Characteristics of First-Year Teachers' Informational Reading Instruction: Toward Equitable Access to Ambitious Instruction

• In Event: How Novice Elementary Teachers Learn to Teach Mathematics and Reading/Language Arts in Ambitious Ways

Abstract

Objective. This paper uses classroom observations to describe characteristics of ambitious informational reading instruction. Despite evidence that literacy development is genre-specific (Duke & Roberts, 2015), few larger-scale studies have detailed the informational instructional practices of early-career elementary teachers. This is crucial given research highlighting the importance of access to high-quality informational reading instruction for students from low socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds (Duke, 2000; Schugar & Dreher, 2017). Existing studies of informational reading instruction have concentrated on small samples of teachers and/or specific practices (Deeney, 2016; Heisey & Kucan, 2010; Maloch, 2008). This paper adds to our understanding of instructional quality related to SES and the need to consider both strategy instruction and content knowledge in equitable elementary literacy.
Theoretical Framework. I use the Protocol for Language Arts Teaching Observations (PLATO; Grossman, Loeb, Cohen, & Wyckoff, 2013) as a framework to define high-quality literacy instruction. It is both purposeful and powerful to have a “common language” (McDonald et al., 2013, p. 381) when describing ambitious instruction in order to make practices transparent and accessible to teachers. Based on the current literature regarding elementary-level informational reading instruction, I focused on three PLATO elements: strategy instruction, text-based instruction, and representations of content.
Data Sources and Methods. The sample includes observations of 194 informational reading lesson segments from 47 first-year elementary teachers. I identified informational reading lesson segments by referencing learning objectives, handouts, and observation notes. Ten percent of segments were double-coded, and agreement on whether a segment focused on informational reading was 95 percent. Quantitative analyses explore the quality of informational reading instruction overall and by PLATO element, and interrogate the relationship between lesson quality and free-or-reduced-price lunch (FRL) status. To illustrate instructional practices, I drew on Cohen’s (2015, 2018) use of Erickson’s (1986) funneling method of qualitative case sampling to review segments across all PLATO score points.
Findings. Descriptive analyses indicate that strategy instruction is a low-scoring element in informational reading instruction. There is also an opportunity gap to investigate: lower overall scores for informational reading lessons are associated with greater percentages of FRL-eligible students. Lesson analyses revealed a range of practices in text-based instruction, strategy instruction, and representations of content, with the highest-quality instruction combining all three. Accordingly, scores for these three elements had significant positive correlations. PLATO captures ambitious practices across different aspects of instruction, but not all elements are this interconnected. In informational reading, strong segments often involved teachers providing relevant content, modeling strategies, and having students apply them in authentic texts. Teachers worked to build knowledge by providing clear explanations of concepts and clarifying student misunderstandings.
Significance. There is debate about the relative importance of content knowledge and strategy use in reading instruction (e.g., McKeown, Beck, & Blake, 2009). However, my findings indicate that this may be a false dichotomy: In general, high-quality informational reading lessons included content instruction and strategy instruction. These findings have implications for teacher educators, curriculum designers, and school leaders in efforts to improve access to ambitious reading instruction for historically underserved students.

Author

• Alexa Miller Quinn, James Madison University