Content Area Teachers' Perceptions of the Factors That Promote or Inhibit Infusion of Content Area

208 Pages·2015·1.97 MB·English

by  Cheryl Kopec Nahmias

Florida State University Libraries
Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School
2010
Content Area Teachers' Perceptions of the
Factors That Promote or Inhibit Infusion
of Content Area Reading Strategies into
Instruction
Cheryl Kopec Nahmias
Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected]
THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION

CONTENT AREA TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF THE FACTORS THAT
PROMOTE OR INHIBIT INFUSION OF CONTENT AREA READING STRATEGIES
INTO INSTRUCTION

By

CHERYL KOPEC NAHMIAS

A Dissertation submitted to the
School of Teacher Education
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Awarded:
Fall Semester, 2010
The members of the Committee approve the dissertation of Cheryl Kopec Nahmias
defended on 08/23/2010.

__________________________________
Susan Nelson Wood
Professor Co-Directing Dissertation

__________________________________
Pamela “Sissi” Carroll
Professor Co-Directing Dissertation

__________________________________
Alysia Roehrig
University Representative

__________________________________
Judith Irvin
Committee Member

__________________________________
Shelbie Witte
Committee member

Approved:
_________________________________________________________
Walt Wager, Chair, School of Teacher Education

The Graduate School has verified and approved the above-named committee members.

ii
This dissertation is dedicated to my husband, Eddy Nahmias,
and our three children, Lucas, Sam and Eve.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work would not have been possible were it not for the teachers of “Rainbow
Middle School.” Their generosity of time and openness to sharing their perceptions were
critical to making meaning of the complex work involved in teaching content area
reading. I admire the dedication, skill and willingness to learn that they bring to my
building every day, and I am privileged to learn with them.
My committee at Florida State University has been an invaluable resource to me.
As instructors during my coursework and as mentors in research and life, they have also
made possible work that could not otherwise have happened. Alysia Roehrig helped me
understand research and methodology and has offered me cogent and effective feedback
on my coursework and my dissertation. She has also been a great friend to me, offering
me lodging and camaraderie on my trips back to Tallahassee. Sissi Carroll has been an
excellent role model. Her dedication to constructive feedback on student work is
unparalleled, and she has helped me to become a better writer and thinker. I also thank
her for stepping in as my co-chair at the end of my doctoral journey. Judi Irvin’s was the
last course I took in my coursework at FSU, and I was lucky to have her agree to serve on
my committee. The way that Judi merges the work of the Academy with work in schools
is truly admirable. I thank Shelbie Witte for her eager support of my dissertation and her
willingness to serve my efforts. Finally, to Susan Wood, my major professor and friend,
I am in your debt for your guidance and support throughout. You believed in me when I
lost faith in my own ability to see this work through. For all of the ways big and small
that you pushed me throughout my studies at FSU, I am thankful.
My parents, Helen and Buck Kopec, have offered me nothing but unmitigated
encouragement in this effort. The helped me to find the time and space to write by taking
care of my house and children, and they travelled with me to support me during my
defense. My mother-in-law, Brigitte Nahmias, has helped me in countless ways by
taking care of my three children as I carved out time to write. My best friend, Kristan
Adams, was a constant moral support and a faithful companion as I travelled to
Tallahassee to defend. Our trip back will always rate as one of the best friendship
moments of my life. To my other friends and family who helped me, I am so grateful and

iv
incredibly lucky to have you.
To Lucas, Sam, and Evie, your patience with your mom during this time was a
gift, and I missed you every second that I spent writing. Finally, I want to thank my
husband, Eddy Nahmias, a world-class scholar and even better father and husband.
Thank you for giving me a room of my own to write when it seemed like an impossible
task. You were a parent to our three children when I couldn’t be with them, and you
never wavered in your belief that I would finish. Without you, this manuscript would not
exist, so I dedicate it to you and to our children for your unselfish commitment to me and
to my work.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES x
LIST OF FIGURES xii
ABSRACT xiii

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1

Background of the Problem 1
Statement of the Problem 3
Purpose of the Study 4
Research Questions 5
Significance of the Study 6
Definition of Terms 6
Overview of the Dissertation 8

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 9

Overview of the Chapter 9
A Crisis in Adolescent Literacy 9
Content Area Literacy 11
Secondary Reading 12
Addressing the Reading Crisis 13
Instructional Factors 15
Effective Instruction Embedded in Content 15
Strategic Reading Instruction in Content Area Classes 16
Student Motivation 19
Diverse Texts 20
Infrastructural Factors 21
Coordinated Literacy Focus and Teacher Teams 22
Leadership 23
Professional Learning 23
Theory to Practice Gap in Content Area Classrooms 25
Summary 28

CHAPTER THREE: DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY 30

Research Design 30
Research Questions 30
Methods 31
Site for the Study 32
Rationale for the Site 32
Role of the Researcher 32
Description of the Site 34
School Literacy Initiatives 2007—2010 38

vi
Description of the Content-Area Reading Initiative 38
Description of Differentiated Text Initiative 39
Description of Reading Across the Curriculum Initiative 41
Participants 42
Selecting Participants for the Study 42
Data Collection 43
Initial Survey 43
Focus Group Interviews 47
Focus Group 1 Description 51
Focus Group 2 Description 54
Individual Teacher Interviews 55
Member Checks 56
Significance to Individual Teachers’ Practice 57
Final Online Survey 58
Data Analysis 60
Analysis of Survey Data to Describe Population and Compare Across Cases 60
Analysis of Focus Group Data 61
Analysis of Individual Interviews 64
Analysis of Final Online Survey 64
Timeline 65
Phase 1 Data Collection: Initial Survey 65
Phase 2 Data Collection: Focus Group Interviews 67
Phase 3 Data Collection: Individual Interviews 67
Phase 4 Data Collection: Anonymous Survey 67
Validity and Reliability 68
Summary 71

CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS 73

Phase 1 Findings: Survey Data to Describe Population Sample and
Determine Criterion Sample 73
Selection of Criterion Sample
Criterion 1: Teacher Experience and Qualifications 76
Criterion 2: Academic Literacy Practices 77
Criterion 2, Practice One: Professional Learning 78
Criterion 2, Practice Two: In-Class Reading 80
Criterion 2, Practice Three: Assigned Out-of-Class Reading 80
Criterion 2, Practice Four: Use of Leveled Texts 81
Criterion 2, Practice Five: Strategy Use 82
Criterion 3: Teacher Beliefs about Literacy 83
Teacher Literacy Beliefs by Subject Area 87
Teacher Literacy Practices by Subject Area 88
Teacher Experience and Beliefs 89
Teacher Experiences and Practices 89

vii
Teacher Reports on Strategy Instruction 89
Phase 1 Findings Summary 90
Phase 2 & 3 Findings: Focus Group Interviews and
Individual Teacher Interviews 91
Role of the Teacher 92
Teacher Responsibility 92
Member Checks on Role of the Teacher 95
Significance to Individual Teachers’ Practice 97
Instructional Practice 99
Factors that Inhibit Successful Content Area Reading Instruction 100
Infrastructural Inhibitors: Planning and Instructional Time 100
Instructional Inhibitors: Differentiation 101
Instructional Inhibitors: Student Ability 101
Factors that Promote Successful Content Area Reading Instruction 102
Infrastructural Promoters: Instructional Coaching 103
Instructional Promoters: Before- and During-Reading Strategy Instruction 103
Instructional Promoters: Student Collaboration and Discussion 104
Instructional Promoters: Student Motivation 105
Instructional Promoter: Differentiated Resources 107
Member Checks on Factors That Promote or Inhibit
Content Area Reading Instruction 108
Significance to Individual Teachers’ Practice 109
Professional Learning 110
Infrastructural Promoters: Collaboration with Peers 115
Infrastructural Promoter: Job-Embedded Literacy
Professional Learning 116
Infrastructural Inhibitors: Lack of Pre-Service Training 111
Member Checks on Professional Learning 112
Significance to Individual Teachers’ Practice 112
Leadership 113
Infrastructural Promoter: Administrative Support 114
Infrastructural Inhibitor: Pressure to Perform on Standardized Tests 114
Member Checks on School Leadership 116
Significance to Individual Teachers’ Practice 116
Summary of Phase 2 and 3 Findings 117
Phase 4 Findings: Final Online Survey 118
Results of Open-ended and Selected-Response 118
Reading Strategy Items 118
Findings from Analysis of Final Survey Data by Subject Area 121
Summary of Findings 122

CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION 123

Overview of Key Findings 126
Research Question 1: Teachers’ Responsibility 126
Research Question 2: Teachers’ Practice 127

viii
Differences in Strategy Choice by Subject 130
Differences by Experience Level 131
Factors that Promote Content Area Reading Instruction 131
Instructional Factors: Student Motivation 132
Instructional Factors: Using Diverse Texts 132
Instructional Factors: Teaching Reading Strategies 134
Infrastructural Factors 135
Infrastructural Factors: Leadership 135
Help with Individual Students 135
School-wide Focus on Literacy 136
Support from an instructional coach/media specialist 136
Implications for Schools and Districts: Factors that Promote
Content Area Reading 140
Possibilities for Further Research: Factors that Promote
Content Area Reading 141
Teaching Reading Strategies 141
Motivation 141
Impact of Coaching 142
Factors that Inhibit Content Area Reading Instruction 143
Instructional Factors: Student Ability and Differentiation 143
Infrastructural Factors: Pressure to Cover Content 144
Infrastructural Factors: Planning and Instructional Time 144
Implications for Schools and Districts: Inhibiting Factors 146
Possibilities for Further Research: Inhibiting Factors 146
Limitations 147
Final Thoughts 148

APPENDICES 150

Appendix A: Renfroe Academic Literacy Survey 150
Appendix B: Individual Scores by Teacher 159
Appendix C: Survey Consent 164
Appendix D: Individual Interview Protocol 165
Appendix E: Teacher Significance Ratings 168
Appendix F: Final Survey 170
Appendix G: Focus Group Consent Form 173
Appendix H: Human Subjects Approval 174
Appendix I: Individual Interview Consent Form 175

REFERENCES 176

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 193

ix