Janet Larson TEAC 930K Final Paper-Quantitative Research Proposal 7/7/11 Content-Area Literacy Implementation--Secondary Mathematics A Quantitative Research

Proposal Introduction Teachers today face the challenge of engaging our youth, growing classroom spaces that elicit interaction, navigating packed curriculum, meeting proficiency standards in core subjects, and assisting students in developing college and career-ready skills. High quality content literacy instruction for all students is necessary to meet the demands of the common core language arts standards, NCLB expectations, 21st Century skill development, and a litany of other mandates. In order to address these needs, teachers must engage in reflective planning approaches, multimodal composition (i.e. blogging, Edmodo, digital text and other tools to engage students), effective vocabulary instruction, as well as acquire and utilize discipline-specific literacy strategies. It is a full, daunting agenda. Content-Area reading has long been a focus in secondary schools. As Lemke (1988, p. 81) explains, educators have begun to realize that the mastery of academic subjects is the mastery of their specialized patterns of language use, and that language is the dominant medium through which these subjects are taught and students mastery of them tested. Three main barriers to content-area reading and learning exist for secondary students, involving a deficit in one or several of the following areas: 1) academic vocabulary, 2) prior background knowledge about the content-area subject, and 3) knowledge of text features and organization of the text (Beers, 2011). These areas will be emphasized in a professional development initiative RtI+I: Best Learning Practices over the course of the next three years in Millard Public Schools. As the

curriculum facilitator for secondary mathematics, I will be studying the implementation of the initiative and how coaching impacts teacher self-efficacy regarding the use of literacy strategies in middle-school math courses. Research on teachers beliefs about infusing literacy instruction in content courses provides contrasting viewpoints related to content-teachers sense of responsibility for teaching students literacy ranging from literacy instruction not bearing any place in the fabric of traditional content to content teachers feeling ill-equipped to meet the literacy needs of their students (Mallette, Henk, Waggoner, & Delaney, 2005). The crux of the opportunity is two-fold: 1) Assist content teachers in learning how to teach their content using literacy strategies and 2) Provide a platform in which literacy instruction becomes necessary to learning content. As Bullough and Baughman (1997) assert, for a change to stick, it must find a place in teachers thinking, in their belief systems, and in their habitual ways of acting and interacting within the classroom or grow of out their[own]thinking (p. xv). As a coach, my role will be to nurture discussions in which teachers come to understand the importance of integrating literacy in math content and ask teachers to question how assuming a specific pedagogical and instructional stance might benefit students. Math, for students, teachers, and American culture, is commonly associated with right and wrong, certainty, and knowing how to arrive at the correct answer quickly (Ball, 1988; Schoenfeld, 1985; Stodolsky, 1985). This association is clearly driven by what Eisner (1992) describes as the ecology of schooling in which our school experiences characterized by listening, seeing, and practicing shape our understanding of content and the disciplines. Put another way, our experiences as learners shape how we instruct as teachers, at times, disregarding the importance of pedagogical tact and tone. In this lens, doing mathematics for

students and American society at large means using algorithms in order to solve problems followed by the teacher confirming the correctness of the answer for the student. This cycle is repeated hundreds of times in math classrooms each day. Furthermore, Lampert (1990) asserts, Teachers tell students whether their answers are right or wrong, but few teachers engage students in a public analysis of the assumptions that they make to get their answers. Even when teachers give an explanation rather than simply stating a rule to be followed, they do not invite students to examine the mathematical assumptions behind the explanation, and its unlikely that they do so themselves, (p. 32). As a result, learning suffers and students lack the retention we seek in advanced mathematics and conceptual understanding. This instructional cycle indicates a need to engage students in literacy, whereby students are able to question, speak, listen, challenge, and understand information. Interaction is key. Short (2002) supports, to become proficient in a content, students must have a solid grounding in three knowledge bases including English, content topics or skills, and how to accomplish tasks employing a variety of modes. Research Question & Hypothesis What happens to mathematics literacy instruction when teachers engage in collaborative coaching with a curriculum facilitator? Hypothesis: Teachers who engage in coaching with a curriculum facilitator have greater efficacy and more effective implementation regarding literacy instruction in math courses. Students are able to identify and utilize vocabulary and pre-reading tools and strategies to learn content. Related Questions: How do secondary mathematics teachers incorporate content-area literacy tools and strategies into their daily instruction?

How is student learning of math concepts impacted by the use of literacy instructional strategies by math teachers?

What happens when math teachers engage in professional development for vocabulary and pre-reading strategies?

Methods: This study will apply a single-subject design of 3-5 middle school math teachers. I would like to employ a mixed-methods approach to collect data. Quantitative measures will be obtained from students regarding perceived implementation and learning impact, while data from teachers will include self-perception of implementation of the district literacy initiative, through the use of a rubric. I am considering the use of self-efficacy items in addition to implementation items. Qualitative measures will be obtained using field notes collected during each of the district training sessions on professional development days and during coaching sessions. A summary of the data collection is noted below: Data Source Teacher SelfReport Rubric of Literacy Strategy Implementation Purpose Gauge teacher self-perception regarding implementation of RtI+I Tier 1: Best Learning Practices. Determine student perception of activities happening in classrooms and the impact on students ability to apply reading strategies. Gather qualitative Type of Data Quantitative Format Rubric Collected Weekly via online survey

Quantitative

Paper/Pencil Survey including constructed response items

September 2011 April 2012

Student Survey

Researcher Field Notes

Qualitative

Documented notes log

Monthly

information regarding the implementation of Assessments Teachers will self-report their implementation of literacy tools and strategies in daily instruction using an online survey. I will send a link for this survey each Thursday to gather weekly data. The survey uses likert-scales (4-6 items per scale) to measure each of 10 items regarding dispositions and implementation of the district literacy initiative. For the student and teacher surveys, reliability will be measured through Cronbachs alpha (internal consistency reliability) after a factor analyses is conducted to determine how consistently participants respond to items from the same constructs (vocabulary and pre-reading strategies).The student survey will be measured as a pre- and post-test model, while the teacher survey will be administered at four different points to remain sensitive to instructional changes over time. Content validity will be measured through peer review of items by the district literacy team as well as review by the literacy consultant, Sue Beers. Items have been developed after a thorough review of literature in the field. I selected to include 10 items and minimize survey length to produce greater efficiency and a better probability of teacher participation and not intrude on instructional time with students.

The intent behind the survey design is to mirror student and teacher items, which provides the possibility of comparing student perceptions of implementation against teacher selfreporting of implementation of the literacy initiative. Underlying this design is also to be able to determine how clearly the language of content-area reading is growing in teachers and students.

6-12 District Literacy Initiative Student Survey Section 1 Directions: This section contains a series of statements. Please indicate how you feel about each statement. a) b) c) d) e) f) Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat Disagree Somewhat Agree Agree Strongly agree

1. I need to understand vocabulary and technical words to be able to complete my assignments. 2. When a teacher asks me to write in math class or read in P.E., I think it is a waste of time. 3. Teachers should focus on how I learn, not just what I learn. Section 2 Directions: Think about all of your teachers. Mark how often they do each of the things listed below. a) Daily b) Most of the time c) Sometimes d) Never 4. My teachers choose important vocabulary terms and teach those words before I have to use them on assignments. 5. My teachers use graphic organizers and other tools to teach me so I understand vocabulary. 6. My teachers provide activities where I am able to speak, write, and interact with words in interesting and helpful ways. 7. My teachers try to find out what I know about a topic before we begin learning about it. 8. My teachers use what I know from my experiences inside and outside of school to help me understand lessons better. 9. My teachers help me preview text before I start to read by showing me how my textbook is organized and pointing out important words or pictures. 10. My teachers help me write questions and take meaningful notes.

6-12 District Literacy Initiative Teacher Self-Report Survey Section 1 Directions: This section contains a series of statements. Please indicate how you feel about each statement. a) Strongly disagree b) Disagree c) Somewhat Disagree d) Somewhat Agree e) Agree f) Strongly agree 1. Students need to understand vocabulary to complete their assignments. 2. It is a waste of time to read and write in classes outside of English Language Arts. 3. It is important that teachers focus on how students learn, not just what students learn. Section 2 Directions: Reflect on your instructional practices. Mark how often you do each of the things listed below. a) Daily b) Most of the time c) Sometimes d) Never 4. I assess the academic vocabulary used in my text and plan instruction so all students can succeed. 5. I know how to teach vocabulary effectively and use literacy tools and strategies to teach and reinforce vocabulary in my content area. 6. Students have opportunities to interact with vocabulary orally, visually, kinesthetically, and through writing in my class. 7. I intentionally activate and build on students prior knowledge during pre-reading instructional activities. 8. I explicitly connect concepts and skills students are learning with their experiences both inside and outside of school. 9. I emphasize text features and text structures when showing students how to preview text. 10. When students preview text, I assist them in developing questions and utilizing tools that guide reading and learning.

Research Design I will be using a single-subject design with 3-5 middle school math teachers. I would like to start with teachers from each of the sixth-grade teams at one of our most diverse middle schools in Millard. This specific middle school has undergone several leadership changes in the past five years and has consistently underperformed compared to other middle schools in the district. The research design will begin as an AB design in which all teachers will receive universal staff development and the intervention will include collaborative coaching to support the implementation of program objectives including instructional tools and strategies. I plan to use a variety of methods to collect data including structured interviews with teachers on a monthly basis (*I may audiotape these), weekly teacher reflections using an online survey (designed on Qualtrix), and direct classroom observations on a monthly basis. These sources will document and improve the implementation of program content.

Data Analysis-TBD

References Ball, D.L. (1988). Knowledge and reasoning in mathematical pedagogy: Examining what prospective teachers bring to teacher education. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Beers, S. (2011). Reading to learn in the content areas [PowerPoint Slides]. Professional Development Session presented to Millard Public Schools, LaVista, NE. Bullough, R. V., Jr. & Baughman, K. (1997). First year teacher eight years later: an inquiry into teacher development. New York: Teachers College Press. Lampert, M. (1990). When the problem is not the question and the solution is not the answer: Mathematical knowing and teaching. American Educational Research Journal, 27(1), 2963. Lemke, J. (1988). Genres, semantics, and classroom education. Linguistics and Education, 1, 8199. Mallette, M. H., Henk, W. A., Waggoner, J. E., & DeLaney, C. J. (2005). What matters most? A survey of accomplished middle-level educators beliefs and values about literacy. Action in Teacher Education, 27(2), 3342. Schoenfeld, A.H. (1985). Mathematical problem solving. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. Short, D.J. (2002). Language learning in sheltered social studies classes. TESOL Journal 11 (1), 18-24. Stodolsky, S.S. (1985). Telling math: Origins of math aversion and anxiety. Educational Psychologist, 20 (3), 125-133.

Dr. Trainins Advice:

Review instruments--revise and add o Ask students to recall specific vocabulary lesson--using responses to create rubric

Develop ideas with teachers--partnership concept Dont gather information from principals and C&Is 3-5 teachers; no more than five