Curriculum Materials for Elementary Reading: Shackles and Scaffolds for Four Beginning Teachers

Abstract

The purpose of this longitudinal study was to learn how beginning elementary teachers understood and used curriculum materials for teaching reading, and how, in turn, these materials shaped teachers' instruction. We followed 4 teachers who worked in markedly different school situations and were provided a variety of curriculum materials, ranging from scripted reading programs to supplemental materials without teaching guides. Data were gathered through classroom observations, interviews, and curriculum artifacts over the teachers' first 3 years on the job. Our analysis suggested that curriculum materials interacted with teachers' knowledge of reading and reading instruction, and with the contexts in which they worked. As a result, curriculum materials both fostered and inhibited teachers' on-the-job learning. We found that the 2 teachers with weak knowledge or more restrictive materials and environments learned the least and were least able to adapt instruction to meet the needs of their students. The 2 teachers with stronger knowledge, access to multiple materials, and support for decision making regarding materials and instructional strategies learned the most and were most able to adapt instruction. Furthermore, early experiences with specific curriculum materials had effects 2 years later on these teachers' instructional practices. Implications for curriculum mandates, material selection, and professional development are discussed.

The development of preservice elementary teachers' curricular role identity for science teaching

“…Even though they did not perceive curriculum materials to be equally important tools for experienced teachers, they all suggested that curriculum materials were important supports for experienced teachers in two cases: when they were using those curriculum materials for the first time and when they were teaching new content. These findings reinforce the important role curriculum materials play in supporting beginning teachers' practice (Forbes & Davis, submitted for publication;Kauffman, Johnson, Kardos, Liu, & Peske, 2002;Valencia, Place, Martin, & Grossman, 2006), as well as for more experienced teachers in the context of curriculum-based science education reform Fishman & Krajcik, 2003;Roehrig & Kruse, 2005;Schneider et al, 2005).…”

Using Educative Curriculum Materials to Support Preservice Elementary Teachers’ Curricular Planning: A Comparison Between Two Different Forms of Support

“…A growing body of research has investigated the ways in which teachers use curriculum materials to design and enact instruction (Bullough, 1992;Collopy, 2003;Drake & Sherin, 2009;Grossman & Thompson, 2004;Powell, 1997;Remillard, 1999;Schneider & Krajcik, 2002;Valencia, Place, Martin, & Grossman, 2006). This research has shown that teachers engage in two important design practices.…”

“…For example, preservice and beginning teachers tend to consider a variety of ideas when they plan with curriculum materials (Davis, 2006;Schwarz et al, 2008), but their ideas are often limited in scope and depth (Bullough, 1992;Lloyd & Behm, 2005;Mulholland & Wallace, 2005;Nicol & Crespo, 2006;Schwarz et al, 2008). Preservice and beginning teachers also tend to struggle with making adaptations, failing to make much needed modifications (Lloyd & Behm, 2005;Valencia et al, 2006) or making only superficial or counterproductive adaptations to materials (Ball & Feiman-Nemser, 1988;Grossman & Thompson, 2004;Nicol & Crespo, 2006). For these reasons, novice teachers especially need support in developing their pedagogical design capacity for analyzing curriculum materials.…”

Teacher implementation of an adolescent reading intervention

“…The majority of research on curriculum adaptation has taken place in math (e.g., Bergqvist & Bergqvist, 2016;Choppin, 2011;Drake & Sherin, 2006;Remillard, 2000Remillard, , 2005Simon & Tzur, 1999) and science (e.g., Davis et al, 2014;Debarger et al, 2016;Forbes, 2011;Penuel et al, 2014). With a few exceptions, existing research into literacy teachers' adaptations has focused on teachers who are resistant to a mandated curriculum (e.g., MacGillivray, Ardell, Curwen, & Palma, 2004;Maniates, 2016;Palmer & Rangel, 2011;Pease-Alvarez, Samway, & CifkaHerrera, 2010;Stillman & Anderson, 2015), teachers who are new to the field (e.g., Grossman & Thompson, 2008;Pardo, 2006;Valencia, Place, Martin, & Grossman, 2006) or both (e.g., Achinstein & Ogawa, 2006;Smagorinsky, Lakly, & Johnson, 2002). …”