Ana səhifə

Leadership-Influenced Practices that Impact Classroom Instruction Related to Writing: a case Study of a


Yüklə 0.74 Mb.
səhifə7/9
tarix27.06.2016
ölçüsü0.74 Mb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9

Concerning a comprehensive curriculum, Marzano (2003) and Reeves (2004) found that curriculum impacts student achievement if the school documents the relationship of the curriculum to implementation in the classroom. Furthermore, Guskey (2003) asserts that if teachers were supported in their use of the curriculum, they found time to translate research based strategies into sound instruction and even modify it for diverse student populations.

Likewise, the importance of the curriculum was well known by the study participants. The influence of the curriculum was reported by Liz, who learned from the leaders that the GLCEs were the grade level expectations for all her students and how it was her job to teach them, even when she felt overwhelmed. Therefore, she found that the discussions with her colleagues about the GLCEs helped her to focus on the essence of the standards with her students.

Mary also heard a number of presentations about how important the GLCEs were to her school’s success. She reported that leaders were always available to talk with her about how to align them with the district report card and where she needed her students to be in terms of mastery. In addition, the GLCEs were readily available on her computer. With one click the GLCEs and the report cards were accessible. Both Karla and Gayle agreed the aligned report cards clarified and delineated the curriculum to them, as well as to parents, so all knew which benchmarks were being addressed.

On the subject of professional development, the findings of Marzano (2003) and Reeves (2006) confirmed that expert teachers had more strategies from professional development at their disposal than ineffective teachers. Table A4 in Appendix H contains a comparison of Marzano’s work with the findings of this research. Reeves also claimed that teachers benefit from an organization process to support putting such strategies into use in their classrooms. In addition, Blasé and Blasé (1998) stated that teachers needed to be involved in the planning of professional development. Furthermore, Fullan (2003) went on to say that change occurs during professional development as teachers talk together, problem-solve, and consequently experience a shift in their educational philosophy.

There are several examples from this study demonstrating the role of professional development and the impact it had on the participants. The leaders in our study modeled the repetition of strategies until participants understood them and knew why the strategies would be effective. Additionally, the leaders used checklists on a regular basis to make sure each block of instruction was complete. Grace said that after the leaders observed her using the strategies, she could subsequently adjust them because they would tell her what she did well and how to improve.

In the same way, the continuous professional development helped Chris understand the strategies so she could go “all out” and use them fully and effectively. Five participants said book club conversations helped develop their literacy-based instructional practices. Kate added that those meetings with the book club every other week helped her refine her instruction a little bit at a time. Amy indicated how conversations with colleagues guided her instruction because she had clearer direction for what she should do with all her knowledge.

Concerning leaders’ knowledge of curriculum, instruction, and assessment, Reeves (2006) explained how the knowledge of leaders impacted classroom instruction when he posited that leaders are expected to set the direction for the use of effective teaching strategies. Furthermore, Barabasi (2003) found that successful leaders cultivated commitment to change models through their modeling.

Correspondingly, the leaders in the study indicated their commitment to the curriculum, instruction and assessment requirements through their research, time spent on professional development, and the use of the school’s financial resources. Dana stated the principal and literacy specialist had extensive knowledge of the strategies the school used; and that even though they did not have to, they went out and learned as much as they could so they could help the teachers in any way.

In addition, the literacy specialist made sure the school implemented the strategies in a pure form and that the school implemented them totally. Chris supported the significance of the leaders’ knowledge when she said that she learned the most from the dialogues and materials she had received from the leaders.

Research Question 2

The second set of research question focused on whether there were barriers to the implementation of the leadership-influenced practices and what strategies were utilized for overcoming such barriers (see Table A2 in Appendix F for a summary for these barriers as broken down by participant).

Regarding the barriers for systematic supervision, of the study participants, nine of the sixteen expected the supervisors to alter the supervision for instructional changes each year. As a result, in the beginning these study participants indicated that they did not invest in learning the new strategies. The leaders overcame this barrier in two ways. They gave a persistent message that the new literacy-based instructional strategies would be utilized for five years and subsequently reiterated that message continually. Several examples were cited by the study participants demonstrating they knew the direction the leaders were headed due to the constant reminders about implementing the new strategies they were taught to use in professional development. The leaders expected to observe the strategies being used and visited the classrooms often to support and encourage the teachers in the implementation.

In addition, a lack of materials for implementing new strategies was identified as a barrier. This barrier was overcome through the provision of numerous supportive materials. Ten of the sixteen study participants cited the support they received through the purchases of books and materials as very useful to them in their implementation of the new strategies. Additionally, the money spent on these materials signaled to the participants that the strategies were important, valued and here to stay. These purchases overcame the barriers of doubt and uncertainty about the longevity of the innovative practices, as well as any frustration due to a lack of materials needed for incorporating the strategies into their lesson plans.

The persistent supervision and the purchase of supportive materials overcame barriers to the utilization of the new literacy-based instruction. Both behaviors were documented on meeting agendas and purchase orders.

While none of these participants characterized the persistent supervision or the materials as applying to the at-risk subpopulation, it appears that at-risk students were influenced over time by the persistence of supervision regarding effective strategies, as well as the new materials. Kathy stated that the school was a prime example of low income kids that can succeed because there were no excuses accepted by the leadership as to why the at-risk students could not achieve. Instead, every teacher was expected to implement the comprehensive program to meet the needs of all learners. The materials which benefited all learners were important to Carla who said it was simply too much to have to make all of the materials in addition to learning the new strategies. This is consistent with the research regarding effective instruction for those at risk cited by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (2000). It needs to be done repeatedly by each of the staff and materials have to be available at the students’ instructional level.

Concerning barriers for a comprehensive curriculum, fourteen of the sixteen study participants indicated the curriculum expectations were difficult to understand and this challenge was a barrier to their use of the curriculum as expressed in the GLCEs. Such a barrier was overcome through time for discussion and GLCE alignment with the district report card. Through such discussion and alignment, the relationship between curriculum and classroom could be seen.

In this case study, the GLCEs were distributed to the study participants. Of the sixteen participants, eleven noted that ensuing discussions with colleagues about the GLCEs revealed their importance and value. The discussions allowed them to be consistent in their interpretations and to discuss which instructional strategies could be used to help the students gain mastery. In addition, seven study participants reported that the report cards were aligned with the GLCEs. This ensured that GLCEs would be taught, assessed and reported to parents. These two behaviors overcame the barrier of the curriculum being misunderstood or overlooked. The teachers understand the grade level expectations of their students by the state.

Although none of these participants described the discussions and alignment as influencing at-risk students, it is fair to say the discussions and aligned report cards were significant for at-risk students. The teachers said they now understood the skills their students needed to master and knew they were expected to teach those skills due to the report cards. At Kate stated, she tried not to go off task because she needed to stick to the GLCEs. Since the aligned report card was the accountability document, Liz knew how her students were doing on meeting the expectations of the state for her grade level. This enabled her to know who needed additional teaching and is consistent with the research regarding effective instruction for those at risk cited by Adams (1990). They need more significant literacy-related experiences which is accomplished through closely adhering to the standards and benchmarks in the state curriculum.

Concerning barriers for professional development, according to eight of the study participants, one barrier to meaningful professional development is the different learning styles in the audiences hearing the information. They realized that some educators understood the strategies quickly, others needed more explanation, a number needed modeling, others the big picture, and several only wanted the details. This barrier was overcome by providing a variety of professional development offerings that were continuous, focused, modeled, and shared to try to meet the needs and learning styles of all educators. All the strategies were hard for Mary at first, but due to continuous professional development each year she learned at a deeper level and saw more and more results. Carla indicated she would never have understood how to teach writing if she had not seen it modeled.

The number of professional development opportunities was significant as documented in the school’s improvement plans. Professional development helped all study participants know how to implement new instructional strategies. Ten teachers commented that while they had some opportunity to share how to incorporate what they learned in professional development, they desired even more time, which is yet another indication of the importance of professional development to participants.

While the participants did not mention specifically the benefit that professional development provided the at-risk student, it is fair to say that the mastery of the new strategies benefited all learners, since writing strategies were taught thoroughly due to the extensive training received by the study participants. This is consistent with the research cited by Schmoker (2006) who found that at-risk students often struggle with writing because writing criteria never get taught but are assigned with unclear instructions. In this school, these strategies were systematically put into place for all students.

On the topic of barriers for knowledgeable leaders, the barrier cited here by study participants was that typically leaders were too busy with other priorities to learn about effective instructional techniques. According to Reeves, leadership practices in this area are identified by the way the leaders used their discretionary time and the manner in which they discuss effective instruction. Such behaviors indicate a willingness to be accountable for learning.

Fifteen participants viewed their leaders as knowledgeable about the instructional strategies they expected from their teachers. Participants were aware that their leaders had invested much of their time and energy attending all types of professional development to learn about the instructional strategies which were part of the literacy framework and were able to answer all their questions about the practices.

As a result of this knowledge, the leaders stated clearly and confidently that the strategies would be effective for all learners, including those at risk. Due to their knowledge the leaders persevered. In addition, they purchased necessary materials for those below grade level and paid close attention to the curriculum which defined which standards needed to be mastered at each grade level. Furthermore, they knew what professional development would be helpful to assist at-risk learners to achieve at grade level. This is consistent with the research cited by Kameenui and Carnine (1998) who cited successful schools impacting the at-risk students spend more time on writing.

The leadership-related practices revolved around supervision for the use of a literacy framework of instructional strategies. In addition, leaders helped to define the state curriculum and showed how the instructional strategies effectively taught the state grade level expectations. Moreover, a variety of continuous, focused professional development offerings that explained and modeled the strategies was provided by the school’s leaders. Furthermore, the leaders became knowledgeable about the strategies they desired the teacher to implement. Table 2 summarizes these key leadership barriers identified in this study and how they were addressed.

Table 2

Summary of Leadership Barriers Experienced and Addressed

Leadership

Prior Barriers Experienced

How Barriers Overcome


Supervision

Inconsistent

Materials and training not provided



Persistent monitoring of specific strategies
Necessary materials and training provided


Leadership Impact on Curriculum

Lack of understanding of the curriculum
Lack of understanding of the alignment of curriculum with instruction and assessment

Discussion of curriculum took place at meetings
Alignment of curriculum with instruction and assessment was completed


Leadership Impact on Professional Development

Not focused

Not modeled


Not continuous

Not shared



Focused on Four Blocks strategies
Strategies were modeled
Professional Development was offered often
Learning at Professional Development was shared


Leadership Impact on Instructional Strategies

Leaders not knowledgeable about the strategies they sought


Leaders very knowledgeable about the strategies they sought


Research Question 3

The third set of research questions focuses on to what extent and how literacy- based instructional practices influence students’ successful writing scores in a school that had experienced an increase in their writing scores, even for at risk students.

Four literacy strategies have been cited by experts in the field of literacy to be among the most widely accepted strategies (Mazzoni & Gambrell, 2003). In addition, research indicates that no single approach is best for all learners and combination approaches work better than any single method (Pearson & Raphael, 2003). The foundation for a comprehensive literacy curriculum involves all four literacy approaches. In this study, such a framework using each of the four approaches is referred to as Four Blocks (Cunningham & Hall, 1998), and was implemented within this school.

In order to address these questions, the four literacy approaches of phonics, guided reading, self-selected reading and writing must be explained. The phonic approach involves the letter-sound systems, guided reading consists of teaching comprehension strategies as well as text structures, self-selected reading allows children to learn about genre and vocabulary as they choose their own text to read, and writing instruction includes modeling the writing skills, conferencing and sharing student writing.

Regarding the extent to which literacy-based instruction influenced writing, the first principle for the literacy framework is the importance of making a schedule that includes each of the four components and adhering to it. Thirty to forty minutes each day is given to each block of instruction. A schedule including the Four Blocks was organized by the leaders for all teachers so that they could fit the Four Blocks in every day without interruption. Ten of the sixteen study participants said this scheduling benefited them as well as their students. The message from the leaders was that each block was to be done every day. Stacey and Amy both indicated the schedule provided by the leaders gave them the structure for the day so they could teach each of the blocks and enabled them to teach all the strategies.

The second principle for this coherent instructional program revolves around the organization of strategies within each of the blocks. Each thirty minute segment consists of a variety of multi-leveled strategies. This enables the teachers to connect strategies as well as address the needs of the multiple learning styles of students who were below, at, or above grade level. As the literacy specialist stated, it was important that students receive purposeful instruction each day. The principal made certain that professional development included the proficient use of all of the strategies and Connie confirmed that she indeed received all the support she needed to learn every part of the strategies.

As to how literacy-based instruction influenced writing, of the sixteen participants, nine stated that the phonics block helped their students with spelling and sound patterns as they learned how to explicitly decode and encode words. In addition, the word wall portion helped their students with spelling, as well as word structure. Grace said her students would use their letters and sounds and when writing words get so close to it [correct spelling] with beginning and ending sounds. Gayle told of her students looking at the word wall to make sure they were spelling correctly and the word wall helping them by providing common word patterns.

Eight of the sixteen participants concluded that their use of the strategies in the guided reading block gave their students opportunity to understand text structures and be exposed to quality writing. Mary said her students looked back at their literature to see examples of good writing and this block gave them springboards for writing about genre, like biographies. Liz observed that her students’ writing of a particular genre was more fully developed since they had studied that genre in their reading practice as well.

Of the sixteen participants, eight indicated that the self selected block gave their students the opportunity to understand the different genres and how to read them, using the author’s purpose to guide them. This block exposed students to a wide range of rich vocabulary in text that held meaning since it was self selected. Carla used sticky notes during this time to help her students focus on vocabulary and she found that students loved to find writing elements like dialogue and share them with her. Amy also affirmed that her students were constantly finding vocabulary and pulling them into their writing.

Ten participants stated that the writing block in which they modeled writing skills, conferencing with students about those skills as they wrote, and having students share their writing were instrumental in helping students learn to successfully write. Dana indicated that modeling during the mini-lesson was critical as it made her focus on a purpose and improved her students writing skills. The literacy specialist observed teachers modeling for their students purposeful instruction with depth due to their significant training and understanding of genre, authors, reading, and writing connection.



Research Question 4

The fourth set of research questions focused on whether there were barriers to the implementation of the instructional practices and what strategies were utilized for overcoming such barriers.

Regarding barriers for the literacy-based instructional framework, ten of the sixteen study participants indicated they felt overwhelmed about how to implement the four different types of multi-level, multi-method blocks and this was a key barrier for them. This barrier was overcome by each of the four leadership-influenced practices. Persistent supervision helped teachers gain confidence that these strategies were worth learning well, and the materials that the leaders provided made each strategy doable. Additionally, the curriculum which was discussed and aligned with Four Blocks, as well as the report card, streamlined teachers’ efforts. Furthermore, the modeling done during professional development gave study participants the certainty about their ability to use the Four Blocks strategies. Also, the leaders’ knowledge about the instructional framework gave assurance to all study participants that the implementation of these new strategies would be successful in helping all of their learners.

In addition, study participants cited the challenge of fitting all the blocks into their schedules. This barrier of fitting Four Blocks into the school day was met by leaders who organized schedules for all teachers so that they could fit all Four Blocks into their class schedule, everyday, without interruption, and with support if available. The implementation was school wide and included special education teachers.

Barriers were overcome regarding the cognitive, emotional, social and instructional factors for at-risk students cited by Lipson and Wixson (1997). Cognitively, at-risk students benefited from the coherence of the instructional program and the increased time spent actually writing and reading (Broaddus & Bloodgood, 1994). All staff was prepared to teach the same strategies and they had time for dialogue about the strategies. As Liz stated, strategies were valued because everyone was supposed to be using the same program compared to her earlier experience when a few of the teachers used similar strategies.

Emotionally, at risk students benefited because they were not pulled from regular education classrooms for special services. Instead they remained in multi-leveled classrooms and received Four Blocks instruction that was consistent across the grade levels and at their level. As Allington (1991) indicated, at risk students are delicate learners and are most in need of consistent instruction.

Socially, at-risk students benefited as each block contained strategies that were designed to be motivational due to the successes the students would have. The strategies that the teachers utilized in each block addressed the instructional levels of all students. Since the principal had high expectations for students and teachers, this motivated teachers to expect their at-risk students to achieve and as Mary pointed out there was no reason they could not achieve.

Instructionally, students were more successful due to the cohesiveness of the framework. As the leaders noted, due to the discussions about the curriculum, the instruction and assessments of all students proceeded systematically from one grade level to the next and offered a progression of increasingly complex subject matter rather than repeating basic material previously taught. The aligned report card was used to share this progress with parents, which is another important impetus according to Marzano (2003).

Concerning barriers to individual blocks, the study revealed that eight participants thought the barriers to a strong phonics block were materials and a structure for the strategies. Both barriers were overcome. Materials such as word walls, letters, pocket charts, and dictionaries all were provided by the leaders. The structure was discussed at professional development and fit within the time frame. This structure provided strategies and time for the word wall words, penmanship, and word study.

Cunningham and Hall’s second principle for each block was that it included multi-level instruction made possible through mixed-ability grouping. Specifically, in the phonics block, at-risk students were supported through manipulatives, kinesthetic, oral, auditory, and visual strategies. Patterns were discovered and transfer was clear between known and unknown words. Grace stated that after the initial organizing of materials she was all set and Gayle stopped skipping the block once she realized how to do it and how important it was.

The barriers to the guided reading block for nine of the sixteen study participants were materials and an understanding of how to structure it. Texts were needed for all different levels of ability and study of text structures. Modeling of the structure was provided by extensive professional development and books were purchased by leaders. Cunningham and Hall made this available to all levels of reading ability through the use of different levels of text difficulty and various strategies for reading, including partner, small group, or choral. These also included different genre. In addition, comprehension strategies were taught that helped students understand written text. Opportunities were given to at-risk students to work with the teacher in a small group that was multi-level so the student did not know he or she was chosen for the extra support. After teaching the comprehension strategies and the text strategies, Carla had her students offer that they saw the connections between the stories and what they were asked to write in the writing block. Mary never before had a structure to how to teach comprehension strategies.

Regarding the self-selected block, the barriers for twelve of the study participants were the number of books that were needed for their classrooms and a purpose for conferencing about the reading. A vast number of books was necessary so students would have many choices for level, genre, and interest. This barrier was overcome by book purchases which included many different types of genre. At risk students benefited from reading self-selected texts at levels which impacted their vocabulary exposure. Cunningham and Hall varied this approach by providing different genre and reading levels for students. Motivation was provided for all students through opportunities to conference with their teachers about the books and share favorite authors with their peers. Amy found that she structured her time well using the structure of the read-aloud, conferencing, and sharing and that the block could be implemented fully only because she had the books in her classroom.

The writing block barrier for eleven of the sixteen study participants revolved around a lack of understanding as to how to teach writing. This barrier was surmounted by modeling provided through professional development, as well as knowledgeable leaders. At-risk students benefited from writing instruction because it was modeled clearly and with purpose. In addition, all students benefited from conferencing individually with their teachers about their writing. This block addressed the needs of all learners through individual conferencing with the teacher. Students shared their writing with their teacher and peers; this kept them motivated and focused according to Connie. Furthermore, Dana indicated that previously she had not felt confident as a writer or a writing teacher, but because she was forced to model this made her a better writer and writing teacher. Table 3 summarizes these key literacy barriers identified in this study and how these were addressed by various leadership practices.

Table 3


Summary of Literacy Barriers Experienced and Addressed

Literacy Blocks


Prior Barriers Experienced

How Barriers Overcome

Framework

Time for four blocks

Leaders protected two hours


Phonics

Materials needed

Lack of understanding of how to make phonics instruction meaningful



Word wall words, pocket charts, letters, dictionaries purchased
Four Blocks structure provided multi-level, hands-on activities for teaching phonics


Guided Reading

Books at different levels needed
Lack of understanding of how to teach comprehension

Leveled books purchased

Four Blocks provided format for teaching thinking strategies


Self-Selected Reading

Books of different genre needed
Lack of purpose for conferencing


Books purchased

Four Blocks structure provided purpose for conferencing

Writing

Understanding of how to teach writing needed

Modeling of Four Blocks format provided understanding of how to teach writing

Overall, these qualitative research findings clearly illustrate that within this particular school, the implementation of key leadership-based practices (as recommended by Reeves, Marzano, and others), in conjunction with a comprehensive coherent writing curriculum (as recommended by Calkins, Cunningham and Hall and others) were indeed perceived to have a direct influence on classroom instructional practices, which in turn was felt to have impacted the learning of students (as measured in part by state test scores). Many instructional barriers were experienced, but all were overcome to some extent, thanks in large part to the leadership behaviors. The results from this study support the theory and models of others, and illustrate how those ideas were actually implemented in some school with significant success.

Suggestions for Further Research

There are several suggestions for further research that can be generated from the results of this study. A similar project could seek to identify the writing strategies used with at-risk students in kindergarten and follow their writing progress through grade five. It would allow for deeper reflection about these strategies since there would be a greater length of time for study participants to reflect on the strategies that would help the students. Attempts were made in this qualitative research to add depth to the interviews by providing questions in advance to participants and allowing for member checking, but the data could be improved through interviews that could continue throughout the years as teachers became more confident with their use of the strategies.

In addition, further research on successful schools could focus on each leadership practice in isolation along with the implemented writing strategies. A consistent theme in this study was the impact of four leadership practices in combination on participants’ instructional strategies. A significant amount of research has been done on each leadership practice (Ackerman & Mackenzie, 2006; Fullan, 2003; Marzano, 2003; Ornstein, Behar-Horenstein, & Pajak, 2003). However, little attention has been given to the independent impact of each as it relates to the instructional strategies. Further research could concentrate on the impact of each leadership practice on each of the particular classroom strategies.

A third area for future research could focus on each individual instructional block of strategies in isolation coupled with the leadership practices and the subsequent impact on students’ writing. Previously each block of instructional strategies has been studied (Adams,1990; Allington & Cunningham, 1996; Tierney & Shanahan, 1991; Veatch, 1959) and deemed unable to impact all learners. However, the leadership practices have never been acknowledged or examined and the question remains if lack of leadership was the missing link.

In addition, this study could be repeated in three years with the same group of educators to determine if they were still being supervised with the same leadership practices, and if they maintained the instructional strategies and gains over time. This process could bring further clarity to the themes that emerged from this study or provide additional insights on the experiences of the participants.

Finally, an additional study could be done to examine the instructional practices of teachers whose students were not successful. Further research could be conducted on those individuals whose students did not achieve mastery to determine whether or not their teachers were using the Four Blocks instructional strategies proficiently and why or why not.


Overall Conclusions

The purpose of this study was to examine the applicability of Reeves’ (2004) theory of student-centered accountability, and Cunningham and Hall’s (1998) instructional framework, on the classrooms of an elementary school which was successful in the area of writing. This qualitative research adds to the literature on successful writing instruction by placing the study within a school where leadership-related practices were combined with an instructional framework. Fullan (2003) called for research to help leaders build high-performing schools in an age of accountability when schools systems are moving away from obsolete 20th century models of leadership. Furthermore, this study provides data on the implementation of particular writing strategies that impact students’ writing scores. This addresses an additional shortcoming in the literature presented by King and Newmann (2000) by examining the implementation plans of effective strategies.

This research allowed for in-depth learning about the applicability of leadership-related practices to a school where the leadership behaviors were very transparent, and the participants indicated they were impacted by particular leadership practices. It was interesting to note that some participants indicated they aligned with the leaders because they knew that the institution had low literacy scores, thus they needed to change course. This finding points to the possibility that participants may have been especially receptive to new leadership-related practices and classroom strategies due to their previous experiences with leadership and strategies, as well as the low achievement of the students. The responses indicated that these educators went through a process of accountability for learning which demonstrates that Reeves’ model of student-centered accountability is indeed applicable to this type of educational environment. Table A3 in Appendix G contains a comparison of Reeves’ work with the findings of this research. This table shows that in addition to leadership strategies in place, educators need to utilize effective instructional practices.

The finding of this study demonstrating the applicability of Reeves’ theory of student-centered accountability within the context of an elementary school answers critiques of Reeves offered by state policy makers who report scores only (Cherry, 2006). This research, however, found Reeves’ emphasis on the examination of the context for the scores was an appropriate lens for examining student learning within the environment of an elementary school. This study started with successful MEAP scores and then worked backwards to examine how these were obtained.

This study also extends previous studies done on the utilization of a literacy framework within an elementary school. Cunningham and Hall’s work examining the impact of a literacy framework within the context of an elementary school was similar to this research in regards to background student variables, a literacy instructional framework, and the decision to focus on a single institution. Similar to Cunningham and Hall, this research also found evidence of the impact of specific instructional strategies on writing. This research also examined leadership-influenced practices and found that such practices impacted teachers in four main areas: supervision of the framework, supporting curriculum, professional development on the framework, and knowledgeable leaders. The findings of this research, therefore, extend and unite Cunningham and Hall’s and Reeves’ work. Table A5 in Appendix I contains a comparison of Cunningham and Hall’s work with the findings of this research.

In addition to furthering what is known from such earlier studies (e.g. Reeves, Cunningham & Hall), this research furthers what is known about the impact of a framework of instructional strategies on at-risk students. The participants’ reports concerning the impact of various instructional strategies are not surprising given the amount of research present on them (Pearson & Raphael, 2003). However, the impact of a coherent program is noteworthy since participants reported that the framework was as significant a factor in achieving improved writing scores as the leadership-related practices. While there are studies dealing with instruction befitting the at risk, a significant portion of literature focuses on the importance of strategies and ways to increase their effectiveness without noting the impact of the leadership-related practices (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). The results of this study suggest that leadership practices be given more attention in the research since participants referenced this category with the same degree of frequency as they did instructional strategies.

Additionally, as previously mentioned, the literature on at-risk students and instruction heavily focuses on providing additional resources for at-risk students (Blythe, Allen, & Powell, 1999). Study participants did not mention additional strategies or resources as necessary for at-risk or special education students (beyond the additional materials provided for all students). Several participants mentioned the value of collegiality, with the whole school working together. Several also mentioned the satisfaction of receiving professional development that sharpened their skills, enabling them to help all learners be successful. In addition, they asserted that they benefited from leaders who supervised and purchased materials for all types of learners and had knowledge of strategies that benefited at-risk students. Furthermore, they stated that an aligned curriculum supported their efforts with at–risk students.

Furthermore, this research revealed that particular writing strategies found within the instructional framework had a significant impact on writing skills. In doing so, this study supports Calkins’ (1994) work. This research also furthers what is known about the impact of leadership-related practices on writing strategies, whereby participants reported that leaders were as significant a factor as the strategies. The results of this study suggest writing strategies benefit from leaders to supervise them, curriculum that supports them, professional development about them and leaders who are knowledgeable of them. Participants in this study also commented on the implementation of these writing strategies every day for at least thirty to forty minutes, therefore the finding of this research extends Calkins’ earlier work. Table A 6 in Appendix J contains a comparison of Calkins’ work with the findings of this research.

It is also interesting to note what is not present in the findings of this study. This research furthers what is known about the impact of an instructional framework in regards to the structure and strategies within. A significant investigation of the Four Blocks framework within the context of the elementary school was offered by Hibbert and Iannacci (2005). Their work focused on time factors and defined strategies as restrictive to the creativity of the teacher. This study contradicts Hibbert and Iannacci findings concerning the framework in two main areas: time blocks scheduled by the leaders were valuable to the teachers, and the strategies within the blocks provided them a formatting structure they desired. This study, therefore, adds structure and tools to the list of influences in terms of the impact a framework has on writing scores. In doing so, this study challenges Hibbert and Iannacci’s work and raises questions regarding the role of a cohesive framework within the applicability of Reeves’ work.

Implications for Practice at Elementary Schools with At Risk

The individual experiences of participants demonstrate that the components of Reeves’ model were present within the experiences of educators at the school in this study. Leadership-related practices were found to interact with the school’s instructional practices, which impacted the writing scores for students. While confirming Reeves’ model, these findings also provide insight into instructional practices in regards to writing instruction. In addition to emphasizing the impact instructional strategies have on the writing success of students, including at risk, this study also demonstrates that a significant amount of leadership impact was felt from experiences teachers had outside the classroom (e.g., professional development, alignment discussions). These findings should cause institutions to think about innovative ways to get leaders intentionally committed to a plan to supervise a coherent literacy framework, clarify the curriculum, provide professional development, and obtain knowledge about instructional strategies within the balanced framework they seek.

Additionally, the role of “traditional” classroom strategies such as phonics, guided reading, self- selected reading, and writing should also be examined in light of the findings of this study. Few study participants mentioned being impacted by each of these strategies despite the fact that they historically have all been viewed as the key components of literacy instruction that would impact all students. As a result, schools may need to look for innovative ways to get educators to study cohesive frameworks of instructional practices. One way to increase instructional program coherence would be in college classes or through professional development. A possible way to increase supervision for effective strategies would be to train principals on effective strategies within a literacy framework. This would give these leaders contact with cohesive frameworks that would best impact all their students, including the at risk.

Finally, the strong theme regarding leadership and instruction influences on at-risk students could be used to rethink how specific leadership-related strategies and instructional practices influence classrooms with at-risk students. This study demonstrates the difference leadership-related practices and instructional strategies can have on such students. Decisions surrounding the supervision of a framework, curriculum work, professional development and leaders’ knowledge level about curriculum, instruction, and assessments could be reviewed to determine how at-risk students are best taught. The at-risk students could benefit from confident leaders and teachers who were able to use a variety of instructional strategies with expertise. Students who are at risk could gain from available materials on their level and from a variety of materials and instructional strategies that appeal to all learning styles.

A final recommendation for improving the writing scores of all students at elementary schools would be to look for ways to be more intentional with the purpose of professional development and the follow-up that is needed. Professional development could be chosen and designed to build the skill level with educators and selected for the effectiveness of the strategies. Leaders could be trained to follow-up on the professional development, as well as writing assessments. Funding for assistant superintendents of curriculum, principals and literacy specialists already exists so there would be minimal additional costs to the institution, and involvement with professional development could be made a condition of the contract. Such an arrangement would provide a context for a district strategic plan that would impact classrooms in areas such as supervision, curriculum, professional development and knowledge about cohesive instructional programs. This would help eliminate the knowing-doing gap (Pfeffer & Sutton, 2000, 2006), by enabling schools to turn knowledge into action.

The relevance of Reeves’ theory and Cunningham and Hall’s literacy framework within the study’s environment, the existence of themes dealing with leadership-related practices and instructional strategies, and the applicability of the findings to a discussion of institutional practice was generated from the experiences of sixteen similar yet distinctive individuals. While all of these participants had different backgrounds, the study participants experienced the impact of the leadership-related practices and instructional strategies in similar ways. They found the leadership-related practices to have impacted their classroom instruction benefited all their students in the area of writing, not only those in poverty. In addition, they were supported by a literacy framework that was supervised by knowledgeable leaders, based on a coherent curriculum, and supported by professional development. As a result, they believed their students developed into successful writers – a goal desired by all educators and as evidenced by fourth grade state test scores going from 59.6% passing writing in 2004, to 91.6% passing in 2005. Overall, this study revealed that theory really can be implemented into successful practice.
References

Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print.

Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Allington, R. L., & Cunningham, P. M. (1996). Schools that work. NY:

HarperCollins.

Altwerger, B., & Strauss, S. (2002). The business behind testing. Language Arts, 79,

256-263.

Anders, P. L., Hoffman, J. V., & Duffy, G. G. (2000). Teaching teachers to teach

reading: Paradigm shifts, persistent problems, and challenges. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 719-742). Mahwah, NJ: Eribaum.

Ackerman, R., & Mackenzie S. V. (2006). Uncovering teacher leadership.



Educational Leadership, 63(8), 66-70.

Atwell, N. (1998). In the middle: New understandings about writing, reading and



learning (2nd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton Cook.

Au, K. H., Carroll, J. H., & Scheu, J. A. (1997). Balanced literacy instruction: A



teacher’s resource book. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon.

Baker, S., & Smith, S, S. (2001). Linking school assessments to research-based

practices in beginning reading: Improving programs and outcomes for

students with and without disabilities. Teacher Education and Special Education, 24, 315-332.

Barabasi, A. L. (2003). Linked: How everything is connected to everything else and

what it means. New York: Plume.

Bartholomew, B. (2006). Transforming New York City’s public schools.



Educational Leadership, 63(8), 61-65.

Beck, L. G., & Murphy, J. (1993). Understanding the principalship: Metaphorical



themes, 1920s-1990s. New York; Teachers College Press.

Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. W. (1977). Federal programs supporting educational



change. Vol. 7: Factors affecting implementation and continuation. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.

Biddle, B. J., & L. J. Saha. (2002). The untested accusation: Principals, research



knowledge and policy making in schools. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.

Bielawski, P. (2006). The school improvement framework plays a key role in

Michigan’s school accreditation system. Leading Change, 5.

Blasé, J., & Blasé, J. (1998). Inquiry and collaboration: Supporting the lifelong study

of learning and teaching. International Electronic Journal for Leadership in Learning, 2(7), 3-4.

Blythe, T., Allen, D., & Powell, B. (1999). Looking together at student work: A



companion guide to assessing student learning. New York: Teachers College

Press.


Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2003). Qualitative research for education. An

introduction to theories and methods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Bond, G. L., & Dykstra, R. (1967). The cooperative research program in first-grade

reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 2, 5-142.

Borko, H., Davinroy, K., Bliem, C., & Cumbo, K. (2000). Exploring and supporting

teacher change: Two third-grade teachers’ experiences in a mathematics and

literacy staff development project. Elementary School Journal, 100, 273-306.

Broaddus, K. (1995). Scratching the surface: Researching the cultural context of

literacy as a preservice teacher. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Broaddus, K., & Bloodgood, J. (1994, May). Working with severe reading problems:



Diagnosis. Paper presented at the annual convention of the International Reading Association, Toronto, Canada.

Bromley, K. (1998). Language arts: Exploring connections. Boston: Allyn &

Bacon.

Bromley, K. (2002). Stretching students vocabulary. New York: Scholastic.



Burkhardt, J. (2006). Reasons why students don’t attend college. Voice, 83, 10-11.

Calkins, L. (1994). The art of teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Calkins, L. (2006). Units of study for teaching writing. Portsmouth, NH:

Heinemann.

Cambourne, B. (1988). The whole story: Natural learning and the acquisition of

literacy in the classroom. Auckland, NZ: Scholastic.

Canul, Y. C. (2006). MDE creates a framework for continuous school improvement.



Leading Change, 1.

Cherry, J. (2006). Cherry Commision: All students need to continue their education

beyond high school. Voice, 83, 9.

City of New York. (2004). The mayor’s management report fiscal 2004. Available:



www.nyc.gov/html/ops/downloads/pdf/2004_mmr/0904_mmr.pdf

Clay, M. M. (1985). The early detection of reading difficulties (3rd ed.). Portsmouth,

NH: Heineman.

Cole, A. (2002). Better answers. Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.

Collopy, R., & Bowman, P. (2003). Elementary school meets university. National

Staff Development Council, 24, 38-41.

Connelly, F., & Schultz, M. (2005, May 1). Parents fail to encourage higher

education. The Detroit News, p. 8.

Corbett, D., Wilson, B., & Williams, B. (2005). No choice but success. The Best of



Educational Leadership 2004-2005, 27-30.

Creswell, J. W. (1998). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among



five traditions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed



methods approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Cunningham, P. M., & Allington, R. L. (2003). Classrooms that work. Boston, MA:

Pearson Education, Inc.

Cunningham, P. M., & Hall, D. P. (1998). The four blocks: A balanced framework

for literacy in primary classrooms. In K. Harris, S. Graham, & D. Deshler

(Eds.), Teaching every child every day: Learning in diverse schools and classrooms (pp. 32-76). Cambridge, UK: Brookline Books.

Cunningham, P., Hall, D., & Defee, M. (1991). Nonability grouped, multilevel

instruction: A year in a first-grade classroom. The Reading Teacher, 44, 566-571.

Cunningham, P., Hall, D., & Sigmon, C. (1999). The teacher’s guide to the

Four Blocks. Greensboro, NC: Carson-Dellosa.

Daggett, W. R. (2001). Technology 2008 - preparing students for our changing



world: A White paper. Rexford, NY: International Center for Leadership in Education.

Dearman, C. C., & Alber, S. R. (2005). The changing face of education: Teachers

cope with challenges through collaboration and reflective study. The Reading Teacher, 58(7), 634-639.

Desimone, L. M., Porter, A. C., Birman, B. F., Garet, M. S., & Yoon, K.S. (2002).

How do district management and implementation strategies relate to the quality of the professional development that districts provide to teachers? Teachers College Record, 104, 1265-1312.

Dewey, J. (1968). Experience and education. New York: Collier. (Original work

published 1938).

Dole, J. A., Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., & Pearson, P. D. (1991). Moving from the

old to the new: Research on reading comprehension instruction. Review of

Educational Research, 61, 239-264.

Dudley-Marling, C., & Murphy, S. (2001). Changing the way we think about

language arts. Language Arts, 78, 574-578.

Elmore, R. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC:

The Albert Shanker Institute.

Elmore, R. F., & Burney, D. (1997). Investing in teacher learning: Staff development



and instructional improvement in community School District #2, New York City. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

Everett, D., Tichenor, M., & Heins, E. (2003). A profile of elementary school

teachers involved in a professional development school. Journal of Research

in Childhood Education, 18, 37.

Ferrero, D. J. (2005). Pathways to reform: Start with values. The Best of Educational



Leadership 2004-2005, 21-26.

Fielding, L., Kerr, N., & Rosier, P. (2004). Delivering on the promise. Kennewick,

WA: New Foundation Press, Inc.

Fisher, D., Lapp, D., & Flood, J. (2005). Consensus scoring and peer planning:

Meeting literacy accountability demands one school at a time. The Reading

Teacher, 58(7), 656-665.

Flanagan, M. (2005). State board hires new ed chief. Retrieved on July19, 2006 from



http://www.educationreport.org/pubs/mer/article

Fletcher, R., & Portalupi, J. (1998). Craft lessons: Teaching writing k-8. York, ME:

Stenhouse.

Fuch, D., & Fuchs, L. (2001). One blueprint for bridging the gap: Project promise.



Teacher Education and Special Education, 24, 304-314.

Fullan, M. G. (1998). Breaking the bonds of dependency. Educational Leadership,



55(7), 6-10.

Fullan, M. G. (2003). Change forces with a vengeance. New York: Routledge Falmer.

Gaskins, I. W. (1998). There’s more to teaching at-risk and delayed readers than

good reading instruction. The Reading Teacher, 51, 534-547.

George, J., Moeley, P., & Ogle, D. (1992). CCD: A model comprehension program

for changing thinking and instruction. In J. Vacca (Ed.), Bringing about change in schools (pp. 49-55). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Golder, E. (2006, July 13). Will Google jobs click for Granholm campaign? The

Grand Rapids Press, p. B1-2.

Gonzales, L. D. (2004). Sustaining teacher leadership: Beyond the boundaries of an



enabling school culture. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Good, T. L., & Brophy, J. E. (1994). Looking in classrooms (6th ed.). New York:

Harper Collins.

Graff, G. (2003). Clueless in academe. New Haven and London: Yale University

Press.

Graves, D. H. (1995). A fresh look at writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.



Greenwood, C. R., & Maheady, L. (2001). Are future teachers aware of the gap

between research and practice and what should they know? Teacher Education and Special Education, 24, 333-347.

Guskey, T. R. (2003). What makes professional development effective? Phi Delta

Kappan, 84, 748-750.

Hall, D., & Cunningham, P. (2003). The administrator’s guide to the Four Blocks.

Greensboro, NC: Carson-Dellosa Company, Inc.

Hall, D., Prevatte, C., & Cunningham, P. (1995). Eliminating ability grouping and

reducing failure in the primary grades. In R. L. Allington & S. A. Walmsley

(Eds.), No quick fix: Rethinking literacy programs in America’s elementary schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

Harwayne, S. (2001). Writing through childhood: Rethinking process and product.

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Hawley, W. D., & Valli, L. (1999). The essentials of effective professional

development: A new consensus. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 127-150). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Henk, W., & Moore, J. (1992). Facilitating change in school literacy: From state

initiatives to district implementation. In J. Vacca (Ed.), Bringing about change in schools (pp. 44-48). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Hibbert, K., & Iannacci, L. (2002). Building or stumbling block to balanced literacy?

A critical look at the “Four Blocks” model. Paper presented at the annual

conference of the Canadian Society for the Study of Education, Toronto, Canada.

Hibbert, K., & Iannacci, L. (2005). From dissemination to discernment: The

commodification of literacy instruction and the fostering of “good teacher

consumerism”. The Reading Teacher, 58(8), 716-727.

Hiebert, E. H., Colt, J. M., Catto, S. L., & Gury, E. C. (1992). Reading and writing of

first-grade students in s restructured Chapter I program. American

Educational Research Journal, 29, 545-572.

Jacob, E. (1987). Qualitative research traditions: A review. Review of Educational



Research, 57, 1-50.

Johnson, D. P. (2005). Sustaining change in schools. Alexandria, VA: Association

for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Johnston, P. H., & Allington, R. L. (1991). Remediation. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P.

B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 984-1012). New York: Longman.

Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1995). Student achievement through staff development:



Fundamentals of school renewal. New York: Longman.

Juel, C. (1988). Learning to read and write: A longitudinal study of 54 children from

first through fourth grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 437-447.

Kameenui, E. J., & Carnine, D. W. (1998). Effective teaching strategies that



accommodate diverse learners. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Merrill.

Kane, S. (1997). Favorite sentences: Grammar in action. The Reading Teacher, 51(1),

10-23.

Karush, S. (2006, July 13). Ann Arbor hums as an economic engine. The Grand



Rapids Press, p. C1-2.

Kelehear, Z., & Davison, G. (2005). Teacher teams step up to leadership. The



Journal of Staff Development, 26, 54-9.

Kelleher, J. (2003). A model for assessment-driven professional development. Phi



Delta Kappan, 84, 751-757.

King, M. B., & Newmann, F. M. (2000). Will teacher learning advance school goals?



Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 576-582.

Kinnucan-Welsch, K., Rosemary, C. A., & Grogan, P. R., (2006). Accountability by

design in literacy professional development. The Reading Teacher, 59(5), 426-435.

Kotter, J. P. (1995). Leading change: Why transformation efforts fail. Harvard



Business Review, 73(2), 59-67.

Kouzes, J. M., & Posner, B. Z. (2003). The leadership challenge (Rev. ed.). San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Knapp, M. S. (1991). What is taught, and how, to the children of poverty: Interim



report from a two-year investigation. Menlo Park, CA: S.R.I. Inc.

Lane, B. (1999). Reviser’s toolbox. Shoreham, VT: Discover Writing Press.

Leslie, L., & Allen, L. (1999). Factors that predict success in an early literacy

intervention project. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(4), 404-424.

Lewis, C. (2002). Lesson study: A handbook of teacher-led instructional change.

Philadelphia: Research for Better Schools.

Lewis, S., & Batts, K. (2005). How to implement differentiated instruction?

National Staff Development Council, 26, 26-31.

Leithwood, K., & Riehl, C. (2003). What we know about successful school



leadership. Philadelphia: Laboratory for Student Success, Temple University.

Lipson, M. Y., & Wixson, K. K. (1997). Assessment and instruction of reading and



writing disability: An interactive approach (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.

Litt, M. D., & Turk, D. C. (1985). Sources of stress and dissatisfaction in experienced

high school teacher. Journal of Educational Research, 78, 178-185.

Locke, L. F., Spirduso, W. W., & Silverman, S. J. (2000). Proposals that work.



A guide for planning dissertations and grant proposals. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Lortie, D. (1975). School-teacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

Madden, N. A., Slavin, R. E., Karweit, N. L., Dolan, L., & Wasik, B. A. (1991).

Success for all. Phi Delta Kappan, 72, 593-599.

Manning, G. L., & Manning, M. (1984). What models of recreational reading make a

difference? Reading World, 23, 375-380.

Marzano, R. J. (2000). A new era of school reform: Going where the research takes



us. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning. (ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. ED454255).

Marzano, R. J. (2003). What works in schools. Alexandria, VA: Association for

Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Marzano, R. J. (2004). Building background knowledge for academic achievement.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works.

Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Mazzoni, S. A., & Gambrell, L. B. (2003). Principles of best practice: Finding the

common ground. In L. Morrow, L. Gambrell, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Best Practices in Literacy Instruction (pp. 9-21). New York: Guilford Press.

McIntyre, E., & Pressley, M. (1996). Balanced instruction: Strategies and skills in

whole language. Boston, MA: Christopher-Gordon.

Michigan Department of Education (2006). State tests scores show students reaching



higher curriculum standards. Retrieved on July 13, 2006 from

http://www.michigan.gov/mde/

Moustakas, C. (1994). Phenomenological research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.

Murphy, C. (1997). Finding time for faculties to study together. Journal of Staff



Development, 8(3), 29-32.

Murray, D. M. (1985). A writer teaches writing (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

National Institute of Child health and Human Development. (2000). The report of the

National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 1007-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).

Olson, L. (2005). Calls for revamping high schools intensify. Education

Week, 24(20), 1, 18-19.

Ornstein, A., Behar-Horenstein, L., & Pajak, E. (Eds.). (2003). Contemporary issues



in curriculum. Boston: Pearson.

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Newbury Park,

CA: Sage.

Pearson, P. D., & Raphael, T. E. (2003). Toward a more complex view of balance in

the literacy curriculum. In L. Morrow, L. Gambrell & M. Pressley (Eds.),

Best Practices in Literacy Instruction (pp. 23-37). New York: Guilford Press.

Peterson, S. (2000). Yes, we do teach writing conventions! (Though the methods may

be unconventional). Ohio Reading Teacher, 34(1), 38-44.

Pfeffer, J., & Sutton, R. I. (2000). The knowing-doing gap: How smart companies



turn knowledge into action. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Portalupi. J., & Fletcher, R. (2004). Teaching the qualities of writing. Portsmouth,

NH: Firsthand.

Pressley, M. (1998). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching.

New York: Guilford.

Ramsey, M., & Luke, P. (2006, July 12). Is Google answer to state’s search? The



Grand Rapids Press, p. A1-2.

Reeves, D. B. (2004). Accountability for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for

Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Reeves, D. B. (2006). Of hubs, bridges, and networks. Educational Leadership,



63(8), 32-37.

Rettig, M., & Canady, R. (1999). The effect of block scheduling. School



Administrator, 56(3), 14-19.

Reynolds, D., & Teddlie, C. (2000). The process of school effectiveness. In C.

Teddlie & D. Reynolds (Eds.), The international handbook of school

effectiveness research (pp. 134-159). New York; The Falmer Press.

Routman, R. (1994). Invitations: Changing as teachers and learners K-12.

Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Routman, R. (2005). Writing essentials. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Ruiz, N. T., Vargas, E., & Beltran, A. (2002). Becoming a reader and writer in a

bilingual special education classroom. Language Arts, 79, 297-309.

Saha, L. J., & Biddle, B. J. (2006). The innovative principal: Research in action.

Principal, May/June, 28-31.

Scheerens, J., & Bosker, R. (1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness.

New York: Elsevier.

Schmoker, M. (2006). Results now. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision

and Curriculum Development.

Schnorr, R. F., & Davern, L. (2005). Creating exemplary literacy classrooms through

the power of teaming. The Reading Teacher, 58(6), 494-506.

Senge, P. M. (1994). The fifth discipline. New York: Currency Doubleday.

Sergiovanni, T. (1967). Factors which affect satisfaction and dissatisfaction of

teachers. The Journal of Educational Administration, 5(1), 66-81.

Shanahan, T. (1997). Reading-writing relationships, thematic units, inquiry

learning…in pursuit of effective integrated literacy instruction. The Reading Teacher, 51(1), 12-19.

Shanahan, T., & Barr, R. (1995). Reading Recovery: An independent evaluation of

the effects of an early instructional intervention for at risk learners. Reading



Research Quarterly, 30, 958-996.

Shen, J. (1998). Teachers’, principals’ and superintendents’ conceptions of

leadership. School Leadership & Management, 18, 107-121.

Showers, B., & Joyce, B. (1996). The evolution of peer coaching. Educational



Leadership, 53(6), 12-16.

Silva, D. Y., Gimbert, B., & Nolan, J. (2000). Sliding the doors: Locking and

unlocking possibilities for teacher leadership. Teachers College Record,

102(4), 779-804.

Silvernail, D. (1996). The impact of England’s national curriculum and assessment

system on classroom practice: Potential lessons for American reformers.

Educational Policy, 10(1), 4-62.

Simpson, S. W. (2006, March). Can generation m learn its abcs? T.H.E. Journal, 50.

Slavin, R. E., Madden N. A., Karweit, N. L., Dolan, L., & Waski, B. A. (1992).

Success for all: A relentless approach to prevention and early intervention in elementary schools. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Services.

Spandel, V. (2004). Creating young writers. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Spiegel, D. (1998). Silver bullets, babies, and bathwater: Literature response groups

in a balanced literacy program. The Reading Teacher, 52, 114-124.

Spillane, J. P., Halverson, R., & Diamond, J. (1999). Distributed leadership: Toward

a theory of school leadership practice. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada.

Snow, C. E., Burns, S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in



young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Southworth, G., & Doughty, J., (2006). A fine British blend. Educational Leadership,



63(8), 51-54.

Stanovich, K. E. (1986). The Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences for

individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-407.

Straus, K. (2006). From the state board of education. Leading Change, 2.

Strickland, D. (1998). What’s basic in beginning reading? Educational Leadership,

55(6), 6-10.

Strickland, D. S., Ganske, K., & Monroe, J. K. (2002). Supporting struggling readers



and writers. Ortland, ME: Stenhouse.

Stringer, E. T. (1999). Action research (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Swann, J. M., & Huynh H. (2002). The Four-Blocks reading instruction model: An

investigation into the effectiveness of an eclectic approach to reading instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.

Taylor, B. M., & Pearson, P. D. (Eds.). (2002). Teaching reading: Effective schools,



accomplished teachers. Mahwah, NJ: Eribaum.

Taylor, B. M., Frye, B., Short, R., & Shearer, B. (1992). Classroom teachers prevent

reading failure among low-achieving first grade students. The Reading

Teacher, 45, 592-598.

Tesch, R. (1988). Qualitative research. Analysis types and software tools.

New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Inc.

Tierney, R. J., & Shanahan, T. (1991). Research on the reading-writing relationship:

Interactions, transaction, and outcomes. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research, Vol. 2 (pp. 246-280). New York: Longman.

Training Resources Group, Inc. (n.d.). Making the right choices about the 360-degree



feedback. Retrieved August, 2004, from http://www.trg-inc.com/360feedback_TRG3.htm

U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Reading First guidance. Retrieved August 30,

2004, from http://www.aft.org/eseaa/downloads/ReadingFirstguidanceFinal.pdf

Vacca, R. T., Vacca., J. L., & Bruneau, B. (1997). Teachers reflecting on practice. In J. Flood, S. B. Heath & D. Lapp (Eds.), Handbook for literacy educators: Research on teaching the communicative and visual arts (pp. 445-450). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Vande Bunte, M. (2005, November 22). School crisis calls for ‘nerds’. The Grand

Rapids Press, p. B3.

Veatch, J. (1959). Individualizing your reading program. New York: Putnam.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological

processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wagner, T., Kegan, R., Lahey, L., Lemons, R., Garnier, J., Helsing, et al. (2006).



Change leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Wasik, B. A. (1998). Using volunteers as reading tutors: Guidelines for successful practices. The Reading Teacher, 51, 562-570.

Worthy, J., & Prater, S. (1997, December). Learning on the job: Preservice teachers’

connections between reading intervention and classroom practice. Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the National Reading Conference, Scottsdale, AZ.


Appendix A


Requesting Participation Letter

Requesting Participation Letter


Dear Teacher,
My name is Barb Johnson and I am the principal of Brown Elementary School in Byron Center, Michigan. In addition to my administrative duties, I am also a doctoral student at Western Michigan University. I am writing to ask you to be part of a qualitative research study on leadership-influenced practices that impact classroom instruction related to writing. This is part of the requirements for a doctoral degree in Educational Leadership. I hope you will agree to participate.
Participating in this study will include:
An interview conversation that should last approximately 60-90 minutes and that will be conducted after school hours in a private location in your school building. Prior to this conversation, I will submit the interview questions to you and request your responses in advance that I might review them. This conversation will be recorded by a tape recorder, and I will also be taking written notes. If needed, a follow up meeting may occur which will allow me to check for accuracy of my notes and to ask any follow up questions I had after reviewing the transcripts of our first meeting.
Participation in this study is completely voluntary and there is no penalty for not participating or for withdrawing from the study. If you agree to participate in this study, your identity will be kept strictly confidential. Your name and school will not appear in the study. Your stories will be referenced by a pseudo name. All transcripts will be kept on a CD-ROM in a secured office in the researcher’s home.
Please contact me by replying by email to bejohnson17@comcast.net or by mail to 2370 Gatetree Lane, SE Grand Rapids, MI 49546. Or you may feel free to contact me by phone at (616) 285-9843.

Sincerely,


Barb Johnson

Appendix B
HSIRB Approval Letter

Consent Document


Consent Document

Department of Teaching, Learning & Leadership

Dr. Louann Bierlein Palmer, Principal Investigator

Barb Johnson, Student Investigator

Leadership-Influenced Practices that Impact Classroom Instruction Related to Writing:

A Case Study of a Successful Elementary School

You are invited to participate in a study examining “Leadership-Influenced Practices that Impact Classroom Instruction Related to Writing: A Case Study of a Successful Elementary School.” This study is being conducted by Barb Johnson, Principal of Brown Elementary School, and a doctoral student in the Education Leadership doctoral program at Western Michigan University, under the supervision of Dr. Louann Bierlein Palmer, her dissertation committee chair.


The following information is being provided for you to determine if you wish to participate in this study. In addition, you are free to decide not to participate in this research or to withdraw at anytime without affecting your relationship with the researchers or Western Michigan University.
The purpose of this study is to examine the leadership-influenced practices that impact classroom instruction related to writing. If you decide to participate you will be asked to participate in an interview lasting between 60-90 minutes. To help in your preparation, you will be given four questions for you to reflect upon prior to the interview. These interviews will be audio recorded to ensure the accuracy of the collected information and all interviews will be transcribed into a written record. You would be able to ask the interviewer to turn off the audio recording equipment at anytime during the interview.
Please do not hesitate to ask questions about the study before participating or while the research is taking place. I will be happy to share the results with you at the completion of the study. Ensuring the confidentiality of data is the norm in research. Your name or school name will not be used in the dissertation dissemination process; rather it will only be known to the researcher. Pseudonyms will be used for participants (i.e. Teacher 1, Teacher 2, and so on) and general terms will be used in reporting results (i.e. “Five of the teachers commented…;” “Two teachers reported that…;” etc.).

Appendix C

Interview Protocol
Interview Protocol

Project: Leadership-Influenced Practices that Impact Classroom Instruction Related to Writing: A Case Study of a Successful Elementary School



Time of interview: __________________________________
Date of interview: __________________________________
Location: __________________________________
Interviewer: __________________________________
Interviewee: __________________________________
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9


Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©atelim.com 2016
rəhbərliyinə müraciət