Citation
School-Wide Beliefs, Implementation and Collective Efficacy of the Florida Reading Initiative Professional Development Comprehension Module

Material Information

Title:
School-Wide Beliefs, Implementation and Collective Efficacy of the Florida Reading Initiative Professional Development Comprehension Module
Creator:
PRYOR, HUGH CHRISTOPHER
Copyright Date:
2008

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Banduras ( jstor )
Coppersmiths ( jstor )
Elementary schools ( jstor )
Learning ( jstor )
Middle schools ( jstor )
Professional development ( jstor )
Reading comprehension ( jstor )
Schools ( jstor )
Students ( jstor )
Teachers ( jstor )
City of Palm Coast ( local )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Hugh Christopher Pryor. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Embargo Date:
6/30/2007
Resource Identifier:
658230419 ( OCLC )

Downloads

This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

SCHOOL-WIDE BELIEFS, IMPLEMENTATI ON AND COLLECTIVE EFFICACY OF THE FLORIDA READING INITIATIVE PROFE SSIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPREHENSION MODULE By HUGH CHRISTOPHER PRYOR A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2006 1

PAGE 2

Copyright 2006 by Hugh Christopher Pryor 2

PAGE 3

Dedicated to Caryn, the most patie nt wife and partner anyone could ever have. Also to Jen, Kim, and Adam, never stop learning. 3

PAGE 4

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This research would not have been possible without the help and support of many people; advisors, colleagues, friends, and family. Firs t, and foremost, I must acknowledge my wife, Caryn S. Pryor. Without he r long-suffering patience, unders tanding, and support (emotionally, spiritually, and financially) I would not have made it past the first year. My children, Jennifer, Kimberly, and Adam from whom I stole time and borrowed against nearly all emotional equity, I ask your forgiveness and give you my thanks. Dr. Linda Behar-Horenstein, chair of my docto ral committee, and my mentor had a great impact on my own self-efficacy; she helped me be lieve that I could really get this accomplished. Dr. James Doud helped guide our cohort through the coursework and encouraged us all to remember that it was a marathon, not a sprint! Dr. Jenny Bergeron had the patience to help me understand the statistics. Dr. Fran Vandiver and Dr. David Miller ga ve of their precious time to sit on my committee. I want to thank all of the me mbers of my cohort: Laura Asta , Lori Benton, Jeffrey Bishop, Trent Daniel, Kay Godfrey, Drew A. Hawkins, Brandy Kamm, Carol Kindt, Larry Meadows, Anjani Mohabir, Jeremy Moore, James Russo, Kim Stutsman, Terri Tachon, Twila Patten, and Laurie Zuelke. We started th is journey way too long ago! Thank you for your emotional, spiritual, and educational support. Twila Patt en has helped me immeasurably along the path. This research could not have been possible without the support of my boss, Mr. Bill Delbrugge who allowed me to conduct the rese arch within Flagler District Schools and generously gave me the time to do so. My administrative team Chenita Johnson, Vernon Orndorff, Kim Pandich, and Ken Seybold deserve thanks for allowing me to be gone during countless hours over the last two years. Also, I want to thank Ms. Paula St. Francis and Ms. 4

PAGE 5

Winnie Oden, principals of the two schools wher e the research took place. Thank you one and all. 5

PAGE 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................8 LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................9 ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................................10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................. .12 Purpose of the Study ...............................................................................................................13 Research Questions .................................................................................................................14 Theoretical Framework ...........................................................................................................14 Assumptions of the Study .......................................................................................................15 Limitations of the Study .........................................................................................................15 Significance of the Study ........................................................................................................15 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE........................................................................................17 Teacher Beliefs, Self-Efficacy, and Collective Teacher Efficacy ..........................................17 Teacher Efficacy and Instructional Practice ....................................................................20 Teacher Efficacy, Attitude, and Implementation ............................................................21 Collective Teacher Efficacy (CTE) .................................................................................24 Efficacy and Professional Development .........................................................................26 The Florida Reading Initiative ................................................................................................27 Professional Development......................................................................................................28 Professional Developments Formats ...............................................................................30 Problems with Professional Development.......................................................................34 Professional Development Efforts in Reading Instruction .....................................................34 Characteristics of Effective Reading Programs ...............................................................35 Reading First ...................................................................................................................36 State Reading Initiatives ..................................................................................................37 Summary .................................................................................................................................38 3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY..................................................................40 Purpose of the Study ...............................................................................................................40 Participants .............................................................................................................................42 Access and Entry ....................................................................................................................42 Variables of the Study ............................................................................................................42 Research Method ....................................................................................................................43 Survey Research Methodology...............................................................................................43 6

PAGE 7

Reading Strategy Importance and Use Survey (RSIUS) .................................................44 Collective Teacher Efficacy Instrument (CTEI) .............................................................46 Teacher Observations ......................................................................................................47 Researcher Bias ......................................................................................................................48 Data Collection .......................................................................................................................48 Data Analysis ..........................................................................................................................49 4 RESULTS...................................................................................................................... .........51 Demographic Data ..................................................................................................................51 Quantitative Analysis ..............................................................................................................52 Research Question 1: .......................................................................................................52 Research Question 2: .......................................................................................................52 Research Question 3: .......................................................................................................53 Research Question 4: .......................................................................................................53 Research Question 5: .......................................................................................................54 Research Question 6: .......................................................................................................54 Research Question 7: .......................................................................................................55 Research Question 8: .......................................................................................................55 Research Question 9: .......................................................................................................56 Qualitative Analysis ................................................................................................................56 Research Question 10: .....................................................................................................56 Before-reading strategies ..........................................................................................58 During reading strategies .........................................................................................60 After reading strategies ............................................................................................66 Summary .................................................................................................................................76 5 DISCUSSION................................................................................................................... ......86 Summary of Results ................................................................................................................87 Discussion ...............................................................................................................................88 Importance and Strategy Use ...........................................................................................88 Collective Teacher Efficacy and Relationships ...............................................................92 Theoretical Implications .........................................................................................................94 Practical Implications .............................................................................................................95 Recommendations for Further Study ......................................................................................97 PARTICIPANT LETTER............................................................................................................101 READING STRATEGY IMPORTANCE AND USE SURVEY ...............................................102 PERMISSION TO USE CTEI .....................................................................................................108 LIST OF REFERENCES .............................................................................................................109 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................118 7

PAGE 8

LIST OF TABLES Table page 4-1 Student Demographics .......................................................................................................78 4-2 Participant Demographics ..................................................................................................79 4-3 Mean Scores and Standard Deviat ions for Participants’ Importance Scores .....................80 4-4 Mean Scores and Standard Deviat ions For Participants’ Strategy Use Scores .................80 4-5 Mean Scores and Standard Devi ations for Collective Teacher Efficacy ...........................80 4-6 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations for School-Wide Beliefs in the Importance of FRI Reading Comprehension Strategies by School ...........................................................80 4-7 Split-Plot ANOVA Source Table on School -Wide Beliefs in the Importance of FRI Reading Comprehension Strategies ...................................................................................81 4-8 Mean Scores and Standard Deviations for School-Wide Use of FRI Reading Comprehension Strategies by School ................................................................................81 4-9 Split-Plot ANOVA Source Tabl e on School-Wide Use of FRI Reading Comprehension Strategies .................................................................................................82 4-10 Mean Scores and Standard Deviat ions for Collective Teacher Efficacy by School ..........82 4-11 Split-Plot ANOVA Source Table on Collective Teacher Efficacy ....................................82 4-12 Pearson Product Moment Correlation Co efficients for Post-training Strategy Use, Follow-up survey Importance and School leve l with Follow-up survey Strategy Use .....83 4-13 Pearson Product Moment Correlation Co efficients for Post-training CTE, Follow-up survey Importance, Follow-up survey Stra tegy Use, and School level with Follow-up survey CTE ........................................................................................................................83 4-14 FRI Reading Comprehension Strategies Observed During Teacher Observations ...........84 5.1 CTE Scores Obtained by Averagi ng All Teacher Scores from the CTEI .......................100 8

PAGE 9

LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2-1 Guskey’s (2002) Model of Teacher Change ......................................................................39 3-1 Graphic of Study Research Methodology ..........................................................................50 4-1 Graphic Organizer Drawn on Board by Ms. Coppersmith ................................................85 4-2 Concept Map Created by Mr. Tracy and Students .............................................................85 5.1 Triadic Reciprocal Causation ...........................................................................................100 9

PAGE 10

Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy SCHOOL-WIDE BELIEFS, IMPLEMENTATI ON AND COLLECTIVE EFFICACY OF THE FLORIDA READING INITIATIVE PROFE SSIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPREHENSION MODULE Hugh Christopher Pryor December 2006 Chair: Linda Behar-Horenstein Major: Educational Leadership To date, 74 schools have participated in the Fl orida Reading Initiative (FRI) in northeast Florida. However, there have b een no studies about the level of implementation in those schools. The purpose of this study was to determine to what extent FRI training has promoted schoolwide change in teachers’ instructional pr actices, attitudes and beliefs about reading comprehension, and collective teaching efficacy in an elementary and middle school in northeast Florida. Immediately after training, post-training survey s were given to elementary teachers (n = 45) and middle school teachers (n = 35) using two instruments, the researcher-created Reading Strategy Importance and Use Survey, and the Colle ctive Teacher Efficacy Instrument. Followup surveys were given eight months after impl ementation and results compared with the posttraining survey. Nine quantitative research questions were tested using dependent samples t-test, 2 x 2 split-plot analysis of variance, or correla tion coefficients. One qualitative research question was analyzed using teacher observations. The results showed that school-wide teacher s’ beliefs about the importance of FRI strategies and the use of thos e strategies were significan tly lower in both schools after implementation. Collective teacher efficacy di d not change during implementation but was 10

PAGE 11

significantly higher in the elementary school. There was no relationship between importance beliefs and use of strategies, or importance beliefs and collective teacher efficacy. There was a small relationship between collective teacher efficacy and strategy use and a moderate relationship between collective te acher efficacy and school level. 11

PAGE 12

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Ordinarily, individuals must firs t perceive a need and then be motivated to change behavior (Fullan, 1985). However, most programs of professional development are ineffective because they fail to consider ways to engage teachers, or appreciate ho w teachers go about changing their beliefs and practices (Guskey, 2002b). When the U.S. Department of Educati on (USDOE, 2000) conducted a longitudinal study of teacher change, researchers found that profe ssional development experiences were not of high quality and did not bring about changes in t eachers’ practices. According to Shafer (1995), traditional staff development does not promote prof essional growth. To be effective, professional development programs must (a) involve teachers in goal setting and planning the training (AzinManley, Sachse, and Olson, 1996); and (b) provide t eachers with specific, c oncrete, and practical ideas that directly relate to th e day-to-day operation of their cl assrooms (Fullan & Miles, 1992). Public and political demand for increased st udent achievement requires educators to change their instructional prac tices. To meet this demand, school districts provide professional development programs that may effect change in teachers’ instructiona l practices, attitudes, beliefs, and learning outcomes (Guskey, 2002a). The extent to which in structional practices change after completing professional developmen t activities has not been well studied. For the past six years, in c onjunction with P. K. Yonge Deve lopmental Research School at the University of Florida, The North East Florida Educational Consortium (NEFEC) has conducted summer training academies in 74 elem entary, middle and high schools on a schoolwide reform effort called the Florida Reading Initiative (FRI). Based upon the Alabama Reading Initiative (ARI), the FRI model is designed to meet the National Staff Development Council (NSDC, 2001) standards and the Fl orida master in-service plan. Those standards include: (a) a 12

PAGE 13

whole-school professional devel opment approach, (b) continuous assessment of progress, (c) follow-up support, and (d) evaluation. Materi als, personnel and follow-up support for each participating school have been continuously been provided by NEFEC and the P. K. Yonge Developmental Research School. Purpose of the Study Schools and school districts spend large amounts of resources on professional development. However, the extent to which ch anges are actually implemented in the classroom is relatively unknown. The No Child Left Be hind Act (NCBL), a reau thorization of the Elementary and Secondary Schools Act (ESEA), mandates that reform efforts are assessed using evidence-based methods. Thus, following profe ssional development, teachers’ instructional practice must be studied to de termine if they have improved their practice (USDOE, 2000). There is some evidence of teacher learni ng using pre/post-tests of the FRI Summer Reading Academy. Also, evidence of positive cha nge in student learning among schools that have participated in FRI training has been report ed. For example, from an evaluation of student reading levels using the Ga tes-MacGinitie Reading Test during the 2002-2003 school year, NEFEC reported that there was a 17% overall increase in students reading at or above grade level (NEFEC, n.d.). There have been no studies regarding how teachers implement strategies following the FRI Summer Reading Academy. The purpose of this study was to determine to what extent FRI training has promoted school-wide change in teachers’ instructional practices, attitudes and beliefs about reading comprehension, and collective teaching efficacy in an elementary and middle school in northeast Florida. To determine the relationship between school-wide teachers’ pe rceptions, measures of their beliefs about importance and use of readi ng strategies learned dur ing the Florida Reading 13

PAGE 14

Initiative (FRI) and collective teacher efficacy within participating schools were obtained to answer the research questions listed below. Research Questions 1. To what extent do teachers school-wide believ e that FRI reading comp rehension strategies are important? 2. To what degree have FRI reading comprehe nsion strategies been used school-wide? 3. To what extent does FRI implementation affect collective teacher efficacy? 4. To what extent do teachers school-wide believ e that FRI reading comp rehension strategies are important between school levels? 5. To what degree have FRI reading comprehension strategies been used between school levels? 6. To what extent does FRI affect collectiv e teacher efficacy between school levels? 7. What is the relationship between school-wide teachers’ belief s about the importance of FRI reading comprehension strategies and use of those strategies? 8. What is the relationship between collective teacher efficacy and teachers’ beliefs about the importance of FRI reading comprehension strategies? 9. What is the relationship betw een collective teaching efficacy and school-wide use of FRI reading comprehension strategies? 10. Do classroom observations reveal the use of FRI reading compre hension strategies? Theoretical Framework According to Social Cognitive Theory (SCT), achievement is a product of the interactions between an individual’s personal, behavioral, an d environmental factors (Bandura, 2002; Pajares, 2002; Schunk, 2003). “Social Cognitive Theory is r ooted in a view of human agency in which individuals . . . are proactively engaged in th eir own development and can make things happen by their actions” (Pajares, 2002, 6). Successful functioning depends upon an interaction among environmental influences, behavior, and an i ndividual’s cognition, affective state and biology that yield reciprocal causation (Bandura, 2002). These forces affect and determine the choices we make, the actions we take and the very beliefs we have about ourselves. 14

PAGE 15

Central to SCT is the concept of self-efficacy. This is the belief a person has about his or her capabilities to produce an eff ect. It is the “beliefs in one ’s capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attain ment effects” (Bandura, 1997b, p. 3). These beliefs determine how people feel, thi nk, motivate themselves and behave. Also, selfefficacy promotes accomplishments through individuals’ choices, effort, perseverance, resilience, thought patterns and emotional re actions (Henson, Kogan, & Vacha-Haase, 2001). Assumptions of the Study The assumptions of the study are that (a) participants’ responses are true indicators of their perceptions toward the Florida R eading Initiative comprehension st rategies, (b) participants have received training in FRI, and (c) participants are representative of the population of Florida Reading Initiative participants. Limitations of the Study The study was limited to the completeness and accuracy of participan ts’ response, and the population of teachers and administrators who have been trained in the Florida Reading Initiative. Also, there were no baseline survey observations to determine what strategies were already known by faculty within the schools. Significance of the Study Student achievement is the ultimate goal in every classroom. There are many mechanisms to ensure that all teachers are equipped to provide instruction that result s in student achievement, such as professional development. The goal of professional development is to improve teacher practice and therefore improve student achievement (Darlin g-Hammond, 1998). There have been no studies that measure how the Florida Re ading Initiative affects teacher practice. Therefore, examining teachers’ beliefs about the importance of newly learned reading strategies 15

PAGE 16

and their use provides an opportunity to see how professional development impacts teachers’ beliefs and practice and ultimately student achievement. Individuals who believe that th ey can have success in a new behavior are more likely to persist in that behavior (Stajkovic & Luthans, 1998). Collective teacher efficacy (CTE) is a measure of a school’s shared be liefs about its capacity to have a positive effect on students (Bandura, 1997b; Goddard, Hoy & Woolfolk, 2000). CTE has also been shown to be a powerful predictor of student achievement (Bandura, 1993; Bandura, 1997b; Cybulski, 2003; Goddard, Hoy, & Woolfolk, 2000; Goddard, LoGerfi, & Hoy, 2004; Hoy, Sweetland, & Smith, 2002). Therefore a measure of a school’s collective t eacher efficacy beliefs may be predictive of teachers’ use of newly learned skills. 16

PAGE 17

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The purpose of this chapter is to present a review of the research related to this study. An overview of the following topics includes (a) teacher beliefs, self-efficacy and collective teacher efficacy; (b) the Florida Reading Initiative; (c ) professional development; and (d) professional development in reading instruction. Teacher Beliefs, Self-Efficacy, a nd Collective Teacher Efficacy At a very young age, individuals develop deep ly entrenched belief systems which are very resistant to change (Gardner, 1991; Kagan, 1992; Pajares, 1992). Th is belief system helps the individual define him or hers elf, and find meaning in the world. Likewise, a teacher’s knowledge about his or her profession “is embedded within the teacher’s unique belief system” (Kagan, 1992, p.74). New knowledge is filte red through an individual’s belief system and it has been shown to influence the way teachers implement new programs (Pederson and Liu, 2003). Guskey (1988) reported that teachers alter the implementation of new programs so that they were no longer effective. When individuals encounter situations in wh ich they lack knowledge structures and cognitive strategies, they fall back on their beliefs (Pajares, 1992). Behavior is more influenced by belie fs than knowledge (Nespor, 1987). But, teacher belief is a “messy construct” with no common definition (Pajares, 1992). Although a teacher’s beliefs are reflected in the instruction he or sh e provides students, beliefs cannot be interpreted by observing behavior because different teach ers may follow the same practices for very different reasons (Kagan, 1992). Uncovering belief s is difficult because individuals may not be aware of their beliefs systems or may lack th e vocabulary to describe those beliefs (Kagan, 1992). 17

PAGE 18

Belief change in adulthood is rare (Pajares, 1992), and though there can not be a change in behavior without a change in personal belie fs (Kagan, 1992); teachers have been shown to change belief through practice (Guskey, 2002a, 2002b) . It has been shown that teachers are more likely to implement programs that are consis tent with their beliefs (Pederson & Lui, 2003). Therefore a greater understanding of teachers’ beliefs is needed to be able to improve instructional practice (Fang, 1996). Few would argue that the beliefs teachers hol d influence their perceptions and judgments, which, in turn, affect their behavior in the classroom, or that un derstanding the belief structures of teachers and teacher candidates is essential to improving their professional preparation and teaching pract ices. (Pajares, 1992, p. 307) Other researchers have also expressed the n eed to study teachers’ be liefs about education (Abraham & Belanger, 2001; Fullan & Stiegelb auer, 1991; Kagan, 1992). Several have reported that educators’ beliefs impact instructional behavior (Abr aham & Belanger, 2001; Olson & Singer, 1994; Pajares, 1992). Kagan (1992) defines teacher beliefs as “. . . tacit, often unconsciously held assumptions about students, classrooms, and academic material to be taught” (p. 65). Pajares (1992) stated that teacher beliefs refer to not a teacher’s general be lief system, but to the teacher’s educational beliefs about [ ____]. These include beliefs about specific subject areas, ep istemology, student motivation, self-concept, self-esteem , teacher efficacy, and self-efficacy. According to Bandura (2002), self-efficacy beliefs (SEB) are central among the mechanisms of human agency. Other researchers ha ve reported that self-efficacy beliefs facilitate (a) establishment of goals, (b) motivation to achie ve those goals, (c) persev erance in the face of failure, and (d) well-being and feelings of accomplishment (Bandura, 1997a; Henson, Kogan, & Vacha-Haase, 2001; Pajares, 2002). 18

PAGE 19

Self-efficacy beliefs impact cognitive, motivat ional, affective and selective processes (Bandura, 1997b). For example, individuals with high self-efficacy set higher goals for themselves and are more highly committed to goal achievement. The impact of SEB on motivation may be seen in that individuals motivate themselves by planning what they can accomplish. The influence of SEB on affective processes for example can be seen when it helps individuals cope with stressful si tuations, and take on more taxing, emotionally threatening tasks. Self efficacy beliefs have also been shown to sh ape the activities and envi ronments people select (Bandura, 2002). Bandura (1997a) points out that in complex situations, or in t hose that require a great deal of self-direction, efficacy beliefs are extremely impor tant. When individuals are put in situations requiring social change, adaptation to technological advances, or tasks that require persistence without quick results, those with a high sense of efficacy are more successful. For example, creativity and innovation require the ability to synthesize and process information into new forms. Also, persons with high efficacy beliefs ar e better able to persis t in creative endeavors that require long investments of time with uncertain results. Behavior is better predicted by self-efficacy beliefs than by actual capability (Bandura, 1997b). Teachers who have doubts about their abili ties are less likely to implement innovations, and to be able to determine whether to select all, part, or none of the innovation (Evers, Brouwers, & Tomic, 2002). Even when innovati ons are effective, teac hers with low selfefficacy may find it difficult to change their practice (Gersten, Vaughn, Deshler, & Schiller, 1997). Self-efficacy beliefs help shape student cognitive development and academic achievement. They impact students’ beliefs in their ability to perform academica lly as well as teachers’ beliefs 19

PAGE 20

about their ability to motivate students and promote learning. Ashton and Webb (1986) found a significant relationship between teachers’ sense of efficacy and student achievement in math and language. Schunk (2003) reported that self-efficacy belief s affect student academic behavior (e.g., time on and choice of tasks, persistence, and effort ), and that student beha viors affect their selfefficacy beliefs. For example, as a student pers ists in a task and finds success, her self-efficacy may improve. High self-efficacy beliefs have be en positively correlated to student performance on sustained academic tasks (Bouffard-Bouchard , 2000); reading comprehension (Cole, 2002); writing outcomes (Pajares, 2003); computer skills (Ross, Hogaboam-Gray, & Hannay, 2001); and science comprehension (Peder son & Liu, 2003). Students with lo w self-efficacy beliefs have been shown to perform poorly on academic tasks (Cole, 2002). When st udents encounter failure, those individuals with low self-efficacy quit wh ile those with high self-efficacy will persist (Guskey, 1988). Teacher Efficacy and Instructional Practice Ashton and Webb (1986) define teacher effi cacy as “teachers’ situation specific expectations that they can help a student learn” (p. 3). Bandura (1994) identifies teacher efficacy as a type of self-efficacy, an educator’s “belie f or conviction that they can influence how well students learn, even those who may be consider ed difficult or unmotivated” (p.72). TschannenMoran, Woolfolk-Hoy, and Hoy (1998) define it as “the teacher’s belief in his or her capability to organize and execute courses of action require d to successfully accomplish a specific teaching task in a particular context” (p. 233). Teachers’ efficacy beliefs play a major role in classroom learning by influencing teacher outcomes such as persistence, enthusiasm, and commitment (Bandura, 1997b; Cowley & Meegan, 2001; Fa ng, 1996; Freidman & Kass, 2002; Ghaith & 20

PAGE 21

Shaaban, 1999; Ghaith & Yaghi, 1997; Gibs on & Dembo, 1984; Pederson & Liu, 2003; Tschannen-Moran & Woolfolk-Hoy, 2001). Teachers with high efficacy beliefs trust that difficult students are teachable (Ashton & Webb, 1986; Gibson & Dembo, 1984), devote more time to academic activities, provide more help to struggling students, offer more praise, and present better lesson plans than teachers who have low efficacy beliefs (Allinder, 1995; Gordon, 2001). Teachers who have low self-efficacy beliefs show a pessimistic view of students’ moti vation, have strict rules, use extrinsic rewards, and employ negative sanctions (Woolfolk & H oy, 1990). Teachers with high self-efficacy believe that even the most difficult students ar e reachable while teachers with low self-efficacy believe that difficult students cannot be ta ught (Ghaith & Shaaban, 1999; Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk-Hoy, and Hoy, 1998). High teaching efficacy has also been associated with increased end-of-year goals and student growth (Allinder, 1995). Teachers with low self-efficacy are more withdrawn, plan less, and show less interest in teaching and he lping students (Fritz, Miller-Heyl, Kreutzer & MacPhee, 1995); they are also less able to cope w ith stressors (Duffy, 1993), and more susceptible to burnout (Evers et al., 2002). Teacher Efficacy, Attitude, and Implementation Implementing instructional innovations require s a positive attitude. Evers et al. (2002) observed that teachers’ fear of losing control over students du ring instructional innovations is one reason they tend to avoid using new stra tegies. The challenge of changing teacher instructional practice is furthe r compounded because innovations re quire investments of effort over long periods with uncertain results. The uncertainty of success and criteria exacerbate teachers’ investment in change. Most individuals want to know exactly what skills and practice are required for success beforehand (Fullan, 1985). Individuals need clearly defined criteria for judging how well a new task is accomplished. Paja res (2002) claims that if the criteria are 21

PAGE 22

ambiguous, then the individual’s sense of efficacy is of little use. Other researchers disagree. Highly efficacious teachers are more willing to pe rsist in the change effort (Pederson & Liu, 2003), do not fear school improvement efforts and educational challe nges and show strong determination to complete actions successf ully (Bandura, 1997b; Gibson & Dembo, 1984). In the 1980’s, measuring teacher efficacy became important to researchers. First, it gave teachers an assessment of their be liefs. Secondly, it provided administrators with an index of how likely teachers school-wide might be able to implement new change. In response to the need for a measurement tool, Gibson and Dembo (1984) created a teacher efficacy scale with two dimensions: (a) personal teaching efficacy (PTE), the teacher’s belief that he or she has the skills and abilities to influence student learning and behavior, and (b) general teaching efficacy (GTE), the belief that any teacher’s ability to bring about change is limited by external factors such as the environment, family background, and parental influences. Teachers who scored highly on both subscales were predicted to display positive attitudes toward their students, not give up easily, and devote more time to academic activities than teachers who scored low on the subscales (Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk-Hoy, & Hoy, 1998; Wertheim & Leyser, 2002). In a study of the efficacy beliefs and use of differentiated instructional strategies in inclusive classrooms, Wertheim and Leyser (2002) reported that high PTE scores were highly correlated with teachers’ use of innovative teaching strategies. Smylie (1988) reported that PTE was the most important predictor of teacher change and use of newly learned strategies. Ghaith and Yaghi (1997) investigated th e relationships among teacher expe rience, efficacy, and attitudes toward the implementation of a model of coopera tive learning. They discovered that PTE was positively correlated to using cooperative learni ng, and GTE did not correlate with teachers’ attitude toward the use of c ooperative instructional practices. 22

PAGE 23

Efficacy beliefs may vary with grade level assignment. Using Gibson and Dembo’s (1984) Teacher Efficacy Scale TES and a 59-item instruc tional strategies scale, Wertheim and Leyser (2002) found that secondary teachers had higher P TE scores than primary teachers, but primary teachers had higher GTE scores than secondary teachers. Cowley and Meegan (2001) studied characteri stics and interrelations hips between teacher efficacy and professional learning community in sc hools participating in the QUEST project, an applied research project, that assisted schools with educati onal reform efforts in Kentucky, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. They found that elementary school teachers had a higher level of internal efficacy and higher se nse of professional learning than high school teachers. On the other hand, high school teachers showed higher levels of external efficacy than elementary school teachers. They also found that years of experience were not related to internal or external efficacy. Sometimes innovations clash with existing preferences, practices, and belief systems. This can cause the innovations to be met with negati ve reactions. Bandura (2 002) states, “People avoid activities and situations they believe exceed their capabilities” (p. 75). People fall back on their prior knowledge an d experiences when confronted with novel situations where they do not have well-established knowledge structures and cognitive strate gies (Pajares, 1992). Teachers who are extremely accomplished in on e way of teaching may be unable to cope with innovations because they do not believe that they can accomplish the task for one reason or another. Bandura (2002) concluded that peoples’ beliefs about their capacity to accomplish a task sometimes influence them more than their actual ability to perform. Abraham & Belanger (2001) studied British Columbian English teacher s’ beliefs and values as factors in their willingness to implement a senior-secondary English course focusing on technical and 23

PAGE 24

professional communication. They found that teach ers who were willing to implement the new course were more likely to feel there was a need for the course, understood its intent, practicality and quality; and saw implementation less complex than those unwilling to implement the course. Collective Teacher Efficacy (CTE) Motivation and performance are affected by one ’s beliefs about the ability to succeed (Bandura, 1993). However, one doe s not live in isolation and beha vior is influenced by social interaction. Bandura (1997b) proposed a study of collective efficacy as a way to examine the efficacy beliefs of a group. He defines collect ive efficacy as “a group’s shared belief in its conjoint capacities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given levels of attainments” (p. 477). Goddard, Hoy and Wool folk (2000) define CTE as “the perception of teachers in a school that the efforts of the f aculty as a whole will have a positive effect on students” (p. 480). Collective teacher efficacy is a powerful pred ictor of student achie vement, stronger than social economic status or student body stability (Bandura, 1993; Cybulski, 2003). Studies have shown that CTE beliefs are related to improveme nt in scores in elementary mathematics and reading (Goddard, Hoy, & Woolfolk, 2000) a nd secondary schools (H oy, Sweetland, & Smith, 2002). Goddard, LoGerfo, and Hoy (2004) found a positive relationship between CTE and achievement in math, science, writing, and reading. Collective teacher efficacy, like teacher efficacy, is based on social cognitive theory which is concerned with human agency or with the ways in which people control their own lives. Bandura, (1997b) states that social cognitive theory should be applied at the organizational level because it “provides explicit guidelines for how to structure interventions to change social systems” (p. 247). Collective teacher efficacy is a product of the synergistic interplay between group members; it is more than the sum of all of the group’s teacher e fficacy beliefs (Goddard, 24

PAGE 25

1998). Collective efficacy helps to define cu ltural beliefs among a group (Kurz, 2001), and influences the culture of the school (Hoy & Miskel, 1996). Like self-efficacy, collective efficacy is concerned with tasks, level of effort, persistence, shared values and thoughts, levels of stre ss, and achievement of groups (Goddard, Hoy, & Woolfolk, 2000). Goddard (1998) identifies two ke y elements of collectiv e teacher efficacy: (a) analysis of teaching task and (b) assessment of teacher competency. Analysis of teaching task is the process by which teachers assess what will be re quired as they teach (i.e., criteria for success, barriers that must be overcome, and resources available). Assessment of teacher competency constitutes the individual’s judgment of the compet ency of their colleagues in their school (i.e. the faculty’s teaching skill, pedagogical methods, training, and expertise). Goddard (1998) concluded that along with the interaction of the two elements listed above, other influences on collective teacher efficacy include Bandura’s (1997b) components, mastery experiences, vicarious experiences, social persua sion, and affective state. Mastery experiences build self-efficacy, as teachers within schools shar e their collective experi ences with success or failure. When teachers have success with a ce rtain task, they will f eel that they will be successful in the future. Therefore the success or failure experienced by teachers can build on or subtract from the school’s collective efficacy. Teachers do not work in isolation, so through conversation with and observation of their colleagues, they encounter succe ss through vicarious experiences. Th is in turn builds efficacious beliefs about their own abilities and those of their colleagues. Social persuasion in the form of professional development, verbal discussion, feedback and models of success can also build collective efficac y beliefs. Finally the affective state of the school can affect collective efficac y. Schools, like individuals, enc ounter stress. Schools with 25

PAGE 26

high collective efficacy deal with stressors much better than those with lower efficacious beliefs (Bandura, 1997b). Bandura (2002) asserted that CTE enhances school effectiv eness. Goddard, LoGerfo, and Hoy (2004) concluded that CTE facilitates instruction by fosteri ng a culture in which teachers collaborate to improve instruction, work together to make decisions, choose challenging tasks, remain committed to teaching, and persist when facing difficulties. Efficacy and Professional Development Successful professional development efforts re ly on participants’ be liefs. Researchers who study school improvement initiatives have focu sed on teacher efficacy beliefs because these beliefs “consistently predict willingness to try new ideas” (Ross & Gray, 2004). Participants must believe that there will be evidence that th e initiative will result in success, that an appropriate amount of time will be allotted for change and practice, and that the professional development model being used is appropriate. Guskey’s (2002) model of teacher change (see figure 2-1) shows that changes in teacher beliefs and attitudes come after they see evid ence that the instructional innovation produce changes in student learning outcomes. When teachers find that elements of a change initiative work and that they help students, they will use them again. Fullan (1985) states that changes in attitudes and beliefs, usually occur after teachers have altered their in structional practice. Time spent in professional development traini ng can influence teachers’ perception of their preparedness to implement new teaching strategies (Parsad, Lewis, & Farris, 2001). The type of professional development offered to teachers also has an effect on teacher efficacy and student outcomes (Ross et al. 2001). For example, the e ffect of teacher efficacy on student outcomes was stronger when district in-service was designed to meet individual teachers needs, was distributed throughout the implementation perio d, and was established in school networks. 26

PAGE 27

Bandura (1997b) urged professiona l developers to keep in mind that schools are social structures built upon common intere sts and beliefs. Thus collect ive teaching efficacy can be positively influenced by a shared vision within a school and a belief that teachers are part of a community of learners (Marks & Louis, 1999). The Florida Reading Initiative Since June 2001, summer training academies on a school-wide reform effort called the Florida Reading Initiative (FRI) have been c onducted in 74 elementary, middle and high schools in Northern and Central Florida. P. K. Yonge D. R. S. at Th e University of Florida and the North East Florida Educational Consortium (NEF EC) have provided all ma terials, training of trainers, and follow-up instructional support, an d organized funding for each selected school. Modeled after the Alabama Reading Initiative (A RI), FRI is a consortium-sponsored, researchbased reform effort designed to meet many of the National Staff Development Council (NSDC) standards for staff development and to help scho ols meet the Florida master in-service plan. These standards include professional developm ent in research-based learning strategies, establishing learning communities and teacher colla boration, involving the school leadership in all aspects of training, providing appropriate resources, follow-up and support, assessing teacher and student progress, and ma king decisions based on data. Research studies in reading comprehension reve aled that the direct instruction of reaching comprehension strategies was beneficial to student learni ng (Harvey & Goudvis, 2000; Kent, 2003; Torgeson, 1998). The goal of FRI is to intr oduce teachers to a variety of effective prereading, during reading, and post-reading comprehens ion strategies and show participants how to effectively teach these strategies to students. The FRI professional development model consists of four key elements: (a) whole school approach, (b) professional deve lopment, (c) continuous assess ment, and (d) follow-up support. 27

PAGE 28

The whole school approach criteria is met when 85% of the faculty at tend (85% of all teachers in primary, and 85% of math, science, social studies , language arts, and ESE teachers in secondary) the FRI Summer Reading Academy. Professional development is provided during a two-week academy and consists of understanding phonemic awareness, reading and writing connections, language development, content area reading, as sessment and intervention. During the academy each school establishes goals and plans to impl ement the initiative. Continuous assessment techniques are taught so that participants lear n how to use both formal and informal means to monitor student progress. Teachers learn how to diagnose reading problems and apply interventions. Follow-up support is during monthl y meetings for principals in which they study, share, and develop ways to support teachers. Reading coaches also meet monthly to support each other and discuss ways to a ssist students and teachers. Meetings are focused upon reviewing case studies of struggling readers and developing plans for intervention. Consortium and university staff makes periodic visitations to assist with diagnosis, demons trate strategies, discuss problems and provide on-going professional development to meet the specific needs of each school. (NEFEC, n.d.). Professional Development Professional development is a systematic effort that is designed to bring about change in teachers’ instructional practices , attitudes and beliefs, and student outcomes (Guskey, 2002a). Boyer (as cited in Sparks, 1984) refers to pr ofessional development as “people improvement” and that it is “the only way to improve schools” (p. 9). In 2001, the National Staff Development Council (NSDC, 2001) established standards for professional development. They recommended that continuous professional development become the mechanism to help educators raise student achievement and standards for quality professional development be established. Sugge sted standards included: teacher involvement; 28

PAGE 29

use of data in decision making; time for lear ning and collaboration; oppo rtunities for on-going, job-embedded development activities; integrat ion of innovations into existing practices; leadership/advocacy; and follow-up, support, and eval uation. In recognition the importance of planning for the development of human potential , the Florida legislature mandated through the School Community Professional Development Ac t (F.S.S.1012.98) that each district develop a comprehensive master in-service (professional development) plan. According to the statute, each district must: (a) increase the success of e ducators in guiding stude nt learning and development so as to implement state and local educa tional standards, goals, and initi atives; (b) assist the school community in providing stimula ting, scientifically research-b ased educational activities that encourage and motivate students to achieve at the highest levels and to become active learners, and (c) provide continuous support fo r all education professionals as well as temporary intervention for education profe ssionals who need improvement in knowledge, skills, and performance (F.S.S. 1012.98). At the national level, the goals of prof essional development programs include changing teachers’ practices, attitudes and beliefs, a nd increasing student outcomes (Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin, 1995). Schools and school systems use different professional development models to improve schools, improve teaching and theref ore improve student performance. Effective professional development is considered to be an ongoing and continuous process, not a single event (Lieberman, 1995; Loucks-Horsl ey, Hewson, Love, & Stiles, 1998). In the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF, 1996) report, What Matters Most: Teaching for America’s Future , the authors asserted th at the quality of the teaching force needs to be improved to ensure th at students meet high academic standards. “What teachers know and do is the most important influence on what students learn” (p. 6). For schools to change, they must change teacher practice. Dutro, Fisk, Koch, Roop, & Wixson (2003) found that effective staff development increas es teachers’ ability to cause change in their 29

PAGE 30

classrooms and schools, increases teachers capacity to become le arners, and results in more reflective practice. What teachers do in the classroom is of th e utmost importance. Teachers must understand content “subject matter deep ly and flexibly, so that they can he lp students create useful cognitive maps, relate ideas to one a nother, and address misconcepti ons” (Darling-Hammond, 1998, p. 6). “If teachers are to successfully teach all students to high standards, virtually everyone who affects student learning must be learning virtually all the ti me” (Sparks, 2000, p. ix). “Like doctors, engineers, and other professionals, teach ers must have access to high quality education and career-long opportunities to upd ate their skills if they are to do their job well” (NCTAF, 1996, p. 8). Teacher effectiveness, subject knowle dge, and professional development are strongly linked. The kind and quality of professional development provide d teachers has been shown to make up the difference in the lack of subject area knowledge (Darling-Hammond, 2000). Professional development activities help teachers feel better about th eir practice and help bring about learning gains (Darling-Hammond, 19 98). Student achievement is higher when teachers have high verbal skills and a strong kno wledge of the discipline they teach (DarlingHammond, 2000; Wenglinsky, 2000). Students whos e teachers have received professional development in content-specific strategies, and higher-order thinking cons istently outperform their peers by as much as 40% on the Nationa l Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Using Multilevel Structural Equation Modeling (MSEM) and data taken from NEAP, Wenglinsky (2000) found that professional developm ent in specific math and science strategies was slightly more important to student achie vement than majoring in the subject area. Professional Developments Formats Although there are many different models of professional development, Guskey (2000) concludes that no single mode l meets every individual’s needs. However, models of 30

PAGE 31

professional development that are effective in changing teacher be havior, share certain characteristics. Parsad, et al. (2001) identified six characteristic s that are important to improving teacher learning: form, duration, co llective participation, content, active learning, and coherence. Wildman and Niles (1987) also identified conditions essential for professional growth. These include: autonomy, collaboration, and time. Au tonomy is important for complex learning because learners must have freedom to direct their own growth. The learning organization must foster a culture for learning that leaves open th e opportunity for individu al experimentation and problem solving, rather than top-down edic ts and solutions. Colla borative work provides opportunities for individuals to share their learni ng experiences and new ideas, and breaks down the barriers that keep teachers in isolation. Time must be setaside for teachers to have the learning and collaborative experience s needed for professional growth. Darling-Hammond & McLaughlin (1995) wrote, “Effective professional development involves teachers both as learne rs and as teachers and allows them to struggle with the uncertainties that accompany each role” (p. 598). Th ey also insist that professional development must, (a) engage teachers in concrete tasks of teaching, assessment, observation, and reflection, (b) be grounded in inquiry, (c) be collaborative, (d) be derived from teachers' work with their students, (e) be sustained, ongoing, intensive, and supported by modeling, coaching, and the collective solving of specific problems of practice, and (f) be connected to other aspects of school change. Traditional professional developm ent initiatives lack these characteristics. Guskey (2002) points out that most programs of professional development are ineffective “because they do not take into account two crucial factors: teacher motivation for professional development and the change process. In order to be effective, professional developmen t programs must provide 31

PAGE 32

teachers specific, concrete, and pract ical ideas that directly relate to the day-to-day operation of their classrooms (Fu llan & Miles, 1992). Teachers are attracted to staff development wh en they see it as an opportunity to expand their knowledge, enhance their ability to help students succeed, find specific, concrete, and practical ideas to help their everyday operation of their classrooms. (Fullan & Miles, 1992; Guskey & Huberman, 1995). Thus, teachers mu st have input about needed professional development. When teachers are involved in a ll stages of the planning and implementation of professional development, they display more satisfaction and support for the initiative (AzinManley, Sachse, & Olson, 1996). “Those schools whose staff members knowingly combat the inertia of their profession and environment are most successful” (Glickman, Gordon, & RossGordon, 1998, p. 29) Leaders must also look at the cultural and struct ural parts of organizati ons to effect change (Sparks, 2000). Darling-Hammond & McLaughin, ( 1995) concluded that “Sustained change in teachers’ learning opportunities a nd practices will require investment in the infrastructure of reform” (p. 599). Structural change is important for professional growth of teachers. “Ongoing, applied professional growth requires a school-wid e commitment and includes all teachers. . . . [It] ensures adequate time for teachers to meet, reflect, and grow professi onally.” (Wenglinsky, 2000, p.6) Other characteristics that foster effective change include a clear focus on learning and learners, emphasis on individual and organizatio nal change; creating a plan for incremental change that is focused by a shared vision, and ong oing professional development that is part of and related to the every day work (DuFour , 1997; Guskey, 2000; Guskey & Huberman, 1995; Lieberman, 1995; Little & Houston, 2003). 32

PAGE 33

Teachers will change their practice when they see the relevance and need to do so (Guskey, 1988). Teachers want to know if the professi onal development innovation that they are being shown will be more effective and efficient than what they are already doing before they will consider a change (Sparks, 2000). They want ev idence that what they are being asked to do works. The best learning comes from learning in context. “Lear ning in context has the greatest potential payoff because it is more specific, situ ational, and social. . . . [It] also establishes conditions conducive to continual development, including opportunities to learn from others on the job.” (Fullan, 2002, pp. 18 -19). Learning is an active, not a passive process. Learners must measure new information against old, comparing and contrasting, exchangi ng, assimilating and/or rejecting old and new ideas. “There is no tabula rasa on which knowledge is etched. Rath er, learners come to learning situations with knowledge gained from previous experience, and that prior knowledge influences what new or modified knowledge they will c onstruct from the new experience” (Hoover, 1996, ). Experienced teachers are more equipped to understand and implement curricular and instructional innovations when they are given the opportunity to link th em to prior teaching experiences (Glickman et al., 1998). Elmore (2002) urges both individualized professional development of teachers and having teachers of a ll stages work and learn together. Likewise, Darling-Hammond (1998) observes that, “Teachers learn best by studying, doing, and reflecting; by collaborating with other teach ers; by looking closel y at students and their work; and by sharing what they see” (p. 6). Glickman et al (1998) suggested that teacher s need time to observe, learn and practice new methods and strategies. Forcing teachers to im mediately adopt new strategies, which are in 33

PAGE 34

conflict with their curren t style, is inconsistent with adult learning theory. New strategies should be introduced over time. Putting experienced teache rs in a novel situation can cause them to be unsuccessful. It is important to point out that, “experience is a relative term–a teacher (or supervisor) with 30 years of teach ing (or supervising) can still be inexperienced in many ways” (p. 74). Problems with Professional Development Traditionally, professional development has been through school-based “in-service” workshops. Usually an outside “professional” expert provides a one-s hot, hour-long training. This model of professional development has been cr iticized for its lack of effectiveness (Sparks, 2000). Traditional staff development has failed to promote professional growth (Shafer, 1995). Even though there is a large body of evidence that shows that contemporary professional development models are more effective than more traditional models, school systems continue to perpetuate traditional models through incentives and rewards (Monahan, 1996). Often, educators believe that professional de velopment has little impact on their daily responsibilities, or is a waste of their time (Guskey, 2000). Also, th ere has been little effort to offer content specific training (Cohen & Ball, 19 99). Teachers are denied the opportunity to learn in the very ways they are being demanded to teach their students (Lieberman, 1995). Professional Development Efforts in Reading Instruction In the past few years, professional developmen t initiatives that aim to increase student literacy have relied on the teaching “scientific ally-researched” strategies and pedagogy. One professional development approach is supported by the belief that if reading in struction is grounded in the scientific evidence of how reading develops the ma jority of students can learn to read. However most teachers do not have th e training, background or access to information about what strategies and instruction work best (Lyon, 2004). 34

PAGE 35

Characteristics of Effective Reading Programs Using a random survey of prin cipals, reading coaches, teachers, and curriculum directors across the United States, Barry (1997) found that 67% of the 737 respond ents had a reading program in their regular education program for st udents with reading difficulties. Activities and accommodations to improve reading included cr eative lesson planning, hands-on experiences, individualized instructio n, alternative means of assessment, team learning, reading to students before and after school, tape-reco rding for students, use of guide d questioning, smaller classes, peer tutors, after schoo l tutoring, cooperative learning, extra study time, and extensive staff development to help teachers t each reading in the content area. Barry (2002) studied literacy st rategies used by content area t eachers after they had learned them in professional development. Teachers’ ac tivities include visual aids, analogies, graphic organizers, note taking, and writing to learn. The most frequent r easons that strategies were not implemented were lack of time and the pressure that teachers felt to “cover” curriculum. Similarly, Jacobucci, Richert, Ronan, & Tanis, (2002) found that reading scores have a positive correlation with instructional practices such as graphic organizers, clarifying questioning techniques and direct instruction of reading comprehension strategies. Pressley, Wharton-McDonald, Allington, Bloc k, Morrow, Tracey, et al (2001) studied teachers in first-grade literacy programs in fi ve U.S. locales. They found large effects for teachers classified as exemplary on the achievement of the lowest-achieving children. The lowest achieving students in these classroo ms outperformed their peers in more typical classrooms. The National Reading Panel (NRP, 2000) examined over 100,000 studies of how children learn to read. They found that the most important ch aracteristics of reading instruction included phonemic awareness and phonics instruction, fluency, comprehension, teacher development and education, and computer technology. The Learni ng First Alliance (2000), an organization of 12 35

PAGE 36

leading national education associations, gathered research from many experts in the fields of reading and professional development. For literacy instruction to succeed with all students, they concluded that teachers must use what is known about effective professional development. Single-shot workshops unconnected to the work of students do not promote “sustained and continuous professional growth toward e ffective literacy instruction” (p. 2). The focus of the Learning First Alliance (2000) report was to identify the context, process and content components of an effective profession al development program in reading instruction of primary students. Among the recommended cont ext components were: (a ) involvement of all stakeholders, (b) careful curricu lar alignment, (c) adequate ti me for professional development during the school day, (d) shared expertise, (e) st rong instructional leader ship, (f) commitment to long-range planning, and (g) adequate funding. Th e process components included: (a) varied opportunities, (b) self-evaluation and reflection, (c ) follow-up, and (d) sufficient time. Content characteristics were: (a) phonemic awareness, (b ) decoding, (c) fluency, (d) vocabulary, (e) text comprehension, (f) written expression, (g) sc reening and continuous assessment, and (h) motivating children to read. Reading First The National Reading Panel (2000) report help ed design Reading First, the literacy component of NCLB. In the 2002–2003 fiscal year , Reading First granted $900 million to states and over $1 billion in fiscal year 2003. The grant program was designed to improve reading instruction for K-3 students and to ensure th at all children learn to read well by the end of third grade. Funds were provided for programs that would promote growth in phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Denton (2003) provides several lessons learned from examining states that have been successful recipients of Reading First grants. Characteristics of successful programs include: (a) 36

PAGE 37

whole-school professional development traini ng, (b) training teachers in the use of peer coaching, (c) involving universities and teacher education programs, (d) not expecting too much from initial trainings, (e) provide follow -up, and (f) not doing too much too fast. State Reading Initiatives The Texas Reading Initiative (TRI, n.d.), now in its sixth year, is coordinated through Texas A & M University and the Texas Education Agency. This program is designed to increase children’s literacy using a divers e approach. The program consists of six major components: (a) leadership development, (b) diagnostic assessmen t, (c) comprehensive research-based programs, (d) intermediate intervention, (e ) progress monitoring, and (f) end-of-year performance analysis. The Alabama Reading Initia tive (ARI) began offering Summer Academies in 1997 and targeted three goals: (1) strengthening reading in struction in the early grades, (2) expanding all students’ reading power and co mprehension levels, and (3) in tervening effectively with struggling readers. The ARI t eacher training modules consist of language development and vocabulary, phonemic awareness and phonics, concep ts of print, comprehension strategies, reading/writing connection, formal assessment, informal writing assessment, and effective intervention (Vaughan, 2000). Denton (2003) claime d that the Alabama R eading Initiative is a good example of an eff ective reading program. A comparison of reading achievement ARI schools and non-participating schools results indicated improved reading scores , a decrease in struggling read ers, an increase in student reading of 43% as evidenced by library circulat ion, a decrease in special education referrals (Kent, 2003; Moscovitch, 2001; Vaughan, 2000), and a decrease in discipline problems (Barber, 2002). Teachers reported that they used 76% of the strategies they were taught during the professional development (Vaughan, 2000). 37

PAGE 38

Summary In this chapter an overview of selected li terature concerning teach er beliefs and selfefficacy, reading program initiatives and professional development was presented. An analysis of these studies provided suppor t for the present study. The imp lementation of instructional strategies, instructional practice and ultimately, student achievement is affected by self-efficacy beliefs. If teachers are expected to implement changes in their in structional practice, they must believe that they have a chance to succeed a nd the new strategies will positively influence student learning. Teachers who have strong self-e fficacy beliefs persist in the change efforts; teachers who have weak e fficacious beliefs will not. The Florida Reading initiative is consortiumbased, school-wide effort that is aimed at changing instructional practice in reading. The components of this program match many of those advocated and reported as best practice. There has been little study of the success of FRI and the use of the reading comprehension strategies in which participants are trained. Therefore, there is a need to study the extent to which FRI participants have cha nged their instructional practice by examining their beliefs about the im portance and use of re ading strategies, and collective teacher efficacy. Professional development is one way to improve teacher performance. Traditional professional development has not been successful in improving teaching. Researchers now suggest that effective prof essional development includes using effective teaching methods to teach effective teaching methods, teacher participa tion in planning, training, and implementation, differentiated training to m eet individual needs, and ongoing, school based support. There are many other models of professional development for teaching reading. These models range from national initiatives (Reading Fi rst), state-wide initiat ives (TRI and ARI) to school-wide initiatives (FRI). A ll share common characteristics such as instruction in phonics 38

PAGE 39

and phonemic awareness, fluency, comprehens ion, vocabulary development, professional development, and assessment of students. For students to improve their reading skills, teachers must receive effective professional development. However, teachers must have multiple opportunities to observe, try out, talk about, and reflect on new practice before they se e changes in their habi ts and beliefs. The Florida Reading Initiative may be a model that provides these opportunities. PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Change in TEACHERS’ CLASSROOM PRACTICES Change in STUDENT LEARNING OUTCOMES Change in TEACHERS’ BELIEFS & ATTITUDES Figure 2-1. Guskey’s (2002) Model of Teacher Change 39

PAGE 40

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY In this chapter the research design and methodology used in this study is described. A discussion of the (a) purpose of the study; (b) par ticipants; (c) access and en try; (d) variables of the study; (e) research me thodology; (f) instrumentat ion; (g) data collecti on; (h) pilot study; (i) and data analysis; and (j) threats to validity and reliability precede a summary of the chapter. Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to determine to what extent FRI training has promoted school-wide change in teachers’ instructional practices, attitudes and beliefs about reading comprehension, and collective teaching efficacy in an elementary and middle school in northeast Florida. To determine the relationship between school-wide teachers’ pe rceptions, measures of their beliefs about importance and use of readi ng strategies learned dur ing the Florida Reading Initiative (FRI) and collective teacher efficacy within participating schools were obtained to answer the research questions listed below. 1. To what extent do teachers school-wide believ e that FRI reading comp rehension strategies are important? It was expected that there w ould be no difference between the mean scores on the importance measure on the RSIUS before and after implementation. 2. To what degree have FRI reading comprehensio n strategies been used school-wide? It was expected that there would be no difference between the mean scores on the strategy use measure on the RSIUS before and after implementation. 3. To what extent does FRI implementation affect Collective Teacher Efficacy? It was expected that there would be no difference between CTE scores before and after implementation of FRI. 40

PAGE 41

4. To what extent school-wide do teachers believ e that FRI reading comprehension strategies are important between school levels? It was e xpected that the mean difference between the importance measure on the RSIUS before and afte r implementation of FRI reading strategies would not differ across school levels. More sp ecifically, the level of importance beliefs would be the same for the elem entary school and middle school. 5. To what degree have FRI reading comprehension strategies been used between school levels? It was expected that the mean difference be tween the strategy use measure on the RSIUS before and after implementation of FRI readi ng strategies would not differ across school levels. More specifically, the level of strate gy use would be the same for the elementary school and middle school. 6. To what extent does FRI affect Collective Te acher Efficacy between school levels? It was expected that the mean difference betw een the CTE measures before and after implementation of FRI reading strategies w ould not differ across school levels. More specifically, the level of CTE would be the sa me at the elementary school and middle school. 7. What is the relationship between school-wide teachers’ belief s about the importance of FRI reading comprehension strategies and use of those strategies? It was expected that there would be no relationship between teachers’ beli efs about the importance of FRI strategies and the use of those strategies (i.e., there is no correlation between importance scores and strategy use scores). 8. What is the relationship between CTE and teach ers’ beliefs about the importance of FRI reading comprehension strategi es? It was expected that th ere would be no relationship between CTE and school-wide beliefs about the im portance of FRI strategies (i.e., there is no correlation between CTE and importance scores). 41

PAGE 42

9. What is the relationship betw een collective teaching efficacy and school-wide use of FRI reading comprehension strategi es? It was expected that th ere would be no relationship between CTE and the use of FRI strategies (i .e., there is no correlation between CTE scores and implementation scores). 10. Do classroom observations reveal the use of FRI reading compre hension strategies? Participants There were a total of 80 particip ants in the study; 45 were teachers at an elementary school and 35 were teachers at a middle school. Both sc hools are located in the same northeast Florida school district. All participants complete d the FRI Summer Reading Academy in 2005. Access and Entry After receiving approval from the University of Florida Instituti onal Review Board, and verbal approval from each building principal, th e researcher distributed a letter describing the purpose of the study during the last day of th e FRI Summer Reading Academy (see Appendix A). Participants indicated by signature their willingness to part icipate. Participants also indicated on the instrument their willingness to be observed during the 2005-2006 school year. The participants were assured in writing of the confidentiality of their responses and that neither individual names nor personal information would be used. The survey did not ask for the name of the participant nor any other demographic inform ation other than the vari ables listed below. Data was secured in a locked cabinet. On ly the researcher had access to the data. Variables of the Study Data collected during the study inclu ded demographic, perceptual, and attitudinal variables. Demographic variables were age, ge nder, years of teaching experience, date of any previous FRI training, highest degree earned, grade/subject area of teaching assignment and name of school. Descriptions of the perceptual variables were th e participants’ self report about 42

PAGE 43

the importance of specific reading comprehension strategies, and extent to which participants have implemented specific reading comprehensi on strategies. Descript ions of attitudinal variables included the extent to which teachers believed in the collective capacity of the school to influence student reading achie vement, and that FRI strategies would help students improve reading comprehension. Research Method Two survey instruments were administered on the last day of the FRI training and eight months after implementation. Observations were conducted of two middle school and two elementary school teachers who were participan ts in the FRI Summer Reading Academy. The observations served to corroborate or refute the findings regardi ng teachers’ use of FRI reading strategies. Each teacher was observed during va rious class times for a minimum of 45 minutes or the equivalent of one class period. All four teachers were observed five times during the school year. Running notes were utilized to record teachers’ instructiona l practices. Figure 3-1 illustrates the design of this study. Survey Research Methodology Although survey research is an efficient way to collect data, the methodology presents certain problems: (a) participants must be willi ng to complete the survey, and (b) they must be truthful in their responses (Tuckman, 1999). Several types of error can limit surveys: coverage, sample, measurement and non-response (Schuman & Presser, 1991). In an effort to reduce the threat of coverage error, the en tire population of FRI participants was surveyed at both schools. The measurement error threat was reduced when the survey instruments were pilot tested to ensure that the items were unambiguous and that each item offered each participant the same response options. To reduce non-response error, the surveys were conducted during faculty 43

PAGE 44

meetings at the end of the FRI training and near the end of the school year. Two attempts were made to reach participants who were not present at the last faculty meeting. Agreeing-response bias, or acquiescence, th e tendency for responde nts to agree with attitude statements, represents a potential threat to c onducting survey research. Participants may mark a single choice for all questions because of di sinterest, boredom or hostility (Tucker, 1999). To reduce this threat, data analysis was conduc ted both including and excluding outliers in the frequency distribution of the responses. Analysis showed that the differences between the results were insignificant. It is believed that that response bias was not a threat to the findings. Likert scales are common in attitudinal surv eys. This type of scale was appropriate because it is easy to administer, required a relatively short amount of time for the participants to complete and it is an efficient method of collecting data. Reading Strategy Importance and Use Survey (RSIUS) A researcher-constructed instrume nt was used to assess participants’ self-reported ratings of the importance and use of strategies lear ned during the Florida R eading Initiative (See Appendix B). The instrument measured importance and use of specific reading comp rehension strategies and activities relevant to the Comprehension Mo dule of Florida Reading Initiative. The scale included items related to the following scien tifically researched reading strategies: Anticipation Guides – Students respond to a series of st atements before reading the text and then revisit and discuss after reading. Class-wide Peer Tutoring – Students provide academic s upport for their classmates by alternating turns as “tutor” and “tutee,” each tutoring the other in turn. GIST – ( G enerating I nteraction with S chema and T ext) Students create summaries of 15 or fewer words. Students begin by summariz ing single sentences, then paragraphs, then longer pieces of text. Graphic Organizers – Organizing concepts into a visual representation. 44

PAGE 45

KWL Students share what they K now, and what they Want to know about a topic before reading, then after readi ng share what they have L earned. Multi-Column Notes – Taking and organizing notes in column form during and after reading. Paired Reading Paired students read out loud togeth er, each helping to correct mistakes. PreP – ( Pre -reading P lan ) Before reading, the teacher pr ompts the students to “Tell me anything that comes to mind when” Then ask them to discuss their reasoning. Preview and Predict – Students preview the text and make predictions before reading, then compare predictions with actual content after reading. QAR’s (Q uestion A nswer R elationships) Teaches students to r ecognize types and levels questions and how to locate the information to answer them. Questioning the Author – Students respond to a series of questions about the text in order to consider the author's intent and his or her success at communicating it. Reciprocal Teaching – Students participate in a dialogue about segments of the text by summarizing, creating questions , clarifying, and predicting. Selective Underlining – Students underline or highlight key words, phrases, vocabulary, and ideas that are central to understanding the text. Semantic Mapping Using a graphic organizer to subordinate information from the text into main ideas, characters, events, or other central ideas. Sticky notes – Students use sticky notes to record their construction of meaning as they read then share with the gr oup to clarify confusions. Story Map Students identify characte ristics and/or relationships of selected characters using a graphic organizer. Think Aloud – Modeling and verbalizing though t processes used during reading. Think-Pair-Share Students think about a topic indi vidually, share their thoughts with a partner and then the class. The RSIUS also measured the importance and use of other co mprehension module objectives including teaching student s about both internal and external text structures, providing motivation for students to read, incorporating re ading strategies in specific content areas, teaching students to be aware of their thinking processes, reading to students; explaining the 45

PAGE 46

structure of informational and narr ative text, and teaching students to find meaning in context. The measure used a Likert-type scale for the importance measure by asking participants to respond to the statement “It would be ___ to us e this strategy.” The choices ranged from (1) very unimportant, to (5) very important. The st rategy use scale asked teachers to predict their use of the strategy in the post-training survey and declare their actual use in the post test by responding to the statement, “I will use/used this strategy ___ minutes per week.” The choices ranged from (1) 0 minutes to (5) more than 90 minutes. To help increase validity, the questions as ked in the survey were developed based on existing teacher efficacy instruments and were ex amined for clarity and meaning by a panel of experts in teacher efficacy, instrument design and areas of the FRI pr ofessional development model. Changes were made based on the panel’ s comments. The panel consisted of Dr. Linda Behar-Horenstein, Dr. James Doud, Dr. David Miller, and Dr. Fran Vandiver. The instrument was pilot-tested with a local elementary school in its fourth year of FRI implementation. Teachers who had implemented FRI reading compre hension strategies were asked to examine each item for clarity and meaning and rate their response to each item. The alpha for the overall instrument was .96. Collective Teacher Efficacy Instrument (CTEI) To measure collective teacher efficacy, pe rmission was obtained to use the Collective Teacher Efficacy Instrument (CTEI; Goddard, 1998). The CTEI consists of 21 items designed to measure educators’ beliefs about their school s’ collective capability to affect student achievement. Participants respond using a sixpoint Likert scale ranging from (1) strongly disagree to (6) strongly agree. A sample item is “Teachers here are confiden t they will be able to motivate their students.” Items 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, and 21 in this scale were reverse scored. The CTEI was an adaptation of the Gi bson and Dembo (1984) Teacher Efficacy Scale. 46

PAGE 47

Individual-oriented statements we re rewritten to reflect group-or iented items. Goddard (1998) found that collective teacher efficacy consisted of two key factors that shape the collective efficacy of the school: group competency (GC) and task analysis (TA). Group competency constitutes beliefs about the sc hool’s overall teaching skills, methods, training and expertise. Task analysis refers to beliefs about successf ul teaching, barriers to success, and available resources. Items are worded so that teacher s will consider both group competence and task analysis. Both positively worded (+) and negati vely worded (-) items were used in the scale giving four types of items: (a) group competence/ positive (GC+), (b) group competence/negative (GC-), (c) task analysis/positive (TA+), and (d) ta sk analysis/negative (TA-). The factors were found to fold into one dimension whose value derives from the mean of the item scores. The high reliability of the scale (alpha = .96) supports its use (Goddard, 1998). Teacher Observations Two teachers each were randomly selected for observation from the elementary school and the middle school. Observations were made as th ey carried out their normal teaching activities. Running notes were kept of the teachers’ and students’ interactions and activities. The methodology was piloted with a middle school teacher several weeks before the beginning of the study. Changes in note-taking were made based on suggestions by the researcher’s committee chair. After another pilo t observation, the chair appr oved the methodology. During the observation, the researcher was car eful to list only observations, not judgments. The teachers were observed a minimum of one class period (a pproximately 45 minutes) five times during the school year. Hand-written, running notes were word processed within one day of the observation. FRI reading comprehension strate gies were coded and not ed in the proceeding chapter. 47

PAGE 48

Researcher Bias In qualitative fieldwork all da ta collected through observati on is filtered through the researcher and is subject to bias (Creswe ll, 2004). The observations are limited by the researcher’s mindset, skill leve l in collecting data (Fielden, 2003; Mays & Pope, 1995), and the possibility that the presence of the observer may influence behavior (Mays & Pope, 1995). The researcher must therefore self-monitor for bias in order to objectively report the findings (Creswell, 2004; Tuckman, 1999). The researcher is a veteran educator of 13 y ears, is a National Board certified and is an administrator with three years experience obser ving and evaluating educators. He is an experienced facilitator of FRI reading comprehension strategies and is a nationally certified reading strategies tr ainer. As such, he is qualified to rec ognize the use of reading strategies in a classroom setting. The research er’s skill in collecti ng data through the use of running notes was improved through pilot observations and subsequent coaching from his doctoral committee chair. Multiple visits to the participants’ classrooms a nd the extended time spent there may have helped the participants to become accustomed to the pr esence of the researcher so that more natural behavior might be observed. To increase validity of the fi ndings, a peer debriefer (Creswell, 2004) was used. The peer debriefer was a doctoral candidate at the University of Florida who was trained in qualitative techniques and had 15 years experience in teacher observation. The peer debriefer read the running notes and coded examples of reading co mprehension strategies. A comparison between the peer debriefer and the researcher revealed ag reement in identification of reading strategies. Data Collection The RSIUS and CTEI instruments were administered the last day of the FRI summer institute in June of 2005 and again to the same teachers at a faculty meeting in March of 2006. 48

PAGE 49

Only data from teachers who participated in the 2005 FRI Summer Reading Academy were included in the study. Data Analysis Descriptive statistics were calculated for a ll variables. Questions 1 – 9 were analyzed using three different quantitative methods, a de pendent samples t-test, 2 x 2 split-plot ANOVA, and Pearson Product Moment correlation coefficients . Because all participants completed the pre and follow-up surveys, dependent samples t-tests were used to compare the post-training survey and follow-up survey mean scores for research que stions 1 – 3. Questions 4 – 6 examined both a within-participants factor (Post-training surv ey vs. follow-up survey scores) and a betweenparticipants factor (elementary school vs. middle school) therefore; a 2 x 2 split-plot analysis of variance was used. Pearson Product Moment Co rrelation coefficients were calculated for variables found in questions 7 – 9. The following guidelines for the strength of th e relationship between the variables using the r values came from Cohen (1977) (as cited in Penfield, 2003): Small effect (weak relationship): r = .10 Medium effect (moderate relationship): r = .30 Large effect (strong relationship): r = .50 49

PAGE 50

School 2 School 1 Treatment Two-week Florida Reading Initiative Training June 6 June 16, 2005 Pre-Test Collective Teacher Efficacy, Teachers' beleifs about Importance and Implementation June 17, 2005 Observation of 4 teachers 5 times during year Post-Test Collective Teacher Efficacy, Teachers' beleifs about importance and implementation. March 31, 2006Figure 3.1 Collective Teacher Efficacy, Teachers’ beliefs about importance and use March 31, 2006 Elementary School Middle School Collective Teacher Efficacy, Teachers’ beliefs about importance and use June 17, 2005 Post-Training Survey Follow-up Survey Figure 3-1. Graphic of Study Research Methodology 50

PAGE 51

CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Data collected in this study were analy zed using both qualitative and quantitative methods. The results for research quantitative ques tions (1 – 9) are presented in the first part of this chapter. The results for qualitative re search question (10) conclude the chapter. Demographic Data Demographic information is presented in the next section. Table 4-1 presents a summary of demographic information about the students. Table 4-2 shows information about the students. Both the elementary and middle schools were sim ilar in the race/ethnicity of their students. Whites comprised the majority of the students. Black, Hispanic, and Multiracial students comprised 27.7% of the elementary school and 25.8% of the middle school. The demographics of the teachers were similar to those of the students. Whites comprised the majority in both schools; 66.7% in the el ementary school and 68.6% in the middle school. Blacks, Hispanics, and Multiracial made up 31. 1% of the elementary and 28.6% of the middle school. Teachers at the elementary school were typically female (88.9%), while slightly more than two-thirds of the teachers were female at the midd le school. While the majority of teachers held Bachelor’s degrees at both schools (62.2% and 68 .6% respectively), a greater percentage of teachers in the elementary school held gra duate degrees, including two doctoral degrees. Just under half of the elementary teachers (44.4%) and middle schoo l teachers (45.7%) had 1-10 years of experience. Almost one-fourth of the elementary teachers (24.5%) had 11-20 years experience and 31.1% had over 20 years experi ence. At the middle school, 28.5% of the teachers had 11-20 years experience and 25.8% had over 20 years experience. 51

PAGE 52

The teachers groups were very similar also in the number of years at the present school. Nearly two-thirds of the partic ipants had been at their respec tive schools 1-10 years; 66.6% in the elementary school and 68.6% in the middle school. Quantitative Analysis Research Question 1: To What Extent do Te achers School-wide Believe That FRI Reading Comprehension Strategies are Important? A dependent samples t-test with a specified alpha level of .05 was performed on the mean scores of the importance measure of the RSIU S before and after implementation of the FRI reading comprehension strategies. The mean scor es for the importance measures can be seen in Table 4-3. It was expected th at there would be no difference between the mean scores on the importance measure on the RSIUS before and after implementation. However, the difference in the mean scores was statistically significant, t (79) = 2.62, p = .02. That is, teachers’ school-wide beliefs about the importance of the strategies af ter implementation of FRI during the school year. Research Question 2: To What Degree have FRI Reading Comprehension Strategies Been Used? A dependent samples t-test with a specified alpha level of .05 was performed on the mean scores obtained from the RSIUS for strategy use before and after implementation of FRI reading comprehension strategies during the 2005-2006 school year. The mean scores can be seen in Table 4-4. It was expected that there would be no difference be tween the mean scores on the strategy use measure of the RSIUS before and af ter implementation. However, the difference in the mean scores was statistical ly significant, t (79) = 2.46, p = .02. Therefore, there was a difference between teachers’ prediction of strate gy use at the beginning of the year and their reported use during the school year. On average, teachers reported using the strategies less than they predicted during the school year. 52

PAGE 53

Research Question 3: To What Extent does FRI Implementation Affect Collective Teacher Efficacy? A related samples t-test with a specified alpha level of .05 was performed to measure the mean collective teacher efficacy scores from the Collective Teacher Efficacy Instrument (Goddard, 1998) before and after implementatio n of FRI reading comprehension strategies during the 2005-2006 school year. The mean CTE scores can be seen in Table 4-5. It was expected that there would be no difference betwee n CTE scores before and after implementation. As expected, the difference in the mean scores wa s not statistically signif icant, t (79) = 0.70, p = .48, indicating there was no difference between teach ers’ collective teacher efficacy before and after implementation of FR I during the school year. Research Question 4: To What Extent School -wide do Teachers Believe that FRI Reading Comprehension Strategies are Important Between School Levels (Elementary vs. Middle)? It was expected that the mean difference between the importance measure on the RSIUS before and after implementation would not diffe r across school levels . Specifically it was hypothesized that the importance me asure would not be higher for the elementary school than for the middle school. As hypothesized, the results of the 2 x 2 sp lit-plot ANOVA (Tables 46 & 4-7) indicated that there was no importance by school inte raction, F (1, 78) = 0.34, p = .56. There was a significant main effect within-subjects for the importance scores; that is the overall scores demonstrate a statistical differe nce within groups between the pos t-training survey and follow-up survey, F (1, 78) = 7.071, p = .01. However, there was no significant difference between the school levels; F (1, 78) = 1.15, p = .29. Teachers’ school-wide beliefs about the importance of the FRI strategies decreased at both the elementary and middle school 53

PAGE 54

Research Question 5: To What Degree have FRI Reading Comprehension Strategies been Used Between School Levels (Elementary vs. Middle)? It was expected that the mean difference be tween the strategy use measures on the RSIUS before and after implementation of FRI reading st rategies will not differ across school level. More specifically, it was hypothesi zed that the strategy use scor e would not be higher for the elementary school than for the middle school. As hypothesized, the results of the 2 x 2 sp lit-plot ANOVA (Tables 48 & 4-9) indicated that there was no strategy use by school interaction; F (1, 78) = 1.34, p = .25. However, there was a significant main effect within-subjects for the strategy use scores; that is the overall scores demonstrate statistical difference within-group fo r pre and pot-test scores; F (1, 78) = 6.71, p = .01. The follow-up survey scores for both the elementary and middle schools showed a significant decrease. There wa s no significant difference between schools; F (1, 78) = 1.60, p = .21. Research Question 6: To What Extent does FRI Affect Collective Teacher Efficacy Between School Levels (Elementary vs. Middle)? It was expected that the mean difference between the CTE measures before and after implementation of FRI reading strategies w ould not differ across school levels. More specifically, the CTE would not be greater for th e elementary school than for the middle school. The results of the 2 x 2 split-plot ANOVA (Tab les 4-10 and 4-11) indicated that there was no CTE and school interaction; F (1, 78) = 0.63, p = .43. The main within -subjects effect for CTE was also not significant; F (1, 78) = 0.63, p = .43. However, there was a significant difference between the school levels; F (1, 78) = 9.21, p <.01. Collective teacher efficacy for the elementary school was unchanged between the post-training survey and follow-up survey, and it was higher on both the post-training survey and follow-up survey when compared to the middle 54

PAGE 55

school. The CTE scores for the middle school were higher for the follow-up survey when compared to the post-training survey scores , but these results were not significant. Research Question 7: What is the Relation ship Between School-wide Teachers’ Beliefs About the Importance of FRI Reading Comp rehension Strategies and Their Use? It was expected that there would be no rela tionship between school-wide teachers’ beliefs about the importance of FRI stra tegies and their use, thus no correlation between importance scores and strategy use scores. To examine the relationship between teachers’ beliefs about the importance of FRI reading strategies and their use, Pear son Product Moment Correlation coefficients were calculated between teachers’ follow-up survey strategy use scores, post-training surv ey strategy use scores, follow-up survey importance scores and school leve l. A summary is shown in Table 4-12. The correlation coefficient (r = .07, p < .05) between follow-up survey strategy use and follow-up survey importance of strategies was not signifi cant. There was a moderate relationship found between follow-up survey strategy use and post-training strategy use ( r = .35, p < .05), and a small to moderate relationship between post strategy use and school level ( r = .20, p < .05) showing that the middle school implemented stra tegies less than the elementary school. Research Question 8: What is the Relation ship Between Collective Teacher Efficacy and Teachers’ Beliefs About the Importance of FRI Reading Comprehension Strategies? It is expected that there will be no relati onship between CTE and school-wide beliefs about the importance of FRI strategies (i.e., there is a no correlation between CTE and importance scores). To examine the relationship between teachers’ beliefs about the importance of FRI reading strategies and CTE, Pearson Product Moment Co rrelation coefficients we re calculated between teachers’ follow-up survey CTE, post-training CTE, follow-up survey importance scores and school level. A summary is shown in Table 413. The correlation coe fficient (r = .06, p < .05) 55

PAGE 56

between follow-up survey CTE and follow-up survey importance of strategies was not significant. That is, there was no relations hip between CTE and beliefs about strategy importance. There was a moderate to large relationship between post-training and follow-up survey CTE (r = .43). There was a moderate , negative relationship between and follow-up survey CTE and school level (r = .35), indicati ng that follow-up survey CTE scores decreased when compared to the post-training survey. Research Question 9: What is the Relationsh ip Between Collective Teaching Efficacy and School-wide Use of FRI Reading Comprehension Strategies? It was expected that there would be no re lationship between CTE and the use of FRI strategies (i.e., there would be no correlation between CTE scores and strategy use scores. To examine the relationship between teachers’ use of FRI reading strategies and CTE, a Pearson Product Moment Correlation coefficien t was calculated between teachers’ follow-up survey CTE and follow-up survey strategy us e scores and is shown in Table 4-13. The correlation coefficient (r = .15) and between follow-up survey CTE and follow-up survey strategy use of strategies shows a small relationship. Qualitative Analysis Research Question 10: Do Classroom Obs ervations Reveal the Use of FRI Reading Comprehension Strategies? Two teachers were randomly selected from both the elementary school and the middle school. For anonymity, all names are pseudonyms. At the time of the observations, Ms. Porter was in her second year of teaching second grade. Ms. Coppersmith was a fifth grade teacher in her sixth year. Both teachers hold a bachelor of arts in elementary education. Mr. Tracy, a 16year veteran teacher of seventh grade science, ho lds a master’s degree in science education. Mr. Careem, a first-year, seventh grade social studies teacher, holds a bachelor’s of science in social science. 56

PAGE 57

The observations focused on whether or not teac hers utilized specific scientifically-based reading comprehension strategies during the daily lesson. Observations focused on the ways that teachers activated students’ background knowledge, helped them interact actively with text, taught metacognition, and motivated them to r ead. Table 4-14 summarizes the strategies observed at each level across the teacher observations. Teachers in the elementary school were obs erved using more reading comprehension strategies than teachers in the middle school. Strategies used by elementary students and teachers included, Pre-Reading P lan (PreP), Preview and Predic t, Reciprocal Teaching, Sticky Notes, and Story Map. The strategies observe d only at the middle sc hool were Anticipation Guides, G enerating I nteraction between S chema and T ext (GIST) and What do you K now, what do you Want to know, and what have you L earned (KWL). GIST and KWL were mentioned by students during observations of Mr. Careem’s and Mr. Tracy’s classes, but not directly observed. It is included here beca use students discussed its use in other classes. All four teachers were observed using different types of graphic organizers to help students map their knowledge and expose their thinking processes. Al so, all four teachers demonstr ated some form of Think Aloud which allows students see how a skilled reader constructs meaning from text. The FRI Reading Comprehension module is or ganized into before-reading, during-reading, and after-reading strategies. During the before-r eading phase the reader must establish a plan and purpose for reading and think about what they already know about the topic. During reading, the student must think about the new informa tion in light of their background knowledge and established purpose for reading. After reading the text the re ader must process the new information to build new knowledge. The follo wing sections are organized into observed examples of teachers using be fore-reading, during-reading, and after-reading strategies. 57

PAGE 58

Before-reading strategies The following excerpts illustrate examples of the before-reading strategies that teachers used including PreP and an Anticipation guide. The teachers used these strategies to activate the students’ prior knowledge of the topics a nd to help establish a purpose for reading. October 25, 2005: [Ms. Porter] There are 16 low-level readi ng students in Ms. Porter’s 2 nd grade class. Three of the students are speakers of other languages and speak very limited English. Students are seated in cl usters of four to five. Each student has a dry-erase white board and markers. Ms. Porter asks the class, “When I say th e word ‘TEAMWORK’ what do you think of?” Several students raise their ha nds and Ms. Porter calls on them by name. Sean replies, “Sometimes you can help each other in math.” “Oh, that’s a great idea, ” Ms. Porter replies, “What else?” Nick says, “You want to sound out words.” Ms. Porter asks, “How does teamwork do that?” He says, “When I have trouble they can help me.” Tina says, “Basketball.” Ms. Porter asks, “How does teamwork help you play basketball?” Ahab says, “It helps you make a touchdown in fo otball.” Ms. Porter asks, “How?” Ahab answers, “Well, a person can’t ma ke a touchdown all by themselves.” While the students are speaking, Ms. Porter ad ds the students’ comments to a word map she has drawn on newsprint. Elisabeth raises her hand and says, “Teamwork is when a lot of people help each other make point s in basketball and football.” Ms. Porter points what the students have said by indicating the word map, “I notice that everyone ha s talked about helping each other. Everyone on a team has a job.” Toda y we are going to read a story about teamwork called, How I Beat the Giants .” 58

PAGE 59

Ms. Porter uses PreP (Pre-Reading Plan) and as ks students to tell her what comes to mind when she gives them a topic. This activates prior knowledge and provides them with contextual background before they begin reading. February 1, 2006: [Ms. Porter] Five groups of students are working at different stations. At each station a piece of paper is taped to the wall listing the title of the st ation and instructions. The stations are labeled: Phonics , Listening, Comprehension, and Spelling. Ms. Porter is at the fifth station where she is worki ng with four students using a leve led reader. The students rotate to the next station when a timed buzzer goes off. Ms. Porter claps a rhythm, which is repeated by the students. She looks around the room and states, “I like how the Phonics work sta tion has cleaned up. After you clean up you may move to the next work station.” Students m ove to their next stati on and another group moves over to the table with Ms. Porter. She hands each of them a copy of a book titled What Roosters Do . After they have settled down she asks students, “What do you already know about roosters?” A student replies, “They say cock-a-doodle do.” Th e other students laugh and Ms. Porter asks them all to say “cock-a-doodle-do.” They laugh and repeat the word several times. They continue talking about the things they know about roosters. One student tells Ms. Porter that roosters lay eggs. She te lls them, “Well, roosters are th e males and I don’t think they lay eggs.” After more discussion she says, “Why don’t we all read the title t ogether?” They read the title in unison. The above excerpt shows students moving from st ation to station in an orderly manner. All of the students appear to be on task as they work together in their small groups. In the group that she is leading, Ms. Porter attempts to activate the students’ background knowledge about the topic. She encouraged them to feel comfor table with each other through the use of humor. 59

PAGE 60

November 28, 2005 [Mr. Tracy] Mr. Tracy has just completed handing out and explaining their biweekly progre ss reports. He passes out a pape r and says, “Take one of these and pass it back. Put your name at the top of th e paper.” He waits for most of the students to receive their papers and then says, “There is a te xt under your desks, get it out .” As they retrieve the texts he states, “This is an Anticipation Gu ide. How many of you have ever done a KWL?” Most of the students rais e their hands. “This is like that.” He holds up a copy and points to it saying, “We are going to do the left side only. Re ad each statement and answer yes or no. Then open up to pages 190 – 191 and look at the diagra m. As you fill out your anticipation guide you may refer to the diagrams in the book. If you don’t understand a word what should you do?” A student replies, “Raise your hand.” “Raise your hand. That’s right” responds Mr. Tracy. The students work quietly. “When you are done, you can pack it up and get ready to go.” In the above excerpt, the teacher uses the anticipation guide to activate the students’ background knowledge about the content before st arting the lesson. The students also preview the text by using the diagrams and pictures to an swer some of the questions in the anticipation guide. Evidence of the use of KWL was also observed. During reading strategies The following excerpts show examples of how teachers incorporated several duringreading strategies including pr eview and predict, story mapping, and reciprocal teaching. These strategies are designed to have students in teract with text while they are reading. January 20, 2006, 1:56 p.m. [Ms. Coppersmith] This 5 th grade class is comprised of 26 students. As students enter class, Ms. Coppersmi th tells them to, “Look on the side board and find the group you are in. Then sit at that table please.” As the students take their seats, Ms. Coppersmith says to them, “Eyes on me.” After she has their attention she asks, “Who can tell me a cause of the Revolutionary War?” Several students reply. “The Battle of Concord;” “Paul 60

PAGE 61

Revere;” “People dying;” “Bunker Hill.” She as ks, “What were they fighting for?” A student replies, “They didn’t want to pay taxes.” “Who didn’t want to pay taxes?” asks Ms. Coppersmith. The student re plies, “The colonists.” There is a stack of Houghton Miff lin Level Readers in the center of each table. Each table has a different title but all students within th e group have the same book. Ms. Coppersmith passes out a worksheet titled Story Map . She asks the students to put their names on the paper and complete the map before reading the text . “Look at the book and see what it might be about.” A student asks, “What is the setting?” Ms. Coppersmith replies, “Who can tell us what the setting means?” A student offers, “It is when and where the story takes place.” Ms. Coppersmith circulates as the students co mplete their story maps . She says, “Talk to your group about your predictions. You have a couple of minutes.” The students talk to each other. Ms. Coppersmith travels to each group and asks, “Did your group share? What were your predictions?” She asks each student to take a card. Written on the front of the card are the student’s role; Predictor, Questioner, Clarifier, or Summarizer . Written on the back of the card are written prompts for the students to ask their team members. Th e prompts on the cards read: Predicting : What do you think the next part will be about? Questioning : Who or what is this lesson about? What do we know about ________? What are the clues that tell us ________? Clarifying: What does _______ mean? What is a ______? Summarizing : What is the main idea of this passage? What is it mostly about? What information in this passage tells you that? Before the students begin to read a section of text the Predictor asks the students what they think the passage will be about. After reading the section each st udent in turn reads the prompts on the back of his or her card a nd the group discusses the section. 61

PAGE 62

While the students read and discuss the books, Ms. Coppersmith continuously circulates and tries to keep students on task. As stude nts continue to work through the text, Ms. Coppersmith begins handing out markers and poster board. Two groups are finished read ing and two other groups are about halfway through the book. As the students finish, Ms. Coppersmith explains the next step to their project. “When you are finished, draw two lines on your poster so that you have four boxes. Write the title of your role in each box and then write the things you discusse d as you read the book.” Students begin to talk and write on the poster. In the above excerpt, the teacher asks students to lists causes of the American Revolution. This activates their background knowledge and gi ves her an idea of the students’ level of knowledge on the topic before reading the text. She has students use a graphic organizer to preview the text and has them ma ke predictions about what they will be reading. She then uses the Reciprocal Teaching model wh ere students read together and process information from four different viewpoints. February 2, 2006 [Ms. Porter] Students are in small groups of three to five working at various stations. Four students work with the ESOL aide while reading a story and using the Reciprocal Teaching model. There is a card in front of each stude nt. Each card has the title of the student’s role: Questioner, Predictor, Summari zer, or Clarifier. Each card also has prompts printed on the back to help the student ask que stions for discussion w ith their group members after they read a se ction of the text. The above excerpt is another example of the use of the Reciprocal Teaching model in the elementary school. 62

PAGE 63

October 25, 2005: [Ms. Porter] Ms. Porter addresses the class, “Today we are going to read a story about teamwork called, How I Beat the Giants .” She writes the page number where the story begins on the board and then asks the st udents to turn to the correct page. She states, “When you get to the story, I want you to look at the pictures and predict what you think the story is all about.” Students be gin to look at the pict ures and talk about th e story. While students discuss the story, Ms. Porter ci rculates around the room, makes comments and asks questions, “Group B and group C are doing a good job discussi ng what is going to happen in the story. You have to have a reason for making that predictio n! Why do you think that those ‘Peewees’ are going to win?” Ms. Porter tells students that they will be placed into reading groups. “I’m going to put you in the groups you had last week and have you re ad and discuss the story. I want you to stop every two pages and make a connection.” She read s the first paragraph for the students. As she reads, she holds up the book for them to see how she uses her finger to follow along. She asked the students, “What do you see that I am doing with my finger?” Many students replied in unison, “Moving to the words.” Ms. Porter said, “That’s right. It’s called our magic finger.” “. . . Think of a personal connection I have w ith the story. When I was in third grade we played dodge ball with the fifth graders. They sure were big.” A student shared a similar story about playing “keep away with my brothers.” Ms. Porter said, “Ok let’s get with our groups.” Students move to different areas of the room and sit in groups of three to four on the floo r. Ms. Porter quiets th e students and asks them to move into different areas. She continues, “I’m going to be looking for magic fingers and connections. Remember what jobs each of you are doing.” 63

PAGE 64

Three students are sitting on the floor next to a tape player, which will play the story as they follow along in the book with their fingers. Ms. Porter asks, “What do you think will happen in the story?” He replies, “I think th e giants will lose.” She asks, “Why do you think that?” The student replies, “Because of the score on the scoreboard.” “Look at that!” exclaims Ms. Porter, “I never even saw that! Very good observations!” The teacher uses several strate gies to have the students fo cus on the text and process the information as they read. She has them using th eir “magic fingers” to tr ack the words as they learn to read. She also has the students stop a nd make predictions about what will happen in the story using what they have read and clues in the story. Then af ter reading the passage, she asks them to discuss if their predictions were right. October 25, 2005 [Ms. Coppersmith] Ms. Coppersmith tells her students to “take out your books and turn to page 219.” Students get out their books. Ms. Coppersmith says, “Ok. Today we are going to look at this story. What are some ways that we can predict what will happen in the story?” Several student s reply, “Words, pictures, the title.” Ms. Coppersmith tells the students, “Everyone has a sticky note. I want you to write on your sticky note what you predic t the story is about. Let’s see if we can get some good predictions today.” The stude nts work on the assignment. Ms. Coppersmith asks, “Who woul d like to discuss th eir prediction today?” She calls on a student who has raised his hand. He says, “Some one is going to steal jewelry.” The teacher asks, “What made you, caused you, to predict th at Manny?” Manny says , “The broken glass, looking for clues.” The teacher asks, “Can anyone else provide support for that prediction?” Several students raise thei r hands and share other obser vations with the class. 64

PAGE 65

This is an example of the teacher asking student s to make predictions about the text and to provide justification of their pr edictions using context clues. November 2, 2005 [Ms. Porter] Ms . Porter is teaching her scie nce class. The day before students began reading a story about pollution, The Wartville Wizard , by Don Madden. She calls for their attention by using a pattern of shhhs. Students repeat the pattern and then she says, “You’ve been reading the story about the wizard and I’m very proud of Ronnie, because even after all of these distractions that we’ve had, Ronni e still remembers the question. Ronnie can you tell us what the question was?” Ronnie replies, “Why didn’t we finish the book?” “Right Ronnie. So class, why didn’t we finish the book?” A student raises her hand and says, “Because we wanted to predict what was goi ng to happen.” “Right!” continues Ms. Porter, “We needed to stop and make predictions about what was going to happen in the story. And I’m noticing something missing from your groups. Does anyone reme mber?” Devon, replies, “The prediction card?” “Yes, the Prediction Cue cards.” She passes out cards and says, “You use the cue cards when we stop and I ask you to make predictions you can use the pictures and the words to make your predictions you need to tell me why you made that prediction.” “Let’s read our predictions we made yesterday . . .” The st udents’ predictions are written on the board. She and the students read them in unison. “Ok. Here we go An old man liked garbage. Ready, go The Wartville Wizard ha d millions of dollars.” Were these two predictions right?” “No!” replies the class. “No? Is that ok?” asks Ms. Porter. “Yes!” they respond. “Yeah, that’s ok,” continues Ms. Porter. “We don’t have to be right all the time. So let’s put two red x’s here because we found out that we weren’t right and we started making new predictions.” She draws an X next to the pr edictions and continues through the chart while students place checks by the corr ect predictions and x’s by incorre ct ones. “The wizard will 65

PAGE 66

make the outside clean with his wandWas that correct?” “He didn’t ha ve a wand,” one of the students exclaims. “That’s true, but was part of it right?” asks Ms. Porter. “Yes,” several students cry out. Ms. Porter asks , “Could we change this a bit? Why don’t we rewrite it to say ‘The wizard made the outside clean with his hand’?” One student said, “He used his finger.” “Ok, let me add finger” says Ms. Porter as she writes the word on the board. As they work through the predictions, there are disagreements. Ms. Porter asks students to refer to the story to support th eir opinions. “Does anyone want to make another prediction about what is going to happen in the story?” A stude nt holds up her hand and makes a prediction. Ms. Porter replies, “Remember that you have to ma ke your prediction by saying, ‘I think (blank) will happen because (blank) and then tell my why. Refer to the st ory and tell me what makes you think that.” In the above excerpt the teacher has incorporat ed several strategies: reading to students, making predictions, helping students with met acognition, using graphic organizers, and making personal connections to the text. She also activates the students’ background knowledge by asking them to recall the story that they were reading the day before and the predictions they made about the story. Finally, she asks them to support or refute their opinions and predictions by going back to the text and talking about their own thinking processes. After reading strategies The following excerpts illustrate examples of how teachers use strategies after reading takes place to process the information. These in clude summarizing and use of various graphic organizers. December 8, 2005 [Mr. Careem] Mr. Careem addresses the cl ass; “You guys have seen bumper stickers, right?” Several students shake th eir heads or say yes. “I want you to create a 66

PAGE 67

bumper sticker about an article you will pick an d read. It should have a catch phrase that describes the article.” He passes out paper st rips that are the size of a bumper sticker. He continues, “For example I did one last su mmer on an article about sharks and it was ‘Got Feet.’ Make the sticker and ex plain on the back a bout the article.” A student asks, “Can I do one about a magazine article I just read?” Mr. Careem replies, “Sure. What was the article about?” The student says, “It was about a ki d who got a ticket for not having a helmet and he was riding his bike.” Students get newspapers from the stack and look through the articles. As Mr. Careem circulates, a student raises his hand and asks for help. Mr. Careem explains the bumper sticker to a student. “Read an article, then think of a catch phrase that kind of says what the article is about.” The student asks, “Is it like a GIST?” (GIST is a summarizing strategy that stands for G enerating I nteractions between S chema and T ext.) Mr. Careem replies, “No, not that detailed, just a phrase that draws at tention. Then draw a picture about the article and color it. On the back write a summary of what the article is about in a paragraph.” The end of class is near. Mr. Careem says, “We only have about two minutes, so we are going to continue this tomo rrow. All right clean up and turn in your maps!” This excerpt illustrates a reading comprehens ion strategy that was not taught during the comprehension module of FRI. However, th is method helps student s by asking them to summarize the reading material. The excerpt also provides evidence that students were aware of GIST. February 3, 2006 [Ms. Porter] After the students arrive, Ms. Porter says, “Ok, please open up to D-4 in your science book.” As she writes D – 4 on the board she says, “I like how 67

PAGE 68

Alicia opened up her book. I will always put th e instructions on the board if you don’t hear me say it.” The students have their books open and Ms. Po rter says, “Put your magic fingers on the top left page and we are going to read the title together. Get ready.” The class reads the title together “What causes Day and Night.” “Ok. What do you think we are going to lear n today?” Several students reply, “What changes night and day;” “What happens in th e day and night and how it changes?” “What causes it?” The class continues, “Put your magic fingers on D – 4. Get ready.” The students and teacher read the text loudly. Ms. Porter claps a rhythm, which is repeated by the students. She asks them to read in a whisper so that they can hear her read. They reread the section very quietly. Afterward, Ms. Porter asks for students to explain what th ey have just r ead. A student says, “The sun doesn’t move, the earth does. If it did then all the seasons would be alike.” Another student says, “The sun stays in place an d the earth moves around it and we can’t feel it.” Ms. Porter asks the students to turn to page D – 5 and look at the pict ures. There are three pictures of the same scene at sunrise, at mid-day and at sunset. She says, “Look at the pictures on D – 5. We are going to make a Venn diagram. Tell me what is the same and what is different about the sunrise and the sunset .” She draws a Venn diagram on the board and labels one side sunrise and the other sunset. Students begin raisi ng their hands. One student says, “The sunrise is lighter and the sunset is darker .” Another student disagrees and sa ys “I think that the sunrise is darker.” Ms. Porter stops the class as the noi se level grows and student s voice their opinions about the disagreement. “Ok. If you agree with Janice give me a thumbs up.” Many students raise their thumbs in the air. “O k, if you agree with Jon, raise your thumbs.” The rest of the class 68

PAGE 69

raises their thumbs. “Ok, let’s look at this . Why do you say that the sunrise is lighter?” “Because it shows the sun and the other doesn’t.” “Ok, why doesn’t the sunset show the sun? Isn’t the sun in the sky?” There is some discussion. Ms. Porter asks, “Where is the sun in the picture?” A student says “Behind you.” Ms. Port er says, “Yes.” She asks the student to come up and demonstrate where he would be in relation to Ms. Porter as sunrise and sunset in the picture. Afterward they co mplete the Venn diagram. “Ok. Magic fingers at the top of D. Get ready.” They read together about how large the sun is even though it looks very small. Ms. Porter says, “Ok, this is how I get my students to ask questions that refer to the text . Raise your hand if you have a br other or sister.” Many students raise their hands. “This is what I used to do to my brother when he picked on me. I would hold out my hand and look through my fi ngers at his head and then pret end to squish his head.” She demonstrates and asks the class to pretend to squish other student’s heads. They laugh and pretend to squish each other’s heads. “Now, see their head is much bigger than your fingers but it looks very small.” They discuss how far away the sun is and why it looks so small. “I want to read a couple of more pages.” They read two more pages together. Then Ms. Porter asks, “Who can tell me what solar energy is? The definition is right after the word in the text.” A student answers, “It’s energy that we get from the sun.” This except shows several reading comprehens ion strategies: previe w and predict, KWL, and use of a graphic organizer, Venn diagram. It shows an example of the teacher checking student comprehension, metacognition and use of a strategy similar to Think Aloud. It is also an example of how the teacher helps students unde rstand the meaning of words by using context clues to promote their unde rstanding of the structur e of informational text. 69

PAGE 70

October 25, 2005 [Ms. Coppersmith] There is a great deal of talking and laughter. Ms. Coppersmith states, “Everyone take a seat! Give me five!” The room becomes quiet. She continues, “We are going to start out with vocab ulary webs. Remember we take the word; find a synonym and an antonym. Then we write a senten ce and draw a picture. Who can tell me what a synonym is?” Several students raise their ha nds. Ms. Coppersmith calls on one. The student says, “A word like it.” Ms. Coppersmith replies, “Great! Who can tell me what an antonym is?” Several students call out, “opposite.” “Ver y good,” replies Ms. Coppersmith She asks the students to get into the same gr oups they had on Friday. As they move to their respective groups she places a card on which a vocabulary word is written and one piece of blank paper on each shared table. There are two groups of four, one group of three and one group of five. She gives those in structions, “I want you to talk quietly about the word and your card. I want each person in your group to choose one of the four parts of the map and complete the map on the paper.” Ms. Coppersmith circulates around the room and works with each group in turn asking questions and prompting students to participate. “What is your word? Think about the antonym and synonym.” A student says, “I call it cinnamon!” Student s laugh. Ms. Coppersmith says, “Synonym.” The student smiles and says, “Ok!” There are many different conversations in th e room. One student asks his teammate, “What is a synonym?” She replies, “It’s li ke a word that means the same thing.” In another group, several students converse, “What is a synonym for sapphire?” “A sapphire is blue.” “Yeah, I know.” “Roses are red, violets are blue.” 70

PAGE 71

A boy in another group says loudly, “Com e on! I got to get some answers!” Ms. Coppersmith continues to circulate the cl assroom and says to the class, “Ok, a couple of more minutes. You need to be thinking now!” She tells a st udent, “Read me your sentence.” She reads, “Some people have wooden counters, a nd some have metal counters, and some have marble.” “Very good.” Ms. Coppersmith replies and then says to the class, “Two more minutes!” Conversation continues in the groups. “Is a sapphire like a diamond?” “Yeah.” “Well what is the opposite of a diamond?” “A ruby.” Ms. Coppersmith asks for a “five.” And the stud ents become quiet and focus their attention on her as she stands in the front of the room. She calls on each group to send one person forward and bring their group’s map up to share with the class. The above example shows students using vocab ulary webs. The students worked in groups of four to five to create the five parts of the web; synonym, antonym, sentence, definition, and illustration. February 1, 2006 [Ms. Porter] The students are in small groups of 3 – 5 working at various stations. Four students are working with the ESOL aide reading a story and using the Reciprocal Teaching model. Ther e are five other groups working at the different stations. Each station has a piece of paper taped to the wall at the station with the tit le of the station and a list of instructions. The stations are: Phonics, List ening, Comprehension, and Spelling. Ms. Porter monitors the fifth station where she work s with two ESOL students on voiced sounds. The Phonics station has the follo wing instructions: “(1) Get a worksheet, (2) Read words, (3) Make a Word Wallet (there is an example ta ped next to the instructions with the following AL AU -mb Kn-), (4) Cut words, (5) Sort words and put in the wallet.” 71

PAGE 72

The Listening station consists of a tape pl ayer, earphones, several copies of a book, and a tape of the book. The instructi ons read “(1) Listen; (2) Draw a picture of the beginning, middle and end of the story.” The comprehension station has several copies of a book and has the following instructions: “(1) Read the story with the group, (2) Talk a bout the beginning, the middl e, and the end of the story, (3) write about the beginning, the middle, a nd the end, (4) Draw pictures of the beginning, the middle, and the end.” The spelling station has two pa rts. Spelling 1: (a) Get a worksheet, (b) Read the spelling words, (c) Cut, (d) ABC order, and (e) Glue. Sp elling 2: (a) Get a worksheet, (b) Name, and (c) Unscramble words. This excerpt showed several examples of st udents processing and organizing information into graphic organizers. This included sort words into different columns, drawing pictures and using columns to organize information about the beginning, middle, and end of a story. November 1, 2005 [Ms. Coppersmith] The students have been working on several math problems in class. Ms. Coppersmith divides the board into sections num bering the sections 19 – 23. She assigns five students to write the problem and answer on th e board next to its corresponding number. As the students begin writing, Ms. Coppersmith addresses the class, “Ok. They are going to put the problems and answ ers on the board.” She addresses the students at the board, “Be sure to show your work. Work it out please.” As these students work at the board, Ms. Coppe rsmith circulates the class, stopping to help students. When all of the students who were at th e board have taken their seats, Ms. Coppersmith says, “Everybody’s eyes on the board. Who worked 19?” Each student ex plains their answers 72

PAGE 73

and work to the class in turn. After each student has spoken she asks the class if they understand and if “anyone has another way to do it?” Ms. Coppersmith asks, “Who put number 23 on the board?” James raises his hand. The problem is incomplete. She asks James to read th e problem. He reads, “A snail can travel eight inches in one minute. How long will it take hi m to travel 12 feet?” Ms. Coppersmith asks, “Who can tell me about number 23? It was pretty hard.” Severa l students raise their hands. Ms. Coppersmith asks her students to get out a piece of paper and then asks them to copy the graphic organizer she draws on the board. A copy of the graphic can be seen in figure 4-1. Ms. Coppersmith continues, “Who can tell me the important information in the problem? Think about it and write all of th e important information in the Th ink block.” She gives students a few moments to think and write. Then she ca lls on a student to share her writing. “Jessica, what do we have to know?” Jessica says, “The sn ail can crawl eight inches in one minute and it goes 12 feet.” Ms. Coppersmith says, “Right.” and writes the informati on on the board in the graphic organizer to solve the problem. She says, “Ok. What do I need to do to so lve this?” Many hands go up. Megan replies, “You could multiply eight times twelve.” Ms. Coppersmith says, “I saw lots of people do that but eight is in inches. How are inches and feet related?” She calls on a student who raises his hand. He says, “There are 12 inches in a foot.” She says, “How could we figure out the number of inches in 12 feet?” Seve ral students raise thei r hands and she calls on one. times 12 equals 144.” replies the student. Ms. Coppersmith says, “Ok. Yeah, but 144 what?” A student calls out, “Inches.” She writes th is information in the graphic or ganizer and asks the students to copy into theirs. 73

PAGE 74

She addresses the class, “Now what do we do? ” A student says, “D ivide by eight.” “Why is that?” she asks. “Because then we w ill know the minutes.” replies the student. “Ok. I want you to work out the problem. Take a few minutes to see what you get.” After a few minutes she asks if anyone has the answer and calls on one student who answers, .” “Eighteen! Very good!” exclaims Ms. Coppersmith, “It will take 18 minutes to get there.” She works out the steps to the problem in th e graphic organizer in the Solve block. She continues, “Now how will we explain the problem? Nat, we did 12 x 12. Why?” Nat replies, “I have no idea.” Ms. Coppersmith says , “We wanted to figure out the total number of inches in 12 feet. What was the second step? We divided our answer by eight to figure out how many minutes it took to travel 12 feet.” Sh e writes in the Explain block as she speaks. In the above excerpt, the teacher helps the students understand the structure of informational text and how to organize their t hought processes with th e aide of a graphic organizer. January 20, 2006 [Mr. Careem] Mr. Careem addresses the class, “All right. I want you on page 219 of your textbook. You should have an FCAT workbook on your desk. Turn to page 19 of the FCAT book and page 219 of the text.” Students open both books. The class is very noisy. Several students are up a nd moving around the classroom. Mr. Careem says, “All right.” He becomes distracted as a student walks past him. He asks the student, “Do you have a pencil?” The student holds one up and goes to his desk. Mr. Careem says, “SSSSHHHH!” You guys are shouting! Let’s get to our seats and get those books open. The class begins to get quiet. When it is quiet, Mr. Careem says, “You guys ar e comparing and contrasting the United States and Canada. We kind of alrea dy did this, but it is in your FC AT book so we are going to do it again. Ok. You guys have seen a Venn diagram. You need to put in only information you find 74

PAGE 75

in the reading. Don’t put in stu ff you already know, just stuff in the article. I know we already did this but only put in stuff in the article.” The FCAT workbook has a blank Venn diagram. Mr. Careem asks the students to put U.S. on one side and Canada on the other. He then asks them to read the article in the text on pages 219 and 220 and fill in the Venn diagram. He tells the students, “Finish this up real quick and we can play a vocabulary game.” As the students work, Mr. Careem and the ESE aide move around the room, they assist, clarify, and ask students to return to the task. Mr. Careem asks, “Alr ight. Who’s not done preparing their diagram?” Several hands go up. Mr. Careem continues, “All right. Comparing and contrasting. What are some of the things you found in common? “Several students offer responses, “They are both in North America.The Rockies and the Appalachian mountains are in both.They have forests.” Mr. Careem asks, “What are some of the things unique to the U.S.?” Students respond one after the other, “We border Mexico.The U. S. has a Gulf Coast.Death Valley.Mount Everest.” There are several laughs at this. Mr. Careem asks, “Do you mean Mt. St. Helens?” Next, the students list characteristics unique to Canada. The above excerpt shows how a middle schoo l teacher uses a Venn diagram to help students to compare and c ontrast two countries. November 14, 2005 [Mr. Tracy] Mr. Tracy addresses his class, “On the piece of paper, in the middle write the word Organism.” He writes the word on the board. “Look at the word and spell it right. I want it in th e middle of the paper.” Students get out paper and copy the word. “I want you to make believe that you are an animal. I’m going to drop you off on an island. I want you to write all th e things you or your species n eeds to survive. Let’s do an 75

PAGE 76

example. Who could give me an example?” A student raises his hand and Mr. Tracy calls on him. “Food.” “Good. Remember you could branch off from food and get more specific.” He writes on the board, beginning a concept map. “G ood. Work on that while I catch up on some stuff.” Students begin working on their concept maps while Mr. Tracy works on papers at the front of the room. After a few minutes he sa ys, “All right guys, one more minute.” After a minute or two, he says, “Who can give me someth ing?” Mr. Tracy calls on students and they give him answers. He creates the map on the board as they converse. He says to his students, “If I write it on the board you n eed to write it down too.” “Next to any circle, put a check mark next to it if there is a cell in your body that has something to do with it.” He gives them a few mi nutes to check their papers and then says, “I want you to raise your hand if you th ink a cell needs this.” He calls out each circle in turn and looks for hands. “All right. This is the fourth part of your notes so put N4 at the top of the paper and put it away.” This excerpt shows an example of how a concept map helps students organize information. This is also an example of how the teacher uses a version of the strategy Think Aloud in a middle school science class, while students obser ve the teacher modeling his thinking process aloud. Summary The observation excerpts illustrate examples of how the teachers use before, during, and after reading comprehension strategies. During the observations, the elementary teachers used the reading strategies to a much greater extent than the middle school teachers. Both elementary school teachers tended to blend the strategies duri ng the lessons. Mr. Careem used the strategies 76

PAGE 77

as stand alone activities. That is , he did not incorporate the strate gies into the lesson, but used it as an activity after the lesson. For example, he used the bumper sticker activity not to summarize a reading from the text or a topic re lated to the lesson of the day, but as a sponge activity with newspaper articles of the students’ choice. Mr. Tr acy used several examples of graphic organizers including a concept map to help students make connections between concepts. He also used an anticipation guide to help students establish a purpose before reading. The qualitative observations and quantitative analysis taken together show evidence of teachers’ use of FRI reading comprehension strate gies. The results of the quantitative analysis show that teachers’ school-wide beliefs about the importance of the strategies were less after implementation. Also, teachers school-wide used the strategies less than they predicted. Though the middle school’s collective teacher efficacy was less than the elementary school, CTE in both schools remained stable during the school year. There was no relationship found between school -wide teacher beliefs about the importance of the strategies and any other variable. Howeve r, the qualitative analysis did reveal a small relationship between CTE and strategy use and a moderate rela tionship found between CTE and school level. 77

PAGE 78

Table 4-1. Student Demographics School Elementary Middle n (%) n (%) Enrollment 1177 1215 Percent Race/Ethnicity Asian 27 (2.3) 21 (1.7) Black 129 (10.9) 187 (15.4) Hispanic 136 (11.5) 95 (7.8) Indian 4 (0.3) 3 (0.2) Multi 64 (5.3) 32 (2.6) White 818 (69.4) 877 (72.2) 78

PAGE 79

Table 4-2. Participant Demographics School Elementary Middle n (%) n (%) Participants 45 35 Percent Race/Ethnicity Asian 1 (2.2) 0 (0) Black 5 (11.1) 3 (8.6) Hispanic 8 (17.8) 5 (14.3) Indian 0 (0) 1 (2.8) Multi 1 (2.2) 2 (5.7) White 30 (66.7) 24 (68.6) Gender Female 40 (88.9) 24 (68.6) Male 5 (11.1) 11 (31.4) Highest degree earned Bachelor’s 28 (62.2) 24 (68.6) Master’s 14 (31.2) 11 (31.4) Specialist’s 1 (2.2) 0 (0) Doctorate 2 (4.4) 0 (0) Table 4-2 Continued Years Teaching Experience 1-5 14 (31.1) 5 (14.3) 6-10 6 (13.3) 11 (31.4) 11-15 4 (8.9) 6 (17.1) 16-20 7 (15.6) 4 (11.4) 20+ 14 (31.1) 9 (25.8) Years at present school 1-5 24 (53.3) 17 (48.6) 6-10 6 (13.3) 7 (20.0) 11-15 3 (6.7) 4 (11.4) 16-20 11 (24.4) 4 (11.4) 20+ 1 (2.2) 3 (8.6) 79

PAGE 80

Table 4-3. Mean Scores and Sta ndard Deviations for Participan ts’ Importance Scores on RSIUS Administration n Mean SD SEM Pre-implementation 80 195.82 29.40 3.31 Post-implementation 80 181.15 43.33 4.87 Pair Differences 80 14.67 49.75 5.60 Table 4-4. Mean Scores and Standard Deviations For Participants’ Strategy Use Scores on RSIUS Administration n Mean SD SEM Pre-implementation 80 152.40 42.85 4.80 Post-implementation 80 138.80 43.84 4.90 Paired Differences 80 13.60 49.48 5.53 Table 4-5. Mean Scores and Standard De viations for Collective Teacher Efficacy Administration n Mean SD SEM Pre-implementation 80 92.25 18.18 2.03 Post-implementation 80 93.90 17.05 1.91 Paired Differences 80 -1.65 20.96 2.34 Table 4-6. Mean Scores and Standard Deviatio ns for School-Wide Beliefs in the Importance of FRI Reading Comprehension Strategies by School Participant’s School n Mean SD Elementary 45 191.41 26.89 Middle 35 201.37 31.81 Post-training Importance Total 80 195.82 29.40 Elementary 45 179.66 43.16 Middle 35 183.03 44.08 Follow-up Importance Total 80 181.15 43.33 80

PAGE 81

Table 4-7. Split-Plot ANOVA Source Table on Sc hool-Wide Beliefs in the Importance of FRI Reading Comprehension Strategies Source SS df MS F Within Subjects Importance Post/Follow-up 8826.54 1 8826.54 7.07* Importance x School 423.65 1 423.65 0.34 Error (Importance) 96114.07 78 1248.24 Between Subjects School 1732.38 1 1732.38 1.15 Error 115573.60 78 1500.96 * p < .05 Table 4-8. Mean Scores and Standard Devi ations for School-Wide Use of FRI Reading Comprehension Strategies by School Participant’s School n Mean SD Elementary 45 154.00 46.64 Middle 35 150.34 37.99 Post-training Strategy Use Total 80 152.40 42.85 Elementary 45 146.04 46.51 Middle 35 129.49 38.82 Follow-up Strategy Use Total 80 138.80 43.84 81

PAGE 82

Table 4-9. Split-Plot ANOVA Source Ta ble on School-Wide Use of FRI Reading Comprehension Strategies Source SS df MS F Within Subjects Strategy Use 8172.00 1 8172.00 6.71* Strategy Use x School 1638.50 1 1638.50 1.34 Error (Strategy Use) 95057.10 78 1218.68 Between Subjects School 4022.96 1 4022.96 1.60 Error 196139.44 78 2514.61 * p < .05 Table 4-10. Mean Scores and Standard Deviations for Collective Teacher Efficacy by School Participant’s School n Mean SD Elementary 45 97.11 18.13 Middle 35 86.00 16.47 Post-training CTE Total 80 92.25 18.18 Elementary 45 97.11 18.96 Middle 35 89.77 13.40 Follow-up CTE Total 80 93.90 17.05 Table 4-11. Split-Plot ANOVA Source Ta ble on Collective Teacher Efficacy Source SS df MS F Within Subjects CTE 140.01 1 140.01 0.63 CTE x School 140.01 1 140.01 0.63 Error (Importance) 17213.09 78 220.68 Between Subjects School 3351.13 1 3351.13 9.21* Error 28391.98 78 364.00 * p < .05 82

PAGE 83

Table 4-12. Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients for Post-training Strategy Use, Follow-up Importance and School level with Follow-up Strategy Use Follow-up Strategy Use (r) Post-training Strategy Use .35 Follow-up Importance .07 School .20 Table 4-13. Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients for Post-training CTE, Followup Importance, Follow-up Strategy Use, and School level with Follow-up CTE Follow-up CTE (r) Post-training CTE .43 Follow-up Importance .06 Follow-up Strategy Use .15 School -.35 83

PAGE 84

Table 4-14. FRI Reading Comprehension Strategies Observed During Teacher Observations Observed Only in th e Elementary School KWL Students share what they K now, and what they Want to know about a topic before reading, then after reading share what they have Learned. PreP – P reRe ading P lan Before reading, the teacher prompts the students to “Tell me anything that comes to mind wh en” Then ask them to discuss their reasoning. Preview and Predict – Students preview the text and make predictions before reading, then compare predictions with actual content after reading. Reciprocal Teaching – Students participate in a dialogue about segments of the text by summarizing, creating questions, clarifying, and predicting. Sticky notes – Students use post-it notes to record their construction of meaning as they read then share with the group to clarify confusions. Story Map Students identify characteristics and/or relationships of selected characters using a graphic organizer. Observed only in the Middle School Anticipation Guides Students respond to a series of statements before reading the text and then revisit and discuss after reading. GIST G enerating I nteractions between S chema and T ext Students create summaries of 15 or fewer words. Students begin by summarizing single sentences, then paragraphs, then longer pieces of text. (This strategy was mentioned by students but not directly observed) Observed in both Schools Graphic Organizers Organizing concepts into a visual representation. Think Aloud – Modeling and verba lizing thought processes used during reading. Not Observed Class-wide Peer Tutoring Students provide academic support for their classmates by alternating turns as “tutor” and “tutee,” each tutoring the other in turn Multi-Column Notes Taking and organizing notes in column form during and after reading Paired Reading Paired students read out loud together, each helping to correct mistakes. QAR’sQ uestion Answer Relationships Teaches students to recognize types and levels questions and how to locate the information to answer them. Questioning the Author – Students respond to a series of questions about the text in order to consider the author's intent and his or her success at communicating it. Selective Underlining – Students underline or highlight key words, phrases, vocabulary, and ideas that are central to understanding the text. Semantic Mapping Using a graphic organizer to subordinate information from the text into main ideas, characters, events, or other central ideas. 84

PAGE 85

Think-Pair-Share Students think about a topic individually, share their thoughts with a partner and then the class. Think Solve Explain Figure 4-1. Graphic Organizer Dr awn on Board by Ms. Coppersmith Organism Adapt Energy Rid of wastes Food Territory Shelter Mate Reproduce Sleep Sunlight Water Fight disease Climate Oxygen Figure 4-2. Concept Map Created by Mr. Tracy and Students 85

PAGE 86

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION To meet public and political demand for in creased student achievement, schools and school districts are searching for effective prof essional development programs. However, most programs of professional development have been found to be ineffective (Guskey, 2002b; Shafer, 1995; USDOE, 2000). Effective professi onal development program s must: (a) involve teachers in goal setting and pla nning the training (Azin-Manley, Sachse, & Olson, 1996); and (b) provide teachers with specific, c oncrete, and practical ideas that directly relate to the day-to-day operation of their classrooms (Fullan & Miles, 1992). The FRI professional development model, the program that was investigated in this study, was designed to meet the National Sta ff Development Council (NSDC, 2001) standards and the Florida master in-service plan. Those st andards include: (a) a whole-school professional development approach; (b) continuous assessmen t of progress; (c) follow-up support; and (d) evaluation. The purpose of this study was to determine to what extent FRI training has promoted school-wide change in teachers’ instructional practices, attitudes and beliefs about reading comprehension, and collective teaching efficacy in an elementary and middle school in northeast Florida. To determine the relationship between school-wide teachers’ pe rceptions, measures of their beliefs about importance and use of readi ng strategies learned dur ing the Florida Reading Initiative (FRI) and collective teacher efficacy within participating schools were studied. This chapter begins with an overview of th e findings of the study. Next, conclusions based on these findings, and recommendations for fu rther research are described. The chapter concludes with the implications of the study. 86

PAGE 87

Summary of Results 1. Results of a dependent samples t-test indicate d that elementary and middle school teachers’ school-wide beliefs about the importance of FR I reading comprehension strategies were significantly lower eigh t months after implementation of those strategies, t(79) = 2.62, p = .02. 2. Teachers’ school-wide reported use of FRI reading comprehension strategies in both the elementary and middle school were significantly lower than their pred icted use, t(79) = 2.46, p = .02. 3. A dependent samples t-test indicated that CTE did not significantly change during the school year, t (79) = 0.70, p = .48. 4. Results of a 2 x 2 split-plot ANOVA indicated that there was a si gnificant main effect for the importance scores within-subjects F (1, 78) = 7.07, p = .01. The overall scores demonstrated a difference in the pretest and post test importa nce scores within the two groups. There was no within-subjects interacti on between importance and school, F (1, 78) = 0.34, p = .56. Also, there was no significant difference betwee n the elementary and middle school levels, F (1, 78) = 1.15, p = .27. The importance scores were lower school-wide after implementation, but there was no difference between the middle school and elementary schools. 5. Results of the 2 x 2 split-plot ANOVA indicated that there was no st rategy use by school interaction, F (1, 78) = 1.34, p = .25. However, there was a significant main effect for the strategy use scores within-subjects, F (1, 78) = 6.71, p = .01. The overall scores demonstrated a significant difference within th e two groups; the follow-up survey scores for both the elementary and middle schools show ed a significant decrease. There was no significant difference found between the schoo l levels; F (1, 78) = 1.60, p = .21. The post test strategy use scores were lower than the post-training scores, but there was no significant difference between the two school levels. 6. Results of the 2 x 2 split-plot ANOVA indicated that there was no CTE by School interaction, F (1, 78) = 0.63, p = .43. Also, a ma in within-subjects effect for CTE was not significant, F (1, 78) = 0.63, p = .43. However, there was a significant difference between the school levels; F (1, 78) = 9.21, p = .003. There was no change in CTE within the schools after implementation, but the collective efficacy was higher in the elementary school than the middle school. 7. The correlation coefficient, r = .07, indicated th at the relationship between teachers’ schoolwide beliefs about the impor tance of strategies and sc hool-wide strategy use was not significant. There was no relationshi p between importance and strategy use. 8. The correlation coefficient (r = .06) indicated that the relationship between CTE and teachers’ school-wide beliefs about the importance of strategies was not significant. That is, there was no relationship between CTE and be liefs about strategy importance. However, there was a moderate-to-larg e relationship between post-tr aining survey and follow-up survey CTE (r = .43). There was also a modera te, negative relationship between follow-up 87

PAGE 88

survey CTE and school level (r = -.35). The mi ddle school post CTE scores were lower than the elementary school. 9. The correlation coefficient (r = .15) indicated th at there was a small, positive relationship between CTE and strategy use. 10. Observations of elementary teachers and mi ddle school teachers show ed that FRI reading comprehension strategies were implemented in the classroom. Discussion This study supported some of the expected relationships but not others. There was a small, positive relationship between CTE and strategy use. Evidence was found to support the stability of collective teacher efficacy across time. There was evidence of a moderate, negative relationship between school leve l and CTE. However, there was no support for expectations of relationships between teachers ’ school-wide beliefs about im portance and strategy use, or school-wide beliefs about importance and CTE. Th ere was also a significant drop in the schoolwide beliefs about importance over time and the use of strategies over time . Elaboration on each of these findings and their relati onship to the literature follows. Importance and Strategy Use The FRI Summer Reading Academy was designe d to change teachers’ beliefs about student reading achievement and train them in the use of specific reading comprehension strategies. Teachers’ school-wid e beliefs about the importance of FRI strategies and their predicted use of those strategies were measured by the RSIUS on the last day of the training and again eight months into the schoo l year. Both importance scores and strategy use scores were found to be significantly lower on the post test. Also, it was hypothesized th at there would be a relationship found between school-wide beliefs about importance of FRI Reading Comprehension Strategies and the use of those stra tegies. That is, it was assumed that if teachers 88

PAGE 89

believed in the importance of the strategies they would be more likely to use those strategies. However, there was no significant relationship. There may be several reasons for the drop in both importance and strategy use scores as measured by the RSIUS. One possibility is that teachers may have been overly idealistic and enthusiastic immediately afte r the summer training. Another reason may stem from the resistance teachers display in changing their deeply -held beliefs and practice. A third possibility might be that the teachers may have adapted the strategies to the poi nt that they did not recognize or remember the names or descriptions on the surv ey instrument. A fourth possibility may be that there has not been an appropriate level of follo w-up and support. Lastly, there may not have been sufficient time for teachers to change their long-term practice. Beginning on June 6 th , 2005 the two week FRI Summer Reading Academy provided professional development opportunities were he ld for teachers to meet, train and have discussions with other teachers from both their school and other schools attending the institute. Participants received content-sp ecific reading strategies and sh ared ideas on how to implement those strategies in their classrooms. Teacher s also met and planned with their own faculty several times during the two week training to discuss and plan effo rts to improve student reading achievement in their school. The FRI was desi gned to generate whole-school buy-in to the school change effort. Because the initial survey was taken on the last day of the training, the level of enthusiasm for the whole-school change may have caused the initial school-wide beliefs about importance and predicted use of reading comprehension strategies to be higher than normally expected. Also, because the training ended 50 days before the start of the 2005-2006 school year, some content knowledge about the strategies may have been lost over time. 89

PAGE 90

Educators form their beliefs about teaching from their personal experiences as both students and teachers (Borko & Putnam, 1995; Czerniak, 2000; Guskey, 1995; Kagan, 1992; Lumpe, Haney, & Pederson & Liu, 2003). Most c ontent area teachers are not trained in reading comprehension (Bremer, Vaughn, Clapper, & Kim, 2002). Beliefs about how students learn to read and learn content tend to be formed from their personal experiences. Like the science and math teachers studied by Loucks-Horsley et. al. (1998), participants in the professional development model used by FRI may have been e xposed to learning activi ties that were very different from those they had previously expe rienced. Also, the new strategies and mental models presented may have required teachers to perf orm in ways that were contrary to their well established beliefs and practices (Borko & Putnam, 1995; Little, 1994). Professional development efforts are designed to bring about cha nge in teachers’ attitudes, beliefs and practice (Guskey, 2002a). Teachers’ belie fs are a major factor in whether or not new instructional practices will be implemente d and maintained (Anderson, 2002; Fullan, 2001, Loucks-Horsley & Matsumoto, 1999). DarlingHammond (1998) contends that learning new ways of teaching means that te achers must look closely at their deeply held beliefs about themselves and their students, and about teaching and learning. However, changing instructional practice is difficult, takes time and practice (Den ton, 2003, Goodlad, 1998), and teachers will fall back on old practices when confronted with novel or stressful situations (P ajares, 1992). Change in practice has been shown to be a multi-ye ar process (Schmoker, 1999; Fullan, 2001) and sustained use of newly-learned practices have been found to be low (Gersten et. al.1997). Guskey’s (2002) model of teacher change (see figure 2-1) shows that change in beliefs and attitudes happen after teacher see evidence that the strategies they are using have a positive effect on student achievement. Perhaps teachers did not have enough time to see any evidence of 90

PAGE 91

student achievement. School-wide beliefs about im portance and strategy use scores falling after the initial enthusiasm may have resulted because the time frame studied was less than one school year. Teachers are consumers of lear ning strategies; they pick and choose what parts of an initiative they will assimilate into their teaching repertoire (Guskey, 1988; Huberman, 1995). They use what they believe will work in their classroom with their students. They abandon new practices if there is no evid ence of a positive effect on student achievement (Guskey, 2002b). After studying a group of teachers over a fou r-year period, Duffy (1993) found that teachers flowed through a continuum of nine “points of progress” when implementing new strategies. These points range from a low of “confusion and rejection” where participants felt overwhelmed, to a “creative-inventive” stage. In the creativeinventive stage, teachers felt very confident about the use of the strategies and when confronted with unexpected situa tions they were able to revise the strategies to fit the situation. The midpoint of the continuum is named “the wall” because it was a time where the teachers rea lized that they “must somehow figure out how to make the strategies genuinely useful to students” (p.115). Cohen and Ball (1999) wrote, “Teachers’ knowledge is nested in particulars, and they interpret and adapt in context, building ideas, habits, and practices as they go . . . their own interp retations and decisions are tailored to the specifications of their situations” (p.11). This was evident during the observations in which teachers changed the format of the reading strategy to fit the le vel of student. Different students need different methods at different times and effective reading instruction requires thought and ad aptation (Duffy, 1999). The skills needed to teach children of all ability levels to read require a wide range of teaching strate gies. Thus, teachers need time and practice to select and learn the correct combin ation (Denton, 2003). Because no two situations 91

PAGE 92

are exactly the same, teachers adapt learning strategi es to each situation; things that worked well yesterday may not work the well to day or even the next period. The evidence shows that school-wide beliefs about importanc e and use of newly-learned reading comprehension strategies were significantly lower eight months after implementation of FRI and that there was no relationship between th e two variables. Howeve r, teachers did report that they were indeed using FR I strategies during the year, although to a lesser degree than they first expected them to use those strategies. Al so, observation of teachers confirmed the use of FRI strategies though strategy use was less evident in the middle school. Collective Teacher Efficacy and Relationships Teachers’ beliefs directly affect their goals , plans, and actions (Loucks-Horsley, et. al. 1998). Understanding teachers’ beliefs may be beneficial to those planning professional development. Lumpe, Haney, and Czerniak (2000) suggested that develo ping profiles of science teachers’ patterns of belief could help in the development of professional development plans. Collective teacher efficacy is a measure of teacher s’ shared beliefs about the staff’s capacity to influence student achievement (Goddard et. al ., 2000) and has been shown to be a powerful predictor of general student achievement (Bandura, 1993; Cybulski, 2003), in elementary mathematics and reading achievement (Goddard, Hoy, & Woolfolk, 2000), student achievement in secondary schools (Hoy, Sweetland, & Smith, 2002), including math, science, writing, and reading achievement (Goddard, et. al., 2004). Using Goddard’s (1998) collective efficacy in strument, this study showed evidence that there was no significant change in participants’ collective teacher efficacy during implementation of FRI reading comprehension strate gies. That is, the calculated CTE scores at both the elementary school and middle school were very stable and rela tively high (see table 5.1). The scale ranged from a low of 1 to a high of 6. Belief systems have been shown to be 92

PAGE 93

very resistant to change (Kagan, 1992; Pajares, 19 92). Results also indicated that the CTE scores of the elementary school teachers were significantly higher than those of the middle school teachers. There is some evidence that efficacy beliefs vary with grade level (Cowley & Meegan 2001; Wertheim & Leyser, 2002). There was no evidence of a significant rela tionship between CTE and teachers’ beliefs school-wide about strategy importance. The low correlations may be a function of the small sample size and restriction of range. There wa s however, a relationship found between CTE and strategy use. Highly efficacious teachers have be en shown to implement new initiatives and preserver longer than low efficacious teachers (Bandura, 1997b; Gibson & Dembo, 1984). Also, teachers with high efficacy scores were more willing to persist in change efforts (Pederson & Liu, 2003). Collective teacher efficacy has been shown to be influenced by seve ral things including mastery and vicarious experiences, social pe rsuasion, and affective state (Bandura, 1997b; Goddard, 1998). Mastery experiences enforce belief s that future success will follow. Vicarious experiences through conversation and observations of colleagues can help bu ild teachers beliefs about their own abilities. Social persuasion in the form of professional development, verbal discussion, feedback and models of success can al so build collective efficacy beliefs. The affective state of the school can affect collec tive efficacy the overwhelming stress of beginning a new initiative can lower the collective efficacy of a school or the presence of a positive culture can build it. For example, schools with high collec tive efficacy deal with stressors much better than those with lower efficacious beliefs (Bandura, 1997b). Implementing newly learned strategies means changing “teachers’ conceptions of what constitutes appropriate teaching in that culture” (D uffy, 1993, p.119). Both schools had 93

PAGE 94

relatively strong existing collective efficacy scor es. Therefore, one possible explanation of the lack of linkage between CTE and importance belief s is that the schools’ collective beliefs about what was already working in their schools were already well established. There was evidence of several reading comprehension stra tegies being used in the elementary school for several years before the FRI Summer Reading Academy. For example, both elementary teachers indicated that the reciprocal teaching model had been a favorite learning strategy for several years. Theoretical Implications This study has implications in Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) in that it studied the schoolwide beliefs, actions, and efficacy after a profes sional development effort. This area has not been well studied. According SCT, achievement is a product of the interactions between an individual’s personal, behavi oral, and environmental factor s (Bandura, 2002; Pajares, 2002; Schunk, 2003). Bandura (1986) stated, “What people think, believe, and feel affects how they behave” (p.25). This is the concept self-effi cacy; the belief a person has about his or her capabilities to produce an effect. Self-efficacy promotes accomplishments through individuals’ choices, effort, perseverance, resilience, thought patterns and emotional reactions (Henson, Kogan, & Vacha-Haase, 2001). However, individuals are not isolated, especi ally within schools. They function within social groups which share beliefs about the capa bilities of the individua ls which make up the group and the capacity of the group as a whole to achieve a goal. This is the construct of collective efficacy; the school-wide beliefs among t eachers that their efforts as a whole have a positive effect on students. Bandura’s (1997b) theory of Triadic Reciprocal Causation (Figure 5.1) provides a rational for the connection of individual efficacy beliefs, strategy use and CTE. Collective efficacy beliefs influence the beliefs and feelings of th e individual teachers within the school, which 94

PAGE 95

influences the level of effort and persistence at both the individual and collective levels, which influences the collective efficacy beliefs of the school. This study adds to the theoretical base by pr oviding evidence that even when CTE beliefs are relatively high within a school, new innovations may not immediately be assimilated. Beliefs about the importance of the innovations may not be affected by the collective efficacy beliefs, or indeed CTE beliefs may have a negative effect on the assimilation of the change effort. Goddard, et. al. (2002) contends that C TE may have a positive effect on individuals who have efficacy beliefs that are lower than those of his or her co lleagues. That is, a teacher who has low efficacy beliefs, who perhaps does not believe in their ability to implement new strategies, may be bolstered by the actions and beliefs of the majority of those around her and find success. Teachers are used to being shown new ways of teaching and learning and are just as used to ignoring those change efforts (Cuban & Ty ack, 1995). When teachers have strong beliefs about their abilities to successfu lly affect the achievement of their students it may be very difficult to persuade them to do something different. Professional development efforts ask for teachers to change behavior. Accordingly, behavi or is influenced by both environmental factors such as collective teacher efficacy beliefs and pe rsonal factors such as feelings and self-efficacy beliefs. New behaviors may not be tried or if tried may not persis t in the face of strong personal or collective beliefs, or if there is strong anxiety about the change effort. Practical Implications This study did not support the hypothesis that st rong beliefs about strategies are linked to their use. However, other researchers have conc luded that teachers must see evidence that the new change produces student achievement before th ey will continue to use the new strategies (Anderson, 2002; Cohen & Ball, 1999; Fullan, 1985; Fullan & Miles, 1992; Fullan & Stiegelbaum, 1991; Guskey, 1997; Guskey & Huberman 1995; Loucks-Horsley & Matsumoto, 95

PAGE 96

1999). Teachers will believe strategies work when they have seen it work, or as Guskey (2002) states, “Experience shapes their attitudes and beliefs” p. 383). Fullan (2001) reports that loss of momentum and dip in implementation is normal dur ing a change effort. School leaders need to anticipate this “implementati on dip” (p. 40) and work to keep the momentum going by understanding “that change is a pr ocess, not an event” (p.40). This study indicated that individuals who see th ings as very important tend to view the same things as not as important over time. Th e teachers’ beliefs in the importance about FRI reading comprehension strategi es dropped significantly during this study. Also teachers’ reported use of the reading strategies was signifi cantly lower than they initially predicted. School leaders should be aware of a potential drop in interest in over time even if participants report high initial enthusiasm immediately af ter professional development. Bandura (1997b) stated that schools are social structure built upon common interest s and beliefs. Because of the social nature of schools and because of the potenti al for loss of interest, school leaders must put in place structures to ensure th at the initiative moves forward. These structures should include vehicles for teacher collaboration and learni ng, opportunities for on-going, content-specific development opportunities, demonstrations and m odeling of best practice, follow-up training and support from the leadership. Most professional development programs are in effective because they do not take into account how teachers are motivated and how teachers change practice (Guskey, 2002). The Florida Reading Initiative is a whole-school mode l which requires all teac hers within the school to work together toward a co mmon goal; 100% literacy. Becaus e schools are social entities, school leaders must work to improve the collecti ve efficacy belief level of their teachers. High efficacy beliefs have been shown to facilitate an individual’s establishment of goals, motivation 96

PAGE 97

and perseverance to achieve those goals, (Bandura, 1997a; Henson, Kogan, & Vacha-Haase, 2001; Pajares, 2002), have been shown to be a reliable predictor of teacher change and use of new strategies (Smylie, 1988), and has been li nked to student achievement (Bandura, 1993; Cybulski, 2003; Goddard, Hoy, & Woolfolk, 2000; Goddard, LoGerfo, & Hoy, 2004). Therefore school leaders must work to strengthen teacher efficacy and collective efficacy by providing opportunities for mastery and vica rious experiences for their teachers. They must provide teachers time for them to visit other teachers to see the new strategies in use in authentic environments. Efficacy is also strengthened th rough social persuasion; therefore school leaders must also provide opportunities fo r teachers to share su ccesses and failure with one another. The ultimate goal of professional development is student achievement. Student achievement is directly related to what teacher s do in the classroom. Fullan and Stiegelbauer (1991) put it best, “Educational change depends on what teachers do and think – it’s as simple and as complex as that” (p. 117). School leaders must be involved in all aspects of the school’s professional development efforts, providing appropriate resources, follow-up and support, assessment of teacher and student progress, and making decisions based on data. For the Florida Reading Initiative School improvement model to work must establish a whole-school learning community in which the members agree to adopt a pa rticular set of reading strategi es. Teachers must be provided opportunities to collaborate and shar e their success. Small victories help teachers see the value of the innova tion which in turn will help them change their beliefs and practice. Recommendations for Further Study This study was only one step in exploring the relationships between teachers’ beliefs and implementation, persistence, and collective teacher efficacy beliefs. Several recommendations for further research follow. 97

PAGE 98

This study was limited to two schools; an elem entary school and a middle school. Future studies would benefit from a larger sample. As of this date 74 schools have received training in the Florida Reading Initiative. A study that would survey all FR I schools to determine the extent to which teachers are implementing the strategies would shed some light as to effectiveness of the initiative. This study also is limited in that it only l ooked at teachers in elementary and middle school. It is suggested that a st udy which looks at the use of stra tegies in high school would also add to the knowledge base. Change in practice may take years (Fullan, 2001; Schmoker, 1999); therefore a longitudinal study of three or more years is suggested. The ultimate goal of all teacher professi onal development is increased student achievement. Unfortunately, this study was too sm all in scope to look for relationships between teacher beliefs, strategy use, collective teacher efficacy, and student achievement. A larger study using all FRI schools may shed some light on how FRI implementation affects student achievement. Guskey (1988) reported that teachers alter th e implementation of new programs so that they were no longer effective. A study of the ex tent to which teachers change the initiatives or strategies may give insight into the success or failure of those initiatives Most research into teacher efficacy and colle ctive efficacy is quantitative in nature. Qualitative studies may delve deeper into teache rs’ belief systems and provide insights that quantitative measures might not. This type of study may answer questions about why teachers choose or abandon particular strategies learned during the professional development may assist 98

PAGE 99

in planning and conducting future professional deve lopment. In-depth teacher interviews may reveal how the training has or has not affected their practice. Successful professional development effo rts require ongoing coaching, modeling and support (Joyce & Showers, 1995; Showers & Joyce, 1996). Therefore a qualitative study of reading coach availability, freque ncy of meeting with the readi ng coach and other teachers, and the range of topics discussed would be helpful to gauge support teachers receive after training. As mentioned above, several of the strategies “learned” during the FRI summer institute were already in wide use. A teacher survey of strategy use before the training may establish a baseline from which to gauge new strategy use after the training. Teacher beliefs have profound effects on implementation of change (Abraham & Belanger, 2001; Fullan & Stiegelbauer, 1991; Guskey, 2002b; Kagan, 1992; Olson & Singer, 1994; Pajares, 1992). These beliefs cannot be examined by looking solely at behavior (Kagan, 1992). According to Senge (1990) mental models are “deeply ingrained assumptions, generalizations that influence how we understand the world and how we take action” (p. 8). Understanding one’s mental models begins by “turning the mi rror inward; learning to unearth our internal pictures of the world, to bring them to the surf ace and hold them rigorously to scrutiny” (p. 9). Perhaps by asking teachers to keep reflective j ournals before, during, and after professional development may provide opportunities to better examine teacher beliefs. One limitation of the FRI training is that although teachers receive information about reading strategies, they are given little opportunity to practice the use of those strategies. It is suggested that FRI training se ssions should consider incorpor ating opportunities to practice implementation during the sessions. 99

PAGE 100

Table 5.1. CTE Scores Obtained by Averag ing All Teacher Scores from the CTEI * Post-training survey Follow-up survey Elementary School 4.62 4.73 Middle School 4.10 4.27 *(Goddard, 1998) BEHAVIOR (FRI Strategy Use) (Effort and Persistence) PERSONAL FACTORS (Self-efficacy beliefs) ENVIRONMENTALFACTORS (Collective Teacher Efficacy) Figure 5.1. Triadic Reciprocal Causation 100

PAGE 101

APPENDIX A PARTICIPANT LETTER Department of Educational Lead ership, Policy and Foundations P.O. Box 117049 Norman Hall, Room 258 Gainesville, FL 32611-7049 Dear Colleague: I am a doctoral candidate at the University of Flor ida and a high school assistant principal for Flagler County Schools. I am conducting a study investigating the link between educators’ beliefs and the use of reading-based strategies following the Florida Reading Initiative training. The survey is designed to collect information about teachers' beliefs of the importance and use of reading strategies, collective teacher efficacy within school sites, and demographic information. I would appreciate it if you would take a few minutes to answer the questions on th is survey. This survey will take fifteen or twenty minutes. If you cannot accurately provide an answer a question, please leave it blank. You do not have to answer any questions you do not want to and you may withdraw at any time without penalty. There are no known risks, and participation is voluntary. Responses to questions about your identity are solely for follow-up purposes and will remain confidential. During the 2005 – 2006 school year I will send you a follow-up questionnaire via email. When you submit your completed questionnaire, your name will be deleted from the mailing list and never connected to your answers in any way; your id entity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. The results of this survey will be provided to you at your request. There are no direct benefits or compensation to participants. If you have any questions about this research, please c ontact me at (386) 4377540 x 1011 or my faculty supervisor, Dr. Linda Behar-Horenstein, at 352 3920731 x 230. Questions or concerns about research participants’ rights may be directed to the UFIRB o ffice, University of Florida, Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611; ph (352) 392-0433. Please sign and return th is copy of the letter with the survey. A second copy is provided for your records. By signing this letter, you give me permission to report your responses anonymously in the final manuscript to be submitted to my faculty supervisor as part of my course work. Thank you very much for your assistance. Chris Pryor I have read the procedure described above and I vol untarily agree to participate in this study. ____________________________ ___________ Signature of participant Date I would like to receive a copy of the results of this study. ____ _______________ _____________ 101

PAGE 102

APPENDIX B READING STRATEGY IMPORTANCE AND USE SURVEY DIRECTIONS: Read each statement below. Circle the numbers on the left si de to indicate your belief in the strategy’s importance. Circle the number on the right side to rank the frequency you will implement each strategy in your classroom (if you are a teache r) or school (if you are an administrator). Please use the following scales: Importance “It would be ___ to use this strategy” 1 = Very unimportant 2 = Fairly unimportant 3 = Some importance 4 = Fairly important 5 = Very important Strategy Use “I used this strategy ____ minutes per week.” 1 = 0 2 = Less than 30 3 = 30 60 4 = 61 90 5 = more than 90 Importance Comprehension Strategy or Activity Strategy Use 1 2 3 4 5 1. Asking students to respond to a series of questions about the author's intent and his or her success at communicating it. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 2. Asking students to organize concepts using a visual aide. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 3. Providing focusing questions for students to read before reading 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 4. Using QAR’s 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 5. Teaching students about internal text structure such as sequence of events, descriptions of characters, setting, and events, and plot. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 6. Using Multi-Column Notes 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 7. Using Anticipation Guides 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 8. Providing incentives to motivate students to read 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 9. Using Reciprocal Teaching 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 10. Asking students to take and organize notes in column form during and after reading. 1 2 3 4 5 102

PAGE 103

Importance Comprehension Strategy or Activity Strategy Use 1 2 3 4 5 11. Asking students to recognize types and levels questions and how to locate the information to answer them. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 12. Using Story map 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 13. Making students aware of external text structures such as title, table of contents, appendix, glossary, index, etc. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 14. Creating a dialogue about segments of the text by summarizing, creating questions, clarifying, and predicting. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 15. Using Think Aloud 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 16. Incorporating reading comprehension strategies into your specific content area 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 17. Using Graphic Organizers 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 18. Using KWL 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 19. Asking students to respond to a series of statements before reading the text and then revisiting after reading 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 20. Teaching students to be aware of their own thinking as they read. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 21. Having students use graphic organizers to subordinate information to main ideas, characters, events, or other central ideas. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 22. Using Selective Highlighting or Underlining 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 23. Students use sticky notes to record their thoughts as they read then share with the group to clarify confusions. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 24. Using Semantic mapping 1 2 3 4 5 103

PAGE 104

Importance Comprehension Strategy or Activity Strategy Use 1 2 3 4 5 25. Asking students to think about a topic individually, share their thoughts with a partner and then the class. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 26. Using Think-Pair-Share 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 27. Using Class-wide Peer Tutoring 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 28. Using GIST 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 29. Pair students, one person reads while partner follows along 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 30. Verbalizing the thought processes used during reading 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 31. Reading to students 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 32. Using symbols to note key points. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 33. Helping students identify and understand characteristics and/or relationships of selected characters using a graphic organizer. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 34. Using Sticky Notes 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 35. Asking students to write a summary of a short part of a passage, generate a class summary, and continue until passage is complete. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 36. Prompting students to “Tell me anything that comes to mind when” Th en ask them to discuss their reasoning. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 37. Having students highlight or underline important parts of the text 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 38. Using Paired reading 1 2 3 4 5 104

PAGE 105

Importance Comprehension Strategy or Activity Strategy Use 1 2 3 4 5 39. Explaining the structure of narrative text 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 40. Using PreP 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 41. Having students take turns as “tutor” and “tutee.” 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 42. Using Preview and Predict 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 43. Using Questioning the author 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 44. Pointing out items of information that help readers to understand the meaning of a particular word. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 45. Monitoring student thinking while reading 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 46. Asking students what they know, and what they want to know about a topic before reading, then after reading ask what they have learned. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 47. Teaching students to recognize different types and levels of questions 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 48. Asking students to preview text and make predictions before reading, then compare predictions with actual content after reading. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 49. Explaining the structure of informative text 105

PAGE 106

APPENDIX C COLLECTIVE TEACHER EFFICACY INSTRUMENT Collective Teacher Efficacy Instrument (Goddard, 1998) Directions: Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement below by circling the appropriate numeral to the right of each statement Strongly disagree Moderately disagree Disagree slightly more than agree Agree slightly more than disagree Moderately agree Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 1. Teachers in this school have what it takes to get children to learn. 1 2 3 4 5 6 2. Teachers in this school are able to get through to difficult students. 1 2 3 4 5 6 3. If a student does not learn something the first time, teachers will try another way. 1 2 3 4 5 6 4. Teachers here are confident they will be able to motivate their students. 1 2 3 4 5 6 5. Teachers in this school really believe that every student can learn. 1 2 3 4 5 6 6. If a student doesn’t want to learn, teachers here give up. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. Teachers here need more training to know how to deal with these students. 1 2 3 4 5 6 8. Teachers in this school think that there are some students that no one can reach. 1 2 3 4 5 6 9. Teachers here don’t have the skills needed to produce meaningful student learning. 1 2 3 4 5 6 10. Teachers here fail to reach some students because of poor teaching methods. 1 2 3 4 5 6 106

PAGE 107

Strongly disagree Moderately disagree Disagree slightly more than agree Agree slightly more than disagree Moderately agree Strongly agree 1 2 3 4 5 6 11. These students come to school ready to learn. 1 2 3 4 5 6 12. Home life provides so many advantages they are bound to learn. 1 2 3 4 5 6 13. The lack of teaching materials and supplies makes teaching very difficult. 1 2 3 4 5 6 14. Students here just aren’t motivated to learn 1 2 3 4 5 6 15. The quality of school facilities here really facilitates the teaching and learning process. 1 2 3 4 5 6 16. The opportunities in this community help ensure that these students will learn. 1 2 3 4 5 6 17. Teachers here are well prepared to teach the subjects they are assigned to teach. 1 2 3 4 5 6 18. Teachers in this school are skilled in various methods of teaching. 1 2 3 4 5 6 19. Learning is more difficult at this school because children are worried about their safety. 1 2 3 4 5 6 20. Drugs and alcohol abuse in the community make learning difficult for students here. 1 2 3 4 5 6 21. Teachers in this school do not have the skills to deal with student disciplinary problems 1 2 3 4 5 6 107

PAGE 108

APPENDIX D PERMISSION TO USE CTEI From: Pryor, Chris Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 1:00 PM To: 'Roger Goddard' Subject: RE: Collective Teacher Efficacy Instrument Thank you! Chris Pryor -----Original Message----From: rgoddard@mail.umich.edu [ma ilto:rgoddard@mail.umich.edu] On Behalf Of Roger Goddard Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 12:05 PM To: Pryor, Chris Subject: Re: Collective Teacher Efficacy Instrument Dear Chris: My understanding is that you must cite the article in which I originally published the instruments. There are actually two: the original scale published in AERJ and a 12 item short form published in Educational and Psychological Measurement. If you go to Wayne K. Hoy’s website, you'll find th e citation information and the scales there. My only personal request is that you let me know the outcomes of your study and if you ever write up the study for publication in a peer reviewed journal, please send me a copy. Good luck with your research. Sincerely, Roger Goddard --On Sunday, April 24, 2005 3:58 PM -0400 "Pryor, Chris" wrote: Dear Dr. Goddard, I am a doctoral candidate at the University of Flor ida. I am writing > a proposal to study collective teacher efficacy, use of newly learned reading comp rehension strategies and student reading achievement. I would like to use your Collective Teacher Efficacy > Instrument. How might I obtain permission and a copy? Thank you, Chris Pryor Assistant Principal Flagler Palm Coast High School > Bunnell, FL 32110 > 386-437-7540 x 1011 > > 108

PAGE 109

LIST OF REFERENCES Abraham, N., & Belanger, J. (2001). Technical and professional communications in secondary schools: Barriers created by teachers’ beliefs and attitudes . Vancouver; British Columbia. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED449537). Allinder, R. M. (1995). An examination of the relationship between teacher efficacy and curriculum-based measurement and student achievement. Remedial and Special Education, 16 , 247. Anderson, R. D. (2002). Reforming science teac hing: What research says about inquiry. Journal of Science Teacher Education, 13 , 1-12. Ashton, P. T., & Webb, R. B. (1986). Making and difference: Teachers’ sense of efficacy and student achievement. New York: Longman. Azin-Manley, M., Sachse, T., & Olson, C. (1996). Staff development needs survey . Jackson, WY: Region V Board of Cooperative Services Center for School Improvement. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED405306). Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educational Psychologist, 28 , 117. Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71). New York: Academic Press. (Reprinted in H. Friedman [Ed.] Encyclopedia of mental health . San Diego: Academic Press, 1998). Bandura, A. (1997a). Self-effi cacy [Electronic version]. Harvard Mental Health Letter 13(9) , 4– 6. Bandura, A. (1997b). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control [Electronic version]. New York: Freeman. Bandura, A. (2002). Social cognitive theory in cultural context [E lectronic version]. Journal of Applied Psychology: An International Review, 51, 269. Barber, M. S. (2002). The influence of the Alabam a Reading Initiative on the culture of three inner-city elementary schools in the stat e of Alabama. (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Alabama at Birmingham, 2002) Dissertations Abstracts International, 64(1) , 95. (UMI No. 3078520). Barry, A. L. (1997). High school reading programs revisited. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 40, 524. Barry, A. L. (2002). Reading strate gies teachers say they use. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 46, 132. 109

PAGE 110

Borko, H., & Putnam, R. T. (1995). Expandi ng a teacher's knowledge base: A cognitive psychological perspective on pr ofessional development. In T. R. Guskey and M. Huberman (Eds.), Professional Development in Educ ation: New Paradigms and Practices (pp. 35-65). New York: Teachers College Press. Bouffard-Bouchard, T. (2000). Influence of self-efficacy on performance in a cognitive task. The Journal of Social Psychology, 130 , 353. Bremer, C. D., Vaughn, S., Clappe r, A. T., & Kim, A. (2002). Collaborative strategic reading (CSR): Improving secondary students’ reading comprehension skills. Research to practice brief: Improving secondary educatio n and transition services through research . (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED468581). Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (1999). Instruction, capacity, and impr ovement. Consortium for Policy Research in Education . (ERIC Document Reproduc tion Service No. ED431749). Cole, J. C. (2002). What motivates student s to read? Four lite racy personalities. The Reading Teacher, 56, 326. Cowley, K. S., Meegan, M. L. (2001). Assessing teacher effica cy and professional learning community in 19 elementary and high schools. Paper presented at the 10 th Annual Meeting of the CREATE National Evaluation Institute (Wilmington, NC, July 19, 2001). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED458274). Creswell, J. W. (2004). Educational research: Planni ng, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (2 nd ed.). New York: Prentice Hall. Cuban, L., & Tyack, D. (1995). Tinkering toward Utopia: A cen tury of public school reform. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Cybulski, T. G. (2003). Investigating the role of the collective efficacy of teachers in fiscal efficiency and student achievement. (Docto ral dissertation, The Oh io State University, 2003) Dissertations Abstracts International, 65(02), 360. (UMI No. 3124056). Darling-Hammond, L. (1998). Teacher lear ning that promotes student learning. Educational Leadership, 55(5) , 6. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and st udent achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1). Retrieved March 18, 2004. from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1/ Darling-Hammond, L., & McLaughlin, M. W. ( 1995). Policies that promote professional development in an era of reform, Phi Delta Kappan, 78 , 597. Denton, D. R. (2003). Reading First: Lessons from successful state reading initiatives. Atlanta, GA: Southern Regional Education Boar d. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED477336). 110

PAGE 111

Donovan, J. F., Sousa, D. A., & Walberg, H. J. (1987). The impact of staff development on implementation and student achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 80 , 348-351. Duffy, G. G. (1993). Teachers’ progress towa rd becoming expert strategy teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 94, 109. Duffy, G. G. (1999). In pursuit of an illusion : The flawed search for the perfect method. Reading Teacher, 53, 10-16. DuFour, R. P. (1997). The school as a learni ng organization: Recomme ndations for school improvement. NASSP Bulletin, 81 , 81. Dutro, E., Fisk, M. C., Koch, R., Roop, L. J ., & Wixson, K. (2002). When state policies meet local district contexts: Standards-based profe ssional development as a means to individual agency and collective ownership. Teachers College Record, 104 , 787. Elmore, R. F. (2002). Hard questions about practice. Educational Leadership, 59(8), 22. Evers, W. J. G., Brouwers, A., & Tomic, W. (2002). Burnout and self-efficacy: A study on teachers’ beliefs when implementing an innovative educational system in the Netherlands. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72 , 227. Fang, Z. (1996). A review of resear ch on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Research, 38(1), 47. Fielden, K. (2003). Fact or fic tion: Qualitative research resu lts in information systems. Informing Science [Electronic version]. Retrieved April 29 th , 2006 from http://precedings.informingscience.or g/IS2003Preceedings/docs/027Field.pdf Florida School Laws (2005). School Community Professional Development Act , F.S.S 1012.98 62-2006-74. Friedman, I. A., & Kass, E. (2002). Teacher self-efficacy: A classroom-organization conceptualization. Teaching and Teacher Education, 18 , 675-686. Fritz, J. J., Miller-Heyl, J., Kr eutzer, J. C., & MacPhee, D. (1995). Fostering personal teaching efficacy through staff development and classroom activities. The Journal of Educational Research,88, 200. Fullan, M. (1985). Change forces and strategies at the local level. Elementary School Journal, 85, 391. Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Fullan, M. (2002). The change leader. Educational Leadership,59(8) , 16. Fullan, M. G., & Miles, M. B. (1992). Getting reform right: What works and what doesn’t. Phi Delta Kappan, 73 , 744. 111

PAGE 112

Fullan, M. G., & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educational change (2 nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Gardner, H. (1991). The unschooled mind . New York: Basic Books. Gersten, R., Vaughn, S., Deshler, D., & Schiller, E. (1997). What we know about using research findings: Implications for improvi ng special education practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 466. Ghaith, G., & Shaaban, K. (1999). The relationshi p between perceptions of teaching concerns, teaching efficacy, and selected teacher characteristics. Teaching and Teacher Education 15, 487. Ghaith, G., & Yaghi, H. (1997). Relationships am ong experience, teacher efficacy, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 13, 451. Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984) Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 569-582. Glickman, C. D., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (1998). Supervision of instruction: A developmental approach . Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Goddard, R. D. (1998). The effects of collectiv e teacher efficacy on student achievement in urban public elementary schools. (Doctora l dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus. Dissertations Abstracts International, 59(10), 3705. (UMI No. 9911154). Goddard, R. D., Hoy, W. K, & Woolfolk, A. W. (2000). Collective teacher efficacy: Its meaning measure, and impact on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 37 , 479. Goddard, R. D., LoGerfo, L., & Hoy, W. K. (200 4). High school accountability: The role of perceived collective efficacy. Educational Policy, 18 , 403. Goodlad, J. (1998). How teachers teach. New York: McGraw-Hill. Gordon, L. M. (2001). High teacher efficacy as a marker of teacher effectiveness in the domain of classroom management . Paper presented at the Annua l Meeting of the California Council on Teacher Education (San Diego, CA, Fall 2001). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED465731). Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concep t, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation. Teacher and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 4(1) , 63. Guskey, T. R. (2000), Evaluating professional development . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. 112

PAGE 113

Guskey, T. R. (2002a). Professiona l development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 8, 382. Guskey, T. R. (2002b). Does it make a differe nce? Evaluating profe ssional development. Educational Leadership, 59 (6), 45-51 Guskey, T. R., & Huberman, M. (Eds.). (1995). Professional development in education: New paradigms and practices. New York: Teachers College Press. Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2000). Strategies that work: Teac hing comprehension to enhance understanding. York, ME: Stenhouse Publishers. Henson, R. K., Kogan, L. R., & Vacha-Haase, T. (2001). A reliability generalization of the teacher efficacy scale and related instruments. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 404. Hoover, W. A. (1996). The practice imp lementations of constructivism. SEDLetter, 9(3). Retrieved October 24, 2004, from http://www. sedl.org/pubs/sedletter/ v09n03/practice.html Hoy, W. K., Sweetland, S. R., & Smith, P. A. (2002). Toward an organizational model of achievement in high schools: The significance of collective efficacy. Educational Administrative Quarterly, 38 , 77. Hoy, W., & Miskel, C. (1996). Educational administration: Theory research and practice , (5 th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Huberman, M. (1995). Networks that alter teaching: Concep tualizations, exchanges and experiments. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice , 2, 192-211. Jacobucci, L., Richert, J., R onan, S., & Tanis, A. (2002). Improving reading comprehension by predicting, monitoring comprehension, reme diation, and personal response strategies . Chicago, IL: Saint Xavier University . (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED473054). Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1995). Student achievement thr ough staff development (2nd ed.). New York: Longman. Kagan, D. M., (1992). Implications of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist, 27 , 65. Kent, A. M. (2003). The Alabama Reading Initi ative: Developing highl y skilled teachers of reading through innovative professional development. Reading Improvement, 40, 147. Kurz, T. B. (2001). An exploration of the re lationship among teacher efficacy, collective teacher efficacy, and goal consensus. (Doctoral dissertation, Texas A & M University Dissertations Abstracts International, 62(07) , 2341. (UMI No. 3020068). 113

PAGE 114

Learning First Alliance. (2000 ). Every child reading: A professional development guide . Baltimore, MD: Association for Supervision and Staff Development. Lieberman, A. (1995). Practices that support teacher develo pment [Electronic version]. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 591. Little, J. W. (1994). Teachers’ professional deve lopment in a climate of educational reform. Systemic Reform: Perspectives on Personalizing Education . Retrieved October 22, 2004, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/EdReformStudies/SysReforms/little1.html Little, M. E., & Houston, D. (2003). Research into practice through pr ofessional development. Remedial and Special Education, 24(2), 75. Loucks-Horsley, S. &Matsumoto, C. (1999). Res earch on professional development for teachers of mathematics and science: The state of the scene. School Science & Mathematics, 99 , 258-271. Loucks-Horsley, S., Hewson, P. W., Love, N., & Stiles, K. E. (1998). Designing professional development for teachers of science and math ematics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Lumpe, A. T., Haney, J. J., & Czerniak, C. M. (2000). Assessing teachers’ beliefs about their science teaching context. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 37, 275-292. Lyon, G. R. (2004). The scie nce of reading research. Educational Leadership, 61(6), 12. Marks, H. M., & Louis, K. S. (1999). Teacher empowerment and the capac ity for organizational learning. Educational Administ ration Quarterly, 35, 707. Mays, N., & Pope, C. (1995) Qualitative research: Rigour and qualitative research. BMJ Journals [Electronic version]. Retrieved April 29 th , 2006 from http://bmj.bmjjournals.com /cgi/content/full/311/6997/109 Monahan, T. C. (1996). Do contemporary incentiv es and rewards perpetuate outdated forms of professional development? Journal of Staff Development, 17, 44. Moscovitch, E. (2001). Evaluation of the Alabama Reading Initiative: Final report . Montgomery, AL: Alabama State Departme nt of Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.ED464366). National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching for America’s future . New York,: Teachers College Press. National Reading Panel (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessmen t of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the subgroups. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. 114

PAGE 115

National Staff Development Council. (2001). NSDC standards for staff development [Electronic version]. Retrieved November 15th, 2004, from http://www.nsdc.org/standards/index.cfm Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 18, 197-206. North East Florida Educational Consortium. (n.d.). The Florida Reading Initiative: Overview . Retrieved November 28, 2004 from http://www.nefec.org/fri/ Olson, J. R., & Singer, M. (1994) Examining teach er beliefs, reflective change, and the teaching of reading. Reading Research and Instruction, 34 , 97. Pajares, F. (2002). Overview of social cogniti ve theory and self-efficacy . Retrieved November 11, 2004, from http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/eff.html. Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivati on, and achievement in writing: A review of the literature. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19 , 139. Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educationa l research: Cleaning up a messy construct. Review of Educational Research, 62 , 307. Parsad, B., Lewis, L., & Farris, E. (2001). Teacher preparation and professional development: 2000 (National Center for Educational Sta tistics (Rep. No. NCES -2001-088). Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education. Pederson, S., & Liu, M. (2003). T eachers’ beliefs about issues in the implementation of a student-centered learning environment. Educational Technology Research Development, 51(2) , 57. Penfield, R. D. (2003 ). The fundamentals of quantitativ e data analysis for the behavioral sciences. Unpublished manuscript, Un iversity of Florida. Pressley, M., Wharton-McDonald, R., Allington, R., Block, C. C., Morrow, L., Tracey, D., et al. (2001). A study of effective first-grade literacy instruction . Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(1), 35. Ross, J. A., & Gray, P. (2004). Transformational leadership and teacher commitment to organizational values: The mediating e ffects of collective teacher efficacy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Edu cational Research Association, SanDiego, CA. Retrieved April 16, 2005, from h ttp://www.oise.utoronto.ca/fieldcentres/ross/CTEleadership.pdf Ross, J. A., Hogaboam-Gray, A., & Hannay, L. (2001). Effects of teacher efficacy on computer skills and cognitions of Canadi an students in grades K – 3. The Elementary School Journal, 102, 141. Schmoker, M. (1999). Results: The key to continuous school improvement (2 nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD 115

PAGE 116

Schuman, H., & Presser, S. (1991). Questions and answers in attitude surveys: Experiments on question form, wording, and context. New York: Academic Press. Schunk, D. H. (2003). Self-efficacy for reading a nd writing: Influence of modeling, goal setting, and self-evaluation. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 19, 159. Senge, P. M. (1990) The fifth discipline. The art and practice of the learning organization , London: Random House. Shafer, R. A. (1995). Interactional processes and support st ructure which foster professional development: A qualitative study . Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Association, San Francisco, CA . (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED390831). Showers, B., & Joyce, B. (1996). The evolution of peer coaching. Educational Leadership, 53 , 12-16. Smylie, M. A. (1988). The enhancement functi on of staff development: Organizational and psychological antecedents to individual teacher change. American Educational Research Journal, 25, 3. Sparks, D. (1984). Staff development and school im provement: An interview with Ernest Boyer. Journal of Staff Development, 5(2) , 32. Sparks, D. (2000). Foreword. In T. R. Guskey (Author), Evaluating professional development (pp. ix – xiii). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, Inc. Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998). Social cognitive theory: Going beyond traditional motivation and behavioral approaches. Organizational Dynamics, 26(4), 62 – 74. Texas Reading Initiative/Tex as Education Agency. (n.d.). What is the Texas Reading Initiative? Retrieved December 5, 2004, from http://www.tea. state.tx.us/reading/ news/whatexrea.html Torgeson, J. K. (1998). Catch them before they fall: Identification and assessment to prevent reading failure in young children. American Educator, 22(1) , 32. Tschannen-Moran, M., & Woolfolk-Hoy, A. (2001). Teacher efficacy: Capturing an elusive construct. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17 , 783. Tschannen-Moran, M., Woolfolk-Hoy, A., & Hoy, W. K. (1998). Teacher efficacy: Its meaning and measure. Review of Educational Research, 68 , 202. Tuckman, B. W. (1999). Conducting educational research (5 th ed.) Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Group/Thomson Learning. 116

PAGE 117

U.S. Department of Education: O ffice of the Under Secretary. (2000). Does professional development change teaching practice? Results from a three-year study (Document No. 2000-04). Retrieved October 4, 2004, fr om www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/eval/ Vaughan, A. (2000). Closing the gap: How the Alabama Re ading Initiative is transforming reading instruction for all students . Montgomery, AL: Alabama Sate Department of Education. (ERIC Document Re production Service No.ED464363). Wendorf, C. A. (1997). Part VII: Multiple regression (MR) prediction with continuous variables. Manuals for univariate and multivariate statistics . Retrieved September 3, 2006, from http://www.uwsp.edu/psych/cw/statmanual/mrcountinuous.html Wenglinsky, H. (2000). How teaching matters: Bringing the cl assroom back into discussions of teacher quality. Princeton, NJ: Educati onal Testing Service. Wertheim, C., & Leyser, Y. (2002). Efficacy be liefs, background variable, and differentiated instruction of Israeli prospective teachers. The Journal of Educational Research, 96, 54– 63. Wildman, T. M., & Niles, J. A. (1987) . Essentials of professional growth. Educational Leadership, 44(5) , 4. Woolfolk, A. E., & Hoy, W. K (1990). Prospective teachers’ sense of efficacy and beliefs about control. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82 , 81–. 117

PAGE 118

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Hugh Christopher Pryor (Chris) was born in Bartow, Florida, November 17, 1960 and graduated from Flagler Palm Coast High School in 1978. He attended Daytona Beach Community College on a music scholarship fo r bassoon from 1978 majoring in liberal arts. After obtaining a bachelor of arts degree in biolo gy from Stetson University in Deland, Florida in 1991, he began his teaching career as a high school science teacher in Dayt ona Beach Florida. After transferring to Flag ler County Schools in 1993, he obtained his Master of Arts in Education degree in education from Stetson University in 1996. After entering the University of Florida he obtained an Educational Specialis t degree in educational leadership from the University of Florida in 2002 and moved to assistant principa l duties at Flagler Palm Coast High School. He was accepted as a doctoral candidate in 2003. Appoi nted principal in 2005, he opened Matanzas High School as a new school in Palm Coast, Florida. Only through the wonderful support of his family, faculty and staff has he been able to been able to complete his doctoral work. 118