Embracing the Complexity of Instruction: A Study of the Effects of Teachers' Instruction on Students' Reading Comprehension

Incorporating RTI in a Hybrid Model of Reading Disability

“…Use of the model in isolation offers little insight into the specific needs of the child nor does it inform instruction (Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003). It does not adequately consider educational history and does not necessarily discriminate between a true disability and the effects of limited or poor quality reading instruction (Vellutino, Scanlon, Small, & Fanuele, 2006), even though quality of instruction and intervention are important predictors of reading outcomes (Carlisle, Kelcey, Berebitsky, & Phelps, 2011; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; Kavale, 1995; Shaywitz, Fletcher, Holahan, & Shaywitz, 1992). Moreover, due to the use of IQ testing, this model can lead to steering minority children and those from culturally or linguistically diverse backgrounds away from programs designed to remediate reading disabilities and to programs designed for general poor academic performance such as Title I (Steubing et al, 2002).…”

Commentary on two classroom observation systems: Moving toward a shared understanding of effective teaching.

“…For example, there are highly organized teachers who run a tight ship but who do not teach reading in ways that the students can comprehend and learn (Connor et al, in press). In contrast, there are teachers whose classes look highly disorganized but who can lead class discussions in ways that support students’ learning and comprehension (Carlisle, Kelcey, Berebitsky, & Phelps, 2011). At the same time, truly chaotic classrooms are not good for anybody (Wachs, Gurkas, & Kontos, 2004).…”

Combining Multiple Measures of Students' Opportunities to Develop Analytic, Text-Based Writing Skills

“…First, optimal methods for measuring teaching likely interact with the focal aspect of what is being measured in instruction. In our case, measuring analytic, text-based writing instruction was successfully captured through artifacts and daily logs, whereas elsewhere videos have been used to measure reading comprehension instruction (Carlisle et al 2011). Researchers' choice of method should be sensitive to the context of what is being measured.…”

“…Researchers and others who seek to understand OTL must make decisions about what particular subject-matter content to target and then identify or develop appropriate measures for that content. For example, although Carlisle, Kelcey, Beribitsky, and Phelps (2011) formulated and simultaneously examined three different constructs of teacherstudent behavior, they examined these constructs within the context of lessons focused on reading comprehension instruction rather than capture the full range of the literacy curriculum. For studies that pose a specific question about a single aspect of teaching, such as teachers' knowledge of teaching a particular subject (Hill, Rowan, & Ball, 2005), the use of a single Downloaded by [University Of Pittsburgh] at 10:32 05 October 2015 measurement approach (e.g., surveys) might be appropriate.…”

“…Items for a given day were nested in days, and days were nested in teachers. These models are useful for understanding psychometric properties of the scales (see, e.g., Raudenbush, Rowan, & Kang, 1991), adjusting for covariates in the model (e.g., time of the year and item characteristics), and computing an empirical Bayes residual to be used as a continuous indicator of the frequency of students' opportunities to learn (see, e.g., Carlisle et al, 2011). The measurement model indicated significant variation existed between teachers on both the Log Writing Scale, 2 (12) D 75.54, p < .000, and the Integration of Comprehension With Writing Scale, 2 (12) D 53.35, p < .000.…”