UPPER ELEMENTARY TEACHERS USE OF PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE

UPPER ELEMENTARY TEACHERS USE OF PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT

KNOWLEDGE

Chapter 1

Introduction and Background

Since the late 1970s, research showed that teachers were not explicitly teaching

reading comprehension strategies to their students. Durkin (1978), in an observational

study of 16 Illinois school systems (Grades 3-6), noted that the time spent on reading

comprehension strategies was less than 1% of instructional time. Since that time, little

improvement in those practices appeared in the literature. For example, the RAND

Reading Study Group (2002) reported that reading instruction in comprehension

strategies was often minimal. Ness (2016a) found, after observing middle and high school

classrooms for 2,400 minutes, that teachers spent only 82 minutes on teaching reading

comprehension. Swanson et al. (2016) found after directly observing a total of 20

teachers in middle and high school with 7,208 minutes of direct observation time that no

comprehension strategy instruction took place 73.7% of the time. As students moved

through schooling, they received less and less comprehension instruction.

A shift in upper elementary education from learning to read with primarily

narrative text to an emphasis on reading to learn with informational or expository text

was complicated by a lack of explicit instruction of comprehension skills (Hebert,

Bohaty, Nelson, & Brown, 2016; Kragler, Martin, & Schreier, 2015; Roberts & Norman,

2015; Wagner & Espin, 2015). This shift began in third grade and continued through

secondary school with more emphasis on nonfiction. For students to be efficient in

reading and comprehending, teachers needed to instruct students on a range of complex

strategies or skills that were used with discretion while reading (Keene & Zimmerman,

2013; Roberts & Norman, 2015; Vaughn, Zumeta, Wanzek, Cook, & Klingner, 2014). For

example, instruction for students focused on how to analyze ideas, read nonfiction aides,

synthesize text, and make general meaning (Guthrie & Klauda, 2014). Teachers also

needed to have taught students how to access background knowledge and inferencing,

generate questions, visualizing text, monitor their understandings, and discern essential

information to summarize their learning (Burns, Maki, Karich, &

Coolong-Chaffin, 2017; De Koning & Van der Schoot, 2013; National Reading Panel,

2000; Roberts & Norman, 2015; Texas Education Agency, 2002). Effective and efficient

instruction required teachers to define, describe, and model the strategy used, as well as

monitor and help struggling students to independently utilize a strategy successfully

(Burns et al., 2017; Varga, 2017). To be an efficient teacher in nonfiction reading

comprehension required knowledge of content, pedagogy, and individual students.

Upper elementary reading instruction began to emphasize all subjects, primarily

through nonfiction text for complex learning. The lack of exposure and teaching of

nonfiction text reading comprehension strategies led to students struggling to master

skills associated with comprehending and may have been connected to low reading

achievement scores (Cirino et al., 2013; Fisher & Frey, 2015; Hughes & Parker-Katz,

2013; Massey, 2014; Simmons et al., 2014; Stead, 2014). Researchers indicated that the

difficulties with complex content could only be remediated through teacher instruction of

comprehension skill strategies (Chauvin & Theodore, 2015; Kragler et al., 2015; Mercado

& Cole, 2014; Roberts & Norman, 2015; Wagner & Espin, 2015). The lack of instruction

may have hindered students who struggle to comprehend.

Students known as late-emerging reading difficulty (LERD) students did not begin

to show difficulties until the shift happened in upper elementary (Etmanskie, Partanen, &

Siegel, 2016; Koriakin & Kaufman, 2017). Those at-risk LERD students had not

indicated problems with reading before third grade and continued to show excellent

reading fluency. The complication that became evident during and after the third grade

was in the comprehension of what they were reading. LERD readers began to show

specific reading comprehension difficulties connected with the complexity of the text

(Spear-Swerling, 2016). If the students struggled to comprehend, then they also struggled

to learn. Nationally and in Texas, there were indicators that students struggled with

comprehension as early as third grade.

Much was known about at-risk reading instruction (Bohaty, Hebert, Nelson, &

Brown, 2015; Hebert et al., 2016; Suggate, 2016), K-3 expository instruction (Santaro,

Baker, Fien, Smith, & Chard, 2016; Kragler et al., 2015; Williams et al., 2014), and

differentiated instruction (Alexander & Fox, 2013; Griffith, 2017; Tomlinson, 2000,

2013, 2014). Little was known, however, about teachers in upper elementary and their

atrisk expository reading comprehension instruction or how pedagogical content

knowledge influences preparedness, instruction, and differentiation. The current study

was needed to explore what happened in elementary classrooms regarding upper

elementary Texas teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge levels when giving reading

instruction in nonfiction comprehension strategies. Findings may be used to meet the

needs of students through differentiated instruction and to understand why students in

Texas were struggling with nonfiction reading comprehension. This chapter presents the

research problem, study purpose, and research questions. The framework, nature of the

study, and assumptions are also detailed. The final areas covered are the scope and

delimitations, limitations, and significance of the study.

Problem Statement

A concern in upper elementary Texas schools was low performance in reading

comprehension scores at the fourth grade level. Those scores indicated that at least 30%

of students in upper elementary grades in Texas struggled to demonstrate the minimum

skills comprehension required to be successful at grade-level learning, indicating issues

with instruction in the classroom (U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education

Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2015a; Texas Education Agency, 2013,

2014, 2015b, 2016, 2017a, 2018a). A possible cause of this problem was the lack of upper

elementary teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of nonfiction reading instruction and

strategies that led to little direct or no explicit instruction to students (Clarke, Paul, Smith,

Snowling, & Hulme, 2017; Droop, van Elsacker, Voeten, &

Verhoeven, 2016; Griffith, Bauml, & Quebec-Fuentes, 2016; Sibberson & Szymusiak,

2016). If this problem was not investigated, it might have led to a larger number of LERD

students identified as being at-risk for academic and life failure (Koriakin & Kaufman,

2017; Ricketts, Sperring, & Nation, 2014; Ritchey, Palombo, Silverman, & Speece,

2017). Little was known about teachers in upper elementary and their at-risk expository

reading comprehension instruction or how pedagogical content knowledge influenced

preparedness, instruction, and differentiation. This study addressed the need for further

understanding of upper elementary Texas teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge when

giving reading instruction in nonfiction comprehension strategies and how that

knowledge was being used to meet the needs of students through differentiated education.

Nationally

Nationally, the indicators of reading achievement assessment rates showed

students were struggling with reading comprehension (U.S. Department of Education,

Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2013a, 2016,

2017). Although assessment scores were only symptoms of the problem, they were the

primary way of measuring mastery of reading comprehension. The U.S. Department of

Education National Center for Educational Statistics (2017) reported that 40% of fourth

graders performed at a below basic achievement level on the reading National

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which ranked Texas as 45th in the nation.

This score was an increase of 4% from 2015, when Texas ranked 40th in the nation (U.S.

Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education

Statistics, 2015a). This percentage was only a 1% change from two year’s prior (U.S.

Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education

Statistics, 2013b). Bandeira de Mello, Bohrnstedt, Blankenship, and Sherman (2015)

synthesized the NAEP report longitudinally and found that only 36% of fourth graders

were academically prepared for grade-level material and had shown little to no change in

reading progress since 2009. Since tracking began 16 years ago, on average 3 out of

every 10 students at the fourth-grade level were not able to comprehend grade-level

material (Bandeira de Mello et al., 2015).

Locally

A continued increase in the number of failures over time was seen and reflected in

the national findings when results were reviewed from the State of Texas Assessment of

Academic Readiness (STAAR) Test. An average of 26% of fourth-grade students on the

STAAR Test from 2013-2018 were consistently unable to perform and meet grade-level

expectations (Texas Education Agency, 2013, 2014, 2015b, 2016, 2017a, 2018a). The

percentages were similar for third grade and fifth grade. Over the same time period, 23%

of third graders and 25% of fifth graders were unable to meet grade-level reading

comprehension expectations (Texas Education Agency, 2013, 2014, 2015b, 2016, 2017a,

2018a). This percentage indicated that upper elementary teachers in Texas elementary

schools were not reaching nearly a third of all students with their reading comprehension

instruction.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this exploratory single case study was to gain insight into the

pedagogical content knowledge of Texas upper elementary teachers who taught

nonfiction reading comprehension strategies to at-risk students who did not qualify for

special education services. I investigated how those teachers made sense of their

experiences in teaching nonfiction reading comprehension (see Merriam, 2009). Further, I

sought a better understanding of how teachers used their pedagogical content knowledge

of students to differentiate their instruction to meet students’ needs. The single case

design allowed me to explore evidence from the Texas upper elementary teachers for

differences within each case for robust analysis (see Yin, 2014). Using a single case was

appropriate to provide an in-depth look at the teachers’ self-reported perceptions and

obtain a deeper understanding of their pedagogical content knowledge. A qualitative

study offered opportunities to learn about those perceptions through an extensive

description of self-reporting and an accompanying analysis and exploration of their

reported teaching practices (see Denzin & Lincoln, 2013). I used three sources of data

for this qualitative study: a questionnaire, open-ended scenario-based interviews, and

public records on districts in Texas that participated in the state-offered reading

instruction professional development (see Percy, Kostere, & Kostere, 2015).

The first two sources, the questionnaire and interviews, were used to explore the

meaning of the participants’ experiences. The third source, public records, was used to

support the findings from the first two sources. The study results may inform educators,

reading specialists, and state educators on the current standing and further needs that

upper elementary teachers may have in nonfiction comprehension strategy instruction.

The purpose of this study was to understand what factors may have affected the current

nonfiction reading comprehension instruction in the classroom. Additionally, this study

served to further the research on core reading instruction for upper elementary students

struggling with reading (see Kent, Wanzek, & Al Otaiba, 2017).

Research Questions

The central research question was the following: How did upper elementary

teachers in Texas describe their pedagogical content knowledge for nonfiction reading

comprehension strategies instruction? Three subquestions were also used to guide the

study:

1. What did 3rd- through 5th-grade teachers report about their pedagogical content

knowledge in teaching expository text comprehension to upper elementary

students?

2. How did upper elementary teachers report developing their content knowledge

and skills to instruct expository text comprehension?

3. What differentiation approaches did upper elementary teachers implement to

their instruction to meet the needs of at-risk, late-emerging reading difficulties

students?

Conceptual Framework

A combination of Shulman’s (1986) pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) model

and Tomlinson’s (2000) differentiated instruction (DI) learning model provided the

framework for this study. The combined models acted as the foundation for effective

teaching practices for this study (see Adoniou, 2015; Carney & Indrisano, 2013;

Shulman, 1986; Tomlinson, 2000). PCK and DI provided a lens to analyze how teachers’

content knowledge of nonfiction reading, their personal insight on teaching, and their

responsiveness to the needs of their students shaped their instruction in the classroom (see

Birdsall, 2015). The teacher’s knowledge of the student, content, and pedagogical

knowledge served as the foundation for the adjustment to instruction that the teacher

implemented (Alexander & Fox, 2013; Griffith, 2017; Tomlinson, 2013, 2014).

Pedagogical Content Knowledge

PCK includes the combined cognition of content, instruction, and students that

teachers use when teaching material to students (Shulman, 1986). In the PCK model,

there are many types of knowledge that a classroom teacher acquires to be effective and

efficient (Behrmann & Souvignire, 2013; Griffith, Bauml, & Barksdale, 2015; Shing,

Saat, & Loke, 2015; Shulman, 1986). A teacher’s understanding of facts, concepts,

principles, methodology, and generalizations is foundational to his or her pedagogical

thinking and decision-making in the classroom. The PCK lens offered a framework for

analyzing a teacher’s ways of facilitating expository comprehension pedagogy for at-risk

students in the upper elementary level. A comprehensive description of PCK is provided

in Chapter 2.

Differentiated Instruction

DI includes the changes that result from the teacher’s knowledge of his or her

teaching and assessments when attempting to provide an individualized avenue of

learning to meet students’ needs (Tomlinson, 2000). DI focuses on teachers being

responsive in teaching and meeting the requirements of the content and their students

(Puzio, Newcomer, & Goff, 2015; Tomlinson, 2013). To differentiate effectively, a

teacher must know his or her content and students well enough to adjust instruction to

meet their needs. A comprehensive description of DI is provided in in Chapter 2.

Nature of the Study

I used a quantitative inputted qualitative (quan → QUAL) format using multiple

sources including a questionnaire with an interview follow-up (see Morgan, 2014). All

3rd- through 5th-grade teachers in Texas were asked to complete an electronic

questionnaire about their pedagogical content knowledge of nonfiction reading and

instructional strategies. The questionnaire included a question asking whether the

participant was willing to have a follow-up interview. I then took a stratified random

sample of 12 participants who consented to participate in open-ended scenario-based

interviews.

Multiple forms of analysis were used to triangulate the data and establish case

study validity. The questionnaire results analysis indicated the characteristics of the upper

elementary teaching force and the perceptions of pedagogical beliefs, preparedness, and

instruction to employ effective instructional techniques of nonfiction comprehension. The

12 open-ended scenario-based interviews were analyzed by looking at what methods

were used to differentiate (see Firmender, Reis, & Sweeny, 2013; Long, 2014; McCarthy,

2014; Tomlinson, 2013, 2014). Public documents detailed state-funded training and

which districts used professional development for program contents related to nonfiction

reading comprehension instruction, differentiated instruction, or working with at-risk

students. All three analyses were used to describe how upper elementary teachers

changed or modified instruction to accommodate at-risk, LERD students when teaching

expository reading comprehension strategies.

The choice of a single case, exploratory design for this study was purposeful. I did

not seek to examine possible correlations between variables, which would have required a

quantitative design, and instead I focused on using narrative inquiry to understand the

phenomenon of upper elementary teachers’ nonfiction reading instruction (see Frey,

2018). Grounded theory was not chosen because I did not seek to develop a new theory

(see Frey, 2018). Ethnography was rejected because upper elementary teachers were not

one culture-sharing group and this study was not focused on establishing a characteristic

pattern of behaviors based on the data (see Frey, 2018). Finally, due to time constraints

and the large sample of upper elementary school teachers in the state of Texas, the best

choice for this study was a single case versus multiple cases.

Definitions

Definitions of key terms were necessary for clarity throughout this study.

At-risk: A term describing students who are not meeting basic proficiency levels in

reading and have a higher prospect of academic failure or withdrawing from school

(Great Schools Partnership, 2014).

Differentiated instruction (DI): An educational practice used to rectify struggles of

students through adjustments in teaching with content delivery, classroom processes, or

projects (Tomlinson, 2014).

Late-emerging reading difficulties (LERD) students: Students who begin to have

comprehension difficulties with reading at the upper elementary level (Etmanskie et al.,

2016; Koriakin & Kaufman, 2017)

Nonfiction reading comprehension strategies: Techniques to trigger students’ prior

knowledge and inferencing, generate text questions, visualize, monitor students’

understanding, and determine essential information to summarize what they have learned

to comprehend nonfiction text (Burns et al., 2017; De Koning & Van der Schoot, 2013; J.

S. Jones, Conradi, & Amendum, 2016; National Reading Panel, 2000; Roberts &

Norman, 2015; Texas Education Agency, 2002).

Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK): The merging of teaching content

knowledge and teacher pedagogy into a perception of how an adaptation of instruction

helps struggling learners (Shulman, 1987).

Assumptions

Assumptions are the elements, factors, and conditions of the study that are

understood to be true (Marshall & Rossman, 2016). For this study, I assumed that all

participants completing the questionnaire and interview would have answered truthfully

given the steps I took to keep their confidentiality and anonymity. The next assumption

was that upper elementary teachers would give some intentional, effective reading

instruction to the students in their classroom. I also assumed that participants would be

able to articulate the techniques they used to adjust instruction to meet the needs of atrisk

LERD students. Those assumptions were in alignment with using a single case study with

the intended population sample of upper elementary third- through fifth-grade teachers

and the questionnaire and interview instruments.

Scope and Delimitations

Starting in third grade, there is an emphasis on using what was read to promote

academic success. With this emphasis comes an increase in nonfiction and text

complexity that students must master to attain academic success. In reviewing the

longitudinal reading data from 2013 to 2017 of the NAEP and Texas STAAR results for

upper elementary, I concluded that a third of students were not meeting necessary reading

competencies. A higher percentage of failures was identified when looking at the at-risk

population labeled by the state and who were targeted for more intervention during the

school year. Those findings suggested that an exploration of current nonfictional reading

instructional practices in the state was warranted to understand the continued struggles of

students mastering basic comprehension competencies. The PCK model allowed me to

gather information on Texas upper elementary teachers’ educational and teaching

background, content knowledge on teaching nonfiction reading comprehension, and

methods of meeting student needs, especially those labeled at-risk, during instruction.

The results of this study may aid scholars, teachers, and curriculum planners in the state

of Texas in making informed decisions on what is needed, or needs to be adjusted, in

teacher pedagogy to promote the expository comprehension skills of upper elementary

atrisk students. The results of this study may create positive social change when educators

apply the results in their efforts to develop and improve students’ skills in comprehension,

thereby increasing students’ opportunities for success.

I reviewed and analyzed the pedagogical content knowledge of the teachers

regarding nonfiction reading comprehension strategies and instruction. The scope was

also limited to upper elementary third- through fifth-grade teachers in Texas who taught

nonfiction reading comprehension strategies to at-risk LERD students. The limited scope

allowed me to focus on understanding a population of teachers who struggled to meet

students’ comprehension needs while instructing and engaging in complex texts and

reading for academic success.

Findings may be transferable to other states, districts, or teachers struggling with

upper elementary students’ nonfiction reading comprehension or an identified at-risk

population struggling with nonfiction reading, as Texas was not alone with those

concerns. Findings may not be transferable to younger grades because students are in the

reading-to-learn instructional phase with an emphasis on narrative or fiction. This study

did not include a program evaluation. All information was self-reported, and the focus

was on the teacher’s experiences rather than the implementation of a program. I did not

gather evidence to prove that PCK existed; rather I used a PCK lens to frame teachers’

reported experiences. To help with transferability, I used an interview protocol to mitigate

researcher bias. I also asked participants to review their statements for accuracy.

Limitations

Limitations of this case study included the areas of transferability and

dependability. A large sample size does not guarantee generalization to a population (Yin,

2016). Because this study was qualitative and included a population confined to the state

of Texas, the level of saturation was not determined until the results were analyzed (see

Boddy, 2016). The open-ended scenario-based interviews included a random stratified

sample of 10 participants (three from third grade, three from fourth grade, and four from

fifth grade) due to the limited time frame for collection and analysis of data. The random

stratified sampling of participants meant that the case was limited to experiences related

to the phenomenon.

Additionally, this study was limited in dependability by the reliance on

selfreported data. Self-reported data cannot be independently verified and are considered

a threat to validity as responses are to be taken at face value with the understanding that

biases like selective memory, attribution, exaggeration, or positive emphasis exist (Frey,

2018). Another validity threat from the questionnaire was no further information could be

given beyond the questions on the page (Frey, 2018). If the data analyzed reflected those

threats to validity, it was noted in the results and conclusion section.

Significance

This exploratory case study provided support for policymakers, educators, and

researchers in the state of Texas who are looking for ways to improve nonfiction reading

comprehension for upper elementary students. The study added to the existing literature

on how teachers in third, fourth, and fifth grade teach nonfiction reading comprehension

strategies and how they differentiate to mitigate the struggles of at-risk LERD students.

The study may help scholars, teachers, and curriculum planners in the state of Texas

make informed decisions on what is needed, or needs to be adjusted, in teacher pedagogy

to improve expository comprehension skills of upper elementary at-risk students.

Findings may create positive social change when educators apply the results to their

efforts to develop and improve students’ skills in comprehension, thereby increasing

students opportunities for success.

Summary

In this quantitative-input qualitative case study, I scrutinized the perceptions of

third- through fifth-grade teachers in Texas regarding their pedagogical content

knowledge in teaching nonfiction reading comprehension strategies. I examined how

teachers used their pedagogical content knowledge to differentiate instruction strategies

to help at-risk LERD students who were not in special education. By focusing on the

development and foundation of the teachers’ self-reported capabilities in teaching

nonfiction reading comprehension, I hoped to identify existing needs in the teaching of

content and to provide insight into factors that contribute to low performance on state and

national assessments in reading. In Chapter 2, I review the literature related to the

research problem.

Chapter 2

Introduction

There was a concern in upper elementary Texas schools based on the low

performance in reading comprehension scores from 2013-2018. Those scores indicated

that at least a third of students in third, fourth, and fifth grade did not possess the

minimum skills necessary to be successful at grade-level learning, suggesting issues with

instruction in the classroom (U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education

Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2013b, 2015b; Texas Education

Agency, 2013, 2014, 2015b, 2016, 2017a, 2018a). A possible cause of this problem was

the lack of upper elementary teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge level of nonfiction

reading instruction and skills, which led to little direct or explicit instruction to students

(Droop et al., 2016; Griffith et al., 2016; Sibberson & Szymusiak, 2016). Chauvin and

Theodore (2015) stated that “many students still struggle to master basic literacy skills,

and many teachers in discipline-specific courses lack the knowledge and expertise to help

students interpret the complex texts associated with each distinct discipline” (p. 1). This

lack of explicit teaching of reading comprehension skills was complicated by a shift from

learning to read with primarily narrative text to reading to learn with informational or

expository text (Hebert et al., 2016; Kragler et al., 2015; Roberts & Norman, 2015;

Wagner & Espin, 2015). The lack of exposure and teachings of nonfiction text reading

comprehension strategies led to students struggling to master skills associated with

comprehension information and may have been connected to the reported low reading

achievement scores (Cirino et al., 2013; Fisher & Frey, 2015; Hughes & Parker-Katz,

2013; Massey, 2014; Simmons et al., 2014; Stead, 2014). Not investigating this problem

might have led to a more significant number of LERD students becoming at-risk for

academic and life failure (Koriakin & Kaufman, 2017; Ricketts et al., 2014; Ritchey et

al., 2017). The purpose of this exploratory single case study was to gain a deeper

understanding of the pedagogical content knowledge of Texas upper elementary teachers

who taught nonfiction reading comprehension strategies to at-risk students who did not

qualify for special education services.

The literature review for this case study consists of multiple sections. In the first

section, I describe the study’s conceptual framework, which was a combination of

Shulman’s (1986) pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) and Tomlinson’s (2000)

differentiated instruction (DI). In the second section, I synthesize the literature on the

knowledge needed for nonfiction reading comprehension pedagogy. In the third part of

the review, I document the needs of at-risk learners when being taught reading

comprehension strategies.

Literature Search Strategy

To conduct this literature review, I used peer-reviewed literature published within

the last 5 years. I obtained access to those studies by searching the Walden Library

databases of Academic Search Complete, Education Source, ERIC, Primary Search,

Teacher Reference Center, and SocINDEX with Full Text. Key words included

pedagogical content knowledge, elementary, reading, readers, instruction, inferencing,

question generation, visualizing text, text structure and organization, monitoring

understanding, summarizing, poor comprehenders, struggling readers, late-emerging

reading difficulties, at-risk, and differentiation. A review of the current studies revealed

research on reading pedagogical content knowledge and its components; however, many

of the studies were limited to kindergarten through third grade and had not addressed late-

emerging reading difficulties. My review of current studies showed limited research on

reading PCK of upper elementary teachers.

Conceptual Framework

A teacher’s PCK of nonfiction reading comprehension instruction includes

content and pedagogy knowledge and awareness of students’ needs. Differentiation

occurs when a teacher uses PCK knowledge in his or her practice to tailor instruction for

a specific population of students (Tomlinson, 2014). In this case study, I used the PCK

lens to explore the knowledge in Texas upper elementary teachers who taught nonfiction

reading comprehension. Through the use of scenario-based questions, I asked teachers to

describe their action of differentiation in practice. Then I used public information on

reading professional development to triangulate the answers given by the participants.

Those multiple data sources were combined to describe how nonfiction reading

comprehension strategies were taught at the upper elementary level, what the pedagogical

content knowledge background and preparedness of the teachers in his or her instruction

was, and how reading instruction was differentiated to help struggling at-risk students

find success in comprehension and academics.

Pedagogical Content Knowledge

Shulman (1986), in response to A Nation At Risk report (United States National

Commission on Excellence in Education Department of Education, 1983), formulated a

teacher instructional framework called the pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) model

to define what teachers need to be knowledgeable about to be considered effective

teachers. Shulman found there was a shortage of studies that addressed the knowledge

necessary for proficient and effective teaching. Shulman defined effectiveness by looking

at a teacher’s use of curriculum and content, the practical application of teaching, and the

specialized knowledge that helps students learn. Teachers, according to Shulman, were

viewed as professionals because teaching required not only the understanding of the

subject taught, but also of pedagogy and specialized curricular understandings to

efficiently teach. George (2011) found that when specialized knowledge was applied to

instruction beyond basic knowledge, as in the case of his reworked adolescent literature

college course, then the assessment results and engagement of students were higher. In

the PCK model, there are many types of knowledge a classroom teacher uses to be

effective and efficient (Behrmann & Souvignire, 2013; Griffith et al., 2015; Shing et al.,

2015; Shulman, 1986). The combined expertise acts as the foundation for effective

teaching practices (Adoniou, 2015; Carney & Indrisano, 2013; Shulman, 1986). The

teacher’s knowledge has the most influence on student success.

There was a dearth of knowledge about PCK in reading comprehension as reading

was not considered a discipline by itself, and elementary teachers were considered

knowledgeable about reading instruction because they were competent readers

(International Reading Association, 2000; National Reading Panel, 2000). This case study

included an in-depth examination of upper elementary teachers’ PCK when teaching

nonfiction reading comprehension in their classroom. The research findings

were used to determine the impact on the teaching effectiveness and instruction of

nonfiction reading comprehension to upper elementary students.

Teacher knowledge in the PCK model. Carney and Indrisano (2013) found that

a teacher’s knowledge of the reading process and general understanding of instructional

methods was necessary as the foundation of a learner’s acquisition of knowledge in

reading. This finding is particularly relevant in upper elementary levels where the

emphasis shifts from learning to read to reading to learn. The teacher must have subject

matter or content knowledge of the nonfiction material taught. Adoniou (2015) summed

up this knowledge as knowing the “how,” “why,” and “what” of teaching (p. 103). A

combination of knowledge possessed by the teacher determines his or her effectiveness in

the classroom.

The complexity of the different types of PCK knowledge that teachers possess for

effectiveness in their craft was reflected in the literature. Phelps (2009), through his use

of scenarios with 105 participants (50 experienced teachers and 55 inexperienced

teachers) and the Content Knowledge for Teaching Reading assessment, found that

teachers’ specialized knowledge of content, students, and teaching helped them be

proficient at reading instruction. Lyon and Weiser (2009) concurred with Phelps’s

findings in their study by determining that it was the specificity of knowledge of how to

teach complex content and the pedagogy subskills of reading through explicit and

systematic instruction that reflected attention to student differences, leading to

proficiency in teaching reading. Griffith et al. (2015) furthered the understanding of PCK

in suggesting that the teachers used their pedagogical knowledge when making curricular

connections, focusing on comprehension, assessing background knowledge, teaching

problem-solving strategies, and assessing for understanding. Morrison and Luttenegger

(2015) found through a case study of a single teacher leading 10 kindergarten students in

reading instruction that a successful teacher should be able to present information while

simultaneously evaluating student learning and making decisions on how to change or

alter instruction for student needs. These studies supported the notion that a combination

of knowledge and insights helps teachers be effective and efficient in teaching reading.

Focusing on the students. The attention to the knowledge of students by the

teacher for effective teaching was a recurring theme in the PCK model. The National

Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS, 2016) focused on the importance of

teachers’ knowledge of students as a means of having a positive influence on the learning

of the student in the five core propositions. An aspect of accomplished teaching,

according to the NBPTS, is that a teacher not only has specialized knowledge about the

subject that he or she is teaching, but also possesses an understanding of how to develop

opportunities of learning that meet students’ needs (Proposition 2). Griffith et al. (2016)

found that effective and efficient teachers know about their learners and learning practices

and help students overcome struggles. Differentiation is the adaptation of instruction

based on students’ needs (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2016).

Differentiation in the Classroom

Birdsall’s (2015) description of teaching involved a teacher using the combined

knowledge in PCK to adjust his or her instruction for student success. Students have a

wide range of experiences, abilities, and capabilities that teachers address for successful

learning. The individualized adaptation of the learning to the needs of the students marks

effective instruction (Shulman, 1987). In the current study, the altering and adapting of

instruction was referred to as differentiation.

A profile of differentiation. Differentiation occurs when a teacher acts

responsively and adapts instruction or curriculum to a learner’s needs to maximize

student growth and academic success (Puzio et al., 2015; Tomlinson, 2013).

Differentiation occurs in the content, teaching, assessments, or products of a lesson

according to the students’ individualized readiness, interests, and learning styles

(Firmender et al., 2013; Long, 2014; McCarthy, 2014; Tomlinson, 2013, 2014).

Differentiated instruction (DI) is useful for teaching reading to those who are considered

at-risk as this approach helps the teacher reach the different learning needs and mixed

skill levels of students in the classroom (Long, 2014; Tomlinson, 2013, 2014). The

knowledge of the student in conjunction with the content and pedagogical knowledge

serves as the foundation for the strategic planning and changes when instructing students

in the classroom for maximum student success (Alexander & Fox, 2013; Griffith, 2017;

Tomlinson, 2013, 2014). Valiandes (2015) completed a 1-year, quasi-experimental study

with 24 fourth-grade teachers and 479 fourth-grade students and found that through

quality differentiation by the teacher, the reading achievement gap was stabilized, equity

to quality education was reached, and reading success was seen. The way a teacher thinks

about instruction and student learning and how his or her perspective translates into the

instructional practice of meeting students’ needs in the classroom is the essence of

differentiation.

Differentiation and literacy. Tomlinson (2009) found that adolescent literacy

was promoted by instruction and differentiation working together. Understanding the

differences between students’ backgrounds, learning styles, and needs is essential when

using differentiation (Shulman, 1987; Tomlinson, 2009). Teachers gain that knowledge by

building relationships, studying the students, and using data from assessments

(Tomlinson, 2009). Firmender et al. (2013) affirmed Tomlinson’s idea of the necessity of

knowing students. Firmender et al. found that using the knowledge of students to

differentiate instruction was the only way to meet the diverse reading capabilities of

1,149 upper elementary students according to their reading comprehension scores. To

differentiate effectively, a teacher must know his or her students well enough to adjust

instruction to meet their needs. Kent et al. (2017) found through their study of fourth

graders in 10 Florida and Texas schools among four districts that differentiated instruction

increased student achievement through direct guidance of a specific skill. Maniates

(2017) found, after studying three K-3 urban elementary teachers’ differentiation tactics

with the existing reading program, that teachers who expanded the opportunity to learn

after teaching adaptively met their students’ needs. Effective differentiation allowed

students to access the material to learn.

Forms of differentiation. There are multiple types of differentiation in a class for

reading comprehension. Examples of differentiation in reading include a teacher’s guided

reading groups, individualized instruction by focusing on the reader, held reading

conferences, or modified tasks or texts used for comprehension (Keene & Zimmerman,

2013; Puzio et al., 2015). Those instructional practices are flexible and support student

learning (Moos & Pitton, 2014). The goal of reading differentiation is to help students

comprehend and have reading success.

Using the combined models of Shulman’s (1986) pedagogical content knowledge

(PCK) model and Tomlinson’s (2000) differentiated instruction (DI) learning model acted

as the foundation for evaluating the effectiveness of the teaching background,

preparedness, instruction, and adaptation in this study (see Adoniou, 2015; Carney &

Indrisano, 2013; Shulman, 1986; Tomlinson, 2000). The PCK and DI provided a lens for

the analysis reflecting on how a teacher’s content knowledge of nonfiction reading, their

insight on teaching, and their responsiveness to the needs of their students shaped the

instruction they employed within the classroom. A continued understanding of Texas

upper elementary teacher’s knowledge of the student, content, and pedagogical

knowledge served as the foundation for future adjustment to instruction for student

success in comprehension and academics.

Literature Related to Key Variables and/or Concepts

Nonfiction Reading Comprehension

Current Pedagogy

In upper-elementary (Grades 3-5) there was a shift to reading-to-learn as students

used comprehension of expository text for their learning (Hebert et al., 2016; Kragler et

al., 2015; Roberts & Norman, 2015; Wagner & Espin, 2015). Hebert et al., (2016) found

in their meta-analysis that the difficulty in the shift for students came from the different

skills needed for the comprehension of complex texts. Leidig, Grunke, Urton, Knaak, and

Hisgen (2018) indicated that struggling to understand during the shift may have been the

result of the lack of the ability on the student’s part to apply the complex and

metacognitive skills necessary to process information when reading. Researchers

indicated that the difficulties with complex content can only been remediated through

teacher instruction of comprehension skill strategies (Kragler et al., 2015; Mercado &

Cole, 2014; Roberts & Norman, 2015; Sibberson & Szymusiak, 2016; Wagner & Espin,

2015). Children needed to be taught by teachers to be thinking while reading to aid in

comprehension. However, little instruction was offered to students in how to comprehend

nonfiction or instructional text (Durkin, 1978; Ness, 2015; RAND Reading Study Group,

2002). Johnson (2018) claimed comprehension was one of the most under-instructed

elements in reading programs while being crucial for student understanding. The lack of

exposure and teachings of nonfiction comprehension strategies may have led to

struggling students and may be connected to low reading achievement scores (Aud et al.,

2013; Cirino et al., 2013; Fisher & Frey, 2015; Hughes & Parker-Katz, 2013; Massey,

2014; Roberts & Norman, 2015; Simmons et al., 2014; Stead, 2014; Wexler, Reed,

Mitchell, Doyle, & Clancy, 2015). Low reading achievement scores were an indicator of

continued struggles, possible academic gaps from a lack of understanding of the

curricula, and a peril of becoming a drop-out of school (Kent, Jones, Mundy, & Isaacson,

2017; Levin, 2017). The shift to reading to learn and a possible lack of exposure to direct

teaching had resulted in low reading achievement scores, which indicated continued

struggles for those students.

Lack of Exposure

Reasons for the lack of exposure of direct teaching may have included, as found in

the literature research, the teacher receiving very little training in how to have taught

reading and the assumption that the taught skills in the lower grades would carry over

(Clarke et al., 2017; Sibberson & Szymusiak, 2016). Teachers were not prepared to have

taught a class with diverse capabilities in how to comprehend (Clark & Ivankova, 2016).

Teachers could have struggled to make in-the-moment teaching decisions for responsive

teaching (Griffith et al., 2016). Additionally, not all students progressed in their reading

capabilities at the same time and needed continued instruction and support to become

successful (Sibberson & Szymusiak, 2016). Moreau (2014) surveyed 35 middle school

teachers who reported that they struggled with identifying the specific needs of the

students and with an inability to know how to address the needs. Gaitas and Martins

(2017) also found that there could be difficulties in differentiating, which could also

explain why teachers did not always effectively directly teach reading comprehension

strategies. After analyzing the questionnaire responses of 273 primary school teachers,

Gaites and Martins (2017) found that the adaption of curricular elements to student needs

and the scaffolding of the learning for forwarding momentum could be most challenging.

Skills Needed for Comprehension

Successful reading comprehension required knowledge by the reader of a range of

complex strategies that were used flexibly (Keene & Zimmerman, 2013; Roberts &

Norman, 2015; Vaughn et al., 2014) and supported the active process of engaging text

(De Koning & van der Schoot, 2013; Maloch & Bomer, 2013; Mercado & Cole, 2014;

Texas Education Agency, 2002). Students needed to be instructed on how to analyze ideas

and messages, read informational and organizational aides, synthesize text, and make

general meaning (Guthrie & Klauda, 2014). Instruction of students should also include

the teaching of how, why, and when to use a strategy which was called metacognitive

knowledge (Keene & Zimmerman, 2013; Kostons & van der Werf, 2015; Yoo, 2015).

Through the direct instruction and explicit teaching of metacognitive strategies, students

became aware of their thinking when comprehending, their level of knowledge as they

read, and developed transfer abilities to their independent reading (Donker, De Boer,

Kostons, Dignath-van Ewijk, & van der Werf, 2014; Pratt &

Urbanowski, 2016; RAND Reading Study Group, 2002; Robinson, Lambert, Towner, &

Caros, 2016). Once taught those strategies through explicit instruction, students would

engage them flexibly and as needed to help to comprehend nonfiction reading. Kissau

and Hiller (2013) in a cross-continental study of 38 German and American teachers found

through surveys and video documentation that explicitly teaching and interacting with

reading strategies enhanced student comprehension. Similarly, Herrera, Truckenmiller,

and Foorman (2016) completed a meta-analysis of 33 studies on adolescent literacy

programs and found that explicit instruction in reading comprehension showed to have

had positive effects on the comprehension of adolescents. When teaching explicit reading

comprehension informational text practices, teachers needed to teach the strategies on

how to access and build background knowledge and inferring, generate questions of the

readings, visualize, monitor their understandings, and determine essential information to

summarize their learning (Burns et al., 2017; De Koning & van der

Schoot, 2013; Jones, Clark, & Reutzel, 2016; National Reading Panel, 2000; Roberts &

Norman, 2015; Texas Education Agency, 2002). Those skills and strategies were essential

to comprehension to make sense of nonfiction text for learning. When teaching an

approach explicitly, the teacher must have had defined, described, and modeled its use.

The quality of the teacher’s practice was what influenced students’ reading growth (Duke,

Cervetti, & Wise, 2015). A teacher needed to have sufficient knowledge about their

content, pedagogy, and students to be able to direct the instruction for independent and

successful usage by struggling students (Burns et al., 2017; Griffith & Lucina, 2017;

Varga, 2017). For this study, teachers reflected on their nonfiction reading PCK level of

content and pedagogy knowledge of the teaching of those same skills for comprehension.

Activating prior knowledge and inferencing. Activating previous knowledge or

experiences and making inferences by linking the knowledge with text was done during

the process of reading to help students form a framework, or situational model, that aided

in comprehension (Ahmed et al., 2014; Deeney, 2016; Denton et al., 2015; Lemov, 2017).

For the reader, this process was meant to ground the meaning and context of learning.

Under direct instruction of that skill, students integrated their background knowledge

with information that was new to build better understandings (Elbro & BuchIversen,

2013; Kostons & van der Werf, 2015). Barth and Elleman (2017) completed a

randomized inference treatment with 66 struggling middle school readers and discovered

that teaching inference strategies were found to improve reading comprehension. The

integration of one’s previous knowledge with new information falls under the realm of

knowledge-based inferencing which helped to fill in the gaps of what is not known from

reading (Elleman, Barth, & Oslund, 2015; Hall, 2016; O’Brien, Cook, & Lorch, 2015).

Importance, then, was given to making personal connections when reading for

comprehension (Pearson, 2013; Snow & O’Connor, 2013). This strategy would help

students understand nonfiction text more easily.

Inferencing, as described in the literature, has a significant effect on the ability to

comprehend (Ahmed et al., 2014; Barth, Barnes, Francis, Vaughn, & York., 2015;

Elleman et al., 2015; Hall, 2016). The premise that direct instruction of inferencing had a

positive effect on reading comprehension was found within research studies. Hall's

(2016) nine synthesized articles, Elbro and Buch-Iversen's (2013) experimental study of

16 sixth-grade classes, Ahmed et al. 's(2014) comparison of the Gates MacGinitie and

Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skill scores of 1,196 seventh through 12th-graders

found that reading comprehension improved after direct instruction of inferencing.

However, Barth and Elleman's (2017) study of 66 middle school struggling readers data

analysis showed that direct inference teaching resulted in significant gains for content

assessment but was less effective on the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-Reading

Comprehension, indicating the students could not transfer the practice to higher rigorous

text levels. Differences in the knowledge level of the teachers doing the explicit inference

teaching may have been the reason for the difference in findings.

Question generation. Question generation was a self-regulatory strategy where

the reader formed questions while reading to check for comprehension and understanding

of the text (Cameron, Van Meter, & Long, 2017; Joseph, Alber-Morgan, Cullen, &

Rouse, 2016; National Reading Panel, 2000; Ness, 2015). The questioning strategy

required students to process and explain the text to help them to build a conceptual map

of the learning (Loh-Hagan & Bickel, 2014). There were two forms of questioning: low

level and higher level. The quality of the questions asked by the student determined how

beneficial questioning was with comprehension (Cameron et al., 2017; Humphries &

Ness, 2015). The higher-order questioning helped build a better conceptual text

perception and increased reading comprehension (Cameron et al., 2017; Ness, 2015).

Inferred was that a student who was able to ask and answer higher level questions about a

nonfiction text were engaged in the material thus denoting comprehension.

Self-generated questions may have led to an increase in reading comprehension

(Mercado & Cole, 2014; National Reading Panel, 2000; Ness, 2015). De Milliano, van

Gelderen, and Sleegers (2016) videotaped sessions post training on generating questions

of 51 low-achieving adolescents and reported that the students were able to improve their

reading comprehension and success at task orientation activities. However, Joseph et al.'s

(2016) meta-analysis of 35 studies on self questioning could not substantiate that the skill

helped students interpret the text at a deeper level. It was inferred that self-questioning at

a higher level was what helped the students understand more. When students asked

questions about nonfiction texts, they were focused on the critical information, author’s

purpose, and central ideas (Joseph et al., 2016; Loh-Hagan & Bickel, 2014; Ness, 2015,

2016b). Self-questioning then became a higher-level skill that required critical thinking

(Humphries & Ness, 2015). For students to master that skill, instruction on higher level

questioning generation and answering and monitoring reading comprehension increased

their ability to learn independently (Joseph et al., 2016). Question generation was an

action that encouraged strategic thinking and reading skills within the students.

Visualizing text. Visualizing text was a cognitive activity that required the

processing of material at a deeper level to build a schematic, or situational model, of what

the text was about (De Koning & van der Schoot, 2013; Leopold & Leutner, 2015;

RAND Reading Study Group, 2002). Students used evidence from the text to build a

representation in their mind of what they were comprehending from their reading.

Students who struggled with understanding what they read could use visualizations as

scaffolds that facilitated the understanding of the text (Cappello & Walker, 2016;

Gormley & McDermott, 2015). Those images represent text content and helped them to

monitor their understanding of information as they organize, integrate, and retrieve

learning from text (Cappello & Walker, 2016; De Koning & van der Schoot, 2013;

Gormley & McDermott, 2015; Leopold & Leutner, 2015). Visualizing required the

students to actively process the information from the text thereby enhancing their text

comprehension (De Koning & van der Schoot, 2013; Gormley & McDermott, 2015;

Leopold & Leutner, 2015). The visualization process and critically thinking allowed for a

student to have in-depth engagement with the material at a deeper level thus leading to

more reading comprehension.

Instruction in visualization had students building what they read as mental images.

Although research studies have shown the use of visualization techniques, there was

limited literature and research on teaching visualization (De Koning & Van der

Schoot, 2013). De Koning and van der Schoot's (2013) literature study indicated that a

teacher consistently telling his or her students to make-a-picture of what they were

reading in their head did not equate to an improvement in reading comprehension levels.

Through their qualitative study of seven fourth through sixth-grade teachers using

observations, interviews, and planning documents, Cappello and Walker (2016) found

that the struggle of teaching visualization was the result of ineffective pedagogy for

instruction. Although there was a consensus that visualization was a strategy that should

be taught to help students improve their reading comprehension of complex texts, there

was little literature on how to give instruction on that strategy.

Text structure and organization. Teaching students about structures and

organization of text helped identify important information they used to build a

conceptual, mental, or a processual model, of what they were understanding and

comprehending (Hebert et al., 2016; Hodges & Matthews, 2017; Lorch, Lemarie, &

Chen, 2013; Roehling, Hebert, Nelson, & Bohaty, 2017; Sulak & Gunes, 2017).

Knowledge of text structures and text features of nonfiction texts helped students to

navigate the information systematically as they saw how the author has connected ideas,

thereby improving their understanding (Jones, Clark et al., 2016; Maloch & Bomer, 2013;

Roberts & Norman, 2015; Texas Education Agency, 2002). There were five text

structures for expository text: (a) descriptive, (b) sequence, (c) compare-contrast, (d)

problem-solving, and (e) causation (Bohaty et al., 2015; Hebert et al., 2016; Sulak &

Gunes, 2017; Williams et al., 2014). Each written structure has a specific style and

signaling words that helped to identify author’s purpose and helped to break up the text

(Frankel, 2013; Hebert et al., 2016). To be used by the student, text structure and

organization must be taught by the teacher as a means of helping with nonfiction

comprehension.

Explicitly teaching students structure and organization of text has increased

reading comprehension of students according to the findings in multiple studies(Jones,

Conradi, & Amendum, 2016; Maloch & Bomer, 2013; Sulak & Gunes, 2017). Hebert et

al. (2016) after analyzing 45 studies found that teaching descriptive and compare/contrast

text structure enhanced and improved expository reading comprehension. Additionally,

Hebert et al. (2016) found very few of the studies with none recent included research on

all five of the text structures indicating that was an area that needed further exploration.

However, Maloch and Bomer (2013), in their review of the literature, found that explicit

instruction would only be effective if situated with authentic opportunities for reading

texts and there was a reduced over-reliance of teaching signal words only as they did not

help the struggling reader comprehend the text.

Monitoring understanding and finding a fix. Instructing students to monitor

and self-regulate their comprehension of nonfiction text was considered a strategic

knowledge, or metacognitive, process that helped in students beginning to be aware of

how well they were comprehending complex texts (Alexander & Fox, 2013; Carney &

Indrisano, 2013; Connor C.M., Philips et al., 2014; Joseph et al., 2016; Strasser & del

Rio, 2013; Zabrucky, Moore, Agler, & Cummings, 2015). Monitoring reading was a

metacognitive skill where the student checked their understanding or used elfquestioning,

and knew when to apply appropriate reading strategies to overcome comprehension

difficulties (De Milliano et al., 2016; Denton et al., 2015; Joseph et al., 2016; Zabrucky et

al., 2015). In a sense, students used their critical analyzing and problem-solving skills

when they were monitoring their comprehension. By explicitly teaching how to monitor

understanding, teachers were teaching students a conscious level of engagement and the

signals to attend to which indicated to themselves how well they were reading (Strasser &

del Rio, 2013). This skill was more than just teaching students to reread material when

they did not understand.

Acknowledging that there was a breakdown in comprehension was only half of

the monitoring strategy. To use that strategy for optimal success, students were taught

how to find fixes for what they did not understand, like reflecting on what was just read

or making a concept map out of the material (Connor, Radach, et al., 2014; Denton et al.,

2015; Joseph et al., 2016). The goal in having taught the strategy was to have the students

monitor and the fix synchronously and flexibly as they read. Leopold and Leutner (2015)

suggested to have taught students how to use a feedback loop of self-regulated learning

where they set goals for their reading, monitored their progress toward their goals, and

made adjustment as necessary to reach their goal. Students needed to know when they

were struggling so that they could take measures to fix the breakdown in their

comprehension.

Summaries and main idea. When students summarize, they used a cognitive

strategy that helped to process text at a deeper level as a summary required an analysis of

the material (Marzec-Stawiarska, 2016; Nandhini & Balasundaram, 2016; Pascual &

Goikoetxea, 2014). To summarize, students were focused on what was the crucial text

information and then condensed it down into meaningful sentences (Burns et al., 2017;

Wichadee, 2014). When summarizing, students activated the thinking processes by

making meaning out of what was read, pulled out the essential ideas, and put the

information into their own words (Burns et al., 2017; Marzec-Stawiarska, 2016). Their

summary then acted as a recheck of their understanding of what they read. However,

researchers noted that students had a difficult time in determining important information

for inclusion in a summary (Burns et al., 2017; Nandhini & Balasundaram, 2016; Spirgel

& Delaney, 2016; Wichadee, 2014). To address student difficulties required teachers to

have explicitly taught students how to summarize.

There were very few articles in which researchers discussed how to teach

summary to upper-elementary students. Of the articles found, most centered on English

learners, students with disabilities, or with higher education students (Burns et al., 2017;

Nandhini & Balasundaram, 2016; Spirgel & Delaney, 2016; Wichadee, 2014). The few

research studies related in some manner to elementary or adolescent readers indicated that

summary skills were shown in research to help with reading comprehension (Asaro-

Saddler, Muir-Knox, & Meredith, 2018; Marzec-Stawiarska, 2016; Pascual &

Goikoetxea, 2014). Spirgel and Delaney (2016), however, found after completing five

experiments with different aspects of summary instruction or assessment that summary

did not appear to help with text retention unless students wrote a quality and thorough

written summary. A teacher, when teaching summary writing, needed to scaffold the

process via describing the strategy on how to identify critical details; support the

understanding of the text, inferencing, help make connections between reading and

concepts through situational models, and break-down how to synthesize the information

(Asaro-Saddler, Muir-Knox, & Meredith, 2018; Burns et al., 2017; Kucan & Pallinscar,

2013; Loh-Hagan & Bickel, 2014). That technique was not always easily done, however.

Asaro-Saddler et al.'s (2018) experimental study of 30 disabled students and two teachers

resulted in findings that suggest that teachers that do not have the pedagogy knowledge to

have taught summary skills with quality resulted in students struggling with that skill.

Any teachers teaching students how to summarize successfully needed to ensure that they

have built up their pedagogical knowledge about summaries.

The pedagogical knowledge required by teachers to have taught nonfiction

reading comprehension strategies was more than just knowing how to open a book and

read the words. The teacher needed to be knowledgeable about how to explicitly teach the

complex skills of how to activate prior knowledge and inferencing to help students

integrate old knowledge with new (Burns et al., 2017; De Koning & van der Schoot,

2013; Griffith & Lucina, 2017; National Reading Panel, 2000; Roberts & Norman, 2015;

Texas Education Agency, 2002). Knowledge on instructing students how to ask and

answering questions of the text to aid in comprehension, visualize and compose

situational text models, and monitor their understanding of the text was essential for

success (Burns et al., 2017; De Milliano et al., 2016; Denton et al., 2015; Joseph et al.,

2016; Nandhini & Balasundaram, 2016; Spirgel & Delaney, 2016; Wichadee, 2014;

Zabrucky et al., 2015). Instruction should also have taken place on how to summarize

what the text is communicating. Successful teaching occurred when the student could use

his or her metacognition to use all of those strategies when needed as they were trying to

comprehend nonfiction text. The stronger the skill base knowledge equated to a stronger

the comprehension of nonfiction text.

The Upper-Elementary At-Risk, Late-Emerging Reading Difficulties (LERD)

Reader

Poor comprehension struggles. Students with poor comprehension could have

had high reading fluency but had difficulty in learning as they did not understand what

was read and were slow as they did not learn at the same rate as their peers (Rosita

Cecilia, Vittorini, & di Orio, 2016). Struggles in upper-elementary with comprehension

could potentially have led to poor academic outcomes that included repeating a grade,

furthering the widening of their academic gap, difficulties in learning, or dropping out of

school altogether (Al Dahhan, Kirby, & Munoz, 2016; Pfost, Hattie, Dorfler, & Artelt,

2014; Wagner & Espin, 2015). Those poor comprehending students risk grade failure or

becoming a drop-out because they were not able to overcome their struggles.

Poor comprehension struggles were not isolated to a single year and were

challenging to overcome as shown by Ricketts et al. (2014) longitudinal study on 30

(poor and adequate) students, ages 9- 16. The findings of Ricketts, Sperring, and Nation’s

(2014) study found that those students who were considered poor comprehenders in mid

to late childhood in their educational career remained that way and were at risk for poor

educational attainment and low educational outcomes. However, Etmanskie et al.'s (2016)

longitudinal study of fourth-grade through seventh-grade students' reading results

indicated that 67% of students who were newly identified as having reading

comprehension problems in grade 4 recovered by grade 7. Etmanskie et al.'s (2016) study

results indicated that performance varies across time, but under the right conditions

students could make up their deficits. If the teacher was to have met the needs of those

struggling readers, then they needed to access and profile the specific struggles of the

student with comprehension.

At-risk, LERD student profile. Upper-elementary struggling reading

comprehension students did not in one mold, or have one issue, and struggled due to

multiple reasons (McMaster, Espin, & van den Broek, 2014; RAND Reading Study

Group, 2002; Ritchey et al., 2017; Santaro et al., 2016; Wanzek et al., 2013). There were

three specific kinds of reading problems for the at-risk student: word reading difficulties,

comprehension difficulties, or a combination of word and comprehension difficulties

(Duke, Cartwright, & Hilden, 2014; Jones, Conradi et al., 2016; McMaster et al., 2014;

Spear-Swerling, 2016). Conradi, Amendum, and Walkowiak (2014) examined reading

data for 6,000 3rd graders who failed the high-stakes state reading test and found the

biggest group of students, 63.3%, could read fluently but could not comprehend. For this

study, I focused on students who had sufficient word decoding skills but were poor

comprehenders and had reading comprehension difficulties only.

Students who began to have difficulties with reading only in upper-elementary

were termed as late emerging reading difficulties (LERD) readers (Etmanskie et al., 2016;

Koriakin & Kaufman, 2017; Lonigan & Burgess, 2017). Those students may have had

shown adequate reading achievement and comprehension in early elementary but when

they reached upper-elementary in the third, fourth, and fifth grade with its emphasis on

reading to learn they began to fall behind their peers due to the advanced skills necessary

to access text and learning. Researchers Etmanskie et al., (2016) and Ritchey, Silverman,

Schatschneider, and Speece (2015) suggested the identification happened late because

early reading screening did not test for multiple problems associated with LERD readers.

Lonigan and Burgess (2017) also contend after their study of 1,501 children in

kindergarten through fifth-grade results of three standardized measurements of

comprehension that the resulting identification of LERD students may more have been a

reflection of previous tests that did not assess the developmental process of

comprehension. Research does not offer solutions, beyond changing assessment tests, as

to identify those students during the early elementary years.

The characteristics of LERD readers were complex as there was not just one

description that fit all. Koriakin and Kaufman (2017) found in their study of 3,843 K-12

student results from the Kaufman Test of Education that those students showed difficulty

with working memory and processing, both cognitively and written. Koriakin and

Kaufman findings suggested that LERD students could have shown any one or a

combination of difficulty characteristics. The characteristics included making and

confirming predictions, applying background knowledge, establishing connections,

struggling with identifying the main idea and summarizing, struggling to build mental

models, and being unable to use adequately metacognitive strategies to help them to

comprehend (Santaro et al., 2016; Scammacca et al., 2016; van den Broek, Helder, & Van

Leijenhorst, 2013; Vaughn et al., 2013). With the LERD reader having had that many

possible combinations of difficulties, it was understandable why those students also did

not show the flexibility of strategy usage required for comprehending complex nonfiction

text.

Differentiation to help learners. Having pedagogical content knowledge of

nonfiction reading comprehension strategies for instruction must have included knowing

the struggling, at-risk reader to help those students attain academic success (Moreau,

2014; National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State

School Officers, 2010; Scammacca et al., 2016). It is knowledge of the specific

difficulties and deficits of the student that helped the teacher to impact instruction for

better learning as the lessons and skills taught could be tailored to particular struggles

(Cassidy, Ortlieb, & Grote-Garcia, 2016; Hall & Comperatore, 2014; International

Literacy Association, 2000; Latham, 2014; Moreau, 2014; Scammacca et al., 2016;

Shaunessy-Dedrick, Evans, Ferron, & Lindo, 2015). For this study, the adjusting of

instruction was analyzed using the lens of differentiation.

The need for an effective reading teacher to differentiate had to do with the needs

of the students he or she is instructing within any given classroom. Firmender et al.

(2013) found an average of 10.7 different reading comprehension levels in third-, fourth-,

and fifth-grade classrooms across five elementary schools. A reliance on outside

interventions like Response to Intervention or other quick fix interventions that seemed

ineffective did not seem to negate or meet the needs present within actual teaching

environments for the struggling reader (Balu et al., 2015; Compton, Miller, Elleman, &

Steacy, 2014; Jones, Clark et al., 2016). It then fell to the classroom teacher, during actual

instruction, to have met the needs of the students based on the learning profile of the

student (Tomlinson, 2000; Ritchey et al., 2017; Scammacca et al., 2016). Time needed to

be given over to the planning and implementation of instruction on the strategy to the

student.

With such a wide range within the classroom, an instruction plan with varying

levels of scaffolding support, or differentiation, was the way for everyone to accomplish

successful learning (Dixon, Yssel, McConnell, & Hardin, 2014; Shaunessy-Dedrick et al.,

2015; Tomlinson, 2014). Research had shown that using differentiation with instruction

improved students reading comprehension and effectively improve student learning

(Dixon et al., 2014; Shaunessy-Dedrick et al., 2015). What seemed to make the most

significant difference with the differentiation was the explicit instruction that had a

teacher modeling the strategy, and students were given opportunities to work with the

approach in authentic text thus allowing to them to build up their metacognition (De

Milliano et al., 2016; Denton et al., 2015; Joseph et al., 2016; ; Zabrucky et al., 2015).

When focusing on differentiation, the teacher was guided by the essential ideas and skills

for the studied content, individual student differences, the integration of assessment that

knew where the student stood in his or her learning, and ongoing adjustments to the

content, process, or products that met individual needs for the students to learn

(Tomlinson, 2014; Tomlinson & Jarvis, 2009). Teachers used the curriculum as a driving

force for the learning of content, but modified, expanded, enriched, supplemented, and

provided choice to students during instruction for them to take ownership of and

maximize their knowledge of the content (Moje, 2015; Parsons,

Dodman, & Burrowbridge, 2013; Pilten, 2016; Tomlinson, 2014). Through

differentiation, students received the individualized instruction they needed to have met

their needs and struggles with learning.

Summary

In upper-elementary, teachers expected students to have shifted their learning

through nonfiction reading. The level of a teacher’s pedagogical content knowledge was

related directly to his or her effectiveness and efficiency as an educator in helping his or

her students meet the needs of nonfiction reading comprehension (Shulman, 1986).

Teachers must have known how to directly and explicitly teach the skill sets of activating

prior knowledge and inferencing, asking questions of the text, visualizing, monitoring his

or her understandings, and determining essential information to summarize his or her

learning for students to comprehend successfully. A teacher must have also possessed the

knowledge of his or her students to adjust instruction for student success and to have met

needs. It was a teacher’s application of his or her content and pedagogical knowledge,

combined with knowledge of his or her students, that helped students comprehend the

complex texts required for learning and academic success (Adoniou, 2015; Behrmann &

Souvignire, 2013; Carney & Indrisano, 2013; George, 2011; Griffith et al., 2015; Shing et

al., 2015; Shulman, 1986).

With the shift to reading to learn, there was an increase in the identification of

atrisk, LERD upper-elementary students who risked failure and dropping out of school.

Those students struggled with more than one issue that hindered their ability to

comprehend grade-level material. Teachers could help those at-risk, LERD students by

using their PCK knowledge and explicitly teaching strategies and individualize their

instruction to have met needs using differentiation techniques. Those actions by the

teacher helped the student to fill in their learning gaps and become successful at meeting

the complexity requirements for reading to learn in upper-elementary.

Common themes from the literature review were the importance of teacher’s

possessing pedagogical, content, and student knowledge when instructing students

efficiently and meeting their needs for academic success (Adoniou, 2015; Birdsall, 2015;

Carney & Indrisano, 2013; Firmender et al., 2013; Griffith, 2017; Griffith et al., 2015,

2016; Kent, Wanzek et al., 2017; NBPTS, 2016; Tomlinson, 2013). The reading to learn

shift to complex nonfiction text could be a difficult one as students struggled with the

different skills needed for the comprehension of complex texts (Hebert et al., 2016).

Explicit direct instruction happened to students by teachers on how to activate

background knowledge, inference, generate questions, visualize text, identify text

structure and organization, monitor understanding and finding a fix, and summarizing

(Burns et al., 2017; De Milliano et al., 2016; Denton et al., 2015; Joseph et al., 2016;

Kragler et al., 2015; Mercado & Cole, 2014; Nandhini & Balasundaram, 2016; Roberts &

Norman, 2015; Sibberson & Szymusiak, 2016; Spirgel & Delaney, 2016; Wagner &

Espin, 2015; Wichadee, 2014; Zabrucky et al., 2015).

Little was known, however, about teachers in upper elementary and his or her

AtRisk expository reading comprehension instruction or how pedagogical content

knowledge influenced preparedness, instruction, and differentiation. This study helped to

further the literature on how upper elementary teacher’s use of PCK factors into the

instruction of nonfiction reading comprehension strategy and how he or she used those

factors to differentiate instruction for the success of at-risk, LERD students in the state of

Texas. The single-case study used three data sources as a means of building a picture of

what was happening with nonfiction reading comprehension instruction in the upper

elementary classrooms of Texas. The intended methodology, participants, and procedures

of the study are discussed in Chapter 3.

Chapter 3

Introduction

The purpose of this exploratory single case study was to gain a deeper

understanding of the pedagogical content knowledge of Texas upper elementary teachers

who teach nonfiction reading comprehension strategies to at-risk students who did not

qualify for special education services. A case study design was best suited to explore the

opinions, values, and attitudes of the participants within the context of their work lives

(see Miles, Huberman, & Saldana, 2014). A case study allowed for the exploration of

planned and initiated nonfiction reading comprehension instruction.

Chapter 4 includes a description of the research design and rationale followed by

information on my role as the researcher. The chapter also contains information on

participant selection, instrumentation, procedures, and data analysis. I also provide a

review of trustworthiness (credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability) and

ethical procedures.

Research Design and Rationale

The central research question was the following: How did upper elementary

teachers in Texas describe their pedagogical content knowledge for nonfiction reading

comprehension strategies instruction? The three subquestions were the following:

4. What did 3rd- through 5th-grade teachers report about their pedagogical content

knowledge in teaching expository text comprehension to upper elementary

students?

5. How did upper elementary teachers report developing their content knowledge

and skills to instruct expository text comprehension?

6. What differentiation approaches did upper elementary teachers implement to

their instruction to meet the needs of at-risk, late-emerging reading difficulties

students?

I used a qualitative exploratory case study design with three data sources. Yin

(2014) stated that a case study is useful for investigating a real-world phenomenon and

there are no clearly defined or understood boundaries between phenomenon and context.

The boundaries between the phenomenon of pedagogical content knowledge and the

reallife application to upper elementary nonfiction reading comprehension instruction and

differentiation of at-risk LERD students was not fully understood. Yin contended that a

case study design supports the use of multiple evidence sources to determine findings. In

this study, multiple in-depth boundary examinations in the setting of a classroom were

analyzed using a closed-item questionnaire and open-ended scenario-based interview

questions with teachers in Grades 3-5 who teach nonfiction reading comprehension

strategies with at-risk LERD students.

In determining the research design, I considered and rejected different

methodological plans. I did not intend to look for causal inferences or confirm a

hypothesis (see Clark & Ivankova, 2016), disprove hypothesis testing (see Kraska, 2010),

or develop a new theory (see Allen, 2017), so quantitative methods were rejected. My

focus was to explore a phenomenon occurring in classrooms. After careful review and

consideration of the alignment of the study purpose and questions, I chose a case study

design.

The single case study design allowed for descriptive analysis of data from upper

elementary teachers, and the theories of pedagogical content knowledge and

differentiation allowed me to identify patterns among constructs in the data (see Mills,

Durepos, & Wiebe, 2010). I used three sources of data to provide a detailed analysis of

those patterns (see Clark & Ivankova, 2016). I used a questionnaire to locate high-quality

data sources for the qualitative interviews, which had several grade levels included, for

more depth of information (see Morgan, 2014). The combination of three sources for data

collection and analysis helped me conduct a robust study.

Role of the Researcher

In a qualitative study, the researcher makes decisions based on his or her ontology

and epistemology (Stewart, 2014). The how and why questions are based on what the

researcher wants to know. In this study, I wanted to know what knowledge upper

elementary teachers possess to teach nonfiction reading comprehension strategies and

how teachers use that knowledge to differentiate lessons to meet students’ needs.

The educational setting for my study was upper elementary classrooms throughout

the state of Texas. I am a fifth-grade teacher who had no leadership role over any

potential participants, who knew the curriculum and expectations of Texas in instruction,

and who worked with diverse populations. My intention was to solicit anonymous survey

responses from every third- through fifth-grade teacher in the state of

Texas, so it was probable that my district and school was included in the survey results. I

did not include my school setting in the interview portion of the study to avoid possible

bias.

Being a teacher-researcher meant that I needed to be hypersensitive to possible

biases that may have affected the credibility, reliability, or validity of my study. I began

by acknowledging that I may have had biases that influenced how I conducted interviews

or analyzed the data. For example, one type of bias that may have influenced how I

conducted interviews was an affinity bias because I taught in similar environments as the

prospective participants. I may have shown confirmation bias as I was taking field notes

from the interviews. To mitigate that bias, I recorded all conversations using electronic

devices. My tone and body language had to be monitored to avoid leading questions or

inflection bias. I needed to be conscious of my decisions and thought processes as I

worked on different aspects of my study.

Methodology

Participant Selection Logic

The phenomenon of interest was the knowledge teachers possessed who taught

nonfiction reading comprehension strategies to third through fifth graders in the state of

Texas. I contacted and administered the survey to the teachers using e-mail addresses and

the Internet. The obtained e-mail addresses came from the Texas Education Agency’s

Public Information office.

My sampling inclusion criteria were third- through fifth-grade Texas teachers who

taught nonfiction reading strategies to a variety of students including those who were

defined as at-risk and having late-emerging reading difficulties but were not classified as

special education students. My exclusion criteria were third- through fifth-grade teachers

who did not teach nonfiction reading strategies, who did not have at-risk students with

late-emerging reading difficulties, and who were not classified as special education

teachers.

In case study methodology, the sampling size is limited to the time involved in

collecting and analyzing data, the availability of participants who match the theory of the

study, and the level of saturation reached when repeated results or patterns emerge that do

not add to existing knowledge garnered (Stewart, 2014). Daniel (2012) contended that if

the researcher is describing a population, a relatively large sample size is needed. Daniel

recommended 400 to 2,500 participants for survey research. I did not achieve that

number, but I had ease with getting subjects with diverse populations by focusing on

Texas teachers in third through fifth grade who instructed comprehension strategies to

atrisk and LERD students. A purposive stratified random sampling of third- through

fifthgrade teachers allowed for a selection of participants who had the most relevant

knowledge of information for the study (see Allen, 2017). The first data collection phase

was in the form of an anonymous questionnaire, which allowed me to capture the most

information from the population of interest. I intended to send out my initial inquiry to all

upper elementary teachers in the state of Texas. According to the Texas Education

Agency’s Texas School Directory (2017-2018), 4,628 Texas public elementary schools

contain Grades 3, 4, or 5. I requested e-mail addresses from the Texas Education

Agency’s Public Information Office as a means of contacting all third- through fifthgrade

teachers from Texas.

I recruited a large sample for the questionnaire and a smaller group who agreed to

an interview after the questionnaire. The open-ended scenario-based interviews for the

second phase of collection allowed for more in-depth information gathering from a

smaller sample. Emmel (2013) noted that the richness of narrative sought in a case study

requires that sampling size be small for analysis. Interview participants were limited to 12

volunteers (four from each grade level in upper elementary). The limited number helped

me conduct the study in a timely manner.

Participants who agreed to an interview were placed in a sampling pool. A random

stratified sampling strategy was used to select individuals who were contacted through e-

mail to set up a convenient time to conduct the interview. The pool was placed in three

separate grade levels, and a random sample was selected from each level (see Daniel,

2012, 2015). Another consideration for a qualitative sample size was point of saturation.

This is the point in data analysis when no new information is obtained as more

individuals participate in the study (Nishishiba, Jones, & Kraner, 2014). In my study,

saturation was achieved with 10 participants.

Instrumentation

There were three sources of data used in this study. The first source was a

closeended questionnaire modified from Trygstad’s 2012 National Survey of Science and

Mathematics Education: Status of Elementary School Mathematics. The second source

was an open-ended scenario-based interview asking participants to respond to scenarios

on how they adjusted and differentiated instruction for their at-risk students. The third

source was public data on districts that participated in professional development

opportunities from the Texas Center for Learning Disabilities from the University of

Texas at Austin.

Questionnaire

Trygstad’s 2012 National Survey of Science and Mathematics Education

questionnaire has been administered nationally to science and math teachers annually

since 1977 (Banilower et al., 2013). The instrument was developed over time by

experienced researchers in science and mathematics education (Banilower et al., 2013).

The questionnaire was sent to the National Science Teachers Association, the National

Council of Teachers of Mathematics, the National Education Association, the American

Federation of Teachers, and the National Catholic Education Association for the

development of validity, review, and feedback (Banilower et al., 2013). The reliability of

Trygstad’s questionnaire was developed by applying the statistical central limit theorem,

which set the sampling error at 95% (Banilower et al., 2013). The weighting of the school

and teacher characteristics to permit unbiased estimates of the population by the

probability of selection was employed using a jackknife formula (Banilower et al., 2013).

For this study, I used the content of Trygstad’s (2013) 2012 National Survey of

Science and Mathematics Education questionnaire and modified it to reflect expository

and reading comprehension. The Likert-scale format was maintained. A copy of the

permission to use the original questionnaire is in Appendix A. A Word document of the

electronic questionnaire is in Appendix B. To maintain content validity, I requested two

content practitioners and one reading expert and a director at ABCD Center with a

terminal degree to participate in validating the content and usability of the revised

instrument. From that feedback, adjustments were made to the wording and questions to

ensure the quality of the questions asked.

The questionnaire provided descriptive, numeric information about the

characteristics of the upper elementary teaching force, the viewpoint of the preparedness

to teach nonfiction reading, and the pedagogical beliefs and preparation regarding

effective teaching and learning in reading. Information on professional development

training and activities on reading, at-risk, or differentiated instruction was reviewed as

part of the pedagogical content knowledge focus. Teaching, including resources and

materials, objectives, time spent, activities, methods of assessment, and factors affecting

instruction, was also reported. That information helped me answer the research questions

about what third- through fifth-grade teachers said about their pedagogical content

knowledge in teaching expository text comprehension to upper elementary students, and

how those teachers reported developing content knowledge and skills to instruct

expository text comprehension. The data generated from the questionnaire informed the

third question about the important factors detailed by third through fifth-grade teachers as

that contributed to the changing of their instruction for struggling at-risk, LERD students.

During the questionnaire, participants were asked to volunteer for the interview phase.

Open-Ended Scenario-Based Interviews

The second source of data was structured interviews asking teachers to respond to

questions about their differentiation techniques to help three hypothetical at-risk, LERD

students on a nonfiction reading comprehension activity. The source of the scenario

construction of three hypothetical students came from the information from the literature

review on the at-risk, LERD student profile. A copy of the open-ended scenario-based

interview guide is in Appendix C. Review and feedback were obtained from two content

practitioners and one reading expert and a director at ABCD Center with a terminal

degree to validate the content and usability of the questions for my interview. The

interview conducted helped me identify the factors that contributed to the changing of

instruction for struggling at-risk LERD students.

I conducted the interviews using an interview guide (in Appendix C) and

audiotaped each. The interview provided a descriptive narrative about how teachers used

pedagogical content knowledge to adjust instruction of nonfiction reading comprehension

strategy instruction to have met the specific needs of their at-risk, LERD students.

Districts That Participated in Texas Reading Professional Development

The third data source was a list of districts that participated in state sponsored,

Texas, reading professional development. This list of districts was to be obtained from the

University of Texas as they maintained a database of the kinds and types of professional

development districts participated in and offered by the state. I was to obtain a one-time

list of districts after contacting a director at the University. This list was to be recorded

using an Excel document. I was to use that information to triangulate the data from the

self-reported responses from the questionnaire about the kinds of professional

development teachers accessed.

Procedure for Recruitment, Participation, and Data Collection

After receiving the datasets from Texas Education Agency that contained the

names and emails of upper elementary teachers in regular instruction public schools, an

electronic questionnaire went to each teacher. The first page of the electronic

questionnaire had an informed consent page as the opening page of the questionnaire. The

use of technology to send the participants the questionnaire was both costs effective and

time effective when generating pools of data from diverse groups covering a broad

geographical area (see Hewson, 2017). This study benefited from the use of the

technology as it attempted to gain the perspectives and background of third- through

fifth-grade teachers across the state of Texas. The questionnaire was a one-time collection

data event intended to take no more than 30 minutes. I sent out that questionnaire over six

weeks (once every two weeks) for non-responders. The data helped answer the

pedagogical content knowledge questions of how teachers reported developing and using

their pedagogical content knowledge to have taught nonfiction comprehension skills.

Additionally, the data included the essential factors detailed by the third- through fifth-

grade teachers who contributed to the changing and adaptation of their instruction for

struggling at-risk, LERD students.

As part of the exit to the study, all participants were thanked for their time and

asked if they were interested in a follow-up check of their response summarization for

their review and personal records. If they assented, then they were given a separate link to

add their email for point of contact. Data gathered from the questionnaire was entered

into Excel for analysis.

The last question on the questionnaire asked if the participant was willing to

participate in a follow-up interview regarding differentiation and at-risk students. Again,

those who consented were taken to a separate link to fill in their contact information to go

into a pool. Those who agreed were chosen to participate based on a random stratified

selection by grade level and sent an informed consent document and invitation to

participate at their convenience. I followed the guidelines recommended by Seidman

(2013) and Castillo-Montoya (2016) for conducting interviews by ensuring that I used an

interview guide and protocol (see Appendix C). As the interview was an open-ended,

scenario-based, I identified initial questions in advance. A suitable location and time was

set up with the participant with the request that as much as possible, a quiet area free from

unnecessary distraction for the interview via technology. Interviews were conducted via

synchronous online technology using a type of conferencing software, such as Skype, had

the capability to record the interaction. The use of that technology was cost effective, time

effective, had no geographical restraints, and allowed me to build rapport with the

participants who will be important when seeking in-depth answers (O’Connor & Madge,

2017).

To establish rapport with my participants, I welcomed each interviewee, and

reviewed the purpose, length of time, and method of transcription. I reiterated the

assurances of confidentiality and arrangements I intended to use with numbers as

pseudonyms. The transcribed recorded conversation was in a Word document for

analysis. Two audio devices, a voice recorder on the computer and a cell-phone, recorded

the audio data and, before each interview, I did a functionality check the equipment.

During the interview, I worked, as the interviewer, to avoid expressing a reaction

to the information provided. It was vital to remain focused on the goal of obtaining useful

quality data. I let the interviewee know while building a rapport that my intention was not

to express reactions to the words they used but instead to gather a holistic view of his or

her experience. Follow-up questions, where appropriate, helped the individual remain

focused and provided robust data. The interviews were scheduled to take no longer than

30 minutes. The data collected from the interviews went toward answering the question

related to how upper elementary teachers reported developing their content knowledge

and skills to instruct expository text comprehension and what factors contributed to the

changing of their instruction to have met the needs of at-risk, LERD students.

Additionally, the information collected described how third- through fifth-grade teachers

reported changing or adapting their instruction for struggling at-risk, LERD students.

As an exit to the interview, all participants were thanked for their time and a

confirmation of their contact information taken. The recordings were transcribed and a

narrative formed based on the findings. Interviewees was sent a narrative copy of their

interview for their review and personal records. Once participants had reviewed and

confirmed the results, all data was entered by me into a separate Word document.

Data Analysis Plan

Two different forms of analysis were required to address the three types of data

collected for this exploratory case study. An Excel document served to help analyze the

questionnaire quantitatively without correlates between number statistical variables. A

Word document was used for a qualitative analysis for the interviews. For the

questionnaire, I analyzed with close-ended and Likert-type scale questions the descriptive

information about the characteristics of the upper elementary teaching force, the

viewpoints on preparedness to have taught nonfiction reading, and the pedagogical

beliefs and preparedness regarding effective teaching and learning in reading. For the

interview, I used open coding to analyze the responses pulling common themes or

patterns that emerged from the participant experiences with differentiation and at-risk

student instruction.

I sourced data from the University of Texas to determine how many districts have

partaken in state- sponsored literacy professional development in Reading to Learn

Academies for third-, fourth, or fifth-grade teacher preparation. According to the

description offered by the University of Texas at Austin’s Texas Center for Learning

Disabilities, the Reading to Learn Academies focused on the pedagogy of teaching

comprehension and meeting the needs of struggling students. The number of districts

participating in those academies was used to triangulate with the gathered questionnaire

information on professional development training and activities on reading, at-risk, or

differentiated instruction as part of the pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) focus.

Teaching including objectives, time spent, activities, methods of assessment, and factors

affecting instruction was reported in my data analysis. Finally, as the questionnaire was

serving as a pool to locate data sources for the qualitative interview, the question

regarding willingness to have further contact with me helped to identify potential

interviewees.

Once I had transcribed the interviews to a Word document, an initial summary of

findings from the participants’ discussion was sent to them for a final member check. The

approved or adjusted member checks and my field notes was entered into Word document

to begin to code. Transcripts was entered precisely into the same document for coding as

well. I anticipated at least three rounds of beginning coding with a priori coding to

achieve data reduction, reorganization, and representation using open coding if needed to

add to the initial codes (see Roulston, 2014). I coded iteratively looking for data patterns,

themes, or categories from individual questions in the study and interview. That data was

used to build a narrative on how teachers used their pedagogical content knowledge

(PCK) foundation to change instruction for struggling at-risk, LERD students.

This study generated a large quantity of data that needed sorting. Discrepant cases

developed as not all data was originating from the same perspective. Discrepant cases

were cases that may not have followed the consensus, but should not have been

disregarded as they were useful in understanding the bigger picture of the phenomenon

(Brooks, Riele, & Maquire, 2014). Those discrepant cases were elucidated when drawing

conclusions on the data to maintain ethical standards. The manner of treatment of

discrepant instances was handled ethically and with integrity as all findings was reported

with full disclosure and without omission of data so as not to distort results (Brooks et al.,

2014).

Issues of Trustworthiness

It was the responsibility of any researcher to ensure that the participants and the

data were protected, and to conduct research in an ethical manner (Litchman, 2014). No

one was harmed through involvement in this study. This subsection reviewed the methods

needed to maximize credibility, transferability, dependability, confirmability and the

ethical procedures of this study.

Credibility

Credibility ensured the results derived from the data were legitimate and based on

data (Coghlan & Brydon-Miller, 2014). Credibility for the data in this study began with

ensuring that the study design and instruments used, the selection of the participants and

the collection of data was described, identified, and accurate. For the close-ended

questionnaire, I needed to safeguard that my instrument measured what it was intended to

be measured for the study. This content validity was assured with the input of two content

practitioners and one Reading expert and a director at ABCD Center with a terminal

degree that reviewed the instrument. I used member checking as a measure of ensuring

credibility. Member checking involved having interviewees review their interview

transcripts for accuracy of communication and thereby improved the credibility of the

research (Seidman, 2013). For the qualitative interview, therefore, I emailed the

participants a copy of their responses to check for accuracy after I transcribed the

conversation. All interviewees had the opportunity to member check before the final stage

of reporting the information.

For my study, I ensured credibility through persistent observations of protocols;

triangulation of data between the questionnaire, survey, researcher field notes; and the

statewide data source on literacy professional development. I used recording devices to

ensure that my transcription was as accurate as possible.

Transferability

Transferability was the ability for my study findings to relate to different settings

and contexts (Coghlan & Brydon-Miller, 2014). The participants were selected to

maximize transferability and included as diverse a population geographically, by years of

experience, and by gender as possible in the state of Texas. As nonfiction reading

strategies were used in any subject with upper elementary and secondary school, I

believed my topic results were transferable to those settings. The purposive stratified

random sampling of third- through fifth-grade elementary teachers may have allowed for

transferability to other third- through fifth-grade classrooms in the country (Allen, 2017).

This thorough description and documentation helped practitioners and school leaders

determine if this study could apply to their setting.

Dependability

Dependability was the ability of the study to be replicated the same way

successfully in the future (Coghlan & Brydon-Miller, 2014). Dependability was achieved

with full disclosure and transparency in how data was collected and transcribed, in

addition to, how codes were formed and applied. It was the recording of thinking and

actions that helped solidify the dependability for this study. Using triangulation, my audit

trail, and field notes during data analysis improved the dependability of my research.

Being transparent with the limitations of my study in my write-up helped with

dependability. My approach to my research and thoroughness of implementation should

help anyone who wishes to replicate my research.

Confirmability

Confirmability in research was the ability to confirm or corroborate the results

(Coghlan & Brydon-Miller, 2014). Documentation followed the entire data collection and

analysis process. Confirmability depended on how I kept researcher biases at bay during

the operation of the study. Using full disclosure and transparency in explaining the

development of the findings helped with confirmability.

Ethical Procedures

To ensure that the highest level of ethical practices was present, I was very

conscious of the ethical procedures that I used during my study. This practice was vital

for my integrity as a researcher and the integrity of my research. From the beginning to

the end of my research, I needed to maintain the ethical conduct principles of doing no

harm, maintaining anonymity and confidentiality, having informed consent, and having

truthfulness and accuracy in reported data (Litchman, 2014).

Treatments of human participants were done consciously and with attention. The

participants who contributed to the study were not harmed during the course, or after the

fact, of the research. This practice included psychological, as well as physical harm. I

have looked at the phrasing of my questions very carefully. I gave reassurances during the

study that none of the information shared with me reflected in a negative tone on them or

be disclosed to their administration. If I started to feel like some of my participants were

disturbed or upset by my questioning, I decided if I needed to stop the study for that

participant. I thanked the participants for their participation at the end of their

contribution.

Strict adherence for protection of confidential data was maintained. No identifying

information revealed my participants during the study. Even upon my entering of their

contributions to the database, they were assigned a number, thereby removing any

identifying information. The write up of my research did not include the names of the

participants. At most, I may have referred to a participant as “a participant” or the grade

level he or she teaches. Those actions on my part were to have met the expectation of

privacy and confidentiality.

Having informed consent as the first page of my questionnaire and interview from

my participants protected both the participants and myself. In my consent request, I made

sure to outline the purpose and nature of the conducted study. When setting up the times

for contact, I wanted to ensure that I was not intruding on their time by being reasonable

on how long the investment was. On the first page of my questionnaire, I reiterated this

information. I repeated the same information as I began each qualitative interview. This

transparency of communication helped to assuage any concerns about participating in my

study.

Reporting with truthfulness and accuracy the data and my findings helped build

the trustworthiness of my study. I used my audit trail and field notes to give evidence of

the coded data. By using a member check through emails, I was able to maintain the

highest levels of integrity and avoid misstatements, misinterpretations, or skewed

analysis. I wanted my study to impact the pedagogy and instruction of upper elementary

students in the state of Texas, and the only way this could happen was if I remained true

and accurate.

IRB approval of this study (10-12-18-0619464) was gained from Walden

University. All records, audio recordings, documents, and field notes will be maintained

for no less than 5 years on a USB stick and with a backup in the Cloud. This information

will only be accessed by me with the use of a password. It will be destroyed on October

12, 2023.

Summary

This investigation was an exploratory qualitative case study with three types of

data: a questionnaire and interviews with participants and public information documents

on districts that partook in the state approved professional development. This exploratory

single case study purpose was to attain a deeper understanding of the pedagogical content

knowledge of Texas upper elementary teachers who teach nonfiction reading

comprehension strategies to at-risk students who did not qualify for special education

services.

All teachers in Texas who teach nonfiction reading strategies to upper elementary

students in grades 3rd through 5th-grade were invited to participate in the questionnaire.

Participants who consented to a follow-up with me was pooled and stratified by

gradelevel for being randomly chosen for participation in an open-ended semi-structured

interview.

Conducting a study with trustworthiness used ethical procedures and

considerations. This ethical standard was protective and supportive for myself and my

participants. Trustworthiness and ethical procedures started in the planning stages of a

study and went through to the final write up. If I used ethical procedures and

considerations, there should have been fewer questions about integrity, truthfulness,

validity, and accountability of a study. It was my job to do my best that a safe

environment was maintained so that participants were at-ease and truthful so that I could

get the quality of data that I was seeking.

In the next Chapter, Chapter 4, discussion of the results of the study will happen.

Information on data collection, data analysis, evidence of trustworthiness, and findings

will be presented in their own sections. Within the data collection, data analysis, and

findings sections of the chapter, the information is broken down further by the

questionnaire and the interview. Research questions will be addressed in this chapter.

Chapter 4

Introduction

The purpose of this exploratory single case study was to gain in-depth insight on

the pedagogical content knowledge of Texas upper elementary teachers who teach

nonfiction reading comprehension strategies to at-risk students who do not qualify for

special education services. The central research question addressed how upper elementary

teachers in Texas describe their pedagogical content knowledge for nonfiction reading

comprehension strategies instruction, and three subquestions addressed how teachers

viewed the building of their pedagogical content knowledge and their use of pedagogical

content knowledge while preparing and instructing students. Three sources of data were

used to answer the research questions: a questionnaire, an open-ended scenario-based

interview, and public documents on reading professional development in the state of

Texas. A qualitative case study was the most appropriate design for this study because the

case represented the bounded system of the Texas education system for upper elementary

grades. I used multiple data sources and analyzed data using open coding and inductive

analysis. Data collection happened over a 3-month period. Data sources included 161

Texas third- through fifth-grade upper elementary teachers’ responses to an e-mailed

questionnaire, 10 teacher interviews, and public information documents on reading

comprehension professional development sessions held throughout the state. All data

were analyzed to gain a clearer picture of the nonfiction reading comprehension

pedagogical content knowledge and instruction occurring in third through fifth grades in

the state of Texas. In Chapter 4, I explain the process of data collection and analysis,

evidence of trustworthiness, and the findings from the study.

Setting

The setting for this study was third- through fifth-grade upper elementary

classrooms in the state of Texas. The study took place during the fall and winter of the

2018-2019 school year. The holiday season may have influenced the number of responses

to the questionnaire and the number of participants in the interviews. There were no

changes to the instrumentation or the data analysis strategies as a result of this time

frame.

Demographics

Participants in the study were third- through fifth-grade upper elementary teachers

who taught nonfiction reading comprehension strategies in Texas to at-risk, LERD

students who did not qualify for special education. All of teachers had to have been

currently teaching any subject in third, fourth, or fifth grade during the 2018-2019 school

year in a public school.

Data Collection

Following IRB approval of this study (10-12-18-0619464), data collection began.

Data were collected between October 2018 and February 2019 through the use of

electronic e-mailed questionnaires, audio-recorded interviews, and formal source

documents on the numbers of participants from the state who took part in the Summer

2018 Texas Education Agency’s Upper Elementary Reading Academy, a Texas reading

professional development training session.

Questionnaire

An e-mail request through a Google Forms electronic questionnaire (Appendix B)

was sent on October 30, 2018 to 102,746 prospective participants. Follow-up e-mails

containing an additional request for participation were sent on November 12 and 26. After

6 weeks from the start date, on December 10, 2018, a total of 191 responses had been

received. Within those 191 responses, 24 chose not to participate, four did not teach third

through fifth grade, and two did not teach at-risk students, leaving me with 161 responses

to analyze. Of the 161 Texas third- through fifth-grade teachers who chose to participate,

18 had 0-5 years of experience, 31 had 6-10 years of experience, 35 had 1115 years of

experience, 31 had 16-20 years of experience, and 46 had 20 plus years of experience. All

161 consented and responded to the questionnaire. The questionnaire was a dual-process

questionnaire used as a screening mechanism and a baseline rudimentary analysis with no

statistical inference. The data collected through Google Forms was imported to an Excel

document in preparation for data analysis on December 15.

Although there were no variations in data collection from the plan presented in

Chapter 3, there were unusual circumstances encountered in the data collection. I

received the Texas Education Agency’s data set of teacher e-mails from third through fifth

grade. The original document sent from the Texas Education Agency had 109,761 entries.

All of the data sent were from the 2017-2018 school year. Some of the entries were

repeats as some teachers were assigned and taught a combination of third through fifth

grade. Some entries were not connected to the teachers’ e-mail as requested. Some entries

were not correctly formatted. Some entries were for teachers who no longer taught, were

not at the campus, or no longer taught in the grade level associated with the document.

After examining the data set, I was able to find 102,746 e-mails that were useable for my

case study.

Interviews

The last question on the questionnaire asked the respondents if they were

interested in participating in a follow-up five-question open-ended scenario-based

interview. A total of 91 respondents assented and provided e-mails as point of contact.

Those e-mails were organized into grade levels in an Excel document for simple

reference to ensure stratified sampling. Randomly, from each grade level list, e-mails

were pulled for further contact. Initially 15 follow-up emails were sent with an electronic

invitation to interview (Appendix C) and a request for convenient scheduling times

starting December 3. Sets of e-mails were sent three times at 2-week intervals to obtain

12 respondents. Each of the 90 respondents who originally assented to the follow-up

interview was contacted at least once. Ten respondents (three from third grade, four from

fourth grade, and three from fifth grade) were interviewed. Once a convenient time was

set for both parties, a Zoom.us teleconference was scheduled and participants were sent a

meeting ID and a URL with which to log in to on the scheduled conference. Through the

Zoom.us website, the conferences were held, audio was recorded, and a file was saved to

the local computer at the completion of the conference. When the interviews took place,

interviewees were told that they would be referred to as a decimal number (grade level,

order of interview) for confidentiality. They were never referred to by name after the

confirmation e-mail was sent setting the time for the interview. When transcribing the

audio file, I documented the interview using the given code.

Although there were no variations in data collection from the plan presented in

Chapter 3, there was one unusual circumstance encountered in the data collection. The

interview completed with 5.2 was done via the Zoom Chat as the participant’s audio was

not working on her computer and she did not have access to a phone. The chat was

recorded and saved in place of a recorded audio file. It was then copied and formatted

into a Word file to be used for the data analysis.

Texas Regional Education Service Centers Reading Academy Roster

The Texas Education Agency provides upper elementary teachers with an

opportunity to participate in the state sponsored literacy achievement academies (for

third-grade teachers) and reading-to-learn academies (for fourth- and fifth-grade

teachers). The goal of those upper elementary academies is to help teachers expand their

pedagogical and content knowledge for the understanding and systematic use of

“effective, research-based, and scientifically validated reading instruction methods” to

better the achievement of their students (Texas Education Agency, Reading Academies,

2015a, para. 2). To determine how many teachers and districts participated in the Reading

Academy in the summer of 2018, I contacted each of the 20 Texas Regional Education

Service Centers in the state of Texas. The numbers reported to me were then compiled

into an Excel spreadsheet by the abbreviation RESC (Regional Education Service Center)

and a letter for anonymity and ease of calculation for the third data source.

There was a variation in the data collection from the plan presented in Chapter 3,

as there was one unusual circumstance encountered in the data collection. Originally, the

data were to be collected from the University of Texas at Austin’s Texas Center for

Learning Disabilities. However, after unanswered repeated attempts to get the number of

participants from the state who participated in their reading professional development

activities, I had to change tactics for my third data source. I still was looking at reading

professional development from the state of Texas, but I needed to go to the Texas

Education Agency. To get numbers for their reading academies, I was advised to

individually contact each of the Texas Regional Education Service Centers, which I did.

This was how I was able to gather the data for my third data source for triangulation

purposes.

Data Analysis

The process of data analysis was completed as methodically as possible to

maintain the integrity of the process. Measures were taken throughout the process to

ensure confidentiality and anonymity.

Questionnaire

I used an Excel worksheet to catalogue the questions and respondent choices.

Then I manually reorganized the data by the three research subquestions on a separate

worksheet within the original document (Appendix D). All answer choices related to 16

questions about the practices and forming of pedagogical knowledge or content

knowledge were placed under the RQ 1 heading in a separate worksheet of the original

document. All answer choices related to the development of pedagogy and content

knowledge through 18 college or professional development questions in the areas of

reading, at-risk learning, or at-risk reading were placed under a seconding heading, RQ 2.

All answer choices related to four questions on differentiation or meeting student needs

were placed under a third heading, RQ 3. The information within each RQ section was

further organized and disaggregated by respondent years of service within separate

sheets. The rows in each of the separate sheets were then numbered for anonymity and

ease of referral during the data analysis process. I worked with five worksheets broken up

by the years of service brackets, and each worksheet was divided into three sections

related to the three research subquestions. This allowed me to focus on one segment of

data at a time for data analysis.

After manually organizing the data, I began the task of analyzing the culled

information. In my preliminary data analysis, I read through the data and did not take any

notes. I wanted to familiarize myself with the questions and answers by simply looking at

the perceptions, beliefs, and perspectives of the 161 respondents. I began with the master

spreadsheet with no breakdowns to peruse all of the questions and answers for the first

research subquestion and to get an overall impression of how the group as a whole

answered. The first read was to look for trends across the data. I then conducted a second

read through all of the questions and answers under the first research question by year of

experience bracket to see the range of responses.

This questionnaire was close-ended and the analysis began with memos of my

general interpretation regarding the frequency of the answers. With the third read, I began

to make notations such as “strongly agreed to,” “wavering confidence,” and “seems to be

a lot of never.” The memos I wrote were descriptive coding that covered any wonderings,

thoughts, or surprises that stood out to me as I read so I could organize my first

interpretations.

With my next series of reads, I began by focusing on each individual question

associated with the first research question starting in the 0-5 years of experience bracket.

I tallied the frequency of certain responses such as “all the time,” “strongly agree,” and

“not adequately prepared.” As I organized the data, I noted the most frequent of responses

by question. For those that were infrequent, I tried to determine similarities. For example,

if a participant responded as teaching a skill infrequently or rarely, I went back through to

see how he or she responded to the question related to the frequency in his or her teaching

of nonfiction reading, or to his or her reported pedagogical foundation to see if there was

a relationship between the answers. I did this for each individual question. Once I

completed all of the questions in this manner, I proceeded to the next years of experience

bracket repeating the process.

After examining all of the years of experience brackets, I made a summary sheet

with the answers from all of the years of experience brackets. On the Subquestion 1

worksheet, I wrote descriptive coding that reflected a summary of all of the years of

experience findings for each individual question. Those summaries served as the

foundation for the narrative developed for Subquestion 1.

This process was repeated for Subquestions 2 and 3. First, I obtained a general

impression by looking at the responses as a whole. Then I developed a more detailed

understanding by focusing on chunks to determine patterns, themes, or concepts that

emerged from the data by each years of experience bracket. Frequencies were tallied.

Each subquestion received its own summary worksheet within the original document that

reflected the data from the review of the individual questions by years of experience

bracket.

Open-Ended Semi-structured Interview

My preliminary analysis of the interview responses began like the questionnaire,

with a series of reads with no annotations or memos to familiarize myself with the

findings. The first read of the transcripts was done in the order that the interviews took

place as it was somewhere between the first interview and the 10th interview. I read to get

a general sense of the respondents’ perceptions, beliefs, and perspectives. With the second

read, I read them in the order of grade levels then by years of experience brackets. With

the third read, I read them in order of interview by grade level. It was with this final

grouping, that I began actual coding.

The descriptive coding and analysis of the interviews began with looking at the

transcribed Word documents. As I began the coding process, I used the transcription

printed paper with a highlighter and pencil to underline and write memos to the side.

Those annotations included what I wondered, thought, was surprised by, or something

that stood out to me as I read so that I could organize my first interpretations. It was with

this initial coding that I recognized that those transcripts would, just like with the

questionnaire, need to be reorganized by research sub-questions for manageability.

I began to manually reorganize the interview questions and answers given by

opening up eight separate Word documents, one for each interview question. Each Word

document had a table with the interview question in column 1 and answers in the order of

the participant’s grade level and interview number in column 2. Then line by line, I read

each answer in column 2 closely as a means of analyzing and examining the responses. In

column 3, I bulleted and typed notations or descriptive coding concerning responses,

actions/interactions, or information that seemed important from each line. For example,

the line read for 3.1 on the interview about changes to instruction over time was, “Umm, I

learned how to better read my students to what they need and it is,” so I made a notation

after highlighting (“better read my students”) as a bullet code “know students.”

I began the next phase of the analysis by making a separate Word document for

each research sub-question that attempted to correspond the interview questions with a

research sub-question (Appendix D). I then compiled the bullets for all of the questions

under each research sub-question in an attempt to collapse the codes for the second cycle.

I quickly realized that I first had to collapse the bullets into second-cycle coding for each

interview as the line-by-line coding for research sub-question 1 had 147 bullets, research

sub-question 2 had 253 bullets, and the research sub-question 3 had 219 bullets.

The next step of analyzing those data was to review each individual question,

therefore, I collapsed the bullets in a separate Word document for the second and third

cycle coding (Appendix E). For example, I grouped participant responses that spoke of “a

lack of confidence,” “a lack of confidence or surety,” and “under confidence” all fell

under the code of “reported lack of confidence.” I did this process for all 147 bullets of

research sub-question 1, which featured a response by the participant in relationship to

how they saw student’s struggle, and it resulted in 36 second cycle codes. The 253 bullets

for research sub-question 2, which focused on the building of pedagogy and content

knowledge, were collapsed during the second cycle of coding, down to 37 codes. The

third research sub-question contained 219 bullets that focused on perceived actions of

differentiation to have met hypothetical needs of three students and were shortened to 23

codes.

The number of second-level categories was still too large and needed to be further

collapsed. This was done during the third cycle of coding. For example, responses from

participants that were coded as “lack of confidence,” “lack of drive/motivation,”

“feelings of frustration,” “feelings of hopelessness,” and “not feeling successful” were

then collapsed into the third cycle coding of “student affective.” Through third cycle

coding, the 36 second-cycle codes for research sub-question 1 were collapsed into eight

categories. The second research sub-question with 37 second-cycle codes was condensed

into eight categories. The third research sub-question with 23 second cycle codes was

collapsed into three categories during third-cycle coding. Now I felt that I had a

manageable amount of data. Further specific information could be found in the Findings

section of this chapter.

Texas Summer Reading Academy Participation

After getting no response from repeated requests for participant numbers of

reading professional developments offered through the University of Texas at Austin’s

Texas Center for Learning Disabilities, I contacted the Texas Education Agency (TEA) to

inquire if they could provide the information I needed to triangulate the patterns emerging

from the questionnaire and interviews. The TEA indicated I would need to contact each of

the 20 Texas Regional Education Service Centers individually. I compiled an Excel

document with the RESC and letters who showed the total participants from third through

fifth grade that participated in TEA’s Reading Academies for summer 2018. The third

data source was used to support data I have from the questionnaires and interviews and

sub-research question two. Further specific information can be found in the Findings

section of this chapter.

Evidence of Trustworthiness

Credibility and Transferability

Credibility for this case study began with the study design and instruments

safeguarded and used, participant selection and member checking, in addition to the

adherence to protocols during data collection. The close-ended questionnaire and

openended semi-structured open-ended scenario interview questions were reviewed,

vetted, and validated with the input of two content practitioners and two terminal degreed

experts: one in Reading, and one who was the director at ABCD Center for Reading.

Participants were selected with the inclusion criteria of being a third-through fifth-grade

teacher in the state of Texas who taught students considered at-risk, which made for

transferability as those participants were diverse geographically throughout Texas, in

years of experience, by gender, and subjects taught. Those participants were also given

the option to receive a summary of the results from their questionnaire answers or

audiotaped interview, of which three participated. Data collection techniques were

adhered to as referenced in the first section of the questionnaire and interview. The

randomized sampling of teachers allowed for transferability to other third- through

fifthgrade classrooms in any other states or countries, which helps with both credibility

and transferability. The transparency in the description and documentation used in this

case study will help practitioners and school leaders self-select if this study could apply to

their setting.

Dependability and Confirmability

Full disclosure and transparency in how data was collected, transcribed, coded,

the resulting themes, and the documentation of the audit trail ensures dependability and

confirmability of the results from this study. Biases of the researcher were kept at bay

during the process and data analysis of the study was competed through the use of memos

and talking to other practitioners. The supervision of my doctoral committee during the

data analysis phase of the study also contributes to a level of dependability and

confirmability. Using triangulation between the questionnaire results, interview

transcripts, and public records during the data analysis phase of the case study provided a

level of dependability. Giving full disclosure and transparencies to the limitations that

developed during the implementation of the case study also ensures dependability.

Results

The exploration of what third- through fifth-grade teachers report of their

pedagogical content knowledge experience, the development of their content knowledge

and skills, and the differentiation techniques used in the classroom for at-risk

lateemerging reading difficulties of students required the data collection from three

sources. The sources used were a close-ended questionnaire, an open-ended semi-

structured scenario interview, and a publicly documented participation numeration of

teachers in upper elementary who participated in the summer 2018 Reading Academy

offered by the state of Texas. Data from the questionnaire was tallied. An open coding

using a descriptive word or short phrases on the interviews attributed to the identification

of three themes in this case study that contributed to the findings narrative. I will refer to

have teachers who participated in the questionnaire as respondents and teachers who

participated in the interview by Participant and their codes.

The sample for this study consisted of 161 third through fifth-grade teachers in the

state of Texas that taught at-risk students. The questionnaire was used as a screening

mechanism and to collect self-reported baseline data with no statistical inference.

Questionnaire

Teachers who participated in the questionnaire were asked questions regarding

their demographics, their teaching beliefs about the teaching of nonfiction reading

comprehension, their teaching practices as instructional leaders within their classroom,

and the professional developments that helped to build their background for teaching

nonfiction reading comprehension to at-risk students. A complete accounting and break

down of all respondents’ answers may be found in Appendix F. Within in this appendix,

tables will be presented with highlighted information chosen by me as being important to

take note of.

Demographics. The respondents to the questionnaire were teachers with various

levels of experience, certifications, and the building of backgrounds (Table 1). The most

years of experience , 20 years or more, made up 32% of the respondents (n=52). The

highest degree awarded to 55% of the respondents (n=89) was a bachelor’s degree and

most of the respondents (n=113) had earned their teaching credentials through their

bachelor’s degree (70%). The K-8 Generalist certification (43%) was the most reported

from the respondents (n=69). When it came to the building of the pedagogy and content

knowledge of nonfiction reading, respondents (n=69) stated that it had been more than 10

years since the last college course in reading (43%), nonfiction reading comprehension

strategies (37%), or at-risk students (56%). Those respondent percentages indicated it had

been 10 years or more since any college course was taken and his may lead to a more

dated view of pedagogy.

Table 1

Demographic Data

Years of

Experience 0-5 years 6-10 years 11-15 years 16-20 years More than

20 years

11% 19% 21% 19% 30%

Highest Degree

Awarded Bachelors Masters Specialist Doctorate

55% 41% 1% 3%

Earned Teaching

Certificate

Bachelor’s

degree with

teaching

credential

Postbaccalaureate

certification

program (no degree

awarded)

Master’s

degree with

teaching

credential

Alternative

certification

70% 1% 5% 24%

Certification

Coverage

K or 1-4

Generalist

4 or 5-8

Generalist

K-8

Generalist

39% 20% 41%

Last formal course: In last 3-

years 4-6 years ago 7-10 years

ago

More than 10

years ago Never

in Reading 16% 9% 25% 43% 7%

in Nonfiction

Reading

Comprehension

Strategies

15% 8% 22% 37% 18%

in At-risk students 24% 8% 22% 33% 12%

Note. N = 161, due to rounding, not all rows equal 100%.

Teaching beliefs. Respondents were asked to report on their teaching beliefs of

what grade level reading and strategies that they felt students must possess to be able to

successfully navigate complex nonfiction text (Table 2). Fifty-six percent of respondents

(n=90) agreed that reading at their grade level was a struggle for their students because

they were still reading for learning with harder nonfiction material. Respondents strongly

agreed that to comprehend complex nonfiction texts, students must be able to activate

prior knowledge or build background (53%) (n=75), inference (61%) (n=86), generate

and answer questions (51%) (n=72), visualize (49%) (n=69), use text structure and

organization (50%) (n=71), monitor understanding and comprehension (60%) (n=85),

and be able to summarize (64%) (n=90).

Table 2

Belief of Reading for Learning (RFL) and Skills Necessary for Success

Reading at grade level is struggle

because of RFL and harder material.

Strongly

Disagree Disagree Not Sure Agree Strongly

Agree

3% 14% 9% 56% 18%

Skills Necessary for Success: Strongly

Disagree Disagree Not Sure Agree Strongly

Agree

Activating prior knowledge 8% 2% 0% 36% 53%

Inferencing 8% 2% 0% 28% 61%

Generating/ answering questions 8% 1% 4% 36% 51%

Visualizing text 8% 3% 2% 38% 49%

Text structure and organization 9% 1% 0% 40% 50%

Monitor understanding and

comprehension 7% 3% 0% 29% 60%

Summarize 7% 2% 2% 25% 64%

Note. Reading struggles (N = 161), Skills Necessary for Success (n = 141), due to

rounding, not all rows equal 100%.

Respondents (N=161.) were also asked to report the effect that school, districts, or

state mandates had on their nonfiction instruction in their classroom (Table 3). The

biggest inhibitors of instruction according to respondents was state testing and

accountability policies (43%) (n=69). The categories reflecting having a mixed impact on

instruction by respondents was labels given to students (45%) (n=72), district testing and

accountability policies (44%) (n=71), and student’s general reading ability upon entering

the grade level (43%) (n=69). Respondents reported that the time given for planning

(49%) (n=79), time given for professional development (48%) (n=77), and current state

standards for subject (48%) (n=77) all promoted effective instruction.

Table 3

Effect of State and Local Policies on Nonfiction Instruction

Effect on Nonfiction Instruction

Inhibits

effective

instruction

Mixed

Promotes

effective

instruction

Not Sure

Current state standards for subject 5% 40% 48% 7%

District or state pacing guides 21% 43% 29% 7%

State testing/accountability policies 43% 34% 18% 5%

District testing/accountability policies 30% 44% 22% 4%

Students reading ability upon entering grade 19% 43% 32% 6%

Time for planning 21% 24% 49% 6%

Time for professional development 13% 33% 48% 6%

Label given to a student 22% 45% 22% 11%

Note. N = 161.

Instruction and leadership in the classroom. Respondents were asked to reflect

on their generalized nonfiction reading strategy instruction within the classroom and

themselves, as instructional leaders (Table 4). Fifty-four percent of respondents (n=87)

reported that they alone delivered most of the nonfiction strategy instruction. More than

53% of the respondents (n=85) said they had more than 15 students labeled At-risk

because they were departmentalized, meaning they teach multiple subjects to their

students. When asked about their feeling of preparedness in teaching nonfiction reading

strategies, respondents felt most prepared in teaching activating background and prior

knowledge (51%) (n=82) and visualizing (50%) (n=81). Respondents were also asked to

report on how well prepared they are planning and implementing nonfiction reading

comprehension strategies within their instruction in the classroom. Respondents reported

being very well prepared to have taught nonfiction reading comprehension strategies to

students (42%) (n=68). When respondents were asked about their preparedness to plan

instruction for different needs, 42% (n=68) reported feeling somewhat prepared.

Additionally, respondents reported they felt somewhat prepared to have taught nonfiction

reading comprehension strategies to students who are late emerging strugglers or labeled

at risk (41%) (n=66). The respondents also reported somewhat being prepared (36%)

(n=58) to differentiate nonfiction reading comprehension instruction to have met the

needs of students who are late-emerging struggling readers or labeled at-risk.

Table 4

Generalized Nonfiction Reading Strategy Instruction (NRSI)

Provision of NRSI to whole class Only from

teacher

Teacher

and

someone

else

Only

from

someone

else

54% 29% 17%

At-risk on roster 1-5

students

6-10

students

11-15

students

Departmentalized:

more than 15 None

11% 18% 16% 53% 2%

Preparedness of Content

Not

adequately

prepared

Somewhat

prepared

Fairly

well

prepared

Very well

prepared

Activating prior and background

knowledge 0% 12% 37% 51%

Visualization 0% 16% 34% 50%

Preparedness of Instruction

Not

adequately

prepared

Somewhat

prepared

Fairly

well

prepared

Very well

prepared

in planning instruction for different

levels 2% 25% 42% 30%

teaching nonfiction to whole class 2% 18% 37% 42%

teaching nonfiction to LERD or at-

risk 9% 25% 41% 25%

differentiating to have met needs 8% 28% 36% 28%

Note. N = 161.

Respondents were asked to report on the structure of their planning and instruction

in the classroom (Table 5). Both teaching reading strategy ideas for their subject to the

whole class and checking for nonfiction comprehension of materials was reported by

respondents as being done all the time (52%) (n=84). Respondents reported often (40%)

(n=64) both planning comprehension lessons for their subject around the needs of their

at-risk students and differentiating lessons to have met nonfiction comprehension needs.

Respondents were, also, asked to report on how often they teach with direct instruction

nonfiction comprehension strategies using modeling, think alouds, and/or give

opportunities for authentic practice. Respondents reported all of the time activating prior

knowledge and background in lessons (63%) (n=101), of using monitor understanding

and comprehension and finding a fix in their lessons for their students (58%) (n=93), and

generating and answering questions during lessons (55%) (n=89). The lowest reported

skill taught by respondents was using text structure and organization all of the time (40%)

(n=64).

Table 5

Planning and Instruction Strategy

Planning and Instruction Strategy Never

Rarely (A

few times

a year)

Sometimes

(Once or

twice a

month)

Often

(Once or

twice a

week)

All the

time

Teaching reading strategy to whole class 2% 2% 9% 35% 52%

Checking for comprehension of nonfiction

materials 3% 4% 8% 33% 52%

Planning comprehension lessons with Atrisk

in mind 6% 3% 13% 40% 38%

Differentiating lessons for needs 3% 6% 12% 40% 39%

Direct Instruction Strategies Never

Rarely (A

few times

a year)

Sometimes

(Once or

twice a

month)

Often

(Once or

twice a

week)

All the

time

Activating prior knowledge and

background 0% 2% 6% 29% 63%

Generating and answering questions 0% 5% 11% 29% 55%

Text structure and organization 2% 5% 13% 39% 40%

Monitoring understanding/comprehension 1% 2% 10% 29% 58%

Note. N = 161.

In reflecting on beliefs as the instructional leader (Table 6), respondents reported

agreeing (45%) (n=72) that nonfiction strategy instruction should be taught in all

subjects. Respondents reported to be in agreement that inadequacies in a student’s

nonfiction reading background can be overcome by effective teaching (47%) (n=76).

Respondents strongly agreed (71%) (n=114) that to be an effective, teachers must know

what they are teaching, how to have taught in general, and their students’ strengths and

weaknesses. To the statement that a late-emerging struggling readers who can read

fluently but cannot comprehend just need more time in the subject, respondents reported

as disagreeing (32%) (n=52). Forty-eight percent of respondents agreed that a student

with an at-risk label indicates that the teacher will need to approach teaching differently

(n=77). Respondents reported agreeing (30%) (n=48) that differentiation is only effective

if it is planned ahead of time for inclusion within a lesson.

Table 6

Belief as the Instructional Leader

Strongly Not Strongly Belief as the

Instructional Leader Disagree Agree

disagree Sure Agree

Learning to read in upper elementary 0% 3% 2% 45% 50%

Instructors should not focus on reading if not a reading

teacher or in curriculum 67% 25% 3% 3% 2%

Nonfiction reading strategies should be taught no

matter the subject 0% 5% 6% 45% 44%

Inadequacies in background can be overcome with

effective teaching 1% 5% 15% 47% 32%

To be effective, teachers should know content,

instruction, and students 0% 0% 3% 26% 71%

Late emerging reading difficulties just need more time in

subject 7% 32% 21% 25% 15%

A student at-risk needs instruction differently 1% 11% 10% 48% 30%

Differentiation needs to be done ahead of time to be 3% 20% 17% 30% 30%

effective

Note. N = 161.

Professional development. Respondents were asked to focus on professional

development in reading (Table 7), at-risk learning (Table 8), and at-risk reading (Table 9)

they had participated in and report on specific dynamics of the courses as a means of

having helped them build their pedagogy and content knowledge. Specifically related to

reading professional development, 74% of the respondents (n=104)) reported that they

had, as recently as the current school year, taken a course in reading and 43% stated it

was assigned by the school or district (n=61). The amount of the reading professional

development that was focused on nonfiction reading was reported at 33% by respondents

(n=47). Respondents reported in the reading professional development of somewhat

seeing being used modeling (54%) (n=76), classroom artifacts (41%) (n=58), a follow-up

(36%) (n=51), collaboration at the district level (34%) (n=48), and to a great extent

collaborated at the campus level (45%) (n=63). Sixty-eight percent of respondents

reported that they did not consider the reading professional development they participated

in a waste of time (n=96).

Table 7

Reading Professional Development (RPD)

Last participated in RPD

Current

school

year

Last year Between

3-5 years

Between 6-

10 years

than 10

years

74% 16% 7% 1% 1%

Type of RPD Assigned Choice

offered

Reading

association

Learning

Committee

43% 37% 12% 8%

Amount of RPD focused on

nonfiction

Less than

10% 11-25% Closer to

50%

Between

50-75% All of it None

of it

16% 33% 24% 16% 9% 1%

Extent of opportunities to: Not at all Somewhat To a great

extent

see modeling 11% 54% 34%

examine classroom artifacts 32% 41% 27%

follow-up 30% 36% 34%

school collaboration 13% 43% 44%

district collaboration 34% 48% 18%

waste of time of RPD 68% 25% 7%

Note. n = 141.

Fifty-two percent of the respondents (n=61) reported that they had, as recently as

the current school year, taken a course in at-risk learning and 53% stated it was assigned

by the school or district (n=62). In the at-risk learning professional development, reported

techniques by respondents included somewhat seeing modeling (48%) (n=56), classroom

artifacts (41%) (n=48), had a follow-up (45%) (n=53), and collaboration at the campus

level and district level (46%) (n=54). Sixty-six percent did not consider the atrisk

learning professional development they participated in a waste of time (n=77).

Table 8

At-Risk Learning Professional Development (ALPD)

Last participated in ALPD

In the

current

school

year

Last

school

year

Between 35

years

Between 6-

8 years ago

than 8

years

52%

29%

15%

Type of ALPD

School or

district

assigned

Choice

offered by

school or

district

Reading

teachers

association

Professional

learning

Committee

53% 35% 7% 5%

Extent of opportunities to: Not at all Somewhat To a great

extent

see modeling 21% 48% 30%

examine classroom artifacts 32% 41% 27%

follow-up 27% 45% 28%

school collaboration 13% 46% 41%

district collaboration 38% 46% 16%

waste of time of ALPD 66% 29% 5%

Note. n = 117.

Fifty-eight percent of the respondents (n=56) reported that they had as recently as

the current school year taken a course in at-risk reading and equally 42% stated it was

assigned by the school or district or taken by choice offered by the school or district

(n=40). In the at-risk learning professional development, reported techniques by

respondents included somewhat seeing modeling (57%) (n=55), classroom artifacts

(51%) (n=49), had a follow-up (49%) (n=47), collaboration at the campus level (48%)

(n=46), and collaboration at the district level (44%) (n=42). Sixty-eight percent of

respondents did not consider the reading professional development they participated in a

waste of time (n=65).

Table 9

At-Risk Reading Professional Development (ARPD)

Last participated in ARPD In the

current

school

year

Last school

year

Between 3-5

years

Between 68

years

More than 8

years

58% 19% 17% 5% 1%

Type of ARPD

School or

district

assigned

Choice

offered by

school or

district

Reading

teachers

association

Professional

learning

Committee

42% 42% 9% 7%

Extent of opportunities to: Not at all Somewhat To a great

extent

see modeling 11% 57% 32%

examine classroom artifacts 24% 51% 25%

for follow-up after use in

classroom 20% 49% 31%

school collaboration 13% 47% 40%

district collaboration 33% 44% 23%

waste of time of ARPD 68% 28% 4%

Note. n = 96.

After reporting on their perspectives of the focused professional development on

reading, at-risk learning, and at-risk reading, respondents were next requested to report on

the end learning of the professional development (Table 10). Fifty-three percent of

respondents reported that the professional development somewhat deepened reading

content knowledge (n=85), 53% taught them how to have taught nonfiction reading in a

subject (n=85), and 51% reported it helped them to gain an understanding of the

difficulties students may have with nonfiction reading for a subject (51%) (n=82).

Respondents, also, reported that they felt they somewhat better understand how to check

with student what they think or already know about nonfiction reading strategies prior to

instruction (53%) (n=85). Respondents reported they were somewhat given the

foundation to integrate a nonfiction reading program within the classroom (37%) (n=60).

In looking at all of the professional development participated in, respondents reported

that somewhat of an understanding was gained on how to plan instruction for at-risk

student success (38%) (n=61) but 50% reported to a great extent gained an understanding

of how to monitor ) and assess understanding by students (n=81).

Table 10

Understandings From All Professional Development

To a

Reported Understanding and End Learning Not at all Somewhat great

extent

Deepening of own reading content knowledge 17% 53% 30%

Learning how to have taught subject nonfiction reading

comprehension 13% 53% 34%

Learning about difficulties that students may have 17% 51% 32%

Finding out what students think or already prior to instruction 23% 51% 26%

Implementing a nonfiction reading strategy instruction program 27% 37% 36%

The planning of instruction so at-risk students can increase their

understanding and comprehension 25% 38% 37%

Monitor understanding of student during reading instruction 12% 38% 50%

Assessing student understand and comprehension 11% 39% 50%

Note. N = 161.

Interview

The interviews were conducted with 10 teacher participants. I placed all data third

cycle coding into an Excel document by research sub-question looking for emerged key

elements that helped to generate themes. Additionally, those key elements helped in

building a general picture of the description of how upper elementary teachers in Texas

build and use their pedagogical content knowledge for nonfiction reading comprehension

strategies instruction (see Appendix F). Three themes emerged through all of the data

coding of the open-ended semi-structured scenario interview in relation to the three

research sub-questions. Those themes were grooming, driving force of instruction, and

differentiating vs. rescuing.

Theme 1: Grooming. Grooming, as being used in this study, is the on-the-job

training that takes place where connection, collaboration, and support is offered by

colleagues, administrators, and auxiliary staff to help a teacher build his or her skill base

in the instruction of nonfiction reading. This theme emerged from the interviews with

each of the participants in response to the questions regarding what, in their opinion, had

most helped them in preparing to have taught nonfiction reading strategies in the

classroom. Participant 3.2 reported that the “on-the-job training” is what prepared her

most for teaching nonfiction reading to her students.

Collaboration with peers was a way that respondents reported the building of their

pedagogy and content knowledge and encompasses the grooming, or on the job training.

Participant 3.3 reported “working with some really strong teachers” that helped her out.

Participant 4.1 reported “at any time that I don’t know something or need help with

something, I can just phone a friend, a colleague, to get the help I need.” Participant 4.2

reported that it was “colleagues and being blessed with principals in the past who have

sent me to every training I wanted” that helped her to be the teacher of reading that she is

today. Participant 3.3 gave credit to “some really strong teachers who helped me out and

on-the-job training” as to what helped her the most in teaching reading strategies.

Participant 4.3 divulged that a really strong “fourth grade team is what guided me in

teaching reading when I first started.” Collaboration seemed to help build the pedagogical

foundation.

On-the-job training, or what this study refers to as grooming, can be mandated or

completed by choice and take the form of a professional development session. For nine of

the participants, professional development was also credited for helping to build their

knowledge of how to have taught nonfiction reading. Participant 5.4 addressed this

finding during her interview by stating that she had received “more in-depth training over

the last three years regarding newer reading research provided by my district experience

which has helped me as a teacher”. Participant 5.2 shared that it was “new strategies for

reading comprehension [given] during staff development” that helped prepare her for

teaching nonfiction reading. Participant 4.4 stated that “PD [professional development] is

what mainly helped prepare and helped me to have taught reading.” It was even

suggested that professional development in nonfiction reading should happen for other

content areas as well. Participant 3.1 felt that reading professional development should be

included in content professional development, like math, as “I realize now we are all

reading teachers and nothing has prepared me to have taught nonfiction reading strategies

in Math, even though we do reading in math.”

The state of Texas may also be recognizing the importance of grooming or on the

job training for the classroom. The Texas Education Agency, through their regional

education centers, a literacy achievement training called Reading to Learn. In the summer

of 2018, 1,322 third- through fifth grade teachers committed to participating in the

15month professional development series that included five days of summer training and

additional training throughout the year with access to instructional coaching and

differentiated learning pathways. This professional development is built to maximize the

learning and its influence on instruction in the classroom.

Interestingly, nine of the participants went so far as to say their specialization in

college or alternative certification courses did nothing to help them teach nonfiction

reading. Participant 3.2 described that her specialization was in reading “even though, it

did not prepare me to have taught nonfiction. The only nonfiction reading we did was

with graphic organizers.” Participant 4.1, who is alternatively certified, stated he went

alternatively certified because “when [he] was in [his] senior year as that was the quickest

way to get certified without having to do all of the extra. Helped me to take the test but

very little for teaching.” Those responses may give additional credit to the importance to

on-the-job training.

The grooming, or on-the-job-training, that takes place seemed to influence the

instruction within the classroom. One of the questions asked during the interview was

how did the participants see their instruction changing over time. Participant 3.3, in her

05- years of experience, felt “each year I come across a new demographic [of students]

that I can work with and improve so that I am adjusting and learning.” Participant 4.4,

with 16-20-years of experience, responded that instructing in the class had “completely

and 100% change. My first teaching was a lot of lecture and assignments and now

instruction is a very minor part in front of the whole class. There is the inclusion of a lot

more small group.” Participant 5.2 simply summed up the change in her instruction over

the last 24 years as “differentiation being done.” The change seen over everyone’s years

of experience seemed to be in response to the training and the changed needs of the

students.

Theme 2: Driving force of instruction. The driving force of instruction is the

convergence of knowledges that make the base for teaching. Convergence of knowledges

serves as the foundation for effective instruction in the classroom. Those knowledges

include, as related in Theme 1, having knowledge about teaching nonfiction reading and

content knowledge, via collaboration or professional development that is important to

effective instruction. and begins as the base of instruction. Participant 4.3 reported that to

be effective she was “require[d] to lay the foundation ahead of time.” Added to that base

is also knowledge of the student needs. Participant 4.4 stated the relationship you form

with your students is what helps you “to address kids where they are at.” What at times

maybe overlooked in the base of instruction is the teacher’s efficacy in teaching

nonfiction students. This theme emerged from the interviews with each of the participants

in response to the questions regarding what, in their opinion, were the struggles they

viewed their students having with nonfiction reading and how they characterized their

ability in teaching those struggling students.

Reported by participants during the interviews were student struggles with the

rigor and complexity of text, as well as, students’ emotional responses to the struggle.

Participant 5.1 reported that “the complexity of nonfiction [makes it] a struggle for at-risk

learners to feel successful in the strategies we are teaching because most of it is at grade

level and my at-risk learners are not usually on grade level.” Participant 4.3 reported the

“level of text, length of text is very intimidating, and level of readability of text is really

hard and the way the content is organized is tough for them to follow.” Participant 4.1

reported that with some of his at-risk students the readability, complexity, and level of the

text was so above their level that “I saw it in their eyes ‘I’m done, I have tried, I give

up.’” Interview 3.1 stated that “when everything is so hard and you are not getting

anything than its easy to give up.” This then led, according to the participants, noted

struggles with motivation (3), interest (4), endurance (5), and lack of confidence (7).

However, those struggles were not limited to the students. Participants also noted

similar struggles when commenting on their view of his or her ability to have taught those

students that struggle. The struggles related to have meeting the needs of at-risk students

stems from the level of reading that students enter the grade level along with skill deficits.

However, interestingly, communicated recurrently was that the struggles perceived by the

participants had nothing to do with the individual student needs and all to do with

respondents’ mindset (5), previous experiences or focus (6), and resources (4). Participant

4.2 noted that “part of the reason [for the struggles] is because there is no definition that

follows every at-risk child. They are unique and have unique needs.” Participant 4.1, with

between 0-5-years of experience, reported that he often feels frustrations with “student

who may have slipped through the cracks and they should not have.” Participant 3.1, with

11-15 years of experience reported, “It’s hard for me to figure out what are the struggles

and it frustrates me because I can’t understand what’s going on in [their] heads and they

sometimes can’t tell me. I get frustrated because I can’t fix it.” Participant 4.2 with 11-15

years of experience concurs with the sentiments of Participant

3.1 and goes so far as to report, “I am struggling on trying to figure out how to help them.

It’s not the students; it’s me and I know I gotta figure something out than what I am doing

to help those kids.” Participant 3.1 described the experience of teaching at-risk at times

“as though I am against a wall that I can’t see around or through.” When asked about a

description of how the interviewees perceived their ability in their teaching of nonfiction

reading to at-risk students, nine of the participants had a negative response. Repeatedly,

words or phrases describing frustration (8), struggling (5), or being unqualified (2) were

reported by participants. Participant 4.4 summed up her experience by reporting “it can

be frustrating for me when trying all of this stuff and sometimes [it] does not work.”

However, Participant 4.4 did follow up this statement: “It can all be very frustrating and

struggle but I love my job and this is part of it.”

This mixture of negative and positive was not in isolation. In addition to

Participant 4.4, three additional participants ended on a positive note despite the negative

emotions expressed. Participant 3.1 feels that she is “driven to work with those kids-the

ones who need the help the most as I don’t want them to struggle like I did”. Participant

4.1 stated that working with those students is “challenging and rewarding when you can

help those kids.” Participant 3.3 stated that working with those students “can be a struggle

but it’s worth it.”

Theme 3: Differentiating vs. rescuing. Differentiation for this study primarily

explored how teachers use their pedagogy and content knowledge to differentiate, or

adjust, their instruction, the resources, or the final product to have met the needs of their

at-risk students. Differentiation is rooted in a combination of a teacher’s knowledge of his

or her students and the knowledge possessed about pedagogy and content. This theme

emerged from the interviews with each of the participants in response to questions

regarding how they would differentiate their lesson based on the characteristics described

of three hypothetical at-risk students.

In the state of Texas, a label is placed on students who show signs of being at-risk

for academic failure, whether that be through failure of the state assessment or failure to

have met grade level expectations. The at-risk label travels with them as they move

through the educational system and teachers are made aware starting at the beginning of

the school year.

All participants (10) came up with differentiating or scaffolding techniques to help

Johnny, the hypothetical student who had good reading fluency but could not

comprehend. Nine of the participants came up with differentiating or scaffolding

techniques to help Sally, the hypothetical student who read fiction well but struggled with

identifying key details. Nine of the participants came up with differentiating or

scaffolding techniques to help Tommy, the hypothetical student who takes a long time to

read and has struggles with metacognition strategies. One participant who struggled to

answer or come up with a response for both Sally and Tommy has only been teaching for

three years and felt that their “teaching strategies toolbox was on empty” and that was the

reason they felt they had not given an adequate response.

Johnny. For Johnny, most participants were focused on actions that were done by

themselves for the student (7), on monitoring understanding and comprehension (6), and

requiring him to show his thinking through annotation (4). Participants also spoke of

modifying the assignment or chunking it (5) due to the student characteristic inferred that

he is “taking a long time to do it” (3) despite the scenario not stating such. The

differentiation noted from participants answers beyond changes to the material for Johnny

were changes to instruction (9) used a gradual release model, small group, or working one

on one. Participant 5.1 planned to pull him into her small group and “highlight key details

for him as that would probably support his learning best.” Participant 5.2 would pre-teach

the information and “highlight the information or box with colors the information [in the

reading] for the different areas of the graph.”

Participant 3.2 would “chunk the reading, only giving him one section at a time.”

Participant 4.2 was the only one who noted that the end product would be differentiated

for Johnny to where “we would do the whole passage together and do that representation

together.”

Sally. For Sally, most participants were focused on actions that were done by the

student (7) through highlighting key details (5) and using a graphic organizer (6) based on

previous experiences with students in the teacher’s past that were like Sally (7).

100

Participants focused their answers on the inferred need for text structure (6) by Sally,

although this was not mentioned in the scenario. Participant 4.3 stated that students, like

Sally, who struggle with any type of comprehension often “don’t pick up on the text

structure patterns because developmentally they are not ready.” Participant 5.4 concurred

with Participant 4.3 by stating that Sally would benefit in her, the teacher, “giving lessons

breaking the text down by paragraphs or subtitled section,” as this would help her to

focus on the main idea and topic.

Tommy. For Tommy, most of the participants focused on changing the material

(6), instruction (7), or the final project (4) as a means of meeting his needs. Six of the

participants would have Tommy annotate his thinking to the side of his paragraphs

through words, phrases, or pictures. This time participants were given the characteristic of

it taking the hypothetical student a long time to read. This is what 8 of the participants

honed in on in their responses to how they would differentiate for Tommy’s needs.

Participant 3.1 stated that she would “modify the assignment or chunk it down to only its

essence so they only had to focus on what was needed for the activity.” In Participant’s

3.1’s response she stated she would also need to consider “Am I looking at his capability

to read or am I looking at his capability to make a chart?” Participant 5.1 stated that she

would “find a similar text or alternate article that is not so long as the regular class is

getting.” Participant 4.4 would have the whole assignment done as a group and “have a

big, gigantic table poster for all of us working on the chart.” Participant 5.2 would

“modify his work so that he would only show a portion of the material on the graph.”

Only Participant 3.3 focused on using a gradual release that would have Tommy working

101

independently at the end of the project as “using ‘I Do, We Do, You Do’ is a strategy that

is kind of self-monitoring and [he]will find success.”

All of the participants’ responses (10), were focused on differentiating to have met

a stated or assumed need on a hypothetical student. However, observed in the analysis of

all responses to the three hypothetical students was the recurrence of an imbalance

between the teacher’s actions for the student and what the student would be doing for

themselves. In Johnny’s responses, the participants described 15 teacher-led action

compared to 10 student-led action. In Sally’s responses, the participants described seven

teacher-led actions compared to six student-led actions. In Tommy’s responses, the

participants described 11 teacher-led actions compared to four student-led actions. The

imbalance noted, especially with Johnny’s responses and Tommy’s responses, may show

a tendency of teachers to rescue students from their difficulties for ease of assignment or

task versus working with them to learn the skill. It is inferred that if teachers are rescuing

at-risk students to make learning easier for them, and never advancing the complexity or

lessening the need by addressing areas of improvement; then students may find success

but not learn to independently work or reach predetermined grade level standards. This

may be a possible explanation of why at-risk repeatedly in upper elementary in Texas at

the local and national level are displaying poor assessment scores and repeated failures

year after year.

Research Question Findings

The purpose of this exploratory single case study was to gain a deeper insight on

the pedagogical content knowledge of Texas upper elementary teachers who teach

102

nonfiction reading comprehension strategies to at-risk students who do not qualify for

special education services. The central question: How do upper elementary teachers in

Texas describe their pedagogical content knowledge for nonfiction reading

comprehension strategies instruction? Answering this question, required a step-by-step

approach through the use of sub-research questions. Sub-research question 1 asked

thirdthrough fifth-grade teachers to report about their pedagogical content knowledge

experience in teaching expository text comprehension to upper elementary students.

Subresearch question 2 asked third-through fifth-grade teachers to report how they

developed their content knowledge and skills to instruct expository text comprehension.

Subresearch question 3 asked third-through fifth-grade teachers to report on the

differentiation approaches they would implement with their instruction to have met the

needs of at-risk, late-emerging reading difficulties students. This case study used

responses to a questionnaire, participants in an open-ended semi-structured interview, and

one public data document on the number of participants who took part in a state

sponsored reading professional development together to help to formulate a response.

Subquestion 1. What do third- through fifth- grade teachers report about their

pedagogical content knowledge experience when teaching expository text comprehension

to upper elementary students?

The pedagogical content knowledge experience when teaching expository text

comprehension to upper elementary students is complicated by the reported conflicting

paradigms present in classrooms causing struggles for students and teachers. The

paradigm used for nonfiction comprehension instruction is a driving force. Seventy-four

103

percent of respondents (n=119) identified and agreed that reading at the grade level is a

struggle because of the expected reading for learning paradigm used with more difficult

material. At the same time, respondents acknowledged and agreed (95%) (n=153) that

students are still learning to read in upper elementary. Those two paradigms are in

conflict with each other. Participant 5.1 reported that “the complexity of the nonfiction

[makes it] a struggle for at-risk learners to feel successful in the strategies we are teaching

because most of it is at grade level and my at-risk learners are not usually on grade level.”

Participant 4.3 reported the “level of text, length of text is very intimidating, and level of

readability of text is really hard and the way the content is organized is tough for them to

follow.”

Participants report students who are considered at-risk and have problems with

comprehension often face struggles that impact the whole child, from their inner affective

and belief in their capabilities (6) to their behaviors (4) with a lack of perseverance (5)

and strategies needed during reading (7). Participant 4.2 reported that the struggle with

comprehension for at-risk students is “like an unbreakable code.” Those issues reported

by participants may be exasperated by the student’s lack of background (3), the

complexity and rigor of text (9), and lack of ability to monitor comprehension (6).

Participants report teachers of at-risk students struggle with the teacher’s perspectives in

their limitations as instructors. Participant 4.4 reported that it was “frustrating for me

when trying all of this stuff [strategies] and nothing works.” Although seemingly negative

in reporting, participants were driven in their instruction of at-risk students by how they

viewed their previous experiences and perception of their success or failure as a teacher.

104

Participant 3.3 reported that “us teachers, are like OK, I gave you this wonderful strategy

and it was beautiful and you did it for me one day and now do it again.” The perceived

struggles reported were not as centered on the individual student needs and all to do with

teacher’s mindset, focus, and resources. Participant 5.4 reported,

“I am very comfortable teaching nonfiction text because I like it.” Conversely, Participant

3.2 reported “I did not like nonfiction as a child and didn’t use it or feel I was good with it

teaching until the writing got better. Now, I can use it with students and we learn

together.” Participant 5.1 reported “I have difficulties and find it frustrating that I can’t

find the leveled materials that my at-risk students need to be successful.” In none of the

interviews was it reported that it was a student’s inability caused failure; rather it was the

complexity of the reading or the failure of the teacher in meeting students’ needs. Those

findings seem to support the sentiment that struggling comprehension during the shift

may be the result of a lack of the ability on the student’s part to apply the complex and

metacognitive skills necessary to process the information being presented.

Subquestion 2. How do teachers of upper elementary report developing their

content knowledge and skills to instruct expository text comprehension?

Teachers of upper elementary report developing their content knowledge and

skills in instructing expository text comprehension from a variety of sources to include a

bachelor’s degree program with teaching credentials (70%) (n=113), alternative

certification (24%) (n=39), professional development (7), and peer collaboration (5).

Participant 4.1 reported, “The alt cert program did an excellent job of preparing me to

take the test, but in the end did very little for actually preparing me for the classroom.”

105

Participants reported that the development on their pedagogy and content knowledge had

little to do with their formal courses (8) and more to do with peer collaboration (7) and

professional development (8). Participant 5.4 reported that she “learned how to have

taught reading from personal knowledge, professional development, and other peers.”

Participant 3.3 reported, “on-the-job training and professional development [and] I have

been lucky to be working with some really strong teachers who also help me out.”

Participant 5.1 reported, “I’ve gone to multiple trainings that have helped me, uhh, learn

how to help students approach nonfiction reading.” Participant 4.4 reported, “I would

have to say that PD is what mainly helped prepare and helped me to have taught reading.”

It is the collaboration with others through professional development that happens in on-

the-job training that was most reported as being the source for building the foundation to

have taught nonfiction reading comprehension.

Collaboration with peers was another way that participants reported the building

of their pedagogy and content knowledge. Collaboration was found at the campus level

throughout all reporting from respondents and participants. In the interview, participants

reported their peers (7) as having helped them to learn how to have taught nonfiction

reading comprehension. Participant 4.3 stated a strong team “guid[ed] me and help[ed]

me” and her principal “blessed and allowed me to go in and spend lots of time observing

her top teachers.” Participant 5.1 reported that she grew the most in her nonfiction

reading comprehension instruction through the help of “a mentor teacher who opened me

up to new ideas and best practices which benefitted my instruction for my kids.”

106

Collaboration seemed to be consistently used as a means of getting the on-the-job

training.

Subquestion 3. What differentiation approaches do upper elementary teachers

implement with their instruction to have met the needs of at-risk, late-emerging reading

difficulties students?

The differentiation approaches that upper elementary teachers report

implementing with their instruction to have met the needs of at-risk, late-emerging

reading difficulties students is based on the understanding that something needs to be

adjusted to reach the level of learning required at the grade levels. Ten of participants

responded they would differentiate to have met student needs. Seventy-eight percent of

respondents (n=126) report agreeing to the statement that a student with an at-risk label

needs to have instruction approached differently. Respondents reported agreement (97%)

(n=156) that to be an effective teacher the teacher should know content, instruction, and

students and 6 agreed for differentiation to be effective it must be planned ahead of time.

Participant 4.4 reported that the relationship is what helps you “to address kids where

they are at.” This is the key to differentiation. Respondents reported 39% of the time they

actively planned comprehension lessons for their subject around the needs of the at-risk

students (n=63). Forty-three percent of respondents reported being fairly well prepared to

plan instruction so students at different levels of achievement can increase their

understanding of the ideas targeted in each activity (n=69). Respondents, also, reported

that they feel only fairly well or somewhat well (64%) (n=103) prepared to differentiated

nonfiction reading comprehension instruction to have met the needs of students who are

107

late-emerging, struggling readers or labeled at-risk. It is inferred that there is knowledge

by teachers that differentiation should be done to have met the needs of the students, but

insecurities on how to do it.

The struggles related to have meeting the needs of at-risk students stems from the

level of reading that students enter the grade level with along with the deficits in skills.

Participant 4.2 noted that “part of the reason [for the struggles] is because there is no

definition that follows every at-risk child. They are unique and have unique needs.” Most

of the differentiation reported by participants was to the materials and instruction

techniques used with the hypothetical at-risk student. Participants reported looking for

easier material or material on a lower level (6) to differentiate for the students.

Participants reported most often chunking the assignment (9), highlighting key details by

either the teacher or student (7), having students annotate through words or phrases next

to the material (7), and making the learning more individualized using a gradual release

model, small group, or one-to-one to work with the students (7). Only once (1) was

differentiation to the end product reported by participants. The attempt with all of those

differentiation techniques was to help the student access the material and find success.

Summary

The purpose of this exploratory single case study is to gain more in-depth insight

on the pedagogical content knowledge of Texas upper elementary teachers who teach

nonfiction reading comprehension strategies to at-risk students who do not qualify for

special education services. In this chapter, I presented detailed information on how I

obtained my sample, how data was collected using three data sources, and how it was

108

analyzed using open coding and inductive analysis. The data sources included 161 Texas

third-through fifth-grade upper elementary respondents to an emailed questionnaire, 10

teacher interviews, and a public information document on reading comprehension

professional development sessions held throughout the state. I presented the emerged

detail findings of the questionnaire, the emerged themes of the interviews, and answered

the three sub-research questions using the findings.

In Chapter 5, I will discuss the study’s strengths, limitations, recommendations for

future studies, and implications for social change. I will also discuss recommendations for

what to consider with future nonfiction reading comprehension instruction and at-risk,

late-emerging reading difficulty students.

Chapter 5: Discussions, Conclusions, Recommendations

Introduction

After a shift in upper elementary reading that emphasized complex learning

through the use of nonfiction text, a concern in Texas schools emerged when data from

2013-2018 showed low performance in reading comprehension scores. A third of upper

elementary students were unable to meet minimum grade-level comprehension, which led

to an at-risk label and continued academic struggle and failure (U.S. Department of

Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics,

2016, 2015b; Texas Education Agency, 2013, 2014, 2015b, 2016, 2017a, 2018a). The

purpose of this exploratory single case study was to gain in-depth insight on the

pedagogical content knowledge of Texas upper elementary teachers who teach nonfiction

reading comprehension strategies to at-risk students who do not qualify for special

109

education services. The central research question addressed how upper elementary

teachers in Texas describe their pedagogical content knowledge for nonfiction reading

comprehension strategies instruction. Three subquestions addressed how teachers view

the building of pedagogical content knowledge and their use of pedagogical content

knowledge while preparing and instructing students. Chapter 5 includes my reflections

and conclusions on the reported pedagogical content knowledge used in upper elementary

classrooms, including how this knowledge is developed. I also present the social change

implications of this study. Finally, I discuss the applications and directions for future

research.

Interpretation of Findings

Key findings indicated a paradigm conflict between reading to learn and learning

to read that exists in upper elementary classrooms. This conflict can lead to struggles with

teachers and students in meeting grade-level demand. To help with the struggles and

grade-level demand for nonfiction reading comprehension, most teachers reported using

collaboration with peers or professional development as a means of developing their

pedagogy and content knowledge. Teachers reported the use of several sources of

knowledge required for effectiveness of instruction in the classroom, which aligned with

the conceptual framework of Shulman’s (1986) pedagogical content knowledge model.

When it comes to using their pedagogy and content knowledge to meet the needs of

students, teachers must also know their students to differentiate effectively. The combined

knowledges required for effectively meeting student needs in the classroom aligns with

Shulman’s (1986) pedagogical content knowledge model, as well as Tomlinson’s (2013)

110

differentiated instruction model. Differentiation occurs at the classroom level and is

individualized; however, according to participants in the current study, the style seems to

be more like an attempt to rescue students from their struggles rather than giving them the

skills necessary to succeed.

Much is done in classrooms to teach nonfiction reading comprehension to upper

elementary students that does not align with the literature reviewed in Chapter 2. The

results from the current study indicated that a possible cause for longitudinal scores

nationally and locally was not a lack of teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge level of

nonfiction reading instruction and skills, as indicated in the studies of Clarke et al.

(2017), Droop et al. (2016), Griffith et al. (2016), and Sibberson and Szymusiak (2016).

Findings from previous studies indicated that little instruction was offered to students in

how to comprehend nonfiction or instructional text (Durkin, 1978; Johnson, 2018; Ness,

2015; RAND Reading Study Group, 2002). However, participants in the current study

reported using instruction, gradual release, small groups, and other techniques to help

students comprehend material. There was no indication that teachers struggled to identify

the specific needs of students. Additionally, there was no indication that teachers were

struggling with knowing how to address students’ needs, as Moreau (2014) and Gaitas

and Martins (2017) found, unless they had little or no experience.

One of the struggles reported by participants seems to have derived from the

opposing paradigms of reading to learn and learning to read (see Leidig et al., 2018). The

results from this study were consistent with Leidig et al.’s (2018) finding that struggling

comprehension during the shift may be the result of a lack of ability on the student’s part

111

to apply the complex and metacognitive skills necessary to process the information being

presented.

I found that teachers of upper elementary students reported using the pedagogy

and specialized curricular understandings to teach, as presented by Shulman (1986). This

capability by teachers is a convergence of knowledge crucial for effective teaching.

Teachers, through their responses and participation, also acknowledged that teachers’

knowledge of students is essential for effective teaching. Teachers also reported that

adaptation of the individualized learning, or differentiation to instruction, to meet the

needs of students is effective for instruction. Teacher grooming, or on-the-job training,

through collaboration or professional development was used to increase the knowledge

base for reading instruction, at-risk learning, or at-risk learning that was used in the

classroom.

However, teachers reported that the reading instruction professional development

was missing an emphasis on nonfiction techniques. This finding was consistent with

results from previous studies (Cirino et al., 2013; Fisher & Frey, 2015; Hughes &

ParkerKatz, 2013; Massey, 2014; Simmons et al., 2014; Stead, 2014) regarding teachers’

lack of exposure to nonfiction text reading comprehension strategies, which could lead to

students’ struggling to master skills associated with comprehension information and may

be connected to low reading achievement scores. Nonfiction requires a different skill set

by the students and a different skill set in instruction by the teachers.

Finally, differentiation was reported by the 161 survey respondents and the 10

interview participants as being necessary to meet the needs of students. Examples of

112

differentiation reported for reading were teachers’ groups, individualizing instruction by

focusing on the needs of students in reading, or modifying a task or text to be used for

comprehension through chunking or highlighting. These examples were consistent with

the findings from Keene and Zimmerman (2013), Moos and Pitton (2014), Puzio et al.

(2015), and Tomlinson (2000). Interview participants noted that explicit instruction of

skills was necessary for success to meet the hypothetical student’s needs. However, the

teacher’s attempts at meeting student needs went beyond supporting the needs and

seemed to stray into the rescuing area. Participants reported that they would modify

instruction or modify the requirements for an assignment so that there was a sole focus of

promoting success for the student. This finding was consistent with the study of Gaitas

and Martins (2017), who found that there can be a difficulty with differentiating to meet

students’ needs. Rescuing students by enabling them not to complete the whole process

can cause them not to grow and may be a factor in why assessment scores locally and

nationally remain low for the at-risk population.

Limitations of the Study

The purpose of this study was to obtain more in-depth insight into the background

and instruction that upper elementary teachers in the state of Texas use when teaching

atrisk students who do not qualify for special education services. After sending out

102,746 invitations to participate in the questionnaire, I received only 191 responses,

which was a low response rate. Stern, Bilgen, and Dillman (2014) stated that a low

response rate might be found in e-mail surveys. Stern et al. suggested that raising the

response rate would require multiple approaches to accommodate interests of different

113

populations. In future studies, I would try a different method of recruitment such as using

the education centers in the state. I would also consider using different visual aids or an

accessible phone questionnaire to make the questionnaire more convenient to complete.

Choosing a different time frame may also increase the response rate as teachers would not

be distracted by holiday and end-of-semester activity. Finally, offering an incentive for

answering the questionnaire may increase the response rate.

Another limitation was the response rate (<1%) of survey attrition from teachers

who felt that the survey did not apply to them because they were not reading teachers and

therefore did not respond. I received some e-mail responses that communicated this as the

reasoning for not completing the survey. I assume that many more did not take the time to

respond for the same reason. The first page of the questionnaire was the invitation and

consent. In future studies I might better articulate that the questionnaire was open to all

teachers, including those who do not teach reading. I had thought this was adequately

explained in the current study, but I may have needed to reword it for clarity.

The final limitation was the self-response data collected in the questionnaires and

interviews. Self-reported data cannot be independently verified and are considered a

threat to validity as the required responses are to be taken at face value while

understanding that biases such as selective memory, attribution, exaggeration, or positive

emphasis can exist (see Frey, 2018). The possibility of respondent bias crossed my mind

as I looked at questionnaire data in which everything was reported as being done all of

the time or the person felt very well prepared when he or she did not report teaching

nonfiction reading for any extended length of time. One participant spoke at length about

114

all that she was able to accomplish during her time in education but gave little detail

when it came down to what she did in the classroom. Those cases were noted in my

memos as I reviewed the data.

Recommendations

Beyond the recommendations to remediate the limitations of a low response rate

to an online questionnaire, including better timing and clarity of description, I could also

see this study expanding in many ways. Researchers could target upper elementary

teachers who were not reading teachers to get a better understanding of how other content

areas approach nonfiction reading comprehension instruction. Teachers could receive

more open-ended questions so they have the opportunity to describe specific training

needs they may have to teach nonfiction reading comprehension and meet the learning

needs of at-risk students. Another approach would be to track scores as a means of

determining which instruction was impacted with upward momentum after different

reading professional development sessions. For example, researchers could examine

whether teachers saw a difference before and after taking part in the 15-month Reading

Academy professional development sessions put on by the state of Texas.

Another approach would be using the same study design but having students

describe how their reading capabilities were developed, which instruction helped them

the most, and whether they view collaboration as an important method to improve their

reading capabilities. Students could also provide suggestions on how to help hypothetical

teachers better reach students who are at-risk, or ways students could help fellow students

who are struggling with nonfiction reading comprehension in the classroom. Students’

115

perspectives would add an important dimension to the discussion because they would be

part of the process of improving reading instruction.

Regarding differentiation, researchers could branch from the current study in

several ways. Researchers could track at-risk students’ scores to determine which

differentiation technique brought the most return, or could interview students to

determine what they feel helped them the most in the classroom. Researchers could also

include primary sources like lesson plans or videos of teachers in the process of

differentiating to get a more in-depth picture of what is happening in the classroom.

Implications

Positive Social Change

The findings from this study revealed the instruction taking place in upper

elementary classrooms in the state of Texas. The results may be used by educators to

improve students’ skills in comprehension, thereby increasing students’ opportunities for

success. Findings from analysis of the questionnaire and interview data suggested that

finding ways to address the paradigm conflict, providing additional on-the-job training

that addresses nonfiction instruction, and differentiating instruction rather than rescuing

at-risk students might help them reach grade-level learning benchmarks and no longer be

at-risk, which could decrease the dropout rate.

This study may also contribute positive change in the field of education as it

examined how the background was built for nonfiction reading instruction taking place in

upper elementary classrooms. Findings in Chapter 4 suggested that the teaching of at-risk

students within the upper elementary classroom can be refined to include more on-the-job

116

training in nonfiction and differentiation versus rescuing for the teachers. With this

training, the instruction may improve for all at-risk learners allowing for students to reach

grade-level learning benchmarks and find success at their grade-level. There is evidence

of transferability for other states, districts, or teachers struggling with upper elementary

students’ nonfiction reading comprehension with this study due to a conflicting paradigm

or an identified at-risk population struggling with nonfiction reading, as Texas is not

alone with those concerns thus leading to stronger nonfiction instruction and meeting of

needs nationwide.

Recommendations for Practice

This study has implications for teachers, districts, and educators in the state of

Texas. The results of this study could aide scholars, teachers, and curriculum planners in

the state of Texas make informed decisions on what more is needed or adjusted in teacher

pedagogy building of nonfiction instruction and at-risk learning to better aid expository

comprehension needs of upper elementary at-risk students. Teachers in this study showed

that they used explicit instruction techniques to have taught nonfiction reading

comprehension to their students, including those that were at-risk, while at the same time

struggling with the paradigm conflict between reading to learn and learning to read.

Curriculum planners could use those findings to bring about a better balance and

approach to mandated learning for all teachers for the betterment of all learners, not just

at-risk students. Teachers reported reading professional development helped to build an

effective pedagogy for instruction, but little of it was in nonfiction, indicating an area of

need that can be addressed by district, schools, and the state. Teachers in this study knew

117

that differentiation was essential but seemed to struggle with how to put it in place

without rescuing at-risk students indicating another area that can be addressed by schools,

districts, and the state with further professional development or collaboration efforts to

help teachers. If district, schools, and the state were to make the changes that match the

findings in the study, there would be a stronger foundation of nonfiction instruction and

meeting the needs of at-risk students in upper elementary schools thereby possibly

increasing the meeting of grade-level learning benchmarks.

Conclusion

A concern in upper elementary Texas schools is based on the continuum

longitudinally from 2013-2018 of low performance in reading comprehension scores

nationally at the fourth grade and locally. Those scores indicate that at least 30% of

students in upper elementary grades in Texas struggle to possess the minimum skills

comprehension required to be successful at grade-level learning indicating issues with

instruction in the classroom (National Center for Education Statistics, 2016, 2015b; Texas

Education Agency, 2013, 2014, 2015b, 2016, 2017a, 2018a). As a result, I wanted to

explore the pedagogical content knowledge of upper elementary teachers who teach

nonfiction comprehension strategies to their at-risk students. Further, I wanted to

investigate how teachers used their pedagogical content knowledge to differentiate a

lesson to have met the needs of at-risk, late-emerging reading difficulty students.

Findings suggest that a difficulty present in upper elementary classrooms when it comes

to teaching nonfiction reading comprehension is a conflict of paradigms between reading

to learn and learning to read.

118

Additionally, although professional development in reading has been participated

in, little is reported to be in the teaching of nonfiction material, which can impact the

quality of nonfiction instruction. Finally, teachers are differentiating to help at-risk,

lateemerging difficulty students find success but they are seemingly doing so in a

rescuing action thereby never having the students grow and learn independence to have

met the benchmarks on their own. Through recommended adjustments or areas of

improvement, this study has the potential to bring about positive social change not only

for the at-risk, late-emerging reading difficulty students sitting in an upper elementary

classroom in the state of Texas but also for the nation.

UPPER ELEMENTARY TEACHERS USE OF PEDAGOGICAL CONTENT KNOWLEDGE

Students also viewed