Minding the gap: Bridging research and practice in literacy teaching materials

• In Event: Are your literacy and numeracy materials up to par? A tool for evaluating teaching and learning materials (TLMs)

Proposal

Over the last 20 years, teacher and student materials have been developed in a number of contexts and languages, with their effectiveness usually determined by changes in student outcomes. While this approach can provide an indication of effectiveness, a number of factors such as fidelity in the implementation of the curriculum, teacher effectiveness, or class size can impact the effectiveness of the materials leading to an inability to determine the impact of the curriculum. An objective evaluation tool based on best practices and the skills and levels described in the Global Proficiency Framework can provide curriculum specialists and other stakeholders information on the quality of current curricular materials.

The tool was developed to evaluate teacher and student literacy materials used in pre-kindergarten to third grade. The evaluation is conducted in three phases from a broad review to the examination of a representative sample of lessons across the program. To ensure the analysis of the instruction provided is adequate for determining the quality of the materials, the review focuses on three areas: general features of the program, the pedagogical approach used, and the content for each literacy component.

Across the three phases of the review, criteria are scored using a 4-point Likert scale that ranges from the item is not present to the item is present and meets criteria fully. The review is implemented in three phases: broad review, scope and sequence, and weekly lessons. During each phase, each criterion in a section is rated. Then a count of how many criteria were rated at 1, 2, 3, or 4 is tallied and observations are noted. After all the sections of each phase are completed, a cumulative score is calculated. Stakeholders can use the data to identify strengths in the curriculum and areas for improvement.

Author

• Sylvia Linan-Thompson, University of Oregon