Making time for literacy: teacher knowledge and time allocation in instructional planning

Making time for literacy: teacher knowledge and time allocation in instructional planning This study examined how K-5 general and special educators (N = 102) would choose to allocate time in a 2-h language arts block if they could do so as they wished, and how these choices related to their knowledge base for reading instruction. Preferences for time allocation were assessed through an open grid on which participants listed descriptions of planned instructional activities and amount of time for each activity; teacher knowledge was assessed via a multiple-choice measure involving questions about assessment and instruction in the five components of reading. Results showed that many teachers planned little or no time for areas such as assessment, vocabulary, phonemic awareness, and spelling; also, relatively little time was devoted to basic writing skills and virtually none to writing processes such as planning or revision. There were few significant differences between general and special educators in time allocation on the grid, although there were more differences by grade level (e.g., grids for Grades K-1 vs. Grades 4–5). Teacher knowledge did predict teachers’ time allocation plans, particularly for teachers with relatively high knowledge of phonemic awareness and phonics. Overall, however, many teachers chose to allocate time in ways inconsistent with scientific recommendations, in writing as well as in reading. The study highlights the importance of research-based, targeted teacher professional development in literacy, as well as the need for schools to provide comprehensive, research-based core reading and writing curricula to educators, with attention to fidelity of implementation. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Reading and Writing Springer Journals

Making time for literacy: teacher knowledge and time allocation in instructional planning

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer_journal/making-time-for-literacy-teacher-knowledge-and-time-allocation-in-xV9LZ8qJJH
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 by Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
Subject
Linguistics; Languages and Literature; Psycholinguistics; Education (general); Neurology; Interdisciplinary Studies
ISSN
0922-4777
eISSN
1573-0905
D.O.I.
10.1007/s11145-013-9491-y
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

This study examined how K-5 general and special educators (N = 102) would choose to allocate time in a 2-h language arts block if they could do so as they wished, and how these choices related to their knowledge base for reading instruction. Preferences for time allocation were assessed through an open grid on which participants listed descriptions of planned instructional activities and amount of time for each activity; teacher knowledge was assessed via a multiple-choice measure involving questions about assessment and instruction in the five components of reading. Results showed that many teachers planned little or no time for areas such as assessment, vocabulary, phonemic awareness, and spelling; also, relatively little time was devoted to basic writing skills and virtually none to writing processes such as planning or revision. There were few significant differences between general and special educators in time allocation on the grid, although there were more differences by grade level (e.g., grids for Grades K-1 vs. Grades 4–5). Teacher knowledge did predict teachers’ time allocation plans, particularly for teachers with relatively high knowledge of phonemic awareness and phonics. Overall, however, many teachers chose to allocate time in ways inconsistent with scientific recommendations, in writing as well as in reading. The study highlights the importance of research-based, targeted teacher professional development in literacy, as well as the need for schools to provide comprehensive, research-based core reading and writing curricula to educators, with attention to fidelity of implementation.

Journal

Reading and WritingSpringer Journals

Published: Nov 26, 2013

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create lists to
organize your research

Export lists, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off