Report TEACHER EDUCATION AND READING INSTRUCTION Executive Summary

Introduction Two secondary questions were posed before the analysis: The analysis of reading and reading instruction involves four interacting factors: students, tasks, materials, and • What findings can be used immediately? teachers. It has often been the case that research has • What important gaps remain in our knowledge? not focused on teachers; it has emphasized students, materials, and tasks. Recent developments, such as Methodology class-size reduction and the development of standards How was the analysis of the research for content areas, have highlighted the need for literature conducted? qualified teachers. In addition, teacher education and professional development emerged as one of the most The NRP conducted extensive and systematic searches frequently mentioned areas of concern during the for research on preservice and inservice teacher regional meetings. Speakers at meetings of the National education and professional development. According to Reading Panel (NRP) also emphasized the need for the methodology developed by the NRP, only studies consideration of these topics. Given these concerns, a that were experimental tests of teacher education or subgroup was established to survey the research in this professional development and that had appeared in area. The following is a summary of that work. professional journals were included. Each study that met the initial criteria was coded with variables that Background allowed for further analysis. Teacher education and professional development Results and Discussion represent two aspects of the ways in which teachers acquire knowledge. In teacher education programs, What do the results of the analysis of prospective teachers are taught in structured programs studies on teacher education and before being certified as teachers. The experiences reading show? these preservice teachers have include coursework in theory and methods as well as supervised teaching. Despite the fact that there is a much larger body of Once teachers are in the field, having assumed teaching work on teacher education, only a very small number of positions, the emphasis shifts from teacher education to studies were found to meet the initial criteria. There professional development. This latter context is often were differences between the types of problems referred to as inservice education. Because there are studied in preservice and inservice research. Preservice dramatic differences in the amount of time spent, the research emphasized the learning of methods and use structure of the program, and the continuity of the of materials. Inservice research was much more education, the NRP has chosen to analyze the two eclectic, seemingly related to specific curricular needs contexts separately. rather than the general instructional needs at the preservice level. The analysis was guided by three primary questions: A second important issue is whether teacher education • How are teachers taught to teach reading? is effective. For teacher education to be effective, it • What do studies show about the effectiveness of must change both teacher and student behavior. That is, teacher education? teachers must adopt new ways of teaching, and students must show appropriate improvement as a • How can research be applied to improve teacher result. However, it is only for inservice research that development? student achievement was measured. For preservice

5-1 National Reading Panel Chapter 5: Teacher Education and Reading Instruction work, only teacher outcomes were measured. This is Conclusions not entirely inappropriate because this research does show that teachers adopt the strategies and techniques What conclusions can be drawn from this they are taught. analysis of teacher education and studies? Of the inservice research studies, one-half measured student outcomes as well as teacher outcomes. In all Based on the analysis, the NRP concludes that but a few cases the results showed that the intervention appropriate teacher education does produce higher in professional development produced significantly achievement in students. Much more must be known higher student achievement. about the conditions under which this conclusion holds. Some issues that need to be resolved include Because of the small number of studies that constituted determining the optimal combination of preservice and the final sample, the Panel could not answer the inservice experience, effects of preservice experience question of how research can be used to improve on inservice performance, appropriate length of teacher education in specific ways. Rather, it is clear interventions for both preservice and inservice that there is a need for programmatic research to education, and best ways to assess the effectiveness of answer this question. teacher education and professional development. Additional evidence on this issue is available in the report from the Comprehension subgroup. The Directions for Further Research conclusion with respect to the preparation of teachers There was little research on how teachers can be for comprehension instruction is that it requires supported over the long term to ensure sustained extended training with ongoing support. That only a few implementation of new methods and student studies were found dealing with teacher education and achievement. This is an important issue that needs professional development in comprehension supports resolution, given the resource-intensive nature of the conclusion of this analysis that a great deal of teacher education and professional development. research is needed on this issue. The Panel found no research in the sample that Almost all the research demonstrated positive effects addresses the question of the relationship between the on students, teachers, or both. However, the range of development of standards and teacher education or variables was so great for the small number of studies professional development. Given the great interest in available that the NRP could not reach a general developing standards, this is an important gap in our conclusion about the specific content of teacher knowledge. education programs.

Reports of the Subgroups 5-2 Report

TEACHER EDUCATION AND READING INSTRUCTION Report

Introduction education have presumed to draw on the research literature, those proposals have not unequivocally called The analysis of reading and reading instruction involves for the research-based evaluation of teacher education four interacting factors: students, tasks, materials, and itself. teachers. It has often been the case that research has not focused on teachers, emphasizing students, There is a growing body of research that shows materials and tasks. Recent developments such as correlations between aspects of formal teacher class-size reduction and the development of standards preparation and quality of teaching or student outcomes. for reading and content areas have highlighted the need In a recent study, Darling-Hammond (2000) showed for, and difficulty in obtaining, qualified teachers. that teacher quality characteristics such as certification Although accreditation processes for schools and status and degree in the field to be taught are colleges of education (National Council for significantly and positively correlated with student Accreditation of Teacher Education, for example) and outcomes. Darling-Hammond (2000) also reports that certification of programs (Association for Childhood “NAEP [National Assessment of Educational Progress] Education International and International Reading analyses found that teachers who had had more Association) exercise some control over the quality of professional training were more likely to use teaching teacher preparation, there is a need for the standards practices that are associated with higher reading utilized by these governing bodies to be validated by and achievement on the NAEP tests.” predicated on empirical research. (Versions of However, there are important caveats associated with standards presently used for accreditation related to this work. It is correlational and, although suggestive, reading literacy are found in Appendix C.) does not deal with the detail necessary to provide Teacher education and professional development specific recommendations for teaching. There is no emerged as being among the most frequently mentioned way to determine what variables account for the areas of concern during the regional meetings. general relationship. Research that demonstrates causal Speakers at meetings of the National Reading Panel relationships might provide more consistent guidance. (NRP) also emphasized the need for consideration of Moreover, the work does not give much guidance about these topics. Given these concerns, the NRP agreed to what the content of teacher education or professional include a survey of the research in this area in its development programs should be. report. Other types of reading intervention have also Gordon (1985) believed that teacher education originally emphasized teacher education in a variety of ways. © (19th century origins) and to date was and is largely Notable among these is Reading Recovery . Jongsma designed as vocational training, based on an (1990) suggests that teachers go through a type of © apprenticeship model of education lending its programs “retraining” because Reading Recovery introduces to behavioristic learning, imitation, and repeated new ways of looking at literacy learning. By implication, practice. In addition, it has been almost an article of all new ways of looking at reading would require some faith among many teacher educators that there is a professional development. Clay (1991) points out the body of knowledge that can (and should) be learned as importance of the initial “training” and subsequent a major component of learning to be a teacher. (See, for needs for inservice development. example, Shulman, 1986). In addition, Shulman (1986) A note on usage is appropriate here. The NRP has called for teacher education to be “research-based.” chosen to use the phrase teacher education rather than Whereas most proposals for improving teacher teacher training to reflect what the Panel believes is the professionalization of teachers and teaching. Although it

5-3 National Reading Panel Chapter 5: Teacher Education and Reading Instruction is possible to “train” teachers to use particular methods Cruickshank and Metcalf express this sentiment: to teach, it seems more appropriate to educate teachers Literature on the conduct, objectives, and the in a professional context that will give them control over effectiveness of training in teacher education is a wide range of decisionmaking tools. sparse . . . . Given the historic brouhaha over The Panel also distinguishes between teacher education training in teacher preparation, it would be expected (largely preservice or prior to certification) and that a considerable available related literature would professional development (largely inservice or exist. Such is not the case (Cruickshank & Metcalf, postcertification). The Panel has done this for two 1990, p. 491). reasons. First, it is conceptually important to distinguish between programs in which participants are essentially Database full-time students and part-time teachers and those in To examine the research related to teacher education which participants are full-time teachers and part-time and professional development, electronic searches were students. The second reason is that the research fell performed on the ERIC, PsycINFO, OCLC World into these distinct categories. Different concerns and Catalog, and OCLC Article First databases. The search different research variables and outcomes were terms used and numbers of articles returned are involved in the two different research literatures. included in Appendix A. Despite the division, the Panel does believe they are clearly related. The initial selection process identified more than 300 papers; many of these were nonexperimental and were Taken together, the many theoretical formulations, therefore not included. The resultant set of studies was empirical findings, and practical concerns suggest how then divided into two categories: research on preservice important teacher education is in the teaching of and research on inservice or professional development. reading. It was deemed appropriate to conduct an The criteria used were that preservice research was analysis of the research on teacher education to primarily concerned with the training of prospective determine what can be supported by research. teachers before certification or full-time work in The analysis was guided by the three primary questions: classrooms, whereas inservice work was concerned with teachers who were already teaching in school 1. How are teachers taught to teach reading? environments. 2. What do studies show about the effectiveness of To supplement the electronic searches, the teacher education? bibliographies of the articles identified in the electronic 3. How can research be applied to improve teacher searches and a recent review of teacher education development? research in reading (Anders, Hoffmann, & Duffy, 2000) were examined for additional citations that did not Two secondary questions were also posed prior to the appear in the electronic searches themselves. analysis: Appropriate citations that had not been identified in the 1. What findings can be used immediately? electronic searches were added to the pool of research studies to be examined. There were four studies 2. What important gaps remain in our knowledge? reviewed in the comprehension subgroup report on preparing teachers to teach reading comprehension. Methodology Those four studies were included in the teacher There is a widespread belief that there is little research education analysis as well. on teacher education, despite the great interest in the A total of 32 studies met the final criteria: 11 preservice issue. and 21 inservice. Because of the way in which the results of some of the underlying research was reported, there were more articles than studies. That is,

Reports of the Subgroups 5-4 Report there were two instances where two published papers There are also notable programs where teacher reported on different aspects of the same research education or professional development is an important project. An additional eight studies focused on inservice component of the intervention. Reading Recovery© is on teaching for special education or learning disability one example of such a program; Success for All is students. These have not been coded but are noted here another. However, most of the research studies on as a subgroup of the inservice studies. these programs do not include measures of teacher changes in their results. Again, as in most instructional Analysis research, the focus is on the specific interventions and It was determined that to conduct meta-analyses on student outcomes rather than teacher change. The these data would be inappropriate because there is not Panel did not find studies that met the NRP criteria that a critical mass of studies researching the same were in either of the two categories. variables or theoretical positions. Moreover, although all One reason that teacher education has been ignored in the studies do address the general problems of these research contexts is that researchers believe that improving teacher education, the underlying rationales any changes in student outcomes are attributable to the for the studies represent an eclectic mix of theories and intervention, which is, in turn, delivered by the conceptualizations. participating teachers. This would logically imply that Consistency With the Methodology of the teachers had learned to deliver the instruction in the National Reading Panel way the research program dictated. This is, in part, the criterion of fidelity to the intervention. However, the The methods of the NRP were followed in the conduct issue goes well beyond fidelity of teaching to the many of the literature searches and the examination and other variables that relate to teaching rather than to coding of the articles obtained. Because a meta­ learning. analysis was deemed inappropriate, the data were coded using a subset of the coding scheme adopted by Although these studies have not been analyzed as part the NRP. These data are contained in Appendix B. of the pool of studies, they have some relevance to the interpretation of the analysis. Consequently, Some Additional Considerations in recommendations at the end of the analysis have been Research on Teacher Education influenced by these concerns. When research is conducted on instructional variables, Results it is often the case that the participating teachers receive instruction in the instructional interventions. For In the presentation of results, the research on example, when comprehension strategy research is preservice teacher education has been separated from conducted in classrooms, the instructors (either that on professional development with inservice classroom teachers or the researchers) must be taught teachers. The Panel believes this is fundamentally to conduct instruction in the appropriate manner. In this appropriate because different quality criteria and sense, almost all of the research the NRP has identified outcome measures can be applied to the research contains some elements relative to teacher education. studies. In particular, the criteria of success are However, in these circumstances, the focus is almost different for the two sets of studies. exclusively on student outcomes, without detailed data That is, for preservice studies, the focus is almost on changes in teacher behaviors. Although the NRP entirely on changing teacher behavior, without a recognizes the importance of the more general form of concomitant focus on the outcomes of students who are teacher education and professional development, it (eventually) instructed by those teachers. The Panel determined that these factors would not be included in found no instances of research in the pool that the current analysis because of the lack of teacher continued with preservice teachers as they moved into performance data. full-time teaching positions. There is no inherent reason why this is the case. The reasons seem, instead, to be pragmatic and related to the complexities of research that would be introduced in attempting to follow

5-5 National Reading Panel Chapter 5: Teacher Education and Reading Instruction teachers into full-time teaching. Although the lack of • General methods: Directed Reading-Thinking student data limits the conclusions one can draw about Activities (DRTA); teaching word recognition skills; the results of this research, it does provide an important Directed Reading Activity (DRA); Informal background for other teacher education and Reading Inventory (IRI) (4) professional development research. If teacher • Materials: Estimating readability levels; teacher behaviors cannot be transformed by changes in the decisionmaking and awareness of materials (2) curriculum in preservice programs, it is unlikely that teacher behaviors can be changed later. • Others: Case method; study skills; theoretical orientations to reading (3) For inservice research, the ultimate test of success is whether students benefit from instruction delivered by The majority of the preservice studies reviewed teachers as a result of that intervention. Consequently, (10 of 11) reported improvements in teacher knowledge. the Panel invoked a strong criterion that student Of these ten, two reported mixed or modest effects. outcomes must be part of the research on inservice Only one study, which looked at the accuracy of teachers. However, another criterion is also critical. If teachers in estimating the readability levels of materials, there is no change in teachers as a result of the did not report any effect from having either theoretical intervention, it is not possible to attribute changes in knowledge of reading or teaching experience, or both, student outcomes to the teacher development compared with a control group with neither theoretical intervention. Other factors must be invoked to account knowledge nor teaching experience. for the changes in students. Consequently, the NRP must have both teacher changes and student changes to The duration of the studies reviewed here ranged from agree that inservice interventions are effective. 5 to 6 weeks to about a year, which corresponds closely Although the Panel believes that preservice and to the structure of university-based coursework. inservice research form two different bodies of work, Although these studies show that preservice courses they are related in that preservice does provide improved prospective teachers’ knowledge, there is no evidence for the efficacy of producing teacher change. way of knowing whether this increased knowledge Those changes can be important in designing inservice actually translates into effective teaching because none interventions. of the studies reports data on the teachers after their participation in the experimental program. Preservice Studies In the NRP sample, no studies of larger scale Eleven preservice studies met the criteria for this interventions at the program level were found. For portion of the NRP analysis. These preservice studies, example, there were no experimental studies that with coded information, are grouped in Table 1 in looked at changes in the format of teacher education Appendix B. Table 2 in Appendix B lists two studies that programs like the use of professional development sites involved preservice interventions as well as inservice or the use of standards-based programs. interventions. Most of the preservice research (ten studies) focused on elementary reading instruction. Two Inservice Studies (of the ten) studies had a broad range of grade samples, There were 21 inservice studies that met the criteria for spanning grade levels from K through 8 and 1 through this review. These studies are listed in Appendix B: 6. For one study it was not possible to determine the Coding of Studies. There are four groupings: studies that grade level. involved both inservice and preservice interventions The content of the teacher education in these studies is (Table 2), studies that measured only teacher outcomes a primary variable in distinguishing among studies. The (Table 3), studies that measured both teacher and 11 studies can be classified into the following four student outcomes (Table 4), and studies that measured categories. For each category, the number of studies is only student outcomes (Table 5). indicated in parentheses. • Comprehension and strategy instruction: Questioning techniques (2)

Reports of the Subgroups 5-6 Report

The first analysis of the data was to determine the It appears to be the case that the emphasis is on grade levels of the teachers who participated in the specific methods of teaching reading, rather than the inservice work. For 18 of the studies, it was possible to general methods that characterize preservice research. do so. Because the studies often involved multiple grade There is much less emphasis on the general aspects of levels, there was a total of 70 different samples of teaching reading. Three studies investigated ways in teachers represented in the 18 studies. These data are which to improve teacher attitudes, reflecting the needs represented in Figure 1 on the next page. of teachers on the job. It is evident that the inservice instruction is targeted at Effectiveness of Inservice Instruction the elementary grades with approximately equal emphasis. The numbers of studies across grades 1 Only 11 studies in the NRP pool measured both teacher through 5 are equal. There are far fewer studies at the and student outcomes. Six other studies measured only middle and high school grade levels, with only a single teacher outcomes, whereas four measured only student study at each of the high school grades. outcomes. As noted above, it is necessary to have both teacher and student outcomes to be able to determine A second analysis examined the focus of inservice whether teacher education is effective. If it is, it must instruction for teachers of reading. Compared with the change both teacher and student behavior. That is, work in preservice programs, inservice instruction teachers must adopt new ways of teaching and students seems to be more eclectic, ranging from training in must show appropriate improvement if the results are to specific methods (e.g., how to use reading groups) to be attributed to the new ways of educating teachers. more extensive instruction encompassing ways to teach reading, classroom management, and lesson design. The The measures of teacher change and student outcomes topics fell into the following categories, with the number used in this body of research were a combination of of studies indicated in parentheses. informal, researcher-designed assessments and standardized evaluations. As a generalization, the • Comprehension and strategy instruction: teacher outcome measures were all researcher- Higher order questioning, explicit instruction in using designed, whereas the student measures tended to be reading skills strategically; questioning and student- standardized instruments. At times, student outcomes teacher interactions; Transactional Strategy were measured with a combination of researcher- Instruction (TSI); questioning and response designed and standardized measures. Given that the guidance cues (8) researchers designed the treatments, standardized measures of outcomes often did not exist, necessitating • General methods: Skills vs. Language Experience the development of researcher-designed instruments. Approach (LEA); DRA; whole language; phonics, question-and-answer, and giving feedback; teaching Another set of analyses examined the duration of the a language arts/integrated curriculum (5) project and the number of hours of instruction delivered. Figure 2 presents the data on the duration of projects. • Classroom management: Small groups; reading groups; conducting cooperative learning activities; Of the 21 studies, only 4 had durations of 6 months or using performance assessment; translating less. However, the duration of the project is not Madeline Hunter’s Instructional Theory Into necessarily the crucial variable. Where possible, the Practice, focusing on effective classroom total amount of time spent in instruction was also management, motivation and lesson design (5) examined. It was possible to determine the number of hours of instruction in 11 studies. For many of the • Improving teachers’ attitudes: Teaching writing studies, the number of hours of instructional intervention as a process to facilitate change in teachers’ is not specified; these studies were not included in this attitudes to language; improving content area analysis. Often what are reported are phrases like “a teachers’ skills and attitudes to teaching reading; monthly meeting” or “weekly workshops.” No attempt enthusiasm training. (3)

5-7 National Reading Panel Chapter 5: Teacher Education and Reading Instruction

was made to interpret these; only those studies for which Figure 3 shows that for the 12 studies for which unambiguous determinations could be made were instructional time could be determined, the greatest analyzed. The data for instructional time are presented in number of hours of instruction was 60. The majority of Figure 3. the studies (8 of 12) presented 15 or fewer hours of instruction.

Reports of the Subgroups 5-8 Report a Function of as eachers for Inservice Research Number of Studies

(18 Studies with 70 Grade Samples) Figure 1. Grade Levels of T

5-9 National Reading Panel Chapter 5: Teacher Education and Reading Instruction Projects (N=20) Inservice Number of Studies as a Function of

Duration of Figure 2.

Reports of the Subgroups 5-10 Figure 3. Number of Studies as a Function of Amount of In-Service Professional Development, (N=12) 5-11 National ReadingPanel Report Chapter 5: Teacher Education and Reading Instruction

Studies Reporting Positive Changes in However, three long-term inservice programs reported Teacher Outcomes by Talmage, Pascarella, and Ford (1984), Miller and Ellsworth (1985), and Duffy and coworkers (1987a) Seventeen out of the 21 studies reviewed measured showed gains by teachers and significant or partial teacher outcomes. Fifteen of these studies reported achievement gains by students. Because of this significant or modest improvements in teachers’ discrepancy, the Panel could find no relationship knowledge or practice. Out of the fifteen studies that between the amount of instructional time (or duration of measured student outcomes, 13 reported improvements programs) and student outcomes. This may be a in student achievement. One clear trend in the data is function of the limited number of research studies for that where teacher outcomes showed significant which the Panel could make the relevant improvement, so did student achievement. In studies determinations. where no gains are reported for the teachers, no gains are reported for the students in the same study. In It is difficult to compare the studies reviewed here in general, one can conclude that inservice professional terms of the duration of instruction that the teachers development does lead to improved teacher knowledge received. Hence, it is not possible to draw specific and practice and improved student achievement. conclusions about the relationship between length or Because the content of each of these studies is widely intensity of instruction and outcomes. The duration of divergent, it is not possible to reach a specific the inservice intervention depends on the specific conclusion about the content of instruction. objectives and requirements of the program. Sometimes the intervention consisted of the dissemination by mail Studies Reporting No Change in Teacher of a manual (Coladarci & Gage, 1984) or two meetings Outcomes and the discussion of a teaching manual (Anderson, Evertson, & Brophy, 1979). It could take the form of a Three studies (Coladarci & Gage, 1984; Morrison, series of workshops or meetings spread over 2 days Harris, & Auerbach, 1969; Stallings & Krasavage, (Scheffler, Richmond, & Kazelskis, 1993) or a year 1986) reported no change in teacher outcomes, in at (Shepard, Flexer, Hiebert, Marion, Mayfield, & Weston, least some of the conditions in the research projects. In 1996) or three workshops spread over 3 summers two of these studies, where student outcomes were (Spanjer and Layne, 1983). It could also take the form measured, student achievement did not improve either. of a systematic 3-year staff development program A closer look at these studies reveals two interesting (Stallings, Robbins, Presbrey, & Scott, 1986; Stallings & points. First, one study (Coladarci & Gage, 1984) did Krasavage, 1986). The studies do not report the not involve any formal instruction for teachers. Instead, duration of the intervention in a consistent manner: teachers in the treatment group were given “teacher some report the number of hours of instruction, education packets” consisting of materials on a diverse whereas others report the overall duration of the project range of topics, including behavior management, large- or duration of the staff development program. group instruction, use of question-and-answer, phonics, Two other issues were difficult to assess. The Panel questioning, and feedback strategies. was unable to determine the amount of resources Second, all three studies were long-term projects. The (personnel, equipment, and materials) from the reports study in which teachers received no formal instruction of the research. This amount would have a direct lasted about a year. The other two were 3 years in bearing on the ultimate effectiveness of the duration. Morrison and colleagues (1969) caution interventions. It was also not possible to find any against using short-term results to validate teacher experimental research on inservice professional education efforts because, in the course of their 3-year development that related to the issues surrounding study, they found that teachers and administrators standards-based education. reverted to what they had been doing before the project The NRP did not conduct a separate analysis of the began. Stallings and Krasavage (1986), at the end of research on preparation of teachers for comprehension their 3-year study, also reported that teacher and instruction. An extensive analysis of this research is student outcome measures actually declined although included in the report from the comprehension gains by teachers and students were reported during the subgroup. first 2 years of the study.

Reports of the Subgroups 5-12 Report

Results: Vocabulary Instruction teachers. There is simply no research that demonstrates Methods this in a positive fashion. Because most of the research demonstrates the effectiveness of teacher education Summary of Findings interventions, there is no reason to envisage a different outcome for preservice teachers. The NRP is encouraged by the fact that there is a growing body of experimental research on teacher Implications for Reading Instruction education and professional development. Although this body of research does not, at present, converge on How can research be applied to improve highly explicit and specific recommendations for teacher development? teacher education, it does suggest that teacher Although there is no single, consistent set of findings education is successful in most contexts. It also clearly that points to specific conclusions, the research has indicates that when teacher education is successful, some general implications for effective teacher student performance improves as well. education and development. First, research can At the outset of the review, five questions were listed determine which of the interventions in teacher that guided this analysis. In the following summary, education are most effective. Moreover, characteristics there are first some general comments about what was of successful teacher education interventions are found with regard to each of the questions. Following beginning to emerge. This research suggests that there that is a more interpretive summary. is a need, particularly at the inservice level, for extensive support (both money and time) on a Summary Answers to the Specific continuing basis for teacher education efforts. It is also Questions for the Review the case that the support must be continued for an extended period of time. The report on Teacher Unfortunately, the Panel was unable to answer all five Preparation by the comprehension subgroup reaches questions with the same level of confidence, simply similar conclusions. because the data were insufficient. The following paragraphs summarize the information from the analysis What findings can be used immediately? relevant to each of the questions. The studies analyzed in this report do not converge on • How are teachers taught to teach reading? specific findings with regard to content. Rather, the The Panel found no single method that produced results research suggests that teachers can and do learn to that clearly indicated unquestioned superiority. Rather, change and improve their teaching. So long as the an eclectic mix of methods was found that ranged from interventions themselves are based on solid research macro to micro in their focus. There was an emphasis findings, the interventions in teacher education should on methods at the preservice levels contrasted with an produce positive results for teachers and for their emphasis on particular instructional problems at the students. The research does have implications for the inservice level. As indicated above, there were simply manner in which teacher education is conducted. These too many approaches in this small sample to allow implications are discussed more thoroughly in conclusions about any one specific method. subsequent sections. • What do studies show about effectiveness of Additional Conclusions About Teacher teacher education? Education and Professional Development The set of results for these studies shows The most obvious conclusion about the research overwhelmingly that interventions in teacher education reviewed is that it clearly demonstrates that teachers and professional development are successful. That is, can be taught, in both preservice and inservice contexts, teachers can learn to improve their teaching in ways to improve their teaching. For preservice teachers, this that have direct effects on their students. Although this means that prospective teachers do adopt the teaching was demonstrated only for inservice interventions, there methods and attitudes they acquire during the course of is no reason to believe this is not the case for preservice their education. Inservice teachers not only demonstrate

5-13 National Reading Panel Chapter 5: Teacher Education and Reading Instruction improvement in their teaching; this improvement leads Directions for Further Research directly to higher achievement on the part of their students. These findings were demonstrated in an What important gaps remain in our overwhelming majority of the research studies knowledge? reviewed. Perhaps the most apparent feature of the research However, there is insufficient research to draw exact analyzed in this study is that there are significant gaps in conclusions about the content of teacher education and our knowledge of teacher education and development professional development programs. Rather, a wide across the board. Part of the difficulty is that high- range of techniques and content seemed to produce quality teacher education research is expensive and improvement in teaching and in student outcomes. The requires intensive collaborative efforts from all the body of research on these topics is fragmented when it stakeholders. In subsequent sections, the Panel details comes to this level of questioning. There are studies of what it considers the most important questions that need specific methods of teacher education with specific to be resolved. content as well as more general studies that offer no The Panel found no studies in the sample that guidance on content. addressed questions related to the development of Teacher attitudes do change as a result of intervention standards. Therefore, it makes no conclusion about the in both preservice and inservice contexts. This is an efficacy of establishing either content standards for important finding because it is the predisposition of students or for teaching teachers on the basis of those teachers to change that makes change possible. Without standards. Many of the interventions clearly include a change in attitude, it is extremely difficult to effect elements that are also contained in many standards- changes in practice. Most of the research that based programs. However, too many other factors are measured attitudes demonstrated that attitudes did involved to be able to attribute causal relationships. change as a result of the interventions, indicating that at The Panel also found that the reporting of studies was least one of the major prerequisites for teacher change inconsistent. Many studies were not described in can be taught. sufficient detail to make comparisons. Foremost was a Teacher practices improve as a result of education, but lack of consistent attention to the amount of instruction it is not clear for how long these changes are sustained. and the frequency of instruction in the description of the Teachers may use the new methods only when studies, which makes it difficult to tell whether it was observed. Although some of the studies in this sample reasonable to expect either success or failure in were long term, exceeding 2 years, there is little individual studies. Some studies reported only the evidence on the sustainability of the interventions. That number of sessions, others only the amount of is not to say that the interventions were not sustained, instruction, and still others neither. but that in most of the studies there was simply no Another important oversight was a description of the evidence presented that spoke to this issue. resources (personnel, time, money, facilities, etc.) Student achievement outcomes can be improved as a required to implement particular programs. It was often result of teacher development. For inservice studies that impossible to tell what it would take to implement some measured both teacher and student outcomes, this was of the interventions. Consequently, no assessment could a clear finding. These studies represent the most be made about the cost-effectiveness of most of the effective types of research, recognizing the need to programs or interventions. assess both teachers and students. However, even in There is a large body of nonexperimental literature that these studies, sustainability of the student improvements addresses teacher education issues. Under the is an issue that was not addressed. guidelines established for the review, this literature was to be used to help interpret findings from the analysis of

Reports of the Subgroups 5-14 Report the experimental literature. However, because of the to having control over their own domains and often do lack of convergence in the experimental research, the not want to relinquish control to any outside influences. Panel was unable to bring this nonexperimental Moreover, new “alliances” need to be formed. For literature to bear on the current analysis. example, to answer the questions about effectiveness of preservice education, graduating teachers will need to The NRP believes that the nonexperimental literature is be followed as they assume teaching jobs. Those who a rich source for future research programs. Teacher do the preparation of teachers will have to work with education research involves particularly complex persons in the new locations where the graduates work. problems. Doing the research is expensive and time (Because schools rarely hire teachers en masse, the consuming. Therefore, one particular contribution of the alliances may have to span districts or other geographic nonexperimental literature may be to provide a source locations to be able to study teachers in sufficient of problems to be studied under more controlled numbers.) conditions. That is, the descriptive literature could be brought to bear to reveal current practices, variables, To accomplish the kind of reforms that accompany and so forth, that seem promising (or not) under general teacher education improvement requires years of conditions. Such insights could guide research that looks sustained effort at keeping all elements of the system in more closely at causal relationships or in more specific balance. All of this must take place against a backdrop situations. In addition, the Panel refers the reader to the where the participating individuals may change over the conclusions of the Text Comprehension report, in the course of a research project. Placed against the other belief that the principles underlying them apply more demands (tenure, teaching, publication) on many broadly to other subject areas and could also serve to academic researchers, commitments to the long-term guide future research in teacher preparation. nature of teacher education research often seem daunting. The small set of experimental studies reviewed does not allow us to address all the questions that originally In addition to the appropriate resources, stronger and guided the analysis. Some of these remain unanswered more coherent conceptualizations of teacher education because of the eclectic nature of the work found. Many and professional development are needed. These are unanswered because they were not addressed conceptualizations need to combine research from a specifically in the experimental body of research. There wide variety of perspectives and paradigms to provide was a great deal of nonexperimental research that fell the most coherent description of teacher education outside the scope of the experimental domain examined. possible. Such conceptualizations will guide research in This research addresses a few of the relevant questions more systematic ways, rather than allowing the highly that are listed below, but not all and certainly not eclectic forms of investigations that characterize definitively. A general conclusion here is that although current teacher education research. There are excellent we have a great deal of knowledge about teacher examples of good teacher education research; more are education, much more remains to be learned. needed, as is better reporting of the results as they are disseminated so that subsequent research can build on Many of the questions are unanswered because of the completed research rather than begin anew with each resource intensity of teacher education research. It effort. takes a great deal of time and money to do teacher education research in ways that will yield appropriate We need to find out how teachers can be supported over answers. It takes a commitment from stakeholders, and the long term to ensure sustained implementation of new it takes a great deal of coordination among them. methods or programs, as well as the sustainability of Rarely do all of these elements come together in a way student achievement. There is a trend in the research that admits of experimental research. analyzed that suggests that teachers may revert to their original methods of teaching; it is important to determine However, simply providing money and time is how best to have teachers maintain any improvements insufficient. High-quality teacher education research they make in their teaching abilities. must bring together persons who are engaged in quite different endeavors in school contexts. They are used

5-15 National Reading Panel Chapter 5: Teacher Education and Reading Instruction

Another problem that needs to be addressed in teacher Because teacher education is a labor-intensive education research is the precise nature of the endeavor, new ways of instruction need to be developed interventions. In the literature the NRP analyzed, there that make it possible for instruction to be more is only sparse information on the precise content of effective. In the sample of studies, the Panel found a what teachers were taught. Rather, there is a mix of total of seven preservice and inservice research studies techniques, methods, theories, and materials that are that used various forms of technology to improve often confounded with each other in the instructional teacher education. This is a promising direction. contexts. Some of the instructional methods focus on Computer technology has made the use of video teacher attitudes while others focus on the use of modeling and simulation even more available than it has specific materials. This question should be addressed in been. The use of either simulated or real teaching a systematic way. cases, linked with appropriate instruction, can provide supplemental experiences to classroom instruction in There is a need to develop and refine the ways in which teaching. we study the link between teacher education and student outcomes. Only a few inservice studies looked The list of questions that remains is a long one. at both teacher and student outcomes. None of the However, there is a growing consensus on many preservice research made the link between teacher elements of the problems in teacher education and outcomes and ultimate student performance. Although professional development. The technology to improve all the inservice research that reported improved teacher knowledge and performance exists. Positive teacher outcomes also reported improvement in student changes in teacher education have been demonstrated achievement, there is no evidence that this is true for by a wide variety of interventions. Further studies are preservice programs. needed to address the problems that remain.

Reports of the Subgroups 5-16 Report

References Gordon, B. (1985). Teaching teachers: “Nation at risk” and the issue of knowledge in teacher education. Anders, P., Hoffmann, J., & Duffy, G. (2000). Urban Review, 17, 33-46. Teaching teachers to teach reading: Paradigm shifts, persistent problems, and challenges. In M. Kamil, P. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.). Handbook student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. of Reading Research, Vol. 3. (pp. 721-744). Mahwah, Education Policy Analysis Archives [On-line], 8(1). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Available: http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1/

Clay, M. M. (1991). Why is an inservice Jongsma, K. S. (1990). Training for Reading programme for Reading Recovery teachers necessary? Recovery teachers (questions and answers). Reading Reading Horizons, 31(5), 355-372. Teacher, 44(3), 272-275.

Cruickshank, D. R., & Metcalf, K. K. (1990). Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Training within teacher preparation. In W. R. Houston Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Teacher Education Researcher, 15(2), 4-14. (pp. 469-497). NY: Macmillan Publishing Company.

5-17 National Reading Panel Appendices

TEACHER EDUCATION AND READING INSTRUCTION Appendices

Appendix A Studies Analyzed

Anderson, L. M., Evertson, C. M., & Brophy, J. E. Copeland, W. D., & Decker, D. L. (1996). Video (1979). An experimental study of effective teaching in cases and the development of meaning making in first-grade reading groups. Elementary School Journal, preservice teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 79(4), 193-223. 12(5), 467-481.

Baker, J. E. (1977). Application of the in-service Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L., Meloth, M. S., Vavrus, L. training/classroom consultation model to reading G., Wesselman, R., Putnam, J., & Bassiri, D. (1986). instruction. Ontario Psychologist, 9(4), 57-62. The relationship between explicit verbal explanations during reading skill instruction and student awareness Block, C. C. (1993). Strategy instruction in a and achievement: a study of reading teacher effects. literature-based reading program. Elementary School Reading Research Quarterly, 21(3), 237-252. Journal, 94(2), 139-51. Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., Sivan, E., Rackliffe, Book, C. L., Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., Meloth, G., Book, C., Meloth, M. S., Vavrus, L. G., Wesselman, M. S., & Vavrus, L. G. (1985). A study of the R., Putnam, J., & Bassiri, D. (1987). Effects of relationship between teacher explanation and student explaining the reasoning associated with using reading metacognitive awareness during reading instruction. strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(3), 347-368. Communication Education, 34(1), 29-36. Dupuis, M. M., Askov, E. N., & Lee, J.W. (1979). Brown, R., El-Dinary, P.B., Pressley, M., & Coy- Changing attitudes toward content area reading: the Ogan, L. (1995). A transactional strategies approach to content area reading project. Journal of Educational reading instruction (National Reading Research Research, 73(2), 65-74. Center). Reading Teacher, 49(3), 256-58. Greenberg, K. H., Woodside, M. R., & Brasil, L. Brown, R., Pressley, M., Van Meter, P., & Schuder, (1994). Differences in the degree of mediated learning T. (1996). A quasi-experimental validation of and classroom interaction structure for trained and transactional strategies instruction with low-achieving untrained teachers. Journal of Classroom Interaction, second-grade readers. Journal of Educational 29(2), 1-9. Psychology, 88(1), 18-37. Hoover, N. L., & Carroll, R. G. (1987). Self- Coladarci, T., & Gage, N. L. (1984). Effects of a assessment of classroom instruction: an effective minimal intervention on teacher behavior and student approach to inservice education. Teaching and Teacher achievement. American Educational Research Journal, Education, 3(3), 179-191. 21(3), 539-555. Johnson, C. S., & Evans, A. D. (1992). Improving Conley, M. M. W. (1983). Increasing students’ teacher questioning: A study of a training program. reading achievement via teacher inservice education. Literacy Research, 10. Reading Teacher, 36(8), 804-808.

5-19 National Reading Panel Chapter 5: Teacher Education and Reading Instruction

Klesius, J. P., Searls, E. F., & Zielonka, P. (1990). Stallings, P., Robbins, P., Presbrey, L., & Scott, J. A comparison of two methods of direct instruction of (1986). Effects of instruction based on the Madeline preservice teachers. Journal of Teacher Education, Hunter model on students’ achievement: findings from a 41(4), 34-44. follow-through project. Elementary School Journal, 86(5), 571-587. Levin, B. B. (1995). Using the case method in teacher education: The role of discussion and Streeter, B. B. (1986). The effects of training experience in teachers’thinking about cases. Teaching experienced teachers in enthusiasm on students’ and Teacher Education, 11(1), 63-79. attitudes toward reading. Reading Psychology, 7(4), 249-259. Miller, J. W., & Ellsworth, R. (1985). The evaluation of a two-year program to improve teacher Talmage, H., Pascarella, E. T., & Ford, S. (1984). effectiveness in reading instruction. Elementary School The influence of cooperation learning strategies on Journal, 85(4), 485-496. teacher practices, student perceptions of the learning environment, and academic achievement. American Morrison, C., Harris, A. J., & Auerbach, I. T. Educational Research Journal, 21(1), 163-179. (1969). Staff after-effects of participation in a reading research project: a follow-up study of the craft project. Tyre, B. B., & Knight, D. W. (1972). Teaching Reading Research Quarterly, 4, 366-395. word recognition skills to preservice teachers: An analysis of three procedures. Southern Journal of Olson, M. W., & Gillis, M. (1983). Teaching reading Educational Research, 6(3), 113-122. study skills and course content to preservice teachers. Reading World, 23(2), 124-133. Wedman, J. M., Hughes, J. A., & Robinson, R. R. (1993). The effect of using systematic cooperative Reid, E. R. (1997). Exemplary Center for Reading learning approach to help preservice teachers learn Instruction (ECRI). Behavior and Social Issues, 7(1), informal reading inventory procedures. Innovative 19-24. Higher Education, 17(4), 231-241.

Scheffler, A. J., Richmond, M., & Kazelskis, R. Wedman, J. M., & Moutray, C. (1991). The effect (1993). Examining shifts in teachers’ theoretical of training on the questions preservice teachers ask orientation to reading. Reading Psychology, 14(1), 1-13. during literature discussions. Reading Research and Instruction, 30(2), 62-70. Shepard, L. A., Flexer, R. J., Hiebert, E. H., Marion, S. F., Mayfield, V., & Weston, T. J. (1996). Wedman, J. M., & Robinson, R. (1988). Effects of Effects of introducing classroom performance a decision-making model on preservice teachers’ assessments on student learning. Educational decision-making practices and materials use. Reading Measurement: Issues and Practice, 15(3), 7-18. Improvement, 25(2), 110-116.

Spanjer, R. A., & Layne, B. H. (1983). Teacher Westermark, T. I., & Crichlow, K. A. (1983). The attitudes toward language: Effects of training in a process effect of theoretical and situational knowledge of reading approach to writing. Journal of Educational Research, on teachers’estimates of readability. Reading 77(1), 60-62. Psychology, 4(2), 129-139.

Stallings, J., & Krasavage, E. M. (1986). Program Wham, M. A. (1993). The relationship between implementation and student achievement in a four-year undergraduate course work and beliefs about reading Madeline Hunter follow-through project. Elementary instruction. Journal of Research and Development in School Journal, 87(2), 117-138. Education, 27(1), 9-17.

Reports of the Subgroups 5-20 Appendices

Appendix B Search Details

Search Terms Used and Number of Articles Returned: November 12, 1998

Key Term OCLC ­ OCLC ­ PsycINFO ERIC World Cat Article First

Reading teacher 4 4 1,350 education

Teacher education 558 4 5 reading

Preservice reading teachers

Training reading 733 4 5 teachers

5-21 National Reading Panel Chapter 5: Teacher Education and Reading Instruction lProfessiona lProfessiona 51 51 43 43 22 22 Development 1947 1947 opmentlDeve opmentlDeve 445 445 90 90 25 25 9 6 Staff Staff oniEducat oniEducat uationlEva uationlEva Teacher Teacher 2 0 0 0 0 0 Program 885 885 0 35 35 76 76 35 35 26 26 Preservice 17 17 0 75 75 84 84 27 27 25 25 Inservice 1,704 1,704 165 165 106 106 oniPreparat oniPreparat Teacher Teacher 319 319 5 0 3 8 27 27 5 9 17 17 nginiTra nginiTra Teacher Teacher 28 28 52 52 0 85 85 1,181 1,181 118 118 14 14 12 12 19 19 11 11 ceiInserv ceiInserv Teacher Teacher 625 625 89 89 6 625 625 35 35 0 53 53 39 39 44 44 9 6 Education ceiPreserv ceiPreserv oniEducat oniEducat Teacher Teacher 33 33 3 33 33 0 0 5 5 5 3 1 1 1 Search Terms Used and Number of Articles Returned: April 13, 1999 April of Returned: Articles UsedNumber and Terms Search oniEducat oniEducat Teacher Teacher 3,562 3,562 33 625 625 541 541 709 709 366 366 2 84 84 213 213 94 94 55 55 174 174 138 138 oni onal Development iProfess iProfess ce Teacher Education ceiInserv ceiInserv iInserv iInserv opmentlDeve opmentlDeve ngiRead ngiRead ngiWrit ngiWrit aff Developmentaff Teacher Teacher Education Teacher Teacher Preparat Teacher Training Teacher Training Teacher Teacher Education Program SEARCH SEARCH PsycLIT 1887- 1999 Preservice Teacher Education Preservice Ev la uation Ev la St Literacy Literacy

Reports of the Subgroups 5-22 Appendices

Search Terms Used and Number of Articles Returned Additional Searches: Professional development teacher - 247 Reading inservice teacher education - 52 Reading writing literacy -438 Reading preservice teacher education -35 Reading writing literacy teacher education -14 Reading writing literacy teacher education program evaluation - 0 Reading writing literacy teacher training -1

5-23 National Reading Panel Appendices with lessonswith on study skills at taught the There There were no short-term differences in time. their their own meaning-making 3 weeks later. on survey of study habits and attitudes and course content. The control group tutored children in an elementary school. This suggests preservicethat teachers lack proficient reading habits but can improve same time as content instruction. Findings performance between the 2 instructional groups, but those instructed videotapewith and simulation retained and used the information better for a longer period of Experimental group had significant gains More one-third than of the topics discussed were adopted, transformed, or created by the respondents to describe Number & percentage of restricted thinking and literal questions decreased while related and extended thinking questions (esp. critical thinking) increased.

Attitudes Attitudes 2) Vocabulary: Stanford Diagnostic 3) Compre: Stanford DRT 4) Researcher-designed MCQ Tr: Tr: Classroom observations of teachers Tr: Tr: 1) Survey of Study Habits & Tr: Tr: How teachers interpreted Analyzed by topics. Tr: Type of questions designed by trs training. after Reading Test course content test St: None Dependent Measures: Teacher (Tr) & Student (St) St: None (meaning-making) video data & improved groupafter discussion. St: None St: None 4* 4* Not stated Gr Gr Ele Ele Appendix C Table 1: Preservice Table Studies Coding of Studies hared hared inquiry; b) basal reader DRA) DRA) [vocabulary, Type Type of Teacher & Training video & simulation 1 semester with 4th grade4th with students 6 weeks Learning Learning study skills and content (topic: fundamentals of reading) concurrently. 1 semester (inferred) Duration Duration ( background, & motivation, guided silent reading, & comprehension questions] instruction via lecture & discussion vs instruction via (inferred) Group-based discussion experience videowith of DRTA Questioning techniques: a) s Directed Reading Activity questions c) question & answer relationships (QAR). Six class sessions of 100 minutes = 100 minutes ?n = ?n re re 121 attrition attrition not reported P Pre/In­ service Pre 37 Pre Pre 9 Pre 22 Yes/No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Pre Pre & Post: ­ andom Yes/No Yes + teachers Yes Yes + program Control: Control: R assign- ment of in existing No No Random No No Exp/ Quasi E Q E Q hnson, C.S., & son, M.W., & esius, J.P, Author, Date, Author, & 467-481. 467-481. Zielonka, P. Teacher 34-44. Publisher Gillis, M. (1983). Reading World, 124-133. Ol Copeland, W.D., & Decker, D.L. Teaching (1996). and Teacher Education,12(5), Searls, E.F., & Journal (1990). of Education,41(4), Evans, A.D. Literacy (1992). Research, 10. Jo Kl

5-25 National Reading Panel Chapter 5: Teacher Education and Reading Instruction thi orlai nicant gaifigni nicant aifornil oniti ded,ice was provi ded,ice cantifignicated sindieslpincics PriPhon PriPhon sindieslpincics cantifignicated ll thi ce methodsin preservi ce methodsin ons A than or iquestl ncreased for a i ated ated PKBIQ. Group C l ences together w icum experipract experipract icum frequency & percentage ons. Group B performed gher A than or C for TBIQ. iquest'groups iquest'groups iy hlcantifignis hlcantifignis iy llgher overaih overaih llgher edge of word recogn ln knowiniga knowiniga ln groups. No s lls for allisk for allisk lls s supports the use of tutor iThtest. iThtest. cs for Test Teachers and ofTest ng of theoryiearnl ng of theoryiearnl iPhon iPhon groups formu llA llA lc ass as an effective way tolc learn. A i Treatment groupTreatment scoredgnificantly is C. than As more pract frequency of TBIQ the par it cipants perceived the par it listening in reported when measured by Ca courses. b la ance ance betweenb traditional lecture la methodous cooperativeand va ir earning activities l should be used. asked more genera B. h gher h controlthan group on IRI learning outcomes measure. The lecture method, one, used appears significantly less la ve for helpingeffec students it learn skills and procedures. ve But coopera it earning alonel is not sufficient as 32% of Both Groups A & B generated w TBIQ ci oions & auditten questiTr: Wr questiTr: & auditten oions 'pantsicions on partiQuest on partiQuest 'pantsicions es 3)lpincics PriTest of Phon PriTest es 3)lpincics y.l ng ng approach. iearnlveicooperat iearnlveicooperat ng InventoryiReadlcaiytlAna ng InventoryiReadlcaiytlAna ons generated cs Surveyia PhonifornilCa PhonifornilCa cs Surveyia i onsiscussing didur didur onsiscussing cs for Test Teachers 2) iTr: 1) Phon iTr: ons of the systemat ipercept ipercept stered end of 3 weeks. b) iniAdm iniAdm gned MCQ based on ides ides Tr: Tr: 2 measures a) Researcher­ Treatment groupTreatment on St: St: None (Woods & Moe, 1981). St: St: None record of quest St: None elJr e elJr elE elE nfer­i( nfer­i( red) 1-6 1-6 sllion skiti sllion levelgheri ngiReadlearn Informalteachers Informalteachers ngiReadlearn s,lng basai s,lng ngilith compiemented wlsupp wlsupp compiemented ngilith ceip preservl ceip ngist of teachil ngist nioninstructi onsiquestlainferenti<eraiL onsiquestlainferenti<eraiL ngiearnlveing cooperatiUs cooperatiUs ngiearnlveing lth basaiemented wlsupp wlsupp basaiemented lth on notidren. Duratling chiteach chiteach Duratling on notidren. oninstructiques G2:itechn G2:itechn oninstructiques oninstructiassroomlG1: c oninstructiassroomlG1: terature. terature. 8­il on oning. Instructioniquest Instructioniquest on oning. essonlngi ans, &lesson plngiprepar plngiprepar ans, &lesson , text-basedlteraing: LioniQuest LioniQuest , text-basedlteraing: deos ofing viewians, & vlp & vlp viewians, deos ofing s wereln basaionsiquest basaionsiquest s wereln ons and (TBIQ) ons (PKBIQ) A: iquestlainferenti iquestlainferenti iquestlainferenti 3 weeks. edge-basedlor KnowiPr KnowiPr edge-basedlor ect.jweek pro ect.jweek ng ng word-recogn ng ng G3: study iTeach iTeach iteach iteach Table 1: Table Studies Preservice (continued) assroom uses of lc lc taught. taught. B: Lower & h taught. C: No readers, prepar an annotated an annotated reported. approach to he Inventory concepts(IRI) and procedures. 72 72 77 77 36 36 Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Pre Yes Yes No No No No l& contro l& zedirandom zedirandom ylProbab ylProbab lContro lContro e, &lddim e, &lddim lEqua lEqua gnediAss gnediAss gnmentiAss gnmentiAss gh.ih gh.ih ow,l ow,l Yes. 3 Yes. to treatment treatment Yes. 3 Groups + random based on GPA. n=30; n=47 groups (A, B, C). by GPA. numbers of E E E lonaiEducat lonaiEducat oflJourna oflJourna veiInnovat veiInnovat on, 30iInstruct (2), on, 30iInstruct on, 17iEducat (4) on, 17iEducat nson, R.R.iRob nson, R.R.iRob dman, J.M., ght, D.W.iKn ght, D.W.iKn gheriH gheriH Tyre, Tyre, B.B. & We 231-241. 231-241. Wedman, J.M., 62-70. 62-70. (1972). Southern (1972). Research, 6(3), 113-122. Hughes, J.A., & (1993). & Moutray, C. (1991). ngiRead Research and

Reports of the Subgroups 5-26 Appendices yllai ' enceis past exper enceis yly modestlence are oning experiteach experiteach are oning modestlence yly ngirices requi ngirices lcain the the theoreti lcain enceid not experif (54%) (54%) dl not experif enceid ces anding praction-makisidec'pantsiciPart praction-makisidec'pantsiciPart ces anding ated tolts rei ated tolts onientatiorlcain theoretiany change theoretiany onientatiorlcain ng appearsindis fi ng appearsindis oned substant is mentlai is e, the that 1975) ingions of teachiconcept of teachiconcept ingions iew (Lorti iew ce teachers.i on or change. The iuatlreevalonainstructi iuatlreevalonainstructi ng future ng teachersfuture iuence shaplnfiorjma shaplnfiorjma iuence s. The current study suggests that ons of preserv s use changed from pretest to lias pup lias ientatior ientatior laimater laimater ons addressed pract isidec isidec ated ated to changes lre lre ncreased from pretest to posttest. the the methods courses and the student throughout the throughout the course. Th to support the v More ha than number of mater i posttest. Posttest thought un ngionmakisi s byiyslon and anaiutlem-sol(prob and anaiutlem-sol(prob s byiyslon eling Profions to ReadientatiOr to ReadientatiOr Profions eling stencyi on) (3­i on andinstructingi lcais Theoret'Tr: DeFord Theoret'Tr: lcais ts" ts" and percept i"thought un i"thought e).lnt scaipo scaipo e).lnt deotaped to ensure cons iv iv Tr: Tr: Measures of dec (TORP) 6/35 teachers(TORP) were between read responses to TORP. St: None St: St: None elE elE K-8 K-8 ng K-ing readi ng K-ing enceing experi enceing ces anding practionmakisidec practionmakisidec ces anding s. 1lai ng.i ni edge oflknow'Teachers edge oflknow'Teachers ng teachers.ith cooperatiw cooperatiw ng teachers.ith ts e ffects oning andiread andiread ts eoning ffects phase of the study nferred)isemester ( nferred)isemester lnaiN=35 F lnaiN=35 on from pre-coursework ientatior ientatior ned changes Table 1: Preservice Studies (continued) 1: Preservice Table Studies (continued) on: about 3 semesters iexam iexam iDurat iDurat 8. 8. Undergraduate coursework + to post-student teach Methods of teach student teach awareness of mater 27 27 Pre Pre Pre Pre Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No Q Q niopmentlDeve niopmentlDeve on, 27iEducat (1), on, 27iEducat nson, R.iRob nson, R.iRob Wham, Wham, M.A. 9-17. Wedman, J.M., & 110-116. 25(2), (1993). oflJourna (1993). Research & oflJourna (1988) ngi. Read (1988) Improvement, ngi.

5-27 National Reading Panel Chapter 5: Teacher Education and Reading Instruction ng.i scuss ai y inl n the case.issuesives oni n the case.issuesives ng ng or increase i thinking thinking about the ' ce teachers were i aborate aborate their think l ity. ity. All groups li mulus mulus for teachers to iittle stlprovided stlprovided iittle tion. tion. Less experienced i ngsiFind ngsiFind s increased for all groups. level level teachers and preserv their their perspect and and metacogn Opportunity Opportunity to read, write, and d case affected teachers case. For experienced teachers, discussion was a catalyst for reflection elaborate their understand able to clarify and e Only reading and writing about a case No No effect. Teachers vary wide estimating readab estimated readability equally accurately, and accuracy decreased as readability s.laiof materlevelreading materlevelreading s.laiof yl l Tr: Tr: analyses of written Teacher (Tr) & Teacher (Tr) Student (St) Tr: Accuracy in estimating response to cases St: None Dependent Measures: readability subjective compared to actua St: None elE elE 4* 4* Gr Gr yl slty leveilng readabiiEstimat readabiiEstimat leveilng slty ng,i edgel ng ng &ini edgel tuationali ng ng writing in 4th i n teacheri nferred)i1 semester ( nferred)i1 G4: G4: No know on.ieducat on.ieducat ng. About 5 weeks oniDurat oniDurat i& writ i& 2 cases: teach Type Type Of Teacher Tra Case Case method grade Reading & writing about case vs. reading, discuss G1: G1: Theoretical & s knowledge of reading G2: Situational knowledge on G3: Theoretical know only of theory or practice. ni36 ni36 8 pre 72: 72: 36 16 16 in pre + Pre/ In-S Table 2: Studies of Inservice Preservice Both Table and Yes/No Yes No No Pre Pre & Post: mentlenrol mentlenrol Yes. Not 3, and 4) from Yes/No Yes. Not whether there was random teachers. random: 4 groups (1, 2, existing Control: Control: reported assignment. Each group had equal numbers of student, beginning, and experienced pantsiciPart pantsiciPart from from Q Q existing program. Exp/ Quasi lInternationa lInternationa y, 4,lQuarter 129­ y, 4,lQuarter ng andiTeach ng andiTeach ngiRead ngiRead n, B.B.iLev n, B.B.iLev Westermark, T.I., Teacher Teacher 63-79. Authors, Authors, Date, & & Crichlow, K.A. (1983). Psychology: An 139. (1995). (1995). Education,11(1),­ Publisher

Reports of the Subgroups 5-28 Appendices ylng partiali ylng ylcantignifi ylcantignifi tatei nginin determificant factoribeen a sign factoribeen determificant nginin lExperimenta tation:imi ty ofiabilinterrater reli ty ofiabilinterrater ce. Buti s of use oflgher levei s of use oflgher ldren to choose ing chirions requiquest requiquest chirions ing group teachers ch teachers provided l i knowledge of reading ', teachersloveral teachersloveral ', ngs (observations) i ng, e.g., asking more ng ng was based on ns ns made by the i ons and accept i i i n content areas. S ioninstructi ioninstructi attitudes attitudes to integrating reading n classroom pract ireflected ireflected ng process.ithe learn ng process.ithe 'teachers 'teachers ng ng teacher change cannot be ngsiFind ngsiFind ijudg ijudg s did not improve as much as llski llski The The attitude ga them them to think more deeply through The The degree to wh experimental groups were s greater those than of the comparison groups. Morale appeared not to have more experimenta changed from nonmastery to mastery at posttest. The determined. Rat seemed to indicate changesthat were hoped. knowledge and skills on how to facil group showed h mediated learn process quest correct answers. They were able to ask between responses and encouraged rephrasing and giving clues. L small sample. mediated learn ngin teachievelllliteacher sk teachievelllliteacher ngin ng ng Experience iated Learnion Med Learnion iated onal Analysis System iObservat iObservat s Teacher-Child s Teacher-Child Dyadic 'Good 'Good ng, and ratings staff of teacher iread iread Tr: Tr: Teacher attitude toward teaching reading, teacher morale, Tr: Tr: Observational analysis based Dependent Measures: Teacher (Tr) & Student (St) change. St: None. (Greenberg, 1990); Brophy & Interaction Interaction System (1969). St: None 2, 2, 3 Gr Gr Jr high K, 1, onshipiatl nginiTra ning ning &i on,ivatis, motiagnosi(d motiagnosi(d on,ivatis, More than ables.i ngi ection, skillsls selmateria selmateria ection, skillsls ng ng content area teachers oning & teacher-student iTeach iTeach iQuest iQuest Type Type of Teacher Tra Also aimed to improve 60 60 hours of training. terminating terminating feedback). Vygotsky & Feuerstein) and Duration Duration how to teach read organization for instruction, development, evaluation, etc.). attitudes toward teaching reading in the content area classroom. Videotapes used. Duration: 1 year. hours: about 45 hours. question dyad var Duration: 3 years. interactions interactions (tr- questions, st­ answers, tr-sustaining/ Cognitive COGNET: Enrichment Network. Explored re between mediated learning interactions (based on 27 27 Pre/ In-S In In 127 In In y.lon y.lon Table 3: Inservice Studies with Teacher Outcome MeasuresOutcome Teacher Only 3: Inservice Studies Table with Yes/­ Yes; teach­ Pre Pre & Post: No ers No No grouplContro grouplContro :lContro :lContro sted oficons sted oficons ngiExist ngiExist Yes/No Yes. Non­ teachers from the same Yes. Not random assignment. school but not part of the project. random. classrooms used. Exp/ Quasi Q Q lEducationa lEducationa oflJourna oflJourna assroomlC assroomlC Author/s, Date & Askov, E.N., & 65-74. Woodside, M.R., Pub Dupuis, M.M., Lee, J.W. (1979). Research, 73(2), Greenberg, K.H., & Brasil, L. Journal (1994). of Interaction, 29(2), Interaction, 29(2), 1-9.

5-29 National Reading Panel Chapter 5: Teac her Education and Reading Instruction e.l el di l s supportedior, whiching behaviteach behaviteach whiching s supportedior, ve policiesistrati so revertedlng aing to groupiniperta to groupiniperta aing so revertedlng oser to a who l ng ng short-term i ar ar to they what had lmiinstruction si si lmiinstruction date date teacher education ng ng the experimenta its to vallresu to vallresu its ionger uslno uslno ionger cated teachers that were iResults ind iResults s in the same way they d laimater laimater ficant main ficant effect was found ayed-post-trial measure. iA sign iA lthe de lthe on: whether the impact of self- iquest iquest ngsiFind ngsiFind anguage orientation from the pre- to the the self-assessment procedure was when the when the study was in progress and Pre- and posttest data showed that effective in helping teachers improve instruction. Teachers reported significant improvements in their by the quantitative data. Unanswered assessment procedure is sustainab cautions cautions against us efforts. had, in fact, reverted to a pattern of been doing. Admin back to they what were. The study among the pre-, post-, and delayed- post-trial scores for the total TORP scores. As a group, the subjects moved significantly c l 679 Orientationlcai on of videoi entation toiorlcaiTr: Theoret entation toiorlcaiTr: e (TORP)ling Profito Read Profito e (TORP)ling 1378 1378 (started); on study, N = ireplicat ireplicat st.ilcheck st.ilcheck tude tude inventory & iTr: Att iTr: ewsiinterv ewsiinterv ted by the researchers iaud iaud Tr: Tr: Random select taped data (37%) was made and Dependent Measures: Teacher & (Tr) Student (St) using the self-assessment St: None St: St: N = St: None DeFord Theoret St: None reading as measured by the Gr Gr K-7 K-7 1, 1, 2, 3 K-8 K-8 on ofi ngisti on: 2.5i on).i Duration: encei reader &l on oninstructingiread on oninstructingiread sadvantagedion to dinstructi to dinstructi sadvantagedion ong workshops. l ng ng readingi nning nning reading i f-assessment luse a se luse anguage. Durat lWhole lWhole ; d) Pilot (combinat lsuaiV lsuaiV oniDurat oniDurat on: 3 years. Training iDurat iDurat Type Type of Teacher & Training Training inTraining us Teachers were also trained to videotape. 32 hours of training. teaching teaching beg approachesTwo cons Approach (LEA & LE Audio- About hours 12-16 of training. groups was provided. checklist to evaluate their own about 6 months. each of two methods: a) skills approach (basa phonovisual method); b) Language Exper urban urban children. LEA & word recognit hours: not reported. Project was designed for months months 2 day- 53 53 92 92 55 55 Pre/ In-S In In In In In Yes/No Yes; teachers Yes Yes Yes. Teachers Pre Pre & Post: only only. Pre-test, post-test, and delayed-­ posttest Table 3: Inservice Studies with Teacher Outcome MeasuresOutcome (continued) Teacher Only 3: Inservice Studies Table with Yes/No Yes Yes Control: Control: No No No iQuas iQuas Exp/ Q Q Q s, R.isklKaze s, R.isklKaze on, 3iEducat (3), on, 3iEducat , R.G.lCarrol , R.G.lCarrol son, C.,iMorr son, C.,iMorr s, A.J., &iHarr s, A.J., &iHarr isherlPub isherlPub over, N.L., & Author/s, Date, & Teaching & Teacher Auerbach, I.T. 395. 395. Ho 179-191. 179-191. (1987). (1987). (1969). (1969). Reading Scheffler, Scheffler, A.J., Richmond, M., & (1993). Reading Research 4, Quarterly, 366­ Psychology: An International 14(1), Quarterly, 1-13.

Reports of the Subgroups 5-30 Appendices e bound &less rul e bound &less tudes towardiatt' ve, more sensitive to iptiprescr iptiprescr ndingsiF ndingsiF The The posttest mean was significantly greater the than pretest mean. The process approach to writing may influence teachers language (i.e., usage according to purpose and context). attitudes attitudes were ng ng the Language i 'Tr: Teachers 'Tr: n using American English. and The The instrument covers standards Dependent Measures: Teacher & (Tr) Student (St) assessed us Inquiry (Frogner, inventory. 1969) i on language study & teaching. 1 missing pretest score, n=78 St: None. em.­l38 e em.­l38 d-sch.;im d-sch.;im 41 41 sec.­ Gr Gr post-sec. attitude' litate litate ai s Bay Area Project 'eylBerke 'eylBerke oniDurat oniDurat anguage. Workshop lto lto Type Type of Teacher & Training Teaching Teaching writing as a 3 workshops over 3 process to fac change in teachers curriculum adapted from Duration: 3 (1977). years. summers. hours Training not reported. 78 78 Pre/ In-S In In Yes/No Yes. Teachers Pre Pre & Post: only Table 3: Inservice Studies with Teacher Outcome MeasuresOutcome (continued) Teacher Only 3: Inservice Studies Table with Yes/No Control: Control: No No iQuas iQuas Exp/ Q onaliEducat onaliEducat er, R.A., &jSpan er, R.A., &jSpan isherlPub isherlPub Author/s, Date, & 60-62. 60-62. Layne, B.H. (1983). Journal of Research, 77(1),

5-31 National Reading Panel Chapter 5: Teacher Education and Reading Instruction ngiannl ngiustratl ng ng oralizi behaviors in n studenti ' mental mental groups i , the content of l d not show significant ing test) dil(spel test) dil(spel ing ng ng time for concrete evement scores. ors associated with iowlng, aliwrit aliwrit iowlng, iadjusted ach iadjusted ithose behav ithose ects.jcontrol sub ects.jcontrol es of thinking, util lprincip lprincip ques, improvement in p itechn itechn ts ts were significant ngsiFind ngsiFind lresu lresu s and introducing concepts lskil lskil fferences in teachers iD iD the the control and exper were observed, but not all can be teacherstreatment exhibited more of the probablytreatment had effects on The The classestreatment (whether Changes in the teachers included increased awareness of questioning sequentially, requiring and il discussions to encourage student presentations of concepts. The performance for three of the four dependent measures. The MAT differences between and treatment attributed attributed to the treatment. The achievement. Overal student achievement, but other effects (e.g., school effects) cannot be ruled out. observed or unobserved) had higher nessi cei on ofiementatl itanl ratings of'18. Teachers ratings of'18. asses.l ngi1) and readlLeve and readlLeve ngi1) 36 ass meansl more Oralli itan itan Readiness Tests, l(Metropo l(Metropo or. St: N =ibehav or. St: N =ibehav tudes, values and iin att att iin evement (MAT): Test evement.iach evement.iach iAch iAch Tr: Tr: N = Tr: Tr: Observations over 1 year to ensure imp the model. St: C were reported. 27 c Teacher (Tr) & Teacher (Tr) Student (St) Reading List; Metropo Elementary Spelling Subtest. relevance of the inserv sessions and written evaluations, indicating changes (underachieving readers taught by 3 teachers) Dependent measures: G Reading (AccuracyTest & Comprehension subtests); Schonell Graded Word Measures of student read Dependent Measures: 4 1 Gr Gr and Student Outcome Measures Outcome Student and maliMin ques 3)i ngi forlonal modeiInstruct modeiInstruct forlonal tationl vei ously) Abouti on: 4.5ing. Duratitrain Duratitrain on: 4.5ing. ude: 1)l dance cues 4) iresponse gu iresponse Training hours:Training ation 2)ius varlmuist varlmuist ation 2)ius ng ng techniques. d.lwere he d.lwere iquestion iquestion on in small groups instructi instructi ng ng instruction for ng. Teachers read a iread iread itrain itrain deotapes (of elementary iV iV n the n the early grades. their their students) used for Type Type of Teacher & Training Duration & secondary teachers & months. 10 workshops (+ 6 attended prev hours 10-15 of train underachieving readers. Strategies inc Classroom consu model (IS/C) to improve reinforcement techn None. i Duration: 1 year. manual and 2 meetings promoting effect In In 18 In In 27 Pre/ In-S ylon ylon Yes; Yes/No students No No Pre Pre & Post: Table Teacher 4: Inservice Studies Table with N = 18N =and =and 18N gned toiass gned toiass Yes Yes (students Yes. Not truly treatment (not treatment treatment. Yes/No random. 18 (control) (treatment) only). Not random. 10 (observed); 10 control; 7 observed). All in each school control or Control: Control: iQuas iQuas Q Q Exp/ ogist,lPsycho ogist,lPsycho isherl& Pub isherl& 9(4), 57-62. 9(4), 57-62. Anderson, L.M., 193-223. 79(4), Author/s, Date, Baker, Baker, J.E.. Ontario (1977). Evertson, C.M., & Brophy, J.E.. (1979). Elementary School Journal,

Reports of the Subgroups 5-32 Appendices 'on, studentsir explanatin theiexplicit theiexplicit explanatin studentsir 'on, onshipive relati onshipive ng ofilln their retei ng ofilln onsianatln their expi onsianatln llsi anation,l me. Thereions over tianatln their expi their expi over tianatln me. Thereions evell so showedlThey a so showedlThey gnificantlyi ncreased.i Treatment mprovement on i y higher than y higher than l l ed more literal ll teachers. Treatment so became more explicit lthan contro lthan lteachers a lteachers on and were s es. Students of treatment informati informati ithe stor ithe teachers.lcontro teachers.lcontro es didthan the students of istrateg istrateg ) cantly cantly greater ifignis ifignis .e., as teachers became more teachers reported more awareness of these measures over the course of the study. Students of the treatment teachers reca teachers were rated as significantly was a significant posit comprehension and word- subtests of SAT. more interpretive Students Students of teacherstreatment scored significant students of control teachers on the comprehension and word sk Students Students of teacherstreatment scored significant students of control teachers on strategy awareness. more explicit between student metacognitive awareness and teacher exp i ratings of awareness Findings ' oni soni ng ng of 2i ngill tness ofi evementi on ofiscussiprominent d on ofiscussiprominent ngivl ew to assess t important? t important? ­isi ies interviStrateg interviStrateg ies nk-aloud task to r responses to i on and wordicomprehens on and wordicomprehens - did What you ibased in the ibased e developed by the lng scairat scairat lng anations, anations, using a ltheir exp ltheir ne ne whether students though lessons were ideterm ideterm lused a lused mental mental groups observed nterviewed on strategy ons to assess students iexper iexper iwere iwere iquest iquest ng ng groups. St: a) iread iread ling ling and sequenc evement.iach evement.iach lrete lrete ls (Stanford Ach lisk lisk Tr: Tr: Teachers in control and [SAT]). Test were were more text- or reader- Tr: Tr: No formal measures were were observed to have more Teacher (Tr) & Teacher (Tr) Student (St) and and rated on explic researchers. St: After each lesson, at least 5 students awareness: learn? - Why How do you do it? No measures of student strategy usage or reading probes. d) Standardized subtests of reading observed. classesTreatment stories. c) Th strategies comparthan awareness of comprehens and problem-so strategies. b) Rete Dependent Measures: 5 2 Gr Gr Low ngions of readiexplanat of readiexplanat ngions mentali ngi th th TSI.i d noti oning & DuratiniTra & DuratiniTra oning ntioj on method.i StrategieslonaiTransact StrategieslonaiTransact ng for thisireceive train ng for thisireceive on: 1 academic ilevel. Durat ilevel. had had extensive on of texticonstruct on of texticonstruct ning ning hours: not iyear. Tra iyear. llstudy. A llstudy. on (TSI),iInstruct on (TSI),iInstruct ons. Number of isess isess s and processes. lskil lskil training training hours not reported. Teachers Teachers were trained in the use of explicit Type Type of Teacher reading groups. Duration: not reported. 3 train emphasizing interpretations and student strategy usage. Students read below 2nd grade reported. The exper group teachers d Direct Explanat prior experience w teachers 60 In In 10 students In In 22 Pre/ In-S Yes Yes (for Yes/No students) No No Pre Pre & Post: ylrandom ylrandom :lContro :lContro gned.iass gned.iass gned.iass gned.iass Table 4: Inservice Studies With Teacher and Student Outcome Measures Outcome Student (continued and Teacher 4: Inservice Studies Table With Yes. Teachers were not Yes/No Yes. Randomly Q Exp/ Quasi E oth, M.S., &lMe oth, M.S., &lMe Van Meter, Van P., & Author/s, Date, Vavrus, L.G.. 29-36. 34(1), Brown, Brown, R., Pressley, M., Schuder, T. (1996). Journal of Educational Psychology, 88 (1), 18-37 & Publisher Book, C.L., G.G., Duffy, Roehler, L.R., (1985). Communication Education,

5-33 National Reading Panel Chapter 5: Teacher Education and Reading Instruction cei ments.i dent fromi s study failed to cantignifi n similari i tive tive resultsi evement.i mprove in end-of-year iasseslc iasseslc ve data during inserv iqualitat iqualitat ned previously iobta iobta assroom-based exper lc lc mportant were s Toward the Toward end of the school year, the experimental group teachers did As an experiment, th Teachers Teachers benefited (ev academic ach not show appreciably greater conformity to the TEP recommendations, nor did their Findings corroborate the pos evaluations and feedback), but more i comprehension gains for students. ci on pre-i ng Testinitie ReadiMacG ReadiMacG ng Testinitie ons St:i St: St: Gates- ded roughlrecords yie ded roughlrecords on.iuatleva on.iuatleva s was used.llSki s was used.llSki ected TEPlref ected TEPlref : Ongoing formative Tr Teacher (Tr) & Teacher (Tr) Student (St) Tr: Classroom observat which teacher behavior recommendat Dependent Measures: and posttreatment. Observation estimates of the extent to Comprehensive. ofTest Bas (level E) 5,6 were were were 4, Grade Grade 6 s materi la used; students ungraded Gr Gr oning & DuratiniTra & DuratiniTra oning ackets by(TEP) ig ven in the guidelines. ig nstruction nstruction (literal, techniques. Note: from low socioeconomic About hours 10-15 of ning. tr ia Type Type of Teacher Teacher education were were given to treatment teachers. TEP consisted feedback es. strate ig There was no formal ning; teachers were tr ia inferenti la , critical, and inferenti la ve). Included creahigher it order questioning l Students black were & la backgrounds. They were ected sbecause they le owread the bnational le norm for their age . lev le Duration: 6 months. Comprehension i p Crawford Crawford et al., 1978 and control group or of manage-a) beha iv ment & discipline b) large-group instruction, use of Q&A, cs & pho in exercises ng; in rea c) id questioning and askedow was what to fo ll Duration: About 1 year. Form training: None. la 32In 32In In In 32 Pre/ In-S abl­liava abl­liava asseslc asseslc Yes; teachers Yes, for Yes/No pre and post for & student­ s. 28 (data e) students only Pre Pre & Post: yl Table 4: Inservice Studies With Teacherand Student Outcome Measures Outcome Student (continued) Teacherand 4: Inservice Studies Table With n each school Yes Yes Yes. Teachers were random Yes/No i assigned Control: Control: E E Exp/ Quasi onaliEducat onaliEducat sheril& Pub sheril& American 539-555. Teacher, 36(8), 36(8), Teacher, 804-808. Author/s, Date, Coladarci, & T., Gage, N.L. (1984). Research Journal, 21(3), Conley, M.M.W. (1983). ngiRead

Reports of the Subgroups 5-34 Appendices ngi ni vei lls thaning sking readi sking lls thaning mentalin the the experi mentalin ficantlyi n thei s, but notl tative tative data from il ned were rated -Lesson interviews i ning ning the reasoning cantly cantly moreifi ial Students Students of -SAM 2 (Part only, ed GORP test. i nterviewsi-Concept nterviewsi-Concept y higher students than of y greater growth in y higher those than lcantignifis lcantignifis lcantignifis lcantignifis lcantignifis lcantignifis gher also iniscored h gher also iniscored teachers on word skil group in explicit strategy on. Studentsinstructi on. Studentsinstructi lcontro lcontro lcontro lcontro gher students than of control teachers ih ih The The teacherstreatment were found to be were the control teachers. On SAT, teacherstreatment scored sign 3 good teachers and 3 less effect teachers showed the former produc Teachers Teachers who were tra there there were no achievement gains on MEAP. Students of teacherstreatment more explicit in exp associated us with students of teacherstreatment scored on comprehension. not Part 1) -Modif achievement. Students in the treatment group took longer to complete the posttest. Findings groups showed sign awareness of reading strategies. But comprehension. The qua ' onsianatlexplinstructiona onsianatlexplinstructiona edi ngs ofipts) St: Rati(transcr St: Rati(transcr ngs ofipts) ons forianatlexp'teachers ons forianatlexp'teachers atelyiews (immediinterv (immediinterv atelyiews essonsl on & wordi lementalSupp lementalSupp pts): 5 students i(transcr i(transcr tness. St: a) SAT ng ng a lesson) & iexplic iexplic iowllfo iowllfo ewed per teacher. iinterv iinterv Tr: Tr: Researcher-designed Assessment Program Achievement Measure Test (1978) (1978) Test Time taken for control and treatment Tr: Tr: Ratings of teachers Teacher (Tr) & Teacher (Tr) Student rating rating instrument was used to rate transcripts of (comprehens skills subtests) b) Michigan Educational (MEAP) [delayed posttest] c) Lesson concept interviews the (at end of the year) d) (SAM) [researcher­ designed] e) Modif Graded Oral Reading Paragraph (GORP) Gates-MacGinitie Gates-MacGinitie Reading groups to do the test. "awareness" after Dependent Measures: (St) 3 5 Gr Gr ngi on: 7i c year.i Lowy.ls strategicalllski strategicalllski Lowy.ls ng ng thei anation with anation a with lDirect Exp lDirect ng groups.iLow read ng groups.iLow on in using read ianatlexp ianatlexp t instruction and iciExpl iciExpl on: 1 academ iDurat iDurat and and strategy usage. llski llski focus on explain hours:Training 12 training. training. Type Type of Teacher & Training Duration reasoning associated with reading groups. Durat months. 1 meeting & presentation + 10 hours of In In 20 148 students In In 22 Pre/ In-S neiBasel neiBasel Yes Yes teacher through + post­ treatment 2) Yes: were test. Yes/No 1) 1) Yes: data on effectiveness observations observations. students measured pre- and post- on standardized Pre Pre & Post: :lContro :lContro Table 4: Inservice Studies With Teacher and Student Outcome Measures Outcome Student (continued) and Teacher 4: Inservice Studies Table With Yes. Yes; randomly Yes/No Randomly assigned. assigned E E Exp/ Quasi sheri& Publ sheri& iffe, G.,lRack iffe, G.,lRack Vavrus, Vavrus, L.G., Wesselman, R., 347-368. Vavrus, Vavrus, L.G., Wesselman, R. 237-252. Author/s, Date, Duffy, G.G., Duffy, Roehler, L.R., Sivan, E., Book, C., Meloth, M.S., Putnam, J., & Bassiri, D. (1987). Reading Research 22 Quarterly, (3), Duffy, G.G., Duffy, Roehler, L.R., Meloth, M.S., Book, C., Putnam, J., & (1986). Research ngiRead 21(3), Quarterly,

5-35 National Reading Panel Chapter 5: Teacher Education and Reading Instruction l di dlif a chi dlif sh­ited Englimi sh­ited n ai ghti tudesi dren onl edge ofl evel.l cs instruction, i 16) 16) demonstrated ng ng Phase II, but in math duristudy and math duristudy in l and must be lis a skingi3) read a skingi3) lis cant cant differences in ignifithere were s ignifithere ciency is to be achieved i dren in the study. lls and engaged rate d l ional skinstructi skinstructi ional ng ng Phases & II of III the i ess experience and fewer lng, butiread butiread lng, fferences on three (adjusted) icant dignifis dignifis icant ementation levels of desired n all six areas didthan a lgher impih impih lgher iorsibehav iorsibehav mproved in their instructiona iTeachers iTeachers ate ate gain.with L lnot corre lnot ng ng (LES) students benefited from ispeak ispeak ng ng program (trained teachers ng ng and math were more those than iread iread iread iread nservice course. Teacher att ithe ithe ned teachers agreed more strongly). ls significantly over 4 months. The i(tra i(tra lisk lisk n reading dur Trained Trained teachers (N = Teachers Teachers who had more know toward toward reading instruction showed the the basis of interests has no place the the program. Their gains each year in does not respond to phon he should be to taught read by s (trained teachers agreed more strongly); practiced if prof sample of nonparticipating teachers (N = 17). A posthoc analysis showed that student achievement at 0.05 Findings disagreed more strongly); 2) college degrees, opted to participate in posttest means: 1) grouping chi range range in teacher performance was reduced. Students made significant gains i of the other chi l b) 'ng teachersicipatipart teachersicipatipart 'ng 17 me-Off­i llsi n, n, 1975). Ni ng and mathiSt: a) Read ng and mathiSt: me-Off-Taski(ISOI) & T me-Off-Taski(ISOI) mplementation ng and non-icipatipart ng and non-icipatipart iprogram iprogram ews. Designed by iinterv iinterv 16 16 (exp). N = 143. 143. Not random. assroom observation. lC lC teacher behavior. Teacher (Tr) & Teacher (Tr) Student Achievement Test. (N = Post-inservice511). training program Tr: Tr: a) Knowledge of the the researchers. system.Task Tr: Tr: Quality and quantity of were measured by = Measurement of actua Dependent Measures: (St) students. N = (control). Random. St: California comparison of reading assessed by the Inventory of Teacher Knowledge of Reading (Artley & Hard achievement scores. b) Rate of student engagement as measured by T Instructional Sk Instructional Observation Instrument Observation System, questionnaires & 2-5 2-5 Gr Gr 1-4 1-4 ngi ngi onali l d) ldren.ie chl chl ldren.ie ldrenie ng ng wasiFund c) use ngi s'ine HunterlMade HunterlMade s'ine nterests.ingistudent read nterests.ingistudent ng ng Activityi districts (50% c format fori needllevels & skil needllevels l ation ofib) different ation ofib) on: 3 years.i(III). Durat on: 3 years.i(III). Reports data from ected schools had the ng ng & develop ng ng instruction: ng ng and math of l2 se l2 iread iread iread iread iread iread verse instructiona iof d iof ghest percentage of ih ih Type Type of Teacher & Training Duration f) f) promotion of recreat Training hours:Training not Duration: Duration: 2 years. Train hours: not reported. a) a) assessment of reading instruction materials Directed Read as (DRA) bas lesson preparation; e) story discussion techniques Four semester-long courses aimed at improv Instructional Theory Instructional into Practice to improve instruction and classroom Chapter 1-eligib Chapter 1-eligib in their schoo & 55%). 1983-1984 (II), 1982-1983 reported. management. given by NIE to improve teachers; 208 Pre/ In-S In In 141/143 In In 13 students neilbut base neilbut entlvaiequ entlvaiequ shedilestab shedilestab Yes/No teachers 2) No for students, was was through teachers were training. 2) Yes for Pre Pre & Post: 1) 1) Yes for complete pretest data pretest scores of students. 1) 1) Yes, observed before students 143for N = 143for :lContro :lContro Table 4: Inservice Studies With Teacher and Student Outcome Measures Outcome Student (continued) and Teacher 4: Inservice Studies Table With 33N = 33N Yes/No Yes. Yes. Not a) a) Not random b) Random for random. Exp/ Quasi Q & E Q ,l ,l J.W., &lMil J.W., &lMil ns, P.,iRobb ns, P.,iRobb er, er, Author/s, Date, 485-496. 85(4), 86(5), 571-587. 571-587. 86(5), Stallings, J., Presbrey, L., & Scott, J. (1986). Elementary & Publisher Ellsworth, R. (1985). Elementary School Journa School Journa

Reports of the Subgroups 5-36 Appendices nedi n all yearsievementsing achistudent read achistudent n all yearsievementsing evement.i mentali ng ng and mathiread' evels oflhigher' "Expressed s not strong for a ons of the student i ng ng and mathi ncreased levels of i ied tolngigroup. Train tolngigroup. ied y in 1985.lcantignifidropped s y in 1985.lcantignifidropped ning ning had an effect on i sh-speaking students. i and and student ach mplementation of the i l group showed some gains, ved difficulty reading.with fficulty" fficulty" dimension, showing iless perce iless lThe contro lThe iReading D iReading attitudes attitudes to reading. 'students 'students There There was a drop in the from 1984-1985. LES from 1984-1985. students ga but not as much as the exper observable teacher enthusiasm. Only one of the four dimens measure showed significant change. Hence, teachers enthusiasm posttra more Englthan Inconsistencies in teacher behaviors and of the study. Evidence link between modeHunter Seven of ten teachers scoresISOI dropped in 1985. Student engaged rates in read Comparisons matched with control schools on standardized tests showed greater gains among control students Findings ngi very,idellinclude voca very,idellinclude lai ll Variables ng.iposttrain ng.iposttrain ons, wordiexpress ons, wordiexpress on, acceptance of tudes to read iselect iselect iSt: Att iSt: Tr: Tr: Teachers were As above Teacher (Tr) & Teacher (Tr) Student observed pre- and ideas, and overa energy. measured by the SRA Primary Level (pre and post). eyes, gestures, movements, fac Dependent Measures: (St) 1-5 1-5 1-4 1-4 Gr Gr oni gible students. Duration: ile ile teachers. Videotapes used for postconferencing. As above. Reports data from (IV). Schools1984-5 Type Type of Teacher & Training Durat Enthusiasm training Enthusiasm training for Duration: 2 weeks. 10 hours of training. selected had the highest percentage of Chapter 1­ as above. hours:Training as above. 450 450 In In 19 students Pre/ In-S Yes Yes Yes Yes for teachers Yes/No & students Pre Pre & Post: Table 4: Inservice Studies With Teacher and Student Outcome Measures Outcome Student (continued) and Teacher 4: Inservice Studies Table With Yes. Teachers were randomly Yes. Not Yes/No assigned random Control: Control: E Q Exp/ Quasi ,lJournalSchoo ,lJournalSchoo lInternationa lInternationa ngiRead ngiRead ings, J., &llSta ings, J., &llSta ementarylE ementarylE 249-259 249-259 87(2), 117-138. 117-138. 87(2), Author/s, Date, Streeter, Streeter, B.B. (1986). Psychology: An Quarterly, 7(4), Quarterly, Krasavage, EM. (1986). & Publisher

5-37 National Reading Panel Chapter 5: Teacher Education and Reading Instruction ngin accountiexistsllty stii accountiexistsllty ngin ' ngi anguage arts. l se studenti vely by teachers through th th cooperative grouping on i ience wiexper wiexper ience earning earning strategies can be lveiCooperat lveiCooperat nservice programs. There ilong-term ilong-term tive effects of teacher iwere pos iwere ndingsiF ndingsiF There There were some effects on students for the influence of cooperative learn learned effect student perceptions of cooperation. reading scores but not for Some ambigu on achievement. There are probably other unmeasured outcomes of the project helped that ra achievement. zedi rions of theipercept of theipercept rions ' on &i earninglassroomlc earninglassroomlc ence Research itests (Sc itests assroomlTr: C assroomlTr: ned.iobta ned.iobta tudes were used. iatt iatt Associates, Inc.) 2) 2) Reading Teacher (Tr) & Teacher (Tr) Student by district standard observations, interviews and pre- and postmeasures of teaching practices and teacher environment were Comprehens Language Arts achievement measured St: St: 1) Students Dependent Measures: (St) 2-6 2-6 Gr Gr s inlskil'ng teachersiIncreas teachersiIncreas s inlskil'ng vei not reported. ng activities.ilearn ng activities.ilearn ng ng & Duration iniTra iniTra Type Type of Teacher conducting cooperat Duration: 3 years. Training hours: In In 107 Pre/ In-S Yes. Teachers Yes/No and and students (except 1st grade) Pre Pre & Post: Table 4: Inservice Studies with Teacher and Student Outcome Measures Outcome Student (continued) and Teacher 4: Inservice Studies Table with Yes. Not Yes/No random Control: Control: Q Exp/ Quasi a, E.T.,lPascarel a, E.T.,lPascarel onaliEducat onaliEducat sheril& Pub sheril& mage, H.,lTa mage, H.,lTa American Author/s, Date, & Ford, S. (1984). Research (1), Journa, 21l 163-179.

Reports of the Subgroups 5-38 Appendices ' zedi s.l ng ng fromi on andi ncreased students iti enging story; l re re of strategies. i on and word study skil icomprehens icomprehens mproving interactions among ireaders, ireaders, r own more frequently while ion the the ion oped richer understand ldeve ldeve f-confidence and enjoyment as lse lse ndingsiF ndingsiF vocab lu ary, ary, and totalvocab battery scores. lu No controls.than Experimental students did nking skills ttransfer to real-life ih TSI students:TSI a) learned more about Teachers believed found found it challenging to teach students to Experiment la Experimentstudents scored la ficantly higher controlsthan sig on the in posttests for reading comprehension, differencesficant sig were found in between the two groupscores on 's the English grammar posttest. On the basisdeotaped of lesson iv observations, raters ranked students in mental classes expe as "better thinkers" ir s betteron contrthan measures of self- lo esteem, idea generation, ability to ective situations, thinking, rereasoning, lf emsolving.and pro lb strategic processing and used strategies reading a chal b) acquired more informat stories read; c) showed greater gains on standard students during reading. Teachers also use a reperto ng ng &i (1), (1), ogy, 88lonal PsychoiEducat PsychoiEducat ogy, 88lonal measures of read lSt: Severa lSt: t: t: a) Iowa ofTest lls Basic was S ik id scussions. id taught in taught each experimental and Teacher (Tr) & Teacher (Tr) Student (St) Tr: Tr: None Tr: Tr: None administered posttest. was It not reported whether this was used at pretest. ons: b) TheObserva last it lesson ass control was videotaped and lc rated for levels of comprehension lities and thinking seena in ib c) Studentself-esteem, 's idea on, and generareflective thinking it ity were assessedab li pre- and posttest. d) lity Reasoningwas a ib measured a using the Califor in onState Department of Educa it Statewide Assessment (1989). Test S Dependent Measures: 18-37. 18-37. strategic processing (instruments not stated) (ref: Brown et al. Tech report). are Instruments described in Brown, Pressley, Meter, Van & Schuder Journal (1996), of 2-6 2-6 2 Gr Gr east somel ves andi on in ainstructiStrategy on in ainstructiStrategy on: 8i .e., studenticurriculum, .e., studenticurriculum, Training hours:Training 1-year study. earning earning how to ldifficulty ldifficulty Type Type of Teacher & Training Duration Training hours:Training not months. not reported. student-centered choice of object materials. Durat Students Students "were read." reported. experiencing at were were 352 teachers Pre/ In-S Research assistants used. No. not reported. students In In 10 12 students Table 5: Inservice Studies With Student Outcome Measures Outcome Student Only 5: Inservice Studies Table With Yes/No Yes Yes (for Pre Pre & Post: No No students) ylrandom ylrandom asseslYes. C asseslYes. stingiex stingiex Yes/No Yes. Not teachers from were were Control: Control: random: used classrooms assigned. Exp/ Quasi Q E (1993). ey, M., &lPress ey, M., &lPress ng Teacher,iRead ng Teacher,iRead own, own, R., El- Author/s, Date, & 49(3), 256-258. 256-258. 49(3), 94(2), 139-151. 139-151. 94(2), Br Publisher P.B., Dinary, Coy-Ogan, L. (1995). Block, C. Elementary School Journal,

5-39 National Reading Panel Reports oftheSubgroups Chapter 5:TeacherEducationandReadingInstruction

Table 5: Inservice Studies With Student Outcome Measures Only (continued)

Author/s, Date, & Exp/ Control: Pre & Post: Type of Teacher Dependent Measures: ngsiFind Pre/ In-S Gr Publisher Quasi Yes/No Yes/No Training & Duration Teacher (Tr) & Student (St)

Training for a language arts/integrated curriculum: word In the 1990 evaluation, looking only recogni it on, vocabulary Tr: None at the schools with controls, the comprehen is on, study skills, St: SAT; CTBS, & ITBS. experimental schools gained 8 & 14 spelling, penmanship, proo if ng, Woodcock-Johnson & Nelson- Normal Curve Equivalents (NCEs) in Reid, E.R. w ir ting, and literature. Training Denny (for some of the special ed vocabulary and comprehension (1997). In included the above, using and bilingual students in two compared with a range from a loss Yes. Not or andiBehav or andiBehav Q No N not strategies that prevent f ia lure 1-12 schools). Included regular of 9 NCEs to a gain of 6 NCEs for random Social Issues, stated and management systems to educa it on, special ed, gifted, and contr lo schools. For the 1996 7(1), 19-24. enable all students to learn. spe ic al needs students. 2,274 evaluation, students demonstrated iM iM crocomputers used to teach students (1990); regular students N significant gains on the reading typing, reading, and spelling in = 1,733. subtests of standardized K-8. Duration: 1 year. 5-day 1,986 students (1996). achievement tests.

5-40 seminar. Approximately 30-35 hours.

Shepard, LA, lF exer, R.J., Yes. Not Appro ix mately Hiebert, E.H., random. premeasures Performance assessment in Ma ir on, S.F., Treatment appropriate for Tr: None reading and math. After school No gains in student learning were May if eld, V., & schools 3rd graders St: 1991 Mar ly and School workshops were held weekly found fo llowing the yearlong effort to Weston, T.J. volunteered used and Performance Assessment Q In for a whole year la ternating 3 i ntroduce c lassroom performance (1996). and control compared iw th Program, sup lp emented by a between reading and math. assessments. Education la schools outcome por it on of another measure (Korets Duration: 1 year. Training hours: Measurement: were scores at the et la ., 1991) for math. N = 335. not reported. Issues and matched on end of the Practice, 15(3), 7­ SES data. year. 18. Appendices

Appendix D Standards

The 1989 NCATE Approved Curriculum Guidelines 8. Programs include opportunities to study, of the ACEI for the basic programs for the analyze, and practice effective models of preparation of elementary education teachers include classroom management in campus and field- the following standards: (Note that indicators are based settings and to engage in a gradual provided for Standard 13, the standard dealing with increase in responsibility. literacy.) 9. Programs should provide study and 1. Programs should provide teacher candidates experiences for critically selecting and using with an understanding of the roles of materials, resources, and technology elementary school teachers and the appropriate to the age, development level, alternative patterns of elementary school cultural and linguistic backgrounds, and organization. exceptionalities of students. 2. Programs should provide study and 10. Programs should provide for indepth study in experience concerning the role of the at least one academic discipline by including teaching profession in the dynamics of significant course work beyond the curriculum change and school improvement. introductory level to reflect processes of 3. Programs should include study and inquiry and research. experiences, throughout the professional 11. Programs should develop understandings of studies sequence that link child development positive health behaviors, movement skills, to elementary school curriculum and and physical fitness to allow teacher instruction. candidates to provide appropriate health 4. Programs should develop the teacher education and physical education experiences candidates’ capacities to organize and for students. implement instruction for students. 12. Programs should prepare teacher candidates 5. Programs should include study and to become confident in their ability to do application of a variety of developmentally mathematics and to create an environment in appropriate experiences that demonstrate which students become confident learners varied approaches to knowledge construction and doers of mathematics. and application in all disciplines. 13. Programs in the area of students’ literacy 6. Programs should include study and development should be designed to help application of current research findings about teacher candidates create experiences for teaching and learning. their students in reading, writing, and oral language. These programs should stress the 7. Programs should provide a well-planned integration of reading, writing, and oral sequence of varied clinical/field experiences language with each other and with the with students of different ages, cultural and content areas of the elementary school linguistic backgrounds, and exceptionalities. curriculum. These experiences should connect course content with elementary school practice. Program emphasis include study of and experiences with:

5-41 National Reading Panel Chapter 5: Teacher Education and Reading Instruction

13.1 The cognitive and linguistic 13.11 The literature of childhood including foundations of literacy development (a) knowing a range of books, (b) in students knowing how to share literature with students, and (c) knowing how to 13.2 Ways of promoting vocabulary guide students to respond to books in growth in students a variety of ways 13.3 The flexible use of a variety of 13.12 Promoting creative thinking and strategies for recognizing words in expression, as through storytelling, print drama, choral/oral reading, 13.4 Teaching of the conventions of imaginative writing, and the like. language needed to compose and 14. Programs in science for teacher candidates comprehend oral and written texts should focus on academic, personal, social, (e.g., text structure, punctuation, and career applications of the biological, spelling) earth, and physical sciences and should 13.5 The strategies readers can use to develop skills in instruction to promote these discover meaning from print and to understandings and positive attitudes among monitor their own comprehension students and youth. 13.6 The ways listening, speaking, 15. Programs should prepare teacher candidates reading, and writing relate to each to translate knowledge and data-gathering other and to the rest of the processes from history and the social sciences elementary curriculum into appropriate and meaningful social studies experiences for students. 13.7 Identifying and developing appropriate responses to differences 16. Programs should prepare teacher candidates among language learners (e.g., to translate knowledge of and experience in linguistic, sociocultural, intellectual, the visual and performing arts into physical) appropriate experiences for students. 13.8 Communicating with parents The 1983 NCATE Approved Curriculum Guidelines concerning the school language of the International Reading Association for advanced program and developmentally programs in reading education follow in this report, appropriate language experiences at but readers should be aware that IRA has published a home 1998 revision of the standards for reading professionals. The 1998 standards will be applied to 13.9 Speaking and writing that vary in programs of institutions currently seeking form, subject, purpose, audience, accreditation or continuing accreditation. point of view, tone, and style Competencies required of candidates from those 13.10 Ways to promote reading, writing, institutions presently approved are the following: and oral language for personal growth, lifelong learning, enjoyment, 1. Philosophy of Reading Instruction: Reading and insight into human experience is a complex, interactive, and constructive process.

Reports of the Subgroups 5-42 Appendices

1.1 Recognizes the importance of 2.4 Supports and participates in efforts teaching reading as a process rather to improve the reading profession by than as a discrete series of skills to be being involved in licensing and taught through unrelated activities/ certification exercises 2.5 Participates in local, state, national, 1.2 Recognizes the importance of using and international professional a wide variety of print throughout organizations whose mission is the the curriculum, including high-quality improvement of literacy children’s/adolescents’literature and 2.6 Promotes collegiality with other diverse expository materials literacy professionals through regular appropriate to the age and conversations, discussions, and developmental level of learners consultations about learners, literacy 1.3 Has knowledge of current and theory, and instruction historical perspectives about the 2.7 Shares knowledge, collaborates, and nature and purposes of reading and teaches with colleagues, as in about widely used approaches to inclusion programs. reading instruction 3. Moral Dimensions and Values 1.4 Recognizes and appreciates the role and value of language in the reading 3.1 Recognizes the importance of literacy and learning processes as a mechanism for personal and social growth 1.5 Recognizes the importance of embedding reading instruction in a 3.2 Recognizes that literacy can be a meaningful context for the purpose means for transmitting moral and of accomplishing specific authentic cultural values within a community tasks or for pleasure 3.3 Recognizes values and is sensitive to 1.6 Recognizes the value of reading human diversity aloud to learners. 3.4 Recognizes and is sensitive to the 2. Professionalism needs and rights of individual learners. 2.1 Pursues knowledge of reading and learning processes by reading 4. Perspectives About Readers and Reading professional journals and publications and participating in conferences and 4.1 Understands and accepts the other professional activities importance of reading as a means to learn, to access information, and to 2.2 Employs inquiry and makes enhance the quality of life thoughtful decisions during teaching and assessment 4.2 Understands and is sensitive to differences among learners and how 2.3 Interacts and participates in these differences influence reading decisionmaking with teachers, teacher educators, theoreticians, and 4.3 Understands and respects cultural, researchers and plays an active role linguistic, and ethnic diversity and in schools, classrooms, and the wider recognizes the positive contributions professional community of diversity

5-43 National Reading Panel Chapter 5: Teacher Education and Reading Instruction

4.4 Believes that all students can learn 5.6 Understands the importance of to read and share in the language development in relation to communication process reading and writing. 4.5 Recognizes the importance of using 6. Knowledge of the Reading Process reading in positive ways in the 6.1 Perceives reading as the process of classroom constructing meaning through the 4.6 Recognizes the value and importance interaction of the reader’s existing of creating a supportive and positive knowledge, the information environment for literacy learning suggested by the written language, and the context of the reading 4.7 Recognizes the importance of giving situation learners opportunities in all aspects of literacy as readers, authors, and 6.2 Is aware of relationships among thinkers reading, writing, listening, and speaking 4.8 Recognizes the importance of implementing literacy programs 6.3 Has knowledge of emergent literacy designed to meet the needs of and the kinds of experiences that readers rather than imposing support literacy prescribed, inflexible programs 6.4 Is aware that reading develops best 4.9 Recognizes the importance of through activities that embrace building on the strengths of concepts about the purpose and individual learners rather than function of reading and writing and emphasizing weaknesses. the conventions of print 5. Language, Development, Cognition, and 6.5 Understands the role of models of Learning thought that operate in the reading process 5.1 Understands that language is a symbolic system 6.6 Is able to explain the model various word recognition, vocabulary, and 5.2 Understands major theories of comprehension strategies used by language development, cognition, and fluent readers learning and uses them to implement a well-planned and comprehensive 6.7 Understands the role of reading program metacognition in reading 5.3 Is aware of the linguistic, 6.8 Has knowledge of the importance for sociological, cultural, cognitive, and reading in language development; psychological bases of the reading listening ability; cognitive, social, and process emotional development; and perceptual motor abilities 5.4 Is aware of the physical, emotional, social, cultural, environmental, and 6.9 Understands the nature and multiple intellectual factors on learning, causes of reading disabilities language development, and reading 6.10 Understands the relationship of 5.5 Understands dialect variations and phonemic, morphemic, semantic, respects linguistic differences and syntactic systems of language to the reading process.

Reports of the Subgroups 5-44 Appendices

7. Creating a Literate Environment 8.1 Understands how factors such as 7.1 Promotes the development of a content, purpose, tasks, and settings literate environment that fosters influence the reading process interest and growth in all aspects of 8.2 Provides flexible grouping based on literacy students’ instructional levels, rates of 7.2 Uses texts to stimulate interest, progress, interests, or instructional promote reading growth, foster goals appreciation for the written word, 8.3 Understands how assessment and and increase the motivation of grouping procedures can influence learners to read widely and motivation and learning independently for information and for pleasure 8.4 Understands how environmental factors can influence students’ 7.3 Models and discusses reading as a performance on measures of reading valuable activity achievement 7.4 Engages students in activities that 8.5 Understands the relationship among develop their image of themselves as home factors, social factors, and literate reading habits in students 7.5 Promotes feelings of pride and 8.6 Understands the influence of school ownership for the process and programs (e.g., remedial, gifted, content of learning tracking) on students’ learning 7.6 Provides regular opportunities for 8.7 Understands the conditions learners to select from a wide variety necessary for all students to of books or other quality written succeed. materials 9. Knowledge of Individual Differences 7.7 Provides opportunities for students to be exposed to a variety of high- 9.1 Understands what the reader brings quality, relevant reading materials to the reading experience (e.g., prior knowledge, metacognitive abilities, 7.8 Provides opportunities for students to aptitudes, motivation, attitude) be exposed to various purposes for reading/writing, to experience 9.2 Understands the influence of reading/writing as relevant to cultural, ethnic, and linguistic themselves, and to write and have backgrounds on the reading process their writing responded to in a 9.3 Understands the relationship among positive way reader’s self-concept, attitudes, and 7.9 Recognizes the importance of learning providing time for reading of 9.4 Understands the interactive nature extended text for authentic purposes and multiple causes of reading 7.10 Provides opportunities for creative difficulties. response to text. 10. Knowledge of Instructional Materials 8. Organizing and Planning for Effective Instruction—Knowledge of Contextual Factors

5-45 National Reading Panel Chapter 5: Teacher Education and Reading Instruction

10.1 Understands how to design, select, 12.5 Teaches word recognition through modify, and evaluate materials that the use of context, word analysis, reflect curriculum goals, current and syntactic cueing strategies knowledge, and the interests, 12.6 Helps students learn that word motivation, and needs of individual recognition strategies aid learners comprehension 10.2 Understands the structure and 12.7 Helps students learn effective content of various texts used for techniques and strategies for the instruction ongoing development of vocabulary 10.3 Understands and uses new 12.8 Helps students analyze information instructional technologies presented in a variety of texts 10.4 Understands methods for 12.9 Helps students connect prior determining whether materials are knowledge with new information clear and appropriate for individual students. 12.10 Assists students in assuming control of their reading 11. Knowledge of Instructional Strategies— Teaching Strategies 12.11 Helps students use new technology and media effectively. 11.1 Provides direct instruction and models what, when, and how to use 13. Demonstrate Knowledge of Assessment reading strategies with narrative and Principles and Techniques expository texts 13.1 Recognizes assessment as an 11.2 Models questioning strategies ongoing and indispensable part of reflective teaching and learning 11.3 Employees strategies to encourage and motivate students to pursue and 13.2 Recognizes and understands that respond to reading and writing for assessment must take into account personal growth and fulfillment the complex nature of reading, writing, and language and must be 11.4 Teaches effective study strategies based on a range of authentic 12. Learning Strategies literacy tasks using a variety of texts 12.1 Helps students learn and apply 13.3 Is able to conduct assessment that comprehension strategies for a involves a consideration of multiple variety of purposes indicators of learner progress and that takes into account the context of 12.2 Helps students monitor their teaching and learning comprehension and reading processes 13.4 Is knowledgeable about the characteristics and appropriate 12.3 Understands and helps students learn applications of widely used and and apply reading comprehension evolving assessment approaches strategies in the content areas 13.5 Uses information from norm- 12.4 Helps students gain understanding of referenced tests, criterion-referenced the conventions of language and tests, formal and informal literacy inventories, constructed-response measures, portfolio-based

Reports of the Subgroups 5-46 Appendices

assessment, observations, anecdotal 15.2 Adapts programs to the needs of records, journals, and multiple other different learners to accomplish indicators of students; progress to different purposes inform instruction and learning 15.3 Supervises, coordinates, and 13.6 Recognizes and understands the supports all services associated with importance of aligning assessment reading programs (e.g., needs with curriculum and instruction. assessment, program development, budgeting and evaluation, grant and 14. Communicating Information About Reading proposal writing) 14.1 Communicates effectively with 15.4 Understands and uses multiple students, teachers, and support indicators of curriculum personnel about strengths and areas effectiveness. that need improvement 16. Staff Development 14.2 Shares pertinent information with other teachers and support 16.1 Initiates, participates in, and personnel evaluates staff development programs 14.3 Understands how to involve parents in cooperative efforts and programs 16.2 Takes into account what participants to help students with reading in staff development programs bring development to ongoing education 14.3 Communicates information about 16.3 Provides staff development reading programs to administrators, experiences that help emphasize the staff members, school board dynamic interaction between prior members, parents, and the knowledge, experience, and the community school context 14.4 Effectively communicates 16.4 Provides staff development information and data about reading experiences that are sensitive to to the media, policymakers, and the school constraints (e.g., class size, general public limited resources) 14.5 Interprets and communicates 16.5 Understands and uses multiple research findings related to the indicators of professional growth. improvement of instruction to 17. Research colleagues and the wider community 17.1 Initiates, participates in, or applies 14.6 Communicates with allied researching on reading professionals in assessing and planning instruction. 17.2 Reads or conducts research within a range of methodologies (e.g., 15. Planning and Enhancing Programs— ethnographic, descriptive, Curriculum and Development experimental, historical) 15.1 Initiates and participates in ongoing 17.3 Promotes and facilitates teacher- curriculum development and and classroom-based research. assessment

5-47 National Reading Panel