Abstract
Researchers conducted an observation study to explore the instructional practices of special education teachers (N = 20) responsible for teaching reading to students with learning disabilities in Grades 4 and 5. With this study, researchers addressed gaps in previous related literature and improved understanding of how teachers spend their time teaching reading. Researchers observed 80 lessons and found that special educators addressed a wide range of instructional skills. The majority of teachers provided targeted phonics instruction, and overall, minimal instructional time was lost due to off-task behavior. Consistent with previous studies, teachers predominantly monitored reading comprehension by asking questions after reading, while reading comprehension strategy instruction accounted for a smaller proportion of instructional time. Researchers conducted focus groups to explore teachers’ perceptions of professional development and determine needs for future teacher training and research.
Special educators who teach reading to students with learning disabilities (LD) in upper elementary school face complicated tasks. These teachers prepare students for the read-to-learn expectations of middle school (Boardman et al., 2016), while continuing to support areas of reading difficulty, including phonics (Haager & Vaughn, 2013). Fortunately, researchers have identified evidence-based practices that are associated with positive reading outcomes for students with LD in Grades 4 and 5 that special educators can utilize. Evidence-based practices are instructional practices, strategies, or interventions that have been associated with improved student outcomes through rigorous experimental group comparison designs or single-subject experimental designs (Council for Exceptional Children, 2014).
Systematic reviews of literature in areas such as fluency (Chard, Vaughn, & Tyler, 2002), comprehension (Scammacca, Roberts, Vaughn, & Stuebing, 2015), and reading instruction broadly (H. L. Swanson, 1999; Wanzek, Wexler, Vaughn, & Ciullo, 2010) have identified evidence-based practices for students with LD and struggling readers. For instance, explicitly teaching reading comprehension strategies is suggested because students with LD often experience difficulty with reading strategically and monitoring their understanding (Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, & Baker, 2001). Thus, researchers have emphasized the importance of modeling and practicing strategy instruction to promote students’ ability to monitor comprehension and to identify key information using main idea or summarization strategies (Scammacca et al., 2015).
Other examples of effective practices discussed in the aforementioned systematic reviews are small-group reading instruction and structured peer-mediated reading (Boardman et al., 2016; Haager & Vaughn, 2013; Wanzek et al., 2010). In addition to reading texts, peer-mediated reading interventions often include activities to enhance comprehension and engagement such as peer questioning, providing feedback, or generating main ideas. Examples of peer-reading interventions that include structured student roles are peer-assisted learning strategies (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Burish, 2000), collaborative strategic reading (Boardman et al., 2016; Vaughn et al., 2011), or partner reading with peer tutoring that includes feedback for word errors as well as prompts for summarization (Mastropieri et al., 2001). Systematic reviews of literature are also beneficial for exploring if common classroom reading practices are based on evidence. For example, round-robin reading, which has been defined as teachers and students taking turns reading the same text orally (Ash, Kuhn, & Walpole, 2008), is not based on experimental research.
As research evolves, it remains necessary to report on what educators in the trenches are doing to guide new research and support for teachers. Observation research is one mechanism for exploring the instructional practices of teachers. Observation studies have provided information about how educational frameworks, including Response to Intervention (RTI), were operationalized (E. Swanson, Solis, Ciullo, & McKenna, 2012) and if students with LD received specialized instruction in resource rooms (Moody, Vaughn, Hughes, & Fischer, 2000). Information gleaned from observations can be helpful when tailoring professional development to teachers’ and students’ needs (Jones & Brownell, 2013). The present study expanded on several previous studies that examined the reading practices of teachers serving students with LD in the upper elementary grades.
Previous Observation Research for Students With LD
Systematic reviews of observation studies for students with LD have revealed important findings related to typical practice as well as gaps in the literature that justify additional research (McKenna, Shin, & Ciullo, 2015; E. A. Swanson, 2008; Walker & Stevens, 2017). Walker and Stevens (2017) found that researchers generally conduct observation studies to examine instructional quality and the implementation of education initiatives. Each synthesis (McKenna et al., 2016; E. A. Swanson, 2008; Walker & Stevens, 2017) concluded that research-to-practice gaps persist and that targeted professional development could benefit teachers. The authors of the aforementioned syntheses also recommended new observation research to explore whether or not teachers implement evidence-based practices. The following section situates the present study by summarizing prior studies conducted with teachers in Grades 4 and 5. Then, researchers discuss how the current study addresses gaps in the literature (McKenna et al., 2015).
Lessons Learned From Prior Studies
Only five studies published over the past 20 years focused on special educators who taught students with LD in Grades 4 and 5 (Klingner, Urbach, Golos, Brownell, & Menon, 2010; Moody et al., 2000; E. Swanson et al., 2012; E. A. Swanson & Vaughn, 2010; Vaughn, Moody, & Schumm, 1998). Two studies investigated if students with LD received specialized resource room instruction (Moody et al., 2000; Vaughn et al., 1998). Vaughn and colleagues (1998) observed teachers in Grades 3 through 5 to determine grouping practices, instructional approaches, and if instruction was individualized. The majority of teachers used a whole language approach with only three of 14 teachers providing consistent phonics practice. The participants often provided whole-group instruction and very limited differentiated instruction. Researchers concluded that resource room instruction was not specialized and tended to resemble practices common in general education (Vaughn et al., 1998).
A follow-up study (Moody et al., 2000) included six of the same teachers and eight additional teachers. Three returning teachers increased their use of differentiated instruction, but the majority implemented whole-group instruction. Although teachers stated that phonics was an important reading component, increases in phonics activities were not observed. Finally, researchers reported scant evidence of reading comprehension instruction. The researchers found that large caseloads and a shortage of specialized professional development hindered quality resource room instruction.
In 2010, Swanson and Vaughn updated the literature on resource room instruction by observing special educators in Grades 2 through 5 using the Instructional Content-Emphasis Revised (ICE-R) observation instrument (Edmonds & Briggs, 2003). The ICE-R includes a range of literacy components and strategies, including those suggested by the National Reading Panel (2000), along with additional practices including those discussed at the outset of the article including peer reading, explicit reading comprehension strategy instruction. Group sizes (i.e., 1–7 students) were smaller relative to earlier studies and phonics/word study instruction accounted for 24% of time, an increase from prior studies. Students had frequent opportunities to practice skills because less than 10% of time included logistical activities. Teachers emphasized reading comprehension (25%), but the most prevalent activity was asking questions after reading, referred to as comprehension monitoring. Observation studies continue to be needed to explore if research-to-practice gaps close as effective practices are more accessible.
Klingner and colleagues (2010) documented reading comprehension instruction in Grades 3 through 5. Researchers investigated if special educators explicitly taught reading comprehension strategies. Teachers spent the majority of their instructional time (66%) on reading comprehension, but rarely provided strategy instruction. The strategy observed most often was making predictions. Teachers directed students to use a summarization strategy 7 times and students were prompted to identify main ideas from text 4 times. The researchers recommended that future observation studies should explore the perceptions of teachers to learn more about factors contributing to their instructional decisions.
Finally, E. Swanson and colleagues (2012) observed special educators’ role within RTI in Grades 3, 4, and 5. Data sources included observations of reading and mathematics instruction and focus groups. Although teachers spent a large proportion of time on reading comprehension, comprehension monitoring activities exceeded strategy instruction by a ratio of 2:1. Focus groups revealed that teachers had positive views of RTI as an approach to providing early intervention and as a framework for increasing collaboration with general educators. Teachers identified scheduling changes and increased paperwork as challenges.
Gaps in the Literature
High-Needs Schools
The present study expands on previous observation research by observing teachers who provided reading instruction to students with LD in a setting that was not previously explored. Specifically, teachers who taught in schools where the reading scores of students with disabilities were lower than the state’s average passing rates for students with disabilities were recruited. Furthermore, the teachers were employed in schools where at least 40% of the students were economically disadvantaged, and where over 40% of the students were identified as a race other than White. These criteria were included for two reasons. Students with disabilities, students living in poverty, and students who are Hispanic and African American have experienced considerable difficulties with reading. Scores on the fourth-grade National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) in reading suggests a need to enhance instruction and professional development for teachers who instruct students who are economically disadvantaged (20% of students proficient), students with disabilities (11% of students proficient), and for students who are Hispanic (20% of students proficient) or African American (18% of students proficient; National Center for Education Statistics, 2016). Thus, an observation study is warranted to acquire data to guide professional development in low-performing/high-needs schools.
In addition, an observation study based on the aforementioned inclusion criteria allows for comparisons with previous studies. Comparing the use of instructional time in low-performing schools with the results of studies in schools with higher reading achievement provides insight into whether trends in the literature, such as low-percentages of time devoted to reading comprehension strategy instruction (e.g., E. A. Swanson & Vaughn, 2010), vary based on setting. Therefore, documenting instruction in low-performing schools can offer initial data to guide professional development and inform suggestions for improving instruction in these settings.
Restricted Grade-Level Focus
This study focused exclusively on Grades 4 and 5, unlike previous studies. Researchers were interested in examining if special education teachers in Grades 4 and 5 were teaching reading components that are not included in most fourth- and fifth-grade curriculums, such as phonics. Second, researchers were interested in these grade levels because reading informational text for understanding is emphasized to a greater extent in upper elementary school and beyond (Haager & Vaughn, 2013). Therefore, narrowing the grade span focus allowed researchers to examine if students participated in activities that are beneficial for upper elementary reading achievement, such as utilizing reading comprehension strategies.
Reading Comprehension
Although researchers have previously reported how much time was dedicated to reading comprehension strategy instruction, only one prior study reported the strategies that teachers used (Klingner et al., 2010). Strategy instruction combined with explicit instruction can improve reading outcomes (H. L. Swanson, 1999). As students with LD do not always engage in strategic reading (Gersten et al., 2001), teachers must provide explicit strategy instruction to students with LD. In this study, researchers documented the comprehension strategies teachers used with students with LD to determine if the strategies were evidence based. Furthermore, this study responded to a suggestion made by Klingner and colleagues (2010)s to probe teachers about their instruction to obtain information that can influence teacher support. Through focus group conversations, researchers learned more about the needs of the teachers in this study including their access to resources and perceptions of professional development.
Text-Based Instruction
Previous studies did not report on the texts used during observed lessons. There has been recent emphasis for students to read informational text in the elementary grades (Haager & Vaughn, 2013) because these texts promote readiness for secondary school reading and provide content-area information. This study also reported on reading mode. Reading mode—the format or process used when reading (e.g., silent reading, peer reading)—was documented by previous researchers using the ICE-R (Kent, Wanzek, & Al Otaiba, 2017; E. Swanson et al., 2012; E. A. Swanson & Vaughn, 2010). The present study extends previous studies by including a discussion about the extent to which these reading modes are based on evidence. For example, researchers in this study reported how often a reading mode was used, such as peer reading, an approach that has been associated with improved reading outcomes in experimental studies for students with LD (Boardman et al., 2016; Fuchs et al., 2000). Reading modes that are not based on evidence are also discussed and professional development suggestions are provided.
Study Purpose and Research Questions
This study explored the instructional practices of special educators during reading instruction for students with LD in Grades 4 and 5. The study addressed gaps in prior observation studies by observing teachers in schools with low reading achievement for students with disabilities, focusing only on Grades 4 and 5, documenting reading comprehension strategies, and reporting the texts used as well as reading mode. The following research questions guided this study:
Method
Participants and Setting
Researchers used purposive sampling methods (Miles & Huberman, 1994) to recruit special educators who taught in schools where (a) students with disabilities performed lower than the state’s average reading score for students with disabilities, (b) over 40% of students received free or reduced lunch, and (c) over 40% of students identified as a race other than White. A two-stage recruiting process was employed to identify teacher participants.
Stage 1
Targeted recruitment began by identifying school districts that contained a majority of elementary school campuses that met all of the aforementioned criteria. One school district was in a southwestern state with 7,700 students. Approximately 72% of students were Hispanic, 20% White, 5% African American, and 3% other. Ten percent of students received special education services and 70% of the students received subsidized lunch. Five of the six elementary schools met all inclusion criteria. The second district was in the mid-Atlantic region and served 4,100 students. Approximately 11% of students in the school district were Hispanic, 40% White, 36% African American, 6% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 7% Other. Fourteen percent of students received special education services and 55% received subsidized lunch. Three of the five schools from this school district met inclusion criteria and agreed to participate.
Stage 2
Next, principals at each campus allowed the researchers to recruit special education teachers in Grades 4 and 5. To participate, the teachers were required to possess a special education certificate and they had to provide reading instruction to groups where the majority of the students were LD. The researchers explained to the teachers that they were interested in observing reading instruction for students with LD in situations where the special educator was responsible for leading the lesson, regardless of the setting (e.g., co-teaching, small-group instruction in a general education classroom, or resource room/pull-out instruction). Twenty teachers from eight schools participated. In all cases, the instruction that was delivered by the 20 special educators in this study took place in a resource room. Levels of teaching experience ranged from 3 to 33 years (M = 11). Table 1 contains teacher demographic information.
Participant Demographics.
Instrumentation
Observation protocol
Researchers used the ICE-R (Edmonds & Briggs, 2003) during live observations of instruction. The ICE-R prompts observers to record materials used, grouping arrangements, literacy components taught (e.g., reading comprehension), and subcomponents (e.g., reading comprehension strategy instruction). The ICE-R contains two key dimensions. Dimension A is the main instructional component being observed. The Dimension A categories are phonological awareness, phonics/word study, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, text reading, writing, and spelling. Dimension B includes the instructional subcategories and activities being observed. For example, during a Dimension A reading comprehension lesson, the Dimension B activities could be prior knowledge and predicting, comprehension monitoring, listening comprehension monitoring, and comprehension strategy instruction. The ICE-R has a detailed codebook that describes each instructional dimension and provides examples. The ICE-R includes detailed directions for data collection to promote a systematic process. Researchers also report academic logistics (e.g., collecting homework) and non-instructional logistics (e.g., discussing lunch). Time devoted to logistics was included within the total amount of minutes for the lesson, consistent with all previous studies using the ICE-R. For instance, 25 min of phonics plus 5 min of non-instructional logistics would be recorded as a 30-min lesson.
Edmonds and Briggs (2003) reported that content validity of the ICE-R was based on systematic reviews of research and suggestions from the 2000 National Reading Panel report. The inter-rater reliability was 91% during instrument development (Edmonds & Briggs, 2003). In addition to existing items on the ICE-R, researchers used a one-page addendum. The addendum included a location for observers to record the type of text that was used in each lesson and the title of each text. The addendum also contained a location to record the time devoted to reading text during each lesson as well as the reading mode. Although time allocated to text reading and reading mode are included in the ICE-R codebook, noting this information on the addendum form following each lesson provided the researchers with a succinct account of the text reading portion of each lesson. Reading modes are found within the text reading category of the ICE-R and include supported oral reading (e.g., peer reading), choral reading (i.e., reading in unison), independent silent reading, teacher reads aloud while students listen, and teacher reads aloud with students reading along. Researchers took detailed notes about each reading activity to accurately determine which mode was used and to explore the prevalence of peer reading. The researchers were also interested in documenting the prevalence round-robin reading, a frequently used practice (Ash et al., 2008) that has not been associated with improved student outcomes.
Text reading documentation and coding
The ICE-R provides the following three opportunities to document text reading. First, the ICE-R defines the main category of text reading in Dimension A as reading a text with no concurrent instructional activities taking place. Researchers (e.g., E. A. Swanson & Vaughn, 2010) typically include a note in their results tables stating that the percentages of text reading reported for the text reading category of Dimension A include no concurrent activities. Next, the ICE-R provides for the documentation of reading imbedded within (or concurrent with) a fluency, vocabulary, or comprehension lesson. For example, a vocabulary lesson (Dimension A) teaching students to use context clues (Dimension B) included text reading because the text was utilized to read and search for context clues. The researcher coded the vocabulary lesson activities for Dimensions A and B, while indicating that 2 min of reading happened concurrently. Finally, the ICE-R allows for the coding of text reading within reading fluency lessons. Specifically, a lesson focusing on reading fluency (Dimension A) via repeated reading (Dimension B) is a final example of reading that an observer could document. In summary, observers code text reading in three locations: (a) within the text reading category of Dimension A, (b) text reading concurrent with another activity or lesson, and (c) reading fluency lessons that include repeated reading of text.
Focus groups
After completion of observations, researchers held focus groups to acquire insight into teachers’ instructional decisions as well as their perceptions of training and support for their reading instruction. Focus groups occurred after all observations to safeguard against instructional variations that may have resulted from ideas discussed in focus groups. Focus groups are beneficial because they give participants an opportunity to express converging and diverging viewpoints on issues in a structured format in which a moderator can ask for clarifications as needed (Vaughn, Schumm, & Sinagub, 1996). Focus groups include participants with a shared background or experience, which creates a comfortable space for sharing insight in a small-group setting (Krueger & Casey, 2014). Furthermore, focus groups have been beneficial for providing understandings relevant to the field of special education (e.g., E. Swanson et al., 2012).
Researchers held focus group interviews with 15 participants (five teachers were unable to attend). Open-ended questions related to the following topics were used: accessing new strategies and materials, perceptions of professional development, how teachers conceptualized their role in providing intervention while teaching grade-level skills, and capacity to access and use evidence-based practices. Teachers also discussed obstacles to the sustainability of practices learned in professional development. Researchers did not reveal the questions in advance; instead, they informed participants that the purpose of the focus group was to discuss relevant topics including their instruction, professional development, and teacher preparation.
Procedures
Observer training
The first author trained four researchers to conduct live observations. Each observer was qualified to participate in an observation study about special education reading instruction. Each observer had previously worked as a special educator and provided reading instruction. Each observer also had experience in leading or supporting large experimental research studies. Two authors also had experience conducting systematic observational research, which included experience using the ICE-R. Training consisted of general procedures (e.g., coding of observations, audio recording) and operational definitions. In addition, the first author modeled coding and explained each coding decision during video observations. Observers then independently coded three videotaped lessons. In accordance with the gold standard method (Gwet, 2001), the first author established a set of codes that was used to evaluate interobserver agreement (IOA). Data collection commenced upon attainment of 85% agreement on three videos. This figure is consistent with other observation studies for elementary reading instruction such as Dwyer, Kelcey, Berebitsky, and Carlisle (2016) who reported 83% IOA.
Live observations
Teachers confirmed the time of their reading lessons before each observation. Researchers reminded teachers (via email) to teach the lesson that was scheduled for this day because the purpose was to explore typical practice. Observers sat in a location intended to reduce distraction, such as a small desk or table. Each lesson was audio-recorded with a recorder placed close to the teacher. Audio recordings were used on several occasions to resolve coding discrepancies, as well as to confirm the accuracy of field notes, which included verifying the vocabulary activities taught during the third and fourth round of observations. Reliability was measured during each of the four observation rounds. Two researchers observed 20% of the lessons to assess ongoing IOA. An 86% reliability rating was attained (range = 80%–94%). Similar to E. Swanson and colleagues’ (2012) observation study, observation rounds were the periods of time when all teachers in the study were observed. Round 1 observations lasted from late October to mid-November, Round 2 observations occurred in December, Round 3 was the second week of January through February, and Round 4 was implemented in March.
Focus groups
The first and second authors facilitated the focus groups and followed procedures outlined by Vaughn and colleagues (1996) to ensure that audio recording occurred, confidentiality was established, and follow-up questions provided clarification. Before each focus group, researchers encouraged active participation and informed teachers that responses would be confidential. Researchers asked guiding questions that progressed from general to more specific to facilitate discussion. Questions were clarified when requested. Researchers also asked clarifying and probing questions to acquire detailed responses, examples to illustrate statements, and to determine if participants agreed with responses. Researchers transcribed each audio recording and provided participants with a summary, asking them to notify the researchers if contents did not represent the focus group discussions or if clarification was needed. No focus group participants contacted the researchers with concerns or questions.
Data analysis
Researchers calculated descriptive statistics of lesson duration and time spent reading, academic and non-academic logistics, and on different reading strategies. In addition, researchers calculated descriptive statistics to determine what activities occurred, including a percentage of the instructional categories for Dimension A and Dimension B. Finally, researchers documented reading comprehension activities, the duration and occurrences of each strategy, and the percentage of the time devoted to reading comprehension strategies.
To analyze focus group data, three researchers independently read each transcript (Braun & Clarke, 2006) to create an initial set of codes that were representative of teacher responses. Each researcher created a set of codes with operational definitions. Discussions ensued to develop a final set of codes to be used in the focus group analysis. Final codes were professional development, resources, teacher preparation, barriers and facilitators to effective reading instruction, evidence-based practices, and goals. The researchers then recoded both transcripts utilizing this final set of codes. Specifically, two researchers independently coded each transcript with the third researcher serving as a discussant in the event disagreements occurred. Researchers compared and contrasted both sets of focus group coding to identify emerging themes. Initial agreement was 95.5%. When disagreements occurred (e.g., on instructional planning and teacher resources), all three researchers reread and recoded the transcripts. Discussions on themes and supporting information between the three researchers continued until 100% agreement was obtained. Furthermore, as part of the process of identifying themes, all three researchers read through focus group coding to identify any contradictory information (e.g., Brantlinger, Jimenez, Klingner, Pugach, & Richardson, 2005). Several themes emerged from each focus group, which were reviewed and named. Researchers compared and contrasted themes to identify similarities as well as differences in teacher perspectives.
Results
Broad Overview
Researchers observed 80 lessons (2,638 min of instruction). The average lesson duration was 32 min, with lessons ranging from 22 to 45 min. All observations took place in resource rooms. The average group size was four students per lesson, but groups ranged from two to seven students. Researchers observed the same teachers and groups of students 4 times each. Observing a teacher working with the same group of students was implemented to control for potential instructional variations that occur when teaching different students.
Logistics
Teachers spent 241 min (9%) of class time on logistics. Academic logistics accounted for 136 min (5%). Academic logistics were considered to be non-instructional activities related to lesson organization, preparation, or student support. An example was a teacher assisting students with organizing their notebooks prior to helping students to locate the correct page in their book. Non-academic logistics consumed 105 min (4%). Non-academic logistics were defined as engagement in an activity not connected to the reading lesson. Examples included speaking in the hall with other teachers or reading email.
Literacy Components
Table 2 presents observed literacy components (Dimension A components). Reading comprehension activities accounted for the largest proportion of time (31%). Researchers observed the following additional components: phonics/word study (16%), vocabulary (12%), text reading (12%), writing (8%), fluency (7%), alphabetic knowledge (3%), spelling (2%), phonological awareness (1%), concepts of print (0.5%), and oral language development (0.1%). In the next paragraph, the subcategories of these literacy components are described, excluding text reading and reading comprehension, which are disaggregated in subsequent sections.
Subcategories of Observed Literacy Instruction.
Notes. n refers to the number of minutes each component was observed; % is the percentage of time each component was observed.
An observed subcategory when teachers provided opportunities for application of letter/sound knowledge to reading/writing/spelling. bThe text reading dimension refers to reading text without concurrent fluency, vocabulary, or comprehension activities.
Table 2 also contains instructional subcategories (Dimension B skills/activities) observed within each literacy component. Phonics instruction often included worksheets and dry-erase boards to practice spelling patterns, such as consonant blends. Within the literacy component of phonics/word study, phonics and decoding accounted for 11% (288 min) and sight word practice using flash cards accounted for 4% (110 min). Within the 12% of time spent on vocabulary instruction, the two most commonly observed activities were the use of examples and non-examples and morphology. To illustrate, one teacher used a white board to write examples and non-examples of the word, industrious. Writing occurred 7% of the time, of which 88 min (3%) consisted of students writing summaries in a writing journal. Some of the writing time (38 min; 2%) was devoted to grammar and punctuation activities. Researchers noted only 1% of shared writing (28 min); shared writing was defined as guided practice of written composition with support for spelling, mechanics, or planning.
Text reading
The “Method” section of this article explained how the ICE-R includes three locations to document text reading. To begin with, 304 min (12%) of instruction was coded as text reading for Dimension A. This means that researchers documented 304 min of reading with no other concurrent instructional activity taking place. Second, researchers reported text reading that was integrated within vocabulary and comprehension activities. During reading comprehension lessons (Dimension A), 135 min of concurrent text reading was noted. Students and teachers read for 63 min during reading comprehension monitoring lessons, teachers read orally for 35 min during listening comprehension lessons, while the remaining portion of listening comprehension monitoring time included retelling stories and discussion. Finally, researchers coded 37 min of reading during reading comprehension strategy instruction. Two minutes of reading occurred during a vocabulary lesson on using context clues to determine the meaning of an unfamiliar word. In total, 137 min of additional reading were coded during concurrent instructional events. Finally, the reading fluency component (Dimension A) included 83 min of repeated reading (Dimension B). In summary, 524 min (19%) of total time during this study included text reading. This includes the 304 min of text reading with no corresponding instruction, 137 min of reading during comprehension and vocabulary lessons, and 83 min of repeated reading.
Text type
Texts were present in 59 of 80 lessons (73%). Teachers used 32 different informational texts and 27 different narrative text passages. The informational texts included six social studies articles, nine science articles, and generic informational texts 17 times (e.g., articles about parks or the benefits of travel). During several lessons, teachers used texts as materials but did not prompt students to read. For example, one teacher previewed an article about Thurgood Marshall with her students by examining pictures from the passage and explaining why Thurgood Marshall is important. Time for reading this text was not available.
Reading mode
Researchers observed five reading modes that are included in the ICE-R codebook. Teachers used round-robin reading 27 times. For example, when reading a passage about Ruby Bridges, a teacher and her students took turns reading every two sentences. Choral reading was reported 7 times. For example, one group read in unison about a haunted house. Students also engaged in independent silent reading 5 times and peer reading 4 times. The same teacher used peer reading during all four of her observations with a group of four students. One student read a passage twice before a second student read the same passage twice more. These observations of peer reading did not include activities before, during, or after reading such as the students asking each other questions, providing feedback, or generating main ideas. Those aforementioned activities are sometimes included within peer-reading frameworks that are effective for students with LD such as peer-assisted learning strategies (Fuchs et al., 2000), collaborative strategic reading (Boardman et al., 2016; Vaughn et al., 2011), and structured partner reading that includes partner feedback (e.g., Mastropieri et al., 2001).
Reading comprehension
The majority of instructional time, 816 min, was devoted to reading comprehension (31%). Within reading comprehension, teachers most frequently used comprehension monitoring activities (225 min, 9% reading comprehension monitoring; 67 min, 3% listening comprehension monitoring). Reading comprehension monitoring is an instructional activity that includes an evaluation of student understanding of text. This includes teachers asking questions or answering multiple choice questions. For example, one teacher read a narrative passage orally while the students listened and then answered the teacher’s questions about the plot of the story. Activating prior knowledge accounted for 8% of time spent on reading comprehension. Prior knowledge activities included examining pictures that related to the text or a teacher’s explanation of school integration during the Civil Rights Movement.
Comprehension strategy instruction
Teachers spent 267 min (10%) of time teaching reading comprehension strategies. Table 3 lists each observed strategy along with a breakdown of the duration of time that was spent teaching each strategy. The number of teachers who used each strategy is also reported. Teachers used graphic organizers most frequently (70 min; 2.67%). For example, a small group of students completed a story map about character traits after reading a short fictional story about the concept of bravery. Teachers also provided suggestions for answering multiple choice and short answer questions (64 min; 2.43%). One teacher was observed modeling a strategy to help students generate a main idea (1 min).
Reading Comprehension Activities Observed.
Notes. n refers to the number of minutes each activity was observed, % refers to the percentage of time each activity was observed, and N refers to the number of teachers who used the activity. The activity, visualization, is understood as a teacher thinking aloud to model ways to promote metacognition.
Focus Group Themes
Focus group themes are presented in Figure 1. Teachers shared concerns about the extent to which their teacher preparation programs and professional development prepared them to use evidence-based practices. One teacher stated, “I don’t think I was prepared at all.” Another discussed the disconnect between teacher preparation and daily instructional demands by saying “you would graduate and you thought you were prepared because you’ve had so many classes, but you go into the school district and it’s like, oh wow this is where I am really learning it.”
Focus group themes with representative quotes from teachers.
Teacher preparation
Teachers shared ideas to improve teacher education. One teacher suggested observing expert teachers providing reading instruction during preservice teacher preparation by saying, “if you really had to go and watch it out in the community, that would be far more beneficial; I would love to see someone teach guided reading with special needs kids.” Teachers also expressed needing assistance in locating evidence-based practices during teacher preparation; one teacher said, “we don’t have time to sift through all the stuff.” Other suggestions included increased emphasis on co-teaching, training on phonics instruction in a framework that promotes a balanced approach, and the use of practice-based training models.
Professional development
The teachers did not describe school-based professional development as being useful. One teacher stated, Honestly, I would say that most of the time I would rather be in my classroom doing something that is a better use of my time. The last reading PD went for a week and then they said we don’t have all of the supplies, so I couldn’t implement it.
Furthermore, a teacher requested that teachers be able to “choose the professional development that is applicable to them.” This teacher elaborated by saying, “I have students with disabilities that are different” and “what I do in my room is different from the general education classroom.”
Other teachers indicated that more time for training could help promote instructional fidelity. For example, when discussing a recent professional development, one teacher stated, I think some of it could have been better, but then again you’re looking at time constraints and this is what you can get in for thirty minutes.
One recommendation for improving professional development was to include coaching and classroom support to assist with skill transfer: But also having that professional development and having that feedback. . . they (i.e., teachers) are going to set up a date with you (i.e., coach) and you (i.e., coach) say I’m going to be in your room on this date to either model this for you or watch you do it and then give you feedback. I do think we need more of that.
Discussion
Researchers observed the reading instruction of 20 educators who serve students with LD in Grades 4 and 5. Specifically, researchers observed teachers who worked in high-needs schools where the reading achievement of students with disabilities was lower than the state’s average reading scores for students with disabilities. This study is the first to focus solely on reading instruction in Grades 4 and 5. In addition, researchers recorded the use of reading comprehension strategies, which only one previous observation study reported (Klingner et al., 2010), to guide a discussion of the extent to which observed strategies have been associated with improved student reading outcomes. The following section includes interpretations of findings along with recommendations for future research and professional development.
Targeted Instruction
Two key findings emerged regarding how teachers used their instructional time. First, fourth- and fifth-grade special educators taught an extensive range of reading skills. Findings suggest that teachers attempted to provide a comprehensive approach to addressing student needs by teaching foundational skills not usually taught in fourth and fifth grade (e.g., phonics) while continuing to promote higher level skills like comprehension. To illustrate, phonics accounted for 16% of teaching time. Special educators provided remediation while also preparing students to take grade-level standardized assessments. This finding suggests evidence of targeted teaching because the instruction was delivered to small groups, minimal off-task time was reported, and skills that fall outside of upper elementary reading curriculums were taught. In sum, researchers observed instructional practices that have been associated with positive outcomes for students with LD (Wanzek et al., 2010). This finding is similar to previous studies. For instance, E. Swanson and colleagues (2012) found that phonics accounted for 22% of instruction. Although this proportion of instruction was slightly higher than the present study, we interpret this difference as possibly being attributed to the inclusion of Grades 3 through 5 in the 2012 study.
Contrast with general education
A recent observation study of general education teachers who instruct fourth-grade struggling readers (Kent et al., 2017) indicates a contrast between instruction in a general education setting compared with the instruction that was observed in resource rooms in the present study. Kent and colleagues (2017) found that word-level activities were almost non-existent (less than 1%) among general education teachers. Furthermore, non-academic activities consumed 18% of time, which is greater than the total time spent on logistics (9%) in the present study. It is possible that the variation in time allotted to non-academic activities can be attributed to differences in group sizes as well as the duration of time needed to organize materials across these two settings. However, the difference in time allocation suggests that teachers in the current observation study maximized instructional time, thereby increasing opportunities for students with LD to engage in learning.
Reading comprehension
It has been over 5 years since the publication of an observation study that included students with LD in Grades 4 and 5 (E. Swanson et al., 2012), but findings related to reading comprehension are consistent with previous studies. In a 2010 observation study, Klingner and colleagues observed just four occurrences when teachers taught students how to find the main idea of a text. Following this trend, special educators in the current study also devoted more time to monitoring comprehension than teaching strategies. Students could benefit from increased exposure to reading comprehension strategy instruction because many students with LD have difficulty engaging in strategic reading without being taught a strategy to utilize (Gersten et al., 2001). Therefore, teachers should adjust current practices to incorporate more strategy instruction. During focus group discussions, teachers expressed barriers to changing instruction, noting a shortage of professional development trainings that meet their needs. The dearth of strategy instruction and need for targeted professional development (Walker & Stevens, 2017) suggest that professional development providers should offer training of reading comprehension strategies with ongoing support (Dole, 2003).
Text reading
Informational texts (all obtained by teachers from online sources) were used more frequently than narrative texts. The variety of texts (and observations of only three textbooks used during the study) suggests that teachers had text-choice flexibility. Furthermore, during focus group discussions, teachers revealed that they often located their own resources. The use of informational text suggests that teachers addressed grade-level expectations and middle school readiness by using content-area text. Content-rich texts can support content-area learning and prepare students for middle school reading expectations (Vaughn et al., 2015).
The current study also explored reading mode in depth to determine if the reading practices observed were supported by research. The predominant use of round-robin reading suggests a research to practice gap because there are no experimental studies to indicate that round-robin reading is an effective mechanism for enhancing reading outcomes for students with LD. Only one teacher was observed using peer reading, a practice associated with improved reading outcomes (e.g., Boardman et al., 2016). Special educators may benefit from professional development on peer-mediated reading, such as peer-assisted learning strategies (Fuchs et al., 2000) or small-group interventions like collaborative strategic reading (Boardman et al., 2016).
Special Education Reading Instruction in Low-Performing Schools
The recruitment of teachers who served students with LD in low-performing schools was one of the ways that this study expanded on previous observation research. Although future studies are needed to further explore instruction in these settings, three key issues emerged.
Implementation challenges
Teachers voiced concerns regarding preparedness to implement new strategies that were presented during school-based professional development. Teachers explained that new strategies are typically not sustained because ongoing support is not included. Specifically, teachers stated that the absence of additional coaching as well as the brief time allotted for professional development at school hindered their ability to implement new instructional practices consistently.
Access to new resources
A second challenge was related to acquiring effective classroom resources. Teachers indicated that they often chose their own resources, commonly turning to websites created by other teachers and Internet searches. Teacher comments did not indicate awareness of evidence behind the online sources to which they utilize. Teachers also explained that the resources to implement strategies presented in professional development are not always available to them; therefore, the teachers found and customized their own materials and strategies. These comments, along with the descriptive findings, imply the use of some instructional practices that are not based on evidence. Professional development providers should increase teachers’ awareness of existing resources that can be accessed in the absence of quality professional development to learn about evidence-based practices. Websites and teacher-oriented journals that disseminate evidence-based strategies are two sources that can be utilized.
Trends across setting
Despite the difference in setting for the current study (i.e., low-performing schools), several trends persist across observation studies. For example, the present study as well as two earlier studies that used the ICE-R (Swanson, 2008; E. A. Swanson & Vaughn, 2010) suggest that teachers provide instruction in components of reading instruction that require remediation, such as phonological awareness and phonics study. This trend indicates that even in low-performing schools, teachers attempted to meet the specific needs of their students as opposed to only providing instruction in grade-level skills or standardized test preparation. Another persistent trend is that teachers continue to spend greater amounts of time monitoring reading comprehension than time devoted to teaching reading comprehension strategies. Researchers and professional development providers could consider more innovative approaches to bridging research-to-practice gaps related to reading comprehension.
Implications for Practice and Professional Development
Findings of this study expose several implications for practice and professional development. First, it is incumbent on educators to integrate modes of reading that are supported by evidence. Peer-mediated reading is an alternative to round-robin reading worthy of consideration because peer reading and reading in small groups has been associated with improved reading outcomes for students with LD (e.g., Fuchs et al., 2000). Only one teacher in the current study engaged students in peer-reading activities.
Second, special educators should increase the frequency of reading comprehension strategy instruction. Professional development providers can support this by modeling strategies including main idea identification, providing coaching with feedback, and explaining the associations between explicit instruction and improved student outcomes. Previous professional development in schools that are economically disadvantaged has improved teacher knowledge of reading instruction, as well as student outcomes (Gersten, Dimino, Jayanthi, Kim, & Santoro, 2010; Klingner, Vaughn, Arguelles, Hughes, & Leftwich, 2004; Podhajski, Mather, Nathan, & Sammons, 2009). Low-performing schools can improve students’ reading outcomes through professional development that prioritizes effective interventions and instructional practices (e.g., collaborative strategic reading). Professional development should include the opportunity for teachers to receive feedback after being observed (Klingner et al., 2004), and to participate in teacher study groups to collaborate on implementing new reading approaches (Gersten et al., 2010). Furthermore, professional development should include training on how to model reading strategies for students (Podhajski et al., 2009).
Future Research
Several unexplored aspects of observation research remain. First, researchers should investigate teachers’ use of effective reading practices, associations among teacher-specific variables (e.g., traditional vs. alternative teaching certificate), and students’ outcomes to advance understanding of factors associated with quality instruction. Second, future studies should include present levels of student performance to help determine if teachers’ instruction is responsive to student needs. Third, researchers should video record lessons to further increase coding reliability by having the option to re-watch lessons, adjust audio or visual features, and further examine instances of concurrent instruction.
Limitations
Several limitations should be considered. Authors reported descriptive findings because the goal was to investigate teachers’ instruction. Analysis of relationships between instruction and student outcomes was not possible because student data were not included. Second, researchers only observed special educators in situations where they were responsible for leading reading instruction; therefore, instructional support or co-teaching that these teachers may have provided in inclusive general education settings was not examined. Third, the lessons were not videotaped in this study. Videotaping lessons would have been beneficial for further delineating the amount of reading that was integrated within other concurrent reading activities. Thus, the amount of text reading reported that was concurrent with other activities was likely somewhat inflated and cannot be confirmed with 100% accuracy in the absence of a video recorded lessons. Finally, researchers did not conduct an extensive analysis of the reading programs adopted by each school. While information about the texts selected by the teachers offers initial understanding of text-based resources, a detailed evaluation of required reading programs would have provided additional information about instructional decisions.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.