DATA LITERACY OF READING EDUCATORS: TEACHER PERCEPTION AND KNOWLEDGE OF THE USE OF READING DATA TO INFLUENCE INSTRUCTION A Dissertation by RACHEL RAYBURN BEACHY Submitted to the Office of Graduate and Professional Studies of Texas A&M University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Chair of Committee, Erin McTigue Committee Members, Emily Cantrell Nathan Clemens Hersh Waxman Head of Department, Michael deMiranda May 2017 Major Subject: Curriculum and Instruction Copyright 2017 Rachel Rayburn Beachy ABSTRACT This dissertation is developed around two studies created with the goal of describing and quantifying current educators’ knowledge and perceptions of reading assessment and subsequent data-based instructional decision making. Unique to the field, a critical component of this study is an emphasis on educators’ development of data literacy as a knowledge base necessary to the successful education of students in today’s classrooms. Study 1 documents the development and validation of a new survey instrument, the Perceptions, Knowledge, and Interpretation of Reading Assessment (PKIRA) survey, to assess the perceptions and knowledge of current educators of reading/language arts in grades PK – 12. The final version of the PKIRA consists of five sections and/or subscales; 1) demographics, participants general experience and perceived instructional preparedness section; 2) teacher perception of reading assessment and instruction subscale; 3) teacher reading assessment knowledge and data literacy subscale; 4) teacher knowledge of language structure subscale; and 5) the teacher ability to use data to drive instruction open ended response section. The reliability and validity of this new instrument were analyzed using exploratory factor analysis, item response theory and inter-item correlations. Results indicate the PKIRA is a reliable and valid instrument to measure the knowledge and perceptions of inservice reading teachers. The purpose of Study 2 was to collect data on the knowledge and perceptions from a unique group of inservice reading educators to further validate the PKIRA and ii determine which aspects of teacher training or experience were associated with reading content knowledge, reading assessment knowledge and data literacy knowledge. Cronbach’s alpha, confirmatory factor analysis, item response theory, and ANOVA were used to analyze the data collected. Results provide further support for instrument validation. Results also indicate participants’ certification and master’s degree status have no statistically significant differences on their mean knowledge score. However, differences in mean knowledge score were found to be associated with teachers’ total years teaching and more strongly with, their total years teaching reading. The value of these studies lies in the creation and validation of a reliable new survey instrument that can be used to support the growth and development of data literacy in current educators nationwide. As the PKIRA can provide extensive data on teacher knowledge and perceptions of reading and reading assessment, those who prepare or supervise educators could use the tool to better differentiate and align their instruction to the ever changing needs of the classroom teachers of today. iii DEDICATION For Boede and Matthew. Thank you for your time, patience, and love throughout this whole process. For my mom, Elaine Rayburn. Thank you for teaching me kindness and persistence. And finally, for my daddy, Ralph Rayburn. You better be smiling down from Heaven right now. We did it. iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS One of my favorite quotes is by the famous Jim Henson, who brought so much happiness, to so many children, for so many years; “Kids don’t remember what you teach them. They remember who you are.” I have set out to save the world, and I would never be able to do that without my people. To list each of you here would take pages, but please know that if you have listened to my whines, prayed for my success, or been at my side these past seven years, you are loved and appreciated more than you know. I would like to thank my committee members, who have hung in there for years past the norm, with this teacher-student-learner. Thank you Dr. Emily Cantrell, Dr. Nathan Clemens, and Dr. Hersh Waxman. Thank you for your guidance, brilliance, and patience. And thank you most of all to Dr. Erin McTigue. Without you by my side giving up would have been easy. You are the true definition of a mentor, leader, and friend. Good work, team. Good work! Thank you to my teacher friends near and far, my colleagues, and Team McTigue. This journey is not easy while also balancing being a wife, mother, teacher, daughter, and friend, and without you I would have lost my mind five years ago. Finally, thank you to my in-laws, Steve and Mary Alice Beachy. The barbacoa stand is the place where most problems can be solved. Thank you for sharing your refuge. Everyone deserves a place like that. v CONTRIBUTORS AND FUNDING SOURCES This dissertation was supported by my committee members; Dr. Erin McTigue, Dr. Emily Cantrell, and Dr. Hersh Waxman of the Department of Teaching Language and Culture at Texas A&M University, and Dr. Nathan Clemens of the Department of Special Education at the University of Texas. Dr. McTigue, as chair, has the most input as to the organization and development of this dissertation. Dr. Katherine Wright, with the Department of Literacy, Language, and Culture at Boise State University, provided support and guidance for the confirmatory factor analysis presented in Chapter IV. All other work conducted for the dissertation was completed by the student independently. This dissertation did not receive any outside funding or financial support. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................. ii DEDICATION .......................................................................................................... iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................... v CONTRIBUTORS AND FUNDING SOURCES ..................................................... vi TABLE OF CONTENTS .......................................................................................... vii LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................... ix CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION, DEFINITIONS OF KEY TERMS, AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND PERSPECTIVES ..................................... 1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 1 Definitions of Key Terms .............................................................................. 3 Theoretical Framework and Perspectives ..................................................... 8 Purpose .......................................................................................................... 13 Research Questions ....................................................................................... 14 CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................... 17 Introduction ................................................................................................... 17 CHAPTER III STUDY 1: DEVELOPMENT OF THE PERCEPTIONS, KNOWLEDGE, AND INTERPRETATION OF READING ASSESSMENT SURVEY ................................................................................................................... 37 Methods ......................................................................................................... 37 Results ........................................................................................................... 46 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 81 Conclusions ................................................................................................... 86 CHAPTER IV STUDY 2: TEACHER KNOWLEDGE OF READING AND ASSESSMENT ......................................................................................................... 87 Methods ......................................................................................................... 87 Results ........................................................................................................... 89 Discussion ..................................................................................................... 117 vii Conclusions ................................................................................................... 124 CHAPTER V GENERAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS .......................... 127 Introduction ................................................................................................... 127 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 135 APPENDIX A ........................................................................................................... 152 APPENDIX B ........................................................................................................... 160 viii LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1. Overview of Studies, Research Questions, and Analyses ........................... 15 Table 2. Prior Survey Research Consulted for Instrument Development ................. 29 Table 3. Study 1: Participant Demographics ............................................................