Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Does teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge affect their fluency instruction?

  • Published:
Reading and Writing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The relation is studied between teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of reading and the quality of their subsequent classroom behaviour in teaching fluent reading. A confirmatory factor analysis model with two latent variables is tested and shows adequate goodness-of-fit indices. Contrary to our expectations, the results of structural equation modelling reveal a small but significant γ-value of .29, indicating that only 8% of the variance in teachers’ classroom behaviour in teaching fluent reading is accounted for by teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of reading. Presumably teacher knowledge is not as stable and conclusive as one might think. More research is needed in determining the factors that work restricting for teachers in putting their knowledge into classroom practice. It is recommended that preservice and in-service teacher training should not be limited to transfer of knowledge, but should also assist teachers in designing and performing effective fluent reading instruction.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allington, R. L. (1983). Fluency: The neglected reading goal. The Reading Teacher, 36(6), 556–561.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allington, R. L. (2009). If they don’t read much … 30 years later. In E. H. Hiebert (Ed.), Reading more, reading better (pp. 30–54). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, R. C., Hiebert, E. H., Scott, J. A., & Wilkinson, A. G. (1985). Becoming a nation of readers. Washington, DC: The National Institute of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett, P. (2007). Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 815–824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bos, C., Mather, N., Dickson, S., Podhajski, B., & Chard, D. (2001). Perceptions and knowledge of preservice and in-service educators about early reading instruction. Annals of Dyslexia, 51(1), 97–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bos, C. S., Mather, N., Narr, R. F., & Babur, N. (1999). Interactive, collaborative professional development in early literacy instruction: Supporting the balancing act. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14(4), 227–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brady, S., Gillis, M., Smith, T., Lavalette, M., Liss-Bronstein, L., Lowe, E., et al. (2009). First grade teachers’ knowledge of phonological awareness and code concepts: Examining gains from an intensive form of professional development and corresponding teacher attitudes. Reading and Writing, 22(4), 425–455. doi:10.1007/s11145-009-9166-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brownell, M. T., Bishop, A. G., Gersten, R., Klingner, J. K., Penfield, R. D., Dimino, J., et al. (2009). The role of domain expertise in beginning special education teacher quality. Exceptional Children, 75(4), 391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Callahan, M., Benson-Griffo, V., & Pearson, P. D. (2009). Teacher knowledge and teaching reading. In F. Falk-Ross, S. Szabo, M. B. Sampson, & M. M. Foote (Eds.), Literacy issues during changing times: A call to action, 30th yearbook of the College Reading Association (pp. 37–62). Logan, UT: College Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlisle, J. F., Correnti, R., Phelps, G., & Zeng, J. (2009). Exploration of the contribution of teachers’ knowledge about reading to their students’ improvement in reading. Reading and Writing, 22(4), 457–486. doi:10.1007/s11145-009-9165-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chard, D. J., Pikulsky, J. J., & McDonagh, S. H. (2012). Fluency: The link between decoding and comprehension for struggling readers. In T. Rasinski, C. Blachowitz, & K. Lems (Eds.), Fluency instruction: Research-based best practices (2nd ed., pp. 90–113). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chard, D. J., Vaughn, S., & Tyler, B. J. (2002). A synthesis of research on effective interventions for building reading fluency with elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(5), 386–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheesman, E. A., McGuire, J. M., Shankweiler, D., & Coyne, M. (2009). First-year teacher knowledge of phonemic awareness and its instruction. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 32(3), 270–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, A. E., Perry, K. E., Stanovich, K. E., & Stanovich, P. J. (2004). Disciplinary knowledge of K-3 teachers and their knowledge calibration in the domain of early literacy. Annals of Dyslexia, 54(1), 139–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1998). What reading does for the mind. American Educator, 22(1/2), 8–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, A. E., Zibulsky, J., Stanovich, K. E., & Stanovich, P. J. (2009). How teachers would spend their time teaching language arts: The mismatch between self-reported and best practices. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(5), 418–430. doi:10.1177/0022219409339063.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlap, W. P., Burke, M. J., & Greer, T. (1995). The effect of skew on the magnitude of product-moment correlations. The Journal of General Psychology, 122(4), 365–377.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In W. Damon & N. Eisenberg (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (5th ed., Vol. III, pp. 1017–1095). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fielding-Barnsley, R. (2010). Australian pre-service teachers’ knowledge of phonemic awareness and phonics in the process of learning to read. Australian Journal of Learning Difficulties, 15(1), 99–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fielding-Barnsley, R., & Purdie, N. (2005). Teachers’ attitude to and knowledge of metalinguistics in the process of learning to read. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 33(1), 65–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottfried, A. E., Fleming, J. S., & Gottfried, A. W. (2001). Continuity of academic intrinsic motivation from childhood through late adolescence: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 3–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guthrie, J. (2011). Best practices in motivating students to read. In L. M. Morrow & L. B. Gambrell (Eds.), Best practices in literacy instruction (4th ed., pp. 177–198). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hasbrouck, J., & Tindal, G. A. (2006). Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable assessment tool for reading teachers. The Reading Teacher, 59(7), 636–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houtveen, A. A. M., & Booij, N. (1994). Het meten van integrale leerlingzorg: Adaptief onderwijs en schoolontwikkeling. [Measuring integrated student counseling: Adaptive educationand school development]. Utrecht: ISOR.

  • Houtveen, T., & Van de Grift, W. (2012). Improving readingachievements of struggling learners. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 23(1), 71–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Houtveen, A. A. M., Brokamp, S. K., & Smits, A. E. H. (2012). Lezen, lezen, lezen. Achtergrond en evaluatie van het LeesInterventie-project voor Scholen met een Totaalaanpak (LIST). [Reading, Reading, Reading. Background and evaluation of a reading intervention project]. Utrecht: Kenniscentrum Educatie.

  • Hox, J. J., & Bechger, T. M. (1998). An introduction to structural equation modelling. Family Science Review, 11, 354–373.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: a Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Mooresville, IL: Scientific Software International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, D., Nord, C. W., Jenkins, F., Chan, J. Y., & Kastberg, D. (2013). Performance of US 15-year-old students in mathematics, science, and reading literacy in an international context. First look at PISA 2012 (Report No. NCES 2014–024). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

  • Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kordes, J., Bolsinova, M., Limpens, G., & Stolwijk, R. (2013). Resultaten PISA-2012: Praktische kennis en vaardigheden van 15-jarigen [Results PISA-2012: Practical knowledge and skills of 15-year olds]. Arnhem: CITO.

  • Krashen, S. D. (2004). The power of reading: Insights from the research. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, M. R., Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Meisinger, E. B. (2010). Aligning theory and assessment of reading fluency: Automaticity, prosody, and definitions of fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 45(2), 230–251. doi:10.1598/RRQ.45.2.4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lane, H. B., Hudson, R. F., Leite, W. L., Kosanovich, M. L., Strout, M. T., Fenty, N. S., et al. (2008). Teacher knowledge about reading fluency and indicators of students’ fluency growth in Reading First Schools. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 25(1), 57–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyon, G. R., & Weiser, B. (2009). Teacher knowledge, instructional expertise, and the development of reading proficiency. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(5), 475–480. doi:10.1177/0022219409338741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mather, N., Bos, C., & Babur, N. (2001). Perceptions and knowledge of preservice and inservice teachers about early literacy instruction. Journal of learning disabilities, 34(5), 472–482.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCallum, R. S., Sharp, S., Bell, S. M., & George, T. (2004). Silent versus oral reading comprehension and efficiency. Psychology in the Schools, 41(2), 241–246. doi:10.1002/pits.10152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCutchen, D., Abbott, R. D., Green, L. B., Beretvas, S. N., Cox, S., Potter, N. S., et al. (2002a). Beginning literacy: Links among teacher knowledge, teacher practice, and student learning. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(1), 69–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCutchen, D., Green, L., Abbott, R. D., & Sanders, E. A. (2009). Further evidence for teacher knowledge: Supporting struggling readers in grades three through five. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 22(4), 401–423. doi:10.1007/s11145-009-9163-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCutchen, D., Harry, D. R., Cunningham, A. E., Cox, S., Sidman, S., & Covill, A. E. (2002b). Reading teachers’ knowledge of children’s literature and English phonology. Annals of Dyslexia, 52(1), 205–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M. H. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 64–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moats, L. C. (1994). The missing foundation in teacher education: Knowledge of the structure of spoken and written language. Annals of Dyslexia, 44(1), 81–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moats, L. (2009). Knowledge foundations for teaching reading and spelling. Reading and Writing, 22(4), 379–399. doi:10.1007/s11145-009-9162-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moats, L. C., & Foorman, B. R. (2003). Measuring teachers’ content knowledge of language and reading. Annals of Dyslexia, 53(1), 23–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nathan, R. G., & Stanovich, K. E. (1991). The causes and consequences of differences in reading fluency. Theory into Practice, 30(3), 176–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

  • Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15(5), 625–632.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piasta, S. B., McDonald-Connor, C., Fishman, B. J., & Morrison, F. J. (2009). Teachers’ knowledge of literacy concepts, classroom practices, and student reading growth. Scientific Studies of Reading, 13(3), 224–248.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pikulski, J., & Chard, J. (2005). Fluency: The Bridge from Decoding to Reading Comprenhension. Reading Teacher, 58(6), 510–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinnell, G. S., Pikulski, J. J., Wixson, K. K., Campbell, J. R., Gough, P. B., & Beatty, A. S. (1995). Listening to children read aloud: Data from NAEP’s integrated reading performance record at Grade 4 (Report No. 23-FR-04). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education.

  • Rasinski, T. V. (2003). The fluent reader: Oral reading strategies for building word recognition, fluency, and comprehension. New York: Scholastic Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasinski, T. V. (2010). The fluent reader: Oral and silent reading strategies for building word recognition, fluency, and comprehension (2nd ed.). New York: Scholastic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasinski, T. V., & Hoffman, J. V. (2003). Oral reading in the school literacy curriculum. Reading Research Quarterly, 38(4), 510–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reutzel, D. R., Fawson, P. C., & Smith, J. A. (2008). Reconsidering silent sustained reading: An exploratory study of scaffolded silent reading. The Journal of Educational Research, 102(1), 37–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reutzel, D. R., Petscher, Y., & Spichtig, A. N. (2012). Exploring the value added of a guided, silent reading intervention: Effects on struggling third-grade readers’ achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 105(6), 404–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samuels, S. J. (2006). Toward a model of reading fluency. In S. J. Samuels & A. E. Farstrup (Eds.), What research has to say about fluency instruction (pp. 24–46). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuels, S. J. (2012). Reading fluency: Its past, present, and future. In T. Rasinski, C. Blachowicz, & K. Lems (Eds.), Fluency instruction: Research-based best practices (pp. 3–16). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samuels, S. J., & Farstrup, A. E. (2006). What research has to say about fluency instruction. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schunk, D. H., & Rice, J. M. (1993). Strategy fading and progress feedback: Effects on self-efficacy and comprehension among students receiving remedial reading services. Journal of Special Education, 27(3), 257–276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Developing self-efficacious readers and writers: The role of social and self-regulatory processes. In J. T. Guthrie & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Reading engagement: Motivating readers through integrated instruction (pp. 43–50). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shevlin, M., & Miles, J. N. (1998). Effects of sample size, model specification and factor loadings on the GFI in confirmatory factor analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 25(1), 85–90. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(98)00055-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spear-Swerling, L., & Brucker, P. O. (2003). Teachers’ acquisition of knowledge about English word structure. Annals of Dyslexia, 53(1), 72–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spear-Swerling, L., Brucker, P. O., & Alfano, M. P. (2005). Teachers’ literacy-related knowledge an self-perceptions in relation to preparation and experience. Annals of Dyslexia, 55(2), 226–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spear-Swerling, L., & Zibulsky, J. (2014). Making time for literacy: Teacher knowledge and time allocation in instructional planning. Reading and Writing, 27(8), 1353–1378. doi:10.1007/s11145-013-9491-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). New York: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van den Hurk, H. T. G., Houtveen, A. A. M., & Van de Grift, W. J. C. M. (2012). Kennis van leerkrachten over het leesproces [Teachers’ knowledge of reading]. Pedagogische Studiën, 89(4), 191–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2002). The development of competence beliefs and values from childhood through adolescence. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 92–120). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. Handbook of reading research, 3, 403–422.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Literacy, Faculty of Education, Utrecht University of Applied Sciences, Padualaan 97, 3584 CH, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    H. T. G. Van den Hurk & A. A. M. Houtveen

  2. Department of Teacher Education, Faculty of Behavioural and Social Sciences, Groningen University, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, 9712 TS, Groningen, The Netherlands

    W. J. C. M. Van de Grift

Authors
  1. H. T. G. Van den Hurk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. A. A. M. Houtveen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. W. J. C. M. Van de Grift
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to H. T. G. Van den Hurk.

Appendix

Appendix

See Fig. 3.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Frequency distributions of teacher measures

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Van den Hurk, H.T.G., Houtveen, A.A.M. & Van de Grift, W.J.C.M. Does teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge affect their fluency instruction?. Read Writ 30, 1231–1249 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9721-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-017-9721-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation