An important issue surrounding strategy instruction – as touched on in 3.7.3 – is the impact of strategy instruction on teachers. Research seems to indicate that teachers have difficulty in implementing strategy instruction without professional development. Pearson & Gallagher (1983:339) claim there is ―no … single best way of applying a strategy‖ and that teachers‘ responses during strategy instruction are ―less corrective‖ and ―more suggestive‖. Being ‗suggestive‘ in giving feedback implies a higher skill level from the teacher, because the teacher cannot rely on a fixed set of responses from children. Pressley & Beard El-Dinary (1997) state that teachers feel that comprehension-strategies instruction ―takes a great deal of classroom time‖ and that teachers require a ―great deal of support to understand and implement comprehension-strategies instruction‖. Block & Duffy (2008:28) claim that teaching teachers to teach comprehension is ―much more difficult than … anticipated‖, requires time and effort and must be ―collaborative, gradual and sensitive to the changing contextual conditions in classrooms‖.
Research not only indicates that teachers have difficulty in implementing strategy instruction without professional development, but also that while ample attention is paid to the professional development of teachers for teaching reading, little, if any, attention is paid to the ―professional development of comprehension instruction [own emphasis] and classroom teachers‖, and coaching literature ―tends to be focused on general reading instruction‖ (Sailors, 2008:647). In fact, Sailors (2008:652) claims that as far as studies for the professional development of teachers and comprehension instruction go, ―there is not any‖, and new teachers still enter schools ―with the understanding of how to teach comprehension … based on how they were taught to read‖ (Sailors, 2008:653).
Generally it seems strategy instruction is not easily taken up by teachers; reasons for this non-uptake range from the additional time it requires to prepare a comprehension lesson to a change-resistant school culture, to lack of training for teaching reading comprehension. Since research seems to show that teachers find the implementation of strategy instruction hard it follows logically that the implementation of strategy instruction will require intensive teacher development and probably require considerable change in their instructional methods and approaches. With regard to teacher change Anderson (1997:332) contends that an ―understanding of the affective and behavioural dimensions of change when teachers attempt to put
new instructional methods and curriculum materials into practice remains relevant‖ since teachers continue to be confronted with the challenge of new methods and curriculum materials ―on a recurring basis‖.
In this study a classroom intervention to develop reading strategy instruction implies teacher development and change, which in itself is a vast field of study. For the purposes of this project the intention here is to focus on the elements of teacher development and change from the perspective of reading strategy instruction.
3.7.4.1 Research on teacher development and change
Research shows that teacher change is inevitable; it is multifaceted, complex and ongoing, and the way an intervention/innovation is presented seems to be key to its continued application by teachers. Richardson et al. (1991:579) are of the opinion that ―genuine changes will come about when teachers think differently about what is going on in their classrooms, and are provided with the practices to match the different ways of thinking‖, but that even the provision of practices may not lead to implementation if teachers beliefs are not ―congruent with the theoretical assumptions of the practice‖. Richardson (1998) adds that teachers are needed who ―approach their work with a change orientation: an orientation that suggests constant reflection, evaluation and experimentation‖ which enables them to ―alter curricula on the basis of new knowledge and ways of knowing … and to change methods when research indicates more effective practice‖. Teachers continue to adopt and implement new instructional practices and curriculum. As long as this is the case, there are ―valid reasons for furthering our understanding of the change process … of the specific innovations in curriculum and instruction‖ (Anderson, 1997:362).
Considerable research exists on teacher change in terms of curriculum implementation. Early research seems to show a ―dominance of theories of cognitive psychology‖ with a focus on how individuals‘ beliefs and practices change (Kaasila & Lauriala, 2010:854). Richardson (1998) points out that early research about teacher change also seems to focus on teachers‘ perceived resistance to change (usually when the change is advocated or demanded by another person) while more recent research seems to confirm that teachers undertake change ―voluntarily‖ and ―on the spur of the moment‖ although such changes may sometimes be based on unwarranted assumptions and ―perpetuate practices based on questionable assumptions and beliefs‖ (Richardson, 1998).
Existing research about teacher change covers a wide range of issues which include: Studies about the difference in teachers‘ attitude toward changes in low-SES
versus high-SES communities. For example, Torff and Sessions (2009) found that teachers from low-SES communities tend to be more sceptical about opportunities for change than their counterparts from high-SES communities.
Research about the effect of length of service and years of experience on teachers‘ attitude to change opportunities, sometimes with different results. On the one hand Torff and Sessions (2008) claim that teachers‘ attitudes to change are positive at the start of their careers, then stagnate slightly during the middle years of their careers and become more positive again towards the end, while Richter et al. (2011), on the other hand, conclude that older, more experienced teachers remain less interested in development and change throughout their career.
Studies that investigate whether teachers from different grade levels (Elementary or Secondary school) or different subjects (English, Maths, Science) show different attitudes toward change (Torff & Byrnes, 2011).
Research also shows that models of teacher change try to account for the processes that characterize the change process. Research about teacher change models range from earlier versions which focused on discrete innovations in curriculum and instruction, to more recent organisationally-focused approaches that take social and cultural influences into consideration. Older research shows attempts at creating models for teacher change – usually in a specific sequence – against which subsequent curriculum implementations could be measured. For example, Guskey (1986) proposes a set sequence in the change in teachers‘ classroom practices, student learning outcomes and teachers‘ beliefs and attitudes based on the premise that most staff development programs and new implementations attempt to change teachers‘ beliefs and attitudes before an intervention; Guskey proposes that teachers are only likely to change their beliefs and attitudes after changes in student learning outcomes are evident. A less innovation-focused approach to change is the Concerns Based Adoption Model (CBAM), described by Anderson (1997:331) as a ―widely applied theory and methodology for studying the process of implementing educational change by teachers‖ and is concerned with ―measuring, describing and explaining the process of change experienced by teachers involved in attempts to implement new curriculum and instructional practices‖. The CBAM has three diagnostic dimensions: Stages of Concern (that describe teachers‘ feelings and motivations about changes in curriculum or instructional practices), Levels of Use (related to teachers‘ attitudes to
change) and Innovation Configurations (a concept that grew out of the recognition that teachers ―rarely implemented the same innovation in exactly the same way (Anderson, 1997:336)).
More recent research does not always agree with the usefulness of set models of change, stating that such models often view change as a linear process of implementation and that while ―the psychological view of teacher change is useful‖, it fails to explain teacher change processes (Kaasila & Lauriala, 2010:854). More recent research also acknowledges the possibility of teachers being ―curriculum developers‖ instead of merely ―curriculum transmitters‖ who focus only on textbook pages and teacher guidelines (Shawer, 2010). Recent research seems to place an increasing emphasis on the cultural and situational factors and processes of social interaction and collaboration in teacher education and change, and an increasing acknowledgement that the ―actual impact of teacher change and take-up of innovations is diluted by all of the other factors that support or hinder teachers from making change‖ (Smith & Gillespie, 2007:226). ‗Other factors‘ could include teaching in culturally diverse settings and having to have knowledge of and address issues such as bilingualism and second-language development, the role of the first language and culture in learning, and how teachers‘ own and learners‘ attitudes and beliefs about language and culture affect learning (Clair & Adger, 1999). As is discussed in Chapter 6, it seems that issues such as multilingual classes, poor school attendance (learners‘ beliefs about learning), culture of reading and teachers‘ attitudes do have an impact on implementations (see 6.1.1, 6.1.2, 6.1.7 & 6.1.8).
Priestley (2011), in a statement that seems to lend some support to this study‘s attempt at closing the gap between research and practice, describes the ―gap between policy and practice, between innovation and the changes in social practices that occur in response to such innovation‖. Priestley (2011:2), much like Richardson‘s (1998) earlier comment, concurs that while teachers have often been cast as ―barriers to change‖ policies have more recently been positioning teachers as ―agents of change‖. This study views teachers as positive agents of change and has sought to follow a collaborative approach in implementing the research intervention in order to close the gap between what research claims is necessary in classrooms and what teachers actually implement in their classrooms. In order to achieve a collaborative approach, this study aimed to focus on specific features in the intervention that would achieve as much teacher buy-in – and therefore, teacher change – as possible. These features are described in the following section.
3.7.4.2 Teacher change in this study
Research shows that ―school practices remain remarkably persistent in the face of … innovation‖ (Priestley, 2011:1) despite the fact that teachers are constantly subjected to innovation and change. Therefore, in order to ensure a link between teacher change and the objectives of this study, and to ensure that teacher took up reading strategy instruction as much as possible, a common thread was identified in the sources about teacher change that were consulted for this study: teachers tend to change, and implement change, when specific principles are adhered to in curriculum and instructional innovations. These principles are summarised below, and have been included in the design of the research intervention for this study (see 4.4).
Torff & Byrnes (2011:27) claim that implementations that scored higher ratings from teachers were ―sustained and intensive‖ rather than short-term ―one shot‖ implementations. They further conclude that a new implementation or innovation encourages teacher change if:
the implementation shows teachers clear and positive benefits or effects to learners (Pressley & Beard El-Dinary, 1997) – this point relates to the objective (research question 3) of the measurability of reading strategy knowledge
the implementation is meaningfully integrated into life at the school (Torff & Byrnes, 2011; Richardson, 1998; Gersten et al., 1997; Pressley & Beard El- Dinary, 1997; Guskey, 1986)
the implementation is supported by the principal (Anderson, 1997)
the implementation allows teachers some form of leadership role (democracy) as opposed to simply being ‗receivers‘ of information (Torff & Byrnes, 2011; Anderson, 1997; Gersten et al., 1997)
teachers are provided with the opportunity for hands-on, active learning (as opposed to listening inactively) (Torff & Byrnes, 2011)
the implementation provides opportunity for collaborative learning (Torff & Byrnes, 2011; Richardson, 1998; Gersten et al., 1997)
the implementation provides sufficient time for classroom implementation and includes adequate technical support (Torff & Byrnes, 2011; Pressley & Beard El- Dinary, 1997; Richardson, 1998; Richardson et al., 1991; Huberman & Miles, 1984)
As mentioned in Chapter 1, there is considerable speculation about the reason for the non-uptake of strategy instruction. In order to address at least some of the issues
related to the non-uptake/low uptake of strategy instruction, it was decided that this study would take a stance on a few important issues: to select a set of ‗starter‘ strategies (see 3.7.5), to enable measurement of the selected strategies (see 4.5.1.4), and to provide sufficient information and sustained support for the selected strategies. In essence, the study‘s intervention strived to adhere to all the bullet points listed on the previous page (see 4.4 for issues addressed by the intervention) , while taking into account that the ultimate uptake of RSI depended on individual teachers and their willingness to accept support and change their practices.