Center for Urban School Partnerships, Texas A&M University, 420C Harrington Tower, College Station, TX, 77843, USA.
Texas A&M University, 420D Harrington Tower, College Station, TX, 77843, USA.
Ann Dyslexia. 2019 Apr;69(1):5-20. doi: 10.1007/s11881-018-00170-6.
The purpose of this research was to study the etiology of teacher knowledge about and factors that influence implementation of evidence-based reading and writing interventions at the upper elementary grade levels. Five data sources are used in this study: first, we used teacher surveys about their pre-service preparation on reading comprehension and literacy practices gathered during a recent cluster randomized control trial on a reading comprehension intervention conducted with 280 fourth and fifth-grade teachers and their classroom students. We also conducted focus group interviews with 43% of the teachers and observed 90% of the teachers once during the implementation years. For writing, we used data collected from 32 teachers during a 3-year design project for a teacher-led computer-supported writing intervention. We also collected data from groups of school administrators using structured interviews during both studies. Finally, we conducted an artifact review of school curricula and posted professional development (PD) plans. Our results show that in both reading comprehension and writing, all teachers reported not receiving sound evidence-based pre-service preparation and they were not currently employing any evidence-based approaches. Most teachers reported using the basal reading series with very little variation from the lesson scope and sequence. Teachers and administrators frequently reported that skills were being taught in isolation (e.g., skill of the week is summarizing) and that writing was neglected. The interviews showed very interesting patterns of curricula decision-making by school administrators and these findings were further confirmed through the artifact reviews. Based on these results, we recommend that any review of teacher practices focus also on administrator decision-making and school level factors that are driving what happens in the classrooms. The review showed that the teachers themselves do not feel empowered to learn and deliver evidence-based literacy practices and feel constrained by the system.
本研究旨在探讨教师对基于证据的阅读和写作干预措施的认识的病因学以及影响其实施的因素,这些干预措施适用于小学高年级。本研究使用了五种数据源:首先,我们使用了教师关于阅读理解和读写实践的职前准备情况的调查,这些调查是在最近一项针对阅读理解干预措施的集群随机对照试验中收集的,该试验涉及 280 名四五年级教师及其课堂学生。我们还对 43%的教师进行了焦点小组访谈,并在实施期间观察了 90%的教师。对于写作,我们使用了在为期 3 年的教师主导的计算机支持写作干预设计项目中收集的数据。我们还在这两项研究中,使用结构化访谈收集了学校管理人员小组的数据。最后,我们对学校课程和发布的专业发展(PD)计划进行了人工制品审查。我们的研究结果表明,在阅读理解和写作方面,所有教师都报告说没有接受过良好的基于证据的职前准备,并且目前没有采用任何基于证据的方法。大多数教师报告说使用基础阅读系列,其课程范围和顺序几乎没有变化。教师和管理人员经常报告说,技能是孤立地教授的(例如,每周的技能是总结),而写作则被忽视。访谈显示出学校管理人员在课程决策方面非常有趣的模式,这些发现通过人工制品审查进一步得到证实。基于这些结果,我们建议对教师实践的任何审查也关注管理人员的决策以及驱动课堂发生的学校层面因素。审查表明,教师本身并没有感到有能力学习和实施基于证据的读写实践,并且感到受到系统的限制。