UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Grade three teachers’ personal practical knowledge of reading instruction and its relationship to teacher… Asselin, Marlene McMahon 1995

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1995-059170.pdf [ 7.21MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0054917.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054917-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054917-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054917-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054917-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054917-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054917-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0054917-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0054917.ris

Full Text

GRADE THREE TEACHERS’ PERSONAL PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGEOF READiNG INSTRUCTION AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TOTEACHER BACKGROUND, THEIR STUDENTS’ READiNG EXPERIENCES AND ACHIEVEMENT: ASECONDARY ANALYSIS OF THE 1991 lEA READING LITERACY STUDYbyMARLENE MCMAHON ASSELINB.A., Northwestern University, Illinois, 1971M.A., The University of British Columbia, 1988A THESIS SUBMITTED iN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OFDOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHYmTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES(Centre for Study of Curriculum and Instruction)We accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAApril, 1995© Marlene McMahon Asselin, 1995In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements br an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature)Department ofThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate 4,tLDE.6 (2/88)11AbstractThe recent shift from behaviorist to cognitive views of teaching premises the role of teachers’knowledge in their instructional practice. In light of dramatic changes in literacy theory and policy,teachers’ knowledge of reading instruction is a particular interest in both teaching and literacy instructionresearch. The purpose of this study was to construct a description of grade three reading instruction inCanada (BC) and to explain differences between teachers’ instructional approaches on measures of teacherbackground, student background, and student achievement. To accomplish these purposes, this studyreanalyzed data from a representative sample of provincial teachers (N= 154) and students (N=2813) fromthe 1991 International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement Reading Literacy Study.Analysis was planned in two stages, exploratory followed by confirmatory. Exploratory first-andsecond-order factor analyses of the teacher data were conducted and two factors of reading instruction wereidentified. Based on interpretative frameworks of Traditional, Whole Language, and Strategic perspectivesof reading instruction, the factors were named Strategic Whole Language and Programmatic Skills. TheStrategic Whole Language factor seemed to emphasize students’ use of comprehension strategies in learner-centered, literature-based classrooms. The Programmatic Skills factor indicated an instructional approachthat is teacher-centered and focussed on students’ mastery of hierarchial skills. Following identificationof the reading instruction factors, exploratory cluster analysis based on teachers’ factor scores identifiedfour groups of teachers. None of the four teacher groups consistently reflected the properties of either theStrategic Whole I.anguage or Programmatic Skills factor. Finally, analyses of variance and chi squareanalyses revealed no statistically significant differences among these teacher groups on measures of teacherbackground, student background, and student achievement.Major findings from this study suggest that grade three teachers’ personal practical knowledge ofreading instruction is an interaction of independent factors rather than a subscription to one of theperspectives defined in the literature. In this way, the eclectic approaches to instruction found in this study111challenge the assumption of a paradigm shift declared in the reading literature. Second, students’ similarachievement across instructional approaches, as measured in this study, suggests equivalent effectivenessof several kinds of instruction for some, but not all, aspects of students’ reading development. Findingsfrom this study provide a foundation for teacher and curriculum development, particularly by identifyingthe minimal attention currently being paid to students’ strategic reading abilities. Finally, a number ofmethodological issues in large-scale assessement studies are discussed and suggestions concerning researchinstruments and data analysis are given.ivTable of ContentsAbstract jjTable of Contents ivList of Tables viiiList of Figures xAcknowledgement xiCHAPTER I: THE RESEARCH PROBLEM 1Background to the Problem 2Paradigms of Literacy and Reading Instruction 2Effective Reading Instruction 4Research Questions 7Research Problem 8Overview of Theoretical Frameworks 9Teacher Knowledge 9Perspectives of Reading Instruction 10Importance of the Study 12Limitations of the Study 14Chapter Summary and Overview of the Following Chapters 15CHAPTER U: PERSPECTIVES ON READING INSTRUCTION 16Traditional Perspective of Reading Instruction 17Influential Models of the Reading Process on the Traditional Perspective of ReadingInstruction 19Curriculum and Instruction in the Traditional Perspective of Reading Instruction 20Contentious Issues Related to the Traditional Perspective of Reading Instruction 22VSummary of Traditional Perspective of Reading Instruction 24Whole Language Perspective of Reading Instruction 24Theoretical Foundations of Whole Language 25Reading Curriculum and Instruction in the Whole Language Perspective 27Contentious Issues Related to the Whole Language Perspective of Reading Instruction . . . 28Strategic Reading Perspective of Reading Instruction 35Theoretical Foundations of Strategic Reading Perpsective of Reading Instruction 35Similarities Between Traditional. Whole Language, and Strategic Reading Perspectives ofReading Instruction 40Summary of Major Perspectives of Reading Instruction and Preview of Chapter ifi 42CHAPTER ifi: THE STUDY OF TEACHING 44Early Period (late 1800’s to 1940’s) 44Formalization Period (1950’s to 1970’s): The Rise and Fall of Process-Product Research. . 46Teacher Cognition 56Teacher Decision-Making 57Teacher Knowledge 63Teacher Knowledge and Teacher Change 65Chapter Summary and Preview 69CHAPTER IV: METHODOLOGY 72Background of the lEA Reading Literacy Study 75General Organization of the lEA Reading Literacy Study 77Research Procedures and Instruments: The Student Achievement Test, Student BackgroundQuestionnaire, and the Teacher Questionnaire 80Data Analysis 87Research Question One 88Research Question Two 92• 104• 106• 106• 107• 119• 126• 132• 134• 134134142CHAPTER VI: DISCUSSIONResearch Question OneFirst-Order FactorsSecond-Order Factors .Research Question TwoResearch Question Three .Research Question FourChapter Summary and Preview143143144156161166168172CONCLUSIONS. IMPLICATIONS 173vi9297Research Question ThreeResearch Question FourChapter Summary and PreviewCHAPTER V: FINDINGSResearch Question OnePart 1: First-Order Factor AnalysisPart 2: Second Order Factor AnalysisResearch Question TwoResearch Question ThreeResearch Question FourStudent Reading ExperienceStudent AchievementChapter Summary and PreviewCHAPTER VII: SUMMARY. LIMITATIONS.Summary of the StudyLimitationsConclusions173179182viiImplications.182APPENDICES 207Appendix A: Student Background Questionnaire 208Appendix B: Teacher Background Questionnaire 219Appendix C: Distribution of Teachers’ Professional reading 236Appendix D: Distribution of Teachers’ Casual reading 237Appendix E: Distribution of Principal Engagement 239Appendix F: Distribution of Students’ School Reading 240Appendix G: Distribution of Students’ Voluntary Reading 241Appendix H: Distribution of Students’ Reading Interactions 243Appendix I: Distribution of Students’ Affective Perception of Reading Acquisition 244Appendix 3: Distribution of Students’ High Level Perception of Reading Acquisition 245Appendix K: Distribution of Students’ Low Level Perception of Reading Acquisition 246Appendix L: Distribution of Students’ Self-rating 247Appendix M: Distribution of Students’ Homework Intensity 248Appendix N: Means, Standard Deviation, and Correlations of Reading Activities 249Appendix 0: Means, Standard Deviation, and Correlations of Instructional Strategies 252Appendix P: Means, Standard Deviation, and Correlations of Reading Instruction 253Appendix Q: Means, Standard Deviation, and Correlations of Assessment Methods 256Appendix R: Means, Standard Deviation, and Correlations of Assessment Focus 257Appendix S: Means and Standard Deviations of Second-Order Factors 258Appendix T: Means and Standard Deviations of Teacher Background Variables 259Appendix U: Means and Standard Deviations of Student Reading Experience Variables . . . . 260Appendix V: Request for Pennission to Use Information from lEA Reading Literacy Study . 261Appendix W: Permission to Use Information from lEA Reading Literacy Study 262viiiList of TablesTable 1: Comparative Assumptions of Traditional, Whole Language, and Strategic ReadingPerspectives of Reading Instruction 18Table 2: Summary of lEA and Actual Samples Used in This Study 79Table 3: Summary of Aspects of Reading Instruction Used in This Study 90Table 4: Summary of Teacher Background Variables Used in This Study 94Table 5: Summary of Procedures Used to Construct Teacher Background Variables 96Table 6: Summary of Procedures Used to Construct Student Reading Experience Variances 99Table 7: Summary of Student Reading Experience Variables Used in This Study 100Table 8: Summary of Student Reading Achievement Variables Used in Study 105Table 9: Two Factor Analysis of Reading Activities 108Table 10: Two Factor Analysis of Instructional Strategies 111Table 11: Two Factor Analysis of Views of Reading Instruction 113Table 12: Two Factor Analysis of Assessment Methods 118Table 13: One Factor Analysis of Assessment Focus 120Table 14: Two Factor Analysis of Assessment Focus 121Table 15: Summary of First-Order Factors of Reading Instruction 122Table 16: Results of 2nd Order Factor Analysis 124Table 17: Intercorrelations Among Variables Used in 2nd Order Factor Analysis 125Table 18: Summary of Cluster Analysis: Identifying Teacher Groups 128Table 19: Mean Scores on 2nd-Order Factor Variables by Teacher Group 129Table 20: Teacher Profiles on Second Order Factors of Instructional Practice 131Table 21: Summary of Significant Tests of Differences among Teacher Groups: TeacherCharacteristics and Classroom Conditions 133Table 22: Summary of Significant Tests of Differences among Teacher Groups: Student ReadingExperience 135ixTable 23: Means and Reliability Coefficients of Student Achievement 136Table 24: Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations of Student Achievement Domains:Student Level 138Table 25: Means and Standard Deviations of Student Achievement Domains: Teacher Level . . . . 139Table 26: Summary of Significant Tests of Differences among Teacher Groups: Student AchievementVariables 140Table 27: Intercorrelations Between 1st Order Factors and Student Reading Domain Scores 141Table 28: Summary of First-Order Factors: Emphases, Indications of Perspective Evolution, andVariables with Multiple Interpretations 147Table 29: Summary of Assumptions of First-order Factors and Their Relationships to Assumptionsof Traditional, Whole Language, and Strategic Reading Perspectives of Reading Instruction. 150Table 30: Summary of Central Qualities of Second Order Factors 160xList of Fi2uresFigure 1. Overview of the Design of the Study 74Figure 2. Teacher Profiles on Strategic Whole Language and Programmatic Skills 130xiAcknowledgementsThis completion of this thesis owes much to the encouragement, guidance, and efforts of manypeople. I would like to give special acknowledgement to my research advisor and committee, my familyand friends, and the British Columbia Ministry of Education.To Victor Froese, my research supervisor, I am grateful for the ongoing opportunities which heprovided me throughout my graduate program for expanding my interests, particularly to the field of largescale assessment. To Marion Crowhurst I am thankful for her continual willingness to venture into newterrorities on my behalf, as well as her ability to lead me to clarify my thinking while maintainingownership. And to Robert Conry I am appreciative of his experience, skill, and humour which sustainedme throughout the arduous process of data analysis.My circle of family and friends has been especially dear to me throughout my thesis writing. ToRob I am grateful for his unhesitant commitment in joining me to undertake this study. To my fourchildren, Aini, Chana, Ezra, and Maria, I am impressed with their cultivation of independence as theirresponse to their mother’s low profile for too many years. To my parents, David and Rita Asselin, I amindebted for acts of support too numerous to count. To my friend Nadine Pelland, I am amazed at herunfailing faith in my abilities. To the Hintons, I am thankful for their expertise in helping me make thisstudy presentable to the public. And to my colleages, I am thankful for their ready engagement in debateof the ideas I struggled to make my own.Fianily, I give special recognition to the British Columbia Ministry of Education for granting meaccess and the opportunity to work with provincial data.1CHAPTER I: THE RESEARCH PROBLEMRecent research in both teaching and literacy instruction confirms the long-held perception of thedistinction between the complexity of classroom instruction and the boundaries of any one approach(McCargar, 1994; Pressley & Rankin, 1993; O’Flavahan & McConnell, 1990; Richardson, 1990; Scharer,1992). Given the eclectic character of instruction in any given classroom, providing a meaningful largescale description is a particularly challenging task. This study attempts to provide such a description byreanalyzing one educational system’s data from the 1991 International Association for the Evaluation ofEducational Achievement (lEA) Reading Literacy Study. Specific purposes of this reanalyis are threefold:to identify factors that underlie reading instruction, to describe groups of teachers based on these factors,and to examine other teacher and student variables of these teacher groups. Of particular interest in boththe international and any national analysis are instructional variables of student achievement. Identificationof these variables reveals significant ways to increase literacy in a population. Although internationalfindings highlight diverse approaches to literacy instruction, the influence of instruction on studentachievement was found to be negligible (Lundberg & Linnakyla, 1993). The TEA proposed that secondaryanalyses by individual participating countries could uncover instructional effects. Specifically, the lEAsuggested focusing such analyses on countries with homogenous populations and using country-derivedrather than internationally-derived instructional variables. As one of 32 participating school systems,Canada (BC) is a prime candidate for such a re-analysis.2Background to the ProblemThe background to this study draws from two related bodies of literature: one, paradigms of literacyand reading instruction; and two, effective instruction. I will first introduce concepts key to my study fromthe literature on literacy instruction, followed by an introduction to developments and issues in effectivereading instruction.Paradigms of Literacy and Reading InstructionDramatic shifts in conceptions of the reading process (Goodman, 1994; Langer, 1991; Rosenblatt,1978; Rumeffiart, 1994), reading development (Harste, Woodward, & Burke, 1984) along withidentification of effective instructional actions (Anderson, Hiebert, Scott & Wilkenson, 1985; Samuels &Farstrup, 1992) have propelled the creation of new policies in reading instruction. Major professionalorganizations concerned with literacy education endorse curriculum and instruction grounded in meaningbased, constructivist views of language (e.g., Lloyd-Jones & Lunsford, 1989). Many school systemsthroughout North America, including British Columbia, are implementing such literacy curricula (BritishColumbia Ministry of Education 1990a, 1990b, 1990c). In other words the fields of literacy in generaland reading in particular are undergoing paradigm shifts (Dillon, 1994; Froese, 1990) similar to those inother fields (Weaver, 1994).Despite theoretical, professional, and school system support for meaning-based, constructivistapproaches to literacy instruction, many researchers claim that code-based, behaviorist perspectives prevailin the classroom (Langer & Allington, 1992). Two interpretations of the gap between theory and practicecan be found in the literature. One interpretative lens is the lingering influence of past beliefs and the otheris the naturally eclectic nature of teaching.Those explaining the gap between theory and practice as due to the influence of the past point to thetenacious assumptions of associationist psychology, particularly the formalized principles of effectiveteaching. These researchers argue that along with the general persistence of transmissionism andobjectivism in North American classrooms (Cuban, 1984; Prawat, 1992), scope and sequence curricula andbehaviorist learning theory remain firmly entrenched foundations of reading instruction in particular(Langer, 1984; Langer & Allington, 1992). Some researchers also argue that rationalization and reification3of basal reading programs prevent teachers from reconceptualizing alternatives (Goodman, Shannon,Freeman & Murphy, 1987). From her comprehensive studies of literacy instruction in the United States,Langer (1991) concludes that:The materials of instruction as well as the underlying theories of teaching and learning thatwere developed during the first half of the century continue to shape people’s underlyingconception of literacy education (p. 11).The extent to which this trend applies to Canada (and British Columbia) is probably less than thatof other countries due to our legacy of child-centered education (Luke, 1988) and ready embrace of holisticliteracy education, both at the grass-roots and policy levels (McConaghy, 1988). On the other hand,Canada is only now beginning to emerge from the educational shadow of the United States to develop itsown policies, academic literature, and instructional literature in literacy (e.g., Church & Sutton, 1992;Courtland et al., 1994; Crowhurst, 1994; Froese, 1994; Willinsky, 1990).Whether speaking of Canada or North America in general, few would argue against the existence ofa gap between theory and practice. Those who interpret this gap in terms of teachers’ natural propensityfor eclecticism view teaching as “the ability first to deal with the incompleteness of any given theory andsecond to combine theories to construct meaningful interpretations that guide practice” (Moorman, Blanton& McLaughlin, 1994, p. 319). However, other educators advocate that instruction be driven by a singleperspective (Edelsky, Altwerger, & Flores, 1991). Although teachers may profess holding a particularperspective, closer observation reveals teachers’ differential use of multiple perspectives. Teachers activelycombine materials and practices from different perspectives (Lind, 1992; O’Flavahan & McConnell, 1990;Pressley & Rankin, 1993; Walmsley & Adams, 1993). In this way, teachers’ theoretical orientations toreading instruction are more accurately described in terms of degrees of emphases on a common group ofperspectives, rather than simply on one perspective or another (McCargar, 1994). Finally, teacherscontinuously adjust and acconunodate instruction in response to a myriad of personal, student, curricular,administrative, and political variables (Buckles, 1992; Freeman, Freeman & Fennacy, 1993; Mitchell,Konopak & Readance, 1991; Moss, 1990; Pace, 1992; Richardson, Anders, Tidwell & Lloyd, 1991).This research is showing instruction to be dynamic and fluid across situations and over time.4Thus research shows not only that teaching is not restricted to single perspectives, but also themistake of mapping teachers’ theories to those in the literature. An increasingly accepted explanation ofwhat observers perceive as a crazy quilt of activities and actions (Richardson, 1990) is that “teachers’considerations (are) much broader and more contextual than any of the theoretical orientations (can) accountfor” (Richardson, 1990, p. 15). This view contrasts sharply with assumptions of teachers’ resistance orrecalcitrance towards change (McLaughlin, 1987). Thus, whereas some observers perceive contradictionand confusion in the classroom, teachers seem to perceive their unique practical knowledge as consciouslyand positively multi-theoretical (Pressely & Rankin, 1993; Scharer, 1992).As in the rest of North America, eclecticism characterizes literacy instruction in Canada (Maguire,1989; Warren, Rees & Edwards, 1993). While some view this situation as heresy (Edelsky et al., 1991)others view it as acumen in service of students’ literacy development (Stahl, 1994). Across Canada,teachers identify as most effective a combination of instructional approaches rather than any single one(Warren, Rees & Edwards, 1993). Recent surveys of grade four literacy and reading instruction in BritishColumbia confirm the prevalence of eclectism (British Columbia Ministry of Education, 1988; Froese,1993; Scott & Butler, 1994). These studies show that although teachers in British Columbia are usingmore modem or whole language-like activities, they also continue to use basals, workbooks and other skilldevelopment materials. Thus despite popular conceptions of British Columbia as a stronghold of wholelanguage instruction (Macleans, 1992; McConaghy, 1988; Simner, 1993), research shows the existence ofboth a variety of approaches and a variety of interpretations of holistic instruction.Effective Reading InstructionRelevant background to my study is also found in the teacher effectiveness literature. Concern foreffect on student literacy development is present in various degrees of blatancy and latency in every studyof instruction. Affective and cognitive aspects of development are most commonly studied. Most desiredby policy-makers for reasons of both assessment and curriculum revision are findings about studentachievement. The relationship between instruction and achievement is one focus of both process-productresearch and comparative reading research. However, limitations are present in both bodies of research.I will first discuss shortcomings of the two research genres in studies focussed on instruction-achievement5relationships, then identify theoretical and methodological adjustments made in this study in light of theseproblems.Process-Product Research and Comparative Reading Instruction ResearchProcess-product research grew out of application of behaviorism to the study of teaching (Dunkinand Biddle, 1974). It has been criticized on many counts both during its reign and after its fall (Doyle,1977; Hoffman, 1986; Shulman, 1986a). Theoretical limitations of process-product research areparticularly acute in light of developments in learning theory and the study of teaching. During the 1970’s,process-product research yielded numerous principles of effective reading instruction (reviewed inRosenshine & Stevens, 1984). However, behaviorist foundations of this research program render theseprinciples limited and questionable today. In the 1970’s, cognitive psychology began to influence bothlearning theory and the study of teaching. While current studies of teaching are framed in teachercognition, and specifically in teachers’ knowledge of instruction with regard to particular subject areas(Shulman, 1986b, 1987), this research focuses primarily on the teacher and rarely on student outcomes.Validity of student outcomes measures has become a controversial subject on its own. In accordance withthe shift in focus from product to process in cognitively-based learning theory, the validity of outcomesbased on standardized measures is debated vigorously in all areas of educational literature (for one of theearlier discussions of this issue see House, Glass, McLean & Walker, 1978). Although assessementmeasures for the classroom are beginning to be developed that are reflective of current assumptions aboutliteracy (e.g., Valencia, Hiebert & Afflerbach, 1994), such measures are rare in large scale studies (twoexceptions are the recent National Assessment of Educational Progress in the United States and the SchoolAchievement Indicators Program Assessment in Reading and Writing in Canada). Ideally then, any currentinvestigations of instructional effects require grounding in contemporary theory of teaching and learning,as well as the use of theoretically congruent indicators of learning.Comparative reading research may be regarded as a cousin of process-product research. Althoughthis body of research takes into account both current literacy and learning theory, problems related toseveral points remain: the ideological context of much of this literature, the assumption of theoretical6dichotomies in the classroom, the actual meaning of the methods under study, and as noted above, thevalidity of student outcomes. These points are briefly discussed below.An ongoing theme in comparative reading research could be termed “one-upmanship.” Decades ofthis research have been based on code-emphasis versus meaning-emphasis approaches to instruction.Although many comparative reading studies manage to remain nonpartisan, others are entangled in theheated debate between holistic and code-emphasis approaches (Carbo, 1988; Chall, 1967, 1989; Smith,1994). The assumptions of instructional dichtomies by research does not accord with how teachers areactually teaching students to read. As discussed previously, teachers’ practices and perspectives are notmirror images of those described in the literature. Instead they are uniquely multi-theoretical or eclectic,and variously responsive to a number of internal and external factors.Because current meaning-based perspectives of reading instruction are difficult to codify and define,both the reliability and the validity of the meaning-based method being studied in comparative research canbe problematic. Stahl and Miller’s (1989) mets-analysis of whole language and traditional approaches ofinstruction was essentially dismissed by meaning-based researchers on grounds of false identity (McGee& Lomax, 1990). Regarding the language experience approach as whole language was deemed inaccurate,and findings from the meta-analysis were differentially received by reading researchers. Similarly,designation of method is not always a rigorous process in methods comparison research and is oftentimesa matter of the teacher’s self-report or the researcher’s judgement. Such a procedure invites speculationabout the actual meaning of categories and renders any cross-study conclusions uncertain. A recentlycompleted doctoral study (Dubert, 1992) set out to compare two apparently different methodologies, butabandoned the prospect of any valid comparison after extended observation revealed the tenuousness of anydistinctions. Comparative reading studies including whole language as one approach also trigger debateabout educational goals ranging from standardized measurable performance to one’s world vision (Harste,1994; McKenna, 1994).Adjustments Made in This StudyIn conclusion, while studies of teaching grounded in cognition rather than behaviorism provide amuch deeper and more reliable description of how teachers teach, few of these studies link instruction and7learning. Studies which do investigate this relationship are affected by ideological and definitionallimitations. Based on these limitations, some ways of improving the study of reading instruction as wellas the study of the relationship between instruction and achievement were implemented in this study. Oneadjustment was not assuming a dichotomous view of instruction. Instead a more accurate, and consequentlycomplex, description of the nature and relationship of the constituents of reading instruction was derivedfrom the data. Another improvement was to premise instruction in teacher cognition, thus assuming teachercontrol of classroom activities and personal perspectives. It is important to note that any means ofimprovement were possible only within the constraints of the lEA Reading Literacy Study data. Theselimitations will be discussed both later in this chapter and in the methodology chapter.Research QuestionsAll research questions refer to questionnaires and tests used in the 1991 International Association forthe Evaluation of Educational Achievement (lEA) Reading Literacy Study for Canada (BC), Population A(in Canada, grade 3 students and their teachers):1. What reading instruction factors underlie teachers’ responses to questionnaire items regardingtheir instructional practice?2. Given derived reading instruction factors, what profiles can be developed to identify differenthomogeneous clusters of teachers?3. Given such differentiated clusters of teachers, what differences exist among these groups onmeasures of teachers’ characteristics and classroom conditions?4. Given such differentiated clusters of teachers, what differences exist among these groups onmeasures of their students’ reading experiences and reading achievement?All variables are broadly defined at this time. Operational definitions are presented in Chapter IV.The definitions of terms used within this document are:Instructional vractice. Teachers’ views about reading instruction, and classroom activities, specificallyreading activities, instructional strategies, assessment method, and assessment focus.8Teacher characteristics. Teaching experience, education, general and educational readership, goals ofreading program, assigmuent of homework, use of reading groups.Classroom conditions. Resources, class composition (multigrade and number of English as secondlanguage students), principal engagement.Student reading experiences. Home literacy materials, home reading interactions, voluntary reading, self-rating as reader, and perception of literacy development.Reading achievement. Score in each of four domains: word recognition, narrative, expository, anddocument.Research ProblemIn describing reading instruction in Canada (BC), this study assumes a cognitive view of teaching,as well as provides a means of representing some of the complexities of instruction. Specifically, this studyidentifies factors underlying reading instruction both singly and in relationship to each other in terms ofthree major perspectives delineated in the field and differentiates teachers grouped by their factor scoreson two teacher and two student measures. Specific objectives of my study include: one, to identify anddescribe the factors that underlie teachers’ self-professed practices and views of reading instruction; two,to identify and describe homogenous groups of teachers based on these factors; three, to examine variancebetween teacher groups in terms of teacher characteristics and teaching conditions; and four, to examinevariance between teacher groups in terms of their students’ reading experiences and reading proficiency.Delineating the Research ProblemA correlational research design was used to identify factors of reading instruction in BritishColumbia, to differentiate homogenous groups of teachers based on these factors, and to correlate otherteacher and student measures with these groups. Data consisted of a) grade three teachers’ responses toa questionnaire consisting of background and instructional variables, b) their students’ responses to abackground questionnaire, and c) the students’ scores on a reading achievement test. Analysis was plannedin two stages, exploratory followed by confirmatory. Exploratory factor and cluster analyses were usedinitially to simplify the teacher data about reading instruction. Instructional constructs were derived from9first- and second-order factor analyses of teachers’ responses to five main sections of the teacherquestionnaire pertaining to their views of reading instruction (one section) and their classroom practices(four sections). Specifically, data for this stage of analysis included teachers’ responses to questionnaireitems about a) views of reading instruction and b) classroom practices related to reading activities,instructional strategies, assessment method and assessment focus. Individual instructional profiles basedon the components of second-order factor scores were produced for each teacher, followed by the creationof homogenous groups of teachers. Finally, variance between teacher groups in terms of teachingconditions, teacher characteristics, their students’ reading experiences, and their students’ readingproficiency was determined.Overview of Theoretical FrameworksTwo interpretative frameworks were used in this study, one from the study of teaching and the otherfrom reading curriculum and instruction. Based on the current cognitive perspective in the study ofteaching, this study viewed teacher knowledge as the lens through which to understand instruction. Theconstituents of teacher knowledge that were of interest were the major designations of approaches toreading instruction identified in the literature—traditional, whole language, and strategic reading. I willfirst introduce the theory of teacher cognition, and follow with an overview of the literature of readinginstruction.Teacher KnowledgeTeacher cognition, the current perspective in the study of teaching, provided one interpretativeframework for describing reading instruction in this study. While early work in teacher cognition tendedto focus on teachers’ beliefs or implicit knowledge (Duffy, 1977; Harste & Burke, 1977), current workcenters on teachers’ conscious knowledge (Shulman, 1986b, 1987). Shulman’s model stresses teachers’specific subject knowledge in relation to general pedagogical knowledge emphasized in past perspectivesof teacher research. However, recent studies based on his model are referenced in constructivism (e.g.,Grossman, 1990). Components of teacher knowledge include assumptions about the particular subject andhow students develop in that subject as well as actual classroom activities. The research program grounded10in teacher cognition is shaping a range of perspectives on teachers’ knowledge which assume teachers teachfrom a base of knowledge, the nature of which is distinct from theoretical knowledge. This knowledgeis variously labelled pedagogical content knowledge (Shulman, 1986b), personal professional theory(Grossman, 1990), and teachers’ practical knowledge (Elbaz, 1983). My study uses the term “teachers’personal practical knowledge of reading instruction” to capture both the unique nature and the experientialsource of teachers’ knowledge/instruction.Regarding teachers’ knowledge as the core of instruction illumines teachers’ tendency to eclecticismdemonstrated in much current research. Two major influences on teachers’ knowledge of readinginstruction are its multiple sources and the contextual nature of teaching. Teachers’ present knowledgemost often reflects their past experiences in learning to read or in learning to teach reading (Feng, 1992;Goodlad, 1990; Levande, 1990; Richardson & Harris, 1988); it least often reflects ideas encounteredduring professional development activities (Hollings, Reutzel, Ray, & Weeks, 1990).The numerous and complex contextual variables of instruction require teachers to make decisionsresponsive to those variables. Variables ranging from individual students’ needs and abilities toadministrative policy affect how teachers shape instruction (Buckles, 1992; Freeman, Freeman & Fennacy,1993; Moss, 1990; Pace, 1992). These factors of teachers’ knowledge invite eclecticism—or perhaps moreaccurately, pragmaticism (Moorman et al., 1994; McKenna, Robinson & Miller, 1994). Additionally, thenature of knowledge as an active process rather than a static product means teachers are constantlyreconstructing understandings of reading development and instruction (Hiebert & Colt, 1989). In this way,instructional eclecticism is a reflection of the nature of knowledge. In sum, teachers’ personal practicalknowledge of reading instruction is commonly a conservative hybrid of personal and theoreticalperspectives orchestrated in response to the complexities of teaching. One chapter of the literature reviewfor this study (chapter three) situates teacher cognition in the historical context of the study of teaching andextends the discussion of teacher knowledge begun in this section.Perspectives of Reading InstructionThree major perspectives of reading instruction were used to describe teachers’ personal practicalknowledge of reading instruction: skills-based (or traditional), whole language, and strategic reading. The11historical dichotomies of code-emphasis and meaning-emphasis continue to demarcate current perspectives,although several meaning-emphasis perspectives have been distinguished (e.g., literature-based, languageexperience approach, whole language, communication-based, strategic reading). Embedded in each majorperspective are different views of the reading process as well as different assumptions of learning andteaching. However, it is ironic to note that both code-emphasis and meaning-emphasis positions arepremised on gaining control—educators “trained in scientific pedagogy, could gain control of education”(Venezky, 1984, p. 17), and teachers working with the New Literacy would “(reassert) control of the workthat goes in the class, even as (they attempt) to hand a greater part of the locus of meaning over to thestudent” (Willinsky, 1990, p. x). Such various interpretations of apparently similar goals bespeak thecritical place of ideology.Clearly associated with the task-analytic and behaviorist premises of earlier educational psychology(Langer & Allington, 1992), the skills-based perspective is commonly termed the traditional perspective.This perspective tends to view reading as a mechanistic, passive, and solitary process (Gough, 1985;LaBerge & Samuels, 1985), and the path of reading development proceeding from parts to whole with thestudent’s progress determined by mastery of hierarchical skills contained in graded materials, along withthe teacher’s careful monitoring of errors to insure fluency and comprehension (Dole, Duff, Roehier &Pearson, 1991; Langer, 1984).The other two perspectives used in my study are meaning-based. Both perspectives foreground thereader’s construction of meaning in learning to read. In contrast to the single behaviorist base of thetraditional perspective, whole language and strategic reading perspectives of reading instruction havedeveloped from recent advances in cognitive psychology, social learning theory, and child languagedevelopment (see Y. Goodman, 1989 for discussion of roots of whole language; K. Goodman, 1989 andShapiro, 1994 for discussion of the research base for whole language, and Dole et al., 1991 for discussionof the evolution of strategic reading). Both meaning-based perspectives share more similarities thandifferences. For example, both premise the centrality of meaning, the active construction of meaning, therelationship between language and thought, and the importance of contexts. However, whole languageexplicitly assumes interrelationships between reading and other modes of language development. Bothperspectives tend to emphasize different views of the reading process—whole language a top down or12contextual view, and strategic reading an interactive view. Instructional recommendations for bothperspectives include the use of authentic texts, social interaction, and student-centered teaching andlearning. Whole language also stresses the provision of rich literacy environments, contextualizedinstruction, integration of oral and written language development, and moving from the whole to the partsof language. A marked focus of strategic reading is development of students’ control of higher levelreading strategies and the frequent need for direct instruction to accomplish this.The above points are generalized and gross differences made for the purposes of discrimination.Recent analyses of whole language literature (Bergenon, 1990; Moonnan et al., 1994) demonstrate theimportance of perspective and methodology in interpreting findings from such attempts to bring order anddefinition to the field. For example, the fact that Moorman et al. used only selected refereed journals todefme whole language eliminated the inclusion of other views and clearly shaped the findings. Similarly,the use of such methods as deconstructiomsm (Moorman et al., 1994) or reductionism (Bergenon, 1991)affect any findings or conclusions about the characteristics of whole language. Finally, the proliferationof whole language research evidenced in the increasing number of journal articles and dissertations overthe last five years has most certainly served to expand and elaborate rather than standardize the meaningof whole language. These underlying factors of the fluid borders of meaning-based perspectivesparticularly need to be kept in mind in any comparative discussion. Chapter Two of this study reviewsmore comprehensively the foundations, particular assumptions, and issues of each of these perspectives,as well as acknowledges their commonalities.Importance of the StudyFindings from my study are significant at both the provincial and international level. Specifically,this study provides a careful description of classroom reading instruction in Canada (BC) and augments theinternational literature of comparative reading instruction.The description of reading instruction provided by this study serves as a benchmark assessment ofcurrent reading instruction in B.C. Many researchers lament that despite prevalent theoretical assumptionsof reading as a meaning-based, constructive process and despite the identification of supportive instructionalactions, teachers maintain a skills-based curriculum and behaviorist methods of instruction (L.anger &13Allington, 1992; Shannon, 1989). On the other hand, current research in teaching highlights the role ofteacher knowledge in curriculum and instruction (Grossman, 1990; Shulman, 1986b, 1987), the centralityof conceptual change in instructional change (Fullan, 1982, 1993; Gallagher, Goudvis & Pearson, 1988;Richardson, 1990), and the dialectical, transformative process by which teachers advance their knowledge(Duffy, 1991; Gallaego & Hollingsworth, 1992; Roehier & Putnam, 1986). This research points clearlyto a major principle of effective instructional change: to work from what teachers already know(Fenstermacher & Richardson, 1993; Richardson, 1990). Consequently, describing teachers’ knowledgeof reading instruction in British Columbia enables professional development efforts to be directed towardsteachers’ active evolution of knowledge rather than passive reception of outsiders’ expertise. Findings fromthis study can provide points of reference for future assessments of reading instruction. Also at theprovincial level, identifying any additional variables of teachers’ personal practical knowledge of readinginstruction assists planning of teacher training courses and professional development activities.At the international level, this study will contribute to the presently limited field of comparativereading instruction. A major goal of international studies is to study commonalities—in the case of thelEA Reading Literacy Study, levels of literacy achievement and variables of literacy. Some findings fromthe lEA study have been reported (Elley, 1992; Lundberg & Linnakyla, 1993; Postlethwaite & Ross,1992). However, focusing on commonalities on such a large scale invites reductionism and generalities(Stahl, Higgenson & King, 1993). To guard against such limitations, another goal of international studiesshould be to study diversity (Lundberg & Linnakyla, 1993). It is in this context that my study willcontribute to comparative reading instruction. The field currently relies on a few classics (Downing, 1973;Thorndike, 1973). While there have been some contributions recently (Malmquist, 1982; Hladczuk &Eller, 1992), the field is sorely in need of development (Stahl et al., 1993). It is important to point outas well that the depth and complexity of analyses carried out on data of one educational system is notpossible at the international level. That is, while international analysis provides some useful findings aboutindividual education systems, more complete and detailed understandings derive from national anaylses.Finally, the analytical procedures used to investigate instruction and it relationships to other teacher andstudent variables in my study could serve as a model for investigations by other educational systems andeventually as a means of cross-national studies.14In sum, this study does three things: a) enhances understanding of current reading instruction inone education system while simultaneously providing a fruitful base for professional development efforts;b) contributes to the literature of comparative reading instruction; and c) offers a model of data analysisto other lEA participants other than that presented in international reports.Limitations of the StudyFindings based on data obtained from such a large-scale, closed-items survey are limited. Two mainkinds of limitations concern validity of the research instruments and method of inquiry.Construct validity of measures used in large scale assessments is a major concern. Despite concertedefforts to reflect current theory, construction of these measures is characterized more by compromise thanby theoretical integrity (Bruce, Osborn, & Commeyras, 1993). It is not surprising that the 1991 TEAReading Literacy Study has been the subject of such criticism (McLean, 1990). Criticisms are generallydirected at the grossness of the measures and the narrow product focus of student literacy measures. Thesecriticisms will be explained further in the methodology chapter. For now it is important to note theextreme practical difficulties in conducting an international study, ranging from the diversity of viewpointsheld by its numerous designers to the constraints of time and money, along with recognizing successfulattempts to reflect current theory.The form of response, particularly for the teacher data, also needs to be considered in reportingfindings. Compared to direct observation and/or inquiry-oriented methods, the researcher sacrifices bothdepth and validity when data consist of responses to closed items. First, data is limited to responses tobroad indicators at one moment in time. Second, the guarentee of anonymity makes a compliance effectpossible particularly with such a controversial topic as the best way to teach reading. The lEA admits tothe pressure teachers may have felt to represent themselves according to what they perceive the researchersdeem “correct” rather than accurately. A recent lEA report claims that a compliance effect was almostcertainly present at the international level, where low scoring countries reported high levels of modernteaching (Lundberg & Linnakyla, 1993). Similarly, but at a less conscious level, interpretation of the datashould consider likely differences between what Goodlad (1982) calls the perceived and the operationalcurriculum—i.e., what teachers report they are doing may differ from what they are actually doing. In15other words, self-reported practices or behaviors are not the same as behaviors that might be observed thusadding another limitation concerning validity.Two final conclusions concern the population and the methods of data analysis. First, all findingsfrom this study are limited to grade three teachers in British Columbia and their students. Second, onemust interpret findings from even the most careful correlational study cautiously. Evidence of causalrelationships cannot be implied from correlational research, but needs to be confirmed by experimentalstudies (Borg & Gall, 1983). In sum, findings about grade three reading instruction in Canada (BC)presented in this study are subject to the validity constraints of internationally-defined variables, productoutcomes of students’ literacy development, the human propensity for inaccurate reporting, and the lureof seeing causes in correlations.Chapter Summary and Overview of the Following ChaptersIn this chapter I have introduced the purpose and background of my study, delinated the researchproblem and questions, and discussed the importance and limitations of the study. The literature reviewis divided into two chapters. Chapter II focuses on dominant perspectives in current reading instruction.Chapter ifi discusses influential research progams in the study of teaching. Chapter IV explains theresearch methodology and statistical procedures used in the data analysis. Chapter V reports results ofstatistical analyses of each research question. Chapter VI discusses the meaning of the results of eachresearch question in the context of current literature in both reading instruction and the study of teaching.Chapter VII summarizes findings from each research question and draws conclusions from the majorfindings as well as discusses directions for future research.16CHAPTER II: PERSPECTIVES ON READING INSTRUCTIONThe purpose of this study is to identify factors underlying reading instruction, describe groups ofteachers based on these factors, and examine other teacher and student variables of these teacher groups.Interpretation of factors that underlie reading instruction and teacher groups are based on major perspectivesin the literature of reading instruction. Current reading methodology textbooks identify three majorperspectives of reading instruction (Cooper, 1993; McGee & Richgels, 1990; Vacca & Vacca, 1991).While these classifications are more theoretical constructs than practical reality, they serve as useful framesfor describing teachers’ personal practical knowledge of reading instruction.The field of reading instruction has long distinguished between code-emphasis and meaning-emphasisperspectives (Chall, 1967; Smith, 1965). The three major current perspectives used in this study are alsobased on this distinction. One perspective is that of code-emphasis or skills-based, the other twoperspectives are meaning-emphasis or holistic. The code-emphasis or skills-based perspective is commonlyequated with traditional reading instruction. Traditional reading instruction represents a task-analytic,behavioral conception of teaching reading which in turn is derived from turn of the century associationistpsychology. This perspective is neatly summarized as “skill and drill.” The two meaning-emphasisperspectives, whole language and strategic reading, relate to more recent cognitive and sociocognitive viewsof reading and learning to read. Both meaning-based perspectives view reading as a complex, holisticprocess during which readers actively construct meaning from text. Learning to read, then, involvesincreasing competency with meaning-making processes. While both perspectives are evolving towardsrather than away from each other, their distinctive roots and assumptions about learning to read continueto differentiate them at this time.17Teachers in schools today have been variously influenced by traditional, whole language, andstrategic perspectives of reading instruction. Teachers’ own perspectives—or what in this study is calledtheir personal practical knowledge of reading instruction—have developed from a number of sources. Mainsources of teachers’ personal practical knowledge of reading instruction include how they were taught toread, views and methods presented in their teacher training, knowledge gained through teaching experience,and professional development (Goodlad, 1990; Levande, 1990; Richardson & Hamilton, 1988). While itis unlikely that one perspective will account for each source of a teachers’ knowledge, it is more likely thattwo or all three perspectives will be differentially influential. Thus, a teacher may have been taught to readwith a traditional perspective, been trained in whole language, combined whole language and traditionalperspectives in her own practice, read extensively on whole language, and been directed to implementstrategic reading. For these reasons, a teacher’s personal practical knowledge of reading instruction is morelikely to be predominantly, rather than purely, one or another perspective.This chapter discusses traditional, whole language, and strategic perspectives of reading instructionin terms of a) models and views of the reading process most influential to each perspective, b) curriculumand instruction, and c) contentious issues associated with each perspective. Discussion of each of thesematters will be limited to aspects relevant to available lEA data. Readers familiar with these perspectiveswill undoubtably notice the selective discussion of key assumptions and curricular implications. In otherwords, the following discussion is limited to dimensions of comparative reading instruction contained inthe teacher data. Finally, although there are likely as many interpretations of each perspective as there areindividual educators, the following explanations are based on the most extremely representative aspects ofeach perspective for the purpose of maintaining their distinctions. The chapter concludes with a sectionon similarities between the three major perspectives. Main points of the discussion about each of the threeperspectives are outlined in Table 1. Since the literature review both describes and compares perpsectivesof reading instruction, the reader may find Table 1 a helpful point of reference throughout the chapter.Traditional Perspective of Reading InstructionThe deepest roots of the traditional perspective in reading instruction are found in the work of E.L.Thorndike (1917, 1962) and W. S. Gray (1919). Enduring influences from early educational psychology18Table 1Comparative Assumptions of Traditional. Whole Language. and Strategic Reading Persvectives of ReadingInstructionPerspectiveAssumption FocusTheoretical BaseReading Process: Structureand ActivitySubstance ofCurriculumGoal of CurriclumMethod ofInstructionRole of TeacherComprehensionDevelopmentCurricularMaterialsControl of CurriculumSource and Nature ofMeaningView of TeacherView of LearnerFocus of AssessmentTraditionalAssociationist psychology;Behaviorism; Task-analysisBottom-up; Sum of the partsAnalyticalDiscrete skills; Scope andsequence structureSkills masteryTeacher-centered; Drill and practics; Direct instructionTask director; Corrector/evaluatorof student performanceCaughtImposed & structured; BasalsProgram/TeacherText/TeacherObjectiveTechnicianNormativeProductWhole LanguagePsychosociolinguisticsNatural/communicative view of language developmentTop-downGenerativeAuthentic communicationIndividual development andempowermentStudent-centered; Environmentalsupport, meaningful practiceFacilitator; Provider of rich literacyenvironmentNaturalDerived and authentic; Literatureand literacy eventsStudent and TeacherIndividualPlausibleProfessionalIndividualProcessStrategic ReadingCurrent comprehensiontheory/Cognitive psychology:scheme theory, metacognitionInteractiveTransactiveRange of flexible, adaptable stretegiesThoughtful readerStudent-centered; Explicit instructionFacilitator; Deliberate shift fromteacher to student responsibilityTaughtLiteratureTeacher end StudentIndividual-TextMost probableProfessionalIndividualProcess19and reading research included objective measures of student achievement, associationist laws of learning,and tightly sequenced reading materials contained within a skills management system. During the middleof the century, the development of behaviorist learning theory along with reading curricula based onhierarchial skill acquisition (e.g., Russell et al., 1951) simply enforced and refined dominant assumptions,reaching a pinnacle during the 1970’s in the Competency-based Education Movement. For many teacherstoday assumptions underlying the traditional perspective of reading instruction are those with which theythemselves learned to read, were taught to teach reading, and were strengthened in their own teaching.As a universal legacy, the influence of the traditional perspective of reading instruction is deeply entrenchedin present-day classrooms (Goodman, Shannon & Murphy, 1987; Langer, 1984; Shannon, 1989).Influential Models of the Reading Process on the TraditionalPersvective of Reading InstructionAlthough historically traditional reading instruction was sustained by belief rather than research(Calfee & Drum, 1978), the introduction of information processing models of reading lent scientific supportto the hierarchical skills curriculum. Regarded as bottom-up or direct perception models, these earlycognitive models of reading (Gough, 1972; LaBerge & Samuels, 1974) focused on the reader’s perceptionsand interpretations of graphic or visual symbols. In these models processing proceeds in a linear fashionand progresses from small to increasingly larger parts. The more conservative model (Gough, 1972)presented an invariant sequence of decoding: from iconic features to letters to spelling patterns to visualword representations to word meanings and finally to word group meanings. Whereas Gough’s modeldisallowed any skipping within the serial process, LaBerge & Sainuels (1974) introduced the possibilityand desirability of automaticity at some points of the reading process. For example, automatic wordrecognition would eliminate the need to decode each word from the iconic feature stage.Information processing models of the reading process strengthened Gray’s task-analytic conceptionof reading instruction—that is, the belief that the best way to teach something is to break it down into itsconstituent parts (i.e. skills in reading), then proceed to teach from the smallest or simplest parts toprogressively more complex parts. The link between theory and practice was clearly spelled out:20we view reading acquisition as a series of skills, regardless how it appears to the fluentreader. Pedagogically, we favor the approach which singles out these skills for testing andtraining and then attempts to sequence them in appropriate ways (LaBerge & Samuels, 1985,p. 714).Thus, early work in information processing models of reading facilitated and validated the continueddevelopment of a sequential, hierarchical skills reading curriculum.Curriculum and Instruction in the Traditional Persvective of Reading InstructionThe traditional reading curriculum consisted of two large “bundles of skills”—one bundle beingdecoding, and the other comprehension. Each skill was further broken down into “subskills”, which inturn were further differentiated into smaller and smaller parts. Together, the parts constituted the “essentialskills in reading.”Within the grand hierarchical scheme, decoding was requisite to comprehension. Referred to as the“assembly line model of skill acquisition” (Guthrie, 1973), a traditional curriculum assumed the sum ofthe parts would equal the whole—word recognition in regards to the decoding curriculum, and ultimately,reading comprehension. One review of traditional comprehension instruction identifies its mainassumptions:novice readers acquire a set of hierarchical subskills that sequentially build towardcomprehension ability. Once the skills have been mastered, readers are viewed as experts whocomprehend what they read. In this view, readers are passive recipients of information in thetext. Meaning resides in the text itself, and the goal of the reader is to reproduce that meaning(Dole et al., 1991, p. 241).Decoding skills consisted of first, individual grapheme-phoneme relationships, then graphemephoneme combinations (blends, digraphs), and finally, word recognition. Reading unfamiliar words wasa process of phonemic analysis, the goal of which was to sound out the word. Vocabulary was controlledto correspond to the decoding skills being learned. Comprehension instruction followed mastery ofdecoding. Comprehension skills began with lower level skills such as sequencing events and progressivelyproceeded to higher level skills such as predicting outcomes and finding main ideas. Substantively, then,students learned to read by structural analysis, the objects of analysis being words and messages. And21procedurally, learning was a matter of sequentially mastering the hierarchically-ordered subskills untilmastery of all the parts made for mastery of the whole. Criterion-referenced tests served as gatekeepersto learning the next new skill.Scientifically designed, skills-based reading curricula were packaged into “teacher-proof” readingprograms. Components of these packages were student readers or basal readers, student exercise books,and teacher guides. To insure continuity in skill development through the elementary grades, scope andsequence charts dictated the time and order in which skills should be acquired by students within and acrossgrade levels. The format for reading lessons accompanying each basal story was uniform within and acrossreading programs. The teacher gave a directed reading activity, students read a basal story, then practicedthe focal skills in workbooks, and sometimes followed up with extension activities. Authored by leadingresearchers and “experts” in reading education, the validity of basal reading programs was clinched.The rigidly conceived hierarchy of skills assumed all students must acquire the same skills in thesame order. Students were conunonly grouped by reading ability, detennined by scores on testsaccompanying the basal program. Although intended to individualize instruction and insure successfulmastery of all requisite reading skills, the effects of ability grouping are generally concluded to be negative(Hiebert, 1983). Negative effects include differential instructional treatment (Allington, 1980, 1983) andeducational sorting (Slavin, 1987).Teaching was both a matter of shaping overt behavior via reinforcement within a stimulus-response(S-R) cycle and evaluating student performance of low level skills (Roehier & Duffy, 1991, p. 861). Inreading then, teachers focussed on monitoring students’ mastery of pre-determined word recognition andcomprehension skills. Instruction was basically a process of diagnosis and prescription:By using a management system the teacher can select specific objectives to be taught, monitorpupils’ learning progress continuously, and diagnose the source of individual learningproblems, prescribe additional instruction and meet pupils’ needs and make sure the pupilshave achieved proficiency in skill objectives (Ginn 720, 1980, Teachers Guide, in deCastell& Luke, 1986, p. 102).22Contentious Issues Related to the Traditional Perspective of Reading InstructionMany of the primary assumptions of traditional reading instruction challenged by meaning-basedperspectives will be discussed in later sections of this chapter. A number of issues are relevant to reviewnow. These issues concern one, the constituents and order of comprehension development; two, thevalidity of scope and sequence representations of reading acquisition; three, contextualized wordinstruction; four, the drill and practice method of instruction; and five, the place of basal programs incurrent instruction.Constituents and Order of Comprehension DevelonmentConcurrent with the development of holistic and interactive models of the reading process, someresearchers questioned the existence of reading skill hierarchies even during their peak of acceptance.Rosenshine (1980) summarizes the literature on the topic:1. It is difficult to confidently put forth any set of discrete skills.2. Comprehension skills are simply not taught in a hierarchial fashion.3. It is not clear whether all, or even any, of the skill exercises in reading comprehension areessential or necessary.Following on the last point Samuels (1976) claimed that “the sad truth is that the task (reading) is socomplex that a validated reading hierarchy does not exist” (p. 174). Skepticism of scope and sequenceassumptions led Rosenshine (1980) to hypothesize that “it is possible that students who only read storiesmight do just as well on comprehension tests as students who completed the exercises” (p. 52).Validity of Scope and Sequence Representations of Reading AcauisitionTraditional reading instruction is commonly criticized for its lack of research support. Stennett,Smyth, & Hardy (1975) faulted the popular reading programs for failing to provide “a sound rationale oradequete documentation for either the relevance of their skill content or the sequence of instruction” (pp.223 -224). That such structures provided powerful templates of reading instruction attests to the degree towhich they had become common and unquestioned knowledge (Goodman et al., 1987). In contrast, andin accordance with current holistic and interactive models of the reading process, the influential report ofthe Commission on Reading (Anderson et al., 1985) claims that “children should be given all the elements23necessary for constructing meaning” as well as be made aware that “reading is always directed towardmeaning” (p. 44).Contextualizing the Word in Comprehension InstructionA related concern is the decontextualized manner in which students develop word recognition intraditional reading instruction. Students are typically provided with lists of words based on structuralpatterns rather than personal meaning. The importance of word recognition in comprehension remainsunquestioned (Davis, 1944, 1968). However, educators now stress students need to read words and alllanguage patterns in meaningful contexts (Anderson et al., 1985).Drill and Practice InstructionClassroom observations of basal programs found instruction and learning more accurately consistedof drill and practice, rather than explanation and instruction (Duffy & Roehler, 1982; Durkin, 1978-1979).This approach to teaching has been termed the “exercise model” (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987). Quiteliterally students spent most of the reading instructional time doing exercises in their workbooks. Thusstudents were actually practicing skills rather than reading, and being drilled to elicit correct responsesrather than being taught. Durkin’s (1978-1979) major findings that teachers spent most of the instructionaltime assessing students’ (low level) responses and that comprehension instruction was more a matter of“mentioning” followed by hope that excessive skill practice will transform into competency became theimpetus for concerted improvement of comprehension instruction (Pearson & Gallagher, 1983).The Place of Basal ProgramsResearchers in the United States claim 90% of their classrooms remain dominated by basal programs(Langer & Allington, 1992; Shannon, 1989). In Canada, despite our publicized favoritism of literature-based programs (McConaughy, 1988), publishers of Canadian basal programs pose a major obstacle toteachers’ transitions to whole language (Maguire, 1989). Some unsuspecting teachers may equate use ofthese programs with whole language practice when in fact “most of these materials are based on a paradigmthat is antithetical to the whole language paradigm” (Froese, 1994, p. 6). A lively debate among North24American educators has developed around the place of basals (see special issue of Elementary SchoolJournal, January 1987). And the debate is not simply a practical matter of perpetuation (Dole, Rogers,& Osborn, 1987), improvement (Duffy, Roehier & Putnam, 1987) or abandonment (Altwerger & Flores,1987). Emotions run high in this debate and for some the continued influence of basals is tantamont toeducational disaster:basal readers not only dominate reading instructjon but even when they are not physicallypresent they exert a thought style on how teachers and children operate in classrooms.Semoticafly, they signal a particular set of activities involving a limited range of thinking.They are as dangerous to the mental health and critical thinking abilities of teachers as theyare to children (Harste, 1987, p. 270).The deskilling of teachers (Shannon, 1987) is one of the most heated accusations in the basal debate.However, some evidence indicates slavish adherence to the text program is not necessarily the case (Barr& Sadow, 1989). Rather, text programs are more accurately “tools in managing larger agendas rather thandriving forces in themselves” (Sosniak & Stodolsky, 1993, p. 271). However, their continued influencein present day classrooms qualifies traditional instruction as one of the current major perspectives.Summary of Traditional Perspective of Reading InstructionThe traditional perspective of reading instruction is based on behaviorist views of learning andteaching, the primacy of visual information and word recognition in the reading process, and a sequential,hierarchial skills-based curriculum. These premises, and their implications, have been challenged by newfindings and assumptions from both mainstream and alternative perspectives of literacy education.Whole Language Perspective of Reading InstructionWhereas the traditional perspective in reading instruction question went unquestioned for decades,those advocating a meaning-emphasis perspective, epitomized in whole language, devote much effort todescribing and distinguishing their assumptions from other perspectives. Some spell out underlyingassumptions (Edeisky et al., 1991; Goodman, 1 986a; Newman & Church, 1990); some offer definitions(Froese, 1994a), some describe representative practices (Goodman & Goodman, 1981; Goodman, 1986a;Watson & Crowley, 1988); and others compare and contrast whole language with other holistic approachesor child-centered perspectives to emphasize its uniqueness (Altwerger, Edelsky & Flores, 1987; Church25& Newman, 1990; Edelsky et aL, 1991). Because whole language grounds itself primarily in theory, andsecondarily in practice (Aitwerger et al., 1987; Newman, 1985), definition and codification of classroominstruction are difficult, even undesirable (Edeisky et al., 1991). The same practices may be used in eitherwhole language or traditional teaching; what counts is the teachers’ knowledge: “ . . . practices becomewhole language-like because the teacher has particular beliefs and intentions” (Altwerger et al., 1987, p.145). Although this lack of specificity is a contentious issue for some (McKenna et al., 1990), it is a non-issue for whole language advocates (Edeisky, 1990).Theoretical Foundations of Whole I.anguageWhole language is rooted in numerous disciplines and theoretical perspectives. However, its primaryroots are those of psycholinguistics, transactive-psycholinguistics, and child language development. Otherimportant theoretical foundations include Progressivism, sociolinguistics, semiotics, constructivism(including thought-language relationships and social learning theory), literary theory, and more recentlycritical theory. Since the assumptions of psycholinguistics and child language development are mostrelevant to the analysis and interpretation of the lEA teacher data, I will limit my discussion of thetheoretical foundations of whole language to those disciplines. Such a selective discussion in no waydismisses the critical contributions of other components of whole language.PsycholinguisticsFormulated by Ken Goodman and Frank Smith during the late 1960’s and early 1970’s,psycholinguistic views of the reading process oppose those of information processing models.Psycholinguistics refers to the “knowledge of various types of sequential probabilities of written text”(Cazden, 1982). Goodman (1967) categorized this knowledge into four hierarchially-ordered “cueingsystems”: graphophemic, lexical, syntactic, and semantic. Although viewing reading as a holistic,meaning-driven process, a psycholinguistic view emphasizes the reader’s ability to minimize energy spenton the lower level processes of decoding in favor of constructing possible interpretations based on higherlevel processes. Indeed, the prominence of the “deep level process of identifying meaning either preceedsor makes unnecessary the process of identifying individual words” (Smith & Goodman, 1971, p. 179).26Instead, the reader, drawing on the four cuing systems, engages in a “psycholinguistic guessing game” allthe while hypothesizing, testing, and reformulating meaning. It is the hypothesizing process drivingcomprehension, rather than the mechanical process of decoding text, which distinguishes the activities ofreaders in top-down and bottom-up views of reading: “Prediction through meaningfulness is the basis oflanguage comprehension” (Smith, 1977, p. 388). Misreading, or “miscuing”, is not regarded as a mistakenreading as long the process continues to produce sensible reading. In sum, a psycholinguisitic view ofreading decrees the supremacy of the higher order cuing systems and the hypothesizing nature of thereading process thus asserting the linguistic rather than graphic nature of reading.Transactive-ysycholinguisticsGoodman (1985, 1994) later expanded his psycholinguistic view to include assumptions fromtransactional reading theory. The transactive-psycholinguistic view contends the impact of both the reader’sknowledge and experience as well as the role of contextual and nonprint cues. In this way, reading is aguessing game in which meaning is constructed by the reader, rather than directed by the text. Goodman(1985) explains thatmeaning is not characteristic of texts. Rather texts are constructed by authors to becomprehended by readers . . . meaning does not pass between writer and reader. It isrepresented by a writer in a text and constructed from a text by a reader (p. 815).Transactive reading theory developed primarily from literary theory, rather than studies of reading.Rosenblatt (1978) along with other reader response theorists upheld Dewey’s notion that both the meaningof the text and the reader’s experiences are recreated as a result of reading. Such positions as “the readerreceives the text by composing it” (Iser, 1978); “the greatest texts allow for rewriting by the reader”(Barthes, 1974) and “it is the structured responses to the text by the reader, not the words alone, whichconstitute the literary work of art” (Rosenblatt, 1978, p. 16) argue for the active, creative role of thereader. Distinct in this view too is the notion of transitory meaning not just between readers but betweenrepeated readings by individual readers. The many possible readings of readers and texts is determinedless by cognitive processes than by personal, social and cultural variables. Thus while cognitively viewing27reading as more similar to composing, transactive theories of reading proclaim the influence of readers’resources on meaning.Child Language DevelopmentThe advancement of qualitative research methods facilitated development of perspectives of languageacquisition distinct from prevailing laboratory-based theories. Naturalistic studies of language and literacydevelopment in nonclassroom settings illustrated how children learn oral and written language withoutformal instruction (e.g., Baghdan, 1984; Bissex, 1981; Harste, Woodward, Burke, 1984; Taylor, 1983).The portrait of how children perceive and interpret language, how they master new uses and forms, andtheir roles and status as learners contrasted sharply with traditional beliefs. These studies demonstratedthat children perceive and interpret language holistically with a view to the message, and not as abstractedfragments for mechanical purposes. This research described how language learners expand and refine theuses and consequentially, the forms of language by actual, authentic use, not by drill and practice. Aslearners, children actively explore, construct, and test hypotheses about language. Congruent withsocioconstructivist views of learning (Vygotsky, 1978), these studies also describe how adults implicitlysupport children’s approaches to and uses of language, as well as explicitly encourage behaviors whichempower children as language users (Snow & Ninio, 1986; Wells, 1986).Reading Curriculum and Instruction in the Whole LanguagePerspectiveWhole language reading instruction revolves around the general pedagogical principles of a) alearner-centered curriculum, b) active learners, and c) flexible boundaries for both learner and teacher roles,and school and out-of-school activities (Edelsky et al., 1991; Cambourne, 1988; Newman, 1985;Willinsky, 1990). Premises specific to reading instruction derived from psycholinguistic views of readingand language acquisition research include: one, language learning occurs through language use; two,written language develops like oral language—i.e., without formal instruction; three, learning progressesfrom whole to part; four, learning to read is learning to make sense of texts; and five, all language systems28are equal (Altweger et al., 1987; Goodman, 1986a; Goodman & Goodman, 1981; Smith & Goodman,1971).Consistent with findings from naturalisitic studies of children’s oral and written languagedevelopment, whole language assumes reading is best developed when the learner is focused on meaningand use. Reading materials should be interesting and relevant to students’ lives. They should be wholeand real texts for authentic communication, not partial and contrived texts meant for skills mastery.Students read literature and teachers read literature to students everyday. The language arts are integrated,not separate parts of the curriculum. Students’ reading development is supported by writing, listening, andspeaking. Rather than directing reading acquisition, the teacher insures its natural unfolding.While the above describes whole language curriculum and instruction very generally, the followingsection on contentious issues further explains major curricular and instructional matters in a whole languageperspective of reading instruction.Contentious Issues Related to the Whole LanguageReading InstructionWhole language is most distinguished from traditional perspectives in terms of the facilitator role ofthe teacher, use of indirect instruction, a focus on a top-down or contextual view of reading, a de-skilledview of reading, and support of purist rather than eclectic practice. These aspects of whole language arecentral points of discussion amongst whole language and non-whole language educators (e.g., Adams,1990; Smith, 1994).Role of the TeacherThe whole language teacher is a facilitator rather than evaluator. This role is deeply tied to twophilosophical tenets: “teachers reasserting control over the work that goes on in the class . . . andshift(ing) the control of literacy from the teacher to the student” (Willinsky, 1990, p. 8). Specifically, theteacher recreates authentic contexts of literacy development through providing a print-rich environment,and through indirect, rather than direct, instruction. It is in this vein that Goodman (1986b) said “Teachingdoesn’t make language learning happen; it supports its development. . . it can never control it” (p. 361).29Because this view of teaching is contrary to those of traditional perspectives, it is often interpreted as noteaching (Pearson, 1989). Newman and Church (1990) clarify the role of the teacher in whole language:Teachers working from a whole language perspective are active participants in the learningcontext. We continually work at structuring an environment in which learners can engage inpurposeful activities. We collect curriculum resources. . . We pose questions. . . We areconstantly observing our students. . . (p.22).Whole language educators acknowledge students are continuously learning. They do not accept thatstudents need programmed instruction. Instead, whole language teachers are sensitive to the “teachablemoment—when they (students) need and can make immediate use of the information” (Watson & Crowley,1988, p. 257). Finally, in contrast to the vigilant monitoring of student mistakes in traditional readinginstruction, whole language teachers “build on what readers are doing right, not what they are doingwrong” (ibid). While current learning theory supports all the above activities of the teacher, there is alsoa shift toward the need for more overt instruction in all aspects of reading (Pearson and Fielding, 1991).The research underlying this need will be discussed in the section on strategic reading.Indirect InstructionThis issue is clearly related to the role of the teacher. The preference for indirect rather than directinstruction is thought by some to be the “key distinction separating whole language theorists from theircounterparts” (McKenna et al., 1990, p. 4). Although this debate is usually framed around decoding orbeginning reading instruction it carries implications for the whole reading program. Based largely on thepremise that “the child is already programmed to read” (Smith & Goodman, 1971, p. 179-180), instructionis a matter of carrying out the activities described in the above section on the role of the teacher.Goodman (1992) confidently claims “There is abundant research to show that direct instruction inphonics is neither necessary nor desirable” (p. 60). The belief in natural learning along with what isregarded as suspect research support underscores the strongly-held whole language tenets of environmentally-based language development, and the downplaying of overt instruction. However, an increasinglycommon conclusion concerning the value of direct instruction in beginning reading is summarized byAdams (1991):30The vast majority of studies indicated that approaches including intensive, explicit phonicsinstruction resulted in comprehension skills that are at least comparable to, and wordrecognition and spelling skills that are significantly better than those that do notApproaches in which systematic code instruction is included along with meaningful connectedreading result in superior reading achievement overall (p. 12).Taking these conclusions one step further, others contend that a lack of direct instruction actuallycauses students to be at risk (ChalI, 1989; Stahl & Miller, 1989; Thompson, 1992). Although the mostacrimonious assaults on indirect instruction tend to refer to findings from teacher effectiveness supportingthe superiority of direct instruction on improvement of student achievement (e.g., Peterson, 1979), morerecent participants in the dialogue distinguish between traditional direct instruction and explicit instructionin strategies (Dole et al., 1991). This current conception of direct instruction does not appear to befavorable to whole language educators: “I suppose they view it as yet another application of heavy-handed,top-down, teacher-controlled instruction” (Pearson, 1989, p. 237). As noted earlier, distinctions betweentraditional and current notions of direct instruction will be discussed in the following section on strategicreading.Ton-down or Contextual Views of ReadingWhole language condemns the hierarchical skills-based approach to learning to read. In a wholelanguage perspective, the nature of the reading process prohibits learning being fonnalized “in a prescribedsequence of behaviorally stated objectives embalmed in a set of instructional materials, programmed orotherwise” (Goodman, 1986b). Opposing traditional instruction, “learning to read is not learning torecognize words, it is learning to make sense of texts” (Goodman & Goodman, 1981, p. 6). Learning tomake sense of texts means emphasizing higher level language structures and reading processes. Teachersguide students to focus on contextual cues, particularly semantic and pragmatic cues. Predicting on thebasis of meaningfulness is stressed as a key reading process. Language learners are encouraged to generateand test hypotheses about language while engaged in real reading. Learners are given opportunities toexplore, take risks and make choices with language while engaged in meaning-making. Approximationsof meaning are more valued than correct and incorrect readings; similarly, mistakes are regarded asopportunities to learn.31Findings from recent studies of skilled readers along with results of methods comparison studies areused to refute the effectiveness of teaching reading based on top-down views of the reading process.Underlying these dismissals of context-based reading instruction is concern for the validity of thefoundational findings (Goodman, 1965) of Goodman’s psycholinguisitic theory of reading (Thompson,1992; Velluntino, 1991). While Goodman (1986) later claims that many traditional reading skills werearbitrarily chosen, and were deduced from studies of “rats and pigeons—or children who were treated inthe research as rats and pigeons” (p. 9), alternative information from current studies feeds the flames ofthis historical debate.Knowledge of the reading process has developed greatly since the introduction of psycholinguisticviews. Summarizing findings from eye movement studies, Velluntino (1991) claimed “Skilled readersprocess virtually all of the words they encounter in connected text and typically all of the letters in thesewords” (p. 438). Velluntino also summarizes comparative studies of the reading process: “There isabundant evidence that language comprehension processes become fully operative in reading only when acertain degree of fluency in word identification has been achieved” (p. 438). Many researchers now acceptthat skilled readers do not by-pass lower order decoding processes. For skilled readers, those activitieshave become automatic. Additionally, findings from studies of skilled and novice or poor readers discreditthe assumption that good readers rely on context. Current evidence shows that while proficient readers areskilled at decoding, they are less dependent on context than poor readers, who in turn are less skilled atdecoding (Nicholson, Lillas, & Rzoska, 1988).Stahi and Millers’ (1989) meta-analysis of code-emphasis and meaning-emphasis approaches foundthat “whole language approaches may have an important function early in the process of learning to read,but that as the child’s needs shift, they become less effective” (p. 111). Adams’ (1990) exhaustive reviewof program comparison research concludes that approaches incorporating code-based instruction “result incomprehension skills that are at least comparable to, and word recognition and spelling skills that aresignificantly better than, those that do not” (p. 49). Similarly, Anderson et a!. (1985) report that resultsof studies of whole language effects are inconsistent.32In the hands of very skillful teachers, the results can be excellent. But the average result isindifferent when compared to approaches typical in American classrooms, at least as gaged byperformance on first- and second-grade standardized reading tests (p. 45).A major obstacle to constructive dialogue in the debate concerns the measure of effectiveness.Whereas non-whole language researchers depend on measurable variables of achievement, whole languageadvocates counter with broader, more subjective criteria such as “the creation and sharing of experience”(Smith, 1988b, p. 97), “language, literacy, and power” (Shannon, 1994, p. 96), and “the kind of worldyou envision and the kind of person you want to be” (Harste, 1994, p. 145). Critics of whole languagemaintain, however, thatEffectiveness research based on new tests may lead to different results in the case of wholelanguage, but the results based on traditional testing have afforded it no advantage (McKennaet al., 1990, p. 5).A De-Skilled View of the Readinn ProcessBecause whole language views reading as a holistic activity, it cannot be segmented into componentparts and still be called reading. . . any “component subskill” of reading used when one is not actuallyreading (e.g., when one is doing exercises in decoding) works differently than it does when someone isreally reading (Edelsky et al., 1991, p. 37).Whole language educators are careful not to emphasize the learning of skills per se through context(Edelsky et al., 1991). That would be akin to dressing the wolf in sheep’s clothing.Whole language teachers do teach phonics but not as something separate from actual readingand writing. We might offer students some phonics hints when they are writing and aren’tsure how to spell something, we might draw their attention to graphophonic cues after they’vesuccessfully figured out an unfanñliar word (Church & Newman, 1990, p. 21).Opponents decry this “first aid” approach to learning skills and claim that teachers need to engagein systematic skill instruction (Thompson, 1992). For whole language educators, the issue is not a matterof the relative importance of lower and higher skills, but the fallacious concept of reading as a bundle ofdiscrete skills.33Eclecticism: A Conscious Choice or a Subjugated Reality?Clearly, the above contentious issues between whole language and other perspectives on readinginstruction are inextricably intertwined confinning the integral consistency of each perspective. In thisview, any hybridization would be a violation, to the extent that adherence to such purity would be life-threatening (Pearson, 1989). However, eclecticism is more prevalent in the classroom than purity(Maguire, 1989; O’Flavahan & McConnell, 1990; Walmsley & Adams, 1993), and is the last issue in the“great debate” I will address. Two areas of discussion in this issue concern (a) the desirability and (b) thefactors of eclectism.The introduction of alternative premises and practices by whole language has naturally led teachersto reconsider their own personal practical knowledge of reading instruction. However, teachers’ naturaltendency toward eclecticism (Moorhead et al., 1994; McKenna et al., 1994) is poorly regarded by wholelanguage advocates: “There is no eclecticism at the level of deep underlying beliefs” (Edelsky et al., 1991,p. 44). Leaders in whole language are strongly united on this position. Speaking of epistomological andpedagogical assumptions in general, Newman and Church (1990) explain:Whole language isn’t an add-on. It’s not a frill. We can’t do a little bit of Whole Languageand leave everything else untouched. It’s a radically different way of perceiving therelationships between knowledge and the knower, between compliance and responsibility,between learner and teacher, between teacher and administrator, between home and school (p.26).More specifically, Goodman (1989) justifies indirect instruction and relates a single theory-basedpedagogy to professionalism:One cannot reconcile direct instruction with natural learning. Meaningful, predictable,authentic texts are incompatible with carefully controlled vocabulary and decontextualizedphonics instruction. Teachers have lived with contradictions, but they don’t have to. Wholelanguage teachers are evolving internally consistent views that enable them to make theinstructional decisions necessary to support literacy development (p. 69).Despite such “orders from the top” and the high profile of whole language groups, the actualproportion of teachers who describe themselves as whole language teachers varies widely. Based on selfreports, two studies conducted in the eastern and southern United States found 2.7% (Barry, 1992) and 4%(Gambrell, 1992) of teachers called themselves whole language teachers. In contrast, 55% of teachers in34a recent survey in British Columbia aligned themselves with whole language rather than traditionalapproaches to language arts (Scott & Butler, 1994). Similarly, when elementary teachers across Canadawere asked to identify the most effective instructional approach in language arts, 40% claimed wholelanguage, 8% claimed traditional, and 49% claimed a combination (Warren et al., 1993). Another study(Froese, 1995) found 55% of grade three teachers in British Columbia identified eclecticism as theapproach most descriptive of their practice, while 23% named whole language. Finally, Maguire (1989)found that eclecticism was the most frequent response of Quebec teachers’ transition to a provincial wholelanguage curriculum.Teacher and program change studies focussed on literacy instruction describe a process of evolvingeclecticism rather than a clean move to another perspective (Pace, 1992; Scharer, 1992; Siera & Combs,1990). Specifically, these studies identify a number of variables involved in instructional change includingteacher beliefs, accountability, material availability, student response, and staff support. These studies willbe reviewed in the next chapter on the study of teaching. For now, it is sufficient to note teachers’ widelyvarying interpretations of whole language. Even after spelling out what whole language is and isn’t(Altwerger et al., 1987, Edeisky et al., 1991; Newman & Church, 1990), teachers appear to misconstrueor re-construe whole language. For example, outstanding teachers who labelled themselves as wholelanguage teachers also used direct instruction (Pressley & Rankin, 1993). Whole language teachers also“compromise(d), either tacking on Whole Language activities to an existing traditional program, orsupplement(ed) their whole language program with traditional materials” (Walmsley & Adams, 1993, p.278). Teachers professing a whole language perspective may continue to dwell on discrete skills, continuedrill and practice learning activities, and rely on standardized testing for instructional decisions (Halpern& Craddock, 1992; Hoffman, Roser & Battle, 1993; Siera & Combs, 1990).Eclecticism then can be explained by a number of contextual variables, or by misinterpretation.Others point to teachers’ “straightfoward functional pragmaticism: Use what works, use whatever worksbest, and be prepared to use a variety of techniques in search of what will work for each student”(McKenna et al., 1994, p. 106). This explanation of and plea for eclecticism assumes teachers’ consciousand thoughtful choices, in contrast to assumptions underlying instructional factors identified in teacherchange research. Research continues to offer a variety of ways enabling students’ literacy development.35Increasingly, educators promote varied instruction (Hiebert & Colt, 1989), and specifically, thecombination (Helymsfeld, 1989; Slaughter, 1988), or preferably, the synthesis (Pearson, 1989; Smith &Wham, 1994; Speigel, 1992) of whole language and direct instruction.Perhaps the most significant contribution of whole language is acknowledgement of the role oftheoretical understandings—in research and practice. Explicating one’s premises about reading processesand reading development has become standard in discussions of instructional matters, even amongst wholelanguage critics: “Why not use a cluster of techniques supported by research? It sounds reasonable, butthe problems get back to how one views the acquisition of language, how one views models of the readingprocess . . . (McKenna, 1994, p. 56). This kind of thinking reflects a paradigmatic shift in readinginstruction towards the critical role of one’s perspective.Strategic Reading Perspective of Reading InstructionCurrent knowledge of the reading process, along with advances in learning theory, offer promisinginstructional implications, many of which are coming to fruition in classrooms. The field of readinginstruction is moving beyond a debate, to a tempered consideration of multiple perspectives (e.g., Cazden,1992; Hiebert & Colt, 1989; Langer, 1991). One of the most influential perspectives of modern readinginstruction is strategic reading. Because this perspective is the least developed of the three discussed inthis review, the discussion in this section will be limited to the theoretical foundations of strategic reading,including the field of comprehension instruction.Theoretical Foundations of Strategic Reading Perpsective of Reading InstructionStrategic reading is grounded in current comprehension theory, which in turn is based on aninteractive view of the reading process, schema theory, and metacognition. In the last twenty yearsdevelopments in comprehension theory have challenged past views:Whereas traditional views conceptualized reading as a discrete set of skills to be be mastered,cognitively based views suggest a more holistic view of reading. Reading is seen as a processin which knowledge held by the reader interacts with textual information in the constructionof meaning. Skilled readers use their stores of existing knowledge as well as a number offlexible strategies to construct a mental model of the text . . . Exemplary comprehensioninstruction derived from this view suggests a curriculum emphasizing readers’ existing36knowledge and a set of reading strategies that good readers use in a metacognitive, regulatoryway (Dole et aL, 1991, p. 249).I will briefly describe each of the key theoretical underpinnings of current comprehension theorybefore discussing comprehension instruction.Interactive Models of ReadingInteractive models combine assumptions from bottom-up and top-down views of the reading process.Interactive models propose that readers use both visual and linguistic information, surface and deepstructural meanings, and text data and reader resources to construct meaning (Ruddell & Speaker, 1985;Rumeihart, 1985). Based on evidence that “apprehension at one level (of meaning) can often depend onour apprehension of information at a higher level” (p. 735), Rumelhart questioned the validity of bottom-uptheories and proposed instead an interactive model of processing. His model builds on the importance ofpatterning developed by psycholinguistic models, concomitantly emphasizing knowledge structures.Specifically, he introduced the existence of a “pattern synthesizer” which uses sensory, orthographic,lexical, syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic information to produce the “most probable interpretations” oftexts.The most significant contribution of Rumeihart’s interactive model is acknowledgement of thelimitations of “linear stage formalism that has served so well” and the promise in the presumption that “allthese knowledge sources apply simultaneously and that our perceptions are the product of the simultaneousinteractions among them all” (1985, p. 735). The other interactive model (Ruddell and Speaker, 1985)introduced the central role of knowledge utilization and control in the reading process, and identified amajor instructional goal as “to aid the reader in developing conscious control of the reading process” (p.786). This goal would be facilitated by work in metacognition and reading, discussed below, followingthe section on a schema-theoretic view of reading.Schema Theory of ReadingAcceptance of the cognitive complexity of the reading process presented in interactive modelsstimulated further application of schema theory to reading (Adams & Collins, 1977; Anderson & Pearson,371984). A schema theoretic view of reading comprehension views reading as “an active process ofconstructing meaning by connecting old knowledge with new information encountered in text” (Pearson,Roehier, Dole, & Duffy, 1992, p. 149). Schema are broadly defmed as organized chunks of knowledgeand experience, thus stressing the importance of nonvisual information in reading. Thus, schema are notstatic entities, but anactive principle in our memory (re-)organizing elements of recall into structured wholes. Inperception and language understanding we interpret and recall all new information with respectto our established schemata, which are both cognitively and socially determined (VanDijk &Kintsch, 1985, p. 795).Schema are usually classified as two types: content (or domain) and linguistic. Content schema areorganized as scripts or frames. These schema may consist of common knowledge and experiences such asabout restaurants, or more specialized knowledge such as mechanical engineering. Linguistic schemainclude knowledge about the multiple components and hierarchical organization of narrative and expositorytexts. Rumelhart (1980) describes the extensive range of knowledge within these classifications:Schemata can represent knowledge at all levels—from ideologies and cultural truths toknowledge about what constitutes an appropriate sentence in our language, to knowledge aboutthe meaning of a particular word, to knowledge about what patterns of excitations areassociated with what letters of the alphabet. We have schemata to represent all levels of ourexperience at all levels of abstraction. Finally, our schemata are our knowledge (p. 41).Early research in this area focussed on the role of readers’ content knowledge in recall (Bartlett,1932) and comprehension (Bransford & Johnson, 1972). More recent research examines the role oflinguistic schemata (Taylor, 1982; vanDijk & Kintsch, 1983). Research on text structure has shown theparticular influence of a reader’s schema of textual macrostructures on comprehension and recall (Taylor& Beach, 1984). In general, the more the reader’s schemata is developed and consistent with the text, thebetter the reader’s comprehension and recall of the text. Additionally, the individual nature of schemainsures that “Each of us prints a unique stamp on every act of reading we undertake” (Pearson et al., 1992,p. 149).38Metacognition and the Reading ProcessMetacogrntive theory developed from studies of experts and novices in many domains. These studiesconcluded that the “major distinction between experts and novices in any domain is self-controlled strategicbehavior” (Paris, Lipson & Wixson, 1983, P. 294). Thus the key differences between novices and expertslie in the consciousness of their behaviors and the nature of those behaviors. These behaviors arecommonly contrasted as skills and strategies. Whereas skills are highly routinized behaviors, strategies are“actions selected deliberately to achieve particular goals’ (Paris, Wasik & Turner, 1991, p. 611).Metacognitively-based conceptions of the reading process follow logically from schema-theoreticviews. Metacognition refers to the conscious ability to think about thinking (Brown, Bransford, Ferrara& Campione, 1983; Flavell, 1978). Schemata are mental structures. Metacognitively-based views ofreading assume that conscious thought about those structures facilitates comprehension (Brown, 1980; Baker& Brown, 1984). Consequently, initial work in this view of reading focused on readers’ ability to activaterelevant content schema before reading, and apply them during reading as a means of improvingcomprehension (e.g., Beck, Omanson & McKeowen, 1982).Metacognitive theory has greatly influenced assumptions about expert reading comprehension. Oneset of assumptions concerns kinds of metacognitive knowledge involved in reading: declarative knowledge(knowing what—knowledge of the reading process), procedural knowledge (knowing how-controlling thereading process by applying strategies) and conditional knowledge (knowing why and when to applystrategies) (Paris et al., 1983). Another assumption points to the critical role of intention or self-regulatorymechanisms in strategic reading (Brown, 1982; Paris et al., 1983). A third group of assumptions describesthe nature and constituent strategies of comprehension. That is, expert readers use a repertoire of strategiesflexibly and recursively throughout the comprehension process. Strategies include previewing, generatingquestions, determining importance, inferencing, visualizing, summarizing, and monitoring construction ofmeaning (Dole et al., 1991; Paris et al., 1991; Pearson & Fielding, 1991; Pearson et al., 1992).Comprehension InstructionAs noted in the beginning of this chapter, both whole language and strategic reading are classifiedas meaning-emphasis perspectives thus differentiation is not as clear as between whole language and39traditional perspsectives. For purposes of this study, distinctions between whole language and strategicreading are made primarily on the basis of instructional emphasis of higher order cognitive processes.Advances in comprehension instruction have been greatly influenced by Durkin’s (1978-1979) studyof comprehension instruction. She found checking the accuracy of students’ responses (both oral andwritten) to be the main instructional activity rather than the demonstrative strategies emphasized in theliterature. Results of the most recent NAEP (reading) in the United States which indicate an urgent needfor instruction in higher-level reading abilities are also providing momentum for the development ofstrategic reading instruction.Although there is little argument with the proposal that students acquire the behaviors of expertreaders, two instructional issues affect implementation of strategic reading. One issue concerns the besttime or age for beginning instruction, and the other more controversial issue concerns the manner ofinstruction—i.e., explicit instruction. Most leaders in modern comprehension instruction argue for holisticuse of reading strategies at all levels: “We really do expect all readers of all ages to engage in all of thesestrategies at some level of sophistication (Pearson et al., 1992, p. 169). Some researchers include non-readers: “Even non-readers can be exposed to these strategies as they bridge speaking and listening withreading and writing” (Paris et aT., 1991, p. 634). These leaders agree instruction is a matter of insuringthe continuous development and extensive application of comprehension strategies (Paris et al., 1991;Pearson et al., 1992)The most controversial issue related to this perspective is the recommendation for explicit instruction.Because of the level and complexity of the processes involved in strategic reading, most researchers agreethat it cannot be learned incidentally, but rather needs to be taught explicitly (Pearson & Fielding, 1991;Pressley et a;., 1989). Unlike traditional reading instruction, and like whole language, strategic readingis based on constructivist views of reading, prioritizing situated learning and authentic tasks. Unlike wholelanguage, strategic reading instruction advocates explicit instruction. Following is one explanation of thedifference between traditional and strategic reading instruction:Ineffective instruction focussed on isolated skills and repeated practice on worksheets, whereaseffective instruction orients students to the task of constructing meaning from text and providesa variety of tactics to use before, during, and after reading (Paris et al., 1991, p. 632).40The notion of direct instruction assumed by current views of comprehension instruction contrasts withformer behaviorist notions embedded in teacher effectiveness (Pearson & Dole, 1987; Pearson & Gallagher,1983; Pressley et al., 1991). These contrasts occur in one, the abstract as opposed to concrete substanceof instruction; and two, the mediational rather than didactic means of instruction. Based on asociocognitive view of learning (Vygotsky, 1978), students learn strategies and how and when to use them,through mediation. Because this view acknowledges individual differences between students, variation inresponse rather than one correct response is the norm. Feedback is suggestive, rather than corrective. Theobject of instruction is higher order, holistic strategies, rather than lower-order subskills. The abstractnature of strategies requires a high degree of explicitness in instruction to reduce the liklihood of studentmisrepresentation (Pressely, Harris, & Marks, 1992). Instructional techniques—or “effective instructionalactions” (Pearson et al., 1992) include modelling, direct explanation and guided student practice.Instruction can take place with the whole class or within smaller social contexts—e.g., cooperativelearning, peer tutoring, reciprocal teaching and discussion groups.In sum, current comprehension theory is based on a reconceptualization of the reading process asdemonstrated by expert readers. Strategic reading stresses the holistic use of high level thinking processesapplied to multiple levels of text. Meaning is recursively constructed by the reader in a series ofinteractions with the text. Strategic reading is a developmental process beginning during emergent literacyand advancing with explicit instruction.Similarities Between Traditional, Whole Language, and StrategicReading Perspectives of Reading InstructionWhile this chapter has been devoted to differentiating traditional, whole language, and strategicperspectives of reading instruction, it is also important to consider their conunonalities. These points ofoverlap can be viewed from teachers’ goals, the reality of teachers as opposed to the abstraction ofapproaches, and evidence of common student achievement.Based more on informal observation than research, few would argue against the existence of a coreof goals constant across teachers from both code-emphasis and meaning-emphasis approaches to readinginstruction. That is, all teachers of children in the lower elementary grades want their students to enjoy41reading, be able to comprehend not just decode text, and become independent readers. To those ends,some practices cut across particular reading programs. For example, exposing students to good qualitychildren’s literature is a universal practice among elementary teachers. As well, recent research indicatesthat all teachers of beginning reading insure that their students acquire the tools of comprehension,particularly phonics and word skills (Dahi & Freppon, 1995; Freppon, 1991).Implied in the acknowledgement of common goals is the likelihood of different practicesaccomplishing the same ends. For example, whereas traditional teachers may use readers and workbooksto develop students’ phonic skills, whole language teachers may use trade books, students’ own writing,and phonics games. The relentless quest to identify relative effects of contrasting instructional approaches,at least when limited to basic outcome measures, have yielded minimal differences (Anderson et al., 1985;Dahi & Freppon, 1995; Froese, 1995; Willinsky, 1990) suggesting teachers’ common ability to facilitatedevelopment of their students’ basic literacy skills. However, other studies using alternative methodologiesand/or measures of student literacy development have identified some differences in what students arelearning in the contrasting programs. These differences seem to relate more to students’ affective andhigher-order conceptual views and literacy behaviors than their achievement of basic skills (Dahi &Freppon, 1995; Hagerty, Hiebert, & Owens, 1989; Morrow, 1992; Rasinski & deFord, 1988; Shapiro &Witte, 1990; Wing, 1991).A second consideration in any analysis of instruction based on teachers rather than abstractdescriptions of different approaches is that people are less definable than theory. There is ample researchdemonstrating that teachers are more accurately eclectic than theoretically pure (Lind, 1992; Pressley &Rankin, 1993; Walmsley & Adams, 1993). Indeed, the assumption that teachers can be neatly placed intoone or another orientation is being challenged (McCarger, 1994). Instead, teachers’ orientation to readingis coming to be viewed as a complex interplay among both skills-based and meaning-based dimensions sothat the “priorities . . . (of these) emphases, not their presence or absence, is what constitutes teachers’theoretical orientation” (McCargar, 1994, p. 505).42Summary of Major Perspectives of Reading Instruction and Preview of Chapter ifiThree major perspectives in reading instruction were discussed in this chapter: traditional, wholelanguage, and strategic reading. These perspectives can describe teachers’ personal practical knowledgeof reading instruction. While instructional perspectives are most commonly classified as traditional andwhole language, the addition of strategic reading reflects the most current literature.The traditional perspective of reading instruction assumes a reductionist view of language, an additiveview of learning to read, and a standardized view of the learner. Linear processing models of the readingprocess reinforce the task-analytic foundation of the reading curriculum. Readers progress up the ladderof reading skills attaining fluency first in decoding and eventually mastery of comprehension. Essentialactivities of instruction are monitoring and evaluating students’ repeated practice to the end of skillsmastery. Advances in learning theory and reading process theory have raised serious questions concerningthe validity of traditional reading instruction.Connected with Progressivism and progressive reading instruction, whole language was originallyformulated from assumptions of psycholinguistic views of reading and child language development research.Whole language educators joined efforts in a two-fold mission: to protest erroneous assumptions oftraditional reading instruction, and to redefine teaching reading, learning to read, and reading. Curricularimplications from key research include emphasis on contextual aspects of reading, and immersion inmeaningful, whole literacy events. Whole language instruction is characteristically supportive andfacilitative, rather than didactic and corrective. The heated debates about reading instruction sparked bywhole language has raised educators’ awareness of the importance of theoretically defensible instruction.Strategic reading emerged both as a response to the lack of comprehension instruction in basalprograms and from applications of cognitive psychology to reading. Based on an interactive model of thereading process, a strategic reading curriculum replaces the traditional skills curriculum. Students learnhigh level tactics to use before, during, and after reading. Learning these strategies requires explicitinstruction in the form of demonstration and modelling, followed by guided practice.The two meaning-based perspectives have forced educators to make previously implicit assumptionsexplicit. While teachers’ personal practical knowledge of reading instruction is more often reflective ofseveral perspectives, the real concern is with what knowledge is theoretically defensible.43Finally, discussions of theoretical differences between different approaches to reading instruction cancloud their similarities. In elementary reading instruction, teachers can override theoretical boundaries sothat common goals and common components of instruction, albeit variously emphasized, cast theoreticaldifferences in a softer light.The next chapter reviews the literature of the study of teaching. Special attention is given todiscussion of the assumptions underlying the major research programs in the study of teaching since itsinception in the beginning of the century. Within this framework major developments in the field ofreading instruction are described. Particular attention is also given to current work in both teaching andreading instruction which is grounded in teacher cognition.44CHAPTER ifi: THE STUDY OF TEACHINGThe purpose of this study is to identify factors of reading instruction, to describe groups of teachersbased on these factors, and to examine other teacher and student variables of these groups. The study ofteaching and instructional research in reading provide two frameworks for viewing teaching and thevariables of reading instruction. The two fields overlap at several points historically and presently. Bothteacher cognition, the current perspective in the study of teaching, and much current research in readinginstruction, assume the vital role of teacher knowledge. Reviewing selected past research in these twofields uncovers assumptions which continue to color teacher education and curriculum and instruction ingeneral, and matters related to reading instruction specifically.This chapter reviews the characteristics and developments of the main stages in the field of the studyof teaching: the early non-scientific period, the scientific study of teaching or process-product research,and the current era of teacher cognition. Within this framework I also review major events anddevelopments in the reading field, in North America generally and in Canada and British Columbiaparticularly.Early Period (late 1800’s to 1940’s)The study of teaching traces its history to pressures of accountability in public schools at the turnof the century. Despite the prevalent assumption that good teachers were clearly those who wereconsistently punctual, organized, and cheerful (Rupley, Wise & Logan, 1986; Medley, 1979), schoolsupervisors were required to formally rate all teachers. The criteria of these ratings reflected commonlyheld beliefs about natural teachers. The broad nature of the criteria, along with the absence of evaluationinstruments, meant ratings were global and highly subjective.45During the 1930’s, researchers advocated a more scientific approach to teacher study (Rupley et al.,1986). Major developments at this time concern the validity and reliability of supervisory ratings. Thenotion of teacher effectiveness was introduced with empirical tests of the relationship between highly-ratedteachers and various student outcome measures. Interestingly, no significant relationships were found.The development of instruments such as checldists, rating scales and questionnaires attempted to standardizemeasures of teacher effectiveness (Gray, 1940; Olander, 1937). However, observations remained focusedon teacher attitudes, characteristics, and personality, and their relationships to student attitudes andactivities. Another problem lay in data collection procedures. Collecting data before and after, not during,instruction cast the classroom as a “black box” (Gage, 1963). Thus, despite developments in teacherresearch during this time, findings were regarded as being of little use:The simple fact of the matter is that, after 40 years of research on teacher effectiveness duringwhich a vast number of studies have been carried out, one can point to few outcomes that asuperintendent of schools can safely employ in hiring a teacher or granting him tenure, thatan agency can employ in certifying teachers, or that a teacher-education faculty can employin planning or improving teacher-education programs (American Educational ResearchAssociation, 1953, p. 657).Dunkin and fiddle (1974) cite at least four reasons this era of research was unproductive:1. failure to observe teaching activities2. theoretical impoverishment3. use of inadequete criteria of effectiveness; and4. lack of contextual effects (p. 13).These areas of improvement would begin to be addressed during the next period of research.In sum, the beginning era in the study of teaching was influenced by the general paradigm shift toscientism. During this time traditional beliefs about teaching as obvious and teachers as born began toconflict with emerging assumptions of scientism—i.e. that there are criteria to be discovered and teacherscould be made. These assumptions would continue to direct classroom research until the 1970’s and,consequently, the view of the teacher would move strongly in the direction of scientific practitioner.46Reading ResearchThe scientific approach was not limited to the study of teaching. Its influence pervaded readingresearch at this time as well to such an extent that the scientific movement has been deemed the “the mostimportant educational trend that affected reading instruction research” (Venezky, 1984, p. 17). In reading,these years were coined the “Golden Era” (Smith, 1965). Huey’s The Psychology of Reading, publishedin 1908, was the first scientific contribution to reading instruction. Gray’s Student Oral ReadingParagraphs in 1915 pioneered the development of standardized measures of reading, in turn directinginstructional research towards methods assessment. In the curriculum, real books were recommended,phonics was the dominant approach to beginning reading, and silent reading replaced oral reading.Overall, reading curricula reflected two approaches: skills sequence and the child-centered ActivityMovement. In Canada, child-centered approaches were a familiar tradition dating from Ryerson’s workin Ontario in the mid 1800’s. Thus, in Canada, educational reform based on American Progressivism morethan half a century later was readily adopted, notably in British Columbia. Finally, this was the timeduring which William S. Gray and Arthur Gates, leading reading researchers, began the flourishingbusiness of authoring instructional materials.Formalization Period (1950’s to 1970’s): The Rise and Fall of Process-Product ResearchWhereas earlier teacher research assumed that certain personal characteristics were the basis ofeffective teaching, process-product research assumed that specific behaviors characterized effective teachers.Clearly iniluenced by the dominance of behaviorism in educational psychology, the teacher thought to beeffective at this time provided appropriate stimulation in the form of verbal, attitudinal, and managerialbehaviors; and students responded with demonstratable learning behaviors. Teachers could be trained tobe effective by enacting lists of prescribed principles. Like teaching itself, the study of teaching was ascientific enterprise in which teachers’ behaviors or characteristics could be isolated, identified, andmanipulated as independent variables of student gains. In reading, availability of standardized measuresof student outcomes became a tool of accountability, and prompted continuation of comparative studies ofinstruction on multiple scales.47Early Formalization: The Development of Classroom Observation InstrumentsHeralded by the work of Medley & Metzel (1958) and Flanders (1960), direct observation ofteachers’ instructional behaviors became the cornerstone of the study of teaching during this time. Theseresearchers developed instruments to observe teachers systematically during teaching. In contrast to usingthe questionnaires, interviews and self-reports of the past era, observers sat in classrooms with instrumentscomposed of predetermined coding systems representing constructs of teacher behavior. Observers recordedthe kinds and frequencies of behavior teachers used in actual classroom practices. Low inferencemeasures—those which stayed close to the original behaviors—were favored over high inference measuresof the past. Thus, “warmth” was replaced by such indices as smiles, positive touching and praise. Theeffectiveness of these behaviors was gauged by students’ achievement and attitude scores.As in the early periods of the study of teaching and reading research, the two fields once again hadcommon ground between them. Just as those involved in the study of teaching collected data in realclassrooms using objective instruments to record observations, reading researchers studied readinginstruction in classrooms using instruments composed of a variety of specific behaviors associated witheffective teaching of reading. Instruction which would improve students’ reading achievement was beingurgently sought due to increasing global competition, pressure for instructional accountability, andeducators’ concerns about the neglect of instruction in critical reading skills.Two landmark studies in comparative reading were conducted during this time (Bond & Dykstra,1967; Chall, 1967). Although their focus did not include higher level reading abilities, both researchprojects intended to resolve once and for all the “crisis of conifict” in reading instruction (Smith, 1965).While Chall’s comparison of nine reading programs (representing 22 actual classrooms) pointed to thesuperiority of code-emphasis over meaning-emphasis approaches, the First Grade Studies’ comparison of27 beginning reading methods concluded thatno one approach is so distinctly better in all situations and respects than the others that itshould be considered the one best method and the one to be used exclusively” (Bond & Dystra,1967, p. 127).Despite the move to classroom observations and the use of more objective instruments, the scientificstudy of teaching remained immature methodologically and theoretically. Much of the research became48entangled in the debate between progressivism and traditionalism, or in reading instruction, code-based andmeaning-based. Studies comparing “open” and “traditional” programs were faulted for observer bias or“conunitment” (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974). Rosenshine (1971) summarizes three main difficulties duringthis early era of process-product research: minimal differences between programs being compared; usingthe student instead of the class as the unit of analysis; and the use of ideologically-based, rather thanclassroom-based, observation systems. Once again, findings from the study of teaching were poorlyreceived by the academic community. . . “most of the data amounts to superficial, rootless verbalisms.- “(Cogan, 1963, p. 88).Other research programs investigating learning also undermined early teacher effectiveness research.The Coleman Report (1966), for example, identified variables outside school as being more influential onstudent learning than any variables within school including teachers. Similarly a sharp increase of studieson curriculum effects of student learning during this time also directed attention away from teacher effects.In contrast, the First Grade Studies (Bond & Dykstra, 1967), inadvertently supported the influence ofteachers in students’ reading development by concluding “to improve reading instruction, it is necessaryto train better teachers of reading rather than expect a panacea in the fonn of materials” (p. 123). Perhapsdue to the inherent logic of instruction-learning relationships, researchers continued to investigate teachingvariables of student outcomes and the field entered its most flourishing period.Develoned FormalizationThree developments during the 1970’s mark this period of teacher effectiveness research. One, thefield of the study of teaching was conceptually formalized largely through the work of Dunkin & Biddle(1974). Two, the structure of the research program evolved into the “descriptive-correlational-experimentalloop” (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974; Rosenshine & Furst, 1973). And three, practical implications werereceived enthusiastically by policy-makers. Consequently, process-product research significantly influencedteaching and teacher training in the form of competency-based teaching. In reading, this was a period inwhich the pendulum swung sharply to the right or the conservative. Teacher-controlled, sequential skillscurricula were reimplemented in response to the newly discovered “literacy crisis.” Ironically, this is alsothe time in which cognitive, psycholinguistic, and sociolinguistic views emerged in the literature.49Dunkin and Biddle’s (1974) landmark book, The Study of Teaching, influenced the field in at leasttwo important ways: it openly established teaching as a social science, and presented a conceptual modelfor the study of teaching. Discarding any ideologies of teaching in favor of research-based knowledge,Dunkin & Biddle emphasized thatthe activities of teaching are reasonable, natural, rational events . . . (which have)discoverable causes and effects. . . (and consist of) an observable, existential reality that isnot divergent from any other set of observable events” (p. 12).Dunkin & Biddle’s model identifies three main types of variables in the study of teaching:independent variables, process variables, and product variables. They organize these variableschronologically—before, during, and after teaching. Independent variables consist of “pressage variables”(which consist of teacher formative experiences, teacher training experiences and teacher properties) and“context variables” (which are designated as pupil formative experiences and pupil properties; and schooland community contexts and classroom contexts). Process variables consist of interactions in theclassroom. Dependent variables are process variables which describe pupil classroom behavior and productvariables (immediate student growth and long-term pupil effects).Dunkin and Biddle propose that research be organized around six classes of knowledge aboutteaching. The most basic classes observe and formulate constructs of teaching, then study those constructsin classrooms. Higher classes of knowledge study relationships between constructs. The two most popularkinds of studies coming from this model sought correlations between process and product variables andtested the significance of process-product relationships with experimental treatments. The study of theseclasses of knowledge was to be organized in a “descriptive-correlational-experimental loop”:1. Development of procedures for describing teaching in a quantitative manner.2. Correlational studies in which the descriptive variables are related to measures of studentgrowth.3. Experimental studies in which the significant variables obtained in the correlational studies aretested in more controlled situations (Rosenshine & Furst, 1973, p. 122).The correlational studies gained the most attention from both researchers and educators in the field.These studies assumed that differences between teachers such as organization of instruction, methods,50materials, and teacher-pupil interactions would cause differences in their students’ learning. Duffy (1981)describes the correlational studies in a review of teacher effectiveness research:Process-product studies employ classroom observation tools which trained observers use whenvisiting a classroom to record how often a particular phenomenon noted on the observationform occurs in actual practices. The combined observations are analyzed, with the individualteacher as the unit of analysis, to determine the correlation between particular coded items andachievement growth as determined by standardized achievement tests and/or by less formalattitude measures (p. 116).The initial correlational studies were fraught with limitations, both theoretically and methodologically. Dunkin and Biddle devote an entire chapter of The Study of Teaching to recommendations forimproving the quality of teacher effectiveness research. Large scale correlational studies during the 1970’s,backed by federal funding, attempted to correct many of these limitations. The organization and outcomesof these studies is discussed below.The Role of the National Institute of EducationDuring the 1970’s, the National Institute of Education in the United States contributed significantlyto the development of the study of teaching as both a field of study and a reputable knowledge base. Byconvening the first national conference on the study of teaching in 1975 and establishing centers inuniversities for the study of teaching (e.g., Michigan State University Center for Teaching in 1976), theNational Institute prompted authorization of the field.Substantial funding from the National Institute of Education (NIE) permitted researchers to undertakelarge scale correlational studies (Berliner, 1975; Brophy & Everston, 1974; Soar & Soar, 1972; Stallings& Kaskowitz, 1974). Following on the heels of Head Start, the purpose of these studies was to identifyeffective means of educating children from low socioeconomic (SES) groups. The studies were conductedin the early grades, particularly grades one and three. Observations focused on basic math and readingskills for two main reasons: the “back to the basics” movement during this decade and the selection andavailability of research instruments (observation and achievement tests) geared to these basic skills.Teacher behavioral foci included verbal behaviors such as praising and criticizing, questioning techniques,51pacing, grouping and instructional setting. The large data base and more scientific sampling proceduresincreased both reliability and validity of findings.Conclusions from these studies gave new credence to the role of the teacher and demonstrated that“variations in teacher behavior were found to be systematically related to variations in student achievement”(Shulman, 1986a, p. 10). Specific findings related to effective teaching of low SES students supportedhighly structured whole class instruction and tasks kept at low levels of complexity, rather than small groupor independent work incorporating higher level thinking.These studies seemed to finally offer specific, scientifically-based implications for teaching.However, across studies relationships were rarely consistent and even contradictory (Dunkin & Biddle,1974). It was recommended thatmost findings from this field must presently be presumed tentative: because we are not surehow strong they are, because we do not know whether they are independent of other effects,or because they have not yet been validated experimentally (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974, p. 359).Other concerns about both conducting and interpreting process-product research later discussed byHoffman (1986) include the need for theoretically congruent process-product variables, multiple rather thansingle outcome variables, and inclusion of curricular goals other than basic skills. Finally, researchersshare concern that findings from correlational studies are too often misinterpreted as causal relationships.Such concerns are easier to express in retrospect than in the din of “back to basics” calls heard across NorthAmerica, including Canada and British Columbia.A Need for Mete-analysisAs mentioned above, findings from large-scale correlational studies were limited to settings(experimental programs) and populations (low SES) in which they were conducted. Mete-analysis andreviews of these studies attempted to advance findings about individual teacher behaviors to generalprinciples (Brophey, 1979; Good, 1979; Medley, 1979; Rosenshine, 1979). Principles of effective teachingderived from this research included direct instruction, active teaching, management strategies (includingtime on task), and positive teacher expectations.52There are three general concerns about principles derived from reviews and meta-analyses ofcorrelational studies. One relates to their artificiality, another to the quality and number of the studies theyrepresent, and another to historical validity. First, the problem that these principles are synthetic patternsrather than real behaviors found in any one teacher is inherent in the nature of meta-analysis. Shulman(1986a) explains thatthe bulk of process-product research, while based on naturally occuring correlations, definedeffective teaching through an act of synthesis by the investigator or reviewer, in which theindividual behaviors associated with desirable pupil performance were aggregated into a newcomposite. There was little evidence that any observed teacher had ever performed in theclassroom congruent with the collective pattern of the composite (p. 12).Second, Hoffman (1986) points out that the reviews of process-product research outnumber thestudies, and in fact, the findings from mets-analysis represent a relatively small number of studies. Thisis so because individual studies looked at many variables and consequently found many correlations.Findings from reviews and mets-analyses are limited by the theoretical and methodological weaknesses ofthe individual studies. Finally, Cuban (1984) concluded from his historical study of teaching that teacher-centered instructional practices have been both dominant and constant since (at least) the turn of thecentury. Principles derived from teacher effectiveness research simply affirm the kinds of practicesconstrained by school and classroom organizational structures as well as the conservative culture of teaching(p. 254).Programmatic ResearchProgrammatic research is the next and final stage in the process-product research program. It isexplicitly described by Brophy (1979) asresearch that tests hypotheses derived from correlational work, identifies causal relationships,and builds upon these in developing teacher education approaches is needed if teaching is tobecome the applied science that it can and should be (p. 1).Faith in the scientific conception of teaching (Dunicin & Biddle, 1974) opened the door to the nextstage of process-product research—experimental studies. Programmatic research was to be the pinnacleof the process-product paradigm where experiments were regarded as both the “ultimate means of validating53the effectiveness of teaching strategies and. . . irreplaceable in the armory of the researcher concerned withteaching and its effects” (Dunkin & Biddle, 1974, P. 446). In contrast to the large-scale correlationalstudies, programmatic research took place in natural classrooms rather than in laboratories or artificially-controlled classrooms.With the principles of effective teaching now identified and formulated, researchers could re-analyzethe observational studies to determine the teaching skills which would embody these principles. In otherwords, the next step in the research program was to test the skills in programs designed to promote thoseeffects. This research program assumed teachers could learn the skills of effective instruction and practicethem with their students, and results would then be born out in their students’ achievement scores.Several large scale projects developed treatment programs based on findings from process-productresearch. Again, curricular content was directed to basic math and reading skills during the early yearsof school. Process variables consisted of skills involved in behavior management, questioning and feedbackstrategies, and direct instructional methods (Anderson, Everston & Brophy, 1975; Good, 1979). In anextensive review of programmatic research directed to reading, Rosenshine and Stevens (1984) concludethat:(1) Students who receive much of their instruction from the teacher do better than thoseexpected to learn on their own or from each other and (2) Students learn to read mostefficiently when teachers use systematic instruction, monitor student responses, and givestudents feedback about their performance (p. 746).Two other related variables of effective reading instruction as determined by high achievement testscores include coverage of basal program (Barr & Dreeben, 1983) and time on task for reading (Edmond,1975, 1979).The results of these studies, along with the correlational studies which preceded them, support astructured curriculum over individualized or discovery learning approaches; explicit, direct instruction(demonstration-practice-feedback) over individual or group learning; and over-learning to the point ofautomaticity for both hierarchically-organized material and higher cognitive processing (Rosenshine, 1983,p. 336-337). In sum, these studies successfully carried out their purpose “to reinforce the findings of theearlier correlational studies, and to determine if treatment interventions are effective in changing teacher54behaviors” (Rupley, Wise, & Logan, 1986). In reading, scope and sequence curricula, teacher-directedlearning, and behaviorist pedagogy was enforced by this research and once again, dashed hopes for anypromise of child-centered, purposeful instruction (Shannon, 1989).Shulman (1 986a) discusses several reasons why process-product research flourished at this time. Onewas its consistency both with the dominant research tradition—applied psychology and its task-analytictraining tradition—and the current metaphor of teaching as “a bundle of skills” legitmated as a science (p.11). Another was embedded in the norms of the competency-based teacher education movement. Shulmanrefers to this aspect as the “dual advantage of ready association with observable results for pupils and theappearance of clear implications for evaluation, training and policy” (p. 11). Finally, Shulman states, theprocess-product research program was popular becausethe approach worked. The studies conducted under its programmatic directionaccomplished the sorts of important aims outlined for them. Teachers who consistently wereassociated with higher achievement gains tended to behave differently from those who werenot . . . Teachers seemed capable of learning to perform in the manners suggested by theresearch program and the performances tended to produce higher achievement among theirpupils. Within the limits of whatever activities standardized achievement tests were measuring,the program was palpably successful. (p.1 1).Perhaps above all else the process-product research program resonated with deeply-held assumptionsabout teaching and learning—i.e., those implicit in a Cartesian world view (Crowell, 1986). As Shulman(1986a) explains, “the program produced scientific support for approaches to instruction with which themajority of teachers, administrators and parents felt intuitively and professionally comfortable” (Shulman,1986a, p. 11). For all the above reasons, competency-based teacher education took root, thus attributingto process-product research the foundation of many teachers’ commonsensical knowledge about effectiveteaching.Transformative Period: (1980-present)During the next decade, developments in learning theory and research methods began to conflict withassumptions of behaviorism and scientism. Encompassed by a cross-discipline paradigm shift towardsholism (Crowell, 1986; Weaver, 1994), educational research including the study of teaching headed in newdirections. Thus process-product research as a paradigm for studying teaching began its descent55concurrently with the demise of behaviorism as a means of understanding learning and empiricism as thesole method of research. Dunkin & Biddle’s noble cause of establishing teaching as a science had crossedthe line into engineering while it sought “causes . . . in behaviors, not in theoretically meaningfulmechanisms or explanations” (Shulman, 1986a, p. 13). In contrast to behaviorism, theories andexplanations from cognitive psychology, sociology, and cultural anthropology provided a more meaningfulframework to understand teaching and learning. Both teaching and learning were coming to be understoodas highly complex processes, processes which behaviorism was inadequate to explain. Alternative methodsof interpretative inquiry from the social sciences facilitated deeper understandings of these complexprocesses.Three major research programs in the study of teaching have evolved since the mid 1970’s: studentmediation, classroom ecology, and teacher cognition. The first two programs, although certainly importantto the study of teaching, are less relevant to this particular investigation than the third. I will thereforeexplain only briefly the significant contributions made by pupil mediation and classroom ecology researchbefore focusing on teacher cognition.The main contribution to the study of teaching made by these two programs is replacement of thebehaviorist perspective of process-product research with perspectives from cognitive psychology, sociology,and cultural anthropology. Studies based on these perspectives (and their derivatives) expanded andenriched the field. Theoretical assumptions of these studies included 1) the validity of interactions betweenpersons and their environment and reciprocal interactions between student and teacher as means ofconstructing reality, 2) teaching and learning as continuously interactive processes, 3) the classroom asnested in other contexts and 4) the importance of tacit processes (Hamilton, 1983). Thus the focusincluded not only teacher behavior but also student processes and the personal meanings of all theparticipants. Similarly, standardized student outcome measures were replaced with mediators of learning,clarity of communication, and equality of opportunity as ends of analysis. Landmark studies from theseprograms include Doyle (1983) in pupil mediation of learning; and Eriksen (1982), Cazden (1983),McDermott, (1977), Mehan (1979) and Florio (1978) in classroom ecology.56Teacher CognitionDuring this time, there was a general shift in educational research to thought processes—of the readerin reading research, and of the teacher in the study of teaching. Teacher cognition research represents aradical shift from the measurement and manipulation of variables (Gage, 1963) to studies of teachers’thoughts. Supported by the transition in psychology theory to thought-action relationships (Nesbitt & Ross,1980; Newell & Simon, 1956, 1972), leaders in the study of teaching pointed the field in new directions.Jackson’s (1968) pioneering case study, Life in the Classroom, set out to reveal the “hidden” side ofteaching. Shulman’s (1975) position statement on the future of the field emphasized the need for pursuinga cognitive perspective:It is obvious that what teachers do is directed in no small measure by what they think.Moreover, it will be necessary for any innovations in the context, practices and technology ofteaching to be mediated through the minds and motives of teachers. To the extent thatobserved or intended teacher behavior is “thoughtless” it makes no use of the human teacher’smost unique attributes. In so doing, it becomes mechanical and might well be done by amachine. If however, teaching is done . . . by human teachers, the question of therelationships between thought and action becomes crucial (NIE, 1975, p. 1).There are two main research programs in teacher cognition: the earlier focus on teachers’ thoughtprocesses (Clark & Peterson, 1986; Stern, 1976; Stern & Shavelson, 1981) and the current focus on teacherknowledge (Elbaz, 1983; Leinhardt, 1988; Shulman, 1986b, 1987). The earlier program is based largelyon information-processing theory and focuses on thought processes before, during, and after teaching.Referred to as teacher decision-making, this research studies teachers’ thoughts influencing suchinstructional decisions as grouping, time management, content coverage etc. In contrast, the currentprogram of teacher knowledge is based on more recent developments in cognitive psychology andconcentrates on teachers’ specific subject matter knowledge.The remainder of this chapter is organized in two main sections, each dealing with one of theresearch programs in teacher cognition. The first section reviews aspects of teacher decision-making andthe second section reviews aspects of teacher knowledge. The review of teacher decision-making researchis limited to foundational work in teachers’ theories, their relationship to instruction, and current studiesin teachers’ theoretical orientations. The review of teacher knowledge is limited to an introduction of thetheoretical premises and a discussion of one of the main outgrowths of teacher knowledge, that of teacher57change. Specifically, the discussion of teacher change will focus on studies in which reading instructionis the context of teacher change.Teacher Decision-MakingStern and Shavelson (1981) identify two assumptions guiding this approach to the study of teaching:One, “teachers are rational professionals, who, like other professionals such as physicians, makejudgements and carry out decisions in an uncertain, complex environment” and two, “teachers’ behavioris guided by their thoughts, judgements, and decisions” (p. 456-457). Teachers in this model were viewedasactive agents with many instructional techniques at their disposal to help students reach somegoal. In order to choose from this repertoire, teachers must integrate a large amount ofinfonnation about students from a variety of sources. Teachers must somehow relate thisinformation to their own beliefs and goals, the nature of the instructional task, the constraintsof the situation, and so on, in order to reach a judgement (Shavelson, 1983, p. 396-397).Thus teacher cognition transformed the teacher from technician to professional as well as focused ontheir thought processes. Early work in teacher cognition (reviewed in Clark and Yinger, 1977; Shavelsonand Stern, 1981) included studies in teachers’ planning, teachers’ judgement, teachers’ interactive decision-making, and teachers’ implicit theories.Although few studies in teachers’ implicit theories and beliefs were conducted during this time,researchers began to emphasize their influence on teachers’ actions and the need for more studies (Clark& Yinger, 1977). A decade later the need had only become more acute.inquiry into this topic is central to a complete and useful understanding of thoughtprocesses in teaching. While we may learn much that is interesting and useful from a technicalpoint of view from research on teaching planning, interactive thinking, and teachers’attributions, we can make sense of these findings only in relation to the psychological contextin which the teacher plans and decides (Clark and Peterson, 1986, p. 285).Although most work in this area was aimed at teachers’ implicit theories about teaching and learningin general, some research about reading in particular was conducted. The first studies in this areaattempted to identify teachers’ theories of reading. Based on the argument that instruction is theoretically-58based (Harste & Burke, 1977; Kainil & Peterson, 1979), measures of teachers’ implicit theories of readingwere developed. Later these measures were used to investigate theory-practice relationships.Each of the three major instruments developed during the 1970’s premises the influence of teachers’theories. Harste and Burke (1977) defined theoretical orientation as “a cognitive structure or generalizedschemata which governs behavior” (p. 32). Duffy and Anderson (1984) assumed that “teachers organizeinstruction according to a conceptual frame or cognitive structure which drives them to select certaininstructional alternatives over others” (p. 97). DeFord (1985) claimed that “knowledge forms a systemof beliefs and attitudes which direct predictions and behavior” (p. 352-353).Measures of teachers’ tacit knowledge about reading focused on one of three aspects of reading:process, development, or instruction. (These aspects continue to be standard types of measures usedtoday.) Measures of the reading process are usually classified along a continuum of text-based, reader-based, and interactive models. Teachers’ theoretical orientations to reading development are commonlybased on a scale ranging from decoding to skills to whole language (or language-based) (Harste & Burke,1977). Teachers’ theoretical orientations to reading instruction are categorized according to familiarinstructional approaches. The Theoretical Orientation to Reading Profile (TORP) (deFord, 1978, 1985)and the Propositions about Reading Instructional Inventory (PR1) (Duffy & Metheny, 1979) are well knownexamples of these instruments. TORP requires teachers to respond to propositional statements on a Likerttype scale. Teachers’ orientations are then placed along a continuum from isolation to language integration.The Propositions about Reading Instructional Inventory (PRI) characterizes teachers’ orientations accordingto five models of instruction: basal, linear skills, natural language, interest-based, and integratedcurriculum. These divisions cluster as either content-centered approaches (in the first three models) orstudent-centered approaches (in the last two models). Both PRI and TORP were developed and tested withteachers in laboratory conditions. Under these conditions, teachers appeared to hold distinct andidentifiable orientations to reading instruction. However, a recent re-analysis of the TORP (McCargar,1994) found that “theoretical orientation to reading is not a unidimensional construct. Rather an orientationseems to represent the priorities that a teacher gives to (many) factors” (p. 504).Logically following from the development of implicit theory measures were studies testing theirpredictability in teachers’ classroom practices. While some studies concluded that the influence of teachers’59implicit theories of reading on their classroom practiceswas consistent and primary, others concluded thatit was inconsistent and secondary. Later studies continued to explore the nature and strength of therelationship between implicit theories and practice. Assumptions and findings from three types of studiesare described below.A Consistent and Strong RelationshipAs mentioned above, Harste and Burke (1977) argued strongly in favor of the theoretical basis ofteaching reading. Indeed, they contended that “lookingat reading instruction in terms of theoreticalorientation is a more cogent, insightful, and accurate one than looking at reading instruction in terms ofreading approaches” (p. 40). That is, a teacher may follow a newprogram or try new activities, buthis/her theoretical orientation, if it is not aligned with thatof the new program or activities, will continueto produce unaltered conceptions of literacy in his/her students. One of the most significant contributionsof their study is the extension of the theory-practice relationship into the minds of the students. Theirfindings about the match between teachers’ conceptions of reading and their students’ conceptions suggestthat teachers’ schemata drive both instruction and theirstudents’ schemata about reading. Exploring thepositive relationships between teachers’ and their students’conceptions of literacy has continued to be afocus of current research (Rasinski & deFord, 1988; Shapiro & Wifte,1990; Wing, 1991).A few years later deFord (1985) tested the validity of her instrumentby observing teachers duringreading instruction. She concluded that teachers’ theoretical orientation, as measured by the TORP, is avalid indicator of decisions teachers make while teaching. In other words her study affirms the strengthof the theory-practice relationship. Recently, Johnson (1992) compared theoretical orientations ofmethodology and classroom literacy instruction of ESL teachers and also found a consistent relationship.Thus, some studies show that teachers hold well-defined conceptions of reading development and that theseviews are consistent with their instructional practices.An Inconsistent and Secondary RelationshipIn contrast to the above studies, others found only weak relationships between teachers’ theoreticalorientations and their classroom practices (Buike, Burke & Duffy,1979; Duffy & Anderson, 1984;60Hoffman & Kugle, 1982). Duffy (1977) conducted a large scale study of theoiy-practice relationships inreading instruction. From the 350 elementary teachers who completed the PRI,only 37 were rated ashaving clear and strong theoretical orientations to reading. Classroomobservations of eight of theseteachers found that four teachers directly reflected their particular theoretical orientation. These findingsindicate that theory-practice relationships exist only when beliefs are stronglyand clearly held.Follow-up studies reveal a large number of factors other than beliefs which shape teachers’instructional decisions. By 1986, most researchers agreed that “classroom teachers can articulate theoriesof reading outside the classroom, but. . . their actual and instructional practice is governed by a complexset of contextual factors” (Duffy & Anderson, 1984, p. 97). Duffy and others who share this view groupthese factors in several ways. For example, one system describes two typesof context variables: outsidevariables (such as mandated programs and standardized tests) and classroom variables (suchas subjectmatter, grade level and individual student ability levels) (Duffy, 1991). A similar system regards internaland external variables (Anders, 1992). Another system groups variables as educational beliefs besides thoseof reading, the teaching context, and program or basal materials used (Duffy & Roehler, 1986).Whilesome researchers argue that conceptions of reading underlying basal programs have shaped teachers’understanding about reading (Goodman et al., 1987), others found that teachers do not necessarily rigidlyfollow basal programs (Barr & Sadow, 1989; Borko, Shavelson & Stern, 1981; Durkin, 1984). Still othersargue that instruction is constrained by assessment and evaluation criteria (Cainbourne & Turbill, 1991),resulting in teaching as an accountability-driven rather than instructional activity (Durkin, 1979-80). Asteacher knowledge became a central tenet of literacy instruction, the identity and role of contextualvariables became a growing focus of research. These studies will be discussedlater in the section onteacher change.In sum, studies which cast doubt on a direct theory-action relationship suggestthat “teachers’ beliefsare situational and transferred to practice only in relation to the complexities (inside and outside) theclassroom” (Hoffman & Kugle, 1982, p. 7).61Current Studies in Teachers’ Theoretical Orientations to ReadingSupported by the general trend in the study of teaching towards understanding teachers’ theories,reading research continued to investigate aspects of teachers’ theories about reading. The group of studiespersuing this perspective does not neatly correspond to one of the two perspectives of teacher cognition(i.e., decision-making and teacher knowledge). Although early studies concerned with the developmentand testing of research instruments of implicit theories emerged from the decision-making model of teacherresearch, later studies relate more to the perspective of teacher knowledge. Some of these transitionalstudies are reviewed below.One focus of study in this group is the relationship between the different types of beliefs aboutreading and the particular influence of these separate belief systems on instructional decisions. Richardsonand al. (1991) found a consistent relationship between beliefs about the reading process and learning to readamongst 39 elementary school teachers. In another study, beliefs about reading instruction (content-centered or student-centered) correlated significantly with goals and objectives teachers set for theirbeginning reading instruction (Rupley & Logan, 1985). Kinzer & Canick (1986) compared teachers’beliefs about the reading process and reading development. They found that teachers’ beliefs about readingdevelopment had a stronger influence on instructional decisions than their beliefs about the reading process.Furthermore, teachers who held reader-based beliefs made decisions consistent with these beliefs abouthigher order skills (vocabulary and comprehension) and inconsistent decisions when instructing lower orderskills (phonics and word attack). It appears teachers’ inconsistencies between beliefs and action can at leastbe partly explained as differential use. It seems that all teachers of beginning reading stress phonics andword skills regardless of their theoretical orientation (Freppon, 1991).Inconsistencies between teachers’ theories and their practices continues to be a focus of research.One explanation relates to subject-specific theories. Studies concerned with language across the curriculumfind that teachers hold more traditional beliefs about reading in the subject areas than they do in thelanguage arts curriculum (e.g., Konopack et al., 1990). In the Richardson et al. (1991) study, oneteacher’s belief that students were supposed to read social studies texts to retain information and answerobjective questions conflicted with her student-centered instruction in reading. Other studies support thisexplanation. For example, Konopak et al. (1990) found that although teachers valued reading for62comprehension, reading for content instruction was a skills-based, textbook and worksheet activity, aphenomenon they attribute to teachers’ beliefs about academic subjects.Another explanation of apparent contradictions between teachers’ theories and their practices relatesto the conflict between public and private beliefs. One teacher in the Richardson et. al (1991) study heldstudent-centered beliefs but was observed systematically following a basal program. When questioned sheexplained she was trying to get through the required program quickly in order to include a six weekliterature study program at the end of the year. Similarly, Levande (1989) observed that teachers whoreported to be phonics-oriented were using a skills-based basal program in their classroom. Furtherquestioning revealed that those teachers were in nontenured positions and felt obliged to use the mandatedprogram. Mitchell et al. (1991) studied four teachers who all held reader-based views of the readingprocess and yet were clearly engaged in different instructional programs. Their findings lead them toconclude that those differenceswere the result of varying social, psychological and environmental realities of the participants’respective schools that either created an opportunity for or constrained them from implementing their reader-based beliefs in their decision-making (p. 383).Additionally, both Kinzer (1988) and Thomas et al. (1988) found that teachers’ experience affectsthe nature of the relationship between theoretical orientation and practices. Whereas preservice teachersmade decisions consistent with their theoretical orientations, inservice teachers made more inconsistentdecisions. Implications of these fmdings support the complexity of teaching.Other studies began to uncover the roots of teachers’ personal practical knowledge about reading anddifferences between that knowledge and research-based theory. The roots of teachers’ personal practicalknowledge seem to be of three types—past personal experience as a reader or learner (Goodlad, 1990;Richardson & Hamilton, 1988), classroom experience in teaching reading (Levande, 1990), and formalprofessional development (Levande, 1990). The first two sources are the most influential on actual practiceand the third, much to the despair of teacher educators, appears to be the least influential (Goodlad, 1990;Hollings, Reutzel, Ray, & Weeks, 1990). Goodlad’s comprehensive inquiry (1990) into the perpetuationof poor teaching—at least poor in regards to the schools’ failure to develop higher level abilities in students(evidence of this failure pertaining to literacy are reported in the most recent NAEP literacy63studies)—uncovered a complex network of structural and attitudinal factors. While there are majoreveryday obstacles to implementing the kind of thoughtful teaching and effective practices discussed in theliterature, the fact remains that “what future teachers experience in schools and classrooms during theiryears as students profoundly shapes their later beliefs and practices” (Goodlad, 1990, p. xiii).It appears then that the roots of teachers’ knowledge of reading instruction are less controlled by whatshould or could be, than by happenstance exposure to various models. The mixed basis of teachers’personal practical knowledge about reading along with the situational nature of teaching help explain whyfew teachers enact a pure theory of reading development and instruction. It is more common for teachersto follow broad, multidimensional, and eclectic orientations.In summary then, teacher decision-making research concerning teachers’ beliefs and implicit theoriesin reading instruction has provided instruments to ascertain and define those beliefs and implicit theories,raised a controversy over their assumed influence in instructional decision-making, described somecontextual constraints and opportunities which mediate theory-practice links, explored relationships betweentypes of teacher-held reading theories and their varying influences on instruction, and examined themultiple foundations and dimensions of teachers’ personal practical knowledge about reading.Teacher KnowledgeThe introduction of the teacher knowledge research program was inspired by the neglect in previousresearch of teachers’ conscious possession and use of higher order thinking about subjects in which theywere experts (Fernstermacher, 1986; Shulman, 1987). The movement was also supported by an emergingperspective in the philosophy of teaching attending to the mind of the teacher, particularly teachers’ higher-level reflective thinking (Shoen, 1982). The major advance made in teacher cognition has been the shiftin attention from teachers’ implicit theories and beliefs to teachers’ knowledge. Researchers distinguishimplicit theories and knowledge in terms of their respective sources: implicit theories and beliefs areaffectively and experientially derived; knowledge is intellectually-derived (Nespor, 1987). Their relativeinfluence on teaching is also examined. While educational psychologists continue to debate this issue(Nespor, 1987; Pajares, 1992), the current teacher cognition paradigm supports the more influential roleof knowledge.64Whether knowledge or beliefs are more influential in teaching relates to different assumptions aboutteaching. Past views of teaching as “ill-defined problems and entangled domains” (Nespor, 1987, p. 324)portray teaching as being determined by one’s beliefs and automatic responses. In contrast, current viewsof teaching stress the use of organized, complex knowledge and higher level cognitive processes in multipleand diverse contexts (Cochran, DeRuiter & King, 1993; Roehler & Duffy, 1987; Shulman, 1986b). Putsimply, knowledge-based actions are congruent with the professionalization of teachers, and teacherresearch attempts to elucidate that knowledge: “Practitioners simply know a great deal that they have nevertried to articulate” (Shulman, 1987, p.12).There are several theories of teacher knowledge in the literature (Elbaz, 1983; Leinhardt 1988;Shulman, 1986, 1987). Shulman’s theoretical model is the most widely known and has become the basisof many studies (e.g., Grossman, 1991; Marks, 1990), and the foundation of leading teacher educationprograms (Stanford University; Cochran et al., 1993). Shulman distinguishes four areas of teacherknowledge: subject matter knowledge, general pedagogical knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge,and knowledge of context.Process-product research along with most research in teacher thought processes focused on generalpedagogical knowledge. In his review of the study of teaching (1986a), Shulman addresses the lack ofattention to subject matter knowledge and proposes a new type of teacher knowledge integratingpedagogical and subject matter knowledge:Pedagogical content knowledge embodies the aspects of content most germane to itsteachability. Within the category of pedagogical content knowledge I include, for the mostregularly taught topics in one’s subject area, the most useful forms of representation of thoseideas, the most powerful analogies, illustrations, examples, explanations, and demonstrations—in a word, the ways of representing and formulating the subject that make itcomprehensible to others. . . (It) also includes an understanding of what makes the learningof specific concepts easy or difficult; the conceptions and preconceptions that students ofdifferent ages and backgrounds bring with them to learning (Shulman, 1986b, p. 9).As in other eras of the study of teaching, interrelationships between that field and reading instructionresearch were apparent. Concurrent with the inception of the research program based on teacherknowledge, whole language was becoming a controversial instructional approach in the field of readingeducation. Whole language premises teachers’ understandings about language development and language65instruction rather than prescribing specific practices (Aitwerger et al., 1987; Newman & Church, 1990).Historically, both teachers’ knowledge and teachers’ implicit theories have been considered distinct fromresearch knowledge (Richardson, 1990). The whole language paradigm assumes congruence:Whole language represents a coming of age of educational practice, a new era in whichpractitioners are informed professionals acting on the basis of an integrated and articulatedtheory that is consistent with the best scientific research and the theories in which it isgrounded (Goodman, 1992, p. 47).Teacher Knowledge and Teacher ChangeWhereas teacher beliefs were studied in relationship to student outcome variables in process-productresearch, current research in the study of teaching focuses on teacher knowledge in relationship to teacherdevelopment and their classroom practices. This section reviews some the key principles from thisresearch, specifically the centrality of beliefs in teacher change, the nature of the change process, and somevariables which promote or impede change.The centrality of beliefs. Many of the studies related to teachers’ knowledge of reading and readinginstruction in this paradigm concern teacher change. As whole language developed both at the grass-rootsand at the policy level in North America (the progressive tendencies of Canada and British Columbiaperhaps explaining how our educational systems became leading examples of these phenomena), a groupof studies investigating teachers’ theoretical and practical knowledge of reading evolved. In terms ofinstructional change reflective of current research, this research is premised on the notion thatChange in teaching comes about not through individual research findings but through changesin the world views of teachers and learners . . . we need to study teachers’ and learners’theories and models of language learning before we intervene with new teaching strategies”(Wittrock, 1985, p. 377).Fullan’s (1982, 1993) work on teacher change also confers primacy to teachers’ beliefs, orknowledge. Fullan (1982) identifies three main aspects of change: materials, methods or strategies, andbeliefs. Change based only on content or materials results in a perceived state of “false clarity” (p. 58).Other studies have demonstrated the limitations of changes in materials only, as their use is variously66shaped by the teacher’s philosophy (Zarrillo, 1989). There is consensus that change involves more thanmaterials or superficial addition of activities. Instead, change requires a “complex renegotiation of culturalnorms and patterns” (Altwerger & Flores, 1989, pp. 288-289), or more simply, a paradigm shift (Meyer,1988):When we ask or demand that teachers change how they teach, particularly when newtechniques are different ideologically and behaviorally from those learned and accepted incollege, we are asking for what Kuhn (1970) called a paradigm shift (p. 56).Under these conditions, prospects for change appear discouraging. Researchers argue that teachers’beliefs about teaching and learning remain those of transmission and absorption (Langer, 1984; 1991;Prawat, 1992). Additionally, conclusions from teacher decision-making research dampen the liklihood ofteachers’ revisions of assumptions about language learning and instruction. In her review of instructionalresearch in reading, Barr (1986) concluded that teachers’ decisions about reading instruction tended to below level and pragmatic, rather than high level and reflective. In her recent presidental address to theNational Reading Conference, Barr (1994) pointed to American teachers’ continued dependence on textprograms. Both Barr (1986) and Goodlad (1990) argue that the short terms of teacher training programsin North America are a main cause of teachers’ tendency to operational rather than reflective activity.Similarly, Duffy and Roehler (1986) concluded “Getting teachers to change is difficult. They particularlyresist complex, conceptual, longitudinal changes as opposed to change in management routines ortemporary change” (p. 55). Despite this gloomy forecast, research in teacher change is a fast-growingpursuit. Case studies and surveys are two main methods literacy educators use to describe how and to whatextent teachers are responding to both incentives and directives for change.Case studies examine the multiple and complex variables of change. Most of these case studies focuson the individual teacher (Bruneau, 1992; Button, 1992; Courtland, Welsh & Kennedy, 1987; Mangano& Allen, 1986; Moss, 1990; Pace, 1992; Scharer& Detwiler, 1992; Siera & Combs, 1990). A few focuson a school district (Clark, 1987; Freeman et al., 1993; Gambrell & Newton, 1989). The change canderive from several sources: it may be mandated by authority; recommended by authority and supportedby professional development, or initiated by the individual and developed through a combination ofexperience, coursework, professional development, and peer collaboration.67Nature of the change process. Two kinds of changes teachers make in their practices whileimplementing whole language approaches to reading instruction relate to curricular materials and activitysequences. Teachers often first attend to the concrete by replacing basals with literature, or morecommonly, adding literature to the reading program. They also tend to add new learning activities to oldstructures (Lipa & Harlin, 1993; Moss, 1981, 1990; Ray, Lee & Stansell, 1992; Richardson et al., 1991)such as adding response journals or students’ own writing to a reading program mainly controlled by abasal program. Consequently, this stage of transition is marked by contradictions which may appearunnoticed by teachers (Siera & Combs, 1990). A less common change relates to task structure, or teacherand student roles. The shift from teacher-centered instruction to student-centered learning appears to beparticularly difficult for teachers (Moss, 1981). However, teachers implementing whole language tend toallow more collaborative student work and less teacher-directed instruction. Overall patterns of teacherchange have been described as global rather than detailed and linear and recursive (Courtland, 1992). Thatis, change is more apparent than conceptual and marked by steady advance then retreat to familiar ways.One possible cause of the above types of changes is the “bandwagon phenomenon” (Shanklin &Roser, 1989). Observations of classrooms in districts supportive of whole language suggest that in the zealor pressure to implement new ideas, teachers adapt the presence but not the theory of the practice, resultingin misimplentation (Halpern & Craddock, 1992; Hoffman, Roser & Battle, 1993; Shanldin & Rhodes,1989). Maguire (1989) groups teachers who have been supported to implement provincial-wide wholelanguage instruction as reflective teachers (successful integration of theory and practice), eclectic teachers(partial implementation), and uncategorized and unreflective teachers (no implementation) (p. 152).Some large scale surveys assess the correspondence between policy and practice. Collectively, thesestudies conclude that instruction is multidimensional. For example, teachers in West Virginia were foundto follow such research-based practices as setting purposes for reading, activating prior knowledge, andsilent reading. However, they also rely on basal programs (with some supplementary literature) and useworkbooks and ditto sheets after reading (O’Flavahan & McDonnell, 1990). Another implementation study(Hosking, 1991) surveyed teachers’ instructional arrangements, teaching practices, and use of materials inorder to assess the implementation of Saskatchan’s new language arts curriculum in grade one. Although68teachers were enthusiastic and confident about implementing the new curriculum, not all teachers weretheoretically aligned with language-based reading.Recent surveys of language arts instruction in British Columbia document how instruction is changingfrom skills-based to more meaning-based approaches, as well as teachers’ propensity for eclecticism. The1988 Provincial Reading and Written Expression Assessment found the majority of grade four teachers use“modern” methods, such as language integration, small group discussions, and independent projects.Similarly, Scott & Butler (1994) found that whether grade four teachers identified their language artsprograms as traditional or whole language, the programs shared more commonalities than differences.Most teachers used the writing process, taught reading comprehension strategies, and used cooperativegrouping. Finally, 55% of grade three teachers in British Columbia reported subscribing to a combinationof approaches, and 23% to a whole language or literature-based approach on the 1991 lEA teacherquestionnaire.Some variables of teacher change. Teacher change studies have impressed upon educators that changeis a complex process involving both teacher and contextual factors (Freeman et al., 1993; Moss, 1990;Richardson, 1990; Richardson et al., 1991). Some of these barriers to change in Canadian classrooms havebeen recently summarized:Some teachers lack the philosophical orientation as well as the in-service support required toimplement a whole language program. . . some teachers are reluctant to give up these familiaractivities (worksheets, whole class direct instruction) for others involving more student-centered approaches as they lack appropriate replacement material—especially large stocks ofquality literature (Maclean, Gordon, Hopper & Miller, 1993, p. 67).The role of teacher beliefs or theories has already been discussed and other variables alreadymentioned. The remainder of this section notes additional points related to students, teacher experience,and teaching context as variables of teacher change.Both class and individual student profiles have been found to affect teachers’ assumptions about themost effective instructional approaches. While mainstream children come to school more prepared forformal literacy instruction (Heath, 1983; Wells, 1986), children from other cultural or linguistic groupsand children who find learning to read difficult are more likely to be taught with traditional methods69(Allington, 1983; Nespor, 1991). Descriptions of meaning-centered instructional practice for such childrenae only currently being introduced to teachers.Amount of teaching experience has been found to be a factor in successful implementation of strategyinstruction (Gaskins, Anderson, Pressley, & Cunicelli, 1993) “due to the complexity of orchestrationinvolved—of content, procedures and behavior, as well as process instruction” (p. 301).While the above are representative of internal factors, other studies have identified several externalfactors influencing teacher change. These include accountability to administration and parents (Freemanet al., 1993; Scharer & Detwiler, 1992), class size (Duffy & Roehler, 1986), staff support (Freeman et al.,1993; Moss, 1990), and student response (Moss, 1990).Conclusions from teacher change research affirm the slow, evolutionary nature of change forindividual teachers moving from traditional to meaning-based literacy instruction because of the difficultyof transfonning knowledge not just altering practices (Duffy, 1991; Hiebert & Colt, 1989; Siera & Combs,1990). In Canada and British Columbia our child-centered educational legacy has perhaps allowed a moreready embrace of current meaning-emphasis perspectives of reading instruction, both by teachers and byministries of education.Another factor of change is the manner of change. Teachers who are mandated to change areunlikely to restructure beliefs and knowledge in contrast to other means of change. Teachers who takeownership of the change process in collaborative support systems and are provided with inservice sessionsin which new knowledge is experientially explicated and incorporated into familiar practices have beenfound to clarify and strengthen the relationship between their knowledge and practice (Duffy, 1993;Fenstermacher & Richardson, 1993; Gallego & Hollingsworth, 1992; Richardson, 1990; Roehler &Putnam, 1991; Short et al., 1992). These findings reinforce the greater influence of internal factors ofteacher development.Chapter Summary and PreviewBoth the study of teaching and research on reading instruction help explain the relationship betweeninstruction and learning. While sometimes the two bodies of research intersect, other times their70relationship is more tangential. However, their place in the larger sphere of educational research insurestheir mutual reinforcement of the discipline’s major paradigm.The study of teaching began at the turn of the century. Teacher ratings by school supervisors werebased on the possession of a sunny disposition and the maintenance of a well-controlled classroom. Therise of scientism during the 1920’s greatly influenced both the study of teaching and reading, andconsequently reading instruction. Researchers promoting a scientific study of teaching introducedinstruments designed to provide more objective measures of personal characteristics, and introducedmeasures of effective teaching based on standardized student outcomes.By the middle of the century, educational research had become deeply entrenched in the scientificparadigm. Embedded in behaviorism, process-product research made both the study of teaching andteaching itself a scientific enterprise. Researchers identified and trained effective teachers in specificmanagerial behaviors within a teacher-led curriculum. In reading education, both research and instructionalprograms supported a teacher-centered, task-analytic approach to learning best suited to the acquisition oflower order skills rather than complex understandings and higher order processes. Thus the behaviors andprinciples of effective teaching were consistent with the assumptions and practices of ubiquitous basalprograms. Effective teachers of reading, just like effective teachers in general, provided systematicinstruction in hierarchial sets of skills and insured that their students demonstrated the required performanceobjectives. In Canada perhaps more than in the United States, the legacy of child-centered educationcontinued as a vital force during the competency-based mandates of the 1970’s.The emergence of the cognitive perspective in other behavioral sciences challenged the premisesunderlying process-product research. The shift from behaviorism to cognition in the study of teachingduring the 1970’s led first to a focus on teachers’ thought processes and presently to teachers’ knowledge.Studies of teachers’ thought processes focused attention in general on the influence of their implicit theoriesof teaching and learning and in particular of various subject areas including reading. The uncertaininfluence of teachers’ theories on their practices was largely explained by contextual variables.Current research in the study of teaching focuses on teachers’ knowledge of particular subject areasas well as on how they instruct in those areas. In reading, the resurgence of focus on the reader’s cognitiveprocesses directed educators’ attention to the negligence of higher level processes. The concurrent71movement toward constructivist, holistic approaches to reading instruction emphasizes the role of teachers’knowledge of reading processes, reading development, and reading instruction on effective literacyeducation. Although some external factors variously affect teachers’ transition to meaning-basedinstruction, teachers’ theories and knowledge appear to be the critical factors in their development.Teachers’ knowledge can be made explicit through observation and interview and findings from this bodyof research confirm teachers’ conservative response to change. Legacies left by process-product researchin general and effective reading instruction research in particular continue to shape teachers’ responses toeducational change. Additionally, some instructional implications from current comprehension researchappear similar to traditional instruction and require that teachers reconceptualize both comprehension andcomprehension instruction. In Canada and British Columbia, once again, our legacy seems to have givenus the edge in moving foward naturally into twentieth century literacy instruction.Chapter IV describes the research methodology used in this study. The first part of the chapterpresents an overview of the parent TEA Reading Literacy Study upon which this secondary analysis inbased. In the second part of the chapter, the research methods used to identify factors underlying readinginstruction and groups of teachers based on those factors, and those used to differentiate teacher groups areexplained.72CHAPTER IV: METHODOLOGYThe purpose of this study is to identify factors underlying grade three reading instruction in Canada(BC), to describe teacher clusters based on these factors, and to examine differences between teacher groupson measures of other teacher and student variables. In accomplishing these purposes, this study reanalyzesone education system’s data from the second International Association for the Evaluation of EducationalAchievement (lEA) Reading Literacy Study. The international study involves 32 education systems, 10,500teachers and over 200,000 students. The two components of the study were the student testing programand the background questionnaires completed by students, teachers, school principals and each NationalCenter. While work began in 1986, and data collection took place in 1991, the vast amount of data meansanalysis will continue for several years. Indeed, extensive secondary exploration of the data is assumedin lEA studies (Husen, 1979). My study will represent one of the many smaller, more focused studiespresently emerging from individual participating countries.The general aim of the lEA Reading Literacy Study was “to estimate the levels of readingdevelopment of 9- and 14-year olds in each country” (Lundberg & Linnakyla, 1993, p. 7); and anothermajor aim was “to identify differences in policies and instructional practices in reading and to study theways in which they relate to students’ achievement and voluntary reading” (Elley, 1992, p. 3). These aimsmay be approached at multiple levels—international, cross-national, and within countries.Of particular interest in any study of instructional practice is differential student reading achievement.Although instruction had little effect on student achievement at the international level (Lundberg &Linnakyla, 1993), the lEA anticipated that investigations by countries with minimal socioeconomicvariations, such as Canada (BC), would find more influence of instruction.A correlational research design was used to identify factors of reading instruction in British Columbiaand differentiate homogeneous groups of teachers based on these factors on other teacher and studentmeasures. Teacher data consisted of grade three teachers’ responses to a cross-sectional survey; the teacher73questionnaire contained data not only about instructional practice, but also other data about the teacher andclassroom. The student data consisted of two parts, students’ responses to a background questionnaire andscores on a reading achievement test. The achievement test measured four domains of reading: wordrecognition, narrative comprehension, expository comprehension, and location of information. The studentquestionnaire contained items pertaining to possession of technological products, out-of-school literacyactivities, and classroom instruction. While my analysis utilized all aspects of the teacher questionnaire,I did not use student-reported SES data (technological possessions) as those items were intended todiscriminate at the international level rather than the national or classroom levels.Reanalysis of the TEA teacher and student data took place in two stages—exploratory followed byconfirmatory. Specifically, first- and second-order factor analyses initially simplified the teacher datarelated to instruction. Cluster analysis was then used to identify homogeneous groups of teachers basedon individual second-order factor scores. Confirmatory analyses investigated between-group variance onmeasures of teacher characteristics, classroom conditions, student reading experiences, and studentachievement. Figure 1 illustrates the research design.Research OuestionsAll research questions refer to questionnaires and tests used in the 1991 International Association forthe Evaluation of Educational Achievement (lEA) Reading Literacy Study for Canada (BC), Population A.1. What reading instruction factors underlie teachers’ responses to questionnaire items regardingtheir instructional practice?2. Given derived reading instruction factors, what profiles can be developed to identify differenthomogeneous clusters of teachers?3. Given such differentiated clusters of teachers, what differences exist among these groups onmeasures of teachers’ characteristics and classroom conditions?4. Given such differentiated clusters of teachers, what differences exist among these groups onmeasures of their students’ reading experiences and reading proficiency?74Research DesignFigure 1. Overview of the Design of the Study1 Teachers’I Instructional_______J Practice75Definition of TermsThe following terms are defined by their group names at this time. Each group is comprised ofmultiple variables. Operational definitions and explanations of the development and composition of eachvariable follow in the section on Data Re-analysis.Instructional practice. Five Aspects of Reading Instruction comprise teachers’ instructionalpractice: Reading Activities, Instructional Strategies, Views aboutReading Instruction, Assessment Methods, and Assessment Focus.Teacher characteristics. There are eleven variables in this category namely Years of Teaching,Pre-service Training, Post-secondary Education, Study of Reading,three reading program aims (Comprehension, Critical Thinking, andEnjoyment), Professional Reading, Casual Reading, Homework, andGrouping.Classroom conditions. Four variables comprise this set of variables: Number of ESL students,Texts per Student, Multigrade Class, Principal Engagement.Student reading experience. The eight variables in this group consist of Reading Interactions(literacy events outside of school), Voluntary Reading, HomeworkIntensity, Self-rating, School Reading, and 3 different Perceptions ofReading Acquisition: Affective (or enjoyment-based); Low Cognitive(or drill and skill-based); and High Cognitive (or strategy-based).Student reading proficiency. Score in each of four reading domains: Word Recognition, Narrative,Expository, and Document.Background of the lEA Reading Literacy StudyAs a secondary analysis, the general design, sampling design, and research instruments were alreadyestablished. The first part of this chapter explains information about the lEA methodology relevant to my76study. The second part of this chapter describes the research procedures particular to my reanalysis of theteacher and student data.While large-scale comparative studies are a field in themselves, lEA studies are unique for theirinternational proportions. The first lEA study in 1962 was in the subject of math. This landmark studywas followed by a six subject survey, which included reading comprehension. Since that time, secondstudies in these subjects have been conducted and additional focuses proposed (e.g. classroomenvironments, computers in education, preprimary programs).Since their inception, lEA studies have been tinged with debate and controversy (Husen, 1979).Much attention centers around validity issues, particularly construct validity. Current concepts of validityplace construct validity as the whole of validity (Messick, 1989). According to this view all other typesof validity are subsumed in construct validity. In the case of the lEA Reading Literacy Study then, thevalidity of measures used in my study--of instruction, student literacy activities, and student achievement--as well as any interpretation derived from them, require explicit attention to their limitations. As areanalysis, however, my study assumes validity of the research instruments as they have already been usedas the bases of international reports (Elley, 1992; Lundberg & Linnakyla, 1993; Postlethwaite & Ross,1992).As I will explain later, the construction of the instruments for lEA studies has been one ofnegotiation and compromise ranging from theoretical to political dimensions. Reactions related to constructvalidity include concerns regarding the grossness of the measures and the gap between current theory andthe constructs of reading and reading instruction measured in the instruments. Reactions related to the useand social consequences of the findings include doubts about their practical worth and their potential misusefor policy-making, given the inevitable emphasis on test scores in the public literature (Husen, 1979;Higgenson et al., 1993). Further discussion of these criticisms will follow in sections describing thedevelopment of the research instruments.The previous lEA Reading Literacy study was conducted in 1973 (Thorndike, 1973). The generalorganization, sampling design, and procedures used to carry out the 1991 study remain the same as thoseof the 1973 study. However, dramatic changes in the understanding of reading processes and readingdevelopment, along with significant alterations in the types and levels of literacy required in today’s world,77necessitated substantial revision of the research instruments. In the next three sections I will describe thegeneral organizational structure of the lEA Reading Literacy Study, the international sampling design aswell as the resulting provincial (BC) sample, and the development of the teacher questionnaire and studentachievement tests.General Organization of the lEA Reading Literacy StudyMany education systems throughout the world belong to the lEA. Most of these education systemsrepresent entire countries. However, political structures in some countries mean that there can be morethan one education system, and hence more than one TEA membership per country. Canada is one exampleof multiple membership. Because education in Canada is under provincial rather than federal control,provinces elect to join the lEA. In Canada, three provincial educational systems are members of the TEA:Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia. When an TEA study is planned, all member education systemsare invited to participate. Thirty-two of the forty member countries which had expressed an interest toparticipate in the recent Reading Literacy study completed the study. In Canada, British Columbia wasthe only member which finally participated. Canada’s involvement in the lEA Reading Literacy Studyis therefore referred to as Canada (BC). My study focuses on data collected from Canada (BC).With the participants identified, an International Steering Committee began work in 1988 and anInternational Coordination Center was established in Hamburg, Germany. Each participating educationalsystem also appointed a National Research Coordinator (NRC) to oversee the conduct of all aspects andstages of the study. The NRCs worked together in several capacities and were responsible to the SteeringCommittee. Dr. Victor Froese was the National Research Coordinator for Canada (BC).Sampling DesignIn the initial phases of the study, sampling manuals were prepared by the lEA Steering Committee,i.e. a group of subject matter specialists with psychometric experience, and a Sampling Referee. Themanuals were distributed in 1988 and 1989 to all NRCs. NRCs were responsible for preparing andsubmitting for approval sampling plans according to their situation to Dr. Kenneth Ross, InternationalSampling Referee.78The desired international target population consisted of two groups, Population A and Population B.They are defined as follows:Population A. All students attending mainstream schools on a full-time basis at the grade level inwhich most students are aged 9:00-9:11 years during the first week of the eighth month of the schoolyear.Population B. All students attending mainstream schools on a full-time basis at the grade level inwhich most students are aged 14:00-14:11 years during the first week of the eighth month of theschool year.Since my study is concerned with Population A only, the remaining description of the samplingdesign is limited to that group.Using the above definitions as guidelines, the NRCs were responsible for formulating their ownnational target population. This population “usually represents a subset of the students described by thedesired international target population. The difference between these two populations is referred to as the“excluded population” (Ross & Postlethwaite, 1988, p. 2). The national target population for Canada (BC)was all students in Grade 3 except those in special education or government native schools.Standards for probability sampling were established by the lEA Steering Committee. Samplingmanuals designated the general design framework as a “stratified two-stage cluster design sample in whichschools will be selected at the first stage with probability proportional to size, followed by the selectionwithin each sample school of one, or two, intact classes of students with probability proportional to size”(Ross & Postlethwaite, 1988, p. 11). Again, NRCs were responsible for preparing and submitting forapproval samples from their particular situations. In British Columbia, the samples were defined by Dr.Jim Gaskell of the University of British Columbia. Table 2 outlines the sample description for BritishColumbia.Five geographical regions created by the British Columbia provincial government for administrativepurposes, and one group of private schools dispersed throughout the five regions, were used as the firststage of sampling. The five regions consisted of Vancouver Island, the Coast Region, the Lower79Table 2Summary of lEA and Actual Samples Used in This StudyRegion Number of schools in Number of schoolsregion participatingVancouver Is. 23 22Coast Region 10 9Lower Mainland 69 65B.C. South 27 27B.C. North 14 14Private Schools 14 13Totals 157.00 150.00aDue to problems of accessing the weighted international data, this study used local data for analysis. Thusthe sample for this study included 150 schools, 154 teachers, and 2813 students.80Mainland, BC South, and BC North. The student sample represents both the planned 1.2% excludedpopulation and the 2.33% excluded from testing due to learning disabilities or language barriers.Research Procedures and Instruments: The Student Achievement Test. Student BackgroundOuestionnaire. and the Teacher OuestionnaireSince the first lEA Reading Literacy Study in 1973, dramatic changes in understandings of readingprocesses and reading development, and consequently understandings of appropriate and effectiveinstruction, have occurred (see chapter II for discussion of these changes). These changes indicated theneed for different expectations about student achievement—criteria not reflected in earlier versions of thelEA reading tests (which focussed on comprehension, word knowledge, and speed). These shifts inunderstanding also required that the instrument identifying instructional variables (the teacher questionnaire)reflect implications from both past and present perspectives of reading instruction. In other words, it wasnot enough to make simple revisions on the 1973 instruments. The production of the achievement test andthe teacher questionnaire involved significant rethinking as well as considerable debate among all thoseinvolved in their construction.Similar procedures were used for constructing both the achievement tests and the teacherquestionnaires. While initial work began in 1986, special committees of NRCs met in 1988 and devisedfirst drafts of the instruments. Work on these drafts was continued by individual members of the NRCgroup as well as members of the International Coordinating Center. These revisions were resubmitted toall NRCs, whereupon substantial revisions of the pilot instruments were negotiated in general meetings ofthe NRCs. The process was further complicated by translation problems. Questionnaires were pilot-testedin judgement samples in all countries. Analysis of the pilot-test instruments was limited to descriptivestatistics of each item, which served as the basis of decisions about final revisions. Three versions of theachievement test were piloted in each country on which decisions about the final test were based.It is important to emphasize that the sheer number of people involved and their varying perspectiveson reading and on literacy necessitated a fair amount of compromise throughout the designing and revisingof the instruments. It is the complex theoretical (and ultimately the political) context, which drives thenegotiation and resultant limitations of such large scale studies as the lEA Reading Literacy Study.81Schedule of Data Collection and Return of DataA time frame was established in which countries in the southern hemisphere completed the tests andquestionnaires in 1990, and those in the northern hemisphere in 1991. Several months were allowed fordata return. Data collection in Canada (BC) took place in March 1991 and the data were returned in June1991.Identification SystemSpecial care was given to developing an identification system, both to insure anonymity and tofacilitate data processing. Each student, teacher and school was identified by a unique identificationnumber so that each ID occurred only once in each data file. A sequence of ID codes was marked on eachinstrument in this order: school, class, teacher, student, and stratum.Additionally, student name forms were completed by the teacher of each tested class. Informationon the name forms included name of the student, student ID number, date of birth, gender, language usedin testing, indication of any incomplete parts of the test, and remarks about absence or exclusion.Student Achievement Test and Student Background OuestionnaireLiteracy demands today are markedly different from those of even a generation ago. Historicalstudies of literacy illustrate the changing levels and kinds of literacy necessary to participate in society(Resnick & Resnick, 1977). Whereas recitation of religious texts sufficed in the last century, full literacytoday involves an array of higher order thinking processes, multimodal abilities, and competence with avariety of text forms and purposes (Heath, 1991). Wells (1990) describes full literacy as “the dispositionto engage appropriately with texts of different types in order to empower action, feeling and thinking inthe context of social action” (p. 14).Validity of test items in any large-scale assessment study is a subject of ongoing conern. The lEAset out to assess “the linguistic and cognitive processing of those written language forms required requiredby a literate society and/or valued by an individual.” This definition attempted to establish literacy as both82a cultural practice and an intellectual achievement. However, critics argue that the test is a recipe for apoorly-focused snapshot of independent dimensions of reading (McLean, 1990). Assessment has becomea critical issue in literacy education and notions of construct validity of assessment measures are beingchallenged (Little, 1990). Even twenty years ago Husen (1979), writing about lEA studies, admitted thesuperior validity of findings based on longitudinal data. There is a move in the literacy assessmentliterature towards more direct and contextualized measures, as well as measures based on extendedengagement with meaningful text (Valencia, Hiebert & Afflerbach, 1994). Along with these developmentshas come increased sensitivity to the limitations of traditional forms of formal testing (e.g. multiple choice;and the use of single words, phrases, and short passages). Resolving theory and practice in large scaleassessments is clearly difficult, although it is possible to some degree (e.g., 1992 National Assessment ofEducational Progress or NAEP in the United States; the 1994 School Achievement Indicators Program orSAIP in Canada). It is certainly an issue which LEA researchers continue to grapple with in present andplanned studies. With these limitations in mind, I continue the description of the student achievement tests.Concerted efforts to produce meaningful measures of reading proficiency were put forth by all thoseinvolved in the 1991 lEA Reading Literacy Study. Some notable features of the achievement measurerelate to passage content, text type, passage length, and question types. To enhance comparability of thetest, great care was taken to develop and include items which represent cross-cultural experiences, as wellas cross-cultural reading processes. Extensive discussions by NRCs before and after piloting as well asseveral stages of statistical analysis after piloting were some of the measures taken “to make the tests asappropriate as possible for each cultural group” (Elley, 1992, p. 96). In regards to the notable featureslisted above then, passage content attempted to reflect common cross-national experiences at home, inschool, and in society. Text types presented were narrative, expository, document, and word recognition.These domains were defmed as follows:Narrative: continuous texts in which the writer’s aim is to tell a story—whether fact or fiction.Expository: continuous texts designed to describe, explain, or otherwise convey factual informationor opinion to the reader.83Document: structured information displays presented in the form of charts, tables, maps, graphs,lists, or sets of instructions.Passage length varied from requiring approximately 15 seconds to more than two minutes readingtime. Question types included multiple-choice, open-ended (with either a few words or a few sentencesas answers), and following directions in a variety of ways. Students wrote the test in two 75 minutesessions, as well as completed an untimed background questionnaire of reading literacy variables. The firstday consisted of answering the word recognition and comprehension (including document) items. Thesecond day consisted of writing the comprehension (including document) items.The student questionnaire consists of items directed to the following aspects of reading development:gender, home language, socioeconomic status, number of books at home, library use and resources, self-rating in reading, television viewing habits, homework, and type of instruction they received at school.The Student Background Questionnaire is reproduced in Appendix A. The Student Achievement Test wasunavailable for copying.Teacher questionnaireReading instruction has evolved in response to changing conceptions of literacy as well as in responseto instructional implications of current meaning-based, constructivist conceptions of the reading processand reading development. These changes arose in the midst of deeply entrenched beliefs about reading asa mechanistic process and learning to read as a compilation of skills acquired through drill. Severalsections of the lEA teacher questionnaire were formulated to reflect these divergent assumptions aboutreading instruction that have arisen in the field over the last 20 years. Other sections pertain to teachercharacteristics and teaching conditions. A copy of the teacher questionnaire is provided in Appendix B.The purpose of the teacher questionnaire was to identify some teacher and educational factorsinfluencing literacy. The basic form is one of conceptually-related sections each consisting of severalquestions of one or more items. Response to most items is in the form of a Likert-type scale indicatingdegree of agreement or frequency of occurrence. Some items require a yes/no response; while one question84requires ranking of importance. Two of its developers describe the process of constructing thequestionnaire:In the construction of the questionnaire, the National Research Coordinators (NRCs) from theparticipating countries worked cooperatively to identify those indicators that were conceived,from experience or on the basis of previous research, to be important either for explainingdifferences among pupils, among classes or schools within countries, or among systems ofeducation. Once the indicators had been identified, decisions were made on how manyquestions were needed to measure each indicator (Lundberg & Linnakyla, 1992, p. 9).Some argue that the final items are simply reflections of the most common teaching practices aroundthe world (McLean, 1990). Such a rationale, while on one hand justified, “does not appeal to thoseworking to change practice” (McLean, 1990, p. 69). Herein lies the heart of a critical issue inassessment—its use. Historically, assessment has served to perpetuate existing practices. Consequently,some argue that traditional measures of student achievement can and should be used as a vehicle ofinstructional change (Resnick & Resnick, 1992). That is, findings derived from instruments based on whatshould be, rather than what is, could potentially have a more powerful effect on changing teaching andlearning than any other existing system. How and if future lEA studies address this issue remains to beseen. In the pilot questionnaire there were 11 main indicators and 4 sub-indicators derived from one ofthe main indicators. Each indicator was represented in one or more questions; and each question containedone or more items (up to 16). Thus several subvariables were combined into major variables. These majorvariables, or groups of variables, were referred to as constructs. The following constructs were developedfrom the literature and from experiences of those involved in the construction of the questionnaire:1. teacher and student language2. teacher training and experience3. teacher acquaintance with class4. class size5. grouping6. allotment of time for teaching and homework7. resources8. instruction and learninga. teaching aimsb. instructional strategiesc. reading activitiesd. assessment9. remedial help10. parental support11. school management85Additionally, items related to instruction and learning, teaching aims, instructional strategies, readingactivities, and assessment were carefully constructed to distinguish assumptions and practices related tocurrent polar approaches to reading instruction—i.e., code- and skill-emphasis, or comprehension andmeaning-emphasis orientations (Lundberg & Linnakyla, 1992, p. 9). For example, systematic agreementwith such statements as, “When my pupils read to me, I expect them to read every word accurately”,“Children should not be encouraged to read a word they don’t know”, “Children who can’t understandwhat they read haven’t been taught proper comprehension skills”, and “Reading learning materials shouldbe carefully sequenced in terms of language structures and vocabulary” indicate a teacher who holdstraditional views about reading literacy instruction. Conversely, systematic disagreement indicates thepossibility of meaning-based views. Systematic agreement with such statements as “Most children improvetheir reading best by extensive reading on their own”, “Children should understand why they are reading”,“Parents should be actively encouraged to help their children with reading”, and “Children should beencouraged to read texts they have written” identifies those with meaning-based views.The final version of the teachers’ questionnaire consists of 46 questions and 160 items. Categoriesof questions in the final questionnaire include educational training; information about the class being tested;aspects of teaching (reading activities, aims of reading program, instructional strategies, grouping practices,types of texts taught, views about issues in literacy instruction, ways to encourage reading, assessmentmatters, homework); classroom library; school library; and school organization. Some constructs wereadded and some existing ones revised by adding, deleting, or rewording items. The two major revisionsfrom the draft questionnaire are as follows: one, the addition of a 26 item question regarding views ofissues in reading instruction; and two, the substitution of two multiple-item questions about instruction ofdifferent kinds of text with one three-item question.During international data analysis, questions were organized into three main variables: proximalteaching conditions, teacher characteristics and teaching strategies. Indicators of effective instruction werederived from factor analysis within these major groups. The following eleven international constructs, ormultiple variable indicators, of teaching were empirically established (discussed in Lundberg & Linnakyla,1993, pp. 48-50, 58-62; and in Postlethwaite & Ross, 1992, pp. 10-13).861. High demand and structure: The extent to which the teacher believed that the pupils should beassessed, their reading aloud corrected immediately, vocabulary taught (from word lists), andmaterials structured.2. Phonics teaching: The extent to which the students in class were involved in learning sound-symbolrelationships and word attack skills.3. General emphasis on assessment: The extent to which the teacher used exercises and tests inworkbooks and textbooks, multiple-choice and open-ended questions.4. Assessment of lower order skills: The extent to which the teacher assessed word recognition,decoding, vocabulary and sentence understanding.5. Comprehension through graded materials: The view that the teacher took about accurate reading,sequenced materials, and the necessity for children to understand what they read.6. Comprehension instruction: The extent to which students in class were involved in activitiesdesigned to encourage thinking about the meaning of what they were reading.7. Active teaching of comprehension: The extent to which the teacher emphasized the learning of newvocabulary, explained the background to stories, encouraged students to compare stories, andassessed vocabulary and comprehension.8. Encouragement to read: The extent to which teachers encouraged their students to read more andto use the library.9. Taking student interest into account: The extent to which the teacher used knowledge of studentinterests gained from records and informal observation.10. Story reading aloud: The extent to which the teacher reported that he/she read aloud to students inorder to encourage them to read more.11. Literature emphasis: The extent to which the teacher reported his/her students to be involved inindependent reading, discussing books, and reading plays and other materials.In Canada (BC), the most frequently occurring instructional factors were literature emphasis, storyreading aloud, and taking student interest into account. The least frequently occcurring factors wereassessment of lower order skills and general emphasis on assessment. Although assessment of lower orderskills positively related to student achievement (.17), no significant correlations with student achievementfor any factor were found for Canada (BC). These findings from international analysis will be comparedwith national-level findings from this study in Chapter 5.87Data AnalysisThis re-analysis of the lEA teacher and student data begins with exploratory data analysis techniques(Hartwig & Dearing, 1979; Leinhardt & Leinhardt, 1980; Tukey, 1977) before undertaking confirmatoryanalysis. Exploratory data analysis is based on the assumption that the more one knows about the data themore effectively data can be used to develop, test, and refine theory (Hartwig & Dearing, p. 9). Comingto know the data then is a “phase of empirical research activity, which follows data collection or acquisitionand precedes the application of confirmatory or traditional inferential procedures” (Leinhardt & Leinhardt,1979, p. 86). Or as Tukey originally put it so simply, “It is important to understand what you CAN DObefore you learn to measure how WELL you seem to have DONE it” (Tukey, 1977, p. 1).The function of exploratory data analysis is to simplifr complex data or deepen data description.Thus the process is ultimately a search for patterns or structures in the data. This process contrasts withconfirmatory analysis, which involves imposing a particular theory then assessing how precisely the datafit the theory (Tukey, 1977, p. 11). What is unique about exploratory data analysis is that data-derivedtheory is compared to models derived from theory. In the case of my study, I began with exploratory dataanalysis in order to create a meaningful description of reading instruction in Canada (BC). Specifically,the data are described on two levels. The first level identifies factors of reading instruction in Canada(BC). Although international instructional factors had already been derived, different factors would derivefrom a national data set for two reasons: one, different data sets are involved; and two, the smallernational sample prevented factoring variables across sections of the teacher questionnaire as was done inthe lEA analysis. In the secondary analysis, factors were derived from within selected main sections ofthe questionnaire. The second level of exploratory analysis identifies clusters of teachers relative to scorepatterns on derived variables. Confirmatory analyses are based on these descriptions. Specifically,differences between teacher groups are investigated on measures of teacher characteristics, classroomconditions, students’ reading experiences, and students’ reading achievement.The aspects of methodology unique to my study, then, are the exploratory design and statisticalprocedures used to reanalyze the lEA teacher and student data. The remainder of this chapter describesthe statistical procedures used for describing reading instruction in Canada (BC), identifying homogenous88groups of teachers, and differentiating those groups both in terms of two kinds of teacher variables and twokinds of student variables.Accessing the DataThe first matter concerning analysis was a practical one: loading the data onto an available system.Following preliminary comparative analysis of the international data, TEA provided each participatingcountry with their own national data set which had been put onto computer disks. Although I had initiallyplanned to use the cleaned and weighted BC (Canada) data from LEA, it proved to be inaccessible toexisting systems at UBC for several reasons. One major reason was related to the size and organizationof the file. Because lEA had aggregated data from all instruments into one file, the size was both unwieldyand impossible to edit. A decision was therefore made to use the data which had been coded and scoredby an independent consulting group at the University of British Columbia before it had been fowarded tothe Data Analysis Centre for lEA in Gennany. For the local data, each data base had been put on separatefile. These data were loaded onto the mainframe system at UBC and analysis was conducted using SPSSx.Research Methodology for This StudyThe methodology used in the re-analysis of the teacher and student data will be described in orderof the research questions.Research Question OneWhat reading instruction factors underlie teachers’ responses to questionnaire items regarding theirinstructional practice?The TEA teacher data for Canada (BC) fulfills the recommended conditions for exploratory factoranalysis: “Exploratory factor analysis is ideal when data are complex, and it is uncertain what the mostimportant variables in the field are” (Kline, 1994, p. 10). Factor analysis assumes that underlyingdimensions can be used to explain complex data and procedurally, can be described as a data reductiontechnique (Borg & Gall, 1983). The aim of factor analysis is to simplify complex sets of data by89“identify(ing) a relatively small number of factors that can be used to represent relationships among setsof many interrelated variables” (Norusis, 1993, p. 47). A factor may be defmed as a “dimension orconstruct which is a condensed statement of the relationships between a set of variables” (Kline, 1994, p.5). In this study, factor analysis was used to identify the underlying dimensions of grade three teachers’instructional practice of reading.Prenaration for factor analysisFive Aspects of Reading Instruction were detennined based on five conceptually distinct sections ofthe teacher questionnaire: Reading Activities, Instructional Strategies, Views of Reading Instruction,Assessment Methods, and Assessment Focus. Additionally, several items from other sections conceptuallyrelated to any of the five Aspects of Reading were considered. Frequency distributions were performedon these other possible constituent variables, and those with lack of variance eliminated. For example,library use was dropped from analysis since over 98% of the teachers reported the existence and use ofschool and classroom libraries. Table 3 presents a summary of the components of the five Aspects ofReading used in this study.While the constituent variables of Reading Activities and Views about Reading Instruction all camefrom single multiple-item sections of the questionnaire, Instructional Strategies, Assessment Methods, andAssessment Focus were composed somewhat differently. For Instructional Strategies, attempts were madeinitially to include items from other smaller sections in this analysis. Grouping, encouragement-to-readstrategies, text types taught, and library use, for example, could be considered instructional strategies.Recoding problems and irregular response distributions prevented some of these items from being used.The use of grouping factored separately when a three factor solution was used, so it was decided to leaveit for later analysis of teacher group differences. In the end, items from the “text types taught” and“instructional strategies” sections constituted the variables of Instructional Strategies.Regarding the two aspects of assessment—Assessment Methods and Assessment Focus—it wasinitially thought best to combine the three sections of the questionnaire pertaining to assessment. Thequestionnaire contained two sections on assessment methods, and one on dimensions of reading assessed(e.g. vocabulary, phonics skills, literary appreciation). Since several attempts at factor analyses90Table 3Summary of Asvects of Reading Instruction Used in This StudyAspect of Reading Instruction Number of Items Items UsedReading Activities 28 20a - 2ObbInstructional Strategies 16 23a - m, 27a - cViews of Reading Instruction 26 28 (1) - 28 (26)Assessment Method 13 30a - i, 32a - fAssessment Focus 10 31a-jAll items for each Aspect of Reading Instruction are from one complete question except forInstructional Strategies which includes 3 items from 2 smaller questions, and Assessment Method whichconsists of all items from 2 questions.91consistently grouped all the dimensions of assessment variables as one factor, it was decided to subdivideassessment into two aspects. Assessment Methods consists of two sections with a total of 13 variables.Assessment Focus consists of one section with 10 variables.The final number of items in each Aspect of Reading Instruction was as follows: ReadingActivities—28 items, Instructional Strategies—i 6 items (including three items from two other smallersections), Views about Reading Instruction—26 items, Assessment Methods—13 items, and AssessmentFocus. Once constituent variables for each of the five Aspects of Reading Instruction had been finallyidentified, missing values were replaced with means and variables recoded as required.Factor analysisTwo models of exploratory factor analysis, each involving several factor number solutions, wereapplied in order to discover the main constructs of each Aspect of Reading Instruction. Interpretation ofconstructs was based on assumptions characterizing three dominant perspectives in reading instructionidentified in reading methodology textbooks (e.g., Cooper, 1993; McGee & Richgels, 1990), discussedin current research (Adams, 1990; Goodman, 1992; Pearson et al., 1992), and used as the basis forgrouping teachers in other research (deFord, 1985; Hermanu & Sarracino, 1993; Hollingsworth, Reutzel,& Weeks, 1990).To derive the first-order factors, the five Aspects of Reading Instruction were analyzed using bothPrincipal Components followed by Varimax rotation, and Image Analysis followed by Oblimin Rotation.Principal Components and Varimax Rotation produce independent (orthogonal) factors ranging in degreeof importance, while Image Analysis and Oblimin Rotation produce inter-related (non-othogonal) factors.Aspects were then re-analyzed based on the number of factors with eigenvalues greater than one and screetest results, again using both factoring methods. Additional analyses using fewer factors were conductedif the data seemed it could be further simplified. For example, the appearance of single variable factors,or groupings of variables which were rationally related to other groupings, suggested the appropriatenessof further exploration of the data. As before, both Principal Components and Image Analysis were applied.Decisions regarding the final number of factors at this stage were based on both conceptualinterpretability and statistical fit. Although both analytical modes yielded similar results, inter-correlations92produced for Principal Components were significantly higher than those produced for Image Analysis.Pearson correlation coefficients were then computed among the final factors, and a multi-trait multi-methodmatrix constructed to ascertain validity of second-order factors.Second-order factor analysis was conducted in order to provide a multidimensional description ofInstructional Practice. Regarding the ten first-order factors as variables, the second-order analysis wasperformed in the same manner as the first-order analysis. That is, both Principal Components and ImageAnalysis were used and the number of factors, constituents of factors, and strength of correlations studiedfor the most interpretable result. Factor scores were then produced for each teacher for constituentvariables of the second-order factors.Research Question TwoGiven derived reading instruction factors, what profiles can be developed to identify differenthomogeneous clusters of teachers?Individual teachers’ factor scores were transformed into standardized scores (z-scores) which werethen used for clustering teachers. Specifically, a case-wise hierarchial cluster analysis of individual teachersecond-order factor scores was used to identify homogenous groups of teachers. In this method, cases areprogressively agglomerated until they form one cluster. Once a case is assigned to a group it is unavailablefor membership in another group. Ward’s method was selected as the clustering criterion.Several group-number solutions were examined. Criteria for the best solution related to thedistribution of subjects across groups, number of groups relative to total sample, and theoreticalinterpretability.. Mean group scores for each of the second-order factor variables were then computed andprofiles produced across each second-order factor.Research Ouestion ThreeGiven such differentiated clusters of teachers, what differences exist among these groups on measuresof teacher characteristics and classroom conditions?93This section first describes procedures for defining two groups of Teacher Background variables usedin this study then identifies statistical procedures used for correlational analyses of teacher groups on thesevariables.Formulating teacher characteristic and classroom condition variablesAll possible variables were identified from the remaining variables not used in factor analyses.Frequency distributions of those items were inspected and initial selections made on the basis of variance.Approximately one-third of the possible variables were eliminated because of extremely irregulardistributions. Categories of eliminated variables included teacher age, teacher gender, staff meetingactivities, and classroom libraxy materials and use.An examination of the remaining variables suggested two categories of Teacher Background—TeacherCharacteristics and Classroom Conditions. Table 4 summarizes the definitive features of these backgroundvariables. Further explanation of their development occurs after definitions are given.Following are operational definitions of each of the Teacher Background variables used in this study.Years of Teaching: Number of years the teacher has taught.Pre-Service Training: Number of years of pre-service teacher training.Post-Secondary Education: Number of years of post-secondary education.Study of Reading: Number of hours of a teacher’s further study of reading.Comprehension: The importance of the instructional goal of comprehension rated by ateacher.Critical Thinking: The importance of the instructional goal of critical thinking rated by ateacher.Enjoyment: The importance of the goal of making reading enjoyable rated by ateacher.Professional Reading: The frequency with which a teacher read articles on teaching, articleson reading, and children’s books.94Table 4Summary of Teacher Backeround Variables Used in This StudyGroup Name Type of Type of Items UsedVariable MeasureTeacher CharacteristicsPoslsecondaiy EducationPreservice trainingYears teachingStudy of readingReadershipReading Cloals8a, 8b, Xi8c, 8d, 8e 8f, 8g.8hConiprehenslenCritical thinkingEnjoymentHomework assignmentaGroupingaRRRSSI1IDD22c22f2213424Classroom ConditionsESL students S I 13Texlsperstudent S 1 21Multigrade’ S D 11Principal Engagement Ct I 44a, 44b, 44cNote. S=Single variable; C=Coniposite variable; I=Interval scale; D=Dichotomous scale; R=Rank scale.aChi square Statistical tests used for these variables. All other variables were tested with analysis of variance.SSSS4p6ProfessionalCasualCC I95Casual Reading: The frequency with which teachers read books on history, books on art,books on science, novels, poems, and plays.Homework: Whether or not a teacher assigned homework.Grouping: Whether or not a teacher grouped students for reading instruction.Multigrade: Whether or not a teachers’ class is more than onegrade.Texts per Student: Number of books for each student available duringreading instruction.ESL Students: Number of English as a Second Language studentsin the class.Principal Engagement: The degree to which the school principal discusses explicit achievementstandards, asks for evaluation results, and makes suggestions about instructionalmethods in reading.All 15 final variables are singletons except for two which are composites of several items within onequestion—Principal Engagement and Teacher Readership, which consists of two types, Professional andCasual. The variables pertaining to teachers’ rating of reading program goals also requires someexplanation. Steps taken for the creation of each teacher background variable to the point of preparationfor correlational teacher group analysis are summarized in Table 5. Some specific explanations concerningthe three composite variables follow.One section of the teacher questionnaire asked teachers to rate their five most important instructionalgoals from a list of eleven goals. All but three of these variables were eliminated from consideration forcorrelational analysis due to either lack of variance or large numbers of missing data, since not all teachersresponded to each item in this question. The three variables which met inclusion criteria of variance forReading Goals were comprehension, critical thinking, and making reading enjoyable.To construct Principal Engagement, three of six dichotomous variables in one question concerningthe principal’s activities in the teacher’s reading program were identified on the basis of variance.96Table 5Summary of Procedures Used to Construct Teacher Background VariablesLevel of Variable ProcedureSingleton 1. Inclusion rule of variance applied.2. Variable recoded.3. Missing data excluded.4. Frequency distributions produced.Composite 1. Inclusion rule of variance applied.2. Variable recoded.3. Data transformation routines written and applied.4. Missing data excluded.5. Frequency distributions produced.97Variables were recoded, scoring codes were set to O=no, and 1 =yes, and missing data scored as zero(no). A maximum score was 3 (high level of Principal Engagement), and the lowest possible was zero.The two Teacher Readership variables were created from nine variables of one question addressingthe frequency with which teachers read various kinds of texts. All nine variables had normal distributionsand were rationally divided into two types of Readership—Professional and Casual. To create measuresof Teacher Readership, data transformation routines were written and applied. Missing data on any singleconstituent variable were also assigned as missing on both composite variables of Teacher Readership.Frequency distributions of Principal Engagement and the Teacher Readership variables were checkedwith histogram displays before proceeding with correlational analyses. Teacher Readership distributionwas normal, while distribution for Principal Engagement was somewhat negatively skewed, but acceptable.Appendices C, D, and E display frequency distributions of the Teacher Background composite variablesused in this study.Correlational analyses of teacher grouvs by teacher background variablesTwo types of correlational analyses—Analysis of Variance and CM Square—were performed asappropriate on each Teacher Background variable. Missing data for each variable except for PrincipalEngagement (described above) were eliminated from correlational analyses.Research Question FourGiven such differentiated clusters of teachers, what differences exist exist among these groups onmeasures of student reading experiences and reading achievement?Two measures of students’ reading were used in analyses for answering this question: one measureof their reading experiences and another of reading proficiency. For both parts of this question, considerable preparatory work was required before fmal analyses were performed. The first part of this section98describes the procedures used for correlational analysis of teacher groups on measures of their students’reading experiences and the second part explains procedures used for correlational analysis of teachergroups on measures of their students’ reading achievement.Part 1: Student Reading ExueriencesData prenaration. Data preparation for this analysis consisted of two stages: constructing measuresof student reading experiences and aggregation of data. An overview of the preparation procedures ispresented in Table 6. Table 7 summarizes the defmitive features of the Student Reading Experiencevariables.Possible variables were rationally identified in the student questionnaire and frequency distributionsused as the criteria of selection. Six variables were rationally defined, five classified as non-school andone as school. One variable was a singleton, and five were transformed into composites. The followingdefinitions of Student Reading Experience variables used in this study are given at the teacher aggregatelevel. Further explanation of the procedures used to create composite variables are described after thedefinitions.Voluntary Reading: The frequency with which students report that they read books, comics,magazines, directions, and looked up information.Self-Rating: Students’ rating of themselves as very good or less than very good readers.Reading Interactions: Whether or not students report that they receive a daily newspaper at home, andthe frequency with which people read to the students at home, the frequency withwhich people outside the home read to the students, the frequency with which thestudents read at home, the frequency with which the students are asked aboutreading at home, and the frequency with which students are read aloud to athome.Homework Intensity: The frequency with which students report that they receive reading homework andthe time they spend on it.99Table 6Summary of Procedures Used to Construct Student Reading Exverience Variances1. Inclusion rule of variance applied.2. Variable recoded.3. Data transformation routines written and applied.4. Missing data excluded.a5. Frequency distributions produced.6. Aggregate function selected.7. Inclusion rulea for correlational analysis applied.All variables were composites.aA teacher must have 7 or more students with scores on one variable.100Table 7Summary of Student Reading Exuerience Variables Used in This StudyName Type Number of Items Used Aggregate functionitems usedbSelf-rating D 1 15 %Homework intensity T 2 19, 20Voluntary reading I 6 26, 28, 30, 32, 33 M, SDReading interactions I 5 5, 10, 11, 17, 18, 36 M, SDPerception of readingacquisitionAffective l 4 16a, 16b, 16f, 16g M, SDCognitiveHigh I 3 16c, 16e, 16k M, SDLow I 4 16d, 16h, 16i, 16j M, SDSchool reading I 5 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 M, SDNotes: D=Dichotomous variable; T=Trichotomous variable; I=Interval variableaNumber of items from the student background questionnaire used to create a measure of student readingexperience.bFunction used in correlational analysis.101Affective Perception of Reading Acquisition:The degree to which students believe that ways of becoming a good reader includeliking it, having good books around, having a good imagination, and having lotsof time to read.Low Cognitive Perception of Reading Acquisition:The degree to which students believe that ways of becoming a good reader includedoing homework, sounding out words, drilling at hard things, and doing writtenexercises.High Cognitive Perception of Reading Acquisition:The degree to which students believe that ways of becoming a good reader includeconcentrating well, learning the meaning of lots of words, and being told how todo it.School Reading: The frequency with which students report that they read readers, storybooks,textbooks, and workbooks in class.Each Stuent Reading Experience variable required different amounts and kinds of transformation.For all variables, however, missing data were eliminated both in the creation of the composites and foraggregate-level analysis. The development of these measures is described below.School Reading was created from four interval variables representing four questions on the studentquestionnaire. Transformation routines were written and variables recoded as required to produce SchoolReading. Variance was normally distributed on this variable as shown in Appendix F.Voluntary Reading was formed from six one-item questions directed to the amount of reading ofdifferent text genres. The six variables were rationally grouped into three text types: books (books),documents (directions, information), and popular texts (comics, magazines, newspapers). Frequencydistributions were inspected for variability of the three groups of Voluntary Reading. Transformationroutines were written and variable recoded to create one global measure of Voluntary Reading. Thefrequency distribution of the global variable was slightly skewed to the left but acceptable as is displayedin Appendix G.102Reading Interactions was based on six one-item questions rationally grouped to represent the natureand frequency of students’ reading events outside of school. One constituent variable was dichotomous,the others were interval variables. Variables were recoded and transformation routines written andperformed to construct the composite variable Reading Interactions. Appendix H presents the normalfrequency distribution of Reading Interactions.The three Perception of Reading Acquisition variables were created from an eleven-item questionasking students to identify the three most important ways to become a good reader. Responses at thestudent level were inspected for number of students following directions. Students who checked more orless than three items were eliminated from analysis, which amounted to 15% of the student sample. Theeleven variables were then rationally grouped to represent affective or cognitive beliefs about ways tobecome a good reader. Variable recodings and transformation procedures were performed to create threemeasures of Student Perception of Reading Acquisition. Frequency distributions of Affective, Low levelCognitive, and High level Cognitive Perceptions of Reading Acquisition are reproduced in Appendices I,3, and K.The item from which Self-Rating developed was an interval variable, but in this study wastransformed into a dichotomous variable. Since more than half the responses were the highest of the fourpossible ratings, it was decided to collapse the first three ratings into scoring code, and leave the fourthrating as the other scoring code. Appendix L displays frequencies of the recoded Self-Rating variable.Homework Intensity was created from two interval variables, one directed to frequency of gettinghomework and the other to time spent on homework. Cross-tabulations of the two original variables wereperformed and the frequency distribution inspected. Responses were heavily skewed to one score (zero)while the responses to the other seven scores were normally distributed. This distribution is shown inAppendix M.Decisions were made on particular aggregate functions for each Student Reading Experience variable.Percentage was chosen as the aggregate function for Homework Intensity and Self-Rating. Means andStandard deviations were selected for the aggregate functions for Reading Interactions, Voluntary reading,School Reading, and the three Perception of Reading Acquisition variables.103Student Reading Experience variables were then aggregated at the teacher level. Preliminary tocorrelational analyis of teacher groups by Student Reading Experience variables, descriptive analysis wasperformed at the teacher level: number of students, missing data on each Student Reading Experiencevariable, and percentage or means and standard deviations of each student variable. If a teacher had sevenor less students representing one variable, that variable was eliminated from analysis for that teacher. Insome cases, total class size was less than seven resulting in elimination of nine teachers. Thus the numberof teachers used in each correlational analyses of Student Reading Experience variables was dependent onteachers having more than seven students with data for all or some of the variables.Analysis. Finally, Analyses of Variance (ANOVA) were computed among teacher groups for eachStudent Reading Experience variable.Part 2: Student Reading AchievementThis section describes procedures used for data preparation as well as for correlational analysis ofteacher groups.Data Preparation. Major preparation procedures for this analysis consisted of data cleaning, scaletransformation, and data aggregation.A separate file of student test scores was created from the main student data file. Criteria forinclusion in correlational analyses involved examination of both student and teacher data. The student testscore file was listed and case records inspected for eligibility. Students with valid responses to at least50% of the narrative, comprehension, and document search test items were included in any future analyses.This left 2533 students out of the original 2813. Thus approximately 10% of the student sample wasexcluded at this stage. Following aggregation of student data at the teacher level, another inclusion rulewas applied. Teachers had to have seven or more students to be included in any future analyses. Teachershaving fewer than seven students were assumed to be insufficiently represented.Student test scores were originally provided as raw scores. Scores were transformed into Elley scores(1993), standardized scores used in the international anaylses (mean = 500, SD = 100). Some items from104three of the reading achievement domains were eliminated from analysis: two multiple choice items fromnarrative, expository, and document, as well as two free response items from narrative. With editingcomplete, students’ scores on the reading domains were collectively termed Student Achievement, andindividually termed Narrative, Expository, Document, and Word Recognition. Table 8 details informationabout the final form of the reading proficiency measures.Correlational Analyses of Teacher Grouns on Student Achievement. This stage of analysis consistedof several procedures: reliability of each achievement domain, means and standard deviations of eachdomain at the student level, means and standard deviations of each reading domain at the teacher level, andAnalyses of Variance of teacher groups on each measure of reading achievement.Chapter Summary and PreviewThis chapter described the foundational methodology of the lEA 1991 Reading Literacy Study usedin this re-analysis. An exploratory correlational design was selected to derive first- and second-orderfactors underlying grade three teachers’ instructional practice of reading. Cluster analysis based onteachers’ scores of constituent second-order factor variables was chosen to identify and describehomogenous groups of teachers. A variety of teacher and student background variables, as well as studentachievement variables, were identified or reconstructed from the teacher and student questionnaires andstudent achievement test in order to test differences among teacher groups.Chapter Five will present results of the study in four sections, each section corresponding to eachof the research questions. The first section outlines results of the factor analyses. Groups of teachersidentified by cluster analyses are reported in the second section. The remaining two sections report resultsof correlational analyses of the teacher group, by teacher background variables in the third section, and bystudent background and student achievement variables in the fourth section.105Table 8Summary of Student Reading Achievement Variables Used in StudyNumber of ItemsDomain Original Re-analysisNarrative 24 20Expository 21 19Document 23 21Word Recognition 40 40As per the 1991 lEA procedure, two multiple choice items were deleted from each domain, and anadditional two free response items were deleted from Narrative.106CHAPTER V: FINDINGSThe purpose of this study is to identify factors underlying reading instruction in Canada (BC), todescribe teacher groups based on those factors, and to identify differences between teacher groups in termsof teacher background, student background and student achievement. This chapter will present results ofthe study in four sections, each section corresponding to one of the four research questions. The firstsection discusses results of first- and second-order factor analyses conducted to delineate key constructs ofreading instruction. In the second section, results of the cluster analysis used to identify groups of teachersare presented. The third section reports results of correlational analyses of teacher groups on measures ofteachers’ characteristics and their classroom conditions. Finally, results of analyses used to differentiateteacher groups on measures of their students’ reading experiences and reading achievement are reported.Research Question OneWhat reading instruction factors underlie teachers responses to questionnaire items regarding theirinstructional practice?Factors of grade three reading instruction in Canada (BC) were derived through exploratory factoranalysis. Factor analysis is one method serving the overall purpose of exploratory data analysis ofuncovering structures in complex data. To maximally simplify the data on teachers’ instructional practice,both first- and second-order factor analyses were conducted.As explained in the methodology chapter, teacher responses to five main sections of the teacherquestionnaire related to their instructional practice were factor-analyzed: Reading Activities, InstructionalStrategies, Views of Reading Development, Assessment Methods, and Assessment Focus. These groupingswere referred to in this study as Aspects of Reading Instruction. Factors which emerged from second-order107factor analysis were regarded as factors of Instructional Practice. (Refer to Table 3 in Chapter IV forspecific identification of the questionnaire items used to define each Aspect of Reading Instruction.)Two models of factor analysis were implemented during this exploratory stage: PrincipalComponents followed by Varimax Rotation, and Image Analysis followed by Oblimin Rotation. As well,several factor-number solutions were explored in each model. Statistical criteria for retention of factorswere eigenvalues >1.0 and a scree analysis. Interpretability was dependent on inspection of factorloadings and theoretical integrity. Specifically, meaning of the factor loadings was gained fromexamination of their magnitude and direction with level of significance .30 and above, and strong loadingsregarded as .6 and above. Theoretical frameworks of factor meanings were (1) assumptions underlyingTraditional, Whole Language, and Strategic perpsectives of reading instruction, and (2) assumptionsunderlying behaviorist and cognitive views of leaching and learning.Results of the first-order factor analysis of each of the five Aspects of Reading Instruction aredescribed first, followed by results of the second-order factor analysis.Part 1: First-Order Factor AnalysisTeachers’ responses to 93 variables comprising the five Aspects of Reading Instruction were usedto derive first- and second-order factors. Means, standard deviations, and interrcorrelations of variablesfor each of the five Aspects of Reading Instruction are displayed in Appendix N, 0, P. Q, and R.Reading ActivitiesIn this section, teachers indicated the frequency with which their students are engaged in 28 differentreading activities. Two factors of Reading Activities were identified: Interactive Strategic (InterStr) andBasal-Controlled (BasCon). Table 9 identifies the variables and their factor loadings of the two-factorsolution of Reading Activities.I labeled the first factor Interactive Strategic because this factor indicated students are primarilyinvolved in comprehension strategies and secondarily in communicative language activities. The variableswith the strongest loadings in this factor were higher level comprehension strategies: predicting,generalizing, sununarizing, and comparing. Diagramming story content, another comprehension strategy,108Table 9Two Factor Analysis of Reading ActivitiesFactor(Percentage of Variance accounted for)Variable InterStr BasCon(24.2%) (7.5%)Making generalizations and inferences .70 .07Relating experiences to reading .70 .06Studying style or structure of text .68 -.04Looking for theme or messagea .67 .32Making predictions during reading .64 .05Comparing pictures and stories .60 .28Summarizing reading .55 .29Reading other students’ writing .53 .25Discussion of books read by students .50 .18Student leading discussion about passage .46 .17Writing in response to readinga .45 .39Learning new vocabulary incidentally from texts .40 .10Reading in other subjects .30 .25Listening to teachers reading stories aloud .27 .22Dramatizing stories .27 .60109(Table 9 continued)Factor(Percentage of Variance accounted for)Variable InterStr BasCon(24.2%) (7.5%)Learning new vocabulary systematically (from lists) -.15 .59Answering reading comprehension questions -.01 .59Learning letter-sound relationships and/or phonics .10 .57Diagramming story contenta .36 .53Learning other word-attack skills .12 .51Listening to students reading aloud to small groups .22 .50or pairsPlaying reading gamesa .36 .46Drawing in response to readinga .32 .45Reading plays or dramas .17 .45Listening to students reading aloud to a whole class .26 .41Independent silent reading in a class .05 .38Learning library skills .24 .32Note. InterStr= Interactive Strategic; BasCon= Basal-Controlledasificantly loading items on both factors110loaded moderately (.36) on InterStr, but more strongly on BasCon (.53). The other group of significantlyloading variables on the InterStr factor suggested an emphasis on using language for authentic, student-centered communication (reading other students’ writing, writing in response to reading, and student-leddiscussions of books read by students).I named the second factor Basal-Controlled because its key variables represent activities typical ofbasal or skills-based reading instruction: controlled vocabulary acquisition, comprehension worksheets, andletter-sound exercises. Two of the strongest loading variables on this factor indicated activities associatedwith the traditional or task-analytic approach to reading instruction—i.e., learning new vocabularysystematically from lists and learning letter-sound relationships. Other variables in the BasCon factor withmoderate loadings also typify traditional reading activities—i.e., learning word-attack skills and listeningto students read aloud. The strongest loading variable (although only by .01)—dramatizingstories—indicated that some sort of active involvement in narrative texts is important in this factor.Of interest were variables with similar loadings on each factor. Diagramming story content, playingreading games, and drawing in response to reading loaded significantly on both factors but more stronglyon BasCon. Similarly, writing in response to reading and looking for themes or messages loadedsignificantly on both factors but stronger on InterStr. These activities can be found in basal readingprograms as program-directed activities, and in meaning-based programs as student-centered activities.Instructional StrategiesData for this analysis consisted of responses to (a) 13 items about the frequency with which teachersuse various instructional strategies and (b) three items directed to the degree to which teachers focusinstruction on narrative, expository, and document texts. Two factors of Instructional Strategies werefound: Direct Instruction (Dirin) and Implicit Support (ImSup). Variables and their loadings of the two-factor solution are tabulated in Table 10.The Dirln factor seemed to represent active instruction, but teacher- or program-centered rather thanstudent-centered instruction recommended by current comprehension research (Pearson et al., 1991). Themore strongly loading items of this factor emphasized the active role of the teacher in comprehension111Table 10Two Factor Analysis of Instructional Strate2iesFactor(Percentage of Variance accounted for)Variahie Dirin ImSup(23.5%) (11.6%)Ask questions to assess text comprehension .79 -.11Ask questions to deepen understanding .74 .07Show children how to understand a text .73 .17Compare stories, poems, fables, and tales .58 .13Frequency of teaching expository text .57 .12Maintain graded sequence of text difficulty .55 .04Frequency of teaching narrative text .30 .08Encourage children to use the library more .12 .68Encourage children to read more .14 .43Encourage parents to read to children .00 .77Encourage children to use the library more .12 .68Encourage children to read more .14 .43Encourage parents to be involved in the reading program .09 .71Use materials you have prepared yourself .32 .50Accessing prior knowledge2 .38 .41Frequency of teaching document text .10 .41Ask children to describe their strategy for understandint .37 .40Read aloud to children -.06 .39Note. Dirln = Direct Instruction; ImSup = Implicit Supportasignrndy loading items on both factors112instruction. However, it seemed the type of comprehension instruction portrayed in this factor was notnecessarily that which is associated with current strategic reading. Rather, it appeared more reflective ofinstruction consistent with a skills-based, or traditional, perspective of reading instruction. The strongestloading variable, “Ask questions to assess text comprehension”, corresponds with a typical feature oftraditional reading instruction—concentration on text content rather than text processing. Furthermore, thefact that this factor included the variable “Maintain graded sequence of text difficulty” indicated dependenceon programmed materials. Finally, frequency of teaching of expository text (.57) and narrative text (.30)loaded on this factor, but did not contribute to interpretability as there no indication of preference for texttypes in different instructional approaches in the literature.Whereas the Dirln factor stressed direct and active instructional strategies, the other factorhighlighted facilitative strategies identified in the emergent literacy research (Harste et al., 1984; Heath,1982; Wells, 1986). I named this factor Implicit Support because of the primary emphasis on severalencouragement strategies. Given the importance of encouragement in this factor, it seems reasonable tosay that child-centered instruction characterizes this factor. This interpretation helps explain the alternativemeanings of the two variables which load equally on both factors (“Accessing prior knowledge” and “Askchildren to describe their strategy for understanding”). Thus while these two strategies represented teacher-centered instruction in the Dirin factor, they were interpreted as child-centered strategies in the ImSupfactor. These interpretations are consistent with the literarture of both skills-based and strategic readinginstruction. Finally, the inclusion of the variable, “Use teacher-made materials” indicated the importanceof the teacher’s response to her students’ needs, thus supporting the underlying child-centered meaning ofthe ImSup factor.Views of Reading InstructionData for this analysis consisted of responses to 26 propositions representing meaning-centered orcode-emphasis views of issues in reading instruction. Two factors of teachers’ views were found andtermed Systematic Program (SysPro) and Holistic Immersion (HolIm). Table 11 displays the constituentvariables and their factor loadings for this Views of Reading Instruction.113Table 11Two Factor Analysis of Views of Reading InstructionFactor(Percentage of Variance accounted for)Variable SysPro Hollm(16.0%) (11.8%)Reading materials should be carefully sequenced in .72 .02terms of language structures and vocabulary.Teachers should always group children according to .68 -.26their reading ability.Every mistake a child makes in reading should be cor- .67 .10rected at once.When my pupils read to me, I expect them to read .64 .07every word accurately.Class sets of graded reading material should be used .61 -.34as the basis for the reading program.aChiildren should learn most of their new words from .56 .05lessons designed to enhance their vocabulary.All children’s comprehension assignments should be .52 .22marked carefully to provide them with feedback.9 year-olds should not have access to books they will .47 -.37read in the next year at SChOOl.aChildren should not start a new book until they have .46 -.19finished the last.114(Table 11 continued)Factor(Percentage of Variance accounted for)Variable SysPro HolIm(16.0%) (11.8%)Most of what a child reads should be assessed. .43 .26Teachers should carefully follow the sequence of the .43 -.38textbook.aMost children improve their reading by extensive read- -.05 .00ing on their own.Children should take a book home to read every day. .02 .65Teachers should keep careful records of every child’s .18 .52reading progress.Children should be read to every day by the teacher -.14 .47from a story book.Parents should be actively encouraged to help their .04 .45children with reading.A word recognition test is sufficient for assessing .28 -.42children’s reading levels.Children should always understand why they are read- .25 .41ing.All children should enjoy reading. -.10 .39115(Table 11 continued)Factor(Percentage of Variation accounted for)Variable SysPro Holim(16.0%) (11.8%)Children should always understand what they are read- .35 .39ing.aChildren should not be encouraged to read a word they .04 -.36don’t know.Children should undertake research projects to improve -.06 .35their reading.Children who can’t understand what they read haven’t .21 -.30been taught proper comprehension skills.Children should always choose their own books to read. .02 .25Reading aloud by children to a class is a waste of time. -.02 -.23. SysPro= Systematic Program; HolIm= Holistic Immersionasigficantly loading items on both factors116I named the first factor Systematic Program because that term captures essential features of the typeof effective teaching derived from behaviorist research. Strong loading variables indicated the importanceof these three features in this factor: the use of hierarchically structured materials, a high degree of studentaccountability for skills mastery, and the use of ability grouping. The remaining nine variables in thisfactor supported a task-analytic view of reading instruction and the role of the teacher as monitor andevaluator of students’ skill mastery.As with the SysPro factor, key variables in the Holistic Immersion factor captured its centralmeaning. The variables “Children should be encouraged to read texts they have written” and “Childrenshould take a book home everyday” underscored the view which appeared to cut across all variables: thebelief in child-centered integrative language experiences along with abundant opportunity to engage inholistic, enjoyable reading. Additionally, parental involvement in a child’s reading development was animportant component of this factor, as was keeping accurate records of each child’s reading progress.Some negatively loading variables helped strengthen interpretation of the Hollm factor. Thussystematic disagreement with some variables indicated opposing views. Rejection of word recognition asa test of reading ability, along with rejection of the variable “Children who can’t understand what they readhaven’t been taught proper comprehension skills” suggested a belief that the focus of reading iscomprehension and meaning rather than isolated skills. Similarly, rejection both of any notions of a lock-step standardized curriculum and use of ability grouping enforced the holistic, meaning-centered view ofreading instruction in this factor.Factor loadings for the variable “Children should always understand what they read” were, althoughmoderate, nearly equally significant (.35 and .39) for both factors. In contrast, factor loadings for thevariable “Children should always understand why they read” were significant only for Hollm indicatingthe value of another level of purposeful reading in this factor.117Assessment MethodsTeachers’ responses to thirteen items from two questions pertaining to how they assess their students’reading abilities constituted the variables of Assessment Methods. Two factors were found and labelledOpen and Contextual (OpCont) and Closed and Constrained (CiCon). Table 12 lists the variables and theirfactor loadings of the two-factor solution of this Aspect of Reading Instruction.The variable groupings for each factor were unambiguous regarding type of assessment method andalso indicated a general focus either on reading processes or products. Process-based assessment presumesteachers’ knowledge of reading and reading development, in contrast to the “deskilled” view of teachingimplicit in a focus on products (Shannon, 1987). Thus the two factors of Assessment Methods alsosuggested information about the status of the teacher.I named the first factor Open and Contextual because collectively the variables seemed to stressteachers’ observations of literacy events and attention to students’ interests. Variables with the strongestloadings defined the factor and related rationally to the other constituent variables. It is important to notethat several methods composing the OpCont factor can be used in both teacher-centered and student-centered ways—i.e., “listening to students read aloud” (e.g., for assessment of fluency or reading interests)and “oral discussions” (for assessment of recall or text interpretation). Whether the variables of theOpCont factor could be interpreted as student- or teacher-centered, could be gleaned by comparativeinspection of loadings on some items. Thus, negative loadings of student-centered variables on the CiConfactor—”interviews” and “records and knowledge of student interest”—suggested the use of student-centered observations of literacy events in the OpCont factor. Thus the negative loadings were helpful indefining the OpCont factor in terms of not only form (informal) and substance (process) but focus(student).The meaning of the variables constituting the Closed and Constrained factor-the use of workbooksand formal tests-were straightfoward. This group of variables, along with the negative loadings of studentcentered methods discussed above, indicated that in this factor students’ reading development is controlledby workbooks and tests and teachers are controlled by materials.118Table 12Two Factor Analysis of Assessment MethodsFactor(Percentage of Variance accounted for)Variable OpCont CICon(21.5%) (14.7%)Listening to students reading aloud5 .63 .34Interviewsa.62 -.30Records of student interests .60 -.21Oral discussions .60 .11Knowledge of students’ reading interests .60 -.25Listening to students reading .57 .26Oral questions on material reada .53 .31Informal observation .50 .03Written open-ended questions on material read .46 .15Comments from other teachers .30 -.01Exercises and tests in workbooks and textbooks -.21 .74Multiple choice questions in reading .04 .63Tests in workbooks and textbooks -.08 .63Standardized or formal tests of comprehension .13 .46Teacher-made vocabulary tests .26 .41Note. OpContOpen and Contextual; ClCon= Closed and Constrainedasjg..jficanuy loading items on both factors.119Assessment FocusTwo general findings emerged from analyses of teachers’ responses to the Assessment Focus items:one from the original one-factor solution and the other from the forced two-factor solution.Initial analysis of the ten items of Assessment Focus produced one factor. This solution indicatedassessment was focused on multiple dimensions of reading. However, word recognition, vocabulary, andcomprehension not only accounted for most of the variance (35-40%) but were consistently strong loadingvariables on all exploratory solutions based on combined Assessment Method and Assessment Focus items.Table 13 displays results of the the one-factor solution.A final two factor solution seemed to differentiate teachers’ relative focus of assessment as Narrowand Objective (NarOb) or Broad and Subjective (BrSub). Variables and their loadings for the two factorsof Assessment Focus are tabulated in Table 14. I termed the first factor Narrow and Objective becauseits components are most conducive to codification, and consequently associated more with traditionalreading instruction. In contrast, variables of the Broad and Subjective factor are less codifiable andassociated more with instruction based on top-down views of reading. In turn, top-down views tend topremise the influential role of the reader in comprehension (Goodman, 1985). Thus two factors explainedan emphasis on smaller, more measurable units of language such as vocabulary, phonic skills, and sentenceunderstanding (NarOb); or an emphasis on larger, less standardized units of language such as use ofbackground knowledge and amount of reading (BrSub). It is interesting to note that the three variablesfrom the NarOb factor which loaded significantly with the BrSub factor (text comprehension, sentenceunderstanding, and reading study skills) dealt with larger units of language as well.In sum, a two-factor orthogonal solution was found to be optimal for each of the five Aspects ofReading Instruction. The factors derived from teachers’ responses to items composing the five Aspects ofReading Instruction are summarized in Table 15.Part 2: Second Order Factor AnalysisFollowing identification of the first-order factors, a second-order factor analysis was conducted inorder to identify factors which cut across all five Aspects of Reading Instruction. The second-order factorswere broadly regarded as factors of Instructional Practice. Teachers’ responses to the ten first-order factors120Table 13One Factor Analysis of Assessment FocusVariable Factor 1Vocabulary .79Text comprehension .74Decoding .71Word recognition .70Sentence understanding .70Phonics skills .67Reading study skills .61Use of background knowledge .51Amount of reading .51Literary appreciation .47121Table 14Two Factor Analysis of Assessment FocusFactor(Percentage of Variance accounted for)Variable NarOb BdSub(42.06%) (14.9%)Word recognition .83 .15Vocabulary .80 .04Decoding .77 .10Phonic skills .73 .08Text comprehensiona .66 .34Sentence understandinga •57 •43Reading study skillsa .53 .33Use of background know!- .10 .83edgeLiterary appreciation .06 .83Amount of reading .23 .61N. NarOb=Narrow and Objective; BdSubBroad and SubjectiveaSificantly loading items on both factors were factor-analyzed following the same exploratory proceduresused for the first-order analysis. Means and standard deviations of each first-order factor are tabulated inAppendix S.122Table 15Summary of First-Order Factors of Readinn InstructionAspect of Reading Factor 1 Factor 2InstructionaReading Activities Interactive Strategic Basal-controlled(InterStr) (BasCon)Instructional Strategies Direct Instruction Implicit Support(Dirln) (ImSup)Views of Reading Instruc- Systematic Program Holistic Immersiontion (SysPro) (HolIm)Assessment Methods Open and Contextual Closed and Constrained(OpCont) (CiCon)Assessment Focus Narrow, Objective Broad, Subjective(NarOb) (BdSub)a= 154123As with the first-order factor analyses, a two-factor orthogonal solution was optimal in identifyingsecond-order factors. The two factors of Instructional Practice were named Strategic Whole Language andProgrammatic Skills. Table 16 presents the constituent variables of each second-order factor and theirfactor loadings.Variables with the strongest loadings on each factor pointed to their underlying meaning while othervariables appeared to support and extend the primary meanings. Thus the Strategic Whole Language factorindicated a primary emphasis on student engagement in higher level comprehension strategies within acontext supportive of student-centered authentic communication. Additionally, the Strategic WholeLanguage factor also appeared to be characterized by a top-down view of the reading process (BrdSub),a student-centered, literature-based curriculum (OpCont and Hollm), a holistic curriculum (InterStr andHolIm), teacher knowledge of reading instruction (OpCont), and teacher as facilitator (ImSup).In contrast, the Progranunatic Skills factor was most influenced by variables indicating instructionalpractice based on a focus in assessment on discrete skills (NarOb), direct instruction (Dirln), and relianceon basal exercises and and formal tests as methods of assessment (ClCon). Other variables in this factorsupported student involvement in discrete skill activities (BasCon) and belief in the use of scope andsequence materials and teacher control of students’ skill mastery (SysPro).Relative loadings of several variables were noteworthy. Although Direct Instruction (Dirin) loadedstrongly on Programmatic Skills, it also loaded moderately on the Strategic Whole Language factor. Two(moderately) significant negatively loading variables on Strategic Whole Language were Closed andConstrained Methods of Assessment (ClCon) and Systemmatic Program Views of Reading Instruction(SysPro). Finally, Open and Contextual Methods of Assessment (OpCont) also had moderate significantloadings on Programmatic Skills.Correlations Among Variables Used in Second-Order Factor AnalysisA multi-trait multi-domain table is a commonly used heuristic device used to detect convergent anddiscriminant evidence of intercorrelations among variables. Pearson correlations were computed on thefirst-order factors constituting each second-order factor and a multi-trait multi-method table produced toassess validity of the second-order factors. Table 17 displays intercorrelations among the variables of each124Table 16Results of 2nd Order Factor AnalysisFactor(Percentage of Variance accounted for)Variable StrWL ProSk(30.8%) (22.5%)Interactive Strategic Reading Activities (InterStr) .79 .08Broad and Subjective Assessment Focus (BdSub) .71 -.03Open and Contextual Assessment Methods .71 .37(OPCOflt)aHolistic Immersion Views of Reading Instruction .69 .07(HolIm)Implicit Instruction (ImSup) .65 -.18Narrow Objective Assessment Focus (NarOb) .15 .69Direct Instruction (DirIn)’ .39 .68Closed and Constrained Assessment Methods -.36 .67(C1COfl)aSystematic Program View of Reading Instruction -.30 .64(Hollm)aBasal-controlled Reading Activities (BasCon) .16 .62asiguificantly loading variable on both factorsNote: StrWL = Strategic Whole Language; ProSk = Programmatic SkillsTable 17Intercorrelations Among Variables Used in 2nd Order Factor AnalysisStrategic Whole Language Programmatic SkillsAspect ofreading lnterStr BdSub OpCont Holim ImSup BasCon NarOb ClCon SysPro DirlnInstructionlnterStr 100FOSC2 48 100OpCont 54 48 100HolIm 42 43 37 100ImSup 35 29 31 44 1003 27 15A1000 39 04 27 100NarOb 15BasCon0N:::44 41 24 20 1002 CICon -17 22 33 10028 27 40 100SysPro 18DirlnCorrelations are rounded to 2 significant figures and decimal points omitted.A = Quadrant A as referred to in textB = Quadrant B as referred to in text125126second-order factor and cross-correlations between the second-order factors.For the variables of the Strategic Whole Language factor, intercorrelations ranged from a low of 29to a high of 54, with a median of 42.5. For Programmatic Skills, correlations among variables rangedfrom a low of 20 to a high of 44, with a median of 27.5. Although intercorrelations among the first-ordervariables were higher for the Strategic Whole Language factor than for the Programmatic Skills factor, theywere both at acceptable levels to insure validity of second-order factors.In terms of the cross-correlations between the constituent variables of each factor, values in onequadrant (A) ranged from -30 to 39 with a median of .10; and in the other quadrant (B), values rangedfrom -18 to 47 with a median of 7.5. Some relatively high cross-correlations can be explained. Open andContextual Methods of Assessment (OpCont) correlated fairly highly with two variables of theProgrammatic Skills factor—Basal-Controlled Reading Activities (BasCon) and Narrow and Objective Focusof Assessment (NarOb). This relationship seems to reflect the existence of several common variables inboth first-order factors of Assessment Methods suggesting divergent interpretations of the same practices.Similarly, the relatively high correlations between Direct Instruction Strategies (Dirln) and two variablesof the Strategic Whole Language factor -Interactive Strategic Reading Activities (InterStr) and Open andContextual Methods of Assessment (OpCont)-can also be explained by the possibility of alternativeinterpretations of the same practice. Specifically, in the context of the InterStr factor, Dirln may be basedon cognitive assumptions of teaching and learning, whereas in the context of the Programmatic Skillsfactor, its meaning would likely be based on behaviorist assumptions.Research Question TwoGiven derived reading instruction factors, what profiles can be developed to identify differenthomogeneous clusters of teachers?Factor scores were generated for individual teachers on constituent variables of the two second-orderfactors—Strategic Whole Language and Programmatic Skills. Factor scores were then transformed intostandardized scores (z-scores). These individual z-scores were the basis of computations used to identifygroups of teachers. Results of three, four, five, and six cluster analyses were examined, and the four-group127This question focused on two sets of student reading variables: Student Reading Experience andStudent Reading Achievement. Refer to Tables 7 and 8 in Chapter IV for detailed information about thecomposition of these variables. Means and standard deviations of the two sets of student variables usedin correlational analyses of teacher groups are displayed in Appendix U.Results of correlational analyses of teacher groups on student reading variables are reported belowin two parts: one pertaining to Student Reading Experience and the other to Student Reading Achievement.Both types of variables were aggregated at the class level for correlational analysis. solution selectedbased on evenness of member distribution and meaningfulness of number of groups relative to number ofcases. Results of the cluster analysis are summarized in Table 18.Individual group means were computed for each second-order factor variable then used to constructcomparative group profiles on both second-order factors. Each teacher group was then named based onan examination of profiles within and between groups on each second-order factor. The four teachergroups were named as follows: Eclectic (Group 1), Basalized Whole Language (Group 2), ConservativeWhole Language (Group 3), and Uncategorized (Group 4). Tables 19 and 20, and Figure 2 lists the stepstaken to gain information about the four groups of teachers identified in the cluster analysis. Table 19tabulates individual group means for each of the second-order-factor variables, Figure 2 displays groupprofiles based on these values, and Table 20 summarizes between-group profile patterns across each second-order factor.A comparison of group profiles on the Strategic Whole Language factor revealed that three variablesaccounted for the greatest range of differences—Interactive Strategic Reading Activities (InterStr), Broadand Subjective Assessment Focus (BdSub), and Open and Contextual Assessment Method (OpCont).Interactive Strategic Reading Activities was the variable which most differentiated all groups. Two groups(Eclectic and Basalized Whole Language) were similar on Broad and Subjective Assessment Focus (BdSub),while the other two groups (Conservative Whole Language and Uncategorized) differed greatly on thisvariable. Three groups (Eclectic, Basalized Whole Language, and Conservative Whole Language) weresimilar on Open and Contextual Assessment Methods (OpCont). On Holistic Immersion Views of ReadingDevelopment (HolIm), teacher groups clustered in two main groups--Uncategorized and Eclectic in onecluster, and Basalized Whole Language and Conservative Whole Language in the other cluster. Finally,128Table 18Summary of Cluster Analysis: Identifvin2 Teacher GrouvsGroup n of % of total ingroup group1 64 422 27 173 38 254 25 16154aTotals do not always equal 100 due to rounding errors.129Table 19Mean Scores on 2nd-Order Factor Variables by Teacher GroupEclectic Basalized Whole Conservative UncategorizedFactor (E) Language (BWL) Whole Language (U)(n = 64) (n = 27) (CWL) (n = 38) (n = 25)Strategic Whole LanguageInterStr -.37 .35 1.03 -.99BrSub -.22 -.30 1.02 -.68OpCont .03 .36 .62 -1.40HolIm -.37 .37 .63 -.40ImSup -.18 -.01 .49 -.27Programmatic SkillsNarOb .09 .90 -.07 -1.11Dirln -.34 1.32 .32 -1.04ClCon .18 .93 -.60 -.56SysPro .22 .84 -.76 -.33BasCon -.08 .96 -.21 -.52Figure 2. Teacher Profiles on Strategic Whole Language and Programmatic Skills.E EclecticBWL Basalized Whole LanguageCWL Conservative Whole LanguageU UncategorizedStrategic15Language1.00.5130—0.5—1.0-1.5—uCWLBWLlnterStr BdSub OpCont Holim ImSupTeacher ClusterPiogrammatic Skills-1.5—uTeacher ClusterCWLBWLBasCon131Table 20Teacher Profiles on Second Order Factors of Instructional PracticeGroup Strategic Whole Language Programmatic SkillsEclectic Average Average(n = 64)Basalized Whole Language Average High(n = 27)Conservative Whole Language High Average(n = 38)Uncategorized Low Low(n = 25)132there were minimal differences between all groups on Implicit Support Instructional Strategies (ImSup).On the other factor, Programmatic Skills, the range of difference between groups was considerableon four of the five variables: Narrow and Objective Focus of Instruction (NarOb), Direct InstructionInstructional Strategies (Dirln), Closed and Constrained Assessment Methods (CiCon), and SystematicProgram Views of Reading Instruction (SysPro). Three groups (Eclectic, Conservative Whole Language,and Uncategorized) were similar on Basal-controlled Reading Activities (BasCon). Variables which mostdifferentiated all four groups were Direct Instruction Instructional Strategies and Systematic Program Viewsof Reading Instruction. Two groups (Eclectic and Conservative Whole Language) were similar on Nanowand Objective Assessment Focus, and two groups (Conservative Whole Language and Uncategorized) werenearly identical on Closed and Constrained Assessment Methods. Comparative profiles also revealedvarying patterns of each group’s profile across the two factors. The Eclectic group displayed averageprofiles across both factors. The Basalized Whole Language group displayed an average profile acrossStrategic Whole Language, and a high profile across Programmatic Skills. The Conservative WholeLanguage group displayed a high profile across Strategic Whole Language, and an average profile acrossProgrammatic Skills. Finally, the Uncategorized group displayed low profiles across both factors.Research Question ThreeGiven such differentiated clusters of teachers, what differences exist among these groups on measuresof teacher characteristics and classroom conditions?This question dealt broadly with an umbrella set of teacher background variables which are dividedinto two categories: Teacher Characteristics and Classroom Conditions. Detailed information about theconstitution of these variables is available in Table 4 in Chapter IV. Means and standard deviations of eachTeacher Characteristic and Classroom Condition variable are presented in Appendix T. No statisticallysignificant differences among teacher groups were found on any of the Teacher Characteristic andClassroom Conditions variables. Results of all correlational analyses conducted on these measures aresummarized in Table 21.133Table 21Summary of Significant Tests of Differences among Teacher Groups: Teacher Characteristics andClassroom ConditionsVariable F pdfTexts per student .35 (3) 132 .79ESL students .22 (3) 132 .88Principal engagement 1.47 (3) 137 .22Professional reading .21 (3) 129 .88Casual reading 1.36 (3) 127 .26Preservice training .53 (3) 130 .66Postsecondary education .48 (3) 136 .70Study of reading .95 (3) 136 .42Years teaching .28 (3) 134 .84Comprehension .95 (3) 94 .42Critical thinking .89 (3) 95 .45Enjoyment 2.30 (3) 80 .08p<.05134Research Question FourGiven such differentiated clusters of teachers, what differences exist among these groups on measuresof student reading experiences and reading achievement?Student Reading ExnerienceStudent Reading Experience variables consist of nine composite variables derived from the studentbackground questionnaire. Teachers with seven or fewer students were not included for analysis becauseit was decided that fewer than seven students was insufficient representation of a teacher. Again, nostatistically significant differences anong teacher groups were found on any of the measures of StudentReading Experience. Table 22 summarizes results of Analyses of Variances of teacher groups on StudentReading Experience.Student AchievementTwo types of preliminary analyses were performed on the student achievement test data: (a)reliability of test scores by domain; (b) means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations of each domainat the student level; and (c) means and standard deviations of each domain at the teacher group level.Following these analyses, one-way Analyses of Variance of teacher groups on measures of student readingproficiency were conducted. As with analyses of Student Reading Experience, teachers whose classesconsisted of seven or fewer students were eliminated from analyses of teacher groups on Student ReadingAchievement.Reliability of Student Achievement MeasuresReliability analysis of the four reading achievement domains was performed using Cronbach’s AlphaMeasure of Internal Consistency. Table 23 tabulates the means and reliability of each measure of student135Table 22Snmmirv nf ionWwnt Tectc if Thiffpnpc Twher (rniinc Stm1nt RptIino YnriPnVariable F df pSchool reading 2.64 (3) 137 .06High cognitive perception of reading acquisition 1.27 (3) 126 .29Reading interactions out-of-school 1.17 (3) 137 .32Affective perception of reading acquisition .85 (3) 126 .47Homework intensity .70 (3) 136 .55Low cognitive perception of reading acquisition .34 (3) 126 .79Self-rating .23 (3) 137 .88Voluntary reading .16 (3) 137 .92p<.05136Table 23Means and Reliability Coefficients of Student AchievementDomain No. of Items Raw Score Mean AlphaNarrative 20 12.94 .84Expository 19 11.77 .81Document 21 13.93 .77Word Recognition 40 33.51 .95p<.05137reading proficiency used in correlational analysis of teacher groups. Since all alphas were close to .80 orabove, results of further analyses based on the student achievement test data could be assumed reliable.Means. Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations of each DomainAs described in the methodology chapter, raw scores for the domains of narrative comprehension,expository comprehension, and document search were transformed into the same standardized Elley scoresused in the international analysis (mean = 500, SD =100). Word recognition was analyzed as raw scoresas items in this domain were not transformed into standard scores previously. Additionally,intercorrelations between all four domains were examined using Pearson correlations. Table 24 displaysresults of these basic statistics performed on the four reading achievement domains.Mean scores were highest for narrative, lowest for document, while expository scores were in themiddle. The same pattern was found for standard deviations for each domain, with the largest fornarrative, smallest for document, and a middle range for expository. The three comprehension domains(Narrative, Expository, and Document) were highly correlated while correlations between word recognitionand comprehension domains were lower. The correlation patterns indicate relationships between thereading processes used in Narrative, Expository, and Document texts, as well as the discrete skill of wordrecognition in comparison.Correlational AnalysesAnalysis of Variance was performed on each measure of reading achievement. Means and standarddeviations of each measure at the teacher level are reported in Table 25. No statistically significantdifferences among teacher groups were found on any of the measures of Student Reading Achievement.Results of the four analyses of teacher groups by reading achievement domain are summarized in Table 26.In order to investigate the effects of instruction on student reading proficiency further, Pearsoncorrelations between reading domains and first-order instructional factors were carried out as had been donein the international analysis (Lundberg & Linnakyla, 1993; Postlethwaite & Ross, 1992). Table 27displays results of this correlational analysis.138Table 24Means. Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations of Student Achievement Domains: Student LevelDomain M SDCorrelationsNarr Expos Doc WordNarrative 508.34 89.87 1.00Expository 505.14 87.67 .691.00Document 503.72 81.90 .59.55 1.00Word Recognition 33.51 8.14 .27.34 .28 1.00.n = 2533. All scores are international standard Elley scores, except for Word Recognition whichremains as raw scores.139Table 25Means and Standard Deviations of Student Achievement Domains: Teacher LevelMeasure Mean StandardDeviationNarrative 507.90 32.42Expository504.38 33.05Document503.01 31.07Word Recognition 33.63 3.89140Table 26Summary of Significant Tests of Differences among Teacher Grouvs: Student Achievement VariablesVariable F df pExpository 1.96 (3) 134 .12Document 1.37 (3) 134 .25Narrative .68 (3) 134 .56Word Recognition .04 (3) 134 .98p<.05141Table 27Intercorrelations Between 1St Order Factors and Student Reading Domain ScoresFirst Order Fac- NARR EXPO DOC WORDtorsInterStr .10 .06 .03 .10BasCon .04 .02 .06 .06Dirln .09 .05 .08 .03ImSup .02 -.05 -.02 .02SysPro -.04 -.05 -.07 .02bum .07 -.11 -.30 .05OpCont .13 .04 .08 .07CiCon .03 .06 .14 -.03NarOb .14 .03 .09 -.02BdSub .08 .03 .01 .13Note. NARR Narrative; EXPO = Expository; DOC = Documentary; WORD = Word Recognition142Correlations were all low to very low ranging from a high of .14 to a low of -.30. This additionalanalysis increased validity of the findings from the correlational analyses of teacher clusters on ReadingAchievement domains reported above.Chapter Summary and PreviewThis chapter has presented results of the study. The results of the factor analysis of each Aspect ofReading Instruction were described as well as the results of the second-order factor analysis. Ten first-order factors were found, two for each Aspect of Reading Instruction. Two second-order factors ofteachers’ Instructional Practice representing either a general focus on skills or meaning were derived fromthe first-order factors. The results of the cluster analysis were discussed in terms of the profilesrepresenting each of the four identified groups of teachers. No one teacher group displayed extremeprofiles on either second-order factor. Results of several categories of correlational analyses of theidentified teacher groups were reported. No significant differences between teacher groups were found onany Teacher Characteristic, Classroom Condition, Student Reading Experience, and Student ReadingAchievement variables. Chapter VI interprets the results in context of the literature on reading andteaching. Chapter VII summarizes the purpose and methods of inquiry of this study, as well as offersconclusions and implications for further research.143CHAPTER VI: DISCUSSIONThe purpose of this study is to identifS’ factors of reading instruction in Canada (BC), to describegroups of teachers based on those factors, and to examine other teacher and student variables of the teachergroups. This chapter extends the reports of findings in the previous chapter through interpretativediscussion. Discussion and implications of the findings will proceed in the order of the four researchquestions. Thus topics of discussion in this chapter are: (a) factors of reading instruction in Canada (BC),(b) teachers’ instructional profiles, (c) differentiation of teacher groups in terms of teacher characteristicsand classroom conditions, and (d) differentiation of teacher groups in terms of their students’ readingexperiences and reading achievement.Research Question OneWhat reading instruction factors underlie teachers’ responses to questionnaire items regarding theirinstructional practice?This phase of the study set out to construct a description of reading instruction in British Columbiathrough first- and second-order factor anaylsis. Two factors for each of five aspects of reading instructionaddressed in the teacher questionnaire were identified (see Table 15 in Chapter V for names of thesefactors). Each pair of factors indicated a skills-based or meaning-based interpretation of the five Aspectsof Reading Instruction. Second-order factor analysis was then conducted on the ten first-order factors inorder to provide a multidimensional representation of teachers’ instructional practice. Two factors wereidentified in this analysis—Strategic Whole Language and Programmatic Skills (refer to Table 16 inChapter V for details of second-order factor results).The decision to regard the two-factor solution as optimal for both the first-and second-order analysiscan be partly explained by the nature of the questionnaire items. Many of the items related to instruction144were constructed to differentiate between two dominant approaches to reading instruction—skills-based andmeaning-emphasis (Lundberg & Linnakyla, 1993). These items tend to represent extremist positions ofthe two opposing perspectives. The resultant factors reflected these differences to some degree at themultiple levels of analysis—i.e., within and across the five aspects of reading instruction, and in the overallfactors of instructional practice. However, the differentiation was not a cut-and-dry view of traditional(skills-based) and holistic (meaning-emphasis) instruction.Although a two-factor solution could appear to invite enforcement of a dichotomy found more in theliterature than in the classroom (Lind, 1993; McCargar, 1994; Moorhead et al., 1994; Walmsley & Adams,1993), this was not the case. Especially in the first-order analysis, constituent variables of each factor werenot consistently reflective of skills-based or meaning-emphasis perspectives. Instead the meaning of severalvariables in each of the five sets of two factors was initially unclear. Careful study of the relative factorloadings along with a more holistic examination of the factor components facilitated meaningfulinterpretation.The final identification of two factors of reading instruction factors-Strategic Whole Language andProgrammatic Skills-represents many previous stages of analysis. The meaning of these two factors isdependent on the meanings of each of the ten first-order factors. In discussing the findings of the firstresearch question then, I will begin by focusing on the first-order factors followed by discussion of thesecond-order factors.First-Order FactorsResults of each factor analysis of the five Aspects of Reading Instruction are discussed in this section.Discussion of each of these results are organized in two main parts. The first part addresses distinguishingfeatures of each factor. Categories of distinguishing features are (a) key concepts or main ideasemphasized, (b) evidence of suggestions of change or evolution within dominant perspectives of readinginstruction, and (c) evidence of multiple interpretations of variables. The second part of each discussionof the first-order factor analysis explores relationships between assumptions about the broader readingcurriculum which could be inferred from the factor’s meaning and those of Traditional, Whole Language,and Strategic perspectives of reading instruction. The assumptions underlying these three major145perspectives in reading instruction were reviewed in Chapter II. (Refer to Table 1 in Chapter II for asummary of these assumptions).Reading Activities: Interactive Strategic (InterStr and Basal-Controlled (BasCon)Please refer to Table 9 in Chapter V for the complete description of these factors.Distinguishing features. The InterStr factor indicates that teachers insure their students are frequentlyengaged in using higher level comprehension strategies. Evidence of the importance of teachers’ emphasison students’ comprehension development suggests the influence of current research in comprehensioninstruction in classroom reading instruction (Dole et al., 1991; Pearson et al., 1992). It is interesting tonote how the primary activities in this factor contrast with those observed in the past. It wasn’t that longago when Durkin (1978-79) found that writing answers to comprehension questions (on worksheets)accounted for most of students’ comprehension instruction time.The lnterStr factor also suggests that a secondary emphasis of students’ reading activities is usinglanguage for authentic communication. Thus it appears that this factor represents a coming together ofapproaches sometimes considered antagonistic (Pearson, 1989). In other words, the InterStr factor seemsto say that teachers should integrate natural language use and higher level processing strategies. Anincreasing number of researchers propose that such an integration will insure the evolution of WholeLanguage rather than risk an imminent demise (Pearson, 1989; Smith & Wham, 1994).The BasCon factor seems to indicate that students are involved in two types of reading activities-working with isolated language skills, and participating in extension activities. The implied meaning ofthis factor is that teachers emphasize both types of activities thereby suggesting that teachers value theimportance of extension activities for all students, not just the more capable ones as was the case in thepast.As reported in the results chapter, several variables loaded significantly on both factors of ReadingActivities thus suggesting that the same activities can be diversely interpreted. For example, listening tostudents reading aloud can be an assessment activity (assessing fluency and accuracy) or a communicativeactivity (sharing a special book). Drawing in response to reading and diagramming story content can beexplained as extension activities consonant with a skills-based curriculum, or alternatively, as integral146components of strategic or holistic approaches to reading instruction. These variable interpretations ofsingle instructional practices lend support to the notion of the critical role of the teacher’s theoreticalperspective, or philosophy, in shaping practice (Aitwerger et al., 1987; Edelsky et al., 1991).Of particular interest in this issue of alternative interpretations is the strongest determinant of theBasCon factor—dramatizing stories. As with some variables of the InterStr factor, there appears to bedifferent perspectives on this activity amongst teachers—as simply acting out a story with an entertainmentfocus, or as role drama with a constructivist, developmental focus. Since it is unlikely that the work withisolated language skills which characterizes this factor is underscored by constructivist views of languagelearning, dramatizing stories in the BasCon factor probably means acting out a story with an entertainmentfocus.Classroom observations have found that teachers who are attempting to move towards holisticinstruction can adopt such practices as above (i.e., drama, student story reading, text diagramming, anddrawing) while still maintaining a skills-based curriculum (Scharer & Detwiler, 1992; Siera & Combs,1990). Similarly, Whole Language teachers can use such traditional activities as silent, independentreading and journals, but embedded in a Whole Language framework (Edelsky et al., 1991). In sum,although there are some reading activities which are exclusively consistent with particular approaches,others are subject to interpretation.The first section of Table 28 summarizes the important ideas, signs of evolution, and variables withmultiple interpretations which are suggested in the two factors of Reading Activities—Interactive Strategicand Basal-Controlled.Relationships of factor assumvtions. Findings from this analysis indicate two distinct types ofreading activities teachers should use in their classrooms: traditional discrete skill activities (BasCon), orstrategic and holistic activities (InterStr). These contrasting types of reading activities suggest informationabout the encompassing curriculum—its substance and controlling agents. Specifically, it seems likely that147Table 28Summary of First-Order Factors: Emphases. Indications of Perspective Evolution, and Variables withMultiple InternretationsAspect of reading Factor Emphases Suggestions of evolution Variables with multipleinstruction in perspectives of reading interpretationinstructionInteractive Strategic Comprehension strateg- Integration of strategic Reading aloud (communicaies reading and whole lan- tion vs. assessment)Reading Activities guageDrawing and diagrammingBasal-Controlled Enrichment, vocabulary, None (strategies vs. extension)comprehension skills, Drama (role drama vs.graphophonics extension)Direct Instruction Ask questions; model Shift from no comprehen- Ask questions to assess andsion instruction to active deepen understanding,instruction model, access prior knowlInstructional Strategies edge, student verbalizationof strategy (behaviorist vs.cognitive)Shift from passive enviImplicit Support Encouragement ronmental to active sup- Noneport(Table 28 continued)Aspect of reading Factor Emphases Indications of evolution in Variables with multipleinstruction perspectives of reading interpretationinstructionSystematic Program Hierarchically structured None Children should alwaysmaterials; Teacher as understand what theycorrector; read (objective/correctViews of reading Grouping/Standardized content vs. plausible, trainstruction learner nsactive interpretation)Holistic Immersion Self-generated materials; Acknowledgement of Nonedaily home reading pro- accountabilitygram; careful recordkeeping. Rejection ofhierarchical materialsOpen and Contex- Authentic contexts; Reliance on teacher Listening to student readtual Records of student inter- knowledge of reading aloud (graphophonics vs.ests; Process measures process graphophonics plus othermeaning-making stratAssessment Methods egies;Closed and Con- Formal written context; None Oral question (correctstrained Product measures content of text vs. individual interpretation)Narrow and Objec- Word recognition, Continuation of reading Nonetive vocabulary, decoding as a bundle of skills”Assess ment FocusBroad and Subjec- Background knowledge None Nonetive (cognitive); literaryappreciation (aesthetic);amount of reading(affective)148149the BasCon factor would be associated with an overall curriculum content of hierarchically-ordered discreteskills dictated by basal materials and the teacher. These assumptions are most similar to those ofTraditional reading instruction. The InterStr factor could likely indicate an overall curriculum content ofcomprehension strategies and authentic communication activities controlled by the teacher and students.These assumptions are most congruent with those of both Strategic Reading and Whole Language.The first section of Table 29 summarizes the assumptions one could infer about the broader readingcurriculum associated with the InterStr and BasCon factors.Instructional Strategies: Direct Instruction (Dirln) and Imvlicit Sunnort (ImSup)Please refer to Table 10 in Chapter V for complete information about the constitution of thesefactors.Distinguishing features. The Dirln factor suggests that teachers use active teaching strategies andfocus instruction directly on specific texts. In contrast, the ImSup factor seems to say that teachingstrategies is more environmentally-centered with the teacher facilitating students’ positive attitudes towardsreading.At first glance, the Dirin factor could be interpreted as evidence of teachers’ adoption ofrecommendations of current comprehension instruction research (Pearson et al., 1992). However, thatinterpretation assumes a sociocognitive or constructivist view of comprehension instruction (Pressely et al.,1992). The significant loading of graded materials on this factor makes it more probable that theinstructional strategies stressed in this factor are aligned with behaviorist views of teaching and learningreading. That is, the Dirln factor probably represents strategies derived from earlier process-productresearch about effective reading instruction (Rosenshine, 1980; Rosenshine & Stevens, 1984), a view whichin turn was embedded in a scope and sequence skills-based curriculum.The ImSup factor seems to provide evidence of teachers’ continued acceptance of the educationalimplicatons of child language development theory and natural reading development. Child languagedevelopment research explains the adult’s influence on a child’s written language development in terms ofprovision of implicit and explicit strategies (Harste et al., 1984; Heath, 1982; Snow & Ninio, 1986; Wells,1986). Implicit strategies are most important in the ImSup factor—i.e., encouraging parental involvement150Table 29Summary of Assumntions of First-order Factors and Their Relationships to Assumptions of Traditional.Whole Lanuaee, and Strategic Reading Perspectives of Reading InstructionAssumptionsViews of ReadingInstructionSubstanceControlMethodReading DevelopmentInteractive strategicComprehension strategies (SR)Teacher and student (SR & WL)Direct instructionTeacher-centered(S-R) (Tr)Taught (Tr)Systematic programFactor 2Basal-controlledDiscrete skills (Tr)Program/teacher (Tr)Implicit supportStudent-centered (WL)Caught (WL)Holistic immersionAssessmentMethodsRole of teacherMaterialsMeaning-makingEvaluator (Tr)Imposed, structured (Tr)Objective (Tr)Open and AuthenticFacilitator (WL)Derived, literature (WL)Generative, transactive (WI, SR)Closed end constrainedAssessment FocusView of learnerView of teacherCurriculum controlGoal of curriculumReading processIndividual (WL, SRIProfessional (WL,SR)Student and teacher (WL, SRINarrow and ObjectiveSkills mastery (Tr)Bottom-up (Tr)Normative (Tr)Technician (Tr)Program/Teacher (TnBroad and subjectiveIndividual development (WL)Top-down IWL)Assumption Focus Factor 1Aspect of ReadingInstructionReading ActivitiesInstructional StrategiesNote. Tr = Traditional; WL = Whole Language; SR = Strategic Reading151and encouraging the child’s access and time with books. Educational implications of the role of implicitstrategies are the ones most valued by Whole Language advocates and speak to the notion that “the childis already programmed to read”(Smith & Goodman, 1971, pp. 179-180). Explicit strategies (accessingprior knowledge and student description of comprehension strategy) are secondary but integral componentsof the ImSup factor. There is certainly a move in the literature towards endorsement of the use of moreexplicit instructional strategies in meaning-centered instruction (Adams, 1990; Anderson et al., 1985;Cazden, 1992). However, the fact that none of the defining instructional strategies of the Direct Instructionfactor related even weakly to ImSup reinforces the interpretation that its predominant focus is on implicitstrategies.The second section of Table 28 summarizes the emphases, evidence of signs of evolution withinperspectives, and variables with multiple interpretations indicated in the two factors of Instructional Strategies—Direct Instruction and Implicit Support.Relationships of factor assumptions. Contrasting assumptions about methods of instruction as wellas about the role of the teacher could be inferred from the above interpretation of the two factors ofinstructional strategies. The Dirln factor seems to reflect teacher-centered instruction directed towards’students’ mastery of scope and sequence curriculum. These assumptions represent those of Traditionalreading instruction. Suppositions about instruction in the ImSup factor accord most closely with the WholeLanguage tenet of providing rich literacy environments from which natural development can optimallyproceed.Teachers’ assumptions about reading instruction which could be inferred both from the Dirln andImSup factors are summarized in the second section of Table 29.Teacher Views of Reading Instruction: Systematic Program (SvsPro and Holistic Immersion (HolImPlease refer to Table 11 in Chapter V for a listing of the variables of these factors.Distinguishing features. The SysPro factor appears to say that teachers believe students need toproceed in a lock-step fashion through structured reading programs with the teacher demanding accurateperformance throughout. In contrast, the Hoilni factor suggests that teachers believe they should supportchild-centered holistic language experiences both at home and school, provide students with opportunities152to engage in enjoyable reading experiences, and keep careful records of students’ reading development.Additionally, the Hollin factor indicates that teachers value the use of children’s trade books, but notgraded reading materials.Teachers’ apparent value of highly structured reading materials in the SysPro factor suggests thatteachers should favor a task-analytic approach to teaching reading and a scope and sequence order ofinstruction with skill mastery as the gatekeeper to progression. It appears that grouping for instruction inthis factor is probably dictated by the program rather than individual need. The high demand for accuracywhich marks this factor is consistent with other variables in the factor which indicate the need for teachersto constantly monitor and continuously assess students based on standard criteria. These are the hallmarksof effective reading instruction identified by earlier process-product research (Rosenshine & Stevens, 1984).The existence of this factor suggests the continuation of this legacy to some degree in Canada (BC).The importance of assessment in the Hollm factor-as indicated by the variable about careful record-keeping-reflects a current development in the Whole Language literature. The rejection of fonnal andstandardized assessment measures by Whole Language advocates along with increasing concern foraccountability has stimulated a need to develop alternative forms and criteria of assessment (e.g., Valenciaet al., 1994). The fact that careful record keeping is a strong determinant of this factor suggests thatteachers are striving to integrate individual monitoring within student-centered, literature-based classrooms.The one common variable between factors—the importance of children understanding what theyread—can be variously interpreted in context of two different perspectives of reading instruction. That is,understanding from a skills-based perspective is a matter of “correct and accurate” interpretation whereasunderstanding from a holistic, child-centered perspective assumes a more subjective and plausibleinterpretation (Goodman, 1985; Pearson et al., 1992).The main emphases, signs of perspective development, and variables with multiple interpretationswhich are implied in the SysPro and HolIm factors are summarized in the third section of Table 28.Relationships of factor assumptions. The two factors of teachers’ Views of Reading Instructionsuggest contrasting assumptions about the role of the teacher, curricular materials, and the source andprocess of meaning. The SysPro factor seem to indicate beliefs in the key place of structured readingmaterials, an evaluative role of the teacher, correct interpretation of text, and a unidirectional process of153interpretation. These assumptions align most closely with Traditional reading instruction. Implied in theHolIm factor are beliefs in the value of using literature, the facilitative role of the teacher, plausibleinterpretations of text, and a multidimensional process of interpretation. These assumptions most closelyrelate to those of Whole Language, and somewhat to those of Strategic Reading.Assumptions about the role of the teacher, curricular materials, and the source and process ofmeaning inferred from interpretations of the two factors of Views of Reading Instruction are summarizedin the third section of Table 29.Assessment Methods: Open and Contextual (OpConfl. and Closed and Constrained (CICon)For complete information about the variables of these factors, please refer to Table 12 in ChapterV.Distinguishing features. The Open and Contextual factor appears to say that teachers base assessmentof their students’ reading abilities on behaviors observed in authentic contexts and knowledge of theirstudents’ interests. The Closed and Constrained factor implies that teachers rely on formal written contextsonly. The types of assessment methods emphasized in each factor also suggest that teachers look eitherat reading processes (OpCont) or products (ClCon).Unlike formal means of assessment, effective use of open methods is based on authentic indicatorsof reading development and relies on teachers’ professional knowledge of reading development. Thevariables of the OpCont factor suggest the kinds of knowledge teachers should have. Specifically, listeningto students read aloud requires knowledge about the graphophonic, lexical, and syntactic cueing systems.Holding discussions and interviews with students requires knowledge about comprehension, particularlystudents’ use of higher order cueing systems and comprehension strategies. Finally, knowledge of students’interests acknowledges the motivational aspects of reading development. Evidence of the types ofassessment methods represented in the Open and Contextual factor which teachers value suggests awarenessof the most critical factor of instruction—”a deep and thorough understanding of the knowledge andprocesses involved in becoming literate” (Adams, 1991, p. 212).Assessment methods common to both factors illustrate the importance of the role of perspective. Forexample, teachers can listen to students read aloud and ask oral questions for two quite different purposes.154Durkin (1978-79) found that the most common comprehension instruction strategies were assessingstudents’ accurate recall of passage content and making use of practice exercises in workbooks. In ameaning-based perspective, oral questions are regarded as a way of scaffolding comprehension development(Pearson & Dole, 1987; Pearson et al., 1992).Following the common axiom that assessment drives the curriculum (Resnick & Resmck, 1992), theapparent rejection of explicit student-centered variables (interviews and student interests) on the CiConfactor suggests the maintenance of a normative scope and sequence curriculum. In contrast, the impliedsupport of student-centered assessment methods in the OpCont factor suggests the possibility of moreauthentic individual instruction than presumably provided in basal approaches, in terms of both materialsand needs.The third section of Table 28 summarizes the important ideas, evolving views in the field, andvariables with multiple interpretations which are suggested in the two factors of Assessment Methods.Relationships of factor assumutions. The two factors of Assessment Methods suggest teachers mayhold distinct views of the learner, the teacher, and the agents of curriculum control. The OpCont factorappears to relect views of the learner as an individual, the teacher as a professional, and the students andteacher as agent(s) of curricular control. These assumptions relate most to those of Whole Language andStrategic Reading. The ClCon factor seems to be associated with views of the learner as normative, theteacher as technician, and the teacher and/or program as agents of curricular control. These assumptionsreflect those of Traditional reading instruction.The fourth section of Table 29 summarizes teachers’ assumptions about the learner, the teacher, andsource of curriculum control which could be inferred from interpretations of the two factors of AssessmentMethods—Open and Contextual and Closed and Constrained.Assessment Focus: Narrow and Objective (NaiOb’. and Broad and Subjective (BdSub)Please refer to Table 14 for identification of the constituent variables of these factors.Distinguishing features. The one-factor solution (please refer to Table 13 in Chapter V forcomposition of this factor) of this aspect of reading instruction suggests that teachers use a wide spectrumof skills, strategies, and attitudes as criteria for assessment of their students’ reading abilities. However,155word recognition and vocabulary are important criteria in both the one-factor solution and in the NarObfactor of the two-factor solution. It is widely recognized that word recognition and vocabulary are keyfactors of comprehension abilities (Anderson & Freebody, 1981; Davis, 1944, 1968). Additionally, somerecent reading process research concludes that mastery of fluent word identification processes is requisiteto comprehension processes (Velluntino, 1991). Other studies find that teachers of beginner readers ingeneral emphasize small units of comprehension regardless of approach (Dahi & Freppon, 1995; Freppon,1991; McCargar, 1994). Thus the emphasis on word recognition and vocabulary in grade three,traditionally the time for beginning comprehension instruction, suggests that teachers are continuing toascribe importance to these components of early reading.Findings from the two-factor solution indicate that teachers variously emphasize narrow (NarOb) andbroad (BrSub) facets of reading. This interpretation reflects a key issue in the “great debate” literature.While one group of educators supports traditional measurable units as valid criteria of student learning(McKenna et al., 1990), another group values broader personal, social, and political outcomes of literacyinstruction (Harste, 1994; Shannon, 1994).Again based on the assumption that assessment drives the curriculum, the relative magnitude of thevariables constituting the NarOb factor suggests that direction of instruction is from part to whole, withthe most emphasis on smaller parts (word recognition and vocabulary). The significant influence ofcurriculum on students’ concepts of reading is a current interest in reading research (Freebody et al., 1991;Hagerty et al., 1989; Mangano & Allen, 1986; Rasinski & deFord, 1985; Wing, 1991). It follows thatsome students may be forming concepts of reading as a “bundle of skills”, thus reinforcing bottom-upmodels of reading. Some educators argue that assessment and curriculum focused on discrete skills is notan assessment of real reading (Edelsky et al., 1991). In contrast, the emphasis on the larger dimensionsof reading in the BrSub factor suggests that teachers should use a reading curriculum focused more on thewhole, and specifically on the cognitive, affective, and aesthetic factors of reading.Important concepts along with indicators of current trends in the field which are suggested in thefactors of Assessment Methods are summarized in the last section of Table 28.Relationshins of factor assumutions. The two factors of Assessment Focus appear to depict teachers’opposing curricular goals and views of the reading process. The NarOb factor seems to represent the goal156of skills mastery and the belief in a bottom-up view of reading. Both of these suppositions closely matchassumptions of Traditional reading instruction. The BrSub factor seems to reflect the goal of individualdevelopment and the view of reading as a top-down process. Both of these assumptions correspond mostwith those of Whole Language.The last section of Table 29 summarizes teachers’ assumptions about curricular goals and views ofthe reading process which could be inferred from interpretations of the two factors of Assessment Focus.Second-Order FactorsAlthough the discussion of first-order factor analyses illumined distinctive features of each of the fiveAspects of Reading Instruction identified in the teacher questionnaire, the resultant description ofinstruction remains limited to a segmented view of instruction. There is consensus in the literature bothof teaching in general (Grossman, 1990; Shulman, 1986b), and reading instruction in particular (deFord,1985; Harste & Burke, 1977; Kamil & Peterson, 1979) that teachers teach from an overarching frameworkrather than holding one perspective on assessment methods, another on instructional strategies, yet anotheron reading development, etc. In other words instruction is more realistically an integral whole, not apiecemeal collection of practices and beliefs. A second-order factor analysis of all ten factors of the fiveAspects of Reading Instruction permited a holistic, multidimensional view of the central constructs ofreading instruction in Canada (BC).Two factors of teachers’ instructional practice in reading emerged from the second-order factoranalysis: Strategic Whole Language and Programmatic Skills (Refer to Table 16 in Chapter V for detailedresults of the second-order factor analysis.). The following discussion of results of the second-order factoranalysis describes the constituent assumptions-or properties-of each factor and evaluates the integralcomposition of each factor in light of current divisions in the literature of reading instruction.Strategic Whole LanguageCollectively, the variables constituting the Strategic Whole Language factor seem to say that teacherspractice the kind of holistic, meaning-centered instruction described in the Whole Language literature.157Additionally, the clear emphasis on comprehension strategies as evidenced in the primary loading of theInterStr variable implies that teachers particularly attend to the development of their students’ higher leveltext processing abilities. Thus the Strategic Whole Language factor appears to reflect a trend amongsteducators to encourage integration of holistic and strategic approaches to literacy instruction (Adams, 1990;Anderson et al., 1985; Cazden, 1992; Pearson, 1989).It also appears that teachers regard a communicative view of language as integral to student strategydevelopment. The Strategic Whole Language factor indicates that students read books to discuss them withtheir peers, their teacher, and their parents. Although the property of a communicative view of languagederives largely from the influence of the InterStr variable, supportive evidence for the presence of this viewis also found in two of its other variables: OpCont and ImSup.Embedded in a communicative view of language are assumptions about authentic language use andmeaningful texts (Altwerger et al. 1987, Froese, 1994a; Goodman, 1986a, 1989). In the Strategic WholeLanguage factor, it appears that teachers guide students toward books related to their individual interestsas part of classroom assessment methods. This practice also acknowledges the role of intrinsic motivationin reading development. Students read more when they are interested thereby practicing more, gainingproficiency and confidence.The emphasis on meaning in this factor is also the basis of language integration, another key tenetof Whole Language. Evidence from both the InterStr and Hollin variables indicates that teachers insurethat their students are engaged in integrated language experiences in which they read and write their ownas well as others’ texts, listen to book discussions and storybooks read by the teacher, and represent theirresponses in drawing. The apparent favoring of student-centered learning in this factor suggests theimportance of giving students more opportunity overall to influence both the learning content and processesin this factor, another feature of meaning-based approaches (Hiebert & Fisher, 1990).The significant loadings of the variables ImSup and bum (Holim) on this factor suggest thatinstruction is based on a naturalistic view of reading development. The use of implicit instructionalstrategies (ImSup) and the belief in child-centered holistic literacy experiences (Hollm) requires teachers’ongoing provision of engaging reading experiences. In this way, the role of the teacher appears to befacilitative in this factor. However, the role of the teacher does not seem limited to implicit support as158indicated by significant loading (.39) of Dirln on this factor. The apparent significance attributed to Dirlnin addition to the stronger-loading variables representative of belief in naturalistic development (ImSup andHolIm) suggests this factor means that teachers use explicit strategy instruction while also providing richenvironments for authentic literacy experiences.Some inferences can be drawn from the above discussion about teachers’ views of the reading processand about development of teachers’ knowledge of reading development. The negative loadings of a groupof variables on the Holim first-order factor indicates teachers reject traditional scope and sequencecurricula. Instead, as discussed above, the Strategic Whole Language factor represents the use ofmeaningful literature as a central component of the curriculum as well as the basis for individualizedinstruction, as implicated in the OpCon variable.In the Strategic Whole Language factor, it appears the emphasis of instruction is on the large unitsof meaning in the cognitive, affective, and aesthetic domains (BdSub). Additionally, it seems teachersfocus on all aspects of reading development but in the context of authentic literacy events. These featuressuggest a movement away from extremist top-down views of the reading process to a more balancedinteractive focus. Finally, this factor seems to be saying teachers rely on their own knowledge of thereading process and reading development rather than following prescriptions based on student performancein workbooks.Programmatic SkillsThe factor that I have called Programmatic Skills appears to represent behaviorist notions of effectivereading instruction and the continuation of scope and sequence approaches to reading instruction.Traditional reading instruction, which embodies these two concepts, has maintained its position in theclassroom more as a culture of beliefs than as a body of research (Calfee & Drum, 1978). However, somecurrent research appears to provide support for traditional practices by highlighting the foundational rolesof phonics and word recognition in beginning reading, a point more relevant to early stages of formalinstruction (e.g., see review in Vellentino). Other current research supports the use of direct instruction(e.g., Pearson & Dole, 1987; Pearson & Fielding, 1991). In other words, new conceptualizations of pastpractices and assumptions affect clear understanding of how teachers are teaching. The question remains159whether “current traditional reading instruction” is grounded in past beliefs or new knowledge of thereading process, reading development, and reading instruction.The focus of instruction on easily codifiable skills of reading (NarOb), the strongest loading variableon Programmatic Skills, seems to support the presence of two primary assumptions of Traditional readinginstruction: that reading is a linear process composed of discrete skills (Gough, 1972) and that the best wayto learn such a complex activity is to master its constituent parts in a sequential, hierarchical order (Gray,1919). Further indication of this perspective is found in the significant loading of the BasCon variablewhich emphasizes students’ engagement in learning discrete skills. However, the BasCon variable alsosuggests that more prominence is given to extension activities than in the past as indicated by the significantloadings for dramatizing stories, playing reading games, and drawing in response to reading.Not only does the Programmatic Skills factor suggest that teachers assume a task-analytic view oflearning to read, but it also implies that teachers endorse a rigid scope and sequence curriculum structureas evidenced by the significant loading of the variable SysPro. Although SysPro is the fourth mostinfluential variable, its significance in the Programmatic Skills factor suggests that teachers rely oncarefully sequenced reading material. Closely related to this suggestion is the implication that instructionis structured around basal readers. Additionally, the indication that teachers use workbooks and formaltests as primary means of assessment (ClCon) also suggests the use of basal reading packages, as it isunlikely teachers would use such methods apart from inclusive basal programs.The type of instruction reflected in this factor appears consistent with recommendations for effectivereading instruction derived from behaviorist process-product research (Rosenshine & Stevens, 1984). Putsimply, this factor implies that instruction is teacher-centered and systematic. More active instruction ofcomprehension skills seems to be valued as well although it appears that students’ follow-up practice wouldbe limited to exercises in workbooks.Table 30 summarizes definitive characteristics of the two second-order factors.160Table 30Summary of Central Oualities of Second Order FactorsStrategic whole language (Factor 1)Comprehension strategiesStudent and teacher control of curriculum content and processCommunicative view of languageIndividual developmentTeacher knowledgeLanguage integrationIndividualized learningProgrammatic skills (Factor 2)Mastery of discrete skillsTask-analytic view of reading and reading instructionActive, teacher-centered instructionProgram- and teacher-controlled curriculumImposed scope and sequence curricular structureDecontextualized skill practice161Summary of Second-Order Factor AnalysisThe final goal of the first research question was to identify factors of reading instruction in theirsimplest form. This was achieved by conducting first- then second-order factor analysis on items in theteacher questionnaire related to teachers’ instructional practice.Underlying dimensions of the two final factors of grade three reading instruction in Canada (BC)reflect issues and trends in the literature. The Programmatic Skills factor suggests that teacher-centeredinstruction continues (Cuban, 1984) along with beliefs in hierarchical skill mastery (Langer, 1984; I.anger& Allington, 1992; Goodman et al., 1987; Dole et al., 1991). On the other hand, the suggestion of anintegration of two holistic perspectives in the Strategic Whole Language factor—Strategic Reading andWhole Language—corresponds with proposals for literacy instruction based on various syntheses ofdifferent perspectives (Cazden, 1992; Langer, 1991; Speigel, 1992).Research Question TwoGiven derived reading instruction factors, what profiles can be developed to identify differenthomogeneous clusters of teachers?Although a description of current reading instruction was derived through factor analysis, neither theproportion of teachers representing the factors nor the degree to which teachers adhere to the two factorswas determined. Cluster analysis based on teachers’ scores on the ten second-order factors was conductedto address these matters as well as other information of interest. Four groups of teachers were identifiedand named on the basis of their relative profiles on the Strategic Whole Language and Programmatic Skillsfactors. The group names are as follows: Eclectic (42% of teachers), Conservative Whole Language (25%of teachers), Basalized Whole Language (18% of teachers), and Uncategorized (16% of teachers).(Detailed findings from the cluster analysis are displayed in Tables 18, 19 and 20 as well as Figure 2 inChapter V.)162Further insights gained from results of the cluster analysis will be discussed in three categories: (a)comparison of variables between groups (b) comparison of between-group patterns and (c) relationships ofinstructional profiles of teachers in B.C. to other research findings about reading instruction.Comuaring Variables Between GroupsAlthough the four groups of teachers differ to some degree on all ten variables, between-groupdifferences are most pronounced on two variables—InterStr in Strategic Whole Language and Dirln inProgrammatic Skills.On the Strategic Whole Language factor, the Interactive Strategic variable accounted for the greatestdifferences between groups. One possible explanation of this finding is that research on comprehensionstrategies is a most recent development in the field of reading instruction and is therefore only beginningto influence classroom instruction. Attempts to explain the dramatic differences in emphasis oncomprehension strategy instruction are limited by a decontextualized view of this variable. That is, thedata does not permit speculation about the manner in which the students are using the strategies. The twogroups which do not emphasize strategies—Uncategorized and Eclectic—could either be teaching traditionalcomprehension skills (i.e., sequencing events, finding main idea etc.) or simply ignoring higher levelcomprehension development. The two groups emphasizing comprehension strategies to somedegree—Conservative Whole Language and Basalized Whole Language—could be framing instruction ineither constructivist or behaviorist learning theory. Closer examination of each group’s profile (discussedbelow) helps explain the differences.A similar wide dispersion of differences between teacher groups exists for the Dirin variable. Twogroups, or 58% of teachers (Uncategorized and Eclectic) tend not to use direct instruction and two groups,or 43% of teachers (Basalized Whole Language and Conservative Whole Language) use it to some degree.It is with the 43% who use direct instruction that understanding their perspective is critical. Directinstruction can be carried out within a behaviorist (Rosenshine, 1980) or a constructivist perspective, inwhich case it is termed “explicit strategy instruction” (Pearson & Dole, 1987). Analysis of the broaderinstructional context of this variable for each group helps explain whether teachers’ use of Dirln is orientedto skills mastery or strategy development. This point will also be further discussed below.163Some interesting findings from comparisons of other group differences emerged. The fact that allgroups except Conservative Whole Language, or 72% of teachers, do not exclusively emphasize a broadfocus of assessment (BdSub) implies the existence of teachers’ beliefs about their responsibility for teachinga range of reading dimensions at this grade level. Similarly 60% of the teachers (Eclectic and ConservativeWhole Language) take a neutral stand on narrow focus of assessment (NarOb) suggesting that most teachersaim for a balanced reading curriculum. Taken together, teachers appear to hold an interactive view ofreading with emphasis on the more measurable elements of reading. Eighty-four percent of teachers (allbut Uncategorized) use authentic methods of assessment (OpCont) to some degree and only 16% absolutelyreject them. The least differences between groups occurs with ImSup. This can be largely explained bythe grade level—teachers of young children naturally provide encouragement of their students’development.Comnaring Between-Group Profile PatternsThe major finding from this analysis is that no one group of teachers is extremely representative ofeither perspective of reading instruction represented in the Strategic Whole Language or ProgrammaticSkills factors. Instead, all groups but the Uncategorized group represent various degrees and natures ofeclecticism.The largest group of teachers—Eclectic—has average profiles on both factors and is the most eclecticof all groups. Teachers in this group do not hold strongly to either a meaning-based or skills-basedperspective but take a middle-of-the-road approach to reading instruction. Theirs appears to be aconservative eclecticism as evidenced by their lack of attention to activities involving comprehensionstrategies (InterStr).The second group of teachers—Basalized Whole Language —represents a hybrid perspective. Hereteachers seem to maintain a scope and sequence curriculum, usually in the form of basal reader programsas well as teacher-centered instruction. This group’s high profile on Programmatic Skills demonstrates thischaracteristic. Teachers in this group may also use some literature and include comprehension strategieswhich are now part of basal reader programs. However, leaders in cognitively-based comprehensioninstruction caution against the use of basal-based comprehension instruction: “Even the most avant-garde164of the 1990’s editions of basals reveal vestiges of a discrete-skills commitment (Pearson et al., 1992, p.146).The Conservative Whole Language teacher group has the highest profile on the Strategic WholeLanguage factor with a particularly strong emphasis on the InterStr and BrSub variables. This group’saverage profile on the Programmatic Skills factor suggests that they maintain a balanced focus ofassessment (NarOb), and use Direct Instruction infrequently. Generally, this group eschews the use ofbasal materials (CiCon, SysPro) and student practice of discrete skills (BasCon). Teachers’ infrequent useof direct instructional strategies may hinder students’ optimal learning of the comprehension strategies theyspend time doing as the literature is quite adamant that explicit instruction is necessary for learning thesestrategies (Dole et al., 1991; Pearson & Dole, 1987)Finally, the Uncategorized group’s low profiles on both factors indicates that these teachers are weakin both perspectives of reading instruction represented in the Strategic Whole Language and ProgrammaticSkills factors. Although they constitute the smallest number of teachers, it is a large enough group toinvite investigation of what they actually do in the classroom.Relationships of Instructional Profiles to the LiteratureThe fact that three of the four groups—or 84% of teachers—are clearly eclectic in their views andpractices of reading instruction is consistent with other studies (Hosking, 1991; Lind, 1993; Maguire,1989; McCargar, 1994; O’Flavahan & McConnell, 1990; Walmsley & Adams, 1993) as well as withpragmatic views of teaching (McKenna et al., 1994; Moorhead et al., 1994). Although some argue forpurity of perspective (Edeisky et aL, 1991; Goodman, 1989), it appears that exclusive conformity with oneperspective-at least as defmed in this study-is more of an ideal than a reality.Finding that eclecticism is the norm raises questions about the validity of labelling certain schoolsystems as adhering to one approach over others. British Columbia is known to be a active region ofWhole Language programs (Fennell, 1993; McConaughy, 1988; Simner, 1993) yet findings from this studyshow quite another picture of reading instruction. In this study even the highest scoring group on themeaning-centered factor (Conservative Whole Language) had average scores on the basal, skills-basedfactor. This pattern of instructional eclectism was consistent across all four groups of teachers. Earlier165findings from the TEA teacher data of teachers’ self-reports about their instructional methods showed only23% used Whole Language, while 56.6% reported using an eclectic approach (Froese, 1995). Keepingin mind Canada’s and British Columbia’s legacy of child-centered education, one may surmise that thenature of eclecticism in more conservative educational systems such as the United States (Shannon, 1 989b)would reveal lower profiles across the Strategic Whole Language factor and average profiles across theProgrammatic Skills factor.The teacher change literature documents the conservative nature of teachers’ evolution of literacyinstruction (Courtland, 1992; Ray, Lee & Stansell, 1991; Richardson et al., 1991; Scharer, 1992). InBritish Columbia—where professional and grass-roots support for meaning-based perspectives of readinginstruction are strongly in place—teachers have not abandoned basal materials, scope and sequencecurricula, a focus on discrete skills, and teacher-centered instruction. Instead teachers appear to be usingliterature in various degrees of conjunction with basal programs and appear to be cautiously moving towardconstructivist-based student-centered learning from behaviorist teacher-centered instruction. Finally, thereis implicit evidence that teachers are developing professional knowledge about reading development andmoving toward authentic individualized instruction.What remains unknown are explanations of teachers’ eclecticism. Current theory in the study ofteaching supports an explanation of conscious choice (Shulman, 1986b). That is, teachers are believed tobe intentionally serving their students’ individual needs, each of which requires different activities andinstructional strategies. Teachers fine-tune instruction to fit particular students and situations (Anderson,1989; Lampert & Clark, 1990). Another explanation of eclecticism relates to the broader teacher and theeducational situation. The effect of several teacher and student background variables on instructionalpractice will be discussed in the next section.Summary of Instructional ProfilesSome of the second-order factor variables of reading instruction distinguish groups of teachers morethan others. Two of these distinguishing variables, InterStr and Dirln, represent the most recentdevelopments and areas of discussion in the literature. Implicated in the comparative scores of focus ofassessment (NarOb and BdSub) is an interactive view of reading since teachers appear not to be focusing166exclusively on either narrow or broad dimensions of reading ability. Comparison of group profilesconfirms that eclecticism is the norm in British Columbia as it seems to be elsewhere. However, thiseclecticism is more conservative than liberal since no significant percentage of teachers showed a highprofile on Strategic Whole Language and simultaneously, a low profile on Programmatic Skills. Finally,the validity of British Columbia’s status as a “whole language province” is questioned. Although BritishColumbia is known as a whole language province, a more accurate picture is consistent with a trend toremain anchored in traditional perspectives while cautiously exploring new waters. Whether teachers’eclecticism is consciously decided or otherwise influenced cannot be discerned from data used in this study.Research Question ThreeGiven such differentiated clusters of teachers, what differences exist among these groups on measuresof teachers’ characteristics and classroom conditions?Analyses for this question were based on two groups of Teacher Background variables: one groupof eight variables pertaining to Teacher Characteristics and one group of four variables related to ClassroomConditions. For both groups of variables no significant differences were found among teacher groups.Results of correlational analyses of teacher groups on Teacher Characteristics and Classroom Conditionsare summarized in Table 21 in Chapter V.Teacher CharacteristicsTeacher Characteristic variables fall into three general groups: educational factors (Post-secondaryEducation, Preservice Training, Years of Teaching, Further Study of Reading, and Professional Reading,Casual Reading), instructional aims (Comprehension, Enjoyment, and Critical Thinking), and organizationalmatters (Grouping and Homework).In terms of educational factors, studies have shown that experienced teachers tend to have morecomplex, multidimensional instructional practice than do novice teachers (Duffy, 1993; Kinzer, 1988;Richardson et al., 1991). Additionally, experienced teachers tend to be more successful in implementingnew comprehension strategies (Gaskins et al., 1993). None of the teacher groups in this study were167characterized as exclusively representing one or the other perspective (Programmatic Skills or StrategicWhole Language). Based on the finding of no significant differences among groups on any of theeducational variables, one could speculate that both novice and experienced teachers in British Columbiabelieve that grade three students need to develop a range of reading skills and attitudes, and that a varietyof methods facilitates that development. The difference then between the novice and experienced teachersin this regard could be less in the belief per se than in its formation. Whereas the novice teachers drawfrom their own experiences in learning to read and from teacher training, experienced teachers also drawfrom years in the classroom.Noteworthy is the pattern of nearly identical means and standard deviations of all three instructionalaims across teacher groups. These aims are higher level aims, in contrast to such aims as decoding,vocabulary, and learning letter-sound relationships. This suggests the use of different means to similarends as has been recently found in another re-analysis of the LEA Reading Literacy Study which comparedinstruction-achievement relationships between countries (Froese, 1995).Since results of analyses of teacher groups by Teacher Characteristics as defined in this study showedno significant differences among groups, it is possible that other more discriininant variables exist whichwere not available for analysis. Given the multiple dimensions and the complexity of teaching, perhapsstudies framed in qualitative designs would better detect meaningful teacher variables of instructionalpractice. Qualitative studies investigating teacher change are successfully revealing factors such asparticipation, collaboration, and ownership that at least in individual instances promote or inhibit change(e.g., Bruneau, 1992; Button, 1992; Freeman et al., 1993; Pace, 1992; Scharer & Detwiler, 1992).Classroom ConditionsAs with the Teacher Characteristic variables, no Classroom Condition variables were statisticallysignificantly correlated with teacher groups.Some types of Classroom Condition variables used in this study are believed to affect teachers’transition into new perspectives or methodologies—class size (Duffy & Roehler, 1986), amount of readingmaterials (McLean et aL, 1993), staff and administrative support (Freeman et al., 1993,; Moss, 1990).However, my study did not measure change, but simply one moment in time—an interesting time,168however, in Canada (BC) in that a new provincial meaning-based curriculum was in initial stages ofimplementation. The fact that even the teacher group with the highest profile on the meaning-based factorwas not affected by Classroom Conditions suggests that teachers could be affected by other classroomvariables than those analyzed in this study.Descriptive statistics about the number of ESL students per class in British Columbia were surprisingin themselves. There are a growing number of districts in the Lower Mainland (Vancouver area) whoseenrolment of ESL (English as a second language) students is over 50%. Based on the lEA province-widesample however, only 25% of classrooms enroll three or more ESL students, while 42% reported enrollingnone. The provincial mean was only 2.6. Given this distribution, it is possible that the number of ESLstudents would not have a significant effect on a provincial sample. It is possible that investigation of thisvariable restricted to Lower Mainland populations would reveal differences among teachers given thecommonly-held assumption that “students who find learning to learn read difficult” (Allington, 1991) arebest taught with traditional methods (Allington, 1983; Nespor, 1991).Summary of Differences Among Teacher Groups on Measures of Teacher BackgroundThe assumption that instructional practice is embedded in a personal, social, political, and educationalmilieau is commonly held by educators. The variables available in this study for discriminating teachers’instructional practice were perhaps too gross, sometimes in substance (e.g., Preservice Training) andsometimes in focus (e.g., Principal Engagement). With that caveat, one can only cautiously conclude fromthe findings either that a) teachers’ instructional practice is independent of Teacher Characteristics andClassroom Conditions or, more plausibly, b) there are other personal and contextual variables ofinstructional practice, and, furthermore, those variables may be more clearly identified when investigatedwith other research designs.Research Question FourGiven such differentiated clusters of teachers, what differences exist among these groups on measuresof their students’ reading experiences and reading achievement?169Discussion of results of correlational analyses of teacher groups on two types of student variableswill be presented in two sections. The first section will discuss results of the Student Reading Experiencevariables, and the second will discuss results of the Student Achievement variables.Student Reading ExueriencesAnalyses of teacher groups on all eight variables of students’ reading experiences revealed nosignificant differences (see Table 22 for summary of results of these analyses).It was unexpected that none of the Student Reading Experience variables correlated significantly withteacher groups. The eight variables can be regarded as affective and conceptual indicators of literacydevelopment. There is ample current literature both demonstrating and hypothesizing relationships betweenteachers’ perspectives and practices, and such affective and conceptual indicators of literacy developmentas students’ concepts of and attitudes towards literacy (Dahi & Freppon, 1995; Hagerty et al., 1989;Freebody et al., 1991; Gambrell & Palmer, 1992; Morrow, 1992; Rasinki & deFord, 1988; Shapiro &Witte, 1990; Wing, 1991).Again, it must be remembered that the four types of instructional practice identified in this studyrepresented eclectic rather than pure versions of either perspective defined by the Strategic Whole Languageand Programmatic Skills factors. Thus even the group with the most extreme meaning-based approach(Conservative Whole Language) also displayed an average orientation towards a traditional approach toinstruction. In other words, perhaps contrasts between teachers’ instructional approaches in this study werenot bold enough to permit identification of conceptual and affective differences between instructionalapproaches documented in the literature.One could speculate that findings from these analyses support research underscoring the socioculturalfoundations of literacy development (Heath, 1982, 1983; Wells, 1986). This research shows that the mosteffective instruction is responsive to the literacy behaviors and skills students bring with them to schoolfrom their homes and communities (Hull & Rose, 1990). The assumption that instruction is limited to theachievement of normative skills—as is implied in this study—prevents consideration of other dimensions ofthe effects of instruction. Thus although teachers appear to constantly shape instruction in response to theirstudents, (Anderson, 1989; Duffy & Roehler, 1986; Lampert & Clark, 1990), it is not always clear in the170literature what indicators of their students’ strengths and needs are being considered. Once again, morefinely tuned variables, preferably derived from close observations of small samples, might better detectstudent background effects on teachers’ instructional practice.Student Reading AchievementMean scores across teacher groups on the four reading domains revealed some interesting insightsinto differing levels of proficiency (see Table 25 in Chapter V for a display of this information). Narrativehad the highest mean (508.34) and largest standard deviation (89.87). Inspection of comparative resultsof student achievement by domain across teacher groups could lead to speculation that students at thiseducational level have received most of their instruction based on narrative texts. Foundations of thisinterpretation come from a) long-held assumptions about the appropriateness of stories for beginningreading and b) recent research pointing to the supremacy of narrative as a cognitive resource for learning(Hardy, 1979; Rosen, 1987; Wells, 1986). It is interesting to note that mean narrative scores betweengroups had the least variance, while the range is greater in both expository and document.It is only recently that attention has been drawn to the need to support students’ literacy abilities withexpository and document text to better reflect the “linguistic and cognitive processing of those writtenlanguage forms required by society and/or valued by the individual.” Whole language has long espousedthe importance of merging borders between school reading and out-of-school reading in the name of“authentic literacy activities.” The comparatively lower means across groups for expository (505.15) anddocument (503.72), along with the comparatively smaller standard deviations for both domains (87.69 and81.90 respectively) could indicate the lesser amount of attention paid to these text types as well as theirrecent place of importance in the curriculum.One could conjecture that results of Analyses of Variance of teacher groups on student achievementvariables (see Table 26 in Chapter V for summary of these results) quell debate about the effectiveness ofholistic approaches in the area of basic skills (McKenna et al., 1990; Edelsky, 1990). In other words, onecould simplistically interpret the fmdings to indicate the effectiveness of a number of approaches ofinsuring students’ acquisition of basic reading skills. There is evidence that all teachers of beginningreading emphasize basic skills to some degree (Dahi & Freppon, 1995; Freppon, 1991; McGargar, 1994).171A recent comparison of basal and child-centered, literature-based approaches based on lEA data of twocountries, the United States and Canada (Froese, 1995) concluded that “similar achievement can be obtainedby quite different educational curricula” (p. 183). However, other considerations related to the researchinstruments help illuminate findings from my study.As has been mentioned in other chapters, validity of research instruments used in large-scaleassessment studies are a major topic of debate and controversy. Both the lEA teacher questionnaire andstudent achievement test have been targets of such criticism. In my study, it is possible that the teacherquestionnaire did not serve to differentiate instructional variables on the national level as well. Althoughit was designed to discriminate at multiple levels, a certain degree of grossness was inevitable if it was toserve at the international level. In countries like Canada where several forms of holistic instruction arepromoted in literacy curricula, perhaps other findings would emerge from studies using instruments whichdiscriminate either other aspects of instruction than the five focused on in this study, or more forms ofholistic instruction.The TEA student achievement test has been criticized despite improvements from earlier versions tobetter reflect the” . . . knowledge and skills required by a literate society and/or valued by the individual.”Critics argue that the test reinforces a componential, rather than holistic view of reading by testing studentsin four separate domains (McLean, 1990). Additionally, according to critics, the test remains a limitedreflection of the skills and knowledge valued by those who endorse meaning-based perspectives. Althoughthe test covers a spectrum of basic skills, including inferencing, it does not cover the higher-level literatebehaviors deemed more important by many researchers (Brown, 1991; Heath, 1991; Wells, 1990), nor suchbroader indicators of students’ reading development as personal and world vision (Harste, 1994; Shannon,1994). Furthermore, critics contend that the possibilities for students’ meaningful engagement in text arecurtailed by the predominant forms of test items. That is, they argue that words, sentences, and shortpassages are unlikely vehicles of students’ engagement in contrast to substantial passages of meaningfultext. A similar concern pertains to the predominant format of response (i.e., multiple choice, short answer)which critics argue does not permit any information about the student’s literacy processes. Otherresearchers point to the superior validity of longitudinal data (Husen, 1978) and multiple measures in whichthe focus is not restricted to basic literacy (Hoffman, 1986).172While hypotheses about positive effects of meaning-based instruction on students’ literacydevelopment have been offered (Fisher & Hiebert, 1990; Goodman, 1986), few studies have providedconvincing evidence (McKenna et al., 1990). However, some current studies now show the effectivenessof meaning-based instruction on student literacy development when multiple measures over time are used(DaM & Freppon, 1995; Hagerty et al., 1989; Koch, 1993). Thus criteria and procedures of instructionalevaluation are critical variables of fmdings from studies examining relationships of instruction to studentreading development, including achievement.In sum, although criticisms of instruments used in large scale assessment studies abound, a rejoindermust be offered acknowledging the complexities, both theoretical and practical, involved in carrying outinternational research. Findings from my study provide one description of reading instruction in oneeducational system, but reveal no significant differences for students’ reading achievement. Findings fromthis analysis suggest three possibilities: (a) that several instructional approaches can facilitate students’ basicliteracy achievement, (b) that more precise measures of instructional practice are needed in less thaninternational levels of analysis, and (c) that there are other variables of student achievement and other waysto assess effects of instruction.Chapter Summary and PreviewThis chapter discussed the meaning of the statistical findings reported in the previous chapter in orderof the research questions. The ten first-order factors were discussed in tenns of their distinctive propertiesand their underlying assumptions as related to Traditional, Whole Language, and Strategic perspectives ofreading instruction. Similarly, interpretative discussion of the two second-order factors highlighted theirkey assumptions. Teacher groups identified by cluster analysis were further described in terms of between-group differences on individual variables as well as between-group differences across each second-orderfactor. Finally, speculations about the fmdings of no significant differences between teacher groups onTeacher Characterisitic, Classroom Conditions, Student Reading Experience, and Student Achievement wereoffered.Chapter VII summarizes major findings of each research question, draws conclusions from acrossresearch questions, and suggests directions for further research.173CHAPTER VII: SUMMARY, LIMITATIONS, CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONSThis chapter presents a summary of the study, its limitations, the conclusions, and implications. Thesummary reviews the purpose of the study, the background, the methodology, and major findings fromeach research question. Limitations pertaining to the interpretation of the findings are discussed in termsof validity of the research instruments and the population represented in the data. Conclusions are drawnbased on the findings within and across research questions. Finally, implications dealing with curriculumdevelopment, curriculum assessment, and teacher development as well as directions for future research aredescribed.Summary of the StudyThis section summarizes the study in light of its purpose, its background, the methodology, andmajor findings of each research question.Purvose of the StudyAt the broadest level, the purpose of this study was to construct a description of grade three readinginstruction in Canada (BC) and to identify teacher and student variables of instuction. To accomplish thisgeneral purpose, three specific purposes were formulated: to identify factors underlying grade three readinginstruction, to identify and describe homogeneous groups of teachers based on these factors, and toinvestigate differences between teacher groups in terms of teacher background, student background, andstudent achievement. As a secondary analysis the purposes of this study were determined in context of theteacher and student data of the 1991 International Association for the Evaluation of EducationalAchievement Reading Literacy Study.174Background to the StudyThis study was undertaken for two main reasons. The first was a general interest in studyingclassroom reading instruction in light of shifting assumptions about literacy in the literature. The secondreason was as a response to international findings of no significant effects of instruction on studentachievement.Discussions of paradigm shifts in literacy and literacy education are becoming more frequent andmore intense (Brown, 1991; Dillon, 1994; Froese, 1990; Langer, 1991; Lloyd-Jones & Lunsford, 1989;Weaver, 1994; Willinsky, 1990). These shifts are embedded in the larger contexts of constructivistassumptions about learning and teaching derived primarily from the work of Vygotsky (1962, 1978),evolving views of literacy (Heath, 1991; Resnick & Resnick, 1977; Wells, 1990) and new insights intoliteracy development (Harste, Woodward, & Burke, 1984; Heath, 1982, 1983; Wells, 1986).Interest in how teachers are responding to these changing assumptions is one focus of current readinginstruction research. A pervasive view is that classroom instruction continues to be shaped by pastbehaviorist beliefs about teaching in general and skills-based, scope and sequence reading instruction inparticular, thus lagging behind instructional approaches reflective of current theory (Goodman et al., 1987;Langer & Allington, 1992). Another view of teaching places the teacher in control of whateverinstructional approach they use by virtue of the knowledge they possess about both the subject area andpedagogy (Leinhardt, 1988; Shulinan, 1986b, 1987). In this study, teachers’ knowledge is referred to aspersonal professional knowledge of reading instruction.Teachers’ knowledge underlying their instructional practice of reading is more typically eclectic thanreflective of any one approach (Lind, 1993; Maguire, 1989; McCargar, 1994; Pressley & Rankin, 1993;O’Flavahan & McConnell, 1990; Scott & Butler, 1994; Walmsley & Adams, 1993; Warren et al., 1993).Although some educators reject the value of eclecticism (Edeisky et al., 1991; Goodman, 1989), othersview it positively and as an indication of teachers’ “ability to deal with the incompleteness of any giventheory and . . . combine theories to construct meaningful interpretations that guide practice” (Moormanet al., 1994, p. 319). This study then contributes to the literature of reading instruction by examining theirinstructional practice and some of the factors which affect how they teach.175Of interest in any study of instructional practice are relationships between instruction and studentdevelopment. This was also a primary focus of the lEA Reading Literacy Study. At the internationallevel, no significant effects of a variety of instructional practices on student reading achievement werefound. The lEA proposed that national studies of instruction-achievement relationships could be morerevealing. This secondary analysis also addressed that proposal.In sum, this study was shaped both by the current focus of reading instruction research onrelationhips between theory and practice and the suggestion from the lEA for national analyses ofinstructional effects on student achievement. The following research questions were formulated andanswered based on the data available from the teacher questionnaire, student questionnaire, and studentachievement test:1. What reading instruction factors underlie teachers’ responses to questionnaire items regarding theirinstructional practice?2. Given derived reading instruction factors, what profiles can be developed to identify differenthomogeneous clusters of teachers?3. Given such differentiated clusters of teachers, what differences exist among these groups on measuresof teachers’ characteristics and classroom conditions?4. Given such differentiated clusters of teachers, what differences exist among these groups on measuresof their students’ reading experiences and reading achievement?MethodologyA correlational research design was used to identify factors of reading instruction in British Columbiaand to differentiate homogenous groups of teachers based on these factors and to differentiate teachergroups on several teacher and student variables. Analysis was planned in two stages, exploratory followedby confirmatory. Five aspects of reading instruction were defined from the available teacher data.Exploratory factor analysis was performed on each of the five aspects followed by second-order factoranalysis. Factors were interpreted in the context of Traditional, Whole Language, and Strategicperspectives of reading instruction. Cluster analysis based on individual teachers’ scores on second-order176factor variables was then conducted and homogeneous groups of teachers identified and described.Analyses of variance and chi-squares were then employed to examine differences among teacher groups onteacher characteristic, classroom condition, student reading experience, and student achievement variables.Major FindingsThis section restates the most important findings from analyses of each research question.Research Ouestion OneWhat reading instruction factors underlie teachers’ responses to questionnaire items regarding theirinstructional practice?Findings based on teachers’ responses must take into account that teachers may have reported whatthey thought the researchers wanted to hear. Consequently, findings about the underlying factors ofreading instruction are constrained by validity of the data.Principal components analysis identified two factors for each of the five Aspects of ReadingInstruction and two second-order factors of Instructional Practice. The factors of each Aspect of ReadingInstruction and the second-order factors are briefly described below.The two factors of Reading Activities were called Interactive Strategic and Basal-Controlled. TheInteractive Strategic factor indicated that comprehension strategies and a variety of student-centered literacyevents are important kinds of activities for students to be involved in. The Basal-Controlled factor impliedthat important reading activities are those which focus on discrete units of language as well as those whichextend language use such as drama and reading games.Direct Instruction and Implicit Support were named as the two factors of Instructional Strategies.The Direct Instruction factor implied that teacher-centered comprehension instruction are optimalinstructional strategies. In contrast, the Implicit Support factor appeared to say that child-centered andindirect instructional strategies, especially encouragement are preferable.The two factors of Views of Reading Development were labelled Systematic Program and HolisiticImmersion. Beliefs the validity of hierarchially structured materials, student accountability for skills177mastery, and ability grouping seemed to best depict the meaning of the Systematic Program factor.Assumptions about the best ways to teach children to read in the Holistic Immersion factor seemed to bethose which focus on child-centered language experiences, frequent opportunities to read for enjoyment,and parental involvement in the child’s reading activities.Factors of Assessment Methods were named Open and Contextual, and Closed and Constrained. TheOpen and Contextual factor indicated the importance of teachers’ observations of literacy events andattention to students’ interests. The Closed and Constrained factor pointed to a reliance on workbooks andformal tests thereby implying more attention to reading products than processes.Narrow and Objective, and Broad and Subjective best described the two factors of Assessment Focus.The Narrow and Objective factor suggested that the smaller, more measurable units of language as mostimportant while the Broad and Subjective factor seemed to say that students’ use of larger, less easilycodified components of comprehension are preferred assessment criteria.Two second-order factors of Instructional Practice were identified based on analysis of the ten first-order factors. The second-order factors were labelled Strategic Whole Language and Programmatic Skills.The Strategic Whole Language factor indicated that reading instruction should emphasize comprehensionstrategies, student-centered learning, and teacher knowledge to guide instruction. The most importantimplication derived from an examination of the properties of this factor was the convergence of Strategicand Whole Language perspectives of reading instruction. The second factor of Instructional Practice,Programmatic Skills, indicated that instruction concentrated on students’ mastery of discrete skills througha sequentially-ordered reading curriculum, and the use of teacher-centered instruction. Identification ofthe Programmatic Skills factor seemed to support the theory of the continuing influence of traditionalreading instruction in British Columbia.Research Ouestion TwoGiven derived reading instruction factors, what profiles can be developed to identify differenthomogeneous clusters of teachers?178Four groups of teachers based on similarities of their instructional practice were identified andprofiles produced. Inspection of profiles between and across groups were the basis of their individualdescriptions.The largest group was called Eclectic and represented 42% of the teachers. This group tookmoderate stances to both perspectives of reading instruction represented in the Strategic Whole Languageand Programmatic Skills factors. The second largest group, or 25% of teachers, followed what was termeda Basalized Whole Language approach. Teachers in this group held closely to the hierarchiafly-orderedcurriculum and direct style of instruction which characterizes the Programmatic Skills factor. However,this group also incorporated some comprehension strategies and non-basal texts into their reading programs.The group labelled Conservative Whole Language group, or 18% of teachers, was the group that adheredmost to Strategic Whole Language yet did not altogether reject Programmatic Skills. Finally, the groupdescribed as Uncategorized represented the smallest group, or 16% of teachers. These teachers rejectedvariables across both the Strategic Whole Language and Programmatic Skills factors.Research Ouestion ThreeGiven such differentiated clusters of teachers, what differences exist among these groups on measuresof teachers’ characteristics and classroom conditions?Results of analyses of variance and chi-squares on eleven variables of teacher characteristics and fourvariables of classroom conditions revealed no differences among teacher groups at the .05 level ofsignificance. Teacher characteristic variables were number of years of postsecondary education, numberof years of pre-service teacher training, years of teaching, further study of teaching of reading, professionaland casual readership, ranking of the reading program goals of comprehension, critical thinking, andenjoyment, homework assignment, and the use of grouping. Variables comprising Classroom Conditionswere number of ESL students, number of texts per student, multigrade or straight-grade class, and levelof principal engagement.179Research Question FourGiven such differentiated clusters of teachers, what differences exist among these groups on measuresof their students’ reading experiences and reading proficiency?One-way analyses of variance were performed on the two groups of student variables—StudentReading Experience and Student Reading Achievement. At the .05 level of significance, no differencesamong teacher groups were found for any of the eight Student Reading Experience variables: HomeworkIntensity, Self-rating as a reader, Voluntary Reading, Reading Interactions, School Reading, and threevariables of Perceptions of Reading Acquisition: Affective, Low Level, and High Level.Student Reading Achievement consisted of scores on four reading domains: Narrative, Expository,Document, and Word Recognition. Results of one-way analyses of variance on each of these variablesrevealed no differences among teacher groups at the .05 level of significance.LimitationsInterpretations of results of this study must be considered in light of two types of limitations. Onegroup of limitations concerns validity of research instruments used in large scale studies. These limitationsaffect the validity of the description of reading instruction as well as the validity of findings of correlationalanalyses of teacher groups in this study. The other group of limitations pertains to the particulareducational context from which the teacher sample was drawn and affects generalization of the findings.The following discussion first addresses the limitations of findings derived from the teacher questionnaire,the student questionnaire, and the student acheivement test; and second, the limitations for generalizingfindings to other educational systems.The design and construction of research instruments used in international studies is a complex andproblematic process. Attempts to achieve theoretical validity—of reading in the case of the lEA ReadingLiteracy Study—are complicated by linguistic, cultural, economic, and political factors. Additionally,items must serve first to identify variables across countries resulting in measures more characterized bygrossness than refinement (McLean, 1990). In minimizing the limitations of international findings by180insuring a high degree of comparability of data, validity of findings from national data analysis wascompromised.Items in the lEA teacher questionnaire related to instructional practice are intended to distinguishapproaches to instruction at the broadest level of skills-based and meaning-based approaches. Althoughthese are valid distinctions at the international level, such widespread divisions do not necessarily allowfor detections of variance within and across approaches. Such variations are common in educationalsystems such as Canada (BC) where local educational, social, and political developments have influencedteachers to form alternative or more complex approaches to reading instruction. Thus the broad conceptualbasis of reading instruction underlying the items used to create a description of reading instruction inCanada (BC) needs to be considered when interpreting that description. Questionnaire items developed tocapture local variables of reading instruction could have produced a different description.Similarly, although results of the factor analyses were interpreted in light of three, not just two,perspectives of reading instruction (Traditional, Whole Language, and Strategic), other perspectivescertainly exist. However, interpretation of teachers’ responses to items on the teacher questionnaire dealingwith instructional practice was at best suited to three alternative perspectives. Thus interpretation of boththe factors of reading instruction and the teacher groups must be qualified by the theoretical frameworkscircumscribed by the questionnaire items.The teacher questionnaire also contained items which dealt with variables other than those directlyrelated to instructional practice generally termed background variables. The major finding of no significantdifferences among teacher groups on these background variables flies in the face of growing evidence ofinfluential contextual factors on instructional practice which have been identified by other methods thansurveys (Buckles, 1993; Duffy & Anderson, 1984; Freeman et al., 1993; Richardson et al., 1991; Roehler& Putnam, 1986; Scharer, 1992). Again, findings from this study about the lack of affect of contextualvariables on instruction need to be interpreted in light of the broadly-defined lEA teacher backgroundvariables.Similar to the teacher questionnaire, the items from the student questionnarie used to create variablesof student reading experiences in this study were originally constructed for the purpose of internationaldifferentiation. The global context of these variables, therefore, needs to be taken into account when181interpreting findings of correlational analyses of teacher groups on measures of their students’ readingexperiences.The student reading achievement test was intended to represent the “knowledge and skills requiredby a literate society and/or valued by an individual.” Compromises involving factors noted above cameinto play during the construction of the achievement test as well, resulting in a measure more closelyaligned with basic reading skills than the types of processes and behaviors set forth in the literature asmeaningful indicators of literacy achievement (Heath, 1991; Wells, 1990). Thus interpretation of findingsabout the influence of instruction on student achievement must keep in mind the specific notion ofachievement represented in the student test.Finally, British Columbia’s particular educational context should be considered in any generalizationof the description of teachers’ personal professional knowledge of reading instruction created in this studyto teachers in other educational systems. First, British Columbia’s educational history demonstrates arelative favoritism of progressive educational ideas and methods over this century (Luke, 1988). This isnot to deny the swing of the educational pendulum in British Columbia, but to note the province’scomparatively progressive history particularly in reading instruction. Second, both the recentlyimplemented provincial primary program (British Columbia Ministry of Education, 1 990c) and languagearts curriculum (British Columbia Ministry of Education, 1990b) are based on meaning-centeredperspectives of language and learning. Additionally, university teacher training programs are linked to theprovincial curriculum. Thus teachers in this sample were teaching in a system in which there was a highdegree of support for meaning-based instruction from policy as well as from teacher training anddevelopment programs. Generalizations to teachers in other educational systems would have to take intoaccount the educational climate of British Columbia. In more conservative climates, the description ofreading instruction would likely be different. Finally, approaches to reading instruction identified in thisstudy were restricted to those used by grade three teachers. Studies of approaches used by teachers at othergrade levels could yield a different picture.182ConclusionsBased on the major findings reported above, a number of conclusions can be drawn. First, teachers’personal practical knowledge of reading instruction varied among teachers but not dramatically, and notin conformance to the commonly assumed dichotomies of code-based and meaning-based instruction. Allteachers included multiple perspectives of reading instruction in varying degrees of emphasis in their owninstructional practice. Thus, teachers’ personal practical knowledge of reading instruction appeared moreaccurately to be an interaction of independent factors than a consistence adherence to one of theperspectives defined in the literature. Thus findings from this study did not support the paradigm shiftclaimed in the literature assuming that such a shift must involve both research and practice.Second, it appeared that teachers’ personal practical knowledge of reading instruction was not relatedto teacher background variables. This suggests either the presence of other variables to explain differencesamong teachers or that instructional practice is to some extent independent of background variables.A third conclusion is that how teachers teach children to read was not related to their students’reading experiences. However, the current literatures of both teaching and reading instruction provideevidence of relationships between instruction and various student reading concepts, behaviors, and attitudes(Dahl & Freppon, 1995; Hagerty et al., 1989; Freebody et al., 1991; Morrow, 1992; Rasinski & deFord,1988; Shapiro & Witte, 1990; Wing, 1991). Given the weight of this evidence, it is possible that othermeasures of student reading experiences would correleate with instructional approaches.A final conclusion is that it was not possible to predict how teachers teach children to read byexamining their students’ achievement. Students’ similar achievement across instructional approachessuggests equivalent effectiveness of several kinds of instruction for some, but not all, aspects of students’reading development. As relationships between instruction and student literacy development are onlybeginning to be unravelled in the literature, it would be unwise to generalize the non-significantinstructional effects found in this study to any of what students are learning.ImplicationsBased on the conclusions and limitations of the study, several implications are suggested. Twocategories of implications are presented in the following sections. The first section deals with implications183for cuniculum development, curriculum assessment, and teacher education. The second section suggestsdirections for further research.Implications for Curriculum Development. Curriculum Assessment, and Teacher EducationFor those involved in the development of British Columbia’s reading curriculum, knowing how theprovince’s teachers teach reading can be a valuable resource both during planning and implementation.The descriptions of teachers’ instructional practice of reading produced in this study reveal that teachersacross the province do not practice markedly diverse approaches but rather approaches that are moresimilar. In light of the overall pattern of conservative progressivism in reading instruction which emergedfrom this study, it is somewhat surprising that the provincial implementation of a meaning-based curriculumseveral years ago provoked such a degree of polarity among teachers. Results of this study show teacherswere already incorporating many aspects of the new curriculum and suggest that meaning-centeredinstruction should have been more a matter of adjustment than a shift. The teaching literature suggests anexplanation of this reaction and findings from this study offer a way to ease teachers’ future responses tochange.Current views in the study of teaching assume that successful curriculum development must bepremised on what teachers already know (Fenstermacher & Richardson, 1993; Richardson, 1990; Wittrock,1985). Adhering to this principle minimizes the liklihood of teachers’ reactions to perceived impositionsfrom administration, and increases the possibility that teachers will use new directives as scaffolds of theirpersonal development of instructional practice. Thus during provincial curriculum planning, findings fromthis study provide reference to what is already familiar to teachers. During curriculum implementation,these findings provide anchor points from which to carry out such support services as in-service training.For example, knowing that teachers are incorporating higher level comprehension strategies into theirreading programs could be the basis of professional development aimed at guiding teachers towardsembedding strategy instruction within a constructivist framework. In general, findings from this studyimply that in order to promote the kind of literacy most upheld in literature on literacy, teacher andcurriculum development in British Columbia should focus on guiding teachers towards conceptions of184literacy as higher-order literacy behaviors, literacy teaching as scaffolding, and literacy curriculum as rich,learner-centered experiences.Findings regarding relationships between instruction and student achievement point to the need forassessment studies to go beyond measures of basic reading skills. Given the high profile accorded tocomparative achievement scores in the public literature, it is especially important that assessment be basedon students’ reading concepts and attitudes for example, not just skills. Guidance for the development ofsuch measures is available in the literature of reading instruction and in some of the province’s educationaldocuments. Efforts to obtain theoretical congruence between literacy curriculum and literacy assessmentin large scale assessment studies are being made, as evidenced in the 1994 SAW in Canada, the 1993NAEP in the United States, as well as several individual states. These efforts need to be emphasized andcontinued so that theoretically valid assessment drives the curriculum at both the level of the classroom andthe educational system.A final implication of this study derives from finding no effect of teacher characteristics andclassroom conditions on instruction. Literature in the study of teaching, particularly studies of teacherchange, have identified the influence of more complex, more subtle factors than those available forinvestigation in this study. Factors which positively influence teacher development include feelings ofownership and control, and development programs in which theory is scaffolded onto practice and wheretraditional expert and follower roles are replaced with that of learner (Duffy, 1993; Fenstermacher &Richardson, 1993; Gallego & Hollingsworth, 1992; Richardson, 1990). Thus those involved in teachereducation and teacher development in the language arts need to continue to focus on promoting reflectivethinking, collaborative working skills, and decision-making along with current knowledge of readinginstruction. But they also need to look more closely at the process through which teachers evolve theirpersonal practical knowledge of reading instruction, and the nature of the influence of formal educationalstructures.Directions for Further ResearchFuture studies of classroom reading instruction might respond to some of the issues raised in thisstudy. First, in terms of understanding teachers’ instructional practice of reading, efforts must be made185to insure congruence between the research instruments and current knowledge of the reading process andreading development. For example, current meaning-based persectives of reading instruction includeelements not previously associated with such approaches such as explicit instruction and comprehensionstrategies. Simplisitic dichotomies of skills-based and meaning-based instruction are not able to capturethe complexities of approaches now recommended in the literature.Second, more attention to teachers’ philosophy is needed, specifically in terms of the their viewsabout the social factors underlying literacy development given the increasing influence of sociocultural andsociocognitive views of literacy in the literature. In attending to teachers’ thinking, research instrumentsshould also insure that information about the coherence of teachers’ philosophy and practices can beobtained.Finally, coherence between literacy instruction and other parts of the curriculum should beconsidered. For too long, literacy instruction has assumed narrow boundaries in both research and practice.Now that literacy instruction is conceived in terms of not only language arts, but across the curriculum,it is important to understand what students are learning about reading and writing throughout thecurriculum. The little research which has been done in this area shows that students’ experiences withliteracy in language arts is apt to be descrepant with experiences in other subject areas. In sum,instruments based on simplistic assumptions of skills-and meaning-based instructional approaches are oflimited help in advancing literacy instruction, and ultimately, students’ literacy development.Second, in studies of relationships between instruction and student reading development (includingachievement), theoretical congruence of the measures is necessary. If theoretically valid descriptions ormeasures of instruction are employed, as suggested above, the same validity concerns should be appliedto whatever measures of student outcomes are used. If researchers use genuinely helpful instruments togain information about instruction, then any corresponding measures of student learning should be closelylinked to the goals inherent in the instructional issues addressed in the teacher instruments.Third, and following closely from the second suggestion, there is a need to improve the types ofindicators of student reading development in any study focusing on student literacy development. Evidenceof student reading development should represent a range of knowledge, attitudes, and skills as defined bythe literature of reading and should be collected over time—within or across grade levels (as is being done186in lEA studies currently in progress). In studies of classroom reading instruction, there is a movementtowards understanding what students are learning (the attained curriculum) rather than focusing exclusivelywhat teachers are doing (the implemented curriculum). Findings from future studies developing this trendare dependent on valid instruments in the case of quantitative studies, and knowledgeable observers in thecase of ethnographic studies. All the above suggestions enforce the need for efforts to increase the validityof any measures used in large-scale assessments given the high profile of findings from such studies in thepublic literature.In closing then, it is clear that both teachers and researchers are accountable for insuring that whatstudents learn truly is “the knowledge and skills required by a literate society and/or valued by anindividual.”187REFERENCESAdams, M. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Adams, M. (1991). A talk with Marilyn Adams. Language Arts, , 203-212.Allington, R.L. (1980). Teacher interruption behaviors during primary oral reading. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 7, 371-377.Allington, R.L. (1983). The reading instruction provided readers of differing reading abilities. Elementary SchoolJournal, (5), 548-559.Allington, R.L. (1991). Children who find learning to read difficult: School responses to diversity. In E.H.Hiebert (Ed.), Literacy for a diverse society (pp. 237-252). New York: Teachers College Press.Aitwerger, B. & Flores, C. (1989). Abandoning the basal: Some aspects of the change process. Theory intoPractice, , 288-294.Altwerger, B., Edeisky, C., & Flores, B. (1987). Whole language: What’s new? Reading Teacher, 4 (2),American Education Research Association, Conunitte on the Criteria of Teacher Effectiveness, 1953. SecondReport of the Journal of Educational Research, 4, 641-658.Anders, P.L. (1991). The relationship between reading practices literature and teachers’ talk about practices. In3. Zutell & S. McCormick (Eds.), Learning factors, teacher factors: Literacy research and instruction (pp.209-217.). Forthieth yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Chicago: National ReadingConference.Anderson, L.M. (1989). Implementing instructional programs to promote meaningful, self-regulated learning. InJ. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teachine (Vol. 1, pp. 311-343). Greenwich, CT: JAI.Anderson, L., Everston, C., & Brophy, J. (1979). An experimental study of effective teaching in first gradereading groups. Elementary School Journal, fl, 193-223.Anderson, R.C. & Freebody, P. (1981). Vocabulary knowledge. In J.T. Guthrie (Ed.), Comprehension andteaching: Research reviews. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Anderson, R.C., Hiebert, E.H., Scott, 3. & Wilkenson, l.A. (1985). Becoming a nation of readers. Washington,D.C.: National Institute of Education.Anderson, R.C. & Pearson, P.D. (1984). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes of reading comprehension.In P.D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 1, pp.255-291). White Plains, NY: Longman.Baghan, M. (1984). Our daughter learns to read and write. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Baker, L. & Brown, A.L. (1984). Metacognitive skills and reading. In P.D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of readingresearch: Vol. 1 (pp. 353-394). New York: Longman.188Barr, R. (1986). What we know and what we need to learn about reading instruction. In J. Hoffman (Ed.),Effective reading instruction (pp. 9-87). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Barr, R. (1994). Comparative perspectives on literacy instruction: Educational research, and knowledge ofteaching. In C. Kinzer & D. Leu (Eds.), Multidimensional asvects of literacy research. theory. anduractice (pp. 1-14). Forty-third yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Chicago: NationalReading Conference.Barry, M.H. A survey of reading approaches. ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 246 437.Barr, R. & R. Dreeben (1983). How schools work. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Barthes, R. (1974). S.Z.: An essay. New York: Hill & Wang.Beck, I.L., Omanson, R.C., & McKeown, M.G. (1982). An instructional redesign of reading lessons: Effects oncomprehension. Reading Research Ouarterlv,.12. 462-481.Beimiller, A. (1970). The development of the use of graphic and contextual information as children learn to read.Reading Research Ouarterlv, , 75-96.Bereiter, C. & Scardamalia, M. (1987). Literacy: Approaches to teaching higher-order skills in reading andwriting. Curriculum Inquiry, 1.2 (1), 9-29.Bergeron, B.S. (1990). What does the term whole language mean? Constructing a definition from the literature.Journal of Reading Behavior, JI (4), 301-329.Bissex, G. (1980). Gvnus at wrk: A child learns to read and write. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Bond, G.L. & Dykstra, R. (1967). The cooperative research program in first grade reading instruction. ReadingResearch Ouarterly, 2. 5-142.Borg, W.R. & Gall, M.D. (1983). Educational research: An introduction (4th edition) (pp. 571-625). New York:Longman.Borko, H., Shavelson, R. & Stem, P. (1981). Teachers’ decisions in planning reading instruction. ReadingResearch Ouarterlv, j., 449-466.Bransford, J.D. & Johnson, M.K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations ofcomprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning Behavior, ii, 717-726.British Columbia Ministry of Education (1988). British Columbia assessment of reading and written expression.Victoria, B.C.: British Columbia Ministry of Education.British Columbia Ministry of Education (1990a). Year 2000: A framework for learning. Victoria, B.C.: BritishColumbia Ministry of Education.British Columbia Ministry of Education (1990b). Language arts/English Primarv-Graduation Curriculum Guide.Victoria, B.C.: British Columbia Ministry of Education.British Columbia Minsitry of Education (199Cc). Primary Drogram: Foundation document. Victoria, B.C.: BritishColumbia Ministry of Education.Brophy, J.E. (1979). Teacher behavior and its effects. Journal of Educational Psychology, 21. 733-750.189Brown, A.L. (1980). Metacognitive development and reading. In R.J. Spiro, B.C. Bruce & W.F. Frewer (Eds.),Theoretical issues in reading comprehension (pp. 453-481). Hifisdale, NJ: Eribaum.Brown, A.L. (1985). Metacognition: The development of selective attention strategies for learning from texts. InH.S. Singer & R.B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (3rd ed., pp. 526)Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Brown, A.L, Bransford, J.D., Ferrara, R.A., & Canipione, J.C. (1983). Learning, remembering, andunderstanding. In J.H. Flavell & E.M. Markman (Eds.), Carmichael’s manual of child psychology (Vol.3, pp. 77-166). New York: Wiley.Brown, R. (1991). Schools of thought: How the nolitics of literacy shave thinking. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Bruce, B., Osborn, 3, & Conuneyras, M. (1993). Contention and consensus: The development of the 1992National Assessment of Educational Progress in Reading. Educational Assessment, , 225-253.Bruneau, B.J. (1992). Implementing whole language instruction for young children: Cases of teacher developmentand change. In C. Kinzer & D. Leu (Eds.), Literacy research. theory and practice: Views from manypersuectives (pp. 225-233). Forty-first yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Chicago: NationalReading Conference.Buckles, J.D. (1993). An entry-year teacher’s commitment to teaching writing with a whole language philosophyin a traditional school system and the socialization processes she experiences: A case study. DissertationAbstracts International, 54/03, 791A.Button, K. (1992). Factors that enhance effective instruction: A single-subject study of changes in the knowledgebase and practice of a kindergarten teacher. In In C. Kinzer & D. Leu (Eds.), Literacy research, theoryand practice: Views from many perspectives (pp. 483-490). Forty-first yearbook of the National ReadingConference. Chicago: National Reading Conference.Calfee, R.C. & Drum, P.A. (1978). Learning to read: Theory, research, and practice. Curriculum Inciuirv, (3),183-249.Cambourne, B. (1988). The whole story: Natural learning and the acquisition of literacy in the classroom.Aukland, New Zealand: Ashton Scholastic.Cambourne, B. & Turbill, 3. (1991). Evaluation and the literacy curriculum: Who’s in control? Australian Journalof Reading, 1.4 (3), 181-98.Carbo, M. (1988). Debunking the great phonics myth. Phi Delta Kanpan, November 1988, pp. 226-240.Cazden, C. (1982). Contexts for literacy: In the mind and in the classroom. Journal of Reading Behavior, X(4), 413-427.Cazden, C. (Ed.) (1992). Whole language plus: Essays on literacy in the United States. New York: TeachersCollege Press.Chall, 3. (1967). Learning to read: The great debate. New York: McGraw-Hill.Chall, 3. (1989). Learning to read: The great debate 20 years later—a response to “Debunking the great phonicsmyth.” Phi Delta Kappan, , 521-538.Church, S. & Sutton, W. (1992). Waves: Inteerated language arts resources that heln bring language to life.Scarborough, ON: Nelson Canada.190Clark, M.A. (1987). Don’t blame the system: Constraints on whole language reform. Language arts, 4, 384-396.Clark, C.M. & Peterson, P.L. (1986). Teachers’ thought processes. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook ofresearch on teaching (pp. 255-295). New York: McMillan..Clark, C.M. & Yinger, R. J. (1977). Research on teacher thinking. Curriulum Inuirv, 2 (4), 279-304.Cochran, K.F., DeRuiter, J.A. & King, R.A. (1993). Pedagogical content knowing: An integrative model forteacher preparation. Journal of Teacher Education, 44 (4), 263-272.Cogan, M.L. (1963). Research on the behaviors of teachers: A new phase. Journal of Teacher Education, 1.4. 238-243.Cooper, J.D. (1993). Literacy: Helping children construct meaning. Toronto: Houghton Mifflin.Council of Ministers of Education, Canada (1994). School Achievement Indicators Program: Reading and writingassessment.Courtland, M.C. (1992). Teacher change in the implementation of new approaches to literacy instruction. Journalof Reading, (7), 542-548.Courtland, M.C. & Gambell, T.J. (1994). Curriculum Ianning in the language arts K-12. North York, ON:Captus Press.Courtland, M.C., Welsch, R. & Kennedy, S. (1987). A case study of a teacher’s changing perspections of thewriting process. English Ouarterlv, 2Q (4), 305-3 18.Crowhurst, M. (1994). Language learning across the curriculum. Scarborough, ON: Prentice Hall Canada.Crowell, (1986). A new way of thinking: The challenge of the future. Educational Leadership, Sept. 60-63.Cuban, L. (1984). How teachers taught: Constancy and change in American classrooms. New York: Longman.Dahl, K.L. & Freppon, P.A. (1995). A comparison of innercity children’s interpretations of reading and writinginstruction in the early grades in skills-based and whole language classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly,.Q (1), 76-95.Davis, F.B. (1944). Fundamental factors of comprehension in reading. Psychometrika, 2. 185-197.Davis, F.B. (1968). Research in comprehension in reading. Reading Research Ouarterlv, 499-545.deCastell, S. & Luke, A. (1986). Models of literacy in North American schools: Social and historical conditionsand consequences. In S. deCastell, A. Luke, & K. Egan, Literacy. society, and schooling (pp. 87-109).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.deFord, D. (1980). A validation study of an instrument to determine a teacher’s theoretical orientation to readinginstruction. Dissertation Abstracts International, 40/08, 4549A. -.deFord, D. (1985). Validating the construct of theoretical orientation in reading. Reading Research Ouarterly, Q,351-366.Dillon, D. (1994). Instruction promises yet to fulfill. In M.C. Courtland, M.C. & T.G. Gambell (Eds.),Curriculum planning in the language arts K-12 (pp. 3 79-394). North York, ON: Captus Press.191Dole, J.A., Duffy, G.G., Roehier, L.R. & Pearson, P.S. (1991). Moving from the old to the new: Research onreading comprehension instruction. Review of Educational Research, j. (2), 239-264.Dole, J.A., Rogers, T., & Osburn, 3. (1987). Improving the selection of basal reading programs: A report of theTextbook Adoption Guidelines Project. Elementary School Journal, 2 (3), 283-298.Downing, J. (1973). Comparative reading. New York: Macmillan.Doyle, W. (1977). Learning the classroom environment: An ecological analysis. Journal of Teacher Education,, 51-55.Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 3 (2), 159-199.Dubert, L.A. (1993). Whole language and basal program reading instruction in two second-grade classrooms:Swept away by the bandwagon. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54/03, 874A.Duffy, G. (1977). A study of teachers’ conceptions of reading. Paper presented at the National ReadingConference, New Orleans.Duffy, G. (1982). Commentary: The illusion of instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, fl (3), 438-445.Duffy, G. (1984). Editorial comment: Guest commentary: Teachers’ theoretical orientation and the real classroom.Reading Psychology, (1), 97-104.Duffy, G. (1991). What counts in teacher education? Dilemmas in educating empowered teachers. In 3. Zutell& S. McCormick (Eds.), Learning factors, teacher factors: Literacy research and instruction (pp. 1-18).Forthieth yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Chicago: National Reading Conference.Duffy, G. (1993). Rethinking strategy instruction: Four teachers’ development and their low achievers’understandings. Elementary School Journal, 3 (3), 23 1-247.Duffy, G. & Anderson, L. (1984). Teachers’ theoretical orientations and the real classroom. Reading Psychology,,, 97-104.Duffy, G. & Ball, D.L. (1986). Instructional decision-making and reading teacher effectiveness. In J. Hoffman(Ed.), Effective reading instruction (pp. 163-180). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Duffy, G. & Metheny, W. (1979). The development of an instrument to measure teacher beliefs about reading.In M. Kamil & A. Moe (Eds.), Reading research: Studies and aunlications (pp. 218-222). Twenty-eighthyearbook of the National Reading Conference. Clemson, SC: National Reading Conference.Duffy, G. & Roehler, L. (1986). Constraints on teacher change. Journal of Teacher Education, 22 (9), 55-58.Duffy, G., Roehler, L., & Putnam, 3. (1987). Putting the teacher in control: Basal reading textbooks andinstructional decision-making. Elementary School Journal, 2 (3), 357-366.Dunkin, M.J. & Biddle, B.J. (1974). The study of teaching. New York: Holt, Rhinehart and Winston.Durkin, D. (1978-79). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension instruction. ReadingResearch Quarterly, 14. 481-533.Durkin, D. (1984). Is there a match between what elementary teachrs do and what basal reader manualsrecommend? Reading Teacher, 3 (8), 734-745.192Edeisky, C. (1990). Whose research agenda is this anyway? A response to McKenna, Robinson, and Miller.Educational Researcher, .1.2 (8), 7-11.Edeisky, C., Aitweger, B. & Flores, B. (1991). Whole language: What’s the difference? Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann..Edmonds, R. (1975). Some schools work and more can. Social Policy, (5), 28-32.Edmonds, R. (1979). A discussion of the literature and issues related to effective schooling. St Louis, MO:CEMREL.Eisenhart, M., Cuthbert, A., Shrum, 3., Harding, J.(1988). Teacher beliefs: Definitions, findings and directions.Educational Policy,,5 1-70.Elbaz, F. (1983). Research on teachers’ knowledge: Evolution of a discourse. Journal of Curriculum Studies,(1), 1-19.Elley, W.B. (1992). How in the world do students read? The Hague: International Association for the Evaluationof Educational Achievement.Erikson, (1982). Classroom discourse as improvisation: Relationships between academic task structure and socialparticipation structures in lessons. In L.C. Wilkenson (Ed.), Communicating in the classroom. NewYork: Academic Press.Fennnell, T. (January 11, 1993). What’s wrong at school? Mcleans, pp. 29-43.Fenstermacher, G.D. (1986). Philosophy of research on teaching: Three aspects. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.),Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 37-49). New York: Macmillan.Fenstermacher, G.D. & Richardson, V. (1993). The elicitation and reconstruction of practical arguments inteaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 2 (2), 101-114.Fisher, C.W. & Hiebert, E.H. (1990). Characteristics of tasks in two approaches to literacy instruction.Elementary School Journal, 9]. (1), 3-17.Flanders, N.A. (1960). Teacher influence, pupil attitudes, and achievement. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota(US. Office of Education Cooperative Research Project No. 397) (Ed 002 865).Flavell, J.H. (1978). Metacognitive development. In J.M. Scandura & C.J. Brainerd (Eds.), Structural urocesstheories of comnlex human behavior. The Netherlands: Sijthoff & Noordhoff.Florio, 5. (1978). Learning how to go to school. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Harvard University.Freebody, P., Luke, A., & Gilbert, P. (1991). Reading positions and practices in the classroom. CurriculumInciuiry, 21 (4), 435-457.Freeman, D.E. & Freeman, Y.S. (1993). Strategies for promoting the primary languages of all children. ReadingTeacher, 4 (7), 552-559.Freeman, D.E., Freeman, Y.S., & Fennacy, 3. (1993). California’s reading revolution: A review and analysis.The New Advocate, (1) 41-60.Freppon, P.A. (1991). Children’s concepts of the nature and purpose of reading in different instructional settings.Journal of Reading Behavior, XXIII (2), 139-163.193Froese, V. (1995). A comparison of teacher strategies, aims, and activities in two countries participating in the1990-1991 lEA Reading Literacy Study. In P. Owen & P. Pumfrey (Eds.), Curriculum and assessmentissues: Messages for teachers (Vol. 2, pp. 162-185). London: Falmer.Froese, V. (1994a). Introduction to whole language teaching and learning. In V. Froese (Ed.), Whole-language:Practice and theory (pp. 2-2 1). Scarborough, ON: Allyn & Bacon.Froese, V. (Ed.) (1994b). Whole-language: Practice and theory. Scarborough, ON: Allyn & Bacon.Froese, V. (1990). Literacy: A paradigm shift? English Ouarterlv, 2Z (1,2), 5-6.Fuilman, M.G. (1982). The meaning of educational change. New York: Teachers College Press.Fuilman, M.G. (1993). Probing the deuths of educational reform. New York: Falmer.Gage, N. (1978). The scientific basis of the art of teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.Gallagher, M.C., Goudvis, A. & Pearson, P.D. (1988). Principles of organizational change. In S.J. Samuels &P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Changing school reading programs (pp. 11-41). Newark, DE: International ReadingAssociation.Gambell, T.J. & Newton, E. (1989). Implementing whole language. Journal of Educational Adminsistration andFoundations, 4 (2), 40-52.Gambrell, L.B. (1992). Elementary school literacy instruction: Changes and challenges. In M.J. Dreher & W.H.Slater (Eds.), Elementary school literacy: Critical issues (pp. 227-240). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Gaskins, I.W., Anderson, R.C., Pressely, M., Cannicelli, I. & Satlow, E. (1993). Six teachers during cognitiveprocess instruction. Elementary School Journal, (3), 277-304.Gee, J.P. (1991). What is literacy? In C. Mitchell & K. Weiler (Eds.), Rewriting literacy: Culture and thediscourse of the other (pp. 3-12). Toronto: OISE Press.Good, T.L. (1979). Teacher effectiveness in the elementary school; what we know about it now. Journal ofTeacher Education.. Q, 52-64.Goodlad, J.I. (1979). Curriculum inquiry: The study of curriculum practice. New York: McGraw Hill.Goodlad, 3.!. (1990). Teachers for our nation’s schools. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.Goodman, K.S. (1965). A linguistic study of cues and miscues in reading. Elementary English, 42. 639-643.Goodman, K.S. (1967). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. Journal of Reading Specialist, 4, 126-135.Goodman, K.S. (1985). Unity in reading. In H. Singer & R.B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and orocessesof reading (3rd edition, pp. 813-840). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Goodman, K. (l986a). What’s whole in whole language. Scholastic.Goodman, K. (l986b). Basal readers: A call for action. Language Arts, , 358-363.Goodman, K. (1989). Whole language is whole: A response to Heymsfeld. Educational Leadership, 4 (6), 69-70.194Goodman, K.S. (1992a). Whole language research: Foundations and development. In S.J. Samuels & ME.Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (2nd ed., pp. 46-69). Newark, DE:International Reading Association.Goodman, K.S. (1992b). Answering questions about the future: Ouestions and answers about whole language.Katonah, NY: Richard C. Owen.Goodman, K.S. (1994). Reading, writing, and written texts: A transactional sociopsycholinguistic view. In. R.B.Ruddeill, M.R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp.1093-1130). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Goodman, K.S. & Goodman, Y.M. (1981). A whole-language, comprehension-centered program. Program inLanguage and Literacy. Occasional Paper No. 1, February, 1981.Goodman, K.S., Shannon, P., Freeman, Y., & Murphy, S. (1987). Renort on basal readers. Katonah, NY:Richard C. Owen.Gough, P.B. (1985). One second of reading. In H. Singer & R.B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models andurocesses of reading (3rd ed., Pp. 661-686). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Gray, W.S. (1919). “Principles of Method in Teaching Reading as Derived from Scientific Investigations.” InRevort of the Committee on Economy of Time and Learning. Eighteenth Yearbook of the National Societyfor the Study of Education. 18. Part II. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Grossman, P.L. (1990). The making of a teacher: Teacher knowledge and teacher education. New York: TeachersCollege Press.Hagerty, P.J., Hiebert, E.H., & Owens, M.K. (1989). Students’ comprehension, writing, and perceptions in twoapproaches to literacy instruction. In S. McCormick & 3. Zutell (Eds.), Cognitive and social persuectivesfor literacy research and instruction (pp. 453-459). Thirty-eighth yearbook of the National ReadingConference. Chicago: National Reading Conference.Halpern, H. & Craddock, S. (1991). Whole language programs: Problems and solutions. Reflections on CanadianLiteracy, (1), 37-39.Hardy, B. (1979). Towards a poetics of fiction: An approach through narrative. In M. Meek (Ed.), The cool web(pp. 7-24). London: Bodley Head.Harste, 3. (1994). New questions, different inquiries. In C. Smith (Ed.), Whole language: The debate (pp. 143-154). Urbana, IL: ERIC.Harste, J. (1989). The basalization of American reading instruction: One researcher responds. Theory intoPractice, XXVIII (4), 265-273.Harste, J.C. & Burke, C.L. (1977). A new hypothesis for reading teacher research: Both the teaching and learningof reading is theoretically based. In P.1). Pearson (Ed.), Reading: Theory, research and practice (pp. 32-40). Twenty-sixth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference, Clemson, SC: National ReadingConference, 1977.Harste, J.C., Woodward, V., & Burke, C. (1984). Language stories and literacy lessons. Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann.Hartwig, F. & Dearing, B.E. (1979). Exnloratorv data analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Heath, S.B. (1982). What no bedtime story means. Language in Society, 11, 49-76.195Heath, S.B. (1983). Ways with words: Language. life, and work in three communities. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.Heath, S.B. (1991). The sense of being literate: Historical and cross-cultural features. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil,P. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research(Vol. 2, PP. 3-25). New York:Longman.Hiebert, E.H. (1983). An examination of ability grouping for reading instruction. Reading Research Ouarterlv,j, 213-255.Heibert, E.H. & Colt, 3. (1989). Patterns of literature-based reading instruction. Reading Teacher, 4., 14-20.Hemysfeld, C.R. (1989). Filling the hole in whole language. Educational Leadership, 4, 64-67.Herniinann, B.A. & Sarracino, J. (1992). Effects of an alternative approach for teaching preservice teachers howto teach strategic reading. In In C. Kinzer & D. Leu (Eds.), Literacy research, theory and practice: Viewsfrom many perspectives (pp. 33 1-339). Forty-first yearbook of the National Reading Conference.Chicago: National Reading Conference.Hladczuk, J. & Eller, W. (1992). International handbook of reading education. New York: Greenwood.Hoffman, J.V. (1986). Process-product research on effective teaching: A paradigm primer. In J.V. Hoffman (Ed.),Effective teaching of reading research and practice (pp. 39-5 1). Newark, DE: International ReadingAssociation.Hoffman, J.V. & Kugle, C. (1982). A study of theoretical orientation to reading and its relationship to teacherverbal feedback during reading instruction. Journal of Classroom Interaction, j, 2-7.Hoffman, J.V., Roser, N.L, & Battle, 3. (1993). Reading aloud in classrooms: From the modal to a “model.”Reading Teacher, 4 (6), 496-505.Hollingsworth, P.M., Reutzel, D.R. & Weeks, E. (1990). Whole language practices in first grade readinginstruction. Reading Research and Instruction, , 14-26.Hosking, N.J. (1991). A comparative study to determine appropriate implementation strategies for Saskatchewan’snew language arts curriculum. Reflections on Canadian Literacy, 2 (2), 83-89.House, E.R., Glass, G.V, McLean, L.D., & Walker, D.F. (1978). No simple answer: Critique of the FollowThrough evaluation. Harvard Educational Review, 4, 128-160.Hull, G. & Rose, M. (1990). Towards a sociocognitive understanding of problematic reading and writing. In A.Lunsford, H. Moglen, & 3. Slevin (Eds.), The right to literacy (pp. 235-244). New York: ModernLanguage Association.Husen, T. (1979). An international research venture in retrospect: The lEA surveys. Comparative EducationReview, , 371-385.TEA Reading Literacy Study. Manual 1: Manual for National Research Coordinators (July 1990). Hamburg,Germany: International Coordinating Center.Iser, W. (1978). The act of reading. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.Jackson, P. (1968). Life in classrooms. New York: Holt, Rhinehart, Winston.196Johnson, K.E. (1992). The relationship between teachers’ beliefs and practices during literacy instruction for non-native speakers of English. Journal of Readiiw Behavior, XXIV (1), 83-108.Kainil, M. & Pearson, P. (1979). Theory and practice in teaching reading. New York University EducationOuarterly, j,Q (2), 10-16.King, D.F., Crenshaw, S., & Latson, D. (1989). Reading instruction: Differences in teachers’ language focus.Reading: Exploration and Discovery, ].Z (1), 38-52.Kinzer, C.K. (1988). Instructional frameworks and instructional choices: Comparisons between preservice andinservice teachers. Journal of Reading Behavior, (4), 357-377.Kinzer, C.K. & Carrick, D.A. (1986). Teacher beliefs as instructional influences. In J. Niles & R. Lalik (Eds.),Solving vroblems in literacy: Learners, teachers and researchers. Thirty-fifth Yearbook of the NationalReading Conference (pp. 127-134). Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference.Koch, A.A. (1993). A study of transfer efficiency in expository reading tasks using two methods of rulegeneration. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54/03, 795A.Kline, P. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. New York: Routledge.Laberge, D. & Samuels, S.J. (1985). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. In H.Singer & R.B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (3rd ed., pp. 689-718).Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Lambert, 3. & Clark, C. (1990). Expert knowledge and expert thinking in teaching: A response to Floden andKlinzing. Educational Researcher, j (4), 2 1-23, 42.Langer, J.A. (1984). Literacy instruction in American schools: Problems and perspectives. American Journal ofEducation, (1), 107-132.Langer, J.A. (1987). A sociocognitive perpsective on literacy. In J. Langer (Ed.), Language. literacy, and culture:Issues of society and schooling (pp. 1-20). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Langer, J.A. (1991). Literacy and schooling: A sociocognitive perspective. In E.H. Hiebert (Ed.), Literacy fora diverse society: Perspectives, practices and policies (pp. 9-2). New York: Teachers College Press.Langer, J.A. & Allington, R.L. (1992). Curriculum Research in Writing and Reading. In P.W. Jackson (Ed.),Handbook of Research on Curriculum (pp. 687-724). New York: MacMillan.Leinhardt, G. (1988). Situated knowledge and expertise in teaching. In J. Calderhead (Ed.), Teachers’ professionalknowledge (pp. 146-168). Philadelphia: Falmer.Leinhardt, G. & Leinhardt, S. (1980). Exploratory data analysis: New tools for the analysis of empirical data.In D.C. Berliner (Ed.), Review of Research in Education, , 85-157.Levande, D.I. (1989). Theoretical orientation to reading and classroom practice. Reading Improvement, 2, 274-280.Levande, D.I. (1990). Teacher-reported factors influencing reading instruction. Reading hnprovement, , 2-9.Lipa, S.E. & Harlin, R. (1993). Assessment: Insights into teacher beliefs and practices. Reading Horizons,.3(3), 195-208.197Liberman, I.Y. & Liberman, A.M. (1990). Whole language vs code-emphasis: Underlying assumptions and theirimplications for reading instruction. Annals of Dyslexia, 4Q, 5 1-76.Lind, N.L. (1993). A descriptive study of the beliefs and practices of Head Start teachers regarding early literacydevelopment. Dissertation Abstracts International, 53/08, 2675A.Little, A. (1990). The role of assessment, re-examined in international context. In P. Broadfoot, R. Murphy, &H. Torrance (Eds.), Changing educational assessment: International perspectives and trends (pp. 9-23).Routledge: London and New York.Lloyd-Jones, R. & Lunsford, A.A. (1989). The En2lish coalition conference: Democracy through language.Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.Loshbaugh, M. (1993). The effects of whole language on the writing ability of first-grade children. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, Washington State University. Dissertation Abstracts International, 53/Il, 3796A.Luke, A. (1988). Literacy. textbooks and ideology: Postwar literacy instruction and the mythology of Dick andNew York: Falmer.Lundberg, I. & Linnakyla, P. (1993). Teaching reading around the world. The Hague: International Associationfor the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.Maclean, M., Gordon, C., Hopper, D. & Miller, A. (1992). Reading instruction in Canadian classrooms. In 3.Hladczuk, 3. & W. Eller, W. (Eds.), International handbook of reading education. New York:Greenwood.Maguire, M.H. (1989). Understanding and implementing a whole language program in Quebec. ElementarySchool Journal, (2), 143-159.Mangano, N. & Allen, J. (1986). Teachers’ beliefs about language and their effects on students’ beliefs andinstruction. In In J. Niles & R. Lalik (Eds.), Solving uroblems in literacy: Learners, teachers andresearchers. Thirty-fifth Yearbook of the National Reading Conference (pp. 135-142). Rochester, NY:National Reading Conference.Marks, R. (1990). Pedagogical content knowledge: From a mathematical case to a modified conception. Journalof Teacher Education, 41 (3), 3-11.McCargar, D.F. (1994). A factor analytic study of teachers’ responses to the Theoretical Orientation to ReadingProfile (TORP). In C. Kinzer & D. Leu (Eds.), Multidimensional asnects of literacy research. theory. andpractice (pp. 496-506). Forty-third yearbook of the National Reading Conference. Chicago: NationalReading Conference.McConaghy, T. (1988). Canada: A leader in whole language instruction. Phi Delta Kapuan, 2Q, 336-337.McDermott, R.P. (1977). Social relations as context for learning in schools. Harvard Educational Review, 42,198-213.McGee, L.M., & Lomax, R.G. (1990). On combining apples and oranges: A response to Stahl and Miller.Review of Educational Research, (1), 133-140.McGee, L.M. & Richgels, D.J. (1990). Literacy’s beginnings: Sunnorting young readers and writers. Boston:Allyn & Bacon.McKenna, M.C. (1994). Unlike Patrick, we do accept reality. . . In C.B. Smith (Ed), Whole language: Thedebate (pp. 52-57). Bloomington, IN: EDINFO Press.198McKenna, M.C., Robinson, R.D., & Miller, J.W. (1994). Emerging perspectives on whole language. InC. Smith(Ed.), Whole language: The debate (p. 101-111). Urbana, IL: ERIC.McKenna, M.C. , Robinson, R.D., & Miller, J.W. (1990). Whole language: A research agenda for the nineties.Educational Researcher, .12 (8), 3-6.McLaughlin, M. (1987). Learning from experience: Lessons from policy implementation. Educational Evaluationand Policy Analysis, , 171-178.McLean, L. (1990). Possibilities and limitations in cross-national comparisons of educational achievement. In P.Broadfoot, R. Murphy & H. Torrance (Eds.), Changing educational assessment: International verspectivesand trends (pp. 65-83). New York: Routledge.Medley, D.M. (1977). Research on teacher effectiveness--where it is and how it got there. Journal of ClassroomInteraction, j, 16-21.Medley, D.M. (1979). The effectiveness of teachers. In P. Peterson and H. Walberg (Eds.), Research in teaching:Concepts. findings and implications. Chicago: Rand McNally.Medley, D.M. & Mitzel, H.E. (1958). A technique for measuring classroom behavior. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 42, 86-93.Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Meyer, L. (1988). Research on implementation: What seems to work. In S.J. Samuels & P.D. Pearson (Eds.),Changing reading urograms: Principles and case studies (pp. 41-57). Newark, DE: International ReadingAssociation.Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R.L Linn (Ed.), Educational Measurement (3rd edition, pp. 13-93. New York:American Council on Education.Miller, F.J. (1993). Usage of whole-language instruction in elementary school classrooms: A case study.Dissertation Abstracts International, 53/08, 2681A.Mitchell, M.M., Konopak, B.C., & Readance, J.E. (1991). Consistency in Chapter One teachers’ beliefs aboutreading and their theoretical decision-making and interactions. In In J. Zutell & S. McCormick (Eds.),Learning factors, teacher factors: Literacy research and instruction (pp. 377-385). Forthieth yearbook ofthe National Reading Conference. Chicago: National Reading Conference.Moorinan, G.B., Blanton, W.E., & McLaughlin, T. (1994). The rhetoric of whole language. Reading ResearchOuarterlv, 22 (4), 308-329.Morrow, L. (1992). The impact of a literature-based program on literacy achievement, use of literature, andattitudes of children from minority backgrounds. Reading Research Ouarterlv, 22 (2), 250-275.Moss, B. (1981). Classroom analysis of teachers’ theoretical orientation to reading. Louisiana Reading Teacher,42 (2), 13-22.Moss, B. (1990). Effecting instructional change through implementation of a process writing approach: Theinfluence of external factors. Reading. Writing. and Learning Disabilities, , 437-453.National Institute of Education (1975). Teaching as clinical information processing (Report of Panel 6 , NationalConference on Studies in Teaching). Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Education.199Nespor, J. (1991). The construction of school literacy: A case study. In C. Mitchell & K. Weiler (Eds.),Rewriting literacy: Culture and the discourse of the other (pp. 169-188). Toronto, ON: OISE Press.Nespor, J. (1988). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, j (4), 317-328.Newell, A. & Simon, H.A. (1956). The logic theory machine: A complex information processing system. !RTransactions on Information Theory, Z 61-79.Newell, A. & Simon, H.A. (1972). Human vroblem solving. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall.Newman, J. (1985).. Whole language: Theory and use. Portsmouth, NB: Hememanu.Nicholson, T., Lillas, C., & Rzoska, M.A. (1988). Have we been misled by miscues? Reading Teacher, 42. 6-10.Nisbett, R. & Ross, L. (1980). Human inferences: Strategies and shortcomings of social judgement. EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Norusis, M.J. (1993). SPSS for Windows Advanced Statistics Release 6.0. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.O’Flavaban, J.F. & McDonnell, G.M. (1990). Becoming a strategic reader in Virginia: Is practice keeping pacewith research’ Reading in Virginia,.i., 1-9.Pace, G. (1992). Stories of teacher-initiated change from traditional to whole-language literacy instruction.Elementary School Journal, (4), 461-.476.Pajares, M.F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review ofEducational Research. (3), 307-332.Palka, L.J.M. (1993). A multiple case of the factors which influence teacher’s choice of a literature-based or atraditional basal reading program. Dissertation Abstracts International, 53/12, 4265A.Paris, S.G., Lipson, M.Y., & Wixson, K.K. (1983). Becoming a strategic reader. Contemvorarv EducationalPsvcholoev, , 293-316.Paris, S.G., Wasik, BA., & Turner, J.C. (1991). The development of strategic readers. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil,P. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 609-640). New York:Longman.Pearson, P.D. (1989). Reading the whole language movement. Elementary School Journal, 90 (2), 231-241.Pearson, P.D. & Dole, J.A. (1987). Explicit comprehension instruction: A review of research and a newconceptualization of instruction. Elementary School Journal, (2), 151-165.Pearson, P.D. & Fielding, F. (1991). Comprehension instruction. In R. Barr, M.L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P.D.Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research: Vol. 2. (pp. 815-860). New York: Longman.Pearson, P.D. & Gallagher, M.C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension. Contemvorarv EducationalPsychology. , 317-344.Pearson, P.D., Roehler, L.R., Dole, J.A. & Duffy, G.G. (1992). Developing expertise in reading comprehension.In S.J. Samuels & A.E. Farstrup (Ed.s), What research has to say about reading instruction (pp. 145-199).Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Peterson, R. (1979). Research on teaching. Berkley, CA: McCutchan.200Postlethwaite, T.N. & Ross, K.N. (1992). Effective schools in reading: Implications for educational planners. TheInternational Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.Prawat, R.S. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs about teaching and learning: A constructivist perspective. AmericanJournal of Education, IQQ (3), 354-395.Pressely, M. & Rankin, 3. (1993 December). National survey of outstanding primary reading teachers: Wholelanguage experiences and more. Paper presented at the meeting of National Reading Conference,Charleston, South Carolina.Pressley, M., Harris, K., & Marks, M.B. (1992). But good strategy instructors are constructivists! EducationalPsychology Review, 4 (1), 3-31.Ray, K. Lee, S., Stansell, 3. (1991). New methods, old theories, and teacher education: Some observations ofwriting in a third grade classroom. In 3. Zutell & S. McCormick (Eds.), Learning factors, teacher factors:Literacy research and instruction (pp. 152-159). Forthieth yearbook of the National Reading Conference.Chicago: National Reading Conference.Rasinski, T.V. & deFord, D.E. (1988). First graders’ conceptions of literacy: A matter of schooling. Theory intoPractice, XXVII (1), 51-61.Resnick, L.B. & Resnick, D. (1977). The nature of literacy: An historical explanation. Harvard EducationalReview, 4.1 (3), 370-385.Resnick, L.B. & Resnick, D. (1992). Assessing the thinking curriculum: New tools for educational reform. InB.R. Gifford & M.C. O’Connor (Eds.), Changing assessments: Alternative views of antitude. achievementand instruction (pp. 27-77). Boston: Kiuwer Academic Publishers.Richardson, V. (1990). Significant and worthwhile change in teaching practice. Educational Researcher, 19 (7),10-18.Richardson, V., Anders, P., Tidwell, D. & Lloyd, C. (1991). The relationship between teachers’ beliefs andpractices in reading comprehension instruction. American Educational Research Journal, (3), 559-586.Robinson, H.A. (1977). Reading research and instruction: In historical perspective. In H.A. Robinson (Ed.)Reading and writing instruction in the United States: Historical trends (pp. 44-55). Urbana, IL:International Reading Association.Roehler, L.R. & Duffy, G.G. (1991). Teachers instructional actions. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, &P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol.2, pp. 861-884). New York: Longman.Roehler, L.R. & Putnam, 3. (1986). Factors which enhance or inhibit complex teacher change. In J. Niles & R.Lalik (Eds.), Solving uroblems in literacy: Learners. teachers and researchers. Thirty-fifth Yearbook ofthe National Reading Conference (pp. 160-164). Rochester, NY: National Reading Conference.Roehier, L.R., Duffy, G.G., Hernnan, B.A., Conley, M. & Johnson, 3. (1987). Knowledge structures as evidenceof the “personal’: Bridging the gap from thought to practice. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 22 (2), 159-165.Rosen, H. (1987, Feb.). Narrative in intercultural education. Paper presented at the conference on Arts Educationin a Multicultural Society, Bergen, NH.Rosenblatt, L. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Carbondale,IL: Southern University Press.201Rosenshine, B. (1971). Teacher behaviors and achievement. London: National Foundation for EducationalResearch.Rosenshine, B. (1979). Content, time, and direct instruction. In P. Peterson & H. Halberg (Eds.), Research onteaching: Concents. findings, and implications (pp. 28-56). Berkley, CA: McCutchan.Rosenshine, B. (1980). Skill hierarchies in reading comprehension. In R.J. Spiro et a!. (Ed.), Theoretical issuesin reading comprehension (pp. 535-554). Hilisdale, NJ: Eribaum.Rosenshine, B. (1983). Teaching functions in instructional programs. Elementary School Journal, 3 (4), 335-351.Rosenshine, B. & Furst, N. (1973).. The use of direct observation to study teaching. In R.M. W. Travers (Ed.),Second handbook on research on teaching (pp. 122-183). Chicago: Rand McNally.Rosenshine B., & Stevens, R. (1984). Classroom instruction in reading. In P.D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook ofreading research (Vol. 1, pp. 745-798). New York: Longman.Ross, K.N. & Postlethwaite, T.N. (November 1988). Sample design nrocedures for the lEA International Studyof Reading Literacy. First draft.Ruddell, R.B. (1992). A whole language and literature perspective: Creating a meaning-making instructionalenvironment. Lannuane Arts, 69 (6), 612-620.Ruddell, R.B. & Speaker, R. (1985). The interactive model of reading. In H. Singer & R.B. Ruddell (Eds.),Theoretical models and processes of reading (3rd ed., pp. 751-801). Newark, DE: International ReadingAssociation.Rumeihart, D.E. (1994). Toward an interactive model of reading. In. R.B. Ruddelli, M.R. Ruddell, & H. Singer(Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (4th ed., pp. 864-894). Newark, DE: InternationalReading Association.Rupley, W.H. & Logan, J.W. (1985). Elementary teachers’ beliefs about reading and knowledge of readingcontent: Relationships to decisions about reading outcomes. Reading Psychology, j., 145-156.Rupley, W.H., Wise, B.S. & Logan, J.W. (1986). Research ineffective teaching: An overview of its development.In J.V. Hoffman (Ed.), Effective teaching of reading: Research and practice (pp. 3-9). Newark, DE:International Reading Association.Rushcamp, S. & Roehler, L.R. (1992). Characteristics supporting change in a professional development school.Journal of Teacher Education, 4, (1), 19-27.Russell, D., et al. (1951). Ginn Basic Readers. Morristown, NJ: Silver Burdett & Ginn.Samuels, S.J. (1976). Hierarchical subskills in the reading acquisition process. In J.T. Guthrie (Ed.), Asvects ofreading acuuisition. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press.Samuels, S.J. (1988). Characteristics of exemplary reading programs. In S.J. Samuels & P.D. Pearson (Eds.),Changing school reading programs: Principles and case studies (pp. 3-9). Newark, DE: InternationalReading Association..Sainuels, S.J. & Farstrup, A.E. (Eds.). What research has to say about reading instruction. Newark, DE:International Reading Association.Samuels, S.J. & Pearson, P.1). (Eds.:), Changing school reading programs: Principles and case studies (pp. 3-9).Newark, DE: International Reading Association.202Scharer, P.L. (1992). Teachers in transition: An exploration of changes in teachers and classrooms duringimplementation of literature-based reading instruction. Research in the Teaching of English, , 408-445.Scharer, P.L. & Detwiler, D.B. (1992). Changing as teachers: Perils and possibilities of literature-based languagearts instruction. Languare Arts, 69, 186-192.Schon, D.A. (1982). The reflective practitioner. New York: Basic Books.Scott, J. & Butler, C. (1994). Language arts in the 1990’s: A survey of general practices with an emphasis on theteaching of vocabulary in literature-based classrooms. Paper presented at the American Association ofEducational Researchers (AERA) Conference, New Orleans, April 1994.Shanklin, N.L. & Rhodes, L.K. (1989). Transforming literacy instruction. Educational Leadership, 4 (6), 59-63.Shannon, P. (1987). Commerical reading materials, a technological society, and the deskillling of teachers.Elementary School Journal, Z (3), 307-329.Shannon, P. (1 989a). Basal readers: Three perspectives. Theory into Practice, XXVffl (4), 235-239.Shannon, P. (1989b). Broken promises: Reading instruction in twentieth century America. Granby, MA: Bergin& Garvey.Shannon, P. (1994). People who live in glass houses. . . In C. Smith (Ed.), Whole language: The debate (pp. 81-100). Urbana, IL: ERIC.Shapiro, J. (1994). Research perspectives on whole language. In V. Froese (Ed.), Whole-language: Practice andtheory, (pp. 433-470). Scarboroough, Ontario: Allyn and Bacon.Shapiro, 3. & White, W. (1991). Reading attitudes and perceptions in traditional and nontraditional programs.Readiiw Research and Instruction, 30 (4), 52-66.Shavelson, R.J. (1983). Review of research on teachers’ pedagogical judgements, plans, and decisions. ElementarySchool Journal, , 392-413.Shavelson, R.J. & Stern, P. (1981). Research on teachers’ pedagogical thoughts, judgements, decisions, andbehavior. Review of Educational Research, 51, 455-498.Short, K.G., Crawford, K., Kahn, L, Kaser, S., Kiassen, C., & Sherman, P. (1992). Teacher study groups:Exploring literacy issues through colloborative dialogue. In C. Kinzer & D. Leu (Eds.), Literacy research.theory and practice: Views from many perspectives (pp. 267-277). Forty-first yearbook of the NationalReading Conference. Chicago: National Reading Conference.Shulman, L.S. (1 986a). Paradigms and research programs in the study of teaching. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.),Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 3-36). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.Shulman, L.S. (1986b). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, j, 4-14.Shulman, L.S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of a new reform. Harvard Educational Review, jZ(1), 1-22.Siera, M. & Combs, M. (1990). Transitions in reading instruction: Handling contradictions in beliefs andpractices. Reading Horizons, j. (2), 113-126.Simner, M.L. (1993). A position paper on beginning reading instruction in Canadian schools. Canadian Journalof School Psvcholoev, 2. 96-99.203Slaughter, H.B. (1988). Indirect and direct teaching in a whole language program. Reading Teacher, 42 (1), 30-35.Slavin, R.E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A best-evidence synthesis.Review of Educational Research, 2, 293-33 6.Smith, F. (1988). Misleading metaphors of education. In F. Smith (Ed.) Joining the literacy club: Further essaysinto education (pp. 93-108). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Smith, F. (1977). Making sense of reading--and of reading instruction. Harvard Educational Review, 42 (3), 386-395-Smith, F. (1988). Understandinn reading: A vsvcholinguistic analysis of reading and learning to read (4th ed.).Hilisdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Smith, C.B. (1994). Whole language: The debate. Bloomington, IN: ERICIREC.Smith, F. & Goodman, K.S. (1971). On the psycholinguistic method of teaching reading. Elementary SchoolJournal, 177-181.Smith, M.C. & Wham, M.A. (1993). The dialectics of the whole language versus traditional instruction debate.Reading Psvcholoav, 14. 205-227.Smith, N.B. (1965). What have we accomplished? A review of the past fifty years. In In W.B. Barbe (Ed.)Teaching Reading (pp. 37-47). New York: Oxford University Press.Snow, C. & Ninio, A. (1986). The contracts of literacy: What children learn from reading. In W. Tealle & E.Sulzby (Eds.), Emergent literacy (pp. 116-138). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Soar, R.S. & Soar, R.M. (1972). An empirical analysis of selected Follow Through programs: An example ofprocess approach to evaluation. In I. Gordon (Ed.), Early childhood education (pp. 229-261). Chicago:National Society for the Study of Education.Sosniak, S. & Stodolsky, J. (1993). Teachers and textbooks: Materials use in fourth-grade classrooms.Elementary School Journal, 3 (3), 249-275.Spiegel, D.L. (1992). Blending whole language and systematic direct instruction. Reading Teacher, 4, 38-44.Stahl, N.A., Higginson, B.C. & King, J.R. (1993). Appropriate use of comparative literacy research in the 1990’s.Journal of Reading, 31 (2), 104-113.Stahl, S. (1994). Is whole language “the real thing”? Advertisements and research in the debate on wholelanguage. In C. Smith (Ed.), Whole Language: The debate (pp. 124-142). Bloomington, IN:ERIC/REC.Stahl, S. & Miller, P. (1989). Whole language and language experience approaches for beginning readers:Quantitative research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 2, 87-116.Stallings, J.A. & Kaskowitz, D. (1974). Follow through classroom observation and evaluation, 1972-1973,.Menlo Park, CA: Stanford Research Institute.Stennett, R.G., Smythe, P.C., & Hardy, M. (1975). Hierarchial organization of reading subskills: Statisticalapproaches. Journal of Reading Behavior, 2 223-228.204Strickland, K.M. (1993). A microethnography of literature-based reading and writing instruction in a wholelanguage classroom with “at-risk” adolescents. Dissertation Abstracts International, 54/03, 878A.Taylor, D. (1983). Family literacy: Young children learn to read and write. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Taylor, B.M. (1982). Text structure and children’s comprehension and memory for expository text. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 24. 323-340.Taylor, B.M. & Beach, R. .W. (1984). The effects of text structure instruction on middle-grade students’comprehension and production of text. Reading Research Quarterly, 12 (2), 134-146.Thorndike, E.L. (1962). Educational psychology and the science of education. New York: Bureau of PublicationsTeachers College Columbia University.Thorndike, E.L. (1917). Reading as reasoning: A study of mistakes in paragraph meaning. Journal of EducationalPsychology, , 323-332.Thorndike, R.L. (1973). Reading comvrehension in fifteen countries. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wisksell.Thompson, R.A. (1992). A critical perspective on whole language. Reading Psvcholoev, 1.3. 131-155.Tukey, J. (1977). Exnloratorv data analysis. Don Mills, ON: Addison WesleyValencia, S.W., Hiebert, E.H., & Afflerbach, P.P. (Ed.s). Authentic language assessment: Practices andpossibilities. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.VanDijk, T. & Kintsch, W. (1985). Cognitive psychology and discourse: Recalling and summarizing stories. InH. Singer & R.B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (3rd ed., pp. 794-812).Newark, DE: International Reading Association.vanDijk, J.T. & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comnrehension. San Diego, CA: Academic.Velluntino, F.R. (1991). Introduction to three studies on reading acquisition: Convergent findings on theoreticalfoundations of code-oriented versus whole-language approaches to reading instruction. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 3, 437-443.Venezky, R.L. (1984). The history of reading research. In P.D. Pearson (Ed.), Handbook of reading research(Vol. 1, pp. 3-38). New York: Longman.Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The develonment of higher level thought processes. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.Walmsely, S.A. & Adams, E.L. (1993). Realities of “Whole Language.” Language Arts, IQ. 272-280.Warren, W.K., Rees, R., Edwards, R.A. (1993). Teachers and literacy: A national study for the CanadianTeachers’ Federation. Kingston, ON: Queens University.Watson, DJ. (1989). Defining and describing whole language. Elementary School Journal, Q (2), 129-142.Watson, D.J. & Crowley, P. (1988). How can we implement a Whole-Language approach? In C. Weaver (Ed.),Reading process and practice (pp. 232-279). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Weaver, C. (1988). Reading nrocesses and practices. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.205Weaver, C. (1994). Parallels between new paradigms in science and in reading and literacy theories: An essayreview. In. R.B. Ruddeill, M.R. Ruddell, & H. Singer (Eds.), Theoretical Models and Processes ofReading (4th ed., pp. 1185-1202). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.Wells, G. (1986). The meaning makers: Children learning language and using language to learn. Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann.Wells, G. (1990). Creating conditions to encourage literate thinking. Educational Leadership, 42 (6), 13-17.Willinsky, J. (1990).. The new literacy. New York: Routledge.Wilson, E.K., Konopak, B.C. & Readence, J.E. (1992). Emerging content area reading beliefs, decisions, andinstruction: A case study of an English teacher. InC. Kinzer & D. Leu (Eds.), Literacy research. theoryand practice: Views from many nersoectives (pp. 475-482). Thirty-ninth yearbook of the National ReadingConference.Wittrock, S. (1985). Handbook of teaching. New York: Longman.Zarillo, J. (1989). Teachers’ interpretations of literature-based reading. Reading Teacher, 4Z. 22-2 8.206APPENDICES207208Appendix A: Student Background QuestionnaireReading Literacy:Student QuestionnairePopulation ADirections: (To be read by the teacher.)Please answer all of the following questions as best as you can. Ifyou need help. askme.IA Questions about yourself and your home (Questions 1 to 13)1 How old are you?years and_____months2 Areyouaboyoragirl?(Circle only one.)Boy 1Girl 212093 1-low often do you speak English at home?(Circle only one.)Always 1Almost always 2Sometimes 3Hardly ever 4Never 5What is the first language you learned?_______________________4 How often do you eat each of the following meals?(circle one number on each line.)Never 1 or 2 times 3 or 4 times Every daya week a weekBreakfast 1 2 3 4Lunch 1 2 3 4Evening meal 1 2 3 45 Do you get a daily newspaper at home?(circle only one.)No 1Yes 26 On a school day, about how many hours do you usually watch TV or videooutside of school hours?(circle only one.)I do not watch TV or video 1Uptoihour 2Between 1 and 2 hours 3Between 2 and 3 hours 4Between 3 and 4 hours 5Between 4 and 5 hours 6More than 5 hours 77 About how many books are there in your home?(Do not count newspapers or magazines; circle only one.)None 11-10 211-50 351-100 4101-200 5More than 200.... 622108 Please say whether you have the following things or not.(Check all that are found in your home. Check one box per line only.)No Yesa) air conditioner Ci Cib) automatic washing machine Ci CiC) clothes dryer Ci Cid) computer Ci Cie) dishwasher Ci Ci1) gas barbeque Ci Cig) microwave oven Ci Cih) portable fire extinguisher Ci Cii) stereo system Ci Cij) video recorder (‘CR) Ci Ci(1) (2)9 Please say whether you have the following things or not.(Check all that you have. Check one box per line only)No Yesa) My own unshared bedroom Cl Cib) My own camera Ci CiC) My own portable stereo (blaster) Ci Cid) My own magazine subscription Ci Cie) MyownTV Ci Cif) My own walkman Ci Cig) My own video games Ci Cih) My own video movies Ci Ci(1) (2)10 How often do people at home read to you in English?(C’ircle only one.)Never 11 or2timesaweek 23or4timesaweek 3Nearly every day 4ii is there any other place outside of school and your home where someonereads to you in English?(Circle only one.)No 1Yes 2312 How often do people at home read to you in a language other than English?(Circle only one.)Never 11 or2timesaweek 2:3 or 4 times a week 3Nearly every day 413 Is there any other place outside of school and yom’ home where someonereads to you in a language other than English?(Circle only one.)No 1Yes 2lB. Questions about your reading (Questions 14 to 18) I14 How often do you borrow books from a school or public library?(Circle only one.)Never 1Hardly ever 2Once a month 3Once a week 4More than once a week 515 How good are you at reading?(Circle only one.)Notverygood 1Average 2Good 3Very good 4211421216 Which do you think are the three most important ways to become a goodreader?(Check only three.)MOST IMI’ORTANTa) Liking reading 0b) Having lots of time to read Lic) Being able to concentrate well Lid) Knowing how to sound out words Lie) Learning the meaning of lots of words Li1) Having many good books around Lig) Having a lively imagination Lih) Having lots of reading for homework Lii) Having lots of drill (practice) at hard things Lij) Having lots of written exercises Lik) Beingtoldhowtodoit Li(2)17 How often do you read in English to someone at home?(Circle only one.)Never 11 or2timesaweek 23 or4 times aweek 3Nearly every day 418 How often do your parents or other people at home ask you what you have beenreading?(Circle only one.)Never 11 or2timesaweek 23or4timesaweek 3Nearly every day 4C. Questions about your reading homework and your classroom work(Questions 19 to 24)19 How often do you get reading homework? (Circle only one.)Never 1lor2timesaweek 23or4timesaweek 3Every day 4521320 When you have reading homework about how much time do you spend on it?(circle only one.)None 1Up to 15 minutes 216- 30 minutes 3More than 30 minutes 421 How often are you asked questions in class about your reading homework?(Circle only one.)I do not get reading homework 1Always 2Most of the time 3Sometimes 4Hardly ever 5Never 622 How often are you helped with your reading homework?(Circle only one.)I do not get reading homework 1I rarely get help 2I sometimes get help 3I get help most of the time 423 If you dont finish the reading work you get to do by yourself in class, are youexpected to finish it in your own time?(Circle only one.)Always 1Most of the time 2Sometimes 3Hardly ever 4Never 5I do not get reading work to do by myself in class 624 How often are you given written work about the reading work that you havebeen given?(Circle only one.)Always 1Most of the time 2Sometimes 3Hardly ever 4Never 56214ID. Reading for Enjoyment (Questions 25 to 37)25 Did you read a book for fim last week? (Circle only one.)No 1Yes 2(If ‘Yes write in the title or author of the book.)Book title/author:_____________________________________26 How often do you read books for fun?(circle only one.)Almost never 1About once a month 2About once a week 3Almost every day 427 Did you read a comic book last week?(Circle only one.)No 1Yes 2(If ‘Yes, write in the title or the person in the story.)Comic book title/person:28 How often do you read comic books?(Circle only one.)Almost never 1About once a month 2About once a week 3Almost every day 429 Did you read a magazine last week?(Circle only one.)No 1Yes 2(If Yes write in the title of the magazine or the topic you read about.)Magazine title/topic:7215:30 How often do you read magazines?(tircle only one.)Almost never 1About once a month 2About once aweek 3Almost every day 431 Did you read a newspaper last week?(Circle only one.)No 1Yes 2(If ‘Yes. write in the name of the newspaper.)Newspaper name:______________________________________________32 How often do you read newspapers?(Circle only one.)Almost never 1About once a month 2About once a week 3Almost every day 433 How often do you read directions or instructions to do something you enjoy?(You might read them to put a toy together, to play a game, to use a computeror to do something else. Cfrcle only one.)Almost never 1About once a month 2About once a week 3Almost every day 434 Do you read aloud at home?(Circle only one.)No 1Yes 2821635 How often do you read aloud to someone at home?(circle only one.)Never. I do not read aloud to someone at home 1Less than 1 time per week 21 to 3 times per week 3Nearly evely day 436 To whom do you read aloud at home?(Circle only one.)No one. I do not read aloud at home 1Parents 2Brother or sister 3Other person 437 What do you read aloud at home?(You may check more than one.)Nothing. I do not read aloud at homeNewspaperMagazineBook IJTextbookComic bookLettersWords on television screens (2)IE. Reading in School (Questions 38 to 43)38 In school, how often do you read readers in reading or language class?(circle only one.)Almost never 1About once a month 2About once a week 3Almost every day 49217:39 flow often do you read story books in addition to yom readers in reading orlanguage class?(circle only one.)Almost never 1About once a month 2About once a week 3Almost every day 440 How often do you use workbooks or practice exercises in reading or languageclass?(circle only one.)Almost never 1About once a month 2About once a week 3Almost every day 441 In school, how often do you read textbooks or practice exercises in science,social studies or environmental studies?(Circle only one.)Almost never 1About once a month 2About once a week 3Almost every day 442 How often do you look up information in books like encyclopedias, dictionaries,manuals or maps for schoolwork?(Circle only one.)Almost never 1About once a month 2About once a week 3Almost every day 443 If you have a favourite book, please fill in the title below.Thank you very much for your cooperation.108It219Appendix B: Teacher Background QuestionnaireTeacher Questionnaire - Population AReading Literacy:ref. RL’ALIJ9O.472Directions:Teacher QuestionnairePopulation APlease answer the following groups of questions as best as you can. Most questionsrequire you to circle your selected response. Others require you to write in anumber. Where it is appropriate to enter ‘0’ in the answer, please do so. Do not leaveblanks.We thank you for your effort.jA. The first set of questions has to do with you and your educationaltraining (Questions 1 to 9)Your sex:(Circle one number only.)Male 1Female 22 Is English your mother-tongue?(Circle one number only.)No 1Yes 2If no, what is your mother-tongue (or first Ianguage)?_1220Teacher Questionnaire - Population A ref. RLe’ALL/90.4723 How many years of elementary and secondary school education did you havealtogether?(Do no include pre-compulsory education e.g. Kindergarten. Also do notcount grade repetition years.)years (or fuji-time equivalent years.)4 To what category has the Teacher Qualification Service assigned you?UIyou have had no post-secondary education, please enter ‘0’.TQS Category 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Other5 How many full year equivalents ofpost-secondary education do you have?(Ifyou have had no post-secondary education please enter ‘0’.)years (or full-time equivalent years.)6 Approximately how many hours have you devoted to the further study of theteaching of reading after your initial teacher qualifications? (a 1.5 unit courseequals 36 hours or 3 semester hours.)(Circle one number only.)None 1Less than 10 hours 2l0to29hours 330to49hours 450tol00hours 5More than 100 hours 67 How many times have you been to an in-service in reading in the last threeyears?(Circle one number only.)None 1Once 2Twice 3Three times 4Four or more times 5Teacher Questionnaire - Population A ref. RL’ALL/90.4722218 About how often do you read each of the following?(Do not include reading for preparation of class lessons.Circle one number per line only.)a) Articles on teachingb) Articles on readingc) Books / articles on history or politicsd) Books /articles on the artse) Books /articles on sciencef) Novels or short storiesg) Poemsh) Playsi) Books for childrennever or about about oncealmost once once once a weeknever a year a term a month or more1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 59 By the end of this school year how many years will you have been teachingaltogether?years (or full-time equivalent years.)B. This set of questions has to do with your class being tested(Questions 10 to 19)10 How long have you been teaching the class being tested?(Circle one number only.)Less than half a year 1Between half a year and one year 2Between one year and two years 3Between two years and three years 4More than three years 511 Is the class tested a multi-grade class?(Circle one number only.)No 1Yes 212 What is the total number of students and the total number of Grade threestudents in this class?____total students____Grade three studentsabout3222Teacher Questionnaire. Population A ref. RLfALIJ9O.47213 How many Grade three students in this class do not have English as theirfirst language?(If none, please enter ‘0’.)______students14 As a general rule, how often do you meet formally with parents /guardian ofthe students in the class tested?(Circle one number only.)Never 1Once a year 2Once a term 3Once a month or more 415 How many students in this class need remedial help Lu reading?(If none, please enter ‘0’.)students16 How many students in this class receive remedial help in reading?(If none, please enter ‘0’.)students17 What is the number of hours and minutes of total instructional timeexcluding breaks for this class in a typical week? (For all subject areas.)hours and_____minutes per weekIS How much class time per school week do you typically devote to the teachingand learning of English including reading, writing, speaking, listening, andother language skills?_hours and minutes per week19 How much class time per school week do you typically devote to the teachingand practice of reading in English?hours and minutes per week4Teacher Questionnaire - Population A ref. RL/ALL/90.472223C. The following set of questions has to do with your teaching(Questions 20 to 35)a) Learning letter-sound relationshipsandlor phonicsb) Learning other word-attack skillsc) Silent reading in classd) Answering reading comprehensionexercises in writinge) Independent silent reading in a library0 Listening to students reading aloudto a whole classg) Listening to students reading aloud tosmall groups or pairsh) Listening to teachers readingstories aloud1) Discussion of books read by studentsj) Learning new vocabularysystematically (e.g. from lists)k) Learning new vocabularyincidentally from texts1) Learning library skillsm) Reading plays or dramasn) Playing reading gameso) Dramatizing storiesp) Drawing in response to readingq) Summarizing their readingr) Relating experiences to readings) Reading other students writingt) Making predictions during readingu) Diagramming story contentv) Looking for the theme or messagew) Making generalizations and inferencesx) Studying the style or structure of a texty) Comparing pictures and storiesz) Student leading discussion about passageaa) Reading in other subject areasbb) Writing in response to readingabout about almostalmost once 1 or 2 times everynever a month a week day1 2 3 41 2 3 41 2 3 41 2 3 41 2 3 41 2 3 41 2 3 41 2 31 2 31 2 3 420 How often are your students typically involved in the following readingactivities?(Circle one number per line only.)Reading Acthrities Fzquery441 2 3 41 2 3 41 2 3 41 2 3 41 2 3 41 2 3 41 2 3 41 2 3 41 2 3 41 2 3 41 2 3 41 2 3 41 2 3 41 2 3 41 2 3 41 2 3 41 2 3 41 2 3 45224Teacher Questionnaire Population A ref. RLJ.4LL190.47221 In a normal reading instruction period how many reading textbooks areavailable for each student in the class tested?(Circle only the most appropriate answer.)None 11 book for about 5 or more students 21 book for each 2 students 31 book for each student 42 books for each student 53 or more books for each student 6If you selected None” please explainPlease rank only five of the following aims of reading instruction in order ofthe importance you attach to each of them.(Place a ‘1 • next to the most i.rnportant and so on to 5 for the leastimportant. Use each ranking once only.)Aims Importancea) Developing skill in reading aloudb) Developing a lasting interest inreadingc) Improving students’ readingcomprehensiond) Developing student& research andstudy skillse) Extending students’ vocabularyI) Developing students’ critical thinkingg) Expanding students’ world viewsh) Deepening students’ emotionaldevelopmenti) Improving word-attack skillsj) Increasing speed of readingk) Expanding students’ reading choice1) Making reading enjoyable6Teacher Questionnaire - Population A ref. RLIALLI9O.47222523 How often do you use the following instructional strategies when teachingreading?(Circle one number per line only.)Instructional Strategies Frequencya) Accessing prior knowledgeb) Ask children to describe theirstrategy for understanding 1c) Encourage parents to be involvedwith the reading program 1d) Maintaining a graded sequenceof text difficulty 1e) Ask questions to assess textcomprehension 1f) Ask questions to deepen understanding 1g) Show children how to understand a text 1h) Compare stories, poems, fables and tales 1i) Read aloud to children 1j) Encourage parents to read to children 1k) Encourage the children to read more 11) Encourage children to use thelibrary more 1m) Use materials you have prepared yourself 1about about a’mostalmost once 1 or 2 times everynever a month a week day2 3 42 3 42 3 42 3 42 3 42 3 42 3 42 3 42 3 42 3 42 3 42 3 42 3 424 Do you divide the students in this class into groups for reading instructions?No 1Yes 2If you answered “No” to this question, go straight to Question 27.Z5 What type of grouping do you use most often?(Circle one number only.)Do not use grouping 1Age groups 2Ability groups 3Interest groups 4Other (please specify) 5How many groups do you typically form?groups7226Teacher Questionnaire - Population A ref. RL’ALL’90.47227 This year how frequently did you teach students how to read each of thefollowing kinds of text?(Circle one number per line only.)Fquey3or4 about at least nearlyalmost times once once everynever a year a month a week daya) Narration:texts that tell a story or give theorder in which things happen 1 2 3 4 5b) Exposition:texts that describe things or peopleor explain how things workor why things happened 1 2 3 4 5c) Documents:tables, charts, diagrams, lists,maps 1 2 3 4 5Below you will find a number of statements about which we ask you to giveyour views with respect to issues in reading instruction.(Please mark for each statement your degree of agreement/disagreement bycircling the appropriate number. Circle one number on each line.)1. When my pupils read to me, I expect them toread every word accurately.2. Teachers should keep careful records of everychild.s reading progress.3. Children should not be encouraged to read aword they dont know.4. All children should enjoy reading.5. Most of what a child reads should be assessed.6. Every day children should be read to by theteacher from a story book.7. Reading aloud by children to a class is a wasteof thne.8. Most children improve their reading best byextensive reading on their own.9. Children should always understand why theyare reading.10. Teachers should always group children,according to their reading ability.11. 9-year-olds should not have access to booksthey will read in the next year at school.12. Class sets of graded reading material shouldbe used as the bssi for the reading program.13. Children who cant understand what theyread havent been taught propercomprehension skills.14. Every mistake a child makes in reading aloudshould be corrected at once.disagree uncertain agree1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5stronglydisagreestronglyagree8227Teacher Questionnaire - Population A ref. RLIALLI9O.47215. All childrens coinprehenmon assignments 1 2 3 4 5should be marked carefully to provide themwith feedback.16. Children should not start a new book until they 1 2 3 4 5have finished the last.17. Parents should be actively encouraged to help 1 2 3 4 5their children with reading.18. Childrenshouldlearnmoetoftheirnewwords 1 2 3 4 5from lessons designed to enhance their vocabulary.19. Reading learning materials should be 1 2 3 4 5carefully sequenced in terms of languagestructures and vocabulary.20. Children should take a book home to read 1 2 3 4 5every day.21. Children should be encouraged to read texts 1 2 3 4 5they have written.22. Children should always understand what they 1 2 3 4 5are reading.23. Children should always choose their own 1 2 3 4 5books to read.24. A word recognition test is sufficient for 1 2 3 4 5assessing childrens reading levels.25. Teachers should carefully follow the sequence 1 2 3 4 5of the textbook.26. Children should undertake research projects 1 2 3 4 5to improve their reading.What do you regularly do (i.e. at least once a week) to encourage your studentsto read outside school?(You may circle more than one number.)a) Suggest books to students to read 1b) Suggest newspaper articles to students to read 2c) Read attractive stories to students 3d) Hold discussions about books 4e) Other 59228Teacher Questionnaire - Popu1ation A ref. RL/ALL.190.47230 How often do you use the following methods to discover your students’ needsin reading?(Circle one number per line only.)abouta) Listening to students’ readingb) Teacher-made vocabulary testsc) Exercises and tests in workbooksand textbooksd) Standardized or formal testsof comprehensione) Knowledge of students’ readinginterests0 Comments from other teachersg) Informal observationh) Interviewsi) Tests in workbooks and text booksa) Word recognitionb) Vocabularyc) Text comprehensiond) Literary appreciatione) Use of background knowledgef) Sentence understandingg) Phonic skillsh) Reading study skillsi) Amount of readingj) Decodingnever or about about oncea’most once once once a weeknever a year a term a month or more1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 5aboutoncea weekor more1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 531 How often do you assess these aspects of reading with all or most of yourclass?(Circle one number per line only.)never or about aboutalmost once once oncenever a year a term a month10Teacher Questionnaire - ropulation A32 How often do you use these assessment methods?ircle one number per line only)ref. RLIALLI9O.472229a) Multiple-choice questions of readingb) Listening to students reading aloudc) Records of student mterestsd) Oral discussionse) Oral questions on material readf) Written open-ended questionson material readnever or once oralmost twicenever a yearaboutabout about onceonce once a weeka term a month or more1 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 51 2 3 4 533 Do you assign homework in reading to the class tested?(Circle one number only.)No 1Yes 2I > If you answered No’ to Question 33, go straight to Question 3634 How often do you ask children to read something at home as part of yourreading/language program?(Circle one number only.)Never 1Less than once a week 21 or2timesaweek 33ordtimesaweek 4More than 4 times a week 535 About how many minutes do you expect an average student to spend onreading homework when you assign it?(Circle one number onlvjNone 1Up to 10 minutes 211-2Ommutes 321-30minutes 431-40mmutes 541-50minutes 6More than 50 minutes 711230Teacher Questionnaire- I’opulation A ref. IUJALLJ9O.472D. The following set of questions has to do with yotw classroom library(Questions 36 to :39)36 Do you have a classroom library (i.e. a small book or magazine corner in yourclassroom)?(Circle one number only.)No 1Yes 2I 1> If you answered ‘No’ to QuestIon 36 please go to QuestIon 40. I37 About how many books with different titles does your classroom librarycontain?(Circle one number only.)Less than 20 121-40 241-60 361-80 481-100 5Morethanl00.... 638 About how many different titles of magazines and/or newspapers do you havein your classroom library?(Circle one number only.)None 11-5 26-10 311-15 416-20 5More than 20 639 Can your students borrow books from the classroom library to take home?(Circle one number only)No 1Yes 212231Teacher Questionnaire - Population A ref. RL’ALL/90.472E. The following set of questions is about your school library(Questions 40 to 42)40 Do you have a school library in your school?(Circle one number only.)No 1Yes 2I If you answered No’ to Question 40, then stop here. Thpnk you.41 How often do your students visit the school library as a class?(Circle one number only.)Hardly ever 1Once a month 2Once a week 3More than once a week 442 May your students borrow books from the school library to take home?(Circle one number only.)No 1Yes 2F. The following set of questions are to do with school organization.(Questions 43 to 48)43 Is your work as a teacher evaluated by the school principal (vice-principal orhead teacher.) (Circle one number only.)No 1Yes 213232Teacher Questionnaire - Population A ref. RL’ALL/90.47244 Does the school principal (vice principal, head teacher)...(Check the appropriate answers.)No Yesa) discuss with you explicit achievement standardsfor the subjects that you teach 1 2b) ask for evaluation results or progress of yourstudents in reading 1 2c) make suggestions about the choice of instructionalmethods in reading 1 2d) encourage contacts among teachers 1 2e) initiate activites directed at the professionaldevelopment of teachers 1 2f) make suggestions about the content that mustbe covered in reading 1 245 How often do you have staff meetings at your school?(Check only one number.)Never 1Once a year 2Once a term 3Monthly 4Weekly 514233Teacher Questionnaire l’opulaLion A ref. RIJALL/90.47246. If you have staff meetings, please indicate how often the following items occuras subjects of discussion during staff meetings. (Circle one number per lineonly.)all most some not instaff staff staff any sLafimeetings meetings meeting meetinga) Curriculum content 1 2 3 4b) the way subject matter is presented 1 2 3 4c) professional development of teachers 1 2 3 4d) issues of pastoral care’(e.g. studentproblems. guidance,welfare) 1 2 3 4e) organizational issues (e.g. school, climateco-ordination of work among teachers,the way decision-making proceduresare conducted 1 2 3 4f) other topics (e.g. purely administrativetasksieisure and social activities) 1 2 3 447 How often do you have department meetings at your school?(Check only one.)Never 1Once a year 2Once a term 3Monthly 4Weekl.y 515234Teacher Questionnaire - Population A ref. RIIALLO.47248 If you have department meetings, please indicate how often the followingitems occur as subjects of discussion during staff meetings. (Circle onenumber per line only.)all most some not indept. dept. dept. any dept.meetings meetings meeting meetinga) Curriculum content 1 2 3 4b) the way subject matter is presented 1 2 3 4c) professional development of teachers 1 2 3 4d) issues of ‘pastoral care’(e.g. studentproblems, guidance,welfare) 1 2 3 4e) organizational issues (e.g. school, climateco-ordination of work among teachers,the way decision-making proceduresare conducted 1 2 3 4f) other topics (e.g. purely a&ninistrativetasks,leisure and social activities) 1 2 3 449 Which ONE of the following methods MOST NEARLY describes what you useto teach reading in your classroom.a. Reading seriesName of series___________________b. Language experience, or Integrated approachc. Literature-based, or Whole languaged. Some combination of (a), (b), and (c)Please specifye. None of the abovePlease explain__Thank you very much for your cooperation.16cut236Appendix C: Distribution of Teachers’ Professional readingVALID CUMVALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT.67 1 .7 .7 .71.00 1 .7 .7 1.51.67 4 2.8 2.9 4.42.00 5 3.4 3.6 8.02.33 3 2.1 2.2 10.22.67 6 4.1 4.4 14.63.00 1 .7 .7 15.33.33 10 6.9 7.3 22.63.67 3 2.1 2.2 24.84.00 14 9.7 10.2 35.04.33 3 2.1 2.2 37.24.67 17 11.7 12.4 49.65.33 33 22.8 24.1 73.76.00 4 2.8 2.9 76.66.67 20 13.8 14.6 91.28.00 12 8.3 8.8 100.0- -- 8 - 5.5 MISSINGTOTAL 145 100.0 100.0COUNT MIDPOINT ONE SYMBOL EQUALS APPROXIMATELY .80 OCCURRENCES0 .31 .7 *1 1.14 1.55 1.93 2.36 2.71 3.113 3.514 3.93 4.3 5*5*17 4.7 •***S*Sttt**t0 5.133 55*5*5555*5*55*5*55** Slat..... 5*5*55*4 5.90 6.320 6.70 7.10 7.512 7.90 8.3I....+....I.. ..+. ...I....+....I....+.. ..I....+. ...I0 8 16 24 32 40HISTOGRAM FREQUENCY237Appendix D: Distribution of Teachers’ Casual readingVALID CUMVALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT.67 2 1.4 1.5 1.5.83 1 .7 .7 2.21.00 3 2.1 2.2 4.41.33 5 3.4 3.7 8.11.50 6 4.1 4.4 12.61.67 3 2.1 2.2 14.81.83 3 2.1 2.2 17.02.00 4 2.8 3.0 20.02.17 11 7.6 8.1 28.12.33 6 4.1 4.4 32.62.50 7 4.8 5.2 37.82.67 6 4.1 4.4 42.22.83 5 3.4 3.7 45.93.00 4 2.8 3.0 48.93.17 8 5.5 5.9 54.83.33 8 5.5 5.9 60.73.50 2 1.4 1.5 62.23.67 4 2.8 3.0 65.23.83 1 .7 .7 65.94.00 3 2.1 2.2 68.14.17 3 2.1 2.2 70.44.33 10 6.9 7.4 77.84.50 1 .7 .7 78.54.67 5 3.4 3.7 82.24.83 2 1.4 1.5 83.75.00 4 2.8 3.0 86.75.33 2 1.4 1.5 88.15.67 7 4.8 5.2 93.36.00 1 .7 .7 94.16.17 2 1.4 1.5 95.66.33 1 .7 .7 96.36.67 1 .7 .7 97.07.33 2 1.4 1.5 98.58.00 2 1.4 1.5 100.010 6.9 MISSINGTOTAL - 145 100.0 100.0238COUNT MIDPOINT ONE SYMBOL EQUALS APPROXIMATELY .40 OCCURRENCESO .33 .3 1.114 1.5* * •*• S7 1.917 2.3 * * ** ***•S•** S *5*5*5* * 5****18 2 712 3.114 3.5..*.....***.4 3.913 4.38 4.74 5.19 5.5 ‘1 5.93 6.31 6.70 7.12 7.52 7.90 8.30 4 8 12 16 20HISTOGRAM FREQUENCYVALID CASES 135 MISSING CASES 10239Appendix E: Distribution ofgagemtVALID CUMVALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT.00 5940.7 40.740.71.00 45 31.031.0 71.72.0023 15.915.9 87.63.00 18 12.412.4 100.0TOTAL 145 100.0100.0I+00 I59 I+I+1.00 I45 I+I +2.00 I23 I+I +3.00 I18 I+II II II I0 1224 3648 60FREQUENCYVALID CASES145 MISSING CASES 0VALIDVALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT4.00 100 3.6 4.07.00 164 5.8 6.610.00 254 9.0 10.213.00 308 10.9 12.416.00 416 14.8 16.719.00 266 9.5 10.722.00 346 12.3 13.925.00 201 7.1 8.128.00 257 9.1 10.331.00 29 1.0 1.234.00 128 4.6 5.240.00 15 .5 .6329 11.7 MISSINGTOTAL 2813 100.0 100.0I I I I I I0 100 200 300 400 500HISTOGRAM FREQUENCYAppendix F: Distribution of Students’ School Reading\\240CUMPERCENT4.010.620.933.350.060.774 682. 793.194.299.4100.0COUNT10016425430841626634620125729128015VALUE ONE SYMBOL EQUALS APPROXIMATELY 10.00 OCCURRENCES4.007.00 •5•10.00 ....*e*,..***.**sste***ss13.0016.0019.0022.0025.0028.00•...o.*a..*.31.0034.0037.0040.00VALID CASES 2484 MISSING CASES 329241Appendix G: Distribution of Students’ Voluntary ReadingVALID CUMVALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT.00 73 2.6 3.0 3.01.00 66 2.3 2.7 5.62.00 40 1.4 1.6 7.23.00 25 .9 1.0 8.34.00 70 2.5 2.8 11.15.00 77 2.7 3.1 14.26.00 52 1.8 2.1 16.37.00 29 1.0 1.2 17.58.00 50 1.8 2.0 19.59.00 60 2.1 2.4 21.910.00 112 4.0 4.5 26.511.00 109 3.9 4.4 30.912.00 81 2.9 3.3 34.213.00 61 2.2 2.5 36.614.00 118 4.2 4.8 41.415.00 110 3.9 4.5 45.916.00 75 2.7 3.0 48.917.00 40 1.4 1.6 50.518.00 83 3.0 3.4 53.919.00 75 2.7 3.0 56.920.00 113 4.0 4.6 61.521.00 80 2.8 3.2 64.722.00 57 2.0 2.3 67.023.00 44 1.6 1.8 68.824.00 92 3.3 3.7 72.625.00 60 2.1 2.4 75.026.00 51 1.8 2.1 77.027.00 22 .8 .9 77.928.00 32 1.1 1.3 79.229.00 54 1.9 2.2 81.430.00 84 3.0 3.4 84.831.00 28 1.0 1.1 86.032.00 42 1.5 1.7 87.733.00 19 .7 .8 88.434.00 36 1.3 1.5 89.935.00 32 1.1 1.3 91.236.00 21 .7 .9 92.038.00 20 .7 .8 92.839.00 23 .8 .9 93.840.00 18 .6 .7 94.541.00 16 .6 .6 95.142.00 15 .5 .6 95.744.00 25 .9 1.0 96.845.00 19 .7 .8 97.548.00 13 .5 .5 98.150.00 13 .5 .5 98.651.00 7 .2 .3 98.954.00 21 .7 .9 99.760.00 7 .2 .3 100.0343 12.2 MISSINGTOTAL 2813 100.0 100.0242COUNI MIDPOINT ONE SYMBOLEQUALS APPROXIMATELY 8.00 OCCURRENCES139 0135 3158 6222 9251 12303 15198 1825021* * • *• • * •* • • .. * * .* * . *. a . a .. a a * a *196 24105 27“166 3097 3353 3661 39a31 4244 4513 4820 5121 540 577 60*I. .+... .1. ...+....I....+....I....+....I....+.. . .10 80160 240320 400HISTOGRAM FREQUENCYVALID CASES2470 MISSINGCASES 343243COUNT1562158162244246312255337214? 168575VALUE.00• CO2.003.004 .005 00S .007.008.00q 0010.0011.0012.00Appendix H: Distribution of Students’ Reading InteractionsVALID CUMVALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENTONE SYMBOL EQUALS APPROXIMATELY 8.00 OCCURRENCESI I I II I0 80 160 240320 400HISTOGRAM FREQUENCY.001.002.003.004.005.006.007,008.009.0010.0011 . 0012.007562158162244246312255337214216857537228132.72.25.65.88.78.711.19.112.07.67.73.02.713.2100.03. 15.612.118.728.738.851.662.075.884.693.496.9100.03. 12.56.56.810.010. 112.810.413.88.88.83.53.1MISSING100.0TOTALVALTI) CASES ?441 MISSING CASES 372244Appendix I: Distribution of Students’ Affective Perception of Reading AcquisitionVALID CUMVALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT.00 212 7.5 9.9 9.91.00 903 32.1 42.2 52.12.00 867 30.8 40.5 92.53.00 160 5.7 7.5 100.0671- 23.9 MISSINGTOTAL 2813 100.0 100.0+.00 I 212 I+I+1.00 I 903 I++2.00 I 867 I++3.00 1 160 1+I I I I I I0 200 400 600 800 1000FREQUENCYVALID CASES 2142 MISSING CASES 671245Appendix 3: Distribution of Students’ High Level Perception of Reading AcquisitionVALID CUMVALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT.00 849 30.2 39.6 39.61.00 1039 36.9 48.5 88.12.00 250 8.9 11.7 99.83.00 4 .1 .2 100.0671 23.9 MISSINGTOTAL 2813 100.0 100.0I+.00 I 849 I+I+1.00 I 1039 I+I+2.00 I 250 I++3.00 I 4+II I I I I I0 240 480 720 960 1200FREQUENCYVAI ID CASES 214? MISSING CASES 671246Appendix K: Distribution of Students’ Low Level Perception of Reading AcquisitionVALID CUMVALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT.00 701 24.9 32.7 32.71.00 1134 40.3 52.9 85.72.00 297 10.6 13.9 99.53.00 10 .4 .5 100.0671 23.9 MISSINGTOTAL 2813 100.0 100.0I+.00 I 701 I+I+1.00 I 1134 I+I+2.00 1 297 1+I+3.00 I 10+I I I I I I0 240 480 720 960 1200FREQUENCYV 11) 1’.ASFS 2142 MISSING CASES 671247Appendix L: Distribution of Students’ Self-ratingVALID CUMVALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT.00 1141 40.6 43.9 43.91.00 1459 51.9 56.1 100.0213 - - 7.6 MISSINGTOTAL 2813 100.0 100.0I+.00 I 1141 I+r4.1.00 I 1459 I+II I I I I I0 300 600 900 1200 1500FREQUENCYVALID CASES 2600 MISSING CASES 213248Appendix M: Distribution of Students’ Homework IntensityVALID CUMVALUE FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT PERCENT.00 862 30.6 34.9 34.91.00 782 27.8 31.7 66.62.00 825 29.3 33.4 100.0344 12.2 MISSINGTOTAL 2813 100.0 100.0+.00 1 862 I+I+1.00 I 782 I+I+2.00 I 825 I+II I I I I I0 200 400 600 800 1000FREQUENCYVALID CASES 2469 MISSING CASES 344249Appendix N: Means, Standard Deviation, and Correlations of Reading ActivitiesMEAN STD 0EV CASESATACTO1R 2.39262 1.98293 149ATACTO2R 2.58219 1.85976 146ATACTO3R 4.79139 .82051 151ATACTO4R 1.31833 1.51290 150ATACTO5R 1.59060 1.44662 149ATACTO6R 1.72862 1.68476 152ATACTO7R 2.58775 1.82919 151ATACTO8R 4.37664 1.37315 152ATACTO9R 1.54195 1.49550 149ATACT10R .97973 1.42123 148ATACT1IR 3.48833 1.76647 150ATACT12R .82667 .78951 150ATACT13R .43212 .60767 151ATACT14R .62919 .92125 149ATACT15R .49013 .55675 152ATACT16R 1.47185 1.40948 151ATACT17R 1.60333 1.46556 150ATACT18R 2.32947 1.78226 151ATACT19R 1.93500 1.68849 150ATACT2OR 2.99836 1.81075 152ATACT21R 1.06757 1.20759 148ATACT22R 2.09667 1.74321 150ATACT23R 2.41500 1.80544 150ATACT24R .99013 1.23000 152ATACT25R 1.90625 1.80318 152ATACT26R .75839 .99732 149ATACT27R 3.60362 1.78591 152ATACT28R 2.75497 1.84384 151CORRELATIONMATRIX:ATACTO1RATACTO2RATACTO3RATACTO4RATACTO5RATACTO6RATACTO7RATACTO8RATACTO9RATACT1ORATACT11RATACT12RATACTO1R1.00000ATACTO2R.832361.00000ATACTO3R.00470.063151.00000ATACTO4R.24809.21047.088991.00000ATACTO5R.07127.03011-.02289.120351.00000ATACTO6R.17584.14689.08748.32680.125571.00000ATACTO7R.25965.24004.18708.24742.15540.281591.00000ATACTO8R.15370.09163.14832-.10362-.06736-.01498-.025361.00000ATACTO9R.11315.12788.08575.14213.19679.23507.20430.164671.00000ATACT1OR.33214.25914.07038.30797.08624.10966.22477-.10327.079991.00000ATACT11R.09790.18846.13825.08382.10228.04720.05388.15950.21419-.013771.00000ATACT12R.29028.31929.14821.01874.21135.14879.18779-.01837.22184.04508.217301.00000ATACTI3R.04214.10091.12388.10564.34003.09512.20041-.03789.09352.13116.15092.22356ATACT14R.21328.23304.09577.26944.03247.15495.24201.04391.22645.24714.09268.05456ATACT15R.27791.19794.09580.21656.24407.30568.27089-.07748.20635.19568.22019.31385ATACT1BR.15957.14234.12273.18314.16242.20742.15898-.12889.10532.10088.25144.11886ATACT17R.11488.14515.12164.25701.16319.19700.15345.02070.35190.05321.20961.11758ATACT1SR.13250.15545.14010-.01266.05793.19426.20156.02230.27236.00761.34579.18649ATACT19R.23414.18241.16004.06890.15459.22125.27943.11246.32562.04424.23680.19686ATACT2OR.02750.13952.11969.07328.10395.16854.16151.16869.20785-.02183.28449.20409ATACT21R.23392.22791.03800.25074.26141.21018.27651-.06744.23049.22976.10168.13437ATACT22R.32386.26574.11370.22859.13059.28035.27986.05936.36708.21408.13354.16829ATACT23R.18124.13877.07732.17894.03418.23346.20235.16327.26705-.01584.12828.08690ATACT24R.12549.13194.10428-.08746-.03473.10820.18851.14370.28263.00183.13706.21066ATACT25R.26459.17127.08342.16081.11478.24716.23356-.02346.30535.03926.21790.24190ATACT26R.09538.11116.00781.15444.07102.25887.18905-.05564.15195.08423.09205.11143ATACT27R.08817.10830.20704.15039.10455.35196.24076.02765.20394.01953.21849.11524ATACT28R.21023.24444.10695.18641.18324.35621.28857.07410.28114.10119.23078.238880ATACT13RATACT14RATACT15RATACT16RATACT17RATACT18RATACT19RATACT2ORATACT21RATACT22RATACT23RATACT24RATACT13R1.00000ATACT14R.277131.00000ATACT15R.49697.328861.00000ATACT16R.32331.35163.336911.00000ATACT17R.17649.39998.28685.387401.00000ATACT18R.17320.13054.19721.25908.392291.00000ATACT19R.16625.28784.32105.30487.31154.379971.00000ATACT2OR.21597.25386.23589.19129.30204.38643.207421.00000ATACT21R.24170.50791.35509.44589.41690.25837.32527.294761.00000ATACT22R.17008.40323.38562.27493.47041.52913.38504.34048.403091.00000ATACT23R.18383.30307.21154.11328.38331.38656.29430.41273.22149.654291.00000ATACT24R-.00261.26657.13321.13734.26767.36167.31149.32999.33713.49003.407601.00000ATACT25R.25048.34906.29743.43965.33029.34740.25498.47614.34626.37248.44545.34616ATACT26R.12297.24249.15893.21731.15691.30233.30116.23718.17075.31273.35591.30433ATACT27R.11312.09361.15775.16129.15322.17671.14117.18705.22256.15863.10703.15418ATACT2BR.22833.20187.33608.29669.36607.37385.26498.31473.28696.28497.25733.19115ATACT25RATACT2BRATACT27RATACT28RATACT25R1.00000ATACT26R.340921.00000ATACT27R.13745.223411.00000ATACT2BR.30375.25303.442321.00000U’MEANSTDDEVCASESATSTRO1R3.494861.86376146ATSTRO2R1.840751.75853146ATSTRO3R1.813762.10695149ATSTRO4R.929581.57661142ATSTRO5R2.547301.85106148ATSTRO8R3.533781.78732148ATSTRO7R2.337411.83164143ATSTROBR1.619131.63355149ATSTRO9R4.688241.00290149ATSTR1OR2.057822.11290147ATSTR11R4.180271.50048147ATSTR12R2.672821.78824149ATSTR13R2.957771.94431148ATFRTE1R72.9794559.58618146ATFRTE2R31.0204131.25585147ATFRTE3R22.8911627.55706147CORRELATIONMATRIX:ATSTRO1RATSTRO2RATSTRO3RATSTRO4RATSTRO5RATSTRO6RATSTRO7RATSTRO8RATSTRO9RATSTR1ORATSTR11RATSTR12RATSTRO1R1.00000ATSTRO2R.379211.00000ATSTRO3R.18399.228221.00000ATSTRO4R.14388.17289.057311.00000ATSTRO5R.19647.21202.03905.335761.00000ATSTRO6R.26111.26588.22919.22160.592131.00000ATSTRO7R.24859.23440.18686.30243.47044.527431.00000ATSTROBR.25684.31021.11127.24395.26982.31575.468731.00000ATSTRO9R.06545.06975.08927-.10823-.04184.10078-.01332-.062621.00000ATSTR1OR.19352.19403.64103.12844.03706.13876.11457.05860.121541.00000ATSTR1IR.30692.11834.14814.14026.06205.06801.22131.06394-.00146.351141.00000ATSTRI2R.23311.29209.32865.07374.07289.10645.30523.18942.12855.38965.402611.00000ATSTR13R.37523.25154.34640.28813.06971.20423.22909.26702.11869.25538.19879.24042ATFRTE1R.13545-.02143.11046.08066.16184.20047.09419.12749.00473-.00262.18066.03435AIFRTE2R.17879.16636.17005.31140.41382.30912.30612.16233.12409.10410.17512.07012ATFRTE3R.08338.24915.17809-.00010.04681.04814.14409.16286.06148.20095.14976.23782I 0 C O 0 C C?)253Appendix P: Means, Standard Deviation, and Correlations of Reading InstructionMEAN STD DEV CASESATVIEO1R 3.95333 .86292 150ATVIEO2R 1.98000 .78517 150ATVIED3R 4.28859 .80820 149ATVIEO4R 1.82914 .82663 151ATVIEO5R 3.92000 .80195 150ATVIEO8R 1.48322 .71717 149ATVIEO7R 4.38411 .82068 151ATVIEO8R 2.06000 1.02076 150ATVIEO9R 2.46687 .951 19 150ATVIE1OR 4.37748 .64205 151ATVIE11R 4.31788 .86318 151