Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Further evidence for teacher knowledge: supporting struggling readers in grades three through five

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We report the results of a study with 30 teachers designed to examine the effects of teacher knowledge on the achievement of struggling readers. We worked with teachers of grades three, four, and five during a 10-day intervention focused on literacy instruction and related linguistic knowledge, and we assessed their students’ learning across the year. Hierarchical models of student outcomes indicated that lower-performing students in intervention classrooms showed significantly higher levels of performance at year end on all literacy measures, compared with their peers in control classrooms (n = 140). In addition, teacher’s linguistic knowledge was related to improved student performance, regardless of condition. Additional analyses including all students (n = 718) indicated that benefits for the lower performing students in intervention classrooms were shared by their classmates, but to a more limited extent.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anglin, J. (1993). Vocabulary development: A morphological analysis. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 58, (19, Serial No. 238).

  • Bader, L. A. (1975). Certification requirements in reading: A trend. Journal of Reading, 19, 237–240.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, D. L. (1991). Research on teaching mathematics: Making content knowledge part of the equation. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching (Vol. 2, pp. 1–48). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, E. W., & Blachman, B. A. (1991). Does phonemic awareness training in kindergarten make a difference in early word reading and developmental spelling? Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 49–66. doi:10.1598/RRQ.26.1.3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumann, J. F., Hoffman, J., Duffy-Hester, A. M., & Moon, J. (2000). The First R yesterday and today: US elementary reading instruction practices reported by teachers and administrators. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 338–377. doi:10.1598/RRQ.35.3.2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, V. W. (1998). Process assessment of the learn (PAL): Guides for intervention. New York: The Psychological Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berninger, V. W., Thalberg, S. P., DeBruyn, I., & Smith, R. (1987). Preventing reading disabilities by assessing and remediating phonemic skills. School Psychology Review, 4, 554–565.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biancarosa, G., & Snow, C. E. (2004). Reading next—a vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report from Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bos, C., Mather, N., Dickson, S., Podhajski, B., & Chard, D. (2001). Perceptions and knowledge of preservice and inservice educators about early reading instruction. Annals of Dyslexia, 51, 97–120. doi:10.1007/s11881-001-0007-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braam, L., & Oliver, M. (1970). Undergraduate reading education. The Reading Teacher, 23, 426–428.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brady, S., & Moats, L. (1997). Informed instruction for reading success: Foundations to teacher preparation. A position paper of the International Dyslexia Association. Baltimore: International Dyslexia Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, A. (1992). Design experiments: Theoretical and methodological challenges in creating complex interventions in classroom settings. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 141–178. doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0202_2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns, M. S., Griffin, P., & Snow, C. E. (Eds.). (1999). Starting out right: A guide to promoting children’s reading success. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, A. E. (1990). Explicit versus implicit instruction in phonemic awareness. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 50, 429–444. doi:10.1016/0022-0965(90)90079-N.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, A. E., Perry, K. E., Stanovich, K. E., & Stanovich, P. J. (2004). Disciplinary knowledge of K-3 teachers and their knowledge calibration in the domain of early literacy. Annals of Dyslexia, 54, 139–167. doi:10.1007/s11881-004-0007-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehri, L. C. (1995). Teachers need to know how word reading processes develop to teach reading effectively to beginners. In C. N. Headley, P. Atonacci, & M. Rabinowitz (Eds.), Literacy and thinking: The mind at work in the classroom (pp. 167–188). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehri, L. C., & Williams, J. P. (1995). Learning to read and learning to teach reading. In F. Murray (Ed.), The teacher educator’s handbook: Building a knowledge base for the preparation of teachers (pp. 231–244). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Base.

    Google Scholar 

  • Englert, C. S., Raphael, T. E., Anderson, L. M., Anthony, H. M., & Stevens, D. D. (1991). Making strategies and self-talk visible: Writing instruction in regular and special education classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 337–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Englert, C. S., Stewart, S. R., & Hiebert, E. H. (1988). Young writers’ use of text structure in expository text generation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 143–151. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.80.2.143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, P. L. (1991). What are we talking about anyway? Content knowledge of secondary English teachers. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching (Vol. 2, pp. 245–264). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grossman, P. L., Valencia, S. W., & Hamel, F. (1995). Preparing language arts teachers in a time of reform. In J. Flood, S. B. Heath, & D. Lapp (Eds.), Handbook for research on teaching literacy through the communicative and visual arts (pp. 407–416). New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, S. J., & Moats, L. C. (1999). Straight talk about reading. Chicago: Contemporary Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, J., & Pearson, P. D. (2000). Reading teacher education ion the next millennium: What your grandmother’s teacher didn’t know that your granddaughter’s teacher should. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 28–44. doi:10.1598/RRQ.35.1.3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klecan-Aker, J., & Brueggerman, L. (1991). The expression connection: A structured approach to teaching storytelling to school age children. Vero Beach, FL: Speech Bin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane, H. B., Hudson, R. F., Leite, W. L., Kosanovich, M. L., Strout, M. T., Fenty, N. S., & Wright, T. L. (2009). Teacher knowledge about reading fluency and indicators of students’ fluency growth in Reading First schools. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 25, 57–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • MacGinitie, W. H., & MacGinitie, R. K. (1989). Gates MacGinitie Reading Tests (3rd ed.). Chicago: Riverside.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mather, N., Bos, C., & Babur, N. (2001). Perceptions and knowledge of preservice and inservice educators about early reading instruction. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 472–482. doi:10.1177/002221940103400508.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCutchen, D. (1987). Children’s discourse skill: Form and modality requirements of schooled writing. Discourse Processes, 19, 267–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCutchen, D. (2006). Cognitive factors in the development of children’s writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 115–130). New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCutchen, D., Abbott, R. D., Green, L. B., Beretvas, S. N., Cox, S., Potter, N. S., et al. (2002a). Beginning literacy: Links among teacher knowledge, teacher practice, and student learning. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 69–86. doi:10.1177/002221940203500106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCutchen, D., & Berninger, V. W. (1999). Those who know teach well: Helping teachers master literacy related content knowledge. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14, 215–226. doi:10.1207/sldrp1404_3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCutchen, D., Harry, D. R., Cunningham, A. E., Cox, S., Sidman, S., & Covill, A. E. (2002b). Reading teachers’ knowledge of children’s literature and English phonology. Annals of Dyslexia, 52, 207–228. doi:10.1007/s11881-002-0013-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, B. J. F., Brandt, D. M., & Bluth, G. J. (1980). Use of top-level structure in text: Key for reading comprehension of ninth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 72–103. doi:10.2307/747349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, B. J. F., & Poon, L. W. (2001). Effects of structure strategy training and signaling on recall of text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 141–159. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moats, L. C. (1994). The missing foundation in teacher education: Knowledge of the structure of spoken and written language. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 81–102. doi:10.1007/BF02648156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moats, L. C., & Foorman, B. R. (2003). Measuring teachers’ content knowledge of language and reading. Annals of Dyslexia, 53, 23–45. doi:10.1007/s11881-003-0003-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moats, L. C., & Lyon, G. R. (1996). Wanted: Teachers with knowledge of language. Topics in Learning Disabilities, 16, 73–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nolen, P. A., McCutchen, D., & Berninger, V. (1990). Ensuring tomorrow’s literacy: A shared responsibility. Journal of Teacher Education, 41, 63–72. doi:10.1177/002248719004100308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, R. K., Wise, B., Ring, J., & Johnson, M. (1997). Computer-based remedial training in phonological awareness and phonological decoding: Effects on the post-training development of word recognition. Scientific Studies of Reading, 1, 235–254. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0103_4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension monitoring strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117–175. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0102_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Phelps, G., & Schilling, S. (2004). Developing measures of content knowledge for teaching reading. The Elementary School Journal, 105, 31–48. doi:10.1086/428764.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M. (1998). Reading instruction: The case for balanced teaching. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., & Congdon, R. T. (2004). HLM for Windows 6.0. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Riddle Buly, M., & Valencia, S. W. (2002). Below the bar: Profiles of students who fail state reading assessment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 219–239. doi:10.3102/01623737024003219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosner, J. (1979). Helping children overcome learning disabilities (2nd ed.). New York: Walker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanahan, T. (1994). Teachers thinking, teachers knowing. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English: National Conference on Research in English.

  • Share, D. L., & Stanovich, K. E. (1995). Cognitive processes in early reading development: Accommodating individual differences into a model of acquisition. Issues in Education: Contributions from Educational Psychology, 1, 1–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations for the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stein, N. L., & Glenn, C. G. (1979). An analysis of story comprehension in elementary children. In R. O. Freedle (Ed.), New directions in discourse processing (Vol. 2, pp. 53–120). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Torgesen, J. K. (1997). The prevention and remediation of reading disabilities: Evaluating what we know from research. Journal of Academic Language Therapy, 1, 11–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Troyer, S. J., & Yopp, H. K. (1990). Kindergarten teachers’ knowledge of emergent literacy concepts. Reading Improvement, 27, 34–40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Venezky, R. L. (1970). The structure of English orthography. The Hague, The Netherlands: Mouton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler individual achievement test. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wineburg, S. S., & Wilson, S. M. (1991). Content knowledge in the teaching of history. In J. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research on teaching (Vol. 2, pp. 305–347). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winkeljohann, R., Sr. (1976). State certification of reading teachers. The Reading Teacher, 29, 524–525.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woodcock, R. (1987, 1998). Woodcock Reading Mastery Test-Revised/Normative Update (WRMT-R/NU). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

  • Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III, tests of achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by Center Grant P50HD 33812 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The authors wish to thank the teachers and students who cooperated in the research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Deborah McCutchen.

Appendix

Appendix

Informal Survey of Linguistic Knowledge (from Moats, 1994)

  1. 1.

    From the list below, find an example of each of the following:

    • inflected verb _______________________

    • compound noun _____________________

    • bound root _________________________

    • derivational suffix ___________________

      • scarecrow    nameless    terrible    phonograph

        • impeached    tables    weakly

  2. 2.

    For each word on the left, determine the number of syllables and the number of morphemes:

    • salamander

    • crocodile

    • attached

    • unbelievable

    • finger

    • pies

    • gardener

    • psychometrics

  3. 3.

    How many speech sounds are in the following words?

    • ox

    • boil

    • king

    • thank

    • straight

    • shout

    • though

    • precious

  4. 4.

    What is the third speech sound in each of the following words?

    • boyfriend    prayer

    • thankyou    higher

    • educate    witchcraft

    • stood    badger

  5. 5.

    Underline the schwa vowels:

    • About    melody    sofa    effect    difficult    definition

  6. 6.

    Underline the consonant blends:

    • Doubt    known    first    pumpkin    squawk    scratch

  7. 7.

    Underline the consonant digraphs:

    • wholesale    psychic    doubt    wrap    daughter    think

  8. 8.

    When is a “ck” used in spelling?

  9. 9.

    What letters signal that a “g” is pronounced /j/?

  10. 10.

    List all the ways you can think of to spell “long a”:

  11. 11.

    List all the ways you can think of to spell /k/: )

  12. 12.

    What are six common syllable types in English?

  13. 13.

    When adding a suffix to a word ending with “y”, what is the rule?

  14. 14.

    How can you recognize a word of Greek origin?

  15. 15.

    Account for the double “m” in comment or commitment

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

McCutchen, D., Green, L., Abbott, R.D. et al. Further evidence for teacher knowledge: supporting struggling readers in grades three through five. Read Writ 22, 401–423 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9163-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-009-9163-0

Keywords

Navigation