Dr. Richard Allington

University of Florida

2414 Normal Hall

Gainesville, FL 32611

dickaurL(a2aol.com

(352) 392-9191, Ext. 282

(352)392-9193 FAX

Dr. Cathy Collins Block

Professor of Education

Texas Christian University

2800 S. University Drive

Fort Wortb,TX 76129

c.block&)tcu.edu

(817) 257-6789

(8117)257-7701 FAX

Dr. Lesley Mandel Morrow

Professor of Education

Rutgers University

I 5 Heritage Lane

Scotch Plans, NJ 07076

jmorro(iikci .rut2ers.edu

(908) 332-7555

(908) 322-2623 FAX

Dr. Michael Pressley

Professor of Psychology

University ofNotre Dame

Haggard Hall

Notre Dame, IN 46556

GMPresslev0~aolcom

(219) 631-3245

(219) 631-7939 FAX

Dr. Ruth Wharton-McDonald

Assistant Professor

University of New Hampshire

Department of Education

Morrill Hall

Durham, NH 03824

Wharton ~bvpatia.unh.edu

(603) 778-7560

(603) 778-7566 FAX

The purpose of this alternative session is to present new research and to discuss issues concerning early literacy instruction. In 1998-1999, three national studies examined today's elementary literacy programs (i.e., Baumann, Hoffman, Moon, & Duff~-Hester, 1998; Pressley, Wharton-McDonald, Allington, Block, & Morrow, 1998; Morrow Tracy, Woo & Pressley, 1999; Taylor, Pearson, Clark & Wolpole, 1999). In addition, the National Research Council identified traits that assisted at-risk students to reach higher levels of literacy success (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). Data in these reports were remarkably similar. It was discovered that today's primary-grade teachers Òembrace a literature-based perspective, combine trade book reading with the reading of basal anthologies. . . [and] teach phonics in the context of literature, so students learn and practice pronouncing words presented in storiesÓ (Baumann, et al., 1998, pp. 646). They strive to (1) understand learners' potential (Snow, Burns & Griffin, 1998); (2) support pupils' attempts to learn new concepts (Block, 1993; Cazden, 1994; Porter & Brophy, 1988); (3) maintain high expectations (Erickson, 1993; Leibert, 1991; Ruddell, 1997); and (4) provide clear purposes (Good & Brouws, 1975; Morrow, Tracey, Woo & Pressley, 1999).

Although these reports identified the type of schedules, groups, and materials that were used, other aspects of highly successful, primary classrooms have not been ascertained. What instructional actions and pupil-interaction patterns distinguish first-grade teachers whose students' literacy abilities (at the end of grades i and 2) are significantly greater than peers across the hall, who come from the same socioeconomic neighborhoods but receive instruction from teachers whose interactions do not lead to as large literacy growths? How do good teachers empower individual children to independently engage in (and enjoy) reading and writing in light of current political and educational agendas (e.g., Allington, 2000; Snow, Burns & Griffin, 1998)? Which daily actions do primary teachers use to teach decoding and comprehension with outstanding literature, without creating an Òeclecticism run wildÓ (Applebee, 1992; Bond & Dykstra, 1967; Morrow, Tracey, Woo & Pressley, 1999)?

This alternative session was created by five principal investigators from one of the national studies cited above. Each will present new analyses concerning the nature, impact, and process of implementing exemplary first-grade literacy programs. These analyses will highlight (a) the historical and political context of primary-grade literacy instruction, (b) the political and educational pressures that such programs endure, (c) the types of daily actions that occur in highly-effective primary classrooms, (d) the perspectives and beliefs that exemplary teachers exhibit as they work to meet individual student needs, and (e) how today's most effective primary teachers maintain exciting and captivating environments that support individual student's literacy development. Some data comes from a second-phase extension of this national study--- a study that followed first-grade students throughout grade 2. The objective of this alternative session is to expand our knowledge base by identiI~ing ways in which highly-effective educators create long-term achievement gains and effectively enact national, regional, and local political, educational, and research-based agendas.

Theoretical Background

Such work is timely for two reasons. First, there is an increasing international focus on research designed to improve beginning literacy instruction for children in all countries. This movement had a powerful impetus in 1967 (Bond & Dykstra, 1967), and continues until today as we seek to discover the most effective blend of direct and indirect instructional actions that promotes greatest reading success (e.g., CIERA; Developmentally Appropriate Practices for Young Children (NABYC! IRA, 1998); National Standards for Reading and Language Arts (NCTE/IRA, 1997); What Mailers Most. (NCTAF, 1996); and, Postlethwaite & Ross (1992). Second, such data could assist researchers and educators to examine and incorporate more highly-effective actions in the decidedly diverse and complex literacy programs that today's educators lead.

This session focused on the power of the teacher (as opposed to the dominance of a particular set of instructional materials or organizational plans) to contribute to literacy growth. Inherent in this theory is the bel ief that teachers' daily actions go far in determining the quality of instructional episodes and level of student achievement. This focus does not minimize the belief that students assume an active role in the constmction of their own literacy (Vygotsky, 1967; Wertsch, 1991). What students do, however, depends greatly on (a) the instruction that they receive, (b) their teacher's abilities to respond effectively to tensions created by newly-evolving local, state, and national educational agendas, and (c) the personal, pupil-to-teacher interactions that their teachers create to support individual student's literacy development.

Each research paper was designed to present new analyses from a five-year study in CA, NJ, NY, TX, and WI in which political and educational agendas' influences on highly-effective classrooms in 20 locales were measured. Data sources included teachers, educational administrators, policy makers, and elementary students. Data also included second-year, follow-up achievement findings from students in exemplary early literacy programs. Data was analyzed through several research methodologies. Paper 1 was structured to report results from a metaanalyses of historical and contemporary research concerning first-grade instruction. Paper 2 was designed to document the effects of current political and educational agendas on teacher performances and beliefs. Paper 3 was designed to report analyses of instructional actions and teacher-to-pupil interaction patterns that led to significant literacy achievement gains at the end of first and second grade. Paper 4 was to identify the ways in which highly-effective teachers place individual student needs first as they respond to political and educational agendas by Òdoing it allÓ without creating an Òeclecticism run wildÓ (Applebee, 1992). Paper 5 was designed to demonstrate how effective instruction evolves in a highly-effective classroom, in the context of conflicting political and educational agendas. Presenters will end their papers with a question that they pose to audience members.

All schools and exemplary teachers were selected by several indices of effectiveness. All schools possessed the campus-wide qualities that have proven to improve literacy, e.g., strong principal leadership, coordinated curriculum, and strong connections to the community (Kingston, 1998; Taylor, et. al., 1999). Language arts directors from 20, distinct but representative school districts in the USA, selected two, grade-I teachers from one of their highest-performing, exemplary-ranked schools to participate in the study. One teacher was to be truly exceptional at promoting literacy, as identified by the characteristics discovered in the national studies cited previously, and one was to use instructional methods would be typical of solid grade-I literacy instruction in that district. No participating teacher was characterized by the language arts director as below average or deficient in professional competence. All teachers had a BS or MS of Education degree, had prior first-grade teaching experience (from 2-17 years), and 4-23 years of total teaching experience. Every classroom contained features that had been reported to be typical of today's primary classes: (a) shelves were filled with children's literature, (b) posters lined the walls, (c) a center rotation system was employed, and (d) many supplemental teaching aids, and at least one computer, were present (Baumann et al., 1998; Morrow et al, 1999; Pressley, et at., 1999; Taylor, et al., 1999). Literacy instruction occurred through large blocks of time in which children engaged with (and responded to) quality children's literature and district-adopted literature anthologies.

Prior to beginning the study, each teacher identified six children from her class who would receive more formal assessments (hereafter referred to as Òtarget studentsÓ). In each classroom, two of these students were among the highest achieving, two were working on grade level, and two were among the lowest performing in the class. A portfolio was constructed for each target student, including the student's end-of first-grade and end-of-second-grade written

compositions; pre-first grade Observation Survey (Clay, 1984); a list of the books that targeted students self-selected to read during May of grade 1; standardized test scores from the Terra Nova Basic Battery; and, scores on the Gates MacGinitie Reading Achievement Test at the end of grade 2. Data were collected through 144 or more hours of classroom observations, interviews, field notes, audio transcripts, and video tape analyses of each teacher as he or she taught literacy.

Results to be presented in this alternative session include five distinctive manners in which exemplary educators and school-wide instructional teams placed students first in the context of today's political and educational agendas. Data indicated that providing programs which create significant literacy gains (sustained until the end of grade 2) included five major conditions: (I) an indepth knowledge and appreciate of the historical and contemporary context in which individual lessons were presented; (2) the value of professional decision-making; (3) the power of 12 types of teacher-to-pupil interactional patterns that occured during daily instruction; (4) a distinct set of beliefs concerning literacy instruction at the primary level; and (5) competencies to maintain a captivating and effective learning environment.

Our study extended the work of national studies reported in 1998 and 1999, and earlier. It reaffirmed that highly effective first-grade teachers, throughout the USA, possessed similar professional traits. In addition, we learned that regardless of the socioeconomic level of students taught or organizational system used, highly effective teachers engaged in analogous daily actions, and placed students first in their professional responses to the political and educational agendas that they faced. Their distinctive belief systems, actions, and daily interaction patterns contributed to their students' significantly higher literacy gains in first grade. Their methods of responding to current political and educational agenda also enabled less able, on-grade-level, and above-grade-level readers to sustain their statistically significant literacy growths until the end of grade-2, regardless of the sociopolitical climate in which they learned. Through data presented in this alternative session more researchers can discern how today's teachers are taking students from low, middle, and high socioeconomic neighborhoods and maximizing their potential. In addition, this alternative session can deepen our understanding ofjust how great the necessitate is to improve grade-I literacy instruction. There is also an urgent need to design new research studies that examine teacher development and personnel selection processes which might result in belier early literacy achievement. A first step could be to explore methods by which more teachers could include the actions identified by the research presented (and discussed) in this alternative session.

Allington, R. (2000). Political agendas: How are we responding. Educational Researcher. 37(5), 93-99.

Applebee, A. (1992). Results from the National Student of Secondary English Ôteachers. Paper presented at the National Reading Conference, Austin, TX, December.

Baumann, J. F., Hoffh~an, J. V, Moon, J., & Duffy-Hester, A. (1998). Where are teachers' voices in the phonics/whole language debate? Results from a survey of U. S. elementary teachers. Reading Teacher. 50 (8), 636-651.

Block, C. C. (1993). Effects of strategy instruction in a literature-based program. Elementary School Journal. 53(4), 132-147.

Bond, G. L. & Dykstra, R. (1967). The cooperative research program in first-grade reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly. 2(2), 85-148.

Cazden, C. B. (1994). Differential treatment in New Zealand: Reflections on research in minority education. Teaching and Teacher Education. 6(4), 291-303.

Clay, M. (1984). An Observation Manual. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Erickson, J. (1993).Teachers' voices. Unpublished master's thesis, Fresno Pacific College

Good, T. & Brouws, D. (1975). Process-aroduce relationships in 4th urade mathematics classes. Columbia: University of Missouri College Education.

Kingston, A. (1998). Qualities of effect schools that develop literacy. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April, Chicago.

Leibert, R. E. (1991). The Dolch List revisited. Reading Horizons. 31(3), 2 17-227. Morrow, L. M., Tracey, D. H., Woo, D. cii., & Pressley, M. (1999). Characteristics of

exemplary first-grade literacy instruction. The Reading Teacher, 52 (5), 462-76. National Commission on Teaching & America's Future (1996). What Mailers Most:

Teaching for America's Future. NY: Teachers College, Columbia University. National Council of Teaches of English and International Reading Association (1996).

National Standards for the English Lanuua~e Arts. Urbana, IL: NCTE and Newark, DE: IRA. National Association for the Education of Young Children and International Reading

Association (1998). Develovmentallv Appropriate Literacy Practices for Young Children. Urbana, IL: NCTE.

Porter, A. & Brophy, J. (1988). Synthesis of research on good teaching. Educational Leadership. 45(8), 74-85

Postlethwaite, T.N. & Ross, K. N. (1992). Effective Schools in Reading: Implications for Educational Planners. Netherlands, The Hague: International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.

Pressley, M., Wharton-McDonald, R., Allington. R., Block, C., Morrow, L. (1998). The nature of effective first-grade literacy instruction. CELA Research Report Number 11007. Albany, NY: Center on English Learning and Achievement.

Ruddell, R. B. (1997). Researching the influential literacy teacher: Characteristics, beliefs, strategies, and new research directions. In C. K. Kinzer, K. A. Hinchman, & D. .1. Leu (Eds.). lncuuiries in literacy theory and practice. 46th Yearbook of the National Reading Conference (37-53). Chicago: National Reading Conference.

Snow, C. E., Bums, M., & Griffin, 0. (1998). Preventing Reading Failure. Washington, DC: National Research Council.

Taylor, B., Pearson, P. D., Clark, K. F., & Wolpole, S. (1999). Effective schools/accomplished teachers. The Reading Teacher. 53(2), 156-159.

Vygotsky, L. (1967). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Wertseh, J. (1991). Voices of the mind. NY: Harvard Press.