Exploring the Relationship between Teachers’ Literacy Strategy Use and Adolescent Achievement...

Exploring the Relationship betweenTeachers’ Literacy Strategy Use

and Adolescent Achievement

Kelly Feighan, Research for Better Schools

Elizabeth Heeren, Memphis City Schools

Literature that Informs the Study

• Secondary content teachers feel less effective at literacy integration than elementary teachers (Reed, 2009)

• Strategy use varies by content goal, school context, teacher preference, and student needs (Nichols, Young, & Rickelman, 2007)

• There is a paucity of research connecting strategy use and achievement (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004)

Project Context & Background

• Striving Readers Grant supported literacy integration in eight urban middle schools

• Evaluation tested the efficacy of a whole-school professional development modelon improving teaching and learning

• Intervention: university courses, onsite coaching support, instructional materials, & leadership seminar

• Literacy strategies targeted improving students’ vocabulary, comprehension, and fluency

Research Questions

• How often do teachers report using literacy strategies and which strategies are they observed using?

• Do high-fidelity implementers choose different strategies than lower-fidelity implementers?

• What are the characteristics of teachers with low, medium, or high implementation fidelity?

• How do students linked with teachers at different levels of implementation fidelity perform in academic content areas?

Intervention Teachers

•Literacy coaches rated 100 teachers on fidelity of implementation

•77% appeared > ten times in dailycoaching logs

•Teachers completed:

• Weekly checklists (96%)

• Annual survey (77%)

•41% were observed by evaluators

Coaches Rated Teachers’ Implementation Fidelity on:

• Introduction of strategies

• Modeling of strategies

• Use of guided practice

• Use of differentiated instruction

• Creating opportunities for students to practice

• Propensity to revisit strategies

Characteristics of Low, Medium, and High-Fidelity Implementers

• Analysis of implementation fidelity ratings showed that teachers fell into three categories: “low” (33%), “medium” (35%), or “high” (32%) fidelity implementers

• A greater percentage of females than males were rated as high-fidelity implementers (F=8.28; df=1,73; p<.05)

• Not related: educational level or amount of PD

• Patterns existed in teachers’ age, licensure status, and content area; however, results were not statistically significant

Characteristics of Low, Medium, and High-Fidelity Implementers

• High-fidelity implementers were more likely to report feeling prepared to (p<.05):•Model new learning strategies•Differentiate instruction•Teach students to ask before/during/after questions•Provide guided practice

• But they were not more likely than lower-fidelity implementers to report frequently using strategies

Achievement Analysis

TEACHERS

• 54 content teachers who were either inactive or low, medium, or high fidelity PD implementers

• Example: 16 ELA teachers• 5 inactive 246 students• 3 low173 students• 6 medium 284 students• 2 high116 students

STUDENTS

• 420 7th graders & 399 8th graders (N=819)

• 94.7% African American, 54.2% female, 93.7 not ELL

• 549 (66.9%) not enrolled in ELA honors classes

• Took pretest prior to intervention; post-test seven months later

Reading Scores by Teacher Implementation Fidelity Level for 7th and 8th Grade Students

*

ELA Teacher’s Implementation Fidelity Level

Not Active

Low Medium High

7th Grade Pre[standard deviation]Number of students

514.57[32.4]

90

517.05[29.5]

99

520.42[29.4]197

520.76[24.3]

34

Post 509.23[38.2]

520.14[34.5]

521.65[27.0]

509.71[35.7]

8th Grade Pre[standard deviation]Number of students

511.82[27.0]100

511.82[29.5]

74

519.34[30.4]143

525.77[23.6]

82

Post 517.66[27.0]

519.85[23.7]

525.30[25.8]

546.85[24.6]

Reading Scores by Teacher Implementation Fidelity Level for Males and Females, 8th Grade

*

ELA Teacher’s Implementation Fidelity Level

Not Active Low Medium High

Males- Pre[standard deviation]Number of students

504.59[27.46]

51

502.58[34.7]

38

513.43[33.36]

60

524.53[24.44]

30

Post 509.59[25.26]

508.68[21.96]

518.25[27.31]

547.60[24.67]

Females- Pre[standard deviation]Number of students

519.35[24.65]

49

521.58[18.73]

36

523.61[27.48]

83

526.48[23.36]

52

Post 526.06[26.49]

531.64[19.49]

530.40[23.53]

546.42[24.09]

Regression Results

• Modeled ELA teacher implementation rating on post-test reading score

• Covariates: pretest; gender (0, 1); grade (7, 8); teacher FOI score (0, 1, 2, 3); ELL status (0,1); # of days enrolled > 77

• Results: All things being equal, the teacher’s implementation level significantly and positively affected the student’s post-test reading score

• Although results were statistically significant, the effect size (0.12) was small

Further Analyses

• Measure ITBS testing outcomes

• Analyze student outcomes per teacher for multiple years prior to the intervention

• Interview high-fidelity implementers

• Collect follow-up implementation fidelity information

Contact:

Kelly Feighan, M.A.Research for Better Schools

Feighan@rbs.org

Elizabeth Heeren, Ed.D.Memphis City Schools

HeerenElizabeth@mcsk12.net