2005b)    Reading Recovery Principles Guiding Specific Prompts • Encouraging a pointing finger only at times of confusion (p. 12) • Modeling the scanning of words left to right (p. 13) • Drawing attention to letters (p. 27) • Encouraging writing known words faster (p. 62) • Calling for search of knowledge to solve a word in reading (p. 65) • Calling for search of knowledge to solve a word in writing (p. 65) • Intervening in errors in writing (p. 66) • Teaching after the first reading of a text (p. 95) • Rereading for fluency (p. 96) • Checking, extending comprehension after first reading (p. 97) • Encouraging checking with one-to-one matching (p. 106) • Locating known words in continuous text (p. 106) • Locating an unknown word (p. 107) • Encouraging children to remember words (p. 107) • Fostering self-monitoring (pp. 108-109) • Fostering cross-checking of information (p. 110) • Fostering searching for information of various types (pp. 111, 115) • Encouraging use of visual information (p. 111) • Praising self-correction (p. 113) • Fostering self-monitoring/self- correction (p. 113) • Drawing attention to visual features (p. 132) • Encouraging phrasing in fluent reading (p. 150)  Chapter 3, Clay’s Theory and Curriculum for Teachers-in-Training 57 While teaching Reading Recovery, the teachers endeavor to select the most effective prompt they can offer in moment-to-moment teaching. However, the sheer number and variety of prompts in the text require that most teachers read and return to the text many times in order to expand their repertoire. To foster the acquisition of Reading Recovery “language”, teachers-in-training are encouraged to incorporate and increase the variety of Clay’s language in both their teaching and discussion at professional development sessions. Beliefs. Richard Anderson (1999) writes, “The Reading Recovery teacher assuredly must be a reflective practitioner and an empowered professional decision maker” (p. 7). Many of the skills and knowledge presented throughout the Reading Recovery training seem designed towards fostering reflexivity of practice and theory-based instructional decision-making.  Reading Recovery also houses a paradigm shift away from blaming deficits in children for literacy struggle, looking instead to the capacity and decisions of their teachers. Clay (2002) argues, “All children are ready to learn more than they already know; it is the teachers who need to know how to create appropriate instruction for each child, whatever his or her starting point” (p. 10). From this standpoint, it is the teacher’s responsibility to find the means to teach each child and to expect and maximize progress by building on what each child can do (Clay, 1987, 2005a, 2005b). According to Pinnell, Fried and Estice (1990), many teachers who train in Reading Recovery “look more closely at the students they are teaching and find it easier to see strengths” (pp. 289-90). Assuming a positive outlook, building upwards from what a child is able to do, as opposed to viewing the child as somehow defective or fixating on a child’s challenges, is frequently promoted in the Reading Recovery community. Zealotry within the Reading Recovery community. While Reading Recovery has ardent supporters, the intervention could be described as polarizing based on its also having its share of Chapter 3, Clay’s Theory and Curriculum for Teachers-in-Training 58 harsh critics. Detractors of Reading Recovery question the reported potency of Reading Recovery’s outcomes (e.g. Tumner, Chapman, Greaney, Prochnow, & Arrow, 2013) and have pointed out what they see as a “cult-like” loyalty amongst its supporters (e.g. Bennett, 2011).   Even within the organization, not all teachers trained in Reading Recovery agree with Clay’s approach. In her 1997 critique of the Reading Recovery teacher training, Bonnie Barnes described feeling as though her previous body of literacy instruction skills and knowledge were not acknowledged. She described having a sense of disapproval in the Reading Recovery training context, which she described as hostile and judgmental.  In response, other teachers in Barnes’ training class (Browne, Fitts, McLaughlin, McNamara, & Williams, 1997) reported differently, stating they had “expanded their professional horizons” (p. 297). They took a different perspective to the training, reporting: We did not discard the rich knowledge base we had developed through teaching. But, as learners do when they enter new territory, we were open to new understandings and ideas, gradually adjusting our knowledge as we learned more. We took a fresh look at children, not working on previous assumptions but testing all of our theories daily as we closely observed children. Most of us did rethink previous use of instructional techniques; we did not so much discard our repertoire as we realized that we had to use different approaches with different children. (p. 297) From these teachers’ reports, it would appear that some Reading Recovery teachers’ experience in Reading Recovery training could hinge on their level of comfort examining their own practice and their openness to new viewpoints. However, Barnes’ critique also points out a cultural aspect of the Reading Recovery community, in which some teachers may feel marginalized if they Chapter 3, Clay’s Theory and Curriculum for Teachers-in-Training 59 disagree with aspects of the training. While a common acceptance of Clay’s tenets may help to build community amongst teachers, it also may create an underlying social pressure for teachers to conform to the majority voice so that they feel a greater sense of belonging and acceptance from their peers and Teacher Leader. Signposts of Reading Recovery learning. From this discussion of the intended learning outcomes of the Reading Recovery training, in Table 3.3 I have identified teacher actions, knowledge, language, and beliefs (CIRR, 2006; Clay, 2004, 2005a, 2005b; RRNZ, 2010a, 2010b; RRCNA, 2008; Stouffer, 2011b) that are brought forward during the year of training.  Table 3.3  Reading Recovery Training Intended Learning Outcomes for Teachers  Teacher Actions& Language Teacher Knowledge Teacher Beliefs  Observation techniques • Observation Survey of Early Literacy Achievement (Clay, 2004) • Running Records  Teaching Procedures • See Table 3.4  Individual Instruction Design • Analysis of Running Records • Matching teaching decisions to observed behaviours  Teaching Prompts and Reading Recovery Vocabulary • See Table 3.5  Clay’s general theory of learning to read and write  Designing individual instruction  Fostering accelerated learning  The reciprocal nature of reading and writing  Fostering learner’s independence  Concept of a learner’s construction of a self-extending system of literacy processing  Reflective of own practice • Awareness of theory driving teaching decisions • Willing to learn and apply new skills and knowledge  Raised expectations for all students • Belief that all children will learn to read and write • Shift to examination of quality of teaching versus deficits of child  Teacher actions and language are both reportable through the survey instrument and directly observable (i.e. what the teachers do and say) in their classrooms. For the purposes of this study, I will look for instances where the teachers appear to using Reading Recovery-like Chapter 3, Clay’s Theory and Curriculum for Teachers-in-Training 60 procedures or language (e.g., teaching prompts) that appear to stem from Reading Recovery training (Tables 3.4 & 3.5) in their classrooms as indicators of potential transfer. Table 3.4  Observable Procedures that May Be Based in Reading Recovery Training  Teaching Procedures • Administering task(s) from An Observation Surve