Literature review 1

Literature Review- “Does teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge affect their fluency

instruction?”

Amy Hutton

National University

TED 690- Professor Weintraub

Abstract:
Literature review 2

In the following paper, I will be doing a literature review of the article, ““Does teachers’

pedagogical content knowledge affect their fluency instruction?” This article looks at the

research that has already been done on reading fluency and the positive effects it has on students

academic achievements. It recognize that their was a gap in research about how a teachers

pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) affects their teaching behaviors in the classroom. The

researchers decided to study this aspect of fluency. They did so by have 109 teachers in 19

schools fill out a questionnaire surrounding their pedagogical content knowledge, and they

observed these teachers in action. Their findings were that many teachers had high PCK, and

many put the practices into effect (Van den Hurk, Houtveen, and Van De Grift, 2017). I would

have like to have seen more data correlating students success to their findings.

It is imperative that we as teachers make the subjects we are teaching to our students

comprehensible (California Teaching Performance Expectations, 2013). This is where true

learning and mind growth stem from. Anybody can talk at a person, but if that person is not
Literature review 3

retaining and making sense of what is being told to them then they aren’t learning. Knowing

when and how to present information in a way that will be the most effective is called

pedagogical content knowledge or PCK. Teachers learn this through their teaching courses and

hands-on practice. The more competent a teacher is in their PCK the more effective they are at

using the correct tools or exhibiting the appropriate behaviors that promote learning (Van den

Hurk, Houtveen, and Van De Grift, 2017). Since this is an area that we can always continue

grow in, and I am currently working with first graders, whom I am still working on reading with,

I decided to do a literature review of the article “Does teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge

affect their fluency instruction?(Van den Hurk, Houtveen, and Van De Grift, 2017, title)”

As the title of the article suggests, the researchers decided to study whether the

pedagogical content knowledge that teachers had effected their teaching behaviors, especially

towards teaching fluency. Fluency is important because it has been shown to be an indicator in

success of later learning (Van den Hurk, Houtveen, and Van De Grift, 2017). Van den Hurk,

Houtveen, and Van de Grift (2017) were able to find quite a bit of research that supports the

benefits of fluency in reading. One of the most important benefits that comes from increased

fluency is increased comprehension. Van den Hurk, Houtveen, and Van de Grift (2017) cited

one such study and said “Samuels (2012) states that the essence of fluent reading is the ability to

decode and to comprehend text at the same time. (paragraph 3)”

Since fluency increases comprehension and comprehension is a key component of

learning, Van den Hurk, Houtveen, and Van de Grift (2017) also looked at what could teachers

do to develop and increase reading fluency in their students. Their research of previously done

studies showed that fluency could be developed with practice. The more reading that is done the

more fluent the students become. One key component to increase reading is to keep the students
Literature review 4

motivated in reading. This can be done by allowing them to read material that they find

interesting. Motivation can also be driven by feedback in which gives students encouragement

and helps them to increase their self-efficacy (Van den Hurk, Houtveen, and Van De Grift,

2017). Van den Hurk, Houtveen, and Van de Grift (2017) found that this can be accomplished by

three key principles that the teachers can incorporate into their lessons. These principles are: 1.

plenty of opportunities to ready, 2. “modelling of fluent reading behavior, where teachers

provide their students with a sense of what reading should sound like (Van den Hurk, Houtveen,

and Van De Grift, 2017, paragraph 7), and 3. making sure to keep students engaged by finding

books that fit the students needs (Van den Hurk, Houtveen, and Van De Grift, 2017).

While Van den Hurk, Houtveen, and Van De Grift (2017) found a lot of research on the

benefits and practices of reading fluency they did not find a lot of information on the teachers

own content knowledge and how that affected their teaching. This is why they decided to

conduct a study “exploring the relationship between teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge of

reading and the quality of their reading instruction (Van den Hurk, Houtveen, and Van De Grift,

2017, paragraph 16)” They wanted to figure out what the teachers knew and how it impacted

their teaching especially towards fluency. They study included 109 teachers at 19 schools in

Netherlands. The biggest percentage of teachers that they looked at were either 20 plus years of

experience or brand new. Although about 35% were teachers from 5-20 years. Teachers were

assigned reading classes where the students were able to rad at least 100 words per minutes. The

teachers filled out questionnaires about their knowledge and were observed two times in the

classroom during teaching (Van den Hurk, Houtveen, and Van De Grift, 2017). Van den Hurk,

Houtveen, and Van De Grift (2017) found that teachers according to the questionnaires,

“demonstrated a fair level of pedagogical content knowledge of reading (paragraph 30).” The
Literature review 5

also found that during observations that the teachers exhibited much of desired pedagogical

behaviors needed. They did find that the more a teacher knew about a certain component of

reading the more they exhibited of those behaviors, which lead to a variance of what was taught.

A few shortfalls in their study where that they had a small sample size, in a school system that

already was working towards increased reading skills, and they did not look at students results in

comparison to that of the teachers (Van den Hurk, Houtveen, and Van De Grift, 2017). The last,

I feel would of been very important at looking at the effectiveness of the teachers’ pedagogical

practices.

I found this article interesting, because I am looking for ways to increase my own

pedagogical practices to be more effective. While I found that their actual study was a bit

redundant, and did not actually answering the questions I had, their prior research of other

material was very beneficial for me. I found that I already put into practice many of the

behaviors needed to increase fluency. I give my students many reading opportunities throughout

the day, especially time to silent read. Which is something that Van den Hurk, Houtveen, and

Van de Grift (2017) found in their research was very beneficial to increasing fluency. I also

model appropriate fluency techniques and work with the students to find appropriate reading

material that will keep them engaged but will also help them to grow (Van den Hurk, Houtveen,

and Van De Grift, 2017). From this study I would have really like to have seen not only how

often these teachers put these pedagogical practices into play, and which ones, but how these

practices effect the outcome of the students’ fluency.

References:
Literature review 6

California Teaching Performance Expectations. (2013, March). Retrieved April 12, 2019

from https://www.ctc.ca.gov/docs/default-source/educator-

prep/standards/adopted- tpes-2013.pdf

Van den Hurk, H. T. G., Houtveen, A. A. M., and Van de Grift, W. J. C. M. Van de Grift.

(2017). Does teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge effect their fluency

instruction? Reading and Writing: and Interdisciplinary Journal, 30(6), 1231-1249.