DOCUMENT RESUME CS 012 179 AUTHOR Pressley, Michael; And … · 2014-07-18 · DOCUMENT RESUME ED...

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 384 015 CS 012 179

AUTHOR Pressley, Michael; And OthersTITLE A Survey of.Thstructional Practices of Primary

Teachers Nominated as Effective in PromotingLiteracy. Reading Research Report No. 41. Summer1995.

INSTITUTION National Reading Research Center, Athens, GA.;National Reading Research Center, College Park,MD.

SPONS AGENCY Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED),Washington, DC.

PUB DATE 95

CONTRACT 117A20007NOTE 36p.PUB TYPE Reports Research/Technical (143)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Classroom Environment; *Elementary School Teachers;

Instructional Effectivene,-s; *Primary Education;Reading Instruction; Read.ng Research; StudentEvaluation; *Teacher Attitudes; *Teacher Behavior;*Teaching Methods; Writing Instruction; WritingResearch

ABSTRACTPrimary teachers who were nominated by their

supervisors as effective in educating their students to be readersand writers responded to two questionnaires about their practice.Subjects were 23 kindergarten, 34 first-grade, and 26 second-gradeteachers. As expected, there were shifts in reported practicesbetween kindergarten and grade 2, although there was much moresimilarity than difference in the reports of kindergarten, grade-1,and grade-2 teachers. The teachers claimed commitments to: (1)

qualitatively similar instruction for students of all abilities,along with additional support for weak readers; (2) literateclassroom environments; (3) modeling and teaching of both lower-order(e.g. decoding) skills and higher-order (e.g. comprehension)processas; (4) extensive and diverse types of reading by students;(5) teaching students to plan, draft, and revise as part of writing;(6) engaging literacy instruction (i.e., instruction motivatingliterate activities); and (7) monitoring of students' progress inliteracy. (Contains 73 references and three tables of data.)(Author/RS)

***********************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

***********************************************************************

0"it Zr

00

A Survey of Instructionai Practices ofPrimary Teachers Nominated asEffective in Promoting Literacy

Michael PressleyState University of New York at Albany

Joan RankinUniversity of Nebraska

Linda YokoiState University of New York at Albany

ti

NRRC

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION011.c of Educatonai Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

ci/This document has been reproduced asreCionifp0 from the person or organashononotnahnp itMInOr changes have been made lo improvereproduction Quality

Pants of view or optmonsStaleo .n MIS docu-ment do not necessartly represent othc.atOE RI posthon or pohcy

NationalReading ResearchCenter

READING RESEARCH REPORT NO, 41

Summer 1995

'IBEST COPY AVAILABLE

NRRCNational Reading Research Center

A Survey of Instructional Practices of Primary TeachersNominated as Effective in Promoting Literacy




READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 41

Summer 1995

The work reported herein is a National Reading Research Project of the University of Georgiaand University of Maryland. It was supported under the Educational Research andDevelopment Centers Program (PR/AWARD NO. I I7A20007) as administered by the Officeof Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. The findings andopinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the position or policies of the NationalReading Research Center, the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, or the U.S.Department of Education.

NRRC NationalReading ResearchCenter

Executive CommitteeDonna E. Alvermann, Co-DirectorUniversity of Georgia

John T. Guthrie, Co-DirectorUniversity of Maryland College Park

James F. Baumann, Associate DirectorUniversity of Georgia

Patricia S. Koskinen, Associate DirectorUniversity of Maryland College Park

Nancy B. Mizelle, Acting Associate DirectorUniversity of Georgia

Jamie Lynn Metsala, Interim Associate DirectorUniversity of Maryland College Park

Penny OldfatherUniversity of Georgia

John F. O'FlahavanUniversity of Maryland College Park

James V. HoffmanUniversity of Texas at Austin

Cynthia R. HyndUniversity of Georgia

Robert SerpeilUniversity of Maryland Baltimore County

Betty ShockleyClarke County School District, Athens, Georgia

Linda DeGroffUniversity of Georgia

Publications Editors

Research Reports and PerspectivesLinda DeGroff, EditorUniversity of Georgia

James V. Hoffman, Associate EditorUniversity of Texas at Austin

Mariam Jean Dreher, Associate EditorUniversity of Maryland College Park

Instructional ResourcesLee Galda, University of GeorgiaResearch HighlightsWilliam G. HolidayUniversity of Maryland College Park

Policy BriefsJames V. HoffmanUniversity of Texas at Austin

VideosShawn M. Glynn, University of Georgia

NRRC StaffBarbara F. Howard, Office ManagerKathy B. Davis, Senior SecretaryUniversity of Georgia

Barbara A. Neitzey, Administrative AssistantValerie Tyra, AccountantUniversity of Maryland College Park

National Advisory BoardPhyllis W. AldrichSaratoga Warren Board of Cooperative EducationalServices, Saratoga Springs, New York

Arthur N. ApplebeeState University of New York, AlbanyRonald S. BrandtAssociation for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopmentMarsha T. DeLainDelaware Department of Public Instruction

Carl A. GrantUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison

Walter KintschUniversity of Colorado at Boulder

Robert L. LinnUniversity of Colorado at Boulder

Luis C. MollUniversity of Arizona

Carol M. SantaSchcol District No. 5Kalispell, Montana

Anne P. SweetOffice of Educational Research and Improvement,U.S. Department of Education

Louise Cherry WilkinsonRutgers University

Production EditorKatherine P. HutchisonUniversity of Georgia

Dissemination CoordinatorJordana E. Rich

University of Georgia

Text FormatterAnn Marie VanstoneUnivers:ty of Georgia

NRRC - Univer..ity of Georgia318 AderholdUniversity of GeorgiaAthens, Georgia 30602-7125(706) 542-3674 Fax: (706) 542-3678INTERNET: [email protected]

NRRC - University of Maryland College Park3216 J. M. Patterson BuildingUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, Maryland 20742(301) 405-8035 Fax: (301) 314-9625INTERNET: NRRCIgumail.umd.edu

About the National Reading Research Center

The National Reading Research Center (NRRC) isfunded by the Office of Educational Research andImprovement of the U.S. Department of Education toconduct research on reading and reading instruction.The NRRC is operated by a consortium of the Universi-ty of Georgia and the University of Maryland CollegePark in collaboration with researchers at several institu-tions nationwide.

The NRRC's mission is to discover and documentthose conditions in homes, schools, and communitiesthat encourage children to become skilled, enthusiastic,lifelong readers. NRRC researchers are committed toadvancing the development of instructional programssensitive to the cognitive, sociocultural, and motiva-tional factors that affect children's success in reading.NRRC researchers from a variety of disciplines conductstudies with teachers and students from widely diversecultural and socioeconomic backgrounds in pre-kinder-garten through grade 12 classrooms. Research projectsdeal with the influence of family and family-schoolinteractions on the development of literacy; the interac-tion of sociocultural factors and motivation to read; theimpact of literature-based reading programs on readingachievement; the effects of reading strategies instructionon comprehension and critical thinking in literature,science, and history; the influence of innovative groupparticipation structures on motivation and learning; thepotential of computer technology to enhance literacy;and the development of methods and standards foralternative literacy t-ssments.

The NaRC is further committed to the participationof teachers as full partners in its research. A betterunderstanding of how teachers view the development ofliteracy, how they use knowledge from research, andhow they approach change in the classroom is crucial toimproving instruction. To further this understanding,the NRRC conducts school-based research in whichteachers explore their own philosophical and pedagogi-cal orientations and trace their professional growth.

Dissemination is an important feature of NRRC activi-ties. Information on NRRC research appears in severalformats. Research Reports communicate the results oforiginal research or synthesize the findings of severallines of inquiry. They are written primarily for re-searchers studying various areas of reading and readinginstruction. The Perspective Series presents a widerange of publications, from calls for research and

commentary on research and practice to first-personaccounts of experiences in schools. InstructionalResources include curriculum materials, instructionalguides, and materials for professional growth, designedprimarily for teachers.

For more information about the NRRC's researchprojects and other activities, or to have your nameadded to the mailing list, please contact:

Donna E. Alvermann, Co-DirectorNational Reading Research Center318 Aderhold HallUniversity of GeorgiaAthens, GA 30602-7125(706) 542-3674

John T. Guthrie, Co-DirectorNational Reading Research Center3216 J. M. Patterson BuildingUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, MD 20742(301) 405-8035

5

NRRC Editorial Review Board

Peter AfflerbachUniversity of Maryland College Park

Jane AgeeUniversity of Georgia

JoBeth AllenUniversity of Georgia

Janice F. AlmasiUniversity of Buffalo-SUNY

Patty AndersUniversity of Arizona

Harriette ArringtonUniversity of Kentucky

Marna BanningUniversity of Utah

Jill BartoliElizabethtown College

Janet BentonBowling Green, Kentucky

Irene BlumPine Springs Elementary School

Falls Church, Virginia

David BloomeAmherst College

John BorkowskiNotre Dame University

Karen BromleyBinghamton University

Martha CarrUniversity of Georgia

Suzanne ClewellMontgomery County Public Schools

Rockville, Maryland

Joan ColeyWestern Maryland College

Michelle CommeyrasUniversity of Georgia

Linda CooperShaker Heights City Schools

Shaker Heights, Ohio

Karen CostelloConnecticut Department of Education

Hartford, Connecticut

Jim CunninghamGibsonville, North Carolina

Karin DahlOhio State University

Murcia DelanyWilkes County Public Schools

Washington, Georgia

Lynne Diaz-RicoCalifornia State University-St- I

Bernardino

Ann Egan-RobertsonAmherst College

Jim FloodSan Diego State University

Dana FoxUniversity of Arizona

Linda GambrellUniversity of Maryland College Park

Mary GrahamMcLean, Virginia

Rachel GrantUniversity of Maryland College Park

Barbara GuzzettiArizona State University

Frances HancockConcordia College of Saint Paul,

Minnesota

Kathleen HeubachUniversity of Georgia

Sally Hudson-RossUniversity of Georgia

Cynthia HyndUniversity of Georgia

David JardineUniversity of Calgary

Robert JimenezUniversity of Oregon

Michelle KellyUniversity of Utah

James KingUniversity of South Florida

Kate KirbyGwinnett County Public Schools

Lawrenceville, Georgia

Linda LabboUniversity of Georgia

Michael LawUniversity of Georgia

Donald T. LeuSyracuse University

Susan LytleUniversity of Pennsylvania

Bert ManginoLas Vegas, Nevada

Susan MazzoniBaltimore, Maryland

Ann Dacey McCannUniversity of Maryland College Park

Sarah McCartheyUniversity of Texas at Austin

Veda McClainUniversity of Georgia

Lisa Mc FallsUniversity of Georgia

Randy McGinnisUniversity of Maryland

Mike McKennaGeorgia Southern University

Barbara MichaloveFowler Drive Elementary School

Athens, Georgia

Elizabeth B. MojeUniversity of Utah

Lesley MorrowRutgers University

Bruce MurrayUniversity of Georgia

Susan NeumanTemple University

John O'FlahavanUniversity of Maryland College Park

Marilyn Ohlhausen-McKinneyUniversity of Nevada

Penny OldfatherUniversity of Georgia

Barbara M. PalmerMount Saint Mary's College

Stephen PhelpsBuffalo State College

Mike PickleGeorgia Southern University

Amber T. PrinceBerry College

Gaoyin QianLehman College-CUNY

Tom ReevesUniversity of Georgia

Lenore RinglerNew York University

Mary RoeUniversity of Delaware

Nadeen T. RuizCalifornia State University-

Sacramento

Olivia SarachoUniversity of Maryland College Park

Paula SchwanenflugelUniversity of Georgia

Robert SerpellUniversity of Maryland Baltimore

County

Betty ShockleyFowler Drive Elementary School

Athens, Georgia

Wayne H. SlaterUniversity of Maryland College Park

Margaret SmithLas Vegas, Nevada

Susan SonnenscheinUniversity of Maryland Baltimore

County

Bernard SpodekUniversity of Illinois

Steve StahlUniversity of Georgia

Roger StewartUniversity of Wyoming

Anne P. SweetOffice of Educational Research

and Improvement

Louise TomlinsonUniversity of Georgia

Bruce VanSledrightUniversity of Maryland College Park

Barbara WalkerEastern Montana University-Billings

Louise WaynantPrince George's County Schools

Upper Marlboro, Maryland

Dera WeaverAthens Academy

Athens, Georgia

Jane WestAgnes Scott College

Renee WeisburgElkins Park, Pennsylvania

Allen WiglieldUniversity of Maryland College Park

Shelley WongUniversity of Maryland College Park

Josephine Peyton YoungUniversity of Georgia

Hallic YuppCalifornia State University

About the Authors

Michael Pressley is a Professor in the Departmentof Educational Psychology and Statitistics, theState University of New York at Albany. He hasstudied strategies instruction extensively since the1980s and is an authority on reading comprehen-sion.

Joan Rankin is an Associate Professor in theDepartment of Special Education and Communica-tion Disorders at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. She conducts research on literacy instruc-tion for children with disabilities.

Linda Yokoi is a graduate student in the Depart-ment of Educational Psychology and Statistics, theState University of New York at Albany, whereshe is continuing her work on studies skills andcognitive development.

National Reading Research CenterUniversities of Georgia and MarylandReading Research Report No. 41Summer 1995

A Sun, cy of Instructional Practices of Primary TeachersNominated as Effective in Promoting Literacy




Abstract. Kindergarten (n = 23), grade-I (n = 34),and grade-2 (n = 26) teachers, who were nomi-nated by their supervisors (n = 45) as effective ineducating their students to be readers and writers,responded to two questionnaires about their prac-tice. As expected, there were shifts in reportedpractices between kindergarten and grade 2, al-though there was much more similarity than differ-ence in the reports of kindergarten, grade-I, andgrade-2 teachers. The teachers claimed commit-ments to (a) qualitatively similar instruction forstudents of all abilities, along with additionalsupport for weaker readers; (b) literate classroomenvironments; (c) modeling and teaching of bothlower-order (e. g. , decoding) skills and higher-order(e.g., comprehension) processes; (d) extensive anddiverse types of reading by students; (e) teacningstudents to plan, draft, and revise as part of writing;09 engaging literacy instruction (i.e., instructionmotivating literate activities); and (g) monitoring ofstudents' progress in literacy.

1

9

What is the nature of effective primaryliteracy instruction? Many theories and modelshave been proposed in response to this question(see Chall, 1967; Flesch, 1955; Goodman &Goodman, 1979), each emphasizing particularprocesses and instruction stimulating thoseprocesses. Invariably, advocates of a modelhypothesize that children will be more literateif they experience the model they espouserather than other forms of literacy instruction.Such hypotheses have led to tests of varioustypes of primary-level literacy instruction(Barr, 1984).

The most famous set of such evaluationswas the "first-grade studies" in the 1960ssponsored by the U.S. Office of Education(Adams, 1990, chap. 3; Barr, 1984; Bond &Dykstra, 1967). A strength of these studies wasthat each of various approaches to readinginstruction was tested in several different

2 Michael Pressley, Joan Rankin, & Linda Yokoi

experiments and, typically, by different re-search teams. By most accountings, however,there was no clear overall winner in the first-grade studies (Barr, 1984; Bond & Dykstra,1967) nor in extensions of the comparisons tograde-2 level (Dykstra, 1968). Although wordreading sometimes was improved in programstargeted at increasing decoding skills andknowledge of letter-sound consistencies inwords, vocabulary and comprehension wereaffected little by alternatives to the traditionalbasal approach. (See Guthrie and Tyler, 1978,for a more optimistic appraisal of the linguisticand the phonics plus basal approaches, whichthey concluded produced at least slightly great-er reading achievement than the alternatives.)Given the ambiguity in the results of the first-grade studies, the great debate about the opti-mal beginning reading instruction raged on(Chall, 1967).

The models in the debate have shifted sincethe late 1960s, however. A popular contempo-rary approach, whole language, emphasizeslanguage processes and the creation of learningenvironments in which student,; experienceauthentic reading and writing (Weaver, 1990).Both linguistic and cognitive development arepresumed to be stimulated by experiencinggood literature and attempting to compose newmeanings (e.g., Goodman, 1990). There isopposition to explicit, systematic teaching ofreading skills, especially elements of decoding(e.g., King & Goodman, 1990). According towhole language theorists, any skills instructionthat occurs should be in the context of naturalreading and only as needed by individualreaders. Consistent with psycholinguisticmodels of development, whole language advo-

cates believe that the development of literacy isa natural by-product of immersion in high-quality literacy environments.

In contrast, other reading educators arguethat learning to break the code is a critical partof primary-level reading and that breaking thecode is most likely when students are providedsystematic instruction in decoding (e.g., Chall,1967). There is a growing data base that suchinstruction increases reading competence(Adams, 1990), especially for students whoexperience difficulties learning to read wheninstruction is less explicit (Mather, 1992;

Pressley & Rankin, 1994).Increasingly, explicit decoding instruction

is conceived in cognitive science terms, largelybecause mucn recent evidence supporting it hasbeen generated by cognitive psychologists andcognitively oriented reading researchers. Forexample, some cognitive scientists believe thatthe development of strong and complex con-nections between words and their components(Adams, 1990; Foorman, 1994) follows fromexplicit instruction in phonemic awareness,letter recognition, attention to the sounds ofwords, blending of sounds, and practice in

reading and writing words to the point thatthey are automatically recognized and pro-duced. Beyond word-level decoding, manycognitive scientists conceive of text compre-hension as the application of particular infor-mation processes to text (e.g., relating new textto prior knowledge, asking questions in reac-tion to text, visualizing text content, summariz-ing). Skilled comprehension requires self-

regulated use of such information processes. Astart on the development of such self-regulationis teaching of comprehension strategies that

NATIONAL READING RESEARCH CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 41

I o

Instructional Practices of Primary Teachers 3

stimulate processes used by good compre-henders, for example, instruction of priorknowledge activation as a prereading strategy,self-questioning during reading, construction ofmental images capturing the ideas covered intext, and finding main ideas (Brown, Brans-ford, Ferrara, & Campion, 1983; Pressley etal., 1992).

There has been much research about theeffectiveness of whole language, traditionaldecoding, and cognitive science-inspiredprimary-level instruction. The evidence is

growing that whole language experiencesstimulate literate activities and positive atti-tudes toward literacy in children, as well asincrease understanding about the nature ofreading and writing (e.g., Graham & Harris,1994; Morrow, 1990, 1991, 1992; Neuman &Roskos, 1990, 1992). Even so, a disturbingfinding is that, compared to conventionalinstruction, whole language programs do notseem to have much of an effect on early read-ing achievement as measured by standardizedtests of decoding, vocabulary, comprehension,and writing (Graham & Harris, 1994; Stahl,McKenna, & Pagnucco, 1994; Stahl & Miller,1989). In contrast, programs explicitly teachingphonemic awareness, phonics, and letter-soundanalysis have promoted improved performanceon standardized tests and have proven superiorto programs emphasizing meaning-making,such as whole language (Adams, 1990; Pflaum,Walberg, Karegianes, & Rasher, 1980). Inaddition, reading programs that explicitly teachstudents to use repertoires of comprehensionstrategies have proven their worth in promotingunderstanding of text (Bereiter & Bird, 1985;Palincsar & Brown, 1984), including under-

standing as measured by standardized assess-ments (e.g., Brown, Pressley, Van Meter, &Schuder, 1995).

The hypothetico-deductive studies compar-ing various types of primary reading instruc-tion with traditional instruction, however, havenot provided a satisfactory answer to the ques-tion, "What is the nature of effective primaryreading instruction?" Most critically, closeexamination of many recent studies supportingexplicit teaching of decoding and instruction ofcomprehension strategies reveals that there areoften many elements of whole language in suchteaching, including the reading of outstandingchildren's literature and daily writing (Pflaumet al., 1980; Pressley et al., 1991, 1992). Whathas emerged in recent years, in part from therealization that explicit decoding and compre-hension instruction typically occur in thecontext of other components, is a new hypothe-sis: Effective primary literacy instruction ismultifaceted rather than based on one approachor another (e.g., Adams, 1990; Cazden, 1992;Delpit, 1986; Duffy, 1991; Fisher & Hiebert,1990; McCaslin, 1989; Pressley, 1994; Stahlet al., 1994). Based on the available data,however, few details can be added to thegeneralization that effective instruction oftenintegrates whole language, letter- and word-level teaching, and explicit instruction ofcomprehension processes. The investigationreported here was designed to provide a win-dow on the details.

We used a research methodology very dif-ferent from the hypothetico-deductive approachthat has predominated prior research in thisarea. Our assumption, consistent with experttheory (Chi, Glaser, & Farr, 1988; Ericsson &


11


Smith, 1991; Hoffmann, 199'2), was that effec-tive primary reading teachers would have aprivileged understanding of literacy instruction .That is, they would be aware of the elements oftheir teaching, in part because their teaching isthe result of many decisions about what worksin their classrooms and what does not. More-over, we expected that such teachers would beable to relate their knowledge of teaching inresponse to focused questions, just as otherprofessionals can relate their expertise whenquestioned (Diaper, 1989; Meyer & Booker,1991; Scott, Clayton, & Gibson, 1991). Thus, inthis study we pursued a detailed description ofeffective primary reading instruction by sur-veying reputationally effective primary readingteachers.

In doing so, we begin to fill a somewhatsurprising gap in the literature. We col. id findno evidence of a systematic study of effectivepi nary reading teachers' knowledge about thecomponents that need to be included in primaryliteracy instruction. There are testimonialsabout the practice and power of particularapproaches to reading instruction, most nota-bly, about whole language (e.g., Ohanian,1994; Shannon, 1994; Weaver, 1990; Whit-more & Goodman, 1992; see the bibliographyin Smith, 1994, for many examples). Entirepractitioner journals, such as Reading Teacherand Journal of Reading, regularly publish theperspectives of certain teachers about specificreading instructional methods. Still, thoseproviding testimonies about or descriptions ofparticular methods were not selected because oftheir effectiveness as teachers, but rather be-cause of the methods they used in their class-rooms. In contrast, in this study, a number of

teachers were selected for participation on thebasis of perceived effectiveness.

Method

Participants

Our goal in selecting participants was toidentify a sample of effective primary-levelliteracy teachers. We included participantsfrom across the country to avoid local andn_sional biases. Fifty reading supervisors wereselected randomly from the International Read-ing Association's list of elementary languagearts supervisors. In a letter, they were askedto identify the most effective kindergarten,grade-1, and grade-2 literacy educators intheir jurisdiction, with effective defined as"successful in educating large proportions oftheir students to be readers and writers."Forty-five of the supervisors replied to thisrequest, with each nominating one kindergar-ten, one grade-1, and one grade-2 teacher. Aspart of the nomination process, the readingsupervisors were asked to specify indicatorsand sources of information informing theiropinions of nominated teachers. The possibili-ties included the following: (1) achievementrecords of students within a teacher's classes(58% of nominees); (2) conversations in ',whichthe nominated teacher has described soundteaching philosophy and practices used it: theclassroom (96% of nominees); (3) direct obser-vations of the teacher's teaching (To% ofnominees); (4) interactions with the teacherduring in-service sessions that suggested theteacher can integrate and apply sound princi-ples of reading instruction (89% of nominees);


12


and (5) positive comments from other teachers,administrators, or parents regarding the skillsand effectiveness of the teacher (94 % of nomi-nees). Nominating supervisors were encour-aged to provide additional explanation support-ing their positive view of the teacher and wereasked to rate their confidence in their evalua-tion of the teacher by indicating whether theywere (a) absolutely certain, (b) highly confi-dent, 1,c) confident, (d) somewhat confident, or(e) not confident in their opinion. For allteachers in the study, the nominators supportedtheir nomination with at least three of theindicators and rated their confidence in thenomination as absolutely certain or highlyconfident.

Of the 135 teachers nominated, 113 repliedto the first-round, short questionnaire sent tothem in this study; 86 of these 113 replied tothe second and final questionnaire, with 83 ofthe 86 providing usable responses. The firstquestionnaire was completed in fall 1992; thesecond was completed in spring 1993.

Teacher characteristics. The 83 partici-pants who provided usable responses to thefinal questionnaire (23 kindergarten teachers,34 grade-1 teacher, and 26 grade-2 teachers)came from 23 states and represented all majorgeographic regions of the United States. Forty-two participants held a bachelor's degree only;41 also held a master's degree. The teacherswere generally experienced, ranging from 3 to35 years of teaching, with a mean of 16.7years.

School characteristics. The schools inwhich pavi,ipants worked included the diver-sity of the 1990s American population of schoolchildren. For example, the percentage of stu-

dents in a teacher's school qualifying for freelunch ranged from 0% to 95% (mean = 38%).The percentage of students receiving specialeducation services in these classrooms rangedfrom 0% to 36% (mean = 10%). Collapsingacross all of the schools served by participatingteachers, 17% of students in the schools inwhich the teachers taught were African Ameri-can (classroom range = 0% to 100%; eightteachers from, majority African-Americanschools), 9% were Mexican American (schoolrange = 0% to 81%; four teachers from major-ity Mexican-American schools), 6% were AsianAmerican (school range = 0% to 100%), and7% were native American (school range = 0%to 100%; four teachers served majority Native-American schools).

Questionnaire

First short questionnaire. The overarchinggoal of the study was to solicit informationfrom the teachers about their literacy instruc-tion. First, all nominated teachers were askedto respond to a short questionnaire requestingthree lists of 10 practices they believed "essen-tial in their literacy instruction." Each teachergenerated one list for good readers, one foraverage readers, and one for weaker readers.A letter accompanying this short questionnaireemphasized that the recipients were among aselect sample of teachers who had been identi-fied as effective primary reading teachers bytheir supervisors and stated that we wereseeking insights into what actually occurs intheir classrooms. The response rate to thisrequest was more than 83 % : 113 of the 135nominated teachers responded.


13


Final questionnaire. The 300 practices theteachers cited in response to the short question-naire were categorized. Some practices werelogically related to one another, however, suchas some teachers reporting that phonics shouldnever be taught in isolation and others arguingfor daily phonics instruction based on work-book exercises. We used all 300+ practices todevelop a final questionnaire assessing readingand writing instruction, items that teacherscould respond to objectively (e.g., measuringthe frequency of the teacher's use of an instruc-tional practice on a 7-point Likert scale fromnever to several times daily). Every practicecited in response to the initial questionnairewas represented on the final questionnaire. Asa means of broadening the categories of re-sponse with respect to educational practicesthat might be targeted at weaker students, wealso sent a short survey to a sample of specialeducators. The special education teachersmentioned a few instructional practices that theregular education teachers did not cite, such asvarying instruction with learning style andteaching attending skills. These practiceswere also assessed on the final question-naire.

The final questionnaire requested 436responses of various kinds. It was 27 pageslong and sent to the 113 teachers who respond-ed to the initial questionnaire. The teacherswere informed that the survey would requireabout 45 min to complete and were asked toreturn it within 3 weeks of receiving it. After 3weeks, we sent a post-card reminder.

The general directions accompanying thequestionnaire were the following:

Many thanks for your reply to the initialround of our survey. The responses wereceived were exceptionally illuminating.There were so many elements of effectiveinstruction mentioned by teachers, howev-er, that we need to ask more focussedquestions in order to produce quantifiabledata for the survey. The enclosed itemsare intended to be answered quickly. Allof these items are tapping what you knowvery well, your own instructional practicesand thus, we suspect most items will beanswered without hesitation on your part.This knowledge that you possess aboutyour primary reading instruction is ex-tremely valuable.

A total of 86 questionnaires were returned(76% response rate). Three returned question-naires were not usable, however, because theywere provided by teachers with teaching assign-ments other than kindergarten, grade 1, or grade2 (e.g., teaching a combined grades 1-3).

A variety of question types were used inorder to have questions sensitively tapping eachpractice suggested in the responses to the firstquestionnaire. In designing questions, we triedto describe practices using terms that appearedin the responses to the first questionnaire.

Two hundred thirty-one times, teacherswere asked to check a particular strategy,emphasis, practice, technique, or material if itwas present in their classroom. For example,if teachers indicated that they taught conceptsof print, they respondc4 to a follow-up item ofthis type:

Which of the following concepts of printdo you teach? none, directionality of



print, concept of a letter, concept of a word,punctuation, parts of a book, sounds are

associated with print (Such items involving numbersof teachers reporting a practice were analyzed non-parametrically.)

Sixty-six items asked teachers to indicate thefrequency of an instructional technique or areaof emphasis on 8-point rating scales (e.g., from0 = never to 7 = several times a day, withmidpoint 4 = weekly):

Do you use "big books"? (never to severaltimes a day scale)

After a story, do you ask students "com-prehension questions"? (not at all to allstories scale) (Such items involving numeri-cal values generated by teachers, onevalue per teacher, were analyzed para-metrically.)

Another 65 items asked teachers to estimate thepercentage of time or the number of minutesallocated to an activity, as in the followingexample:

What percentage of the material read byyour students is outstanding children'sliterature? . . .written at a "controlled"reading level? . . . written to provide prac-tice in phonetic elements and/or patterns.. .high interest, low vocabulary materials?

Thirty-three items requested teachers to catego-rize their use of instructional practices as"always, sometimes, or never" or "regularly,occasionally, or never," as in the followingexamples:

Which of the following extension activitiesdo you use regularly, occasionally, ornever?: arts/crafts with print attached,cooking activities, dramatics or puppetplays, drawing or illustrating stories,

movement activities, field trips, games

Are home/parents involved in your readinginstruction for good readers? . . .averagereaders? . . .weaker readers?

Forty-three items required yes/no responses,such as the following questions:

Do you teach reading across the curric-ulum?

Do you teach critical thinking skills?

Sixteen items required a written explanation orclarification of a response, with most of theseitems requesting "other" responses. (Theseother responses were not informative, for themost part, and they are not included in theresults section.) A few of these open- endedquestions probed issues that we consideredespecially important to illuminate, based onreview of the first-round lists generated by theteachers. These probes included the following:

If you consider yourself only somewhatconsistent with whole language, pleaseclarify.

If . . . [you teach reading across the cur-riculum], please describe your practice.(Such items analyzed both quantitativelyand qualitatively.)


15


Table 1. Classroom Characteristics and Instructional Practices Reported Less Often with Increasing GradeLevel

Kindergarten Grade I Grade 2

Learning Environment

Signs and LabelsLearning centers

78% of teachers100% of teachers

76%85%

46%73%

General Teaching Processes

Letter recognition drills 65% of teachers 26% 8%

Small group work and instruction 33% of instruction 17%

Songs (e.g., Alphabet Song) 100% of teachers 79% 73%

Teaching of Reading

Teaching letter recognition 100% of teachers 91% 50%

Copying/tracing letters 13% of instruction 2%

Teaching alphabetic principle:Good readers 90% of teachers 75% 43%

Average readers 95% of teachers 81% 67%

Teaching focussing on sounds of words 100% of teachers 85% 65%

Teaching concepts of print Daily Daily Weekly

Concept of a letter 100% of teachers 85% 42%

Directions of print 96% of teachers 82% 42%

Phonics drills 43% of teachers 21% 12%

Teaching of phonics usinggames and puzzles 91% of teachers 56% 50%

Letter of day/week 57% of teachers 18% 8%

Decoding strategies instruction to weakerreaders Daily Several times a week

Explicit attempts to develop sight wordvocabulary:

Good readers 79% of teachers 54%


Teacher rereading stories Several times a week Weekly Several times ayear to monthly

Shared big book reading Several times a week Several times a week Several times a yearRereading of big books:

Good readers 100% of teachers 85% 50%


Chart stories and poems Several times a week Monthly

Picture books 46% of materials 30%

Patterned books 32% of materials,Several times a week

27%,Weekly to several

times a week

11%,Monthly

Reading aloud of patterned books 85% of teachers 82% 54%

Controlled reading-level materials 40% of materials 22%



Table 1. (continued)

Kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2

Teaching of Reading (continued)

Materials providing practice readingspecific phonetic elements 2S% of materials 8%

"Easy" reading 54% of reading 33% 31%

"Frustration"-level reading:Good readers 20% 11% 11%

Average readers 21% 12% 12%

Teaching of Writing

Student dictation of stories to adults(including whole class dictation to teacher)

Shared writingMonthly Several times a year Each semester

Several times a year Monthly

Accountability

Parent conferences Several times a year Each semester

Note. p < .05 for each effect summarized in this table. When only two grade levels are indicated in thetable, trend involving third-grade level was in other direction and not statistically significant.

For 22 of the items, teachers were required torespond separately for good, average, andweaker students, as illustrated by this example:

How much of your instructional time inreading involves individual oral reading bystudents? (Teachers asked to respond inminutes for good, average, and weakerreaders.)

Results

We recognized from the outset that the diversequestion types on our instrument would pre-clude many traditional approaches to analyzingquestionnaire data, especially ones aggregating

over items that assessed related issues. Theresponse distributions to many of the itemsmade aggregation over items untenaole anyway(e.g., a number of elements of instruction wereendorsed either by most teachers or few teach-ers, so that responses to the items were notnormally distributed). Thus, in this section, wefocus on analysis of individual items.

More positively, the responses were strik-ing and orderly for many itemsthat is, re-sponses did not have the randomness associatedwith unreliability. In addition, there were manyindications that the teachers took great care inresponding to the items (e.g., explanationsoffered about responses in the margins of thequestionnaire, all questions answered by most


17


Table 2. Classroom Characteristics and Instructional Practices Reported More Often with Increasing GradeLevel



Round-robin reading Each semester Each semester Several times a year

Individually guided reading for weaker readers 33% of reading 53% 52%

Teaching of Reading

Teaching decoding strategies to weakerreaders Several times a week Daily

Teaching use of syntax cues for decoding 35% of teachers 88% 81%

Teaching common phonics rules 13% of teachers 71% 85%

Teaching morphemic-structural analysis fordecoding 17% of teachers 76% 92%

Teaching syllabification rules for decoding 0% of teachers 29% 46%

Spelling drills 9% of teachers 41% 69%

Spelling tests 0% of teachers 65% 88%Sight word drills 35% of teachers 50%Teaching comprehension strategies:

Activating prior knowledge 70% of teachers 91% 92%Question generation 57% of teachers 82% 100%

Finding main ideas 61% of teachers 85% 100%Summarization 70% of teachers 76% 100%

Using story grammar cues 22% of teachers 58% 58%

Teaching of the critical thinking skills:Webbing 61% of teachers 88% 96%Identifying causes and effects 61% of teachers 94% 100%

Preteaching of vocabulary 30% of teachers 68% 69%Choral reading 57% of teachers 82% 92%Homework 32% of teachers 79% 85%Student reading aloud to other people Weekly Several times a week Several times a weekStudent reading aloud:

Poetry 60% of teachers 85% 88%Trade books 40% of teachers 91%Basal stories 10% of teachers 67% 73%

Silent reading 11 min daily 17 min 21 minChapter books 3% of materials 7% 12%

Basal use Each semester,2% of materials

Monthly,22% of materials

Monthly,21% of materials

Controlled reading-level materials 24% of materials 40%Materials providing practice with specific

phonetic elements 10% of materials 28%"Instructional"-level reading:

Average readers 45% of re-ding 60%Weaker readers 40% of reading 50% 55%



Table 2. (continued)


Teaching of Writing

Student storywnting 61% of teachers 94% 96%

Writing in response to reading Several times a year Weekly Weekly

Planning before writing 48% of teachers 82% 92%

Revising during writing 13% of teachers 71% 88%

Publishing story collections 27% of teachers 59% 69%

Teaching punctuation 52% of teachers 88% 96%

Out-of-context 5% of all teachingof punctuation

9% 27%

Accountability

Writing portfolios 48% of teachers 79% 85%

Note. p < .05 for each effect summarized in this table. When only two grade levels are indicated in thetable, trend involving third-grade level was in other direction and not statistically significant.

teachers, extreme neatness in responses). Thus,we concluded that some important sources oferror were probably minimized (e.g., careless-ness).

The text of this results section is organizedaround issues addressed in the questionnaire,with many issues addressed by several ques-tions and different types of questions. A num-ber of findings are described prosaically inwhat follows based on Liken means (e.g., aninstructional practice rated 6.72 on a "never" (0)to "several times a day" (7) scale is reported asoccurring "several times a day," the wholenumber value closest to 6.72).

Based on responses to the first, shortquestionnaire, we expected that the reportswould vary by grade level, and they did some-what. That is, items were analyzed either

parametrically or nonparametrically, dependingon the type of item, with respect to grade level(p < .05 for grade-level effects and all othereffects taken up in the results). The mostimportant grade-level differences are summa-rized in Tables 1 and 2. In general, with in-creasing grade level, and as students masteredprereading skills and learned to decode, in-struction of higher-order competencies werereported more often. Analogously, reports ofpicture books and patterned books gave way toreports of more sophisticated materials withadvancing grade. Also, teachers claimed greaterattention to mechanics, such as punctuation andspelling, with grade 1-2 students than with kin-dergarten students. There was also increasedreporting of planning and editing of writingfrom kindergarten to grade 2. Although with



Table 3. Instructional Practices Reported as More Explicit/Extensive for Weaker Compared to Stronger

Readers

Good Average Weaker

Grade 1:

Activities requiring students to focus onthe sounds of words Weekly Weekly Several times a week

Teaching of letter-sound associ2tions 71% of teachers 85% 97%

Individually guided writing 25% of teachers 31% 37%

Decoding strategies instruction Several times a week Several times a week Daily

Grades 1 and 2:

Teaching of the alphabetic principle:Grade 1 71% of teachers 76% 100%

Grade 2 35% of teachers 54% 77%

Teaching of visual discrimination:Grade 1 65% of teachers 74% 85%


Teaching of alphabetic recognition:Grade 1 35% of teachers 50% 91%


Grade 2:

Teaching of auditory discrimination 65% of teachers 88% 92%

Development of sight vocabulary 54% of teachers 54% 85%

Rereading of big books 46% of teachers 69% 77%

Individual oral reading 16 min daily 16 min 25 min

Note. p < .05 per effect.

increasing grade, there were more reports oftraditional approaches to instruction (such asround-robin reading, use of basals, spellingtests, and homework), the teachers did notreport these approaches as predominating intheir classrooms, but rather as blended withmany other components. Important differencesin grade-level reports are highlighted in whatfollows.

In responses to the first questionnaire,there were reports of some differences in theexplicitness and extensiveness of instruction as

a function of student reading achievement.Thus, 32 of the final survey items requestedteachers to estimate the explicitness and/orextensiveness of their instruction separately forgood, average, and weaker readers. For themost part, statistical analyses of these itemssuggested similar instruction for students,regardless of ability, although there were alsosome differences as a function of studentability (summarized in Table 3). In general,more explicit/extensive instruction was re-ported for weaker readers with respect to



letter- and word-level skills, such as decodingand sight word learning. Nonetheless, we empha-c:ze that the reported differences in instruction asa function of reader ability were few.

General Characteristics of LearningEnvironments

Teachers described classrooms filled withprint. All teachers in the sample indicated thatthey attempted to create a literate environmentin their classrooms, including an in-classlibrary. All but one claimed to display stu-dent work in the room. All but three teachersreported chart stories and chart poems. Most(71%) reported posting of word lists and use ofsigns/labels in the classroom (67%; for grade-level differences, however, see Table 1). Theteachers reported learning centers (i.e., listen-ing, reading, or writing centers), although theiruse declined with advancing grade level.

These classrooms were rich with stories.On average, the teachers reported reading totheir students daily, with rereading less com-mon and decreasing with increasing gradelevel. The teachers reported telling stories tostudents, weekly on average. Sixty-six percentreported use of audiotaped stories and 33%reported presentation of prerecorded video-taped stories.

When asked whether they were wholelanguage teachers, 54% responded "yes" and43% claimed they were somewhat wholelanguage. One possibility we explored was thatreported instruction might have been differentamong those teachers claiming to be whollycommitted to whole language than amongteachers less committed. Within each grade

level, we examined the correlations betweenteacher commitment to whole language and allother variables. There was one striking, consis-tent correlation across grades between commit-ment to whole language and reported practice:Teachers fully committed to whole languageinstruction were less likely to use basals thanthose who were less committed to this phi-losophy, r = .49 at kindergarten, r = .59 atgrade 1, and r = .66 at grade 2.


Participants in this study reported apply-ing many effective conventional instructionalmethods in the service of literacy education.

Modeling. The teachers reported overtmodeling of reading for students on a dailybasis; that is, they reported reading aloud forstudents, making clear to them what is meantby reading. They also reported overt modelingof comprehension strategies several times aweek and modeling of the writing processweekly. The love of reading was reported asmodeled daily, the love of writing as modeledweekly.

Practice and repetition. Practice of isolatedskills (e.g., on a computer, skill sheets, work-books, songs) was estimated as averaging 13%of the literacy instructional day. The majority(59%) of the sample reported using drills,drilling for letter recognition (which decreasedwith increasing grade level), phonics/letter-sound association, and spelling (whichincreased with increasing grade level).

Grouping. The teachers reported a combi-nation of whole-group, small-group, and indi-vidual instruction as well as individual seat-


n


work as part of the literacy instructional day.More whole-group instruction (about half oftotal instruction) was reported than small groupinstruction, which varied with grade levelabout one-third of instruction at kindergartenand grade 1 and about one-sixth of instructionat grade 2. More small group instruction wasclaimed than individual instruction, reported asabout one-sixth of total literacy instruction. Theteachers believed that only about 10% of theirstudents' time was spent in seatwork. Theyreported cooperative grouping for 46% of theirinstruction on average.

Notably, some trat'Aional approaches toprimary literacy grouping were not endorsed.Of the 55 teachers indicating use of abilitygrouping, only 19 reported use of the tradition-al three-group approach (i.e., high, medium,and low reading groups). Round-robin readingwas reported as occurring rarely (i.e., once amonth), although slightly more at the grades 1and 2 than in kindergarten.

Sensitivity to students and individual stu-dent needs. The teachers claimed sensitivity tostudent needs. For instance, 96% of the teach-ers indicated that they permitted progress inliteracy at students' own pace, 89% reportedattempting to assess the learning styles of theirstudents, and 92% reported attempting to adjustinstruction to students' learning style. Theteachers claimed that 46% of their total instruc-tional time involved mini-lessons targeted at"things students needed to know at this mo-ment." The teachers estimated that they spent17% of their instructional time reteaching theentire class and 21% reteaching small groupsor individual students. Grades 1 and 2 teachersreported that, for weaker students, the majority

of instruction involved individually guidedreading.

Integration with other curricula and activi-ties. The teachers reported that literacy instruc-tion was integrated with the rest of the curricu-lum: 93% indicated reading instruction acrossthe curriculum; the corresponding figure forwriting was 88%; for listening, 88%; and forspeaking, 75 % . Ninety-four percent reportedthe use of themes extending to other parts ofthe curriculum to organize reading and writinginstruction. In response to an open-endedquestion, teachers mentioned reading as part ofscience instruction (35%), social studies (31%),and math (23%), with another 11% simplyclaiming that reading instruction occurred in allcontent areas.

All teachers reported using extensionactivities. These included arts and crafts associ-ated with print experiences, illustration ofstories read, games, cooking, and movementactivities.

Teaching of Reading

What is taught. When asked to divide atotal of 100% of their literacy instruction intothe percentage dedicated to meaning-makingversus decoding, meaning-making predomi-nated 71% to 27 %. This translated into theteaching of the content and processes summa-rized in this subsection. Thus, more than 89%of the teachers reported teaching skills andknowledge prerequisite to reading, such asauditory discrimination skills, visual discrimi-nation skills, concepts of print (e.g., punctua-tion, print-sound association, parts of a book,concept of a word; see Table 1 for grade-level



differences, however), and letter -sound associ-ations. Some very basic skills were taught bymost kindergarten teachers but were much lessprominent with increasing grade. These in-cluded letter-recognition activities and copy-ing/tracing of letters. Especially important, theproportion of teachers claiming to teach thealphabetic principlethat all 26 letter symbolsare worth learning because each stands forsounds in spoken words (Adams, 1990)declined with increasing grade. Consistent withdecline in teaching of the alphabetic principlewith advancing grade level, there were fewerreports of activities requiring focus on thesounds of words.

An important finding was that for everybasic skill, the majority of teachers who re-ported teaching it claimed to do so in thecontext of actual reading and writing. Even so,for every basic skill except concepts of print, atleast 88% of the teachers who reported teachingthe skill also reported some isolated skills instruc-tion, most often involving games and puzzles toteach the skill or provide practice with it.

The teachers reported teaching decodingstrategies and word-, vel skills and knowledgeat least several times a week. Several decodingstrategies were reported as taught by mostteachers: using context cues to decode words(98% of teachers), using picture cues to decodewords (96%), and sounding out words usingletter-sound knowledge (92 %). Other strategieswere taught little in kindergarten but muchmore by grade 2: (1) using syntax cues todecode words; (2) using common phonicsrules; (3) using morphemic structural analysisclues, including prefixes, suffixes, and basewords; and (4) syllabification rules.

The commitment to teaching decoding alsocame through in the response to questionsabout the explicit teaching of phonics, which95 % of the teachers sai' they did. Teachersreported that they used a variety of proce-dures for doing so; most prominently, (1) inthe context of real reading (90% of teachers),(2) during discussion of sounds as part ofwriting (84%), and (3) through invented spell-ing (84%). Teaching of phonics outside thecontext of natural reading was reported aswell, however, with 43% of the teachersclaiming use of workbooks and skill sheets and32 % reporting use of a phonics program. Atleast half of teachers at each grade reported useof games and puzzles to teach phonics,although the proportions of teachers claimingto do so decreased with advancing grade. Useof the letter-of-the-day or -week approach wasreported by the majority of teachers only atkindergarten level. The teachers decided whichphonics elements to teach according toclass/small-group needs (77% of teachers),individual student needs (74%), the sequenceprescribed in a basal series or phonics program(40%), or the sequence in a scope and sequencechart (14 %). In short, there was much morecommitment to teaching of phonics in waysthat were consistent with ongoing reading andwriting and students' needs during reading andwriting than to teaching phonics in isolation,although there were reports of phonics instruc-tion in isolation and/or as prescribed by astandard approach.

The reported explicit teaching of spellingincreased with grade level, for example, asreflected in increased reporting of spellingdrills and tests with advancing grade. Grades 1


23


and 2 teachers indicated diverse sources forwords tested, including published spellingcurricula (38% of teachers), words selectedfrom basal or other stories (33%), items select-ed from students' writing (30%), lists (Dolch,Chall) of frequently used words (27%), adistrict-developed spelling program (17%), andstudent self-selected words (14%). Whenteachers were asked to respond to the open-ended item, "How do you react to children'sinvented spellings?", all teachers indicated atleast acceptance of invented spellings much ofthe time. Even so, correct spellings wereexpected at times. Thus, 11 of the grade 2teachers indicated in response to an open-endedquestion about spelling that correct spelling(e.g., high-frequency words) was expected infinal drafts of writing for publication.

The teachers (96%) reported explicitlyattempting to develop new vocabulary. Most(95%) reported that they did so in the contextof other reading and writing, a claim consistentwith other claims, including 93% of the teach-ers reporting that new vocabulary came fromstories read in class, and 65% reporting in-struction of vocabulary that students wanted touse in their writing.

Most teachers reported attempting explic-itly to develop sight word vocabulary, althoughless so for good and average readers withadvancing grade level. Most (87%) teacherswho attempted to develop sight word compe-tence reported doing so in the context of otherreading and writing activities. Nonetheless,there were also reports of isolated developmentof vocabulary, for example, by sight worddrilling, which was reported more by grade 1than by kindergarten teachers.

Critical to meaning-making is comprehen-sion, including understanding of text elements,with 96% of the teachers reporting they taughttext elements and at least three-quarters ofteachers reporting instruction of each textelement (i.e., theme/main idea, details versusmain idea, plot, sequencing, cause-and-effectrelations in stories, story mapping/webbing,character analysis, and the idea of the illustra-tor as an interpreter of a story).

All teachers reported that they taughtcomprehension strategies, with this commit-ment holding for readers of all ability levels. Adramatic finding was that all teachers at allgrades reported teaching prediction. Seventy-three percent reported teaching visualization asa strategy. Other comprehension strategies(i.e., activating prior knowledge, asking ques-tions, main idea, summarization and lookingfor story grammar elements) were reportedmore frequently with advancing grade.

All teachers claimed to teach critical think-ing strategies. More than 93 % reported teach-ing brainstorming, categorizing, and recallingdetails. The majority reported teaching studentshow to make distinctions, how to make evalua-tions, webbing, and identifying causes andeffects, with the latter two increasingly en-dorsed with increasing grade.

Because possession of background knowl-edge is critical to understanding text, it is nota-ble that teachers reported that they attempted todevelop students' background knowledge, onaverage, for more than half the stories theycovered (i.e., through prereading discussion,related reading, hands-on experiences, orvideos/movies). They indicated developingstudents' understanding of important concepts



(e.g., through pre-teaching of vocabulary)before or as they encountered them in a story,again for more than half the stories on average.The proportion of teachers endorsing suchpreteaching increased with advancing grade.

Types of reading and reading-relatedactivities. Teachers reported having studentsinvolved in many types of reading experiences.The percentage of teachers reporting choralreading increased with grade, as did the per-centage of teachers assigning reading home-work. Most (i.e., 90% or more) of the teachersreported the following activities: shared read-ing, including reading along with big books(see Table 1, however, for evidence of grade-level differences); student read-alouds to peers,teachers, other adults, older and youngerchildren (increasing in frequency with advanc-ing grade level) of poetry, trade books, andbasals; student re-readings of stories, books,and big books; silent reading (increasing infrequency with advancing grade level); andstudent discussions of stories and literature.Many teachers (69%) reported student booksharing as part of literacy instructionforexample, book reports or informal commentsto other students about books they have read.

What is read. The teachers on averagereported that 73% of the reading in their class-rooms was of outstanding children's literature.In contrast, only 6% was described as exposi-tory material, reflecting a heavy bias towardnarratives and other clearly literary genres. Theteachers reported that a mean of 12% of theirreading was of poems.

Picture books and predictable books de-clined in prominence with advancing grade.Chapter books increased in occurrence from

kindergarten to grade 2. The percentage ofreading from basal materials also increasedwith advancing grade level. R, ported basal usewas highly variable, however, ranging from nouse of basals to daily use of them. (See theearlier result relating basal use to whole lan-guage commitment.) Consistent with the re-ported use of basals, which often attempt to usecontrolled vocabulary and provide practice inspecific phonetic elements, the teachers report-ed that a nontrivial proportion of reading wasof materials with a controlled reading level:24% of reading materials at kindergarten, 40%at grade 1, and 22% at grade 2. The teachersalso reported some reading of material designedto provide practice with specific phonetic ele-ments: 10% of the materials read in kinde7T,ar-ten, 28% at grade 1, and 8% at grade 2.

One traditional way of classifying whatstudents read was telling in this studythepercentage of easy, inst. ^tional-, and frustra-tion-level reading. In general, the percentageof easy reading decreased with increasinggrade level. Although there was relatively littlefrustration-level reading reported, there alsowere reported decreases in frustration-levelreading with increasing grade. As reports ofeasy and frustration-level reading decreasedwith increasing grade, reports of instructional-level reading increased.

The teachers indicated that they usedauthor studies (i.e., several pieces by the sameauthor with background information about theauthor, author's style, and so forth), but forless than half of what is read. Ninety-fourpercent of the teachers indicated that they triedto teach their students about the illustrators ofstories and texts.


25


Teaching of Writing

Types of writing. Most teachers (86%)reported that their students wrote stories,increasingly with advancing grade. Writtenresponses to readings also were reported asincreasing in frequency with increasing gradelevel. Eighty-seven percent of the teachersreported journal writing by their students,several times a week on average. Students werereported as writing poems only a few times ayear.

Composition activities were not precludedin kindergarten simply because students lackedtranslation skills: Kindergarten teachers report-ed student dictation of stories to other peopleonce a month on average. They also reportedwhole-class dictation of stories to the teacher asscribe occurring about of e a month on aver-age. Such dictations were reported as lessfrequent in grades 1 and 2.

Just as shared reading was reported, so wasshared writing (see Table 1). A majority of theteachers reported encouraging home reading,and 59% reported they encouraged homewriting.

Teaching the writing process. Teachersclaimed to encourage planning before writing,increasing from kindergarten to grade 2. Teach-ing of revising was also reported more oftenwith advancing grade level, for example,through student-teacher and peer editing con-ferences. All but one kindergarten teacher andfive grade-1 teachers reported some publicationof students' work.

The majority of respondents at each gradereported teaching mechanics, for example,punctuation, with such teaching reported more

frequently with advancing grade. Most teach-ing of punctuation was reported as occurring incontext, with the percentage of out-of-contextinstruction of punctuation increasing withadvancing grade, however.

A minority (30%) of teachers reportedusing the computer as part of writing instruc-tion.

Efforts Making Literacy and LiteracyInstruction Motivating

The teachers reported extensive efforts tomake literacy and literacy instruction motivat-ing. In general, the teachers strongly endorsed(i.e., mean rating of at least 5 on a 7-pointscale) these practices: (1) classroom as a risk-free environment; (2) positive feedback; (3) con-veying the importance of reading/writing inlife; (4) setting an exciting mood for reading,adding color and humor, and so on; (5) en-couraging an "I can read, I can write" attitude;(6) accepting where the child is right now andworking to improve literacy from that point;(7) conveying the goal of every lesson and whythe lesson is important to students; (8) encour-aging students to find and read stories/booksthey like as part of the literacy program (i.e.,self-selected materials that are read); (9) en-couraging students' ownership of their readingby having them make many decisions forthemselves abcut what to read; (10) encourag-ing personal interpret2tions of text; (11) select-ing materials to be read in class based onstudents' interest; and (12) encouraging studentownership of writing (e.g., students selectingwriting topics).



Accountability

Most hers (i more than 88%) re-ported regular checks of student comprehensionon stories heard and read, asking studentsquestions after most readings and requestingstudents to retell stories. Reading portfolioswere reported by 34% of the teachers. Writingportfolios were reported by many more teach-ers, however, and were reported increasinglywith advancing grade level. On average theteachers claimed to communicate with homeabout student literacy progress once a month.All but three of the teachers reported regularconferences with parents (i.e., at least two ayear; see Table 1).

Discussion

The teachers in this study reported anintegration of literacy instructional compo-nents, many of which enjoy empirical supportas- improving particular aspects of literacy: It isnotable that the teachers reported doing muchto create classroom environments supportive ofliteracy, because placing young children inenvironments that invite and support literacystimulates them to do things that are literate(e.g., Morrow, 1990, 1991; Neuman & Roskos,1990, 1992). The teachers' claimed commit-ments to outstanding literature are sensible,given the increasing evidence that when suchliterature drives instruction, there are positiveeffects on students' autonomous use of litera-ture and attitudes toward reading (e.g., Mor-row, 1992; Morrow, O'Connor, & Sm:th,1990). The literature emphasis reported by theteachers in this study is also striking in light of

increasing evidence (e.g., Feitelson, Kita, &Goldstein, 1986; Morrow, 1992) that consis-tent experiences with high quality literaturefoster growth in understanding the structure ofstories, which improves both comprehensionand writing, as well as the sophistication ofchildren's language. Just as broad readingexpands the knowledge of adults (Stanovich &Cunningham, 1993), extensive experienceswith stories expand children's knowledge ofthe world, for example, as reflected by breadthof vocabulary (e.g., Elley, 1989; Robbins &Ehri, 1994).

The claimed attention to the alphabeticprinciple, development of letter-sound associa-tions, and activities focussing on the sounds ofwords makes sense given the clear associationsbetween such instruction and success in reading(Adams, 1990) and other competencies, suchas spelling (e.g., Ball & Blachman, 1991; Lie,1991; Nelson, 1990; Tangel & Blachman,1992; Uhry & Shepherd, 1993). The respon-dents' reported modeling and explaining ofliteracy skills and strategies are also sound, forconsistent use of these techniques has long-term positive effects on literacy achievement(Duffy et al., 1986, 1987; Duffy, Roehler, &Herrmann, 1988).

That writing was reported as involvinginstruction to plan, draft, and revise also issensible: A growing body of data substantiatesthat children's composing abilities and under-standing of writing increase substantially as afunction of such instruction (see Graham &Harris, 1994).

Primary-level language arts classroomsvary greatly in the extent to which they moti-vate children's literacy (e.g., Turner, 1993).


27


Thus, it is striking that sample teachers report-ed great commitment to motivation of literacy.Each of the 12 items on the final questionnairepertaining to motivation of literacy received amean rating near the top of the scale on whichit was rated, with very low variability. That is,this sample of teachers claimed to do much tostimulate their students' engagement in readingand writing, from providing immediate positivefeedback to fostering long-term beliefs thatstudents can become good readers and writers.

What is also interesting is what was down-played. Some common classroom instructionalelements that have been criticized as potentiallyundermining reading achievement (e.g., All-ington, 1983; Hiebert, 1983) were reported asinfrequent by the sample. For example, littleability-based reading grouping was reported, apractice that probably does not promote studentachievement (Slavin, 1987) and can in somecases affect it adversely during the primaryyears (e.g., Juel, 1990). Also, the surveyteachers did not report round-robin reading asthe predominant type of reading but ratherclaimed a variety of types of reading, con-sistent with the perspective that different typesof classroom reading stimulate improvementsin different abilities (e.g., Freppon, 1991;Hoffman, 1987; Reutzel, Hollingsworth, &Eldredge, 1994).

In short, a number of contemporary read-ing instructional theorists have argued forbalanced reading instruction, meaning themeshing of holistic literacy experiences andskills instruction (e.g., Adams, 1990; Cazden,1992; Delpit, 1986; Duffy, 1991; Fisher &Hiebert, 1990; McCaslin, 1989; Presley,1994; Stahl et al., 1994). Consistent with that

outlook, the teachers in this study depictedtheir classrooms as integrating the attractivefeatures of whole language with explicit skills.See Groff (1991) for complementary data.

Education of Students Experiencing Difficulties

Although the teachers reported deliveringa common curriculum to their students, theyalso claimed to tailor instruction to individualdifferences. The teachers' commitment tomeeting the needs of individual students camethrough most clearly with respect to theirstance on the literacy education of studentsexperiencing difficulties in learning to read andwrite. In recent years the literacy instructionoffered to weaker readers has been criticized,with observers such as Allington (1991) argu-ing that weaker readers are often given heavydoses of lower-order, skills-oriented instructionaimed at improving decoding only, with aconcomitant reduction in instruction aimed atpromoting higher-order meaning making (e.g.,Bean, Cooley, Eichelberger, Lazar, & Zig-mond, 1991). Such compensatory instruction isoften disconnected from the curriculum thatstronger students experience.

That is not what this sample of teachersclaimed to do for their weaker students, how-ever. Although the teachers reported attendingmore to lower-order skills with weaker readerscompared to good readers, there were fewdifferences in instruction reported for good,average, and weaker readers. The teachersdepicted their instruction as providing the moreexplicit lower-order (i.e., letter- and word-level) instruction that weaker students needwithout sacrificing weaker students' exposure



to and experiences with good literature, northeir introduction to higher-order skills andstrategies. Compensatory instruction for weak-er students was described as integrated with thecurriculum received by all students. (SeeWend ler, Samuels, and Moore, 1989, forcomplementary data that exceptional literacyteachers are especially attuned to providingassistance to students on an as-needed basis.)

Implications for Teacher Education

Based on the data reported here, a case canbe made that a teacher's education shouldinclude exposure to a number of approachesand practices intermingling different types ofinstruction. As Duffy (1991) put it:

I think we do better by teaching teachersmultiple alternatives, by teaching themhow to network these so they can be ac-:cessed appropriately when needed, and byhelping them undei stand that teachingdemands fluid, multiple-dimensional re-sponses to an infinite nuir.ber of classroomsituations. not narrow, uni-directionalresponses . . . . I want [teachers] . . . toselect among theories and proceduresaccording to their judgment about what thesituation calls for. (pp. 13-14)

Duffy (1991) came to this conclusion followinghis immersion in an elementary teaching com-munity for a year as he studied teaching andteacher change. His perspective was informedby c!assroom observations and interviews withteachers. We come to the same conclusionbased on information from the participants inthe detailed survey summarized here.

Caveats, Potential Limitations, and FutureResearch

The data obtained in this survey were veryorderly. Such orderliness is striking in light ofpotential criticisms of a survey of instructionconducted at a distance from actual teaching.First, it could be argued that the criteria forselecting teachers would translate differently indifferent settings. If our selection criteria hadbeen ineffective, what would be expectedwould be a sample of teachers widely varyingin ability and effectiveness. Such a variablesample might be expected to produce highlyvariable outcomes, which is not what weobtained. A similar criticism could be madethat some terms of reference in the surveymight have had different meanings for differentparticipants, such as the terms "whole lan-guage" and "good, average, and weaker read-ers." Such a criticism is not consistent, howev-er, with outcomes obtained here. For example,teachers identifying as fully committed towhole language reported that they do not usebasals as much as those who were somewhatcommitted to whole language, an outcome thatwould be expected. Our use of the terms"good, average, and weaker readers" was notso ambiguous to preclude teachers from report-ing more explicit and extensive teaching oflower-order skills to weaker compared to otherreaders, consistent with many observations inthe reading instructional literature (e.g., Harris& Sipay, 1990). In short, although there wascertainly some fuzziness in the meanings ofsome terms in this survey, that ambiguity isbecause ideas such as whole language andreading-ability classifications are fuzzy con-


29


cepts. Fuzzy concepts typically can be under-stood, however, even if precise meanings areelusive (e.g., Mancuso & Eimer, 1982), andwe believe the orderliness in outcomes obtainedin this study suggests that teachers understoodthe terms in the survey. We carefully designedthe questions to describe practices as theteachers themselves described the practices inresponse to the first, open-ended questionnaire.

Another potential concern is that by relyingon nominations from supervisors who aremembers of the International Reading Associa-tion, the bias would be too much in favor ofsome literacy perspectives the supervisorsperceived to be favored by the Association, inparticular, whole language philosophy. Threerealities must be confronted in reflecting onthis criticism. First, without a doubt, wholelanguage is one of the main conceptions ofreading driving primary literacy instruction inNorth America in the 1990s (see Symons,Woloshyn, & Pressley, 1994); and thus, it ishard to imagine a sampling procedure thatwould not produce many supervisors or teach-ers who were not extensively exposed to wholelanguage and frequently committed to someversion of it. Second, the members of theInternational Reading Association are diversein their outlook. The IRA includes the mostprominent proponents of a number of instruc-tional practices and perspectives that conflictwith the tenets of whole language. Moreover,publications of the association reflect diversityof perspective about literacy instruction morethan unanimity with respect to any one stance,including whole language. Our interaction withprofessionals working in schools who aremembers of the association, most of whom are

language arts supervisors, indicates that thegrass roots members are analogously diverse intheir outlooks. Third, the criticism that thisstudy may have been biased toward extremismof any type would have to explain away one ofthe principle findings, that there was balance inperspective reflected throughout the reports.The teachers in this survey reported integrationof diverse practices as part of literacy instruc-tion. Moreover, the teachers claimed manyinstructional practices not consistent withwhole language philosophy, such as isolatedskills instruction and, for many, some use ofbasal readers (e.g., Weaver, 1990).

One strength of the survey approach usedhere was that the questions on the final instru-ment were based on teachers' initial responsesto the initial survey. That is, all practicesprobed on the final survey were mentioned inresponses to the preliminary survey. A weak-ness of this approach is that there were otherpractices that teachers did not cite initially,ones that are common in education but notconsidered effective by outstanding teachers.For example, in the preliminary round, noteachers cited pull-out remediation instructionas in portant in their instruction of weakerreaders. It seems likely that such instructionoccurs in at least some of the classroomsserved by the teachers participating in thissurvey study. We expect that our future finalsurveys will largely be teacher driven, but thatwe will also be more proactive in attempting togenerate potential teaching elements not identi-fied initially by teachers in order to tap a fullerrange of issues about instruction than we did inthis survey.


3 0


Surveying can provide information aboutmany elements of instruction, but does notprovide much insight about teachers' uniqueimplementations of the elements. Might effec-tive teachers be especially talented at storytelling, modeling reading and writing process-es, communicating with parents, o r any of theother elements of instruction? Sur 'eying alsodoes not generate much information about howelements of instruction are blender' -either howteachers plan their lessons and hen ..:e anticipatemixing elements, or how they make instruc-tional decisions while they teach and thuscombine the elements of instruction fromminute to minute. Finally, some who remainunconvinced that verbal reports can reflectactual behavior well are reluctant to makeinferences about teaching on the basis of teach-ers' questionnaire responses.

For all of those reasons, we are now ob-serving and interviewing a smaller sample ofeffective primary literacy teachers. What isreported here is the first of what we hope willbe converging data about exceptional primaryliteracy instruction generated using multiplemethods. What the methods across this programof research will have in common, however,will be a focus on effective literacy teachers.We believe that the great debates to come aboutbeginning reading instruction will be betterinformed than the great debates of the past, ifthe debaters know a great deal about the teach-ing of effective literacy teachers.

Author Note. Authors Pressley and Rankin areprincipal investigators of the NRRC. Additionalfunding was provided by the State University of

New York at Albany (in the form of graduatestipend and tuition for Linda Yokoi) and the Univer-sity of Nebraska. The opinions in this article areours and do not represent the views of the fundingagencies. Nazy Kaffashan assisted with the dataanalysis, and Jennifer Mistretta and Ruth Wharton-McDonald commented on the manuscript as it wasbeine, prepared, in part as they prepared to conductfollow-up research documenting effective grade-1literacy instruction more fully. Correspondenceregarding this article and the research program ingeneral can be directed to Michael Pressley, De-partment of Educational Psychology and Statistics,University at Albany, SUNY, Albany, NY 12222.

References

Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read. Carn-bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Allington, R. L. (1983). The reading instructionprovided readers of differing reading abilities.Elementary School Journal, 83, 548-559.

Allington, R. L. (1991). The legacy of "Slow itdown and make it more concrete." In J. Zutell &S. McCormick (Eds.), Learner factors/teacherfactors: Issues in literacy research and instruc-tion: Fortieth yearbook of the National ReadingConference (pp. 19-29). Chicago: National

Reading Conference.Ball, E. W., & Blachman, B. A. (1991). Does

phoneme awareness training in kindergartenmake a difference in early word recognition anddevelopmental spelling? Reading Research Quar-

terly, 26, 49-66.Barr, R. (1984). Beginning reading instruction:

From debate to reformation. In P. D. Pearson(Ed.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 545-581). New York: Longman.

NATIONAL READING RFSEARC-1 CENTER, READING RESEARCH REPORT NO. 41

31


Bean, R. M., Cooley, W. W., Eichelberger, T.,Lazar, M. K., & Zigmond, N. (1991). In classor pullout: Effects of setting on the remedialreading program. Journal of Reading Behavior,23, 445-464.

Bereiter, C., & Bird, M. (1985). Use of thinkingaloud in identification and teaching of readingcomprehension strategies. Cognition and Instruc-tion, 2, 131-156.

Bond, G. L., & Dykstra, R. (1967). The coopera-tive research program in the first-grade readinginstruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 2,5-142.

Brown, A. L., Bransford, J. D., Ferrara, R. A., &Campione, J. C. (1983). Learnir g, remember-ing, and understanding. In J. H. I.iavell & E. M.Markman (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology,Vol. III Cognitive development (pp. 77-166).New York: Wiley.

Brown, R., Pressley, M.. Van Meter, P., & Schu-der, T. (1995). A quasi-experimental validationof transactional strategies instruction with previ-ously low-achieving second-grade readers.(Reading Research Report No. 33). Athens, GA:NRRC, Universities of Georgia and MarylandCollege Park.

Cazden, C. (1992). Whole language plus: Essays onliteracy in the United States and New Zealand.New York: Teachers College Press.

Chall, J. S. (1967). Learning to read: The greatdebate. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Chi, M. T. H., Glaser, R., & Farr, M. J. (Eds.).(1988). The nature of expertise. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Delpit, L. D. (1986). Skills and other dilemmas ofa progressive black educator. Harvard Educa-tional Review, 56, 379-385.

Diaper, D. (Ed.). (1989). Knowledge elicitation:Principles, techniques, and applications. NewYork: John Wiley & Sons.

Duffy, G. G. (1991). What counts in teacher educa-tion? Dilemmas in educating e.apowered teach-ers. In J. Zutell & S. McCormick (Eds.), Learn-er factors/teacher factors: Issues in literacyresearch and instruction: Fortieth yearbook ofthe National Reading Conference (pp. 1-18).Chicago: National Reading Conference.

Duffy, G., Roehler, L., & Herrmann, G. (1988).Modeling mental processes helps poor readersbecome strategic readers. Reading Teacher, 41,762-767.

Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., Meloth, M., Vav-rus, L., Book, C., Putnam, J., & Wesselman, R.(1986). The relationship between explicit verbalexplanation during reading skill instruction andstudent awareness and achievement: A study ofreading teacher effects. Reading Research Quar-terly, 21, 237-252.

Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., Sivan, E., Radcliffe,G., Book, C., Meloth, M., Vavrus, L., Wessel-man, R., Putnam, J., & Bassiri, D. (1987).Effects of explaining the reasoning associatedwith using reading strategies. Reading ResearchQuarterly, 22, 347-368.

Dykstra, R. (1968). Summary of the second-gradephase of the Cooperative Research Program inprimary reading instruction. Reading ResearchQuarterly, 4, 49-70.

Elley, W. B. (1989). Vocabulary acquisition fromlistening to stories. Reading Research Quarterly,24, 174-187.

Ericsson, K. A., & Smith, J. (Eds.). (1991). To-ward a general theory of expertise. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Feitelson, D., Kita, B., & Goldstein, Z. (1986).Effects of listening to series stories on firstgraders' comprehension and use of language.Research in the Teaching of English, 20, 339-356.

Fisher, C. W., & Hiebert, E. H. (1990). Character-istics of tasks in two approaches to literacy


3 i`


instruction. Elementary School Journal, 91,3-18.

Flesch, R. (1955). Why Johnny can't read. NewYork: Harper and Row.

Foorman, B. R. (1994). The relevance of a con-nectionist model of reading for "The great de-bate." Educational Psychology Review, 6, 25-47.

Freppon, P. A. (1991). Children's concepts of thenature and purpose of reading in different in-structional settings. Journal of Reading Behavior,23, 139-113.

Goodman, K. S., & Goodman, Y. M. (1979).Learning to read is natural. In L. B. Resnick &P. A. Weaver (Eds.), Theory and practice ofearly reading (Vol. 1, pp. 137-154). Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.

Goodman, Y. M. (Ed.). (1990). How childrenconstruct literacy: Piagetian perspectives. New-ark, DE: International Reading Association.

Graham, S. & Harris, K. R. (1994). The effects ofwhole language on children's writing: A reviewof literature. Educational Psychologist, 29,187-192.

Groff, P. (1991). Teachers' opinions of the wholelanguage approach to reading instruction. Annalsof Dyslexia, 41, 83-95.

Guthrie, J. T., & Tyler, S. J. (1978). Cognition andinstruction of poor readers. Journal of ReadingBehavior, 10, 57-78.

Harris, A. J., & Sipay, E. R. (1990). How toincrease reading ability: A guide to developmen-tal and remedial methods. New York: Longman.

Hiebert, E. H. (1983). An examination of abilitygrouping for reading instruction. Reading Re-Jearch Quarterly, 18, 231-255.

Hoffman. J V. (1987). Rethinking the role of oralreading in basal instruction. Elementary SchoolJournal, 87, 367-373.

Hoffmann, R. R. (1992). The psychology of exper-tise: Cognitive research and empirical Al. NewYork: Springer-Verlag.

Juel, C. (1990). Effects of reading group assign-ment on reading development in first and secondgrade. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22, 233-254.

King, D. F., & Goodman, K. S. (1990). Wholelanguage: Cherishing learners and their language.Language, Speech, and Hearing Services inSchools, 21, 221-227.

Lie, A. (1991). Effects of a training program forstimulating skills in word analysis in first-gradechildren. Reading Research Quarterly, 26,234-250.

Mancuso, J. C., & Eimer, B. N. (1982). Fittingthings into cvtegories. In J. C. Mancuso & J. R.Adams-Webber (Eds.), The construing person(pp. 130-151). New York: Praeger.

Mather, N. (1992). Whole language reading in-struction for students with learning disabilities:Caught in the cross fire. Learning DisabilitiesResearch & Practice, 7, 87-95.

McCaslin, M. M. (1989). Whole language: Theory,instruction, and future implementation. Elemen-tary School Journal, 90, 223-229.

Meyer, M., & Booker, J. (1991). Eliciting andanalyzing expert judgement: A practical tour.London: Academic Press.

Morrow, L. M. (1990). Preparing the classroomenvironment to promote literacy during play.Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 5, 537-554.

Morrow, L. M. (1991). Relationships amongphysical designs of play centers, teachers' em-phasis on literacy in play, and children's literacybehaviors during play. In J. Zutell & S. McCor-mick (Eds.), Learner factors/teacher factors:Issues in literacy research and instruction: Forti-eth yearbook of the National Reading Conference(pp. 127-140). Chicago: National Reading

Conference.Morrow, L. M. (1992). The impact of a literature-

based program on literacy ...,:hievement, use of


33


literature, and attitudes of children from minoritybackgrounds. Reading Research Quarterly, 27,251-275.

Morrow, L. M., O'Connor, E. M., & Smith, J. K.(1990). Effects of a story reading program on theliteracy development of at-risk kindergartenchildren. Journal of Reading Behavior, 22,

255-275.Nelson, L. (1990). The influence of phonics in-

struction on spelling progress. In J. Zutell & S.McCormick (Eds.), Literacy theory and research:Analyses from multiple paradigms (pp. 241-247).Chicago: National Reading Conference.

Neuman, S. B., & Roskos, K. (1990). The influ-ence of literacy-enriched play settings on pre-schoolers' engagement with written language. InJ. Zutell & S. McCormick (Eds.), Literacytheory and research: Analyses from multipleparadigms (pp. 179-188). Chicago: NationalReading Conference.

Neuman, S. B., & Roskos, K. (1992). Literacyobjects as cultural tools: Effects on children'sliteracy behaviors in play. Reading ResearchQuarterly, 27,203-225.

Ohanian, S. (1994). "Call me teacher" and "Whothe hell are you?" In C. B. Smith (Moderator),Whole language: The debate (pp. 1-15,58-61):Bloomington, IN: EDINFO Press.

Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Recipro-cal teaching of comprehension-fostering andmonitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction,1. 117-175.

Pflaum, S. W., Walberg, H. J., Karegianes, M. L.,& Rasher, S. P. (1980). Reading instruction: Aquantitative analysis. Educational Researcher,9(7), 12-18.

Pressley, M. (1994). Commentary on the ERICwhole language debate. In C. B. Smith (Modera-tor), Whole language: The debate (pp. 155-178).Bloomington, IN: ERIC/REC.

Pressley, M., El-Dinary, P. B., Gaskins, I., Schu-der, T., Bergman, J., Almasi, L., & Brown, R.(1992). Beyond direct explanation: Transactionalinstruction of reading comprehension strategies.Elementary School Journal, 92, 511-554.

Pressley, M., Gaskins, I. W., Cunicelli, E. A.,Burdick, N. J., Schaub-Matt, M., Lee, D. S., &Powell, N. (1991). Strategy instruction at Bench-mark School: A faculty interview study. Learn-ing Disability Quarterly, 14, 19-48.

Pressley, M., & Rankin, J. (1994). More aboutwhole language methods of reading instructionfor students at risk for early reading failure.Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 9,156-167.

Reutzel, D. R., Hollingsworth, P. M., & Eldredge,J. L. (1994). Oral reading instruction: Thedevelopment on student reading development.Reading Research Quarterly, 29,40-59.

Robbins, C., & Ehri, L. C. (1994). Reading story-books to kindergartners helps them learn newvocabulary words. Journal of Educational Psy-chology, 86, 54-64.

Scott, A. C., Clayton, J. E., & Gibson, E. L.(1991). A practical guide to knowledge acquisi-tion. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.

Shannon, P. (1994). "The answer is yes . . ." and"People who lives in glass houses . . ." In C. B.Smith (Moderator), Whole language: The debate(pp. 48-51,81-99): Bloomington, IN: EDINFOPress.

Slavin, R. E. (1987). Grouping for instruction inthe elementary school. Educational Psychologist,22, 109-128.

Smith, C. B. (Moderator). (1994). Whole language:The debate. Bloomington, IN: EDINFO Press.

Stahl, S. A., McKenna, M. C., & Pagnucco, J. R.(1994). The effects of whole language instruc-tion: An update and reappraisal. EducationalPsychologist, 29, 175-186.


14


Stahl, S. A., & Miller, P. D. (1989). Whole lan-guage and language experience approaches forbeginning reading: A quantitative research syn-thesis. Review of Educational Research, 59,87-116.

Stanovich, K. E., & Cunningham, A. E. (1993).Where does knowledge come from? Specificassociations between print exposure and informa-tion acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychol-ogy, 85 , 211-229.

Symons, S., Woloshyn, V. E., & Pressley, M.(Guest Eds.). (1994). Scientific evaluation ofwhole language. [Special issue]. EducationalPsychologist, 29(4).

Tangel, D. M., & Blachman, B. A. (1992). Effectof phoneme awareness instruction on kindergar-ten children's invented spelling. Journal ofReading Behavior, 24, 233-261.

Turner, J. C. (1993). Situated motivation in literacyinstruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 28,288-290.

Uhry, J. K., & Shepherd, M. J. (1993). Segmenta-tion/spelling instruction as part of a first-gradereading program: Effects on several measures ofreading. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 218-233.

Weaver, C. (1990). Understanding whole language:From principles to practice. Portsmouth, NH:Heinemann.

Wendler, D., Samuels, S. J., & Moore, V. K.(1989). Comprehension instruction of award-winning teachers, teachers with master's degrees,and other teachers. Reading Research Quarterly,24, 382-401.

Whitmore, K. F., & Goodman, Y. M. (1992).Inside the whole language classroom. SchoolAdministrator, 49(5), 20-26.


35

NRRC NationalReading ResearchCenter318 Aderhold, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602 2532161. M. Patterson Building, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742

34)

Date post:	03-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

DOCUMENT RESUME CS 012 179 AUTHOR Pressley, Michael; And … · 2014-07-18 · DOCUMENT RESUME ED...

Documents