This paper reports some of the findings of a two-year mixed methods longitudinal study in a high-poverty junior school in Dublin, Ireland, which was successful in significantly raising children's literacy achievement in reading, writing, and spelling and in enhancing their motivation, engagement, ability to self-regulate learning, and sense of self-efficacy. Critical factors in the success of the intervention were the dual emphasis on both the cognitive and affective dimensions of literacy developed through a meaning-oriented approach to instruction and the multifaceted professional development programme provided to teachers. Changes made to the instructional programme are described with reference to the research on motivation, engagement, and self-efficacy in literacy.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllingtonR. L. (2002). What I've learned about effective reading instruction from a decade of studying elementary classroom teachers.Phi Delta Kappan, 83(10), 740–747.
2.
AlmasiJ. (1995). The nature of fourth graders' socio-cognitive cognitive conflicts in peer-led and teacher-led discussions of literature.Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 360–407.
3.
AndersonR. C., & NagyW.E. (1992). The vocabulary conundrum. Technical Report: 570. Urbana-Champaign, Illinois: Center for the Study of Reading.
4.
AuK., RaphaelT., & MooneyK. C. (2008). What we have learned about teacher education to improve literacy achievement in urban schools. In WilkinsonL.C., MorrowL. M., & ChouV. (Eds.), Improving literacy achievement in urban schools: Critical elements in teacher preparation (pp. 159–184). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
5.
BakerL., & WigfieldA. (1999). Dimensions of children's motivation for reading and their relations to reading activity and reading achievement.Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 452–477.
6.
BanduraA. (1995). Exercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies. In BanduraA. (Ed.), Self-efficacy in changing societies (pp. 1–45). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
7.
BrophyJ., & GoodT. L. (1986). Teacher behaviour and student achievement. In WittrockM. C. (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 328–375). New York, NY: Macmillan.
8.
Burke JohnsonR., & OnwuegbuzieA. J. (2004). Mixed methods research: A research paradigm whose time has come.Educational Researcher, 33(7), 14–26.
9.
CalkinsL. M. (1986). The art of teaching writing.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
10.
CalkinsL. M. (2001). The art of teaching reading.New York, NY: Addison Wesley.
11.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
12.
CreganA. (2007). From difference to disadvantage: ' Talking Posh' sociolinguistic perspectives on the context of schooling in Ireland.Dublin, Ireland: Combat Poverty Agency.
13.
CreminT. (2010). Reconceptualising reading in the 21st century. In Concannon-GibneyT., KellyA., & WilloughbyK. (Eds.), Literacy in the 21st century (pp. 27–36). Dublin, Ireland: Reading Association of Ireland.
14.
CreswellJ. W., & Plano ClarkV. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15.
da CostaJ. L. (1993, April). A study of teacher collaboration in terms of teaching-learning performance. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting. Atlanta, GA, USA.
16.
Department for Children Schools and Families (DCSF). (2010). Statistical first release: Attainment by pupil characteristics in England. Retrieved from www.dcsf.gov.uk.
17.
Department of Education and Science (DES). (2005). Delivering of Equality of Opportunity in Schools.Dublin, Ireland: Stationery Office.
18.
Designs for Change. (1998). Practices of schools with substantially improved reading achievement. Chicago Public Schools. Retrieved February, 2008 from www.dfc1.org/summary/report/htm.
19.
DukeN. K. (2001). Print environments and experiences offered to first-grade students in very low- and very high- SES school districts.Reading Research Quarterly, 35(4), 456–457.
20.
DukeN. K., & PearsonD. P. (2002). Effective practices for developing comprehension. In FarstrupA. E., & SamuelsS. J. (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 205–242). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
21.
EcclesJ., AdlerT. F., FuttermanR., GoffS. B., KaczalaC. M., MeeceJ., & MidgelyC. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviours. In SpenceJ. T. (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives (pp. 75–146). San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman.
22.
Educational Research Centre. (2002). Drumcondra Sentence Reading Test.Dublin, Ireland: Educational Research Centre.
23.
Educational Research Centre. (2004). Drumondra Primary Spelling Test.Dublin, Ireland: Educational Research Centre.
24.
EiversE., ShielG., & ShorttS. (2004). Reading literacy in disadvantaged primary schools.Dublin, Ireland: Educational Research Centre.
25.
FountasI. C., & PinnellG. S. (1996). Guided reading: Good first teaching for all children.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
26.
FredericksJ. A., BlumenfeldP. C., & ParisA. H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, State of the evidence.Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109
27.
GambrellL. B. (1996). Creating classrooms that foster reading motivation.The Reading Teacher, 50(1), 14–25.
28.
GamseB. C., BloomH. S., KempleJ. J., & JacobR. T. (2008). Reading First Impact Study: Interim Report (NCEE 2008-4016). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
29.
GaretM. S., PorterA. C., DesimoneL., BirmanB. F., & YoonK. W. (2001). What makes professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers.American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915–945.
30.
GentryR. J. (1982). An analysis of developmental spelling in GNYS at work.The Reading Teacher, 36, 192–200.
31.
GlaserB. G., & StraussA. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research.New York, NY: Aldine Publishing Company.
32.
GraingerT., GoouchK., & LambirthA. (2005). Creativity and writing: Developing voice and verve in the classroom.Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Routledge.
33.
GravesD. (1994). A fresh look at writing.Portsmouth NH: Heinemann
34.
GravesM., & Watts-TaffeS. M. (2002). The place of word consciousness in a research-based vocabulary program. In FarstrupA. E., & SamuelsS. J. (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 140–166). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
35.
GuskeyT. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change.Educational Researcher, 15(5), 5–12.
36.
GuthrieJ. T. (1996). Educational contexts for engagement in literacy.The Reading Teacher, 49(6), 432–445.
37.
GuthrieJ.T., & AndersonE. (1999). Engagement in reading: Processes of motivated, strategic, knowledgeable, social readers. In GuthrieJ. T., & AlvermannD. E. (Eds.), Engaged reading: Processes, practices, and policy implications (pp. 17–45). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
38.
GuthrieJ. T., McRaeA., & Lutz KlaudaS. L. (2007). Contributions of concept-oriented reading instruction to knowledge about interventions for motivations in reading.Educational Psychologist, 42(4), 237–250.
39.
HallK. (2002). Effective literacy teaching in the early years of school: A review of the evidence. In HallN., LarsonJ., & MarshJ. (Eds.). Handbook of Early Childhood Literacy (pp. 315–326), London, UK: Sage.
40.
HordS. M. (2008). Evolution of the learning community.Journal of Staff Development, 29(3), 10–13.
41.
JeffreyB., & WoodsP. (2003). The creative school: A framework for success, quality and effectiveness.London, UK: Routledge Falmer.
42.
JeffreyB., & WoodsP. (1997). The relevance of creative teaching: Pupils' views. In PollardA., ThiessenD., & FilerA. (Eds.). Children and their curriculum: The perspectives of primary and elementary school children.London, UK: Falmer.
43.
KennedyE. (2008). Improving literacy achievement in a disadvantaged primary school: Empowering classroom teachers through professional development (Unpublished doctoral dissertation), St. Patrick's College, Dublin, Ireland.
44.
Kinnucan-WelschK., RosemaryC. A., & GroganP. R. (2006). Accountability by design in literacy professional development.The Reading Teacher, 59(5), 426–435.
45.
KnappM. S., AdelmanN., MarderC., McCollumH., NeedelsM., PadillaC., ShieldsP., TurnbullB., & ZuckerA. (1995). Teaching for meaning in high poverty classrooms.New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
46.
LipsonM. Y., MosenthalJ. H., MekkelsonJ., & RussB. (2004). Building knowledge and fashioning success one school at a time.The Reading Teacher, 57(6), 534–545.
47.
Loucks-HorsleyS., LoveN., StilesK. E., MundryS., & HewsonP. (2003). Designing professional development for teachers of science and mathematics.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
48.
LutzS. L., GuthrieJ. T., & DavisM. H. (2006). Scaffolding for engagement in learning: An observational study of elementary school reading instruction. Retrieved February, 2011 from www.cori.umd.
49.
MaykutP., & MorehouseR. (1994). Beginning qualitative research: A philosophic and practical guide.London, UK: Falmer.
50.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (NICHHD. (2000). 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. Reports of the subgroups (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
51.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2000 PL 107-110. (NCLB). Retrieved February 18, 2011 from www.ed.gov/policy.
52.
Ofsted, (2002). The National Literacy Strategy: The first four years 1998-2002. Retrieved 2006 from www.ofsted.gov.uk.
53.
ParisS. G., LipsonM. Y., & WixsonK. K. (1994). Becoming a strategic reader. In RuddellR. B., RuddellM. R., & SingerH. (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 788–811). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
54.
PearsonD. P., & GallagherM. C. (1983). The instruction of reading comprehension.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 8, 317–344.
55.
PressleyM. (2001). Effective beginning reading instruction: Paper commissioned by the National Reading Conference.Chicago, IL: National Reading Conference.
56.
PressleyM. (2002). Metacognition and self-regulated comprehension. In FarstrupA. E., & SamuelsS. J. (Eds.), What research has to say about reading instruction (3rd ed., pp. 291–309). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
57.
PressleyM., AllingtonR. L., Wharton-McDonaldR., Collins BlockC., & Mandel MorrowL. (2001). Learning to read: Lessons from exemplary first-grade classrooms.New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
58.
PressleyM., DolezalS. E., RaphaelL. M., MohanL., RoehrigA. D., & BognerK. (2003). Motivating primary-grade students.New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
59.
PressleyM., El-DinaryP. B., GaskinsI., SchuderT., BergmanJ., & AlmasiJ. (1992). Beyond direct explanation: Transactional instruction of reading comprehension strategies.The Elementary School Journal, 92(5), 511–555.
60.
SchunkD. (2003). Self-efficacy for reading and writing: Influence of modeling, goal setting and self-evaluation.Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 159–172.
61.
ShulmanL. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform.Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.
62.
StanovichK.E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy.Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360–407.
63.
TaylorB.M., PearsonP. D., ClarkK., & WalpoleS. (1999). Schools that beat the odds. CIERA Report #2-006. Ann Arbor, MI: Centre for the Improvement of Early Reading Achievement, University of Michigan School of Education.
64.
TaylorB. M., PearsonP. D., PetersonD. S., & RodriguezM. C. (2003). Reading growth in high-poverty classrooms: The influence of teacher practices that encourage cognitive engagement in literacy learning.The Elementary School Journal, 104(1), 3–28.
65.
ThompsonC., & ZeuliJ. S. (1999). The frame and the tapestry: Standards-based reform and professional development. In Darling-HammondL., & SykesG. (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 341–375). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
66.
TorgersonC., BrooksG., & HallJ. (2006). A systematic review of the research literature on the use of phonics in the teaching of reading and spelling. Research Report 711. London: DfES. Retrieved 2006 from www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/research/data/uploadfiles/RR711.pdf.
67.
TurnerJ., & ParisS. G. (1995). How literacy tasks influence children's motivation for literacy.The Reading Teacher, (48), 8, 662–673.
68.
VygotskyL. S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher psychological processes.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
69.
WalkerB. J. (2003). The cultivation of student self-efficacy in reading and writing.Reading and Writing Quarterly, (19), 2, 173–187.
70.
WigfieldA., & GuthrieJ. T. (1997). Relations of children's motivation for reading to the amount and breadth of their reading.Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 420–432.
71.
WilsonR. (2002). Raising standards in writing.Huddersfield, Yorkshire, UK: Kirklees School Effectiveness Service.
