How―and Why―Middle School Intensive Reading Teachers Make Adaptations to a Scripted Curriculum

Abstract

The adoption of highly scripted curricular programs to promote literacy has become increasingly widespread. Little is known, however, about the extent to which teachers implement these programs as prescribed or, instead, make adaptations to the curriculum and its delivery. Even less is known about teachers’ reasoning behind this decision-making. Using qualitative thematic analysis, in this study, the authors investigate middle school intensive reading teachers’ challenges and solutions to implementing the curricular program mandated by their school district. Analysis of 10 teachers’ descriptions of their instructional decision-making highlighted the tensions teachers must navigate to provide effective literacy instruction to students with and without disabilities in a high accountability context. The central construct of negotiation was identified as an explanation of how and why teachers made (or did not make) curricular adaptations.

Keywords

middle school adaptation scripted curriculum intensive reading implementation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ainsworth

M. T.

Ortlieb

Cheek

E. H.

Jr. Pate

R. S.

Fetters

(2012). First-grade teachers’ perception and implementation of a semi-scripted reading curriculum. Language and Education, 26(1), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500782.2011.618540

Anderson

Stillman

(2010). Opportunities to teach and learn in high-needs schools: Student teachers’ experiences in urban placements. Urban Education, 45(2), 109–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085909354445

Barber

J. P.

Walczak

K. K.

(2009, April). Conscience and critic: Peer debriefing strategies in grounded theory research [Conference session]. Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA, United States.

Birks

Chapman

Francis

(2008). Memoing in qualitative research: Probing data and processes. Journal of Research in Nursing, 13(1), 68–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987107081254

Boardman

A. G.

Argüelles

M. E.

Vaughn

Hughes

M. T.

Klingner

(2005). Special education teachers’ views of research-based practices. The Journal of Special Education, 39(3), 168–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/00224669050390030401

Brantlinger

Jimenez

Klingnew

Pugach

Richardson

(2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100205

Brenner

Hiebert

E. H.

Tompkins

(2009). How much and what are third graders reading? In Hiebert

E. H.

(Ed.), Reading more, reading better (pp. 118–140). Guilford Press.

Buchanan

(2015). Teacher identity and agency in an era of accountability. Teachers and Teaching, 21(6), 700–719. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1044329

Cantrell

S. C.

Almasi

J. F.

Carter

J. C.

Rintamaa

(2013). Reading intervention in middle and high schools: Implementation fidelity, teacher efficacy, and student achievement. Reading Psychology, 34(1), 26–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2011.577695

10.

Carroll

Patterson

Wood

Booth

Rick

Balain

(2007). A conceptual framework for implementation fidelity. Implementation Science, 2(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-2-40

11.

Century

Cassata

(2016). Implementation research: Finding common ground on what, how, why, where, and who. Review of Research in Education, 40(1), 169–215. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X16665332

12.

Charmaz

(2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp. 509–535). SAGE.

13.

Charmaz

(2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. SAGE.

14.

Charmaz

(2008). Constructionism and the grounded theory. In Holstein

J. A.

Gubrium

J. F.

(Eds.), Handbook of constructionist research (pp. 397–412). Guilford Press.

15.

Charmaz

(2017). The power of constructivist grounded theory for critical inquiry. Qualitative Inquiry, 23(1), 34–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800416657105

16.

CPALMS. (n.d.). M/J intensive reading course information. https://www.cpalms.org/Public/PreviewCourse/Preview/4959

17.

Crocco

M. S.

Costigan

A. T.

(2007). The narrowing of curriculum and pedagogy in the age of accountability: Urban educators speak out. Urban Education, 42(6), 512–535. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085907304964

18.

Curriculum Associates (2020). (n.d.). i-Ready. https://www.curriculumassociates.com/products/i-ready

19.

Datnow

(2012). Teacher agency in educational reform: Lessons from social networks research. American Journal of Education, 119(1), 193–201. https://doi.org/10.1086/667708

20.

Dey

(1999). Grounding grounded theory: Guidelines for qualitative inquiry. Academic Press.

21.

Drever

(1995). Using semi-structured interviews in small-scale research: A teacher’s guide. Scottish Council for Research in Education.

22.

Dulude

Spillane

J. P.

Dumay

(2017). High stakes policy and mandated curriculum: A rhetorical argumentation analysis to explore the social processes that shape school leaders’ and teachers’ strategic responses. Educational Policy, 31(3), 364–403. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904815598396

23.

Ede

(2006). Scripted curriculum: Is it a prescription for success? Childhood Education, 83(1), 29–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/00094056.2006.10522871

24.

Eisenbach

B. B.

(2012). Teacher belief and practice in a scripted curriculum. The Clearing House, 85(4), 153–156. https://doi.org/10.1080/00098655.2012.663816

25.

Emdin

(2016). For White folks who teach in the hood . . . and the rest of y’all too: Reality pedagogy and urban education. Beacon Press.

26.

Engward

(2013). Understanding grounded theory. Nursing Standard, 28(7), 37–41.

27.

Fixsen

D. L.

Naoom

S. F.

Blase

K. A.

Friedman

R. M.

(2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~nirn/resources/publications/monograph/pdf/monograph_full.pdf

28.

Florida Department of Education. (2013). Student reading intervention requirements. http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/7539/urlt/6a-6-054.pdf

29.

Florida Department of Education. (2019). Florida standards assessments English language arts and mathematics. http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/5668/urlt/80FSAResults19.pdf

30.

Fuchs

L. S.

Vaughn

(2014). What is intensive instruction and why is it important? Teaching Exceptional Children, 46(4), 13–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059914522966

31.

Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. (n.d.a). Read 180. https://hmhco.com/programs/read-180-universal

32.

Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. (n.d.b). System 44. https://www.hmhco.com/programs/system-44

33.

Ingersoll

R. M.

(2007). Short on power, long on responsibility. Educational Leadership, 65(1), 20–25. http://repository.upenn.edu/gse_pubs/129

34.

Inside program overview for grades 6-8. (n.d.). https://ngl.cengage.com/assets/downloads/insidecc_pro0000000332/ins_bro_ovr_9781285783284.pdf

35.

Joseph

(2006). No one curriculum is enough: Effective California teachers tailor literacy instruction to student needs despite federal, state, and local mandates to follow scripts. Journal of Urban Learning, 2(1), 90–103. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ943142

36.

Kim

J. S.

Burkhauser

M. A.

Quinn

D. M.

Guryan

Kingston

H. C.

Aleman

(2017). Effectiveness of structured teacher adaptations to an evidence-based summer literacy program. Reading Research Quarterly, 1(4), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.178/full

37.

Leko

M. M.

(2015). To adapt or not to adapt: Navigating an implementation conundrum. Teaching Exceptional Children, 48(2), 80–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059915605641

38.

Leko

M. M.

Roberts

C. A.

Pek

(2015). A theory of secondary teachers’ adaptations when implementing a reading intervention program. The Journal of Special Education, 49, 168–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466914546751

39.

Lemons

C. J.

Fuchs

Gilbert

J. K.

Fuchs

L. S.

(2014). Evidence-based practices in a changing world: Reconsidering the counterfactual in education research. Educational Researcher, 43(5), 242–252. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14539189

40.

Maniates

Mahiri

(2011). Post-scripts: Teaching reading in the aftermath of prescriptive curriculum policies. Language Arts, 89(1), 10–21. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41804311

41.

McGill-Franzen

Zmach

Solic

Zeig

J. L.

(2006). The confluence of two policy mandates: Core reading programs and third-grade retention in Florida. The Elementary School Journal, 107(1), 67–91. https://doi.org/10.1086/509527

42.

Mills

Bonner

Francis

(2006). The development of constructivist grounded theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5(1), 25–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500103

43.

National Geographic Learning & Cengage. (n.d.). Inside. http://ngl.cengage.com

44.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C.A. § 6301 et seq.

45.

Parks

A. N.

Bridges-Rhoads

(2012). Overly scripted: Exploring the impact of a scripted literacy curriculum on a preschool teacher’s instructional practices in mathematics. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 26(3), 308–324. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2012.684422

46.

Penuel

W. R.

Phillips

R. S.

Harris

C. J.

(2014). Analysing teachers’ curriculum implementation from integrity and actor-oriented perspectives. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 46(6), 751–777. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220272.2014.921841

47.

Porter

R. E.

Fusarelli

L. D.

Fusarelli

B. C.

(2015). Implementing the common core: How educators interpret curriculum reform. Educational Policy, 29(1), 111–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904814559248

48.

Quinn

D. M.

Kim

J. S.

(2017). Scaffolding fidelity and adaptation in educational program implementation: Experimental evidence from a literacy intervention. American Educational Research Journal, 54(6), 1187–1220. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217717692

49.

Savino-Garzon

(2013). Teacher evaluation of the scripted Reading Street program and the level of satisfaction among its sub-scale components (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Seton Hall University.

50.

Savvides

Al-Youssef

Colin

Garrido

(2014). Journeys into inner/outer space: Reflections on the methodological challenges of negotiating insider/outsider status in international educational research. Research in Comparative and International Education, 9(4), 412–425. https://doi.org/10.2304/rcie.2014.9.4.412

51.

Slavin

(2002). Mounting evidence supports the achievement effects of success for all. Phi Delta Kappa, 83(6), 469–471. https://doi.org/10.1177/003172170208300613

52.

Spillane

J. P.

Reiser

B. J.

Reimer

(2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387–431. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543072003387

53.

Srivastava

Hopwood

(2009). A practical iterative framework for qualitative data analysis. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(1), 76–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690900800107

54.

Strauss

Corbin

(1998). Basics of qualitative research techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). SAGE.

55.

Thornberg

(2012). Informed grounded theory. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 56(3), 243–259. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2011.581686

56.

Timberlake

M. T.

Thomas

A. B.

Barrett

(2017). The allure of simplicity: Scripted curricula and equity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 67(1), 46–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2017.05.017

57.

Timonen

Foley

Conlon

(2018). Challenges when using grounded theory: A pragmatic introduction to doing GT research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 17(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406918758086

58.

Trainor

A. A.

Graue

(2014). Evaluating rigor in qualitative methodology and research dissemination. Remedial and Special Education, 35(5), 267–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932514528100

59.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2002). Finding the balance: Program fidelity and adaptation in substance abuse prevention: A state-of-the-art review. Center for Substance Abuse Prevention. https://www.csun.edu/sites/default/files/FindingBalance1.pdf

60.

Vasileiou

Barnett

Thorpe

Young

(2018). Characterising and justifying sample size sufficiency in interview-based studies: Systematic analysis of qualitative health research over a 15-year period. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), Article 148. https://10.1186/s12874-018-0594-7

61.

Vaughn

Parsons

S. A.

Burrowbridge

S. C.

Weesner

Taylor

(2016). In their own words: Teachers’ reflections on adaptability. Theory into Practice, 55, 259–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2016.1173993

62.

Vaughn

Wexler

Leroux

Roberts

Denton

Barth

Fletcher

(2012). Effects of intensive reading intervention for eighth-grade students with persistently inadequate response to intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(3), 515–525. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411402692

63.

Wattis

Standing

Yerkes

M. A.

(2013). Mothers and work-life balance: Exploring the contradictions and complexities involved in work-family negotiation. Community, Work & Family, 16(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/13668803.2012.722008

64.

Windschitl

(2002). Framing constructivism in practice as the negotiation of dilemmas: An analysis of the conceptual, pedagogical, cultural, and political challenges facing teachers. Review of Educational Research, 72(2), 131–175. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543072002131