The phenomenon of using progress monitoring data to inform literacy instruction was explored in the context of four schools during their 2nd year of Reading First implementation. Open-ended interviews and surveys from 10 teachers, purposefully selected for maximum variation in effectiveness and skills and resistance to using data to inform instruction, were primary data sources. Across schools, teachers reported varying levels of success with using data to inform instruction. A grounded theory model of how K-1 teachers worked with reading coaches to try to use data to inform instruction was developed through axial coding. The coach's role was to help teachers access and interpret data and make informed links to reading curricula. Perceived barriers to the practice of using the data included lack of time and classroom management difficulties.
Allington, R. (2002). Big Brother and the national reading plan: How ideology trumped evidence. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
2.
Anders, P., Hoffmann, J., & Duffy, G. (2000). Teaching teachers to teach reading: Paradigm shifts, persistent problems, and challenges. In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 721-744). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
3.
Bean, R., & Zigmond, N. (2006, April). Professional development role of reading coaches: In and out of the classroom. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Reading Association, Chicago, IL.
4.
Blasé, J., & Blasé, Jo. (2000). Effective instructional leadership: Teachers' perspectives on how principals promote teaching and learning in schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 38, 130-141.
5.
Borko, H., Wolf, S.A., Simone, G., & Uchiyama, K.P. (2003). Schools in transformation: Reform efforts and school capacity in Washington State. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 171-201.
6.
Bossert, S. (1985). Effective elementary schools. In R. Kyle (Ed.), Reaching for excellence: An effective schools sourcebook (pp. 39-53). Washington, DC : U.S. Government Printing Office. Calhoun, E.F. (1994). How to use action research in the self-renewing school. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
7.
Capizzi, A.M., & Fuchs, L.S. (2005). Effects of curriculum-based measurement with and without diagnostic feedback on teacher planning. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 159-174.
Connor, C.M., Morrison, F.J., & Katch, E.L. (2004). Beyond the Reading Wars: The effect of classroom instruction by child interactions on early reading. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8, 305-336.
10.
Deno, S.L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative . Exceptional Children, 52, 219-232.
11.
Deno, S.L. (1989). Curriculum-based measurement and special education services: A fundamental and direct relationship. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 1-17). New York: Guilford .
12.
Deno, S.L. (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurements . Journal of Special Education, 37, 184-192.
13.
El-Dinary, P.B. (1993). Teachers learning, adapting and implementing strategies-based instruction in reading (professional development). Dissertations Abstracts International, 54, 3707.
14.
Fletcher, J.M., Foorman, B.R., Denton, C.A., & Vaughn, S. (2006). Scaling research on beginning reading: Consensus and conflict. In M. A. Constas & R. J. Sternberg (Eds), Translating theory and research into educational practice: Developments in content domains, large-scale reform, and intellectual capacity (pp. 53-75). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15.
Florida Center for Reading Research. (2005 a). 2005Reading First site visits statewide report . Retrieved November 15, 2005, from http://www.fcrr.org/TechnicalReports/Statewide_SV_Report_2005_final.pdf
16.
Florida Center for Reading Research. (2005 b). Determining instructional level and conducting ongoing progress monitoring. Retrieved November 15, 2005, from http://www.fcrr.org/assessment/pdf/OPM/OPMGuide2005.pdf
17.
Florida Center for Reading Research. (2005 c). Florida's Reading First assessment: Principal's guide . Retrieved February 20, 2007, from http://www.fcrr.org/assessment/pdf/principlesguide.pdf
18.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (2003). Can diagnostic reading assessment enhance general educators' instructional differentiation and student learning? In B. Foorman (Ed.), Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale (pp. 325-351). Timonium, MD: York.
19.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C.L., Phillips, N.B., & Bentz, J. (1994). Classwide curriculum-based measurement: Helping general educators meet the challenge of student diversity. Exceptional Children, 60, 518-537.
20.
Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (Eds.). (2002). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement.
21.
Levine, D.U., & Lezotte, L.W. (1990). Unusually effective schools: A review and analysis of research and practice. Madison, WI: National Center for Effective Schools Research and Development. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED 330 032)
22.
Lezotte, L.W. (2001). Revolutionary and evolutionary: The effective schools movement. Retrieved July 8, 2005, from www.effectiveschools.com/downloads/RevEv.pdf
23.
Lincoln, Y.S., & Guba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
24.
Marston, D.B. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing: What is it and why do it? In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based special children (pp. 18-78). New York: Guilford.
25.
Moats, L.C., Farrell, L., Cummings, M.E., & Osenga, T. (2006). Colleague in the classroom: User's guide [study prototype]. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
26.
Moats, L.C., Roehrig, A.D., Duggar, S.W., & Dalglish, J. (2005). Colleague in the classroom efficacy study. Unpublished raw data.
27.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction . Washington, DC: National Academy .
28.
Pressley, M. (2002). Effective beginning reading instruction. Journal of Literacy Research, 34, 165-188.
29.
Pressley, M., Dolezal, S., Roehrig, A.D., Hilden, K., & the Notre Dame Reading Research Seminar. (2002). Why the National Reading Panel's recommendations are not enough. In R. Allington (Ed.), Big Brother and the national reading plan: How ideology trumped evidence (pp. 75-89). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
30.
Ravitch, D. (2001). It is time to stop the war. In T. Loveless (Ed.), The great curriculum debate: How should we teach reading and math (pp. 210-228). Washington DC: Brookings Institution.
31.
Roehrig, A.D. (2004, August). The relationship between retention/ promotion decision-making processes and student reading gains. Poster presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association , Honolulu, HI.
32.
Sammons, P., Hillman, J., & Mortimore, P. (1995). Key characteristics of effective schools: A review of school effectiveness research. London, England: Office for Standards in Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED389926)
33.
Science Research Associates. (2002a). Open court reading. Desoto, TXAuthor.
34.
Science Research Associates. (2002b). Reading mastery plus. Desoto, TX: Author.
35.
Sharp, D. (2004). Supporting teachers' data-driven instructional conversations: An environmental scan of Reading First and STEP literacy assessments, data visualizations, and assumptions about conversations that matter [Report to the Information Infrastructure System Project]. Chicago : John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.
36.
Shinn, M.R. (1989). Identifying and defining academic problems: CBM screening and eligibility procedures. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 90-129). New York: Guilford .
37.
Skrla, L., Scheurich, J.J., & Johnson, J. (2000). Equity-driven achievement-focused school districts: A report on systemic school success in four Texas school districts serving diverse populations. Retrieved July 8, 2005, from http://www.utdana-center.org/research/reports/equitydistricts.pdf
38.
Stecker, P.M., Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (2005). Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of research. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 795-819.
39.
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
40.
Strickland, D. (2006, April). The literacy coach as an instrument for change. In C. Blachowicz & D. Ogle (Chairs), Coaching for change in literacy instruction. Institute conducted at the meeting of the International Reading Association, Chicago, IL.
41.
Taylor, M., & Pearson, P.D. (2002). Teaching reading: Effective schools, accomplished teachers. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum .
42.
Taylor, M., & Pearson, P.D. (2005). Using study groups and reading assessment data to improve reading instruction within a school. In S. G. Paris & S. A. Stahl (Eds.), Children's reading comprehension and assessment (pp. 237-255). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
University of Oregon Center on Teaching and Learning. (2006). DIBELS benchmark levels. Eugene, OR: Author. Retrieved on August 2, 2006, from http://dibels.uoregon.edu/benchmarkgoals4x.pdf
45.
U.S. Department of Education. (2001). Executive summary of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Retrieved February 25, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/execsumm.html
46.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Guidance for the Reading First program. Retrieved February 25, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst/guidance.doc
47.
U.S. Department of Education. (2006). Proven methods: Early Reading First and Reading First. Retrieved October 30, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/methods/reading/readingfirst.html
48.
Vaughn, S., & Coleman, M. (2004). The role of mentoring in promoting use of research-based practices in reading. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 25-38.
49.
Walpole, S. (2006, April). State-level support for literacy coaches . In C. Blachowicz & D. Ogle (Chairs), Coaching for change in literacy instruction. Institute conducted at the meeting of the International Reading Association, Chicago, IL.
