1. Exploring the Relationship between Teachers’ Literacy Strategy Use and Adolescent Achievement Kelly Feighan, Research for Better Schools Elizabeth Heeren, Memphis City Schools

2. Literature that Informs the Study Secondary content teachers feel less effective at literacy integration than elementary teachers (Reed, 2009) Strategy use varies by content goal, school context, teacher preference, and student needs (Nichols, Young, & Rickelman, 2007) There is a paucity of research connecting strategy use and achievement (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004)

3. Project Context & Background Striving Readers Grant supported literacy integration in eight urban middle schools Evaluation tested the efficacy of a whole- school professional development model on improving teaching and learning Intervention: university courses, onsite coaching support, instructional materials, & leadership seminar Literacy strategies targeted improving students’ vocabulary, comprehension, and fluency

4. Research Questions How often do teachers report using literacy strategies and which strategies are they observed using? Do high-fidelity implementers choose different strategies than lower-fidelity implementers? What are the characteristics of teachers with low, medium, or high implementation fidelity? How do students linked with teachers at different levels of implementation fidelity perform in academic content areas?

5. Intervention Teachers Literacy coaches rated 100 teachers on fidelity of implementation 77% appeared > ten times in daily coaching logs Teachers completed: Weekly checklists (96%) Annual survey (77%) 41% were observed by evaluators

6. Coaches Rated Teachers’ Implementation Fidelity on: Introduction of strategies Modeling of strategies Use of guided practice Use of differentiated instruction Creating opportunities for students to practice Propensity to revisit strategies

7. Characteristics of Low, Medium, and High-Fidelity Implementers Analysis of implementation fidelity ratings showed that teachers fell into three categories: “low” (33%), “medium” (35%), or “high” (32%) fidelity implementers A greater percentage of females than males were rated as high-fidelity implementers (F=8.28; df=1,73; p<.05) Not related: educational level or amount of PD Patterns existed in teachers’ age, licensure status, and content area; however, results were not statistically significant

8. Characteristics of Low, Medium, and High-Fidelity Implementers High-fidelity implementers were more likely to report feeling prepared to (p<.05) : Model new learning strategies Differentiate instruction Teach students to ask before/during/after questions Provide guided practice But they were not more likely than lower-fidelity implementers to report frequently using strategies

9. Achievement Analysis TEACHERS 54 content teachers who were either inactive or low, medium, or high fidelity PD implementers Example: 16 ELA teachers 5 inactive  246 students 3 low  173 students 6 medium  284 students 2 high  116 students STUDENTS 420 7th graders & 399 8th graders (N=819) 94.7% African American, 54.2% female, 93.7 not ELL 549 (66.9%) not enrolled in ELA honors classes Took pretest prior to intervention; post-test seven months later

10. Reading Scores by Teacher Implementation Fidelity Level for 7th and 8 th Grade Students * ELA Teacher’s Implementation Fidelity Level Not ActiveLowMediumHigh 7 th Grade Pre [standard deviation] Number of students 514.57 [32.4] 90 517.05 [29.5] 99 520.42 [29.4] 197 520.76 [24.3] 34 Post509.23 [38.2] 520.14 [34.5] 521.65 [27.0] 509.71 [35.7] 8 th Grade Pre [standard deviation] Number of students 511.82 [27.0] 100 511.82 [29.5] 74 519.34 [30.4] 143 525.77 [23.6] 82 Post517.66 [27.0] 519.85 [23.7] 525.30 [25.8] 546.85 [24.6]

11. Reading Scores by Teacher Implementation Fidelity Level for Males and Females, 8 th Grade * ELA Teacher’s Implementation Fidelity Level Not ActiveLowMediumHigh Males- Pre [standard deviation] Number of students 504.59 [27.46] 51 502.58 [34.7] 38 513.43 [33.36] 60 524.53 [24.44] 30 Post509.59 [25.26] 508.68 [21.96] 518.25 [27.31] 547.60 [24.67] Females- Pre [standard deviation] Number of students 519.35 [24.65] 49 521.58 [18.73] 36 523.61 [27.48] 83 526.48 [23.36] 52 Post526.06 [26.49] 531.64 [19.49] 530.40 [23.53] 546.42 [24.09]

12. Regression Results Modeled ELA teacher implementation rating on post-test reading score Covariates: pretest; gender (0, 1); grade (7, 8); teacher FOI score (0, 1, 2, 3); ELL status (0,1); # of days enrolled > 77 Results: All things being equal, the teacher’s implementation level significantly and positively affected the student’s post- test reading score Although results were statistically significant, the effect size (0.12) was small

13. Further Analyses Measure ITBS testing outcomes Analyze student outcomes per teacher for multiple years prior to the intervention Interview high-fidelity implementers Collect follow-up implementation fidelity information

14. Contact: Kelly Feighan, M.A. Research for Better Schools Feighan@rbs.org Elizabeth Heeren, Ed.D. Memphis City Schools HeerenElizabeth@mcsk12.net