Beginning Reading Materials: A National Survey of Primary Teachers' Reported Uses and Beliefs

Abstract

This study examined the opinions of more than 300 primary teachers. The first purpose of the study was to investigate the reported frequency with which teachers used various beginning reading materials (e.g., literature, basals, workbooks, predictable text, leveled text, decodable text, and vocabulary-controlled text). The second purpose of the study was to inspect how instructional purposes, state text policies, programs, grade levels, and freedom of choice influenced reported uses. The results suggested that teachers of beginning readers use many different types of materials and are guided primarily by instructional purposes rather than programs or grade levels. Teachers reported using decodable text and literature for very particular instructional purposes but reportedly used other materials less specifically. Respondents in states with strong text mandates, like Texas and California, did differ from respondents in other states. In sum, the results suggested that teachers believed that different materials can serve different purposes with different readers.In the late 1990s, both Texas and California made considerable changes in their requirements for beginning reading materials by requiring texts to be decodable (California English/Language Arts Committee, 1999; Texas Education Agency, 1997). These changes reversed earlier policies that emphasized literary merit in beginning reading materials and condemned contrived materials (California English/ Language Arts Committee, 1987; Texas Education Agency, 1990). The reversal of policies sparked a major shift in the reading textbook market, which affected thousands of children across the country

Important text characteristics for early-grades text complexity.

“…Consequently, we selected “prototypes” to represent each category (Hiebert & Pearson, 2010), and, where series existed, texts were sampled from the range in the series. In reality, many early-grades texts fall into two or more of the category types (Mesmer, 2006). For example code-based texts are often “leveled.” However, for our purposes of ensuring wide representation of text types, each text was assigned to a single category.…”

“…Some commonly occurring early-grades texts, such as label books, do not fit well into the previous categories. The first four category labels are common terms used by educators and publishers (Mesmer, 2006).…”

“…It was not possible to consider proportional representation of types as they exist in United States classrooms because, to our knowledge, there is no direct evidence of the degree to which different categories of early-grades texts are present or used in U.S. classrooms, although at least one survey of U.S. primarygrades teachers suggested that use of the first four categories of texts is widespread (Mesmer, 2006). Consequently, we selected "prototypes" to represent each category (Hiebert & Pearson, 2010), and, where series existed, texts were sampled from the range in the series.…”

Pre-Packaging Preschool Literacy: What Drives Early Childhood Teachers to Use Commercially Produced Phonics Programs in Prior to School Settings

“…Research has identified that inconsistencies may exist between what teachers believe about appropriate literacy pedagogy and their actual practices in the classroom. Such inconsistencies may be due to a mismatch between personal beliefs and external factors, such as needing to produce evidence of meeting government compliance requirements (Foote et al, 2004;Mesmer, 2006), or due to policy pressures (Stipek & Byler, 1997). These factors may influence motivation for using commercial phonics programs.…”

Understanding K‐3 Teachers' Literacy Instructional Practices During thePandemic‐Impacted2020–2021 School Year

“…These surveys included questions about literacy instruction and resources. We generated original survey questions that reflected key content in the Essential Practices (MAISA ELTF, 2016) and adapted items from other surveys related to literacy instruction and/or similar literacy policies (e.g., Mesmer, 2006). To refine questions, we worked with external stakeholders and policymakers, including the Michigan Department of Education and the Michigan Association of Intermediate School Administrators (MAISA) General Education Leadership Network's (GELN) Early Literacy Task Force (ELTF).…”