|Archive article #9901
Effective Schools/Accomplished Teachers
Barbara M. Taylor, P. David Pearson, Kathleen F. Clark, and Sharon Walpole
(To appear in the October 1999 issue of The Reading Teacher)
To assist schools in reaching our national goal of "all children reading by grade 3," scholars have been combing research archives in search of relevant findings and good advice for teachers and administrators. Researchers and professional organizations have synthesized research on learning to read (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998), effective school reform programs (Herman, 1999), early reading interventions (Hiebert & Taylor, in press), and effective classroom practices for the primary grades (Learning First Alliance, 1998; Morrow, Tracey, Woo, & Pressley, 1999). Others have examined the characteristics of effective schools (Puma, Karweit, Price, Ricciuitti, Thompson, & Vaden-Kiernan, 1997; Stringfield, Millsap, & Herman, 1997) and effective primary grade teachers (Wharton-MacDonald, Pressley, & Hampston, 1998).
What is missing from this wealth of valuable information is research that weds effective classroom teaching and effective school programs. To fill this need, a group of us at CIERA conducted a national study of effective schools and accomplished teachers. These patterns of effective schools and accomplished teachers will become the foundation for CIERAs projects with aspiring schoolsschools that are committed to increasing the reading achievement of their students.
Our goal was to uncover the practices of accomplished teachers within schools that were promoting high achievement among students for whom failure is a common experience. To accomplish this goal, we investigated school and classroom practices in effective (unexpectedly high achieving) schools and compared them to what was happening in moderately effective and less effective schools.
In each classroom, we gathered performance data for two low and two average readers in the fall and in the spring. In the fall, grade 1 children were tested on letter names, phonemic segmentation and blending, and a word list (comprised of common sight words and some words with predictable spellings). In the fall (for grades 23) and spring (grades 13) students were assessed on words correct per minute on a grade level passage, retelling on an instructional level passage, and a word list (again comprised of common sight words and some words with predictable spellings).
To secure an index of overall school effectiveness, we created a composite score based upon the overall school mean for students gains on the individually administered reading measures (words correct per minute, reading words in isolation, and retelling of a passage) and the schools average on whatever standardized test was used for grade 3 students. The resulting distribution of composite scores suggested three clusters of schools. Four schools were judged to be most effective, six were classified as moderately effective, and four were judged to be least effective. Relevant data on these groups of schools is presented in Table 1.
Based on the observations, logs, questionnaires, interviews, and case studies, we constructed several teacher
Home communication and student engagement were ratings based upon a set of criteria we developed for scaling comments from our observations. The two time indices were taken from the weekly logs. The last two indices are not quite as transparent. In grades 1 and 2 frequently observed approaches to word recognition instruction included phonics in isolation, coaching in word attack as children were reading, and sight word practice. Additionally, in grades 13, frequently observed approaches to comprehension instruction included asking literal-level oral questions after reading; asking higher level, oral questions after reading; and having students write in response to what they had read.
This time for small group instruction was not achieved by each teacher working in isolation. To the contrary, all four of the most effective schools used a collaborative model for reading instruction in which Title I, reading resource, special education, and regular teachers (as well as ELL teachers in one school) worked together to provide small group instruction. In three schools, resource teachers came into the classroom for 60 minutes a day. In one school, children went to resource teachers to work in groups of two or three for 45 minutes a day. The staff in three of the four schools pointed to early reading interventions in grades K3 for those students most at risk as one reason for their success.
The small groups in these four schools tended to be based on ability. The rationale given by teachers and administrators for this decision was a desire to maximize individual participation and ensure that all students were working on skills and materials that were "within their reach." While this practice may seem reminiscent of an earlier age when we tracked students in grade 1 into groups in which they would remain for the rest of their school lives, it was different in these schools. Movement across groups was common because of their commitment to regular, systematic assessment and to early interventions. The assessments gave them the evidence they needed to take stock of progress on a regular basis (at least three times per year); the interventions provided the means to accelerate the growth of those most at risk. Thus group boundaries were quite permeable; children were not "doomed" to lifetime, or even yearlong, membership in particular reading groups.
Children in most and moderately effective schools spent more time in independent reading (28 and 27 min/day) than children in least effective schools (19 min/day). Teachers in the most effective schools mentioned time for students to read authentic texts as a factor contributing to their success.
Phonics instruction provided an interesting contrast across levels of effectiveness. As documented in Table 3, explicit phonics was common in all the schools. However, what really set the teachers in the most effective schools apart from their counterparts was their use of coaching kids in how to apply the word identification skills they were learning in phonics while they were reading everyday texts.
These differences struck us as important enough to illustrate more vividly. A majority of grade 1 and 2 teachers across levels of school effectiveness were frequently observed teaching phonics in isolation, including working with words on a whiteboard, chart, or worksheet; working with word cards dealing with word study or word families; making words; writing words; and reading words with a particular phonic element. However, in addition to teaching phonics in isolation, a majority of teachers in the most effective schools, unlike those in the other schools in the study, also taught word recognition by coaching children in the use of strategies to figure out unknown words while they were reading. Instead of the teacher or another child calling out a word when a child was stuck, the teacher used prompts such as,
In other words, children werent simply practicing reading by reading aloud. Through their coaching, teachers were helping students learn how to apply word recognition strategies to real reading. While more research is needed, the results from this study suggest that conversations about systematic phonics instruction and opportunity to practice need to be broadened to include "on the spot" coaching as children are actually reading.
Table 4 portrays our findings on comprehension instruction practices. Differences emerged in the use of higher level questions, with the clear nod going to the teachers in the most effective schools. There were no reliable differences in the observed use of text-based questions or writing in response to reading. Two other trends are worth noting. First, the teachers in the most effective schools were more balanced in their use of instructional tools compared to their counterparts. Second, when all is said and done, there was not much comprehension activity in these classrooms in general.
Compared to the teachers in the moderately and least effective schools, teachers in the most effective schools communicated more with parents. They were more likely to
In two of the four most effective schools, teachers specifically mentioned good home-school connections as a reason for their success.
In all four of the most effective schools, teachers mentioned that reading was a priority in their building and that this was a factor contributing to their success. The teachers in the most effective schools spent 134 minutes a day on reading (including small and whole group reading instruction, independent seatwork, independent reading, and writing in response to reading) as compared to teachers in the moderately and least effective schools who averaged 113 minutes a day (in both levels of school effectiveness) on reading.
It is clear from this study that a combination of sound building decisions, such as the collaborative model for reading instruction, and effective classroom practices contributed to success in our most effective schools. What is needed now, we believe, is research on ways to help aspiring schools and teachers learn from effective schools and accomplished teachers so they too may "beat the odds" in teaching all children to read. This is the area some of us within CIERA are turning to next.
Herman, R. (1999). An educators guide to schoolwide reform. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
Hiebert, E. H., & Taylor, B. M. (in press). Beginning reading instruction: Research on early interventions. In R. Barr, M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Volume III. New York: Longman.
Learning First Alliance. (1998). Every child reading: An action plan of the Learning First Alliance. American Educator, 22 (12), 5263.
Morrow, L, Tracey, D., Woo, D., & Pressley, M. (1999). Characteristics of exemplary first-grade literacy instruction. The Reading Teacher, 52 (5), 462479.
Puma, M. J., Karweit, N., Price, C., Ricciuitti, A., Thompson, W., & Vaden-Kiernan, M. (1997). Prospects: Final report on student outcomes. Washington, DC: Planning and Evaluation Service, U.S. Department of Education.
Snow, C. E., Burns, S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children: Report of the Committee on the Prevention of Reading Difficulties in Young Children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Stringfield, S., Millsap, M. A., & Herman, R. (1997). Urban and suburban/rural special strategies for educating disadvantaged children: Findings and policy implications of a longitudinal study. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
Wharton-MacDonald, R., Pressley, M., & Hampston, J. M. (1998). Literacy instruction in nine first-grade classrooms: Teacher characteristics and student achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 99, 101128.
This research was conducted as part of CIERA, the Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement, and supported under the Educational Research and Development Centers Program, PR/Award Number R305R70004, as administered by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. However, the contents of the described report do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the National Institute on Student Achievement, Curriculum, and Assessment or the National Institute on Early Childhood development, or the U.S. Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the federal government.