UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI

7/09/07
Date:___________________

Jennifer Walz Garrett

I, _________________________________________________________,
hereby submit this work as part of the requirements for the degree of:
Doctor of Philosophy
in:
Speech-Language Pathology
It is entitled:
Children, Parents and Teachers' Beliefs about Reading

This work and its defense approved by:

Jo-Anne Prendeville
Chair: _______________________________
Annette Hemmings
_______________________________
Laura Kretschmer
_______________________________
_______________________________
_______________________________
 Children, Parents and Teachers’ Beliefs about Reading

A dissertation submitted to the

Division of Research and Advanced Studies

of the University of Cincinnati

in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

in the Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders

of the College of Allied Health Sciences

2007

by
Jennifer Walz Garrett

B.S., Truman State University, 1997

M.A., Truman State University, 1999

Committee Chair: Jo-Anne Prendeville, Ed.D.

 ABSTRACT

This research documented children, parents and teachers’ beliefs about reading. Specifically,

this study described children, parents and teachers’: 1) definitions about reading, 2) beliefs about

how they learned to read, 3) purposes for reading and 4) relationships between participants’

reading perspective in comparison with current/historical reading instructional methods.

Participants included 47 children in grades 1, 3 and 5 from an urban Catholic school, their

parents and classroom teachers. The 93 participants were interviewed about their reading

experiences using the questions, “What is reading?,” “How do you think you (your child) learned

to read?” and “Why do you read?” In addition, the teachers’ classrooms were observed during

reading or language arts instruction and artifacts were collected. Transcripts from interviews

were coded and analyzed for categories of responses. Data from interviews, observations and

artifacts were triangulated revealing several themes. First, results indicated that children, parents

and teachers predominately agree on defining reading as an action/skill. Second, participants

indicated learning to read through formal and informal experiences with children reporting a

high frequency of formal reading experiences. Third, purposes for reading were numerous but

the majority of participants described at least one recreational/pleasure purpose including reading

for fun. Additional themes, implications and future research directions are discussed.
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my family and friends for all of their encouragement and support.

My husband, Troy, took a leap of faith with me so that I could pursue my dreams. To him I say,

“We got it done!” I’d also like to express my appreciation to our extended family and friends for

the calls, letters and visits while we were far from home.

To the friends and support systems that we developed in Cincinnati, I could not have

done it without you. I want to acknowledge Forest Chapel United Methodist church members,

especially Peace Circle, Jungle Jim’s Demo team, Cincinnati Dockers Australian Rules Football

team, Oklahoma Sooners Alumni club, and Wilmington College Athletic Training department

for becoming our family away from home. I also want to extend my gratitude to the Towne and

Bradle families who provided friendship, entertainment and meals over the past three years.

Finally, to my fellow doctoral students who have been on this journey and will be my closest

colleagues in the future, the goal is attainable!

I would also like to thank my committee members and research participants for their

time. Dr. Jo-Anne Prendeville, Dr. Laura Kretschmer and Dr. Annette Hemmings have provided

endless support. I found the perfect committee for pursuing my interests in literacy and

qualitative research. They have gone above and beyond to share words of wisdom, time and

sense of humor as I conducted this study. The research participants were gracious to share their

stories about reading and I will be forever grateful. This research could not have been completed

without both these important groups of people.

Finally, I would like to thank Allison Smith, my dissertation writing partner. We

balanced each other and I look forward to writing with you again in the future.
 DEDICATION

I dedicate this dissertation to those who struggle to learn to read yet become readers through

perseverance and hard work.

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 5

Background 5

Purpose 6

Theoretical Framework 7

Overview of Subsequent Chapters 7

CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 9

Theories of Literacy and Reading 10

Components of Reading 11

Influences on the Reading Process 17

Purposes of Reading 24

Beliefs and Knowledge About Reading 25

Summary 33

CHAPTER 3 METHODS 35

Overview 35

Theoretical Orientation 35

Research Site 37

Participants 39

Materials 43

Procedures 44

Data Analysis 45

Field Exit 48

1
CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS 49

Definitions of Reading 49

Learning To Read 56

Purposes for Reading 66

Relationships 71

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION 83

Overview 83

Themes 83

Additional Findings of Interest 93

Implications 95

Limitations 97

Further Research 99

Conclusion 99

REFERENCES 101

APPENDICES

Appendix A Child Interview Questions 111

Appendix B Parent Phone Interview Questions 112

Appendix C Teacher Interview Questions 113

Appendix D Definition of Reading Categories 114

Appendix E Learning to Read Categories 115

Appendix F Purposes for Reading Categories 117

2
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Child participants by grade, class, gender (n=47) 41

2. Race/Ethnic demographics of school compared to study participants (n=47)

by percentage 43

3. Group results for “What is Reading?” by categories of Action/skills (AS),

Learning/knowledge (LK), Emotional/Affective (EA), No Response (NR)
and Outliers (n=93) 51

4. Grade level responses to “What is Reading?” by categories of

Action/skills (AS), Learning/knowledge (LK), Emotional/affective (EA),
No Response (NR) and Outliers (n=47) 55

5. Similarly coded responses for Definition of Reading across Triads of a child,

his/her parent and teacher 56

6. Responses to “How do you think you learned to read?” by categories

of Informal Experience (IE), Formal Experience (FE), Both,
No Response (NR) and Other (n=93) 58

7. Grade level responses for Learning to Read by categories of Informal

Experience (IE), Formal Experience (FE), Both and Outliers (n=47) 60

8. Similarly coded responses for learning to read experiences across triads

of a child, his/her parent and teacher 65

9. Purposes for reading by participant groups across categories of

Environmental (E), Informational/learning (I/L), Occupational (O),
Pleasure/recreational (P/R), Required (Rq), No Response (NR)
or Outliers (n=93) 67

10. Grade Level Response to “Why do you Read?” by categories of

Environmental (E), Informational/learning (I/L), Occupational (O),
Pleasure/recreational (P/R), Required (Rq), No Response (NR)
or Outliers (n=47) 70

11. Similar coded responses for purposes for reading across Triads a child,
his/her parent and teacher 71

12. Comparison of Partnership of Reading Definition (n.d.) parts

to adult and child responses of this study to “What is Reading?” 86

3
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Parent participants’ race/ethnicity (n=40) 41

2. Student participants’ race/ethnicity as reported by parent (n=47) 42

3. Relationship of children’s Action/skills (AS) definition of reading,

Formal Experience (FE) learning to read and Pleasure/Recreational (P/R)
purpose for reading (n=47) 73

4. Relationship of parents’ Action/skills (AS) definition of reading and

Pleasure/Recreational (P/R) purpose for reading (n=40) 81

5. Relationship of teachers’ Action/skills (AS) definition of reading,

Pleasure/Recreational (P/R) and Informational/learning (I/L)
purposes for reading (n=6) 82

4
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

“In the endeavor of reading research, we, as observers of the phenomenon of reading, all begin

and end with the same basic problem, the problem of how to define reading” (Mosenthal, 2002,

pp. 2-3)

Learning to read is an important achievement that impacts many aspects of a person’s

life. It involves a multitude of social and cognitive processes. Reading is critical for a child’s

academic success (Whitehurst & Lonigan, 2002). Most educators and parents would agree that

the goal of learning to read is to become independent and lifelong learners. Reading

instructional methods are continuously debated in educational, psychological and political

realms. Research indicates a host of influences on learning to reading including necessary

components and skills for reading, formal and informal experiences of home and school,

instructional methods and belief systems. As a result, it is important to explore these influences

within the triad of children, parents and teachers whose lives intersect as a child strives to

become a proficient reader.

Background

The United States has always valued education, especially learning to read. From the

days of the early American schools to current times, reading has been considered one of the most

important subjects (N. B. Smith, 2002). The goal of reading and type of instruction used in the

schools has changed and been influenced by religion, economics, politics and research. For

example, early American schools emphasized learning to read as a way to learn and better

understand biblical scriptures (N. B. Smith, 2002). Currently, reading instruction is heavily

5
influenced by politics and research. In 2002, President George Bush signed into law, “No Child

Left Behind” ("Public law no: 107-110 ", Enacted January 8, 2002) which emphasized every

child reading on grade level and using only research-based reading instructional methods. The

National Reading Panel (2000a) has emphasized the use of systematic, explicit instructional

methods; although, others have argued that reading can be taught through naturalistic methods

(Goodman, 1996; Morrow & Gambrell, 2002; F. Smith, 1992, 1999). The goal of reading

instruction is to teach individuals to be proficient readers who use literacy for multiple means

(Goodman, 1996; Kucer, 2005).

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to explore children, parents and teachers’ beliefs about

reading, learning to read and purposes for reading. In addition, the relationship between

children, parents and teachers’ definition of reading and beliefs about learning to read was

compared to previous and current models of reading instruction. The study authenticated

children and parents’ experiences and beliefs. It explored reading instructional methods in light

of debates in education, psychology and politics. The research shed light on agreement or

mismatches between beliefs and practices that may have implications within the classroom. In

Ohio, as in many other states, teachers receiving certification in early childhood, middle

childhood and intervention specialists must have an understanding of knowledge base and beliefs

about reading (Ohio Department of Education, 2002a). Therefore; this study provided valuable

information for pre-service teachers about reading belief systems.

This study filled a void in the current literature by triangulating data from children,

parents and teachers across elementary school years using a qualitative design providing rich

details of children’s and adults’ beliefs. van Steensel (2006) suggests that qualitative studies

6
provide powerful information about children’s literacy exposure and have challenged the

negative correlation between home literacy environment and low socioeconomic or minority

status. Children in America are all exposed to some form of literacy, although, the experiences

may differ considerably from child to child. This study utilized a holistic perspective in which

“the whole phenomenon under study is understood as a complex system that is more than the

sum of its parts” (Patton, 2002, p. 41). The study also provides an oral history analysis of

beliefs across generations to examine trends in reading education, as well as, relationships

between children, parents and teachers (N. A. Stahl & Hartman, 2004).

Theoretical Framework

Students, parents and teachers’ lives intersect within the school setting. Viewing reading

beliefs within this triad acknowledges that meaning is mutually constructed within a social and

cultural framework (Perez, 2004; Wink & Putney, 2002). In addition, this study examined the

importance of learning to read as a process from the perspective of the individuals who are

collaboratively engaged in the experiences (Wink & Putney, 2002).

An interpretative approach was used to capture, organize and analyze the data collected

(Berg, 2007). Themes and patterns were established and quantified using content analysis.

Codes and themes were informed by the literature on components and skills for reading,

experiences of home and school and belief systems. Therefore, the previous literature as well as

participant perspectives provided a conceptual framework for this qualitative study.

Overview of Subsequent Chapters

In chapter two, a review of the relevant literature examines the following areas:

definitions of literacy and reading, components and skills needed for reading, current and

historical instructional methods, purposes for reading and reading belief systems. In chapter

7
three qualitative methodology, participants and context of the study will be introduced. Chapter

four presents the data analysis and results. Discussion and implications will be explored in

chapter five.

8
 CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Literacy, in its simplest form, is often defined as reading and writing. Most literacy

definitions share at least three components: engagement in reading and writing, contextualization

within societal demands and a minimal level of proficiency (Cunningham et al., 2000). Wasik,

Dobbins and Herrmann (2002) describe how the definition of literacy has expanded in the past

twenty years to include more than just reading and writing. For example, more recent definitions

describe literacy in terms of oral language, creative and analytic arts, specific knowledge and

skills and the combination of these skills within a social and multidimensional framework

(Wasik et al., 2002; Wasik & Hendrickson, 2004). Researchers study literacy within the context

of individuals, families, schools, communities and cultural groups. Cairney (2002) has suggested

that “teachers, students and parents construct their own models and definitions of literacy” (p.

159) which shapes their expectations about becoming and being literate. Literate societies often

consider learning to read as one of the most important milestones in a child’s life (Whitehurst &

Lonigan, 1998).

The Partnership for Reading (n.d.), along with the National Reading Panel and the

Reading First law, has defined reading as,

A complex system of deriving meaning from print that requires all of the
following: the skills and knowledge to understand how phonemes, or speech
sounds, are connected to print; the ability to decode unfamiliar words; the ability
to read fluently; sufficient background information and vocabulary to foster
reading comprehension; the development of appropriate active strategies to
construct meaning from print; and the development and maintenance of a
motivation to read. (¶ 1)

In a simpler form, Whitehurst and Lonigan defined reading as a “process of translating visual

codes into meaningful language” (Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998, p. 849). Recently, Kamhi

9
(2007) has argued that defining reading in this broad sense of word recognition and

comprehension is really looking at two very different abilities. He believes that defining reading

as only word recognition, which is a teachable skill, would clarify reading as something separate

from general comprehension and reasoning. When discussing reading with individuals, it will be

important to determine if their definition of reading is from a broad or narrow viewpoint.

Reading definitions often are tied to instruction methods and societal demands of the

times. For example, reading definitions of the 1950’s simply focused on decoding of print to

read (Adams, 1990; Turbill, 2002). Current definitions often include social purpose such as

students becoming lifelong learners, political statements such as “The Administration is

committed to ensuring that every child can read by the third grade” (Bush, 2001) and global

implications such as competitiveness in the international economy (Bush, 2001; Turbill, 2002).

Since reading definitions are often contextualized, it is important to consider them from the

viewpoint of those engaged in and supporting the reading process.

Theories of Literacy and Reading

Educators, parents and researchers are all interested in how literacy develops. Depending

on the lens used to view literacy, debate exists about how individuals develop literacy. Learning

theories related to literacy come from the fields of education, psychology, linguistics and

neuroscience. Cognitive scientists analyze skill systems necessary for literacy by studying them

in isolation or what mental processes are needed to complete literacy tasks (Kucer, 2005; Stone,

2004). Sociocultural theorists, who study the situations surrounding literacy practices, see

literacy as part of group identity (Kucer, 2005; Stone, 2004). Linguistic theories, based on Noam

Chomsky’s work, became popular in the 1960’s and emphasized the rules and transformational

nature of language as a part of reading and writing (Kucer, 2005). The theory used to view

10
reading has a significant impact on research, instruction and child outcomes. For example,

cognitive scientists view a transition from a child’s ability to learn oral language skills into the

use of a written code; therefore, teachers with this perspective may emphasize teaching

individual skills and tying what is said to what is written. Socioculturalists argue that oral

language and written language represent separate cultural practices (Stone, 2004) so teachers

with this perspective will use a variety of authentic stories based on children’s diverse needs.

Viewing reading definitions and beliefs about reading from a sociocultural framework

acknowledges that reading is more than just the individual skills needed for reading mastery.

Components of Reading

There is consensus that there are three core features to the reading process. These

components include specific reading skills, metacognition and motivation. All play key roles in

learning to read (Adams, 1990; Vacca et al., 2003). Children who demonstrate competencies in

reading skills, awareness of reading ability and a high level of enthusiasm toward the reading

process tend to be successful readers (McKenna, 2001; National Reading Panel, 2000b). It is

important to explore these features when addressing individuals’ reading beliefs.

Skills

Whitehurst and Lonigan (1998, 2002) categorize reading skills into two domains: inside-

out and outside-in. Inside-out skills are print and sound units such as phonological awareness

and letter knowledge. Outside-in skills are the language and conceptual knowledge needed to

read. Both are necessary for reading achievement (Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998, 2002). There is

ongoing debate over how the individual skills necessary for reading success are acquired,

develop and interact. Reading is often associated with five key skills: phonemic awareness,

phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and text comprehension. Each of these will be defined and

11
supported by research from the National Reading Panels recommendations (National Reading

Panel, 2000a, 2000b, 2003). It is important to note that not all researchers agree with

emphasizing skills for reading success (Allington, 2002; Gee, 2001; Goodman, 1996; F. Smith,

1992, 1999).

Phonemic awareness is described as the ability to understand and manipulate sounds in

spoken words. Sometimes terms such as phonics and auditory discrimination are used

interchangeably with phonemic awareness, but phonemic awareness differs from other skills

because it focuses solely on how sounds make up spoken language (National Reading Panel,

2000a). The National Reading Panel meta-analysis indicated that instruction in phonemic

awareness had a significant effect on sound awareness and a moderate effect on spelling and

reading outcomes (National Reading Panel, 2000b). Recommendations from the panel include

teaching children in small groups to manipulate phonemes with letters (National Reading Panel,

2000a).

Although terms are often confused, phonics is instruction in the predictable relationship

between phonemes and graphemes. Five types of phonics instruction were identified: analogy,

analytic, embedded, phonics through spelling and synthetic (National Reading Panel, 2000a).

The National Reading panel found that systematic phonics instruction had a moderate effect on

reading compared to non-systematic or no phonics instruction. Phonics instruction had the

largest impact when taught before first grade rather than in upper elementary school (National

Reading Panel, 2000b). The panel recommended that phonics should be systematic, which

involves direct teaching of letter-sound relationships in a clearly defined sequence; however, a

specific sequence is never identified (National Reading Panel, 2000a, 2000b, 2003).

12
 Reading fluency is defined as the ability to read text accurately, automatically and

quickly. Unfortunately, only twelve studies met the National Reading Panel criteria for analysis

on fluency so results can only be interpreted about use of repeated oral reading to increase

fluency. Overall, the National Reading Panel concluded that repeated oral reading had a

moderate impact on reading ability for students up to fourth grade (National Reading Panel,

2000b).

Vocabulary is the words we understand or use in speaking, listening and print. A

vocabulary meta-analysis was not performed by the National Reading Panel due to a lack of

research meeting their criteria. The panel recommended that children engage in talking with

others, listening to adults read to them and having some specific vocabulary instruction (National

Reading Panel, 2003). In addition, relying on a single vocabulary instructional method was not

recommended because direct and indirect instruction along with multiple exposures and context

play a vital role in vocabulary learning (National Reading Panel, 2000b).

Text comprehension is the interaction between reader and text that requires ability to

think, problem solve and construct meaning. It was the last area of reading analyzed by the

panel. Eight comprehension strategies were concluded to have research to support their use and

instruction: comprehension monitoring, cooperative learning, graphic and semantic organizers,

story structure formats, question answering, question generation, summarization and multiple-

strategy teaching (National Reading Panel, 2000b). The Panel recommended that teachers use a

combination of these techniques to assist students in recalling information and answering

questions (National Reading Panel, 2000a).

Results of the National Reading Panel meta-analysis were distributed to teachers and

parents across the United States in the form of summaries and reviews (National Reading Panel,

13
2000a, 2000b, 2003). While the meta-analysis does provide us with important information

regarding the key areas of knowledge individuals must have to become successful readers, some

have criticized the National Reading Panel’s methodology and inconsistency between summaries

and reports (Allington, 2002). The report also neglects to address the influence of children’s

beliefs, metacognition and motivation on reading.

Metacognition

Metacognition is another important component to the reading process. Jacobs and Paris

(1987) have defined metacognition as “any knowledge about cognitive status or processes that

can be shared between individuals” (p. 258). Historically, there have been two paths to studying

metacognition: assessing the knowledge one has about a particular domain and/or determining

the executive strategies that regulate one’s thinking (Jacobs & Paris, 1987). Many researchers

have studied the strategies that regulate thinking in regards to reading (Allen, 2003; Mokhtari &

Reichard, 2002). Mokhtari and Reichard (2002) developed an inventory to determine

metacognitive awareness and perceived use of reading strategies of adolescents and young

adults. They identified three factors important to reading metacognition: global reading

strategies, problem-solving strategies, and support reading strategies. Global reading strategies

are those related to the whole text such as deciding what to pay close attention to and what to

ignore. Problem-solving strategies refer to the approach readers might take when difficulties

arise such as reading slower or rereading. Support strategies are other strategies such as taking

notes or using outside references while reading. Allen (2003) outlines five specific

metacognitive strategies that assist readers in making sense of the text: students must create text

to life connections, retain important information and discard unimportant facts, summarize

information, use inferencing skills and check comprehension as they read. While many studies

14
have looked at the metacognitive skills needed, few have interviewed children about their

perspectives.

Meyers and Paris (1978) conducted interviews of second and sixth grade students to

determine their knowledge about personal abilities, task parameters and cognitive strategies

involved in reading. Each interview took approximately 25 minutes and consisted of eighteen

scenarios that were grouped around the three categories. Results indicated that the second

graders did not provide as sophisticated responses about the reading parameters. Seventy percent

of sixth graders reported that practice and special skills were needed to be a good reader. In

addition, significantly more sixth graders reported the goal of reading retell as meaning

construction compared to second graders who stressed the importance of decoding and verbatim

retell. Both groups of students reported that familiarity, length and interest could impact reading.

The authors reported that younger children are more likely to view reading from a

decoding/orthographic model while older children may have a better understanding of

constructing meaning from reading. One limitation of this study was the use of scripted

scenarios instead of open-ended questions.

Meyers and Paris (1987) recommend studying the relationship between teachers’

behavior and students’ metacognitive knowledge about reading as a future research direction.

Examining students’ and parents’ metacognition can help teachers address misconceptions and

nonstrategic reading strategies. They suggest that interviewing children, parents and teachers

about their reading beliefs would address reading metacognition in an authentic way.

Motivation

Motivation, which is the goal or reason for engaging in a particular behavior, is another

factor in learning to read. Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, personal interest, situational

15
interest and attitude can impact reading achievement (Guthrie & Knowles, 2001). Intrinsic

motivation, as related to reading, is described as reading for its own sake. Reading for the sake

of an external reward describes extrinsic motivation (Guthrie & Knowles, 2001). Interest is a

feeling that accompanies or stimulates special attention. Researchers have described two types

of interest: personal interest which is fascination with a particular topic prior to reading and

situational interest which is an emotional state within a specific reading context (Guthrie &

Knowles, 2001). For example, personal interest is enjoying reading “Misty of Chincoteague”

due to prior knowledge and interest in horses. Situational interest may be experienced reading a

Harry Potter book for the first time. Attitude is often described as a positive to negative feelings

scale with reading specifically described as the continuum from “loving” to “hating” reading.

McKenna (2001) has provided a concise description of attitude as being emotional based with a

cognitive component, a potential precursor of behavior and molded by experience. In regards to

attitude, research indicates that girls have more positive attitudes about reading than boys, but for

all children positive reading attitudes tend to gradually decline during elementary years (Guthrie

& Knowles, 2001; McKenna, 2001; McKenna et al., 1995). Children who have poor motivation

and attitudes in reading may engage in reading activities less; therefore, spending less time

mastering much needed reading skills. Several factors, including choice, personal interest,

characteristics of books and actions of others have all been found to be sources of motivation

(Edmunds & Bauserman, 2006). While some have argued that motivation can not be measured

and plays a minor role in reading, Guthrie and Knowles (2001) argue that achievement, cognition

and motivation all interact as children begin learning to read.

Research is needed to determine children, parents and teachers’ beliefs about reading

components and the role that skills, metacognition and motivation play in learning to read. By

16
interviewing children and adults about their definition of reading and how they think they

learned to read, researchers may be able to determine what components of reading individuals

identify as important in their own reading process. It will also be important to consider how

reading components interact with influences from home and school.

Influences on the Reading Process

The components of reading often play out differently in the home and school. At home,

children are influenced by a variety of things including family members, general development

and exposure to literacy. At school, the interaction between home and school socialization as

well as instructional models, becomes more prominent. Senechal (2006) describes two types of

literacy experiences. Informal experiences are those in which a message is contained within the

print such as reading stories together (Saracho, 2002; Senechal, 2006; Senechal & LeFevre,

2002). Formal literacy experiences are those in which individuals are focused on the elements of

print including direct teaching of letters, sounds, spelling, grammar and vocabulary (Senechal,

2006; Senechal & LeFevre, 2002).

There are two contrasting views of young children’s early “reading experiences.”

Historically, reading readiness created a division between early childhood experiences and the

“real reading” that children were taught in school (Erickson, 2000; Whitehurst & Lonigan,

2002). Reading readiness supporters believe that certain skills are needed prior to formal reading

instruction (Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998). The concept of reading readiness can be contrasted

with the emergent literacy model. Emergent literacy acquisition is part of a developmental

continuum in which reading, writing and oral language develop from an early age within the

child’s social contexts (Wasik & Hendrickson, 2004; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998, 2002).

Current educational trends support an emergent literacy model with emphasis on both informal

17
and formal literacy experiences. Research is needed to determine whether children, teachers and

parents view early literacy experiences from an emergent literacy perspective.

Home and Early Childhood Influences

Children grow and develop within the context of families. Parents, siblings,

grandparents, aunts, uncles, babysitters and close family friends can all shape a child’s

experience. Researchers are interested in the roles that family, parents and caregivers play in the

development of literacy skills. Family literacy has been defined as the literacy practices that

occur within the home and community (Purcell-Gates, 2000; Wasik et al., 2002). Studies have

found differences in the types of literacy activities that parents, families and communities engage

in based on socioeconomic status, parental education level and culture (Heath, 1983; Payne,

2003; Purcell-Gates, 2000; Tabors et al., 2001; Wasik et al., 2002; Wasik & Hendrickson, 2004;

Wells, 1986). Reading books, writing letters, playing games, telling stories, cooking and

shopping are some of the activities that families engage in that provide rich literacy experiences

(Heath, 1983; Saracho, 2002; Wells, 1986). Many families participate in informal literacy

experiences such as a parent reading a bedtime story (Saracho, 2002; Senechal, 2006; Senechal

& LeFevre, 2002), however, fewer actually teach formal skills such as the parents pointing out

letters that make up the words to their child (Senechal, 2006). Even with all these potential

literacy rich experiences, many children come to school with less literacy exposure than others.

Community programs such as Head Start, TV shows like “Between the Lions” and government

publications such as “Put Reading First” all provide information about increasing early literacy

skills (Heath, 1983; National Reading Panel, 2003; Pellegrini, 2002; Rath & Kennedy, 2004;

Saracho, 2002). It has been suggested that,

Parent involvement strategies that incorporate education and family literacy might
produce greater results for children learning to read than strategies that do not

18
 address parents' knowledge of their children's literacy development. (Darling &
Westberg, 2004, p. 775)

Parents and families’ beliefs and practices can indirectly and directly affect children’s reading

practices (Baker & Scher, 2002; Baker et al., 1997).

At a young age, children typically acquire a variety of language and literacy skills over a

very short period of time. Rapid development of language provides the foundation. In addition,

many children are exposed to informal and formal literacy experiences. Children as young as

twenty-four months have been documented righting books when upside-down or backwards,

turning pages and sharing stories with other children during free play with literacy related

materials (Galentine, 1996). Preschool children begin to develop alphabetic knowledge,

phonological sensitivity and pretend writing if they have had early literacy exposure (Whitehurst

& Lonigan, 2002). Children at this age can often read signs such as Stop or McDonalds. It is

unclear how children, parents and teachers view these early reading experiences.

School Influences

School literacy has been defined as “the written and social language that is sanctioned in

school” (Nagle, 1999, p. 174). While literacy of the home and school can be different (Heath,

1983), early childhood literacy experiences at home can play an important role in the success or

failure of achieving school literacy. Pellegrini (2002) states, “Children are most successful in

becoming literate when their socialization history is isomorphic to the socialization practice of

the school” (p. 55). Use of social registers that correspond with school-based literacy practices

vary among cultural and socioeconomic groups (Alvermann, 2006; Heath, 1983; Payne, 2003;

Pellegrini, 2002). Therefore, it is important to consider the interaction between home and school

experiences as one studies reading development.

19
 Most school personnel are required to take some coursework in reading instruction or

reading comprehension within content areas. In Ohio, all teachers graduating from an accredited

program are required to have some coursework in reading (Ohio Department of Education,

2007). Individuals working toward certification in an area of early childhood, middle childhood

or intervention specialist must take 12 hours of coursework in a reading core including a

dedicated course on phonics (Ohio Department of Education, 2002a). Even those who plan to

teach Adolescent/Young Adult, Multi-Age, and Vocational courses must take a 3-hour course in

reading in content areas (Ohio Department of Education, 2002b). Emphasis on reading for pre-

service teachers demonstrates the importance placed on reading in school systems.

Reading instructional models are highly debated in educational and political arenas. The

National Reading Panel emphasized systematic and explicit instruction related to all aspects of

reading (National Reading Panel, 2000a, 2000b, 2003). Other methods have also been proposed.

For example, some argue that literature-based instruction with embedded lessons on specific

skills is sufficient (Morrow & Gambrell, 2002). Another viewpoint is allowing competent

teachers to make decisions and provide ideal conditions based on the individualized needs of

each student as they learn to read (F. Smith, 1999). There are multiple ways of grouping

instructional approaches. Some educators align themselves with one of three instructional

orientations: whole-language, phonics or balanced instruction (Vacca et al., 2003). Others base

their practices on bottom-up, top-down or interactive models of reading (Vacca et al., 2003). In

addition, it is important to consider specific, individual reading methods and programs that have

been used during the past fifty years. Additional research is needed to determine teachers’

implementation and beliefs about instructional methods.

20
 Four general reading instructional models have been outlined and discussed in the

literature: cognitive apprenticeship, explicit instruction, direct instruction and balanced

instruction (Morrow & Gambrell, 2002; Ryder et al., 2006; S. Stahl et al., 1998; S. A. Stahl,

2002; Vacca et al., 2003). Cognitive apprenticeship is a constructivist, holistic approach that

focuses on guided responses and scaffolding. Cooperative learning, reciprocal teaching,

collaborative problem solving, and conversational discussion groups are all within the realm of

cognitive apprenticeship (Ryder et al., 2006). This approach would also be aligned with whole-

language or literature-based instruction (Morrow & Gambrell, 2002; Vacca et al., 2003). Ryder

and colleagues describe explicit instruction as having the following components: “(a) provide

specific instruction for using a comprehensive strategy, (b) include a rationale for instruction,

and (c) provide information as to where it can be used in daily comprehension” (Ryder et al.,

2006, p. 180). These approaches include analytic and synthetic approaches such as the Orton-

Gillingham Method (S. A. Stahl, 2002). Direct instruction is the most highly teacher-directed

and task-analytic method in which a target behavior is analyzed and the components broken

down into specific tasks that are taught to the student (Ryder et al., 2006). Most programs are

highly structured such as the Distar/Reading Mastery Program (S. Stahl et al., 1998; S. A. Stahl,

2002; Vacca et al., 2003). Finally, the balanced approach, also called interactive or eclectic

instruction, combines instructional models to best meet the needs of the students (Ryder et al.,

2006; Vacca et al., 2003). Any combination of teaching methods might be used by teachers in a

balanced model.

Historical and Current Reading Methods and Programs

Educational pedagogy is often viewed as a pendulum swinging from one extreme to

another, repeating and reinventing previous methods of instruction. In 1934, Nila Baton Smith

21
wrote her doctoral dissertation on the history of American reading instruction. This classic work

has been revised several times as it chronicles the history of reading (N. B. Smith, 2002). It is

important to explore reading instruction within a historical context because current instruction

has been built on the methods and research conducted in the past (Monaghan & Hartman, 2002;

N. B. Smith, 2002; N. A. Stahl & Hartman, 2004). For example, adults may fondly remember

learning to read with Dick and Jane in the 1950’s; however, the readers were first introduced in

the 1930’s and were still published until 1965 (Shermer, 2003). In this period, the “look-see”

method of sight words and highly controlled vocabulary was the primary reading instructional

method utilized (N. B. Smith, 2002). The 1970’s saw in increase in phonics instruction but by

the 1980’s reading instruction shifted to literature-based reading, process writing and whole-

language (N. B. Smith, 2002). At the turn of the twenty first century, the emphasis on research-

based reading instruction has taken center stage (National Reading Panel, 2000a, 2000b).

Viewing reading instruction from a historical standpoint allows society to understand how

current methods were developed, compare past methods to current trends, evaluate reoccurring

pedagogical themes and understand “relationship between politics and literacy education, school

and society…and teachers and students” (N. A. Stahl & Hartman, 2004, pg. 176). This is

especially important considering the relationship and influence of parents and teachers on

children as they are learning to read.

Researchers have also explored instructional models for specific reading components

(Adams, 1990; Allen, 2003; Ehri, 2005; Ehri & Snowling, 2004; S. A. Stahl, 2002). For

example, Allen (2003) outlines three reading comprehension instructional models: Reciprocal

Teaching Approach (RTA), Transactional Strategy Instruction (TSI), The Cognitive Academic

Language Learning Approach (CALLA). All three approaches draw heavily from

22
constructivism. The basic premise of RTA is that by teaching certain strategies, followed by

active discussion, children will increase their comprehension. TSI, in comparison, requires long-

term instruction bringing together memory and comprehension strategies, to increase student’s

comprehension. CALLA was originally developed for English Language Learners but can be

applied to any reader, models and explains multiple strategies which are practices by groups in

academic content subjects to increase comprehension. In the area of phonics, considerable

debate occurs over explicit versus embedded instruction (National Reading Panel, 2000a, 2000b,

2003; S. A. Stahl, 2002).

Historical and current instructional methods play an important role in learning to read.

Researchers must consider general pedagogy, reading instructional methods, programs and

textbooks adopted by schools and teachers’ implementation of reading instruction. In addition,

each reader can be influenced by how others learned to read and current societal beliefs about

reading. Finally, researchers must consider how to determine what instruction is occurring in the

classroom.

Observing Instructional Methods

In light of educational reform, researchers have looked at ways to standardize

observations of reading instruction for comparison across teachers, classrooms, methods and

student outcome data (Vaughn & Briggs, 2003). Specifically, Foorman and Schatschneider

(2003) have reviewed research to design an effective way to observe reading instruction across

grade levels and content areas. Standardizing observations would provide a systematic way for

administrators and researchers to examine classroom practices. It also relates well to the goal of

“No Child Left Behind” to utilize the most effective, highest quality, research-based reading

instruction ("Public law no: 107-110 ", Enacted January 8, 2002). Instructional methods are

23
intertwined with other experiences as a child learns to read; therefore, it is critical to reflect on

both teachers’ instruction and how it is assessed.

Further, it is important to consider if there is a difference between learning and teaching

and the role of both in school literacy. Lindfors (1984) differentiates between teaching, the

instructional activities to increase a child’s ability to make meaning of printed symbols, and

learning, what children do to make sense of text. Observing teachers in the classroom will allow

insight into teacher instructional models. In addition, asking individuals “How you think

you/your child learned to read?” will also explore perceived instructional models while also

addressing differences between teaching and learning. Instructional methods are tied closely to

reading outcomes so it is also important to consider the purposes of reading.

Purposes of Reading

Reading can be viewed as a “goal-directed and purposeful process” (Kucer, 2005, p.

128). Several factors play into the purposes of reading. First, the reader brings their own

knowledge to the reading experience. Background knowledge is continuously compared to what

is being read. Second, readers have intentions such as finding a specific piece of information

compared to getting a general sense of what is happening (Kucer, 2005). Third, different

materials lend themselves to varying purposes. For example, a popular fiction novel is more

aligned with reading for pleasure compared to a textbook which would more often be used for

gaining information. Goodman (1996) outlines five purposes for reading: environmental,

informational, occupational, recreational and ritualistic. Print that is all around us would be

considered environmental. Informational reading includes gaining knowledge from reading

items such as books, labels and dictionaries. Reading letters, materials and email for work would

be considered occupational reading. Some occupational reading is very specific to a career such

24
maintenance worker reading a service manual. Recreational reading includes both reading for

pleasure and leisure reading. Finally, Goodman (1996) describes ritualistic reading as

participatory reading that is often part of religious services.

While interviewing children about their reading points of view, Swanson (1985), asked

students “Why do we read?” Responses were categorized as either “fun/information” or

necessary to “learn to read.” No previous literature was cited for Swanson’s grouping of

information and fun together. It is reasonable to argue that recreational reading is a very

different purpose from informational reading.

Purposes for reading may vary across the age span and are situational. They can also be

influenced by reading experiences. Barton (2001) conducted research on the everyday reading

activities of adults in Lancaster, England. He found that adults participated in a variety of

literacy related activities and much of everyday activities required reading and writing. In

addition, the people in the research study spent time involved in reading for relaxation or to pass

the time. Some are concerned that people are spending less time reading and more time

watching TV or involved in interactive media which could impact time spent practicing reading

skills as well as motivation to read (Elley, 2001; van der Voort, 2001). It is important to

consider general purposes for reading as part of each individual’s reading belief system. The

final aspect that must be considered when addressing reading is the belief systems of those

engaged in the reading process.

Beliefs and Knowledge About Reading

There is continued debate about the definitions, use and interchangeability of terms such

as beliefs, attitudes, perceptions and ideas (Evans et al., 2004; Richardson et al., 1991). Beliefs

are the truths of an individual. Vacca and colleagues have defined a reading belief system as an

25
“informed philosophy of reading and learning to read” (Vacca et al., 2003, p. 3). In their college

textbook, they provide preservice teachers with several ways to assess their own beliefs about

reading. They have published a “Beliefs About Reading Interview” along with guidelines for

analyzing the results. The inventory divides belief statements into two categories: bottom-up and

top-down (Vacca et al., 2003). Depending on results of the interview, preservice teachers can

have a bottom-up, top-down or interactive orientation to reading. In addition, the authors

recommend that teachers also use the Theoretical Orientation to Reading Profile (TORP), also

published in their textbook, to classify their orientation as phonics, skills-based or whole-

language.

Researchers often use one of these two methods to studying orientation of reading and

reading beliefs; either surveys or interviews. Surveys ask individuals to answer questions or rate

beliefs using scales or pre-selected answers. For example, the Theoretical Orientation to

Reading Profile (TORP) classifies orientation as phonics, skills-based or whole-language

(DeFord, 1985; McCutchen et al., 2002; Vacca et al., 2003). The Approaches to Beginning

Reading and Reading Instruction (ABRRI) categorizes beliefs into top-down or bottom-up

approaches (Evans et al., 1998; Evans et al., 2004). Other surveys have also been developed to

assess orientation of reading and reading beliefs (Bos et al., 2001). Sometimes theoretical

orientation surveys do not capture subtle differences so participants fall in a neutral range or

between categories (McCutchen et al., 2002; Wellman, 2007). Qualitative measures that include

interviews, observations and collection of artifacts provide another method to gather information

about reading orientation and beliefs (Muchmore, 2001; Richardson et al., 1991; Van Sluys et

al., 2005). Participant biases do exist doing interviews, especially asking individuals for

historical information, because they are removed from the source in time and information has

26
been filtered through their memories (Monaghan & Hartman, 2002). Still supporters of

qualitative methods cite the richness of data gathered (Richardson et al., 1991) and the ability to

study beliefs in relationship to lived experiences (Muchmore, 2001).

Moore (1985) reviewed research on the theoretical orientation of reading for students,

teachers and publishers of materials and factors that might influence each of these groups. Four

basic influences on a child’s view of the reading process were determined: reading ability,

teaching, child’s personality and environment. Publishers and authors had different determining

factors in their contributions to reading materials such as research, consultants, history/tradition

and market forces. Finally, teachers’ orientation of reading is influenced by training, teaching

experience, school policy and materials available. Moore (1985) states that the interaction

between these three groups must be considered when viewing the reading process. “An

awareness of a child’s understanding of reading may assist in providing appropriate instruction”

(Moore, 1985, p. 11). In addition, the orientation of reading of parents and caregivers should be

considered as an additional category separate from environmental influences of children.

Knowing parents’ reading beliefs provides insight into the variety of reading related activities

that parents may engage in with their children.

Researchers have studied school personnel (Bos et al., 2001; Evans et al., 2004; Lehman

et al., 1994; McCutchen et al., 2002; Moore, 1985; Muchmore, 2001; Olson & Singer, 1994;

Richardson et al., 1991; Thomas & Barksdale-Ladd, 1997; Van Sluys et al., 2005; Wellman,

2007), parents (Darling & Westberg, 2004; Evans et al., 2004; Lynch et al., 2006) and students’

(Hansen, 2006; House, 2003; Moore, 1985; O'Sullivan, 1992; Swanson, 1985; Thomas &

Barksdale-Ladd, 1997) knowledge and beliefs about reading. These studies provide insight into

how individuals view the definition of reading and the reading process. Very few studies

27
provide information about the relationships between beliefs of children, parents and teachers

compared to current and historical instructional methods.

Teachers’ Reading Beliefs

It has been proposed that there are three influences on a teacher’s belief system: personal

experience, practical experience and professional study and development (Vacca et al., 2003).

Personal experience or knowledge could include factors related to people, things and processes

experienced throughout one’s lifetime. Practical knowledge using comes from working with

students during practicum experiences and teaching career. It can also include interactions

within the broader school, community and culture. Finally, professional knowledge is usually

obtained during college education and professional development.

Thomas and Barksdale-Ladd (1997) conducted a qualitative study comparing teaching

pedagogy, teacher beliefs and student outcomes in two kindergarten classrooms, one stressing

skill-based reading instruction and the other emphasizing a whole-language approach. Each

teacher was interviewed and the classroom was observed for a month at the end of the

kindergarten school year. Students were given a modified version of Clay's Concepts About

Print Test (CAPT). In addition, students were interviewed and given a word reading task and

phonemic segmentation task. Finally, writing samples were also collected from each child.

Based on the interviews and observation, the two teachers did exhibit differing personal

experiences with literacy, educational background, classroom structure and pedagogical

strategies. Student results reflected the teaching philosophy. Students in the skills-based

classroom were significantly more likely to provide definitions of reading related to skills (45%)

while students in the whole-language classroom provided definitions related to searching for

meaning (60%). In addition, students in the whole language classroom were all willing to create

28
a writing sample. Twenty-three percent of the students in the skills-based classroom refused to

participate in this task. On the CAPT, however; students in the skills based classroom performed

better than those in the whole-language classroom. Results provide support that each teaching

method has positive but differing impact on learning. This study provides an excellent model for

a qualitative study although results are limited because the researcher only viewed two

classrooms and did not account for influences of pre-kindergarten experiences or parent beliefs.

McCutchen and colleagues (2002) investigated fifty-nine elementary teachers' reading-

related content knowledge of literature and phonology, phonics, skills-based or whole-language

orientation toward reading instruction, classroom instruction, and their students' achievement.

Using the Theoretical Orientation to Reading Profile (TORP), teachers in this study had a

moderate ranking of orientation of reading indicating no particular theoretical orientation over

another regardless of teacher training, instructional method in the classroom or grade level

taught. Compared to other studies, results in this study indicated little relationship between

instructional philosophy and content knowledge, and between instructional philosophy and

classroom practice. The results could be shaped by the measures used because most teachers did

not fall into one of the specific categories of phonics, skills-based or whole-language as

measured by the TORP. The authors concluded “that as literacy practices become more

complex, isolated aspects of teacher content knowledge and brief observations of classroom

practice become less able to account for student outcomes” (McCutchen et al., 2002, p. 223).

Parents’ Reading Beliefs

Lynch, Anderson, Anderson and Shapiro (2006) interviewed thirty-five parents of

Canadian preschoolers about their literacy beliefs using the Parents’ Perceptions of Literacy

Learning Interview Schedule (PPLLIS). The interview guide used a five-point Likert scale to

29
determine parents’ beliefs about how children learn to read and write. In addition, parents were

asked open ended questions about what literacy related activities they participate in with their

children. Results indicated that parents in the study had a more holistic view than skill-based

view of literacy. In addition, a moderate positive relationship was found between parents’

holistic beliefs and the use of encouraging activities. A moderate negative relationship was

found between parents’ holistic beliefs and the use of direct teaching of reading or writing skills.

Finally, parents with college education were more likely to have a holistic view and those who

did not attend college had a more skills based view of literacy. The researchers cautioned results

may be slightly skewed because the educational system in the area promoted a more holistic

view of literacy.

Darling and Westberg (2004) conducted a meta-analysis of parent involvement in

children’s literacy acquisition. The authors used a narrow view of literacy, only including

research related to reading such as knowledge of letter names and sounds, phoneme awareness,

decoding, word recognition and reading comprehension. In addition, only research involving

parent intervention was included to measure changes in literacy acquisition from parent

involvement. Twenty studies that impacted 1583 families were analyzed. The meta-analysis

revealed that parent training of specific exercises to teach their child to read produced the

greatest results. In regards to training parents to listen to their child read, it was more effective

than having parents listen to their child read without training. Unfortunately, the authors failed

to report actual effect sizes in their study so interpretation must be made cautiously.

Students’ Reading Beliefs

Swanson (1985) interviewed 18 kindergarten, 21 third and 30 sixth grade students about

their definition of reading, purpose of reading, process of reading and teacher’s instruction intent.

30
Results were analyzed for the total group and by grade level. Responses to the question, “What

is reading,” were categorized as either meaning making or sounding out/word calling. Thirty-

eight percent of children interviewed responded with meaning making statements while 68%

gave responses related to sound out words. Students were also asked, “Why do we read?” Sixth

graders were more likely to give responses that were categorized into a category of

fun/information compared to kindergartners and third graders who provided responses that were

categorized as learning to read statements. Overt and covert reading processes were determined

from responses to the question, “What do you do when you read?” A developmental trend was

noted with younger students suggesting more overt reading processes such as sounding out

words and older students responding with more convert answers such as thinking of words.

Finally, students were asked, “Why do teachers ask you questions about reading?” Fifty-two

percent of students answered that teachers were testing them, 36% reported to improve skills and

12% didn’t know or didn’t have teachers who asked questions. This study provided valuable

information about using interview methods with elementary children and preliminary categories

of responses. One major limitation the author noted was that most students were involved in a

phonics emphasized reading program but exact details of instruction models were unknown. In

addition, responses were grouped into very broad categories. For example, “fun” and

“information” could be separated to provide more details about students’ reasons for reading.

Finally, the author did not provide any examples of what students actually said and did not

include justification as to why categories were selected.

A recent study was completed interviewing children in first, third and fifth grade about

their perspectives about reading (Hansen, 2006). A total of 57 children were recruited from an

urban public Montessori school. Each child was individually interviewed for approximately ten

31
minutes to answer the questions, “What is Reading?” and “How do you think you learned to

read?” Responses were transcribed and categorized into meaningful groupings. Content

analysis was performed and frequency of occurrence was calculated based on number of

responses, rather than number of participants. Nine categories were identified for the students’

definitions of reading: use, process of reading, mental images, listening, writing, source, literary

attributes, emotional response and no response. Definitions including “use” (29.1%) and

“process of reading” (25.3%) were frequently occurring. Breaking down the definitions by grade

level, first graders gave no responses (31.8%), third graders used “processes of reading” (32.3%)

and fifth graders listed “use” (50%) most frequently. Three categories emerged from the

question, “How do you think you learned to read?” Environment was divided into location,

people, materials and extended activities. Instruction was divided into inside-out, outside-in,

combination and no response. Finally, the category of influences included internal and external.

Hansen reported 59 location responses, 68 instruction responses, and 28 influences responses

across all grade levels. Results were difficult to compare across grade levels due to the small

number of students participating with a huge variation of responses. Based on previous research

studies (Evans et al., 2004; Swanson, 1985; Thomas & Barksdale-Ladd, 1997), data are being

reanalyzed into different categories for more meaningful interpretation (Hansen et al., 2007).

This study provides a strong foundation for expansion to include responses of parents and

teachers.

Teachers, Parents & Students

O’Sullivan (1992) examined the relationship between students, teachers and parents’

beliefs about reading achievement and with students’ reading achievement. Five hundred fifty-

two low-income Canadian students in third, sixth and ninth grade, along with their parents and

32
74 teachers, participated in the study. Parents and teachers were provided questionnaires that

measured demographic information, their own achievement standards, reading beliefs and

student’s reading achievement. In addition, each student was assessed using portions of the

Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test and a student 7-point Likert scale questionnaire. Two research

questions were addressed: (1) the effects of gender and grade level on students’ reading

achievement, students’ beliefs, parents’ beliefs and teachers’ beliefs and (2) the relationship

between students, teachers and parents’ reading beliefs and students’ reading achievement.

Gender and grade level had a significant effect on students’ reading beliefs with younger

children and girls having more positive reading self-concepts. At all grade levels, parents and

students had higher perceptions of student achievement than teachers. One interesting finding

was that even though teachers had lower perception of student achievement, they assigned grades

reflecting that of higher achievement rates. The researchers were not sure if that was attributed

to lack of awareness or a desire to raise students’ self-esteem. Additional data analysis revealed

students’ beliefs significantly influenced student achievement. In addition, parents and teachers’

beliefs also had an impact on student achievement. Unfortunately, the survey contained belief

statements with which individuals could agree or disagree but did not measure open-ended

responses about core reading beliefs. The results of this study do appear to indicate that not only

are reading skills important but the belief systems of all those involved in the reading process

need to be considered.

Summary

There are multiple influences on the reading process that interact as one becomes a

proficient reader. It is important to consider the impact of the individual, family, school and

culture on the reading process. Multiple studies have explored children, parents and teachers’

33
beliefs about reading; however, few studies have used open-ended questions to explore the

relationships between these three groups and across grade levels. Knowing children, parents’

and teachers’ definitions of reading and how they think children learn to read can give us a

glimpse of the reading beliefs of home and school.

34
 CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

Overview

This study sought to address how students, parents and teachers define reading, how they

believe they and their children learned to read and their purposes for reading within current and

historical reading instructional models. Specifically, it addressed the following research

questions:

How do children, parents and teachers define reading?

How do children, parents and teachers think children learn to read?

What purpose do children, parents and teachers state for reading?

Is there a relationship between definitions of reading, beliefs about learning to read,

purposes for reading and current and/or historical reading instructional methods?

Theoretical Orientation

An interpretative approach along with content analysis was utilized to examine the data.

Themes and patterns were established and quantified using content analysis. Codes and themes

were informed by the literature. Secondary, the methodology relied on a sociocultural

framework in which each person brings their own social and cultural experiences to interactions

surrounding literacy and that reality is mediated within a collaborative context. Viewing reading

beliefs within the triad of children, their parents and teachers acknowledges that meaning is

mutually constructed within a social and cultural framework (Perez, 2004; Wink & Putney,

2002). I was particularly interested in participant perspectives (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992). It was

important to explore how children, parents and teachers make sense of learning to read.

35
Researcher Orientation

As a qualitative researcher, it’s important to describe my theoretical and professional

point of reference for this study. My theoretical orientation relies heavily on sociocultural

theory. I believe that individuals learn to read as part of a social and cultural community.

However, I believe it is important to consider cognitive, linguistic and developmental dimensions

of literacy especially considering the participants in this study are a diverse group who may have

differing perspectives.

Professional Orientation

As a speech-language pathologist, I am concerned about development and disorders of

speech, language and literacy across the age-span. I have provided speech-language services for

eight years, including five years full-time in the public schools. The American Speech-Language

Hearing Association (2001) has established that speech-language pathologists have a vital role in

literacy prevention, evaluation and intervention due to the connection between oral language and

written language. This has influenced my definition of reading. I believe that reading is

embedded within the broader definition of literacy, which includes writing, speaking and

listening. I feel strongly about reading to young children, teaching them skills and components

and showing them a variety of purposes for reading. Most of my professional time is devoted to

children with disabilities; however; it is important to consider how typical readers view literacy,

especially reading, to compare and improve services provided to individuals who struggle with

any aspects of literacy.

36
Entrée

While conducting the research, I was an employee of the local school district that

provides contract services at the Catholic school where I worked part-time, two days a week,

with students and teachers. Although the principal and school psychologist knew about my

dissertation, I worked for two months providing speech-language services and getting to know

the school before approaching teachers about participating. I wanted to establish myself as an

integral part of the school. I didn’t want teachers to feel pressured to participate because I was

providing services to their students. In addition, I wanted time to establish comfort and

familiarity with me as a fellow staff member before approaching them as a researcher.

Research Site

Community

The research was conducted in a large urban city. During the 2000 census, the

population was 331, 285 people. Like many large cities, there has been a gradual decrease in the

population over the past twenty years as people flock to the suburbs. In 2005, it was estimated

that the population had declined to approximately 285,000 people. At the time of the study,

reports indicated 53% of the population was white, 43% African American, 2% Asian and 2%

report two or more races. In addition, one percent of the population also reported being

Hispanic. The median age was 32 with 75% of the population being over the age of 18. Almost

50% of households were made up of married couples of which 25% had children. The median

household income was $29,493, which was well below the state average of $44,349.

The city offers a variety of educational, recreational and cultural activities. The city has

an orchestra, opera, theaters and museums. Major league baseball and football are popular

sporting events. Numerous parks exist within the city and county. The city also has over 20

37
colleges and universities. In addition, 35,000 children attend school in the state’s third largest

district which covers ninety square miles within the city. Like many large urban districts, the

school system has dealt with a decline in teachers and students, desegregation and busing issues

and maintaining high academic standards. Currently, the district boasts continuous improvement

in reading and math scores, graduation rate and student attendance.

Neighborhood

Approximately 30 neighborhoods are located within the community, not including

numerous surrounding cities and towns that make up the greater metropolitan area. This

research was conducted within one of the smaller neighborhoods, Sunnyside, which is located

within the city limits. The population of Sunnyside was 8,872. Sixty-one percent of people

reported their race as white, 36% African American, 1% Asian and 2% as two or more races.

The neighborhood includes a small business district, branch of the county public library, several

churches, four private schools and two public schools, including an elementary school that

follows a Montessori curriculum. At the time of the study, the neighborhood was attempting to

define itself as a cultural and entertainment area by increasing support and appreciation of the

arts.

School

Bartel Academy is the only Catholic school located in Sunnyside, although there were

numerous Catholic schools throughout the urban area. Tuition is approximately $2,470-$3,650

per child depending on membership in the church and grade level. The school was founded in

1921 by the local parish. The school emphasizes five basic beliefs: Catholic identity and

religious instruction, academics, arts, global education and technology. Specifically, the school’s

mission is to provide children with a “solid academic education with a global perspective in

38
which the arts and technology are integrated into the curriculum--all rooted in the Gospel of

Jesus Christ.” Approximately 373 children in kindergarten through eighth grade attend Bartel.

Two hundred students are from Sunnyside. Many of the other students were transported by

parents from nearby neighborhoods. A few students were from surrounding suburbs outside of

the city. No busing was utilized so students either walked to school or were dropped off by

family members. Many students attend Bartel throughout their elementary years and siblings,

parents or grandparents have also attended school there. Bartel employs about 40 staff members

including the principal, instructional and support staff. Parent volunteers are utilized on a daily

basis with students in the elementary classrooms to complete small group activities and have

one-on-one tutoring. Parents are also encouraged to volunteer throughout the school in

fundraising and support roles. Academic success is at the forefront. As a whole, students at

Bartel achieve above average compared to students in the local public school district. In 2005,

Bartel was named a Blue Ribbon School by the US Department of Education, one of sixteen

schools in the state, recognizing their achievement of being in the top 10% of private schools in

the nation. A parent submitted the following statement about Bartel Academy on a website

about private schools in the area, “"Excellent quality academics, well prepared for high school,

wonderful music and art programs. Good variety of sports and inclusive of all talent levels.

Unparalleled parental involvement.” The students and families of Bartel are a close group and

active within the parish and community.

Participants

The study utilized sampling of convenience and multiple-case sampling within an

organization (Bogdan & Biklen, 1992; Miles & Huberman, 1994). Participants were chosen

based on access to the research site but small groups within the research site were sought to

39
compare responses across grade levels. Because I worked at Bartel Academy, I had established

entrée with the staff. As a result, I had the opportunity to recruit participants from this research

site. Each staff member that I approached agreed to participate. Prior to the study, I had contact

with only a few families of students I served. To maintain confidentiality and establish a

boundary between myself as the school speech-language pathologist and the researcher of this

study, those students and families I served were excluded from this study. Obtaining enough

child and parent participants across each of the grade levels was a little harder to establish.

Teachers sent home between 2-3 rounds of consent forms to five to ten students. Initially,

twenty participants per grade level, approximately ten students per classroom, were sought.

After the third round of consent forms were sent and returned, recruitment of participants ceased.

There were 93 participants total: six teachers, 40 parents and 47 students across first, third and

fifth grade.

Parents Demographics

Forty parents agreed to participate. Five parents had two children participate and one

parent had three children participate. Parents ranged in age from 36 to 50 years with an average

age of 42.6 (SD=3.9). Of the parent participants, 39 were female and 1 was male. Thirty-five

parents reported having a college education, two had attended some college, one was a high

school graduate, one received a GED and one was not reported. Twenty-nine parents reported

working part or full time in a variety of settings including retail, medicine, business, education

and law. Eleven participants described themselves as stay-at-home moms or not working outside

of the home. Parents were asked an open-ended question to describe their race or ethnicity.

Eighty-four percent reported their race as Caucasian/white, 5% reported African-American/Black

and 5% reported biracial or multiracial (Figure 1).

40
 Race/Ethnicity of Parents

5%
3%
0% Caucasian/White
3%
5% African American/Black
Hispanic
Asian
bi/multi-racial
84% not reported

Figure 1. Parent participants’ race/ethnicity (n=40)

Children Demographics

A total of 47 students participated in the study. All first grade children were 6-7 years

old, all third grade children were 8-9 years old and all fifth grade children were 10-11 years old.

A total of 23 girls and 24 boys participated across the three grade levels. Each classroom had six

to ten students participate (Table 1). Children were functioning at grade level and were not

receiving any special education services through an individual education plan.

Table 1

Child participants by grade, class, gender (n=47)

1st: Ms. 1st: Ms. 3rd: Ms. 3rd: Ms. 5th: Ms. 5th: Ms. Total
Johnson Bradle White Smith Gooch Cochran
Girls 3 4 5 3 4 4 23
Boys 3 6 5 4 2 4 24
Total 6 10 10 7 6 8 47

41
 Parents were asked an open-ended question regarding their child’s race or ethnicity.

Based on parent reports of their child’s race or ethnicity, 81% of students participating were

Caucasian/white and 11% were biracial or multiracial (Figure 2). The percent of Caucasian,

Hispanic and Asian students participating closely matched the demographics of the school while

a relatively higher percentage of bi/multi racial students and lower percentage of African-

American students participated (Table 2).

Race/Ethnicity of Students

11%
0%
4% 2% Caucasian/White

2% African American/Black
Hispanic
Asian
bi/multi-racial
81%
not reported

Figure 2. Student participants’ race/ethnicity as reported by parent (n=47)

42
Table 2

Race/Ethnic Demographics of School compared to Study Participants (n=47) by percentage

School Study

Caucasian/White 78% 81%

African-American/Black 12% 2%
Hispanic 2% 4%
Asian 1% 0%
Bi/Multi-racial 7% 11%
Not Reported 0% 2%

Teachers Demographics

Six teachers from Bartel Academy, two from each grade level, agreed to participate.

Their ages ranged from 24 to 60 years. Each had a minimum of an education-related bachelor’s

degree. In addition, they had taught between 1 to 25 years at various grades. All six teachers

were female and described their race as Caucasian/white.

Materials

Each participant was asked a series of questions about reading. Interviews were taped

using an Olympus WS-300 digital voice recorder. During parent phone interview, an Olympus

TP7 telephone pickup was attached to the voice recorder. Informal notes were taken during the

interviews on an interview guide as well (See appendix A-C). Field notes of classroom

observation were taken and then transcribed. Classroom observations were not audio or

videotaped and data specific to individual students were not collected to maintain confidentiality

of all students in the school. Artifacts, or archival data, including documents and materials were

collected from various sources. After the observation, photocopies of classroom materials

43
related to the observation were made with teacher consent. In addition, materials mentioned by

students, parents and teachers during the interview were located and analyzed. Data from

interviews, observations and artifacts were compared and triangulated.

Procedures

Participants were drawn from a local Catholic school where I worked part time as a

speech-language pathologist. After receiving project approval from the principal, I spoke

individually with each teacher in first, third and fifth grade. All agreed to participate and signed

consent forms. The principal and I wrote cover letters to the parents and attached them to the

consent forms. These were then sent home with students in first, third and fifth grade in their

weekly classroom folders. To reduce bias and conflict of interest, students receiving speech-

language services were excluded from participation. Envelopes were provided so that parents

could send consent forms back confidentially. Parents that chose to participate signed the

consent form and returned it to the school. Once parent consent was obtained, children provided

assent before being interviewed. Child interviews took place at the child’s school in either the

speech-language van or at a table in the hallway. Each child’s interview ranged in length from 1

minute, 11 seconds to 4 minutes, 21 seconds with an average of 1 minute, 13 seconds (SD=45

seconds). Parents participated in a phone interview which ranged in length from 3 minutes, 34

seconds to 13 minutes, 17 seconds with an average of 6 minutes, 56 seconds (SD=152 seconds).

After the majority of child and parent interviews were collected for a classroom, the

teacher was observed for thirty minutes teaching reading/language arts or incorporating reading

into content areas. Each teacher was able to select the day, time and activity that would be

observed. I would quietly enter the classroom at the designated time and sit near the back.

44
During the observation, I took field notes on a notepad. If students were at centers or working on

projects, I moved around the room to observe what was occurring. Near the end of each

observation, I drew a detailed map of the classroom. I also asked permission of the teacher to

photocopy reading selections, sample projects and worksheets as a collection of artifacts.

After the classroom observations were completed, the teachers were interviewed about

their reading beliefs. Teacher interviews were conducted in their classroom and ranged in length

from 9 minutes, 13 seconds to 18 minutes, 32 seconds with an average of 13 minutes, 29 seconds

(SD=217 seconds). Teachers were sent a summary of results by groups and grade level and a

description of their classroom observation after data were analyzed to verify correct information.

Data Analysis

Responses for reading definitions, learning to read components and purpose for reading

were transcribed and coded following qualitative research methods (Bakeman & Gottman, 1997;

Berg, 2007; Bogdan & Biklen, 1992; Lofland & Lofland, 1984; Miles & Huberman, 1994;

Patton, 2002). To aid in data transcription, Dragon Natural Speaking 9 was used ("Dragon

naturally speaking 9"). During the first pass, each participant recording was played at 75% rate

of speed using Express Scribe ("Express scribe 4") so that I could repeat the interviews into the

computer microphone at a slow rate. It took approximately ten to forty minutes per sample to

listen and repeat each sample with Dragon Naturally Speaking into a Microsoft Word document.

After transcription with Dragon Naturally Speaking was completed, each sample was listened to

a second time at 90% speed and corrections were made to the transcripts. Overall, it took

approximately 46 hours to complete and review all the transcripts. The 93 interviews yielded

195 pages of single-spaced, typed transcripts.

45
 Codes and themes were established and content analysis performed. Initial codes were

established through reanalysis of previous collected data (Hansen, 2006; Hansen et al., 2007) in

comparison with current literature. This established a conceptual framework for coding (Miles

& Huberman, 1994). Content analysis was utilized to determine patterns and themes (Berg,

2007). Each transcript was read through one time without coding to get a sense of the

participants’ answers, compare responses to previous codes and establish new codes. Then a

second and third pass were done to code the number and type of responses to each question. A

second reader, a member of my dissertation committee, was asked to read a select number of

responses that were difficult to code. Those responses were coded by consensus. This further

strengthened coding parameters. Finally, a fourth and fifth pass through the transcripts were

completed and results were entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Counts of final codes

were calculated as well as word counts within some codes (Berg, 2007). Child responses were

compared between and across grade levels and to both parent and teacher responses.

Validity

Triangulation was utilized to establish validity. Triangulation is the gathering of data

from multiple sources. Interviews were conducted on a minimum of four children, two boys and

two girls, per class resulting in at least eight child participants per grade level. A parent of each

child also contributed information to compare shared home environments. Teachers of the

students were then interviewed to compare shared school environments. In addition, I observed

language arts and reading being taught or utilized in each of the classrooms. Each observation

lasted approximately 30 minutes. The day, time and lesson were selected by the classroom

teacher. This allowed me to collect field notes and artifacts about current instructional methods.

46
By triangulating data, I was able to compare themes across participants, classrooms and grade

levels.

In addition, all six teachers who participated in the study were provided a summary of the

coded results and classroom observation descriptions by email prior to completion of the

research. Each was asked to check the accuracy of the classroom observations and provide

feedback about the results. The teachers were on summer break so a second email was sent two

weeks later to those not responding during the initial contact. Four of the six teachers responded.

A first grade teacher pointed out a typo and a third grade teacher reported an error in the number

of times per year the students get to shop in the store as a reward for reading. One fifth grade

teacher provided additional information about the African Folktale project that would strengthen

the description of her classroom observation. With the corrections and additions, all four

teachers who responded approved the classroom observation summary.

Interrater reliability

Interrater reliability was calculated using Cohen's Kappa to determine agreement between

two raters for assigning categorical codes to answers from 10% of the interviews. The second

rater was a practicing speech-language pathologist who conducted similar research during her

master’s program the previous year. She was retrained using the current codes on a select

number of interviews. Then a random numbers chart was used to select 10% of the interviews

excluding those used in the training session. Results for coding all categories within the

interview was k=0.842 with a strength assignment of very good or substantial. Agreement of .70

or above is considered satisfactory (Landis & Koch, 1977).

47
 Field Exit

Exiting from Bartel occurred in stages and had a different impact on various participants.

Child interviews, which took approximately a month to complete, had me frequently in and out

of classrooms. At the end of each interview, I thanked the child for their time. Once the child

interviews were done, I conducted the classroom observations. At this point, students were

familiar with me coming into the classroom. Because adults, both staff and volunteers, are

frequently in and out of the classroom, observing did not appear to be noticed as an unusual

event by the students. At the end of each observation, I slipped out of the classroom quietly. I

was still working in the building for the remaining two months of the school year so occasionally

students would say “hi” or ask if I remembered them. I would reply “hi” or “see ya later” back

to them and go on my way. Compared to students, I only had phone contact with parents one

time so exiting the research site did not impact them. However, the impact on teachers was a

little more involved. I had developed a relationship with the teachers as both fellow staff

members and research participants. I worked closely with them to schedule the child interviews,

observation and their own interview. In addition, I worked with them as the building speech-

language pathologist. At the conclusion of the school year, my research and school speech-

language pathology responsibilities both ended. I updated all of the teachers of my future plans

and said goodbye on an individual basis. I also let the principal know that my research was

completed and that I would send him a summary of the results for both the fall parent newsletter

and to use in discussion at a future faculty meeting.

48
 CHAPTER 4

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

There were many ways to analyze the data gathered during category development. To

address the research questions, three interview questions were asked of all participants: “What is

reading?,” “How do you think you (your child) learned to read?” and “Why do you read?”

Answers to each question were transcribed and read to determine the number and coded category

of responses. An answer was defined as anything the participant said in reply to the question. A

response was the smallest unit of information, or theme, that received one code. In addition,

classroom observations and the collection of artifacts were used to triangulate results to address

the final research question. Results by research questions will be reported for group data, grade

level responses and triads. Group data counts each participant only once for a total of 47

students, 40 parents and six teachers. Results by grade level look at students’ answers across

first, third and fifth grade. Data from triads look at the relationship between responses made by

each child-parent-teacher cluster for a total of 47 triads.

Definitions of Reading

How do children, parents and teachers define reading?

Each participant was asked, “What is reading?” During the initial phase of data analysis

answers were transcribed and read to determine responses and categories. For some participants,

an answer to the question, “What is reading?,” yielded more than one response. Based on

analysis of previous collected data (Hansen, 2006; Hansen et al., 2007; Swanson, 1985) and

references to established reading definitions (Adams, 1990; Goodman, 1996; The Partnership for

Reading, n.d.; Turbill, 2002) codes were established. The following macro theme categories

49
were assigned to each response: action/skills of reading (AS), learning/knowledge from reading

(LK), emotional/affective response to reading (EA) or no response (NR). Responses were coded

as action/skills of reading (AS) if the person mentioned steps, process and/or skills of reading.

This could include, but was not limited to, understanding, use or mental processing of letters,

sounds, words, sentences, stories or books. For an example, a participant might state, “Reading

is looking at word to understand a story.” Responses that included gaining specific information

or knowledge from reading were coded as learning/knowledge from reading (LK). This included

an outcome or product of reading such as “becoming smart.” Emotional/affective response (EA)

was used when individuals stated the feelings and emotions related to or in response to reading

such as “it’s great.” Any participant who did not respond to the question or said, “I don’t know”

had their responses coded as no response (NR). If a participant gave a response that did not fit

into any of the other categories, it was coded as an Outlier. For additional information about

definitions of Reading codes and examples see Appendix D.

Due to the broad nature of responses coded as action/skills (AS), these definitions were

further analyzed to determine the specific words or terms used to describe the skills, components

and processes that were mentioned by participants. A count of key words was made based on

each response that was coded action/skills. So, for example, one parent defined reading with the

following action/skill definition, “Reading is um looking at texts in whatever format it is, a book,

a newspaper, a magazine, a sign, whatever.” The following terms and words were counted:

text, book, newspaper, magazine, sign. Results for micro analysis of action/skills words and

terms across groups are also reported.

50
Group Results for “What is Reading?”

Answers to the question, “What is reading?” were analyzed and reported by students,

parents and teachers. Of the 93 individuals participating, 78 provided only one response that was

coded. Seven students, seven parents and one teacher gave answers that included two or more

categories of responses. For example, a third grade boy answered, “when ever you read a book”

(AS) and “you just like it” (EA) which was coded as two responses. Table 3 summarizes the

results.

Table 3

Group Results for “What is Reading?” by categories of Action/skills (AS), Learning/knowledge

(LK), Emotional/Affective (EA), No Response (NR) and Outliers (n=93)

Participants AS LK EA NR Outliers Total

Children 30 9 10 5 1 55 responses/47 students
Parents 35 4 9 0 0 48 responses/40 parents
Teachers 6 0 0 0 1 7 responses/6 teachers
Total 71 13 19 5 2 110 responses/93 participants

Students Define Reading

Students predominately defined reading as an Action/Skill of Reading (AS) but

demonstrated much more variety in their definitions compared to adults. Thirty out of forty-

seven students’ answers included an action/skills (AS) response (64%). For example, one of the

first graders said, “You read words.” An emotional/affective (EA) response was given by 10

students (21%). Besides stating that it’s fun, one fifth grade girl included, “I just think it’s

something to just fill in free time.” Learning/knowledge from reading (LK) responses were

made by 9 students (19%) including a third grader who said, “You read stuff so you know about

51
stuff.” Of the 47 students participating, seven gave an answer with two responses to “What is

Reading.” For example, a fifth grader stated, “Something that makes people smarter” (LK) and

“It gives them something to do sometimes when they’re bored” (EA). In addition, five students

did not answer or said, “I don’t know.” There was only one outlier in which a student stated,

“Take quizzes on it, some things about it.” This student also said, “Something you can learn

from” (LK) and “have some fun” (EA); therefore, he had a total of three responses that were

coded. Overall, most student responses were coded as Action/skills.

Further analysis was conducted on the thirty students’ responses that were coded as

action/skills definitions of reading to determine what specific words were used to describe the

actions, skills, components and processes of reading. A count of key words was made based on

each response that was coded action/skills. Key word counts were totaled across students. The

most frequently mentioned term, with 21 responses by students, was words. Many of the

students provided responses such as “you read words.” Books were mentioned by 13 of the

children, including one third grader who said, “Whenever you read a book.” Thirteen students

also used the word read in their definition. Five students stated the word story or stories

including a fifth grader who said, “Reading is when you learn a story through words.” Other

terms that were mentioned included: letters, sounds, sentences, paragraphs, page, paper,

mind/head, message, information, thoughts, understand, learn, look, say, talk, answer, form, put

together, sound out, pronounce and think.

Parents Define Reading

Parents showed a preference for defining reading with action/skills definitions. Thirty-

five (88%) out of forty parents included a response that was coded as Action/skills of Reading.

A parent of a third grader said, “Reading is the ability to look at letters on a page to formulate

52
words.” Nine (23%) out of forty parents had responses coded as emotional/affective including a

response made by a parent of a third grader, who simply stated, “It’s fun.” Finally, six (15%)

out of forty parents included a learning/knowledge response. For example, a parent of a third

and fifth grader, reported, “For me reading would be learning.” Of the forty parents interviewed,

four parents defined reading with two responses and three parents defined reading using

responses for all three reading definition categories.

When further analysis was conducted on the action/skills of reading, parents mentioned

many specific terms that made up the skills, components and process of reading. Similar to

children, parents again used words most often, with 24 out of 35 parents using it within their

action/skills definition of reading. A parent of a first grader said, “Reading is understanding the

words on the page and being able to form a picture in your mind of what the words are trying to

convey to you.” Also frequently mentioned was understanding or comprehension which was

used by 17 parents, including a parent of a fifth grader who stated, “Reading is the

comprehension of written language.” Making meaning was stated by ten parents including one

who said, “It is putting letters together and making a meaning out of those letters.” Parents also

used the following terms: symbols, sounds, letters, sentences, text, page, books, story,

newspaper, magazine, sign, message, thoughts, information, statement, question, language,

communication, concept/idea, image, mind/head/brain, decode, translate, sound out, look, form,

convey, hear, digest, process, convert, say, tell, provide, gain, decipher, interpret, absorb,

formulate and assemble as part of their action/skills definitions.

Teachers Define Reading

All six teachers responded with descriptions of reading that were coded as action/skills of

reading. For example, Ms. Bradle, a 25-year old first grade teacher with 2 years experience said,

53
“I would say reading is being able to decode words in order to gain um strong comprehension.”

Again, action/skills definitions were further analyzed to determine the exact terms used in the

definition. The most frequently used term was words, with four out of six teachers mentioning it

as part of their reading definition. In addition, four out of the six teachers mentioned

understanding/comprehension as a component of their reading definition. Other terms the

teachers used included: symbols, letters, sounds, sentences, paragraphs, text, page, stories,

decode, meaning, form, build and put together.

Grade Level Results

Grade level results for “What is reading” compared students within and across first, third

and fifth grade. Both number of participants and percentages were reported. Again, some

participants gave more than one response in their answer; therefore, their answer was coded as

multiple responses in two or more categories.

First Graders Define Reading

In first grade, Action/Skill responses occurred most often. Ten out of 16 first grade

students provided action/Skill responses for a total of 63%. For example, “You read words” and

“You pick out a book and you like talk about it.” Learning/knowledge and emotional/affective

definitions were given less often by first graders (Table 4).

Third Graders Define Reading

Third graders demonstrated more variability in their definitions. Nine (53%) out of 17

students defined reading in terms of action/skills. One of the third graders said, “Putting words

together to make um a sentence that tells you information.” Four third graders (24%) gave

learning/knowledge responses and 5 students (29%) provided emotional/affective definitions.

54
The most frequently used emotional/affective definition was “It’s fun.” Three students in third

grade gave two responses. Two students did not respond to the questions (Table 4).

Fifth Graders Define Reading

Fifth grade students again gave predominantly action/skills definitions. Eleven (79%)

of the 5th graders interviewed described the skills or action of reading. For example, one of the

fifth graders said, “It is words formed together in a sentence and sentences form together to

make a paragraph and paragraphs form together to make a story.” Three students (21%) gave

learning/knowledge definitions and 2 students (14%) defined it as an emotional/affective

response to reading. Three of the fifth grade students gave 2 responses. (Table 4)

Table 4

Grade Level Responses to “What is Reading?” by categories of Action/skills (AS),

Learning/knowledge (LK), Emotional/affective (EA), No Response (NR) and Outliers (n=47)

Students AS LK EA NR Outliers Total

st
1 10 2 3 2 0 17 responses/16 students
3rd 9 4 5 2 1 “quizzes” 20 responses/17 students
5th 11 3 2 1 0 17 responses/14 students
Total 30 9 10 5 1 55 responses/47 students

Reading Definitions by Triads

Definitions of reading were also viewed across triads. A triad was defined as the child,

his or her parent and teacher. Data were analyzed to determine similar responses by categories

of Action/skills (AS), Learning/knowledge (LK) and Emotional/affective (EA). If at least one of

the definitions provided by each individual was coded using the same category, it was considered

a match across the triad. For example, Mary, an 8-year-old third grader, stated that reading was

55
“putting words together to make um a sentence that tells you information.” Her mother, Ms.

Towne, reported, “Reading is putting letters together to form words that have meaning and um

providing information.” Mary’s third grade teacher, Ms. Smith defined reading as “the

understanding, the written words that someone wants to give to you.” All three participants

included reading at the word level and the concept of information; thus, resulted in a coding of

action/skills and a match across the triad.

Twenty-five of the forty-seven triads across 1st, 3rd and 5th grades provided definitions

that were all coded action/skills (Table 5). Thus, more than half of the triads defined reading in

similar ways. There were no instances of the entire triad using learning/knowledge or

emotional/affective definitions because every teacher used an action/skills definition.

Table 5

Similarly coded responses for Definition of Reading across Triads (Child, Parent and Teacher)

Grade Similar responses across Similar responses across Similar responses across
Triad Triad Triad
Action/Skill Learning/Knowledge Emotional/Affective
1st 9 0 0
3rd 9 0 0
5th 7 0 0
All grades 25 0 0

Learning To Read

How do children, parents and teachers think children learn to read?

All participants were asked, “How do you think you learned to read?” In addition,

parents were asked, “How do you think your child learned to read?” Each answer was

transcribed and read to determine the type and number of responses. Almost all responses

involved a type of experience. Responses were categorized into five macro categories of

56
informal experiences (IE), formal experiences (FE), both, other and no response (NR). Informal

experiences (IE), as described by Senechal (2006), are exposing children to written language

incidentally. This includes others reading books to the child, looking at pictures or words in the

book and telling stories. In comparison, formal experiences are direct teaching or learning of

literacy skills (Senechal, 2006). Responses were categorized as formal experiences (FE) if the

individual described being taught or learning ABCs, phonics or sounding out words or other

specific reading related skills. In addition, responses about practicing reading or skills were

classified as Formal Experiences (FE). During initial coding, it was determined that many adults

described both informal and formal experiences. Instead of dividing those answers into two

responses and coding them separately as an informal experience and formal experience, a

category of both was created. Finally, during initial coding, it was determined that some children

described learning to read in which only people responsible were mentioned or stated that they

just knew how. These responses were coded as other because they did not describe an

experience, were infrequent and did not fit another theme. Appendix E provides definitions and

examples of codes.

Group Results for Learning to Read

Results for responses to “How do you think you learned to read” were analyzed across

student, parent and teacher groups. Table 6 provides a summary of those results.

57
Table 6

Responses to “How do you think you learned to read?” by categories of Informal Experience
(IE), Formal Experience (FE), Both, No Response (NR) and Other (n=93)

Participants IE FE Both NR Other Total

Children 3 35 0 0 9 47 responses/47 children
Parent 7 17 15 1 0 40 responses/40 parents
Teacher 3 2 1 0 0 6 responses/6 teachers
Total 13 54 16 1 9 93 responses/93 participants

Children Report Learning to Read

When children were asked, “How do you think you learned to read?” their responses fit

into the category of formal experiences most frequently. Thirty-five (74%) of the forty-seven

children gave an example of a formal experience. First graders often gave simpler explanations

such as, “I sound out the letters.” Fifth graders provided more details such as,

First of all, I started…out by um being taught the ABCs. And then um just started
looking at the words and started like taking them out one by one and um started
saying the like words like um “word” like /wa/ /a/ “word”. And that’s how I
learned to read.

Only three children gave responses that were categorized as informal experiences. For example,

a first grader stated, “By my mom…when I was little she read to me a lot.” Nine students had

responses that were categorized as other. These responses were difficult to categorize such as

identifying a person such as “From people that know how to” or stating, “Just know how.” In all

responses that were coded as other, an experience was not described.

Parents Answers About Their Children Learning to Read

Parents were asked, “How do you think your child learned to read?” If parents had more

than one child participating in the study, they were asked about each child separately. The most

frequent type of response was formal experience with parents reporting that 19 (40%) of 47

children learned to read that way. For example, a parent of a first grader responded, “I would say

58
that she learned um mostly from school, phonetics, um understanding how sounds come

together.” Informal experiences were reported for 12 (26%) of the 47 children, including a

parent of a third grader who responded, “We read to him a lot.” Responses that were categorized

as Both were given by parents describing 16 children (34%). A parent of a fifth grader provided

the following explanation about her daughter learning to read, “Watching people read and then

practicing reading just looking …at the words. Kinda sight reading and then sounding out.”

Parents Report Learning to Read

When describing how they learned to read, 17 (43%) of 40 parents, gave responses that

were categorized as formal experiences. A parent of a third grader said, “I learned to read um by

really learning what the alphabet, all the different sounds, were.” Seven parents (18%)

described learning to read with examples of informal experiences. One mother of a first grader

stated, “I know my mother read an awful lot when I was little, so probably …following along

with somebody else when you're very tiny.” Finally, 15 parents (38%) responded with examples

that were coded as both including several parents who described learning to read through

informal and formal experiences for their children and then stated they learned to same way.

One parent stated that they could not remember learning to read and was coded no response, but

interestingly enough, 16 of the 40 parents reported that it was hard to remember or a long time

ago but still described learning to read. A parent of a third and fifth grader described it best

saying, “It's hard to know how someone came to reading, isn't it? I guess that's the point of your

research.”

Teachers Learn to Read

Three of the six teachers described learning to read through informal experiences. For

example, Ms. Cochran state, “I'm the oldest so lots of my mom reading to me before I went to bed

59
and everything else.” Two of the six teachers gave examples that were categorized as formal

experiences. Ms. Johnson, a first grade teacher shared the following response, “I was not a very

good reader. I love to read now, I love to teach reading and maybe that's why but we learned

um phonics, and a lot of memorizing.” Only one teacher provided a response that was coded as

both, Ms. Bradle, a first grade teacher. She stated, “I remember phonics books, just constant

workbook pages, and obviously the teacher reading to us, but never did we have reading centers

or leveled readers.”

Responses about learning to read by Grade Level

Grade level results for “How do you think you learned to read?” compare students within

and across first, third and fifth grade (Table 7). Both macro categories and specifics are

described. In addition, reports by parents about their perspectives on how their child learned to

read are compared to each child’s response; therefore, providing a glimpse of results by parent-

child dyads at each grade level.

Table 7

Grade Level Responses for Learning to Read by categories of Informal Experience (IE), Formal
Experience (FE), Both and Outliers (n=47).

Students IE FE Both NR Outliers Total

1st 2 10 0 0 4 16 responses/16 students
3rd 1 11 0 0 5 17 responses/17 students
5th 0 14 0 0 0 14 responses/14 students
Total 3 35 0 0 9 47 responses/47 students

1st Graders Learning to Read

Ten out of sixteen first graders provided responses that were categorized as formal

experiences. One first grader stated, “By listening to my teacher and practicing a lot.” Of those

60
students describing formal experiences, three mentioned practicing, two mentioned looking at

words and two mentioned sounding out. Only two first graders described informal experiences.

One described looking at books and one mentioned being read to by her mom. Four first grade

students provided responses that were categorized as other including three students who stated

they just knew how or just do it.

Responses by parents about their perspectives on how their first grader learned to read

were compared to how the child reported learning to read using the same categories. Five out of

16 parent-child dyads agreed that the child learned to read by formal experiences. Adam

reported, “You learn to read by sounding out the words and you have to understand the words

you read good.” Ms. Hwang, his mother, said, “He got the Montessori track…I think he could

read by the time he was reaching five.” In three cases, the child gave an example of a Formal

Experience and the parent reported Both. Annie stated, “I sound out the letters.” Her mother,

Ms. Stutzman, said, “initially by us reading to her and then through phonics.” Two children

reported Informal Experiences while the parents reported Both. When Ellen was asked how she

learned to read, initially she stated, “By my mom.” I asked her to tell me a little bit more about it

and she added, “When I was little she read to me a lot.” Her mother, Ms. Nimmer, said that

Ellen learned to read because,

We did a lot of reading and at first I thought she was kinda memorizing the
books…I guess I really think she learned to read by sounding out. By phonetics,
if that’s sounding out, right?

Two dyads were in disagreement with the child reporting formal experiences and the parent

giving examples of informal experiences. For example, David stated, “Well your teacher tells

you some words and then if you see them in the books then you could say them.” His mother,

Ms. Allen, said David learned,

61
 I think by initially by learning the importance of reading. Where it was always
like, you know, a big treat for him to have a story read to him. I started to read to
him as a baby. And then always before bedtime. I’ve always read him a book.
Whether he was a baby and even now he always, as a seven- year-old, reads
before bedtime.

Finally, four students gave examples that were categorized as other while the parent reported

either formal experiences or both.

3rd Graders Learning to Read

Eleven out of seventeen third graders gave responses that were categorized as formal

experiences. For example, one student stated, “A teacher teaches you what sounds um the letters

make and how they’re joined together.” Of the students describing formal experiences, several

mentioned sounding out letters, vowels and words. A few mentioned learning, saying or

studying words. Only one third grader provided an example of an informal experience, stating,

“You just get used to people reading a lot to you and one day you start reading.” Five students

described learning to read in a way that was categorized as other. In four of these cases, the

students listed the individuals such as mom, dad or parents who were responsible but did not

describe any type of experience.

Responses by parents about their perspectives on how their third grader learned to read

were compared to how the child reported learning to read using the same categories. Five out of

17 parent-child dyads agreed that the child learned to read by formal experiences. Aaron, for

example, reported learning his ABCs and his mother also said that, “He did um very well with his

letters and sounds…um some sounding out of the words that I could tell.” In three cases, the

child gave an example of a formal experience and the parent reported both. Bonnie responded,

“Probably by my parents.” Due to the vagueness, I prompted, “Tell me a little bit more about

that.” Bonnie went on to say,

62
 Probably about the sounds and it was kind of hard learning… like “ing” because
when I was probably little I used to sound out /I/ /n/ /g/…and I know if… I see
‘ing’ it’s /ng/.

Her mother, Ms. Schudel, stated,

Modeling classmates’ behavior, modeling her siblings behavior. She understood

the relationship between the sound and the letter. Very good at sounding out
early on.

In addition, one child reported an informal experience (IE) with the parent reporting both. Mark

stated, “You just get used to people reading a lot to you and one day you start reading.” Ms.

Wellman, his mother, said,

I think there were a lot of factors that went into it. I think he had a positive
attitude towards reading, because his, the rest of the people in the house read a
lot, his older siblings, and his mom and dad. I think he was attracted to the
stories that were read aloud to him and wanted to be able to um have those
stories accessible to him when he wanted them and not just when someone could
sit down with him. So I think you take that kind of modeling and that motivation
and put that together with the phonetic skills, um sounding out words, and sitting
down with mom and and reading, you know those little reader books and just
continuing to encourage that reading aloud, reading aloud, reading aloud until
he finally got, you know, competent enough that his skills caught up with his level
of interest.

Eight of the seventeen dyads disagreed. In three cases the child reported formal experiences and

the parent reported informal experiences. Sam reported learning to read because “You sound out

the words and put the sounds together to make a word,” while his mother stated, “Um I would

think mostly just by, by you know, we read to him a lot, so he was familiar with books so he

would put those together with a word maybe.” Five of the children gave responses that were

categorized as other while the parent either gave examples of informal or formal experiences.

5th Graders Learning to Read

All fourteen fifth graders described examples of formal experiences such as,

63
 Well, it takes a lot of time and you have to um it's like putting all the sounds
together so that you can um get the words down and then after you get um the
sounds down then the words come.

While some formal experiences were generally described, a few students mentioned specific

formal experiences that occurred at home or school. For example, “Well, my parents bought

these um miniature books for me. They were called Bob books, and I learned mostly at home.”

Another student described a formal experience that occurred at school saying, “I think I learned

how to read by learning different sounds in school.”

Responses by parents about their perspectives on how their fifth grader learned to read

were compared to how the child reported learning to read using the same categories. Six out of

14 parent-child dyads agreed that the child learned to read by formal experiences. Sarah

reported, “I just learned the alphabet and then the sounds and put it all together.” Ms. Williams

reported the following about Sarah,

“In kindergarten, at Bartel, she did not know how to read going into kindergarten
um and there were a few kids in her class um who were already reading. And she
actually felt a little peer pressure and so um at the time, Sharon Cane was her
teacher…So I just asked if, you know, she feels a little behind can you read, can
she start. And so she started bringing home the readers and um Sharon worked
with her a little bit in school one-on-one, with me sitting down with her every
night with the readers. And, you know, going over them, 15 minutes a night, 20
minutes a night. And then she actually, you know, it took her a couple months
before, but she really did catch on and then she really has been a very good
reader ever since.”

In four cases, the child gave an example of a formal experience and the parent reported both.

Cindy reported, “You take your time and just go at your own pace and learn what you can and

the way you can and the more you try the better you’ll get normally” while her mother stated, “I

read to my kids all the time…we used to do flashcards like…baby phonics reading things.” Four

dyads disagreed with the child reporting formal experiences and the parent described informal

experiences.

64
Learning to Read by Triads

Learning to read responses were also viewed across the triads to compare how children,

parents and teachers report that they learned to read. Data were analyzed to determine similar

responses at the macro level of formal experience (FE) and informal experience (IE) across the

generations. If at least one of the responses provided was comparable to at least one other

person’s responses, it was coded as a similar response. For example, if the parent’s response was

coded as Both and a child and teacher both provided a Formal Experience, they were in

agreement on at least one response. In first grade, 9 out of 16 triads agreed across experiences.

Six triads had agreement with formal experiences and two triads agreed with informal

experiences. In third grade, 4 out of 17 triads reported similar responses, all formal experiences.

In fifth grade, there were no instances in which all participants within a triad had similar

experiences because both classroom teachers reported informal experiences and all the students

reported formal experiences (Table 8).

Table 8

Similarly coded responses for learning to read experiences across triads of a child, his/her parent
and teacher

Grade Similar responses across Triad Similar responses across Triad

Formal Experience Informal Experience
1st 6 2
rd
3 4 0
5th 0 0
Total 10 2

65
 Purposes for Reading

What purposes do children, parents and teachers state for reading?

Each participant was asked, “Why do you read?” Answers were transcribed and read to

determine type and number of responses. Responses were transcribed and coded using the

following macro categories: environmental (E), informational/learning (I/L),

occupational (O), pleasure/recreational (P/R), required (Rq), no response (NR) or outliers.

Environmental (E) was defined as reading print that is all around us (Goodman, 1996). The code

informational/learning (I/L) was used to describe reading for the purpose of gaining knowledge

(Goodman, 1996) or learning. These responses included reading books, labels and dictionaries

for facts or specific details. Also included were responses of reading to increase general

knowledge (e.g. “makes me smarter”). Some students provided information about reading “to

learn to read better” which were coded as information/learning with the subcategory of reading

(I/L: Read). Occupational (O) codes were used when adults mentioned reading that was related

to or necessary for employment (Goodman, 1996). This included reading letters, materials and

email for work. Reading as a leisure activity (Goodman, 1996) or for pleasure was coded as

pleasure/recreational (P/R). A subcategory of fun was also coded (P/R: Fun) because of the

frequent response of participants. Required (Rq) codes were used to indicate reading that is

mandatory. Some participants gave general responses such as “you have to read to survive,” but

those that were specific to required school reading were assigned to a subcategory (Rq: S). No

Response was assigned to participants that did not answer the question or responded, “I don’t

know.” Any other response was coded as an outlier. Appendix F provides definitions and

examples of codes for purposes of reading.

66
Group Results for “Why do you read?”

Group results for the purpose of reading are explored by children, parent and teacher

responses. Table 9 provides a summary of responses across participants.

Table 9

Purposes for reading by participant groups across categories of Environmental (E),

Informational/learning (I/L), Occupational (O), Pleasure/recreational (P/R), Required (Rq), No
Response (NR) or Outliers (n=93)

Participants E I/L O P/R Rq NR Outliers Total

Children 0 18 0 35 9 2 1 65 responses/47 students
Parent 2 23 10 37 7 0 0 79 responses/40 parents
Teacher 1 6 2 5 3 0 1 18 responses/6 teachers
Total 3 47 12 77 19 2 2 162 responses/93 participants

Students’ Purposes for Reading

The most frequently stated purpose for reading by children was pleasure/recreational

with 35 (74%) of 47 students giving that as at least one reason they read. For example, a fifth

grader stated, “Because I think the stories can be very interesting, if, it doesn't really matter to

me if they’re fiction or nonfiction.” When the macro category was further analyzed, 26 of those

students gave a specific response of fun (P/R: F). The second most frequently occurring

response was informational/learning (I/L) with 18 (38%) of 47 students stating that purpose.

One third grader answered the question by saying, “Because you can learn a lot of things in

books.” Further analysis of that category revealed that four students specifically mentioned the

purpose of reading is to learn to read (I/L: R). Required (Rq) reading was mentioned by 9 out of

the 47 children (19%) with seven specifically mentioning required reading in school (Rq: S). For

example, a third grader stated, “I have to take tests in the third grade, at least 15 each quarter,

67
and I have to read every night for 15 minutes.” Only one student provided a response coded as

an outlier, stating “Because um I can.”

Parents’ Purposes for Reading

Two purposes for reading were stated most frequently by parents. First, 37 out of the 40

parents (93%) mentioned reading for pleasure/recreational including four of those specifically

mentioning fun (P/R: F). Twenty-three parents (56%) mentioned informational/learning as a

purpose for reading. Ten parents (25%) mentioned occupational reading. Of the seven parents

(18%) mentioning required reading, two specifically mentioned required reading for school (Rq:

S). Both of those parents were or had recently completed college degrees. Only 12 parents

stated a single purpose of reading, namely, 10 stated pleasure/recreational and 2 stated

informational/learning purposes. The remaining parents provided multiple responses within their

answers to “Why do you read?”

Teachers’ Purposes for Reading

All six teachers provided multiple responses for reading. Five of the six teachers

mentioned informational/learning purposes such as to “to learn something new” and five stated

pleasure/recreational reading. For example when asked why she reads, Ms. Johnson reported,

“Because I love to, I read for enjoyment.” Three teachers stated one purpose of reading as

required, including Ms. Johnson who specifically mentioning required for school by stating,

“Getting my masters because I had to.” One teacher mentioned environmental reading and one

specifically mentioned occupational reading. The only response coded as an outlier was Ms.

Cochran’s response in which she discussed “modeling reading for students.”

68
Grade Level Results

Grade level results for “Why do you read” compare students within and across first, third

and fifth grade. Both number of participants and percentages are reported. Again, some

participants gave more than one purpose, therefore fall into more than one category.

First Graders Purposes for Reading

All coded responses by first graders were either pleasure/recreational or

informational/learning. Reading for the purpose of pleasure/recreational was the most frequent

response. Of the 16 first grade students, 11 (69%) reported that purpose and eight of them

specifically mentioned reading for fun (P/R: F). Nine students (56%) reported

informational/learning purposes. Four of those students specifically stated that they “want to

learn” or get better at reading (I/L: Read). Five first graders gave two responses and the

remainder only gave one (See Table 10).

Third Graders Purposes for Reading

Third graders also reported pleasure/recreational as the most frequent reason for reading.

Eleven (65%) of the 17 students gave those responses including 9 who specifically used the word

fun (P/R: F). The second most frequent response was informational/learning with 8 (47%) of 17

students mentioning it. One third grades stated, “I do learn a lot from it.” Finally, required

reading was mentioned by 4 third graders who all specifically mentioned school (Rq: S) such as

“in third grade we have to.” Eight third graders gave two responses while the remaining listed

only one purpose for reading (Table 10).

Fifth Graders Purposes for Reading

Fifth grade students predominantly mentioned reading for pleasure/recreational with 13

(93%) of 14 students having that response. When further analyzed, eight of those students

69
specifically used the word fun (P/R: F). Required reading was mentioned by five students (36%)

including four who specifically stated reading for school purposes (Rq: S) such as “because it

comes in handy in school.” Only one fifth grade student specifically mentioned

informational/learning stating, “I read because I like to find things out that I didn't know.” Five

fifth graders gave two responses and the remainder only gave one (Table 10).

Table 10

Grade Level Response to “Why do you Read?” by categories of Environmental (E),

Informational/learning (I/L), Occupational (O), Pleasure/recreational (P/R), Required (Rq), No
Response (NR) or Outliers (n=47)

Students E I/L P/R Rq NR Outliers Total

1st 0 9 11 0 1 0 21 responses/16 students
3rd 0 8 11 4 1 1 “I can” 25 responses/17 students
5th 0 1 13 5 0 0 19 responses/14 students
Total 0 18 35 9 2 1 60 responses/47 students

Reading Purposes by Triads

Purpose for reading was also viewed across triads. A triad was defined as the child, his

or her parent and teacher. Data were analyzed to determine similar responses at the macro level.

Most adult participants, both teachers and parents, provided multiple responses. If at least one

purpose provided was comparable to at least one other person’s purpose, it was coded as a

similar response. Nine of the sixteen first grade triads gave similar responses on purpose of

reading. Five of those groups listed pleasure/recreational purposes and four

informational/learning purposes. Third grade triads were more closely aligned with 13 of the 17

groups providing similar responses. Eight of those triads all stated pleasure/recreational reasons

for reading. Two third grade triads stated informational/learning purposes for reading and one

triad matched on required reading for school. In addition, two third grade groups matched on

70
both pleasure/recreational and informational/learning purposes. Finally, fifth grade had the most

consistent agreement across triads. Eleven out of fourteen fifth grade triads provided similar

responses with all indicating pleasure/recreational purposes for reading (Table 11).

Table 11

Similar coded responses for purposes for reading across triads of a child, his/her parent and
teacher

Grade Similar responses Similar responses Similar responses Similar responses across
across Triad across Triad across Triad Triad
Pleasure/ Informational/ Required BOTH
Recreational Learning Pleasure/Recreational &
Informational/Learning
1st 5 4 0 0
3rd 8 2 1 2
5th 11 0 0 0
Total 24 6 1 2

Relationships

Is there a relationship between definitions of reading, beliefs about learning to read, purpose for
reading and current and historical reading instructional methods?

To determine relationships, responses to questions, classroom observations and artifacts

were analyzed to determine patterns. Each classroom was observed for 30 minutes during

language arts or reading instruction or use of reading in a content area. Artifacts were collected

from each classroom and included reading selections, worksheets, guides and materials. In

addition, items mentioned during interviews, for example, Dick and Jane books, were also

analyzed as artifacts. Patterns are defined as trends that fit the majority of participants’

responses. These patterns are described across participant groups.

71
Responses from Students

The most frequent categories of responses for children were action/skills (AS)

definitions, learning to read by formal experiences (FE) and pleasure/recreational (P/R) purposes

for reading. Of the 47 children, 25 (53%), provided an action/skills definition response and

pleasure/recreational purpose for reading. Twenty-three out of the 47 children, almost half,

provided an action/skills definition response and reported learning to read by formal experiences.

Descriptions of a formal learning to read experience (FE) and pleasure/recreational (P/R)

purposes for reading were provided by 21 (45%) of the 47 children. A total of seventeen

students (36%) followed the pattern of action/skills (AS) definitions, learning to read by formal

experiences (FE) and pleasure/recreational (P/R) purposes for reading (Figure 3). Although

fewer students reported other definitions for reading, patterns were also analyzed to determine

any relationships. For the ten students who provided an emotional/affect (EA) response to

reading definition, nine also gave a pleasure/recreational purpose for reading (P/R). A pattern

was not established for those students defining reading as learning/knowledge.

72
 FE
Learn
to Read

30 students

23 students 21 students

17

25
35 students students 35 students

AS P/R
Definition Purpose

Figure 3. Relationship of children’s Action/skills (AS) definition of reading, Formal Experience

(FE) learning to read and Pleasure/Recreational (P/R) purpose for reading (n=47)

Student Responses Compared to Current Instruction

Classroom observations also yielded important information in regards to children’s views

compared to current reading and language arts instruction and incorporation into content areas.

Each classroom was observed for thirty minutes and teachers were interviewed about current

73
reading instruction and methods that are used in their classroom. In addition, artifacts, including

copies of materials used, were collected from each classroom. Reading instructional methods

and responses will be explored by grade level.

First Grade Instructional Methods

In both first grade classrooms, a four part model was observed. First, both teachers used

pre-reading activities. In Ms. Johnson’s classroom, the pre-reading activity observed was a

phonics review and reminder about what information to find when reading a non-fiction story.

Ms. Bradle also used pre-reading activities such as the phonics dance (Dowd, 2007) or the basal

reader strategy focus. Next the reading activity occurred. Both teachers used the Houghton

Mifflin’s first grade reading series (Cooper & Pikulski, 2006) and supplemented with a variety of

other books. Reading took place as whole group activities, small group at centers and individual

reading. For example, during the observation in Ms. Johnson’s class both small group and whole

group choral reading were observed. Ms. Johnson felt that it was important to have students read

together “to support each other in reading.” Ms. Bradle also has students read both out of the

basal reader and using trade books. Another component of the model was comprehension of

reading. Both teachers were observed asking comprehension questions frequently during the

reading activities. Usually at the end of each page the teacher would ask a follow-up question

about the meaning, predict what might happen next or bring in a previous lesson. Finally, both

teachers used extension activities. During the observation in Ms. Bradle’s room, students were

at centers. One group worked with the teacher. Each student took a turn reading outloud while

the others followed along. Again, Ms. Bradle would stop periodically to ask comprehension

questions. Another group of students were at computers using a reading computer program

where they listened to stories and completed alphabet work. A third group of students were at a

74
listening center where they could sit on beanbags and listen to books on CD while following

along with their own books. Finally, another group was at their desks completing word pattern

puzzles, writing sentences using word cards and doing worksheets to illustrate and use key words

in sentences. Ms. Johnson also reported using centers so that she has the opportunity to listen to

each child during guided reading. She also stressed the importance of reinforcement of reading

at home saying, “I think daily reading is so important, the reading at home. I can teach the

strategies here, but they have to be reinforced.” In general, both teachers appeared to be using a

balanced approach. There was some explicit instruction observed, along with activities aligned

with the cognitive apprenticeship model such as cooperative learning and conversational

discussion groups.

First Grade Instructional Method Compared to Student Responses

Over half of the first graders interviewed followed a similar pattern of defining reading as

an Action/Skill, providing examples of formal experiences when learning to read and giving

pleasure/recreational and/or informational/learning purposes for reading. It was the only grade

level in which students gave a specific informational/learning purpose that included learning to

read. Based on the classroom observation, collection of artifacts and teacher interviews about

reading in the classroom, learning to read is a major emphasis in first grade. Both teachers

emphasized skills such as phonics and processes such as reading for comprehension. Four

students specifically mentioned they read to learn or get better at reading. Ms. Johnson said,

“It’s so fun to be a beginning reader teacher…they just explode at certain points in the year.

They’re just taking off into chapter books and they’re…so excited about what they read.”

75
 Third Grade Instructional Methods

Third grade reading was observed as a three part model involving direct instruction of

specific skills, reading for multiple purposes and extension activities. Direct instruction was

used to introduce and teach multiple skills needed to successfully complete reading related

activities. During the classroom observation, Ms. White was teaching a lesson on Venn

Diagrams. Venn Diagrams are used to teach students how to compare and contrast items. Ms.

White used the computer projected on a screen so the entire class could see and participate. Ms.

Smith also had the class participate in lessons on individual skills. She used a beach ball activity

to review the concepts of setting and point of view. Second, both teachers stressed the

importance of reading for a variety of purposes. Ms. Smith reminded the students to read the

directions before starting an assignment and pointed out charts on the wall that had important

information. During the interview she explained a little bit about reading in her classroom

saying,

“So every week, if we’re in school for five days that week, we will have a story.
For the example this week, it was “Across the Wide, Dark Sea” which you saw.
And that’s kinda the common thread that everything comes from. So then if we
are in small groups or doing centers, then, those small groups might be reading
the little trade books, a story that’s similar or has something to do with the story
that we all read as a class. We concentrate a lot on vocabulary. The vocabulary
comes from the story that we all do together.”

Ms. White also stressed this during her interview saying,

“When we read other text books I have them read at the music stand at a
microphone so that everyone can hear the child reading. And if something
specific to what's going on because they’re reading it to the whole class and then
we talk about the stories that are being read. In their small groups they also
share good stories, where they take turns reading aloud, seven in a group with a
parent. We read books together in class. And I use the accelerated reader
program very extensively. And making sure I’m putting books in the kids’ hands
that one they can read, two they will grow in their reading and three they’ll have
a good time doing it.”

76
Extension activities also were stressed. Both teachers had students complete activities

individually or in small groups as a follow-up to the direct instruction or reading activity. In

addition, both teachers used a points reward system, in which students received “money” to shop

at the class store each month, for individual reading outside of class. As with the first grade

observations, a balanced approach teaching style was observed with both explicit instruction and

cooperative learning activities.

Third Grade Instructional Method Compared to Student Responses

Third graders provided more variation in their definitions and purposes for reading. As

noted in the observations, the third grade teachers still directly teach individual skills but they

stress many different purposes for reading. Comprehension was a goal of reading but was

incorporated into purpose of reading and extension activities. Students’ responses to interview

questions appear to reflect this instructional model. In addition, four of the seventeen third grade

students interviewed mentioned that reading is required in school. Again, during the

observations, teachers were observed reminding the students to read directions, items on the

board or projector and their assignments.

Fifth Grade Instructional Methods

Fifth grade students at Bartel have both teachers for classes and rotate on a block

schedule. Ms. Gooch teaches math, science and social studies. Ms. Cochran teaches language

arts and religion. Language arts instruction still emphasizes individual skills and reading for a

variety of purposes; however; content areas require a great deal of reading for comprehension

and application.

At the beginning of the observation in Ms. Cochran’s class, students were checking an

assignment on irregular and regular verbs. Students were required to identify the type of verbs in

77
a sentence and write their own sentences with the correct verb form. Once their papers were

graded and turned in, a reading activity was observed. Ms. Cochran reviewed how to use the

KWL strategy. KWL is a chart in which the students fill in what they know about the subject

(K) and what the want to learn (W) before they read. After reading, they list what they did learn

(L) from the reading. Ms. Cochran allowed the students to read where they were most

comfortable and in a way that they felt was most beneficial. For example, some students in Ms.

Cochran’s class sat at their desks reading while other sprawled on bean bag chairs. One student

asked to go into the hall so she could read out loud and get help from the building-wide teacher’s

assistant. Ms. Cochran reported that, “There's always some sort of activity as they’re reading in

class that kind of tests, ‘Are we comprehending?’ as they go along.”

In Ms. Gooch’s class, application of reading was observed during a social studies lesson

on African Folktales. Ms. Gooch has students complete several projects throughout the year,

including the African Folklore project. She extensively researches websites and creates research

forms for each project. She felt that it’s very important to “cluster those links in one section of

my website, so the children could safely and easily gather information from the internet.”

During the social studies observation, students were reading from books and viewing the

websites provided by the teacher. Then they worked in groups to write a script based on an

African Folktale for a later performance. Once they finished the script, they could work in their

groups on practicing their scripts or complete the research guide that they had to turn in as part of

the unit. Ms. Gooch said,

“I probably don't do…blatant reading teaching. But what I do is I try to always…

tie in whatever I'm doing in other subjects. And I love to connect the dots and
have everything kind of, you know, work out like that…The kids, for instance, they
read through seven or eight African folktales before they chose one that they
thought, ‘Oh this has got the right amount of characters, and it's not boring.’ And
so they read and read and read until they found one that they liked. And then

78
 they…go on the Internet and they’ve got to research about the country they came
from. By doing something like that, I have them reading in what I consider as
non-medicinal kind of way as possible.”

Ms. Gooch reported that her teacher website has had “well over 9000 hits this school year alone,

and it's packed with hundreds of links that change to fit classroom themes/units.” She strives to

integrate technology into the curriculum. She reported that her students “jump at the chance to

read information on the computer and seem to really enjoy these projects and activities.”

Both fifth grade teachers appeared to be using a balanced approach to instruction in

which both explicit instruction and cognitive apprenticeship methods were used. Students were

taught skills such as identifying verbs or using research guides for reports. They also worked in

cooperative groups to solve problems or create projects.

Fifth Grade Instructional Method Compared to Student Responses

As with previous grade levels, fifth graders also defined reading with action/skills (AS)

responses, provided examples of learning to read through formal experiences (FE) and gave

pleasure/recreational (P/R) purposes for reading. Although less emphasis was placed on formal

learning to read experiences in fifth grade, based on observations at the lower grade levels the

students have been exposed to direct teaching of reading skills and processes throughout their

school years. Almost every student stated pleasure or recreational purposes for reading. In

addition, 5 of the 14 students interviewed also indicated that reading is required, including four

of them that stated it was necessary for school. This matches with the teacher observations and

interviews of the required integration of reading across content areas.

Patterns for Parents

The most frequent categories of responses for parents were action/skills (AS) definitions

and pleasure/recreational (P/R) purposes for reading. Thirty-two of the forty parents provided

79
both an action/skills definition of reading with a pleasure/recreational purpose for reading

(Figure 4). Parents’ report of learning to read varied greatly so a pattern could not be established

with definitions and purposes for reading. Although fewer parents reported definitions other

than action/skills for reading, patterns were also analyzed to determine any relationships. For the

nine who provided an emotional/affect (EA) response to reading definition, eight also gave a

pleasure/recreational purpose for reading (P/R). A pattern was not established for those parents

defining reading as learning/knowledge.

80
 AS P/R
Definitions 35 Parents 32 37 parents Purpose

Figure 4. Relationship of parents’ Action/skills (AS) definition of reading and

Pleasure/Recreational (P/R) purpose for reading. (n=40)

Patterns for Teacher

The most common pattern for teachers was providing an action/skills definition and

giving pleasure/recreational as well as informational/learning purposes for reading. All six

teachers provided action/skills definitions and informational/learning purposes for reading. In

addition, five of those teachers also gave pleasure/recreational purposes for reading (Figure 5).

81
 P/R
Purpose

5
teachers
5
teachers

AS 5
Definition 6 5 teachers
teachers
6
teachers
6
teachers

I/L
Purpose

Figure 5. Relationship of teachers’ Action/skills (AS) definition of reading,

Pleasure/Recreational (P/R) and Informational/learning (I/L) purposes for reading. (n=6)

82
 CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Overview

In this chapter the results as they relate to the research questions are reviewed and

discussed. Specifically, the themes of reading defined as action/skills, learning to read through

formal and informal experiences, multiple purposes for reading and relationships of reading

belief systems are discussed. Additional interesting findings are revealed. Implications for

classrooms and policy makers are also explored. Finally, limitations and suggested future

research areas are presented.

Themes

Reading Defined As Action/Skills

During the current study, the majority of participants across all grade levels and

participant groups, defined reading as an action, process, skill or component of reading. When

specifically looking at the results for children, 67% of students in this study used action/skills

definitions for reading. In comparison, Hansen (2006, 2007) interviewed children in the same

grades at a Montessori school and found only 42% provided action/skills definitions. In

Hansen’s study, more first grade students gave no response and fifth graders often used multiple

responses across all categories. In the current study, response rates were similar across all grade

levels. Swanson (1985) also asked children to define reading, although participants in his

research were in kindergarten, third and sixth grade, and responses were categorized as sounding

out/word calling or meaning making. He found 62% of the students he interviewed to believe

reading was a process that involved sounding out or word calling. The results of this study were

similar. Swanson (1985) concluded that there had been an increased awareness and importance

83
placed on skills by teachers which may also hold true in this research study. Parents and teachers

in this study also provided a high percentage of action/skills definitions of reading. Classroom

observations and teacher interviews about instructional methods emphasized reading skills,

especially in first grade, but also highlighted the importance of authentic reading experiences for

multiple purposes. Thomas and Barksdale-Ladd (1997) found students in skills-based

classrooms were more likely to provide definitions related to skills; however, McCutchen and

colleagues (2002) found little relationship between teacher instructional philosophy and

classroom practices. In this study, children, parents and teachers seem to have a high level of

agreement about defining reading and those definitions did relate to instructional methods

observed in the classroom.

It is important to consider how hard reading is to define, especially without using the

word read. Three of the children and six of the parents actually said that it was hard to define,

including a first grader who said, “Oh gosh. That’s hard to answer. It’s like. It’s like just like.

It’s hard to answer.” One of the parents said, “That’s kinda a tough one to start off with.” Even

with reading being hard to define, most of the children, parents and teachers were able to provide

a definition of what reading is to them. Being able to define reading is a metacognitive skill.

Metacognition is an important component of the reading process. It is the knowledge one has

about a particular domain and it relates to the executive strategies that regulate one’s thinking

(Allen, 2003; Jacobs & Paris, 1987; Mokhtari & Reichard, 2002). Research has supported that

older children have better developed reading orientations than younger children (Moore, 1985)

which may have been reflected in the simplicity of younger children’s definitions in this study.

Results of this study supports that children, even as young as first grade, have the ability to

define reading, demonstrating at least basic reading metacognitive skills.

84
 Students, parents and teachers defined reading in a variety of ways, although in this

study, most provided action/skills definitions. Given the current political climate, it was

interesting to explore similarities and differences in definitions between participants, policy

makers and researchers. While reviewing the literature, very few studies actually address the

definition of reading. However, a comparison of participants’ definitions was matched up to The

Partnership for Reading’s definition that is used in many government documents. Although none

of the participants provided an answer that addressed all parts of the Partnership’s definitions,

the participants provided many similarities of the individual parts of the definition (Table 12)

85
Table 12.

Comparison of Partnership for Reading Definition (n.d.) parts to adult and child responses of this
study to “What is Reading?”

Partnership Definition Parts Adult Response to “What is Child Response to “What is

“phonemes, or speech sounds”
“ability to decode unfamiliar
words”
“ability to read fluently”
“sufficient background
information and vocabulary to type of message that you can
foster reading comprehension” understand” Parent of a 1st
“construct meaning from
print”
“development and
maintenance of a motivation
to read”
Reading?”
“putting sounds together to
make up words” Parent of 1st
grader
“deciphering…interpreting…a
list of words in a sentence”
Parent of a 3rd grader
“looking at words and I hear
them in my head” Parent of a
1st grader
“processing words into some
grader
“putting them together to get a
concept or idea” Parent of a
1st, 3rd & 5th grader
“It’s entertainment, it’s
education, it’s relaxation, sort
of a family, it’s kind of like
one of our hobbies” Parent of
a 1st grader
Reading?”
“letters and different sounds
that make up words” 5th
grader
“It’s when you learn how to
say words” 3rd grader
“look at the words and you
can say them out your mouth
or you can think them in your
head” 3rd grader
“You get a book and you
basically just look at the
words and if you can read you
understand them and it tells a
story” 5th grader
“If you don’t know where
you’re going and there’s a
sign that says stuff you can
read it” 3rd grader
“It’s something to just fill in
free time” 5th grader

Kamhi (2007) has argued that the way reading is defined impacts teacher education, classroom

instruction and assessment practices. Currently, there is strong emphasis on phonics skills and

reading comprehension in America’s educational system. The definitions of reading provided

across participants in this study appear to reflect the societal and political emphasis of reading

that includes skills or components of reading with a purpose of comprehension.

86
Learning To Read through Formal and Informal Experiences

When viewing learning to read in a historical context, individuals come to be readers

through many types of instruction. Throughout the history of reading, popular methods of

teaching reading have included phonics, memorization of sight words and whole language

(Rayner et al., 2002; N. B. Smith, 2002). Recent debates have argued the best way to teach

reading with many aligning themselves with a particular movement. Despite the debate, this

study focused on the type of reading experience participants described rather than the specific

instructional method. Responses were categorized as formal or informal based on definitions

found in the literature (Senechal, 2006; Senechal & LeFevre, 2002). Formal and informal

experiences can happen at any location including home and school. During data analysis it was

discovered that many adults reported both experiences, therefore a code for both was created;

however, no children reported both types of experiences.

Children in this study primarily reported learning to read through formal experiences.

Only three children reported learning to read through informal experiences. At the fifth grade

level reports of informal experiences were non-existent. This, in part, is probably due to the fact

that the students are exposed to so many formal experiences during preschool years and at school

(Adams, 1990; Morrow & Gambrell, 2002; National Reading Panel, 2003; S. A. Stahl, 2002).

Two first graders did report informal experiences while the rest focused on formal experiences.

In one case, the child reported her mom reading to her while the other told about looking at

books. It was interesting that none of the fifth graders reported any informal experiences. By

fifth grade, teachers are not focusing on teaching reading anymore, but there is still some

emphasis on the skills of reading. Focusing solely on the formal experience of reading may be

due to fifth graders’ repeated exposure to formal reading instruction in school as well as

87
disconnect from any earlier informal reading experiences at home. Parents did report reading to

their children and the influence that had on their child learning to read. It could be that children

do not see how these experiences relate to learning to read. For example, one mom described

reading to her child in the following way,

“…it was always like, you know, a big treat for him to have a story read to him. I
started to read to him as a baby. And then always before bedtime. I’ve always
read him a book. Whether he was a baby and even now he always, as a seven
year old, reads before bedtime…. I always make it a point to kinda snuggle up
when we read. I think he associates it with a warm feeling.”

Today’s parents are encouraged to read to their children starting at birth so, “children find out

that reading with a loving adult can be a warm, happy experience, they begin to build a lifelong

love of reading” (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2003, p. 15). This

reading as a routine may be taken for granted by children. Both formal and informal experiences

are important to learning to read. Even though children may not be aware of informal

experiences, this does not decrease the positive impact on later reading (Saracho, 2002;

Senechal, 2006; Senechal & LeFevre, 2002).

Learning to read is not a one time event. It is a process that occurs over time. Sixteen of

the 40 parents reminded me that it was hard to remember or that it occurred a long time ago.

Almost all individuals reported experiences that were repeated over time such as memorizing or

sounding out words and practicing to get better. A few adults mentioned specific reading

programs, such as Dick and Jane, or instructional methods such as phonics. Based on their ages,

most parents learned to read in the 1960’s and 1970’s. During the 1960’s the look-see method of

memorizing sight words was a popular teaching method while the 1970’s primarily focused on

phonics instruction (Rayner et al., 2002; N. B. Smith, 2002). Parents seemed especially aware

that their children were learning through a variety of means as reflected in their answers that

88
included both informal and formal reading experiences. This may reflect that society has

embraced an emergent literacy model (Tabors et al., 2001; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998, 2002).

In addition, many family literacy programs emphasize the importance of reading to children and

teaching early reading skills such as alphabet knowledge and rhyming at home (National

Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2001, 2003; Rath & Kennedy, 2004).

Several previous studies have noted that reading books and exposure to other literacy related

activities have differing effects on language and literacy development compared to directly

teaching alphabet knowledge and other literacy skills (Lynch et al., 2006; Purcell-Gates, 2000;

Senechal, 2006; Senechal & LeFevre, 2002; van Steensel, 2006). Previous studies, along with

the current research, indicate that participants, especially adults, are aware that learning to read is

a process that occurs over time using multiple approaches.

A variety of instructional methods were described as individuals discussed how they or

their children learned to read. In particular, phonics, sounding out and sight word memorization

were frequently mentioned. Fewer participants mentioned whole-language instruction, possibly

due to its popularity being in the late 1980’s (Rayner et al., 2002) which did not fit the

educational time frame of the participants. Sometimes parents seemed confused about

terminology and what it meant. For example, one parent said, “I guess, I really think she learned

to read by sounding out, by phonetics, if that’s sounding it out, right?” Some parents also used

the word phonetics instead of phonics. Phonics, the predictable relationship between phonemes

and graphemes, is often confused with other terms and not well understood. Phonetics is

actually the study of articulatory and acoustic properties of the sounds. Due to the plethora of

terminology used to describe reading, it is easy to understand why adults are confused between

phonics, phonetics and other instruction such as phonological and phonemic awareness. Phonics

89
and phonological awareness were observed in the first grade classrooms but not third and fifth

grade. Most research supports use of phonics in lower elementary grades (Adams, 1990;

National Reading Panel, 2000a) as was observed in this study. Another point to note is even

though many parents and teachers discussed phonics, none of the students used that term. This

was interesting because first graders perform the “phonics dance” (Dowd, 2007) and the term

phonics was used by their teachers during the observation. Again, this demonstrates that one can

have the skills without using or understanding the word phonics.

Multiple Purposes for Reading

Purpose of reading varied across participants. During analysis of responses across all

participants, four of the five purposes outlined by Goodman (1996) were mentioned:

environmental, informational, occupational and recreational. In addition, a category was created

for required reading because this was mentioned by participants in this study. It was interesting

to note that none of the participants mentioned reading for ritualistic purposes (Goodman, 1996),

especially considering the religious emphasis at the school. Classrooms participated in morning

and closing prayers as well as the pledge of allegiance which were all posted in the classroom

but probably also memorized by students. All of these would be considered ritualistic reading.

In addition, only a few adults and none of the children mentioned environmental reading. More

than likely, participants probably take both of these types of reading, environmental and

ritualistic, for granted because they do them so often. This is especially true of environmental

print which is all around and often individuals are not even aware they are reading it (Goodman,

1996).

The majority of responses were related to recreational reading and reading for pleasure.

Children especially talked about reading being fun. Other researchers have also found similar

90
results among children (Hansen, 2006; Hansen et al., 2007; Swanson, 1985). Interestingly, the

amount of students stating that they read for pleasure/recreational purposes was not lower in fifth

grade as may have been expected when compared to other studies in which reading motivation

and positive attitudes decline in upper grades (McKenna, 2001; McKenna et al., 1995). Research

indicates that those with positive attitudes about reading are more likely to participate in reading

activities and therefore to continue to increase their reading ability (Guthrie & Knowles, 2001;

McKenna, 2001; McKenna et al., 1995). Concerns have been raised about TV viewing and

interaction with multimedia having a negative impact on reading as a leisure activity (Elley,

2001; van der Voort, 2001). Although amount of time spent reading for different purposes was

not addressed in this study, results do indicate that most students, parents and teachers stated that

they participate in reading as a leisure activity.

Relationships and Patterns of Reading Belief Systems

When viewing responses across definitions of reading, learning to read and purposes for

reading, a sense of a person’s reading belief system emerges. Others have examined reading

belief systems but few have looked at relationships among participant groups. The majority of

participants in this study defined reading as an action/skill and described pleasure/recreational

purpose for reading. Even with the emphasis on action and skills of reading, individuals still see

a broader leisure purpose for reading. This pattern supports the goal of teaching children the

skills necessary to be life-long readers (National Institute of Child Health and Human

Development, 2003).

A relationship was also established for those individuals who defined reading from an

emotional/affective response to reading and pleasure/recreational reading. For example, when

Jake, a third grader was asked, “What is reading?” he responded, “You can have some fun.”

91
Then when asked, “Why do you read?” he responded, “Because I think it fills me up with fun

sometimes.” He, like many of the other participants who fit this pattern, found that reading can

be fun and rewarding. This supports that motivation, especially related to positive attitudes,

plays a key role in reading (McKenna, 2001).

It was interesting that a pattern was not established for defining reading as learning/

knowledge while providing informational/learning purposes for reading. This could be because

only thirteen individuals used learning/knowledge definitions of reading and of those only four

used it exclusively. One parent of a fifth grader said reading was “education” and she reads for

“pleasure and for information.” In addition, most participants stated multiple purposes indicating

that although reading results in learning and knowledge it can be used for multiple purposes.

Finally, it is important to consider the amount of agreement among triads made up of the

child, parent and teacher. Twenty-five of the forty-seven triads, more than half, provided

definitions that were all coded as action/skills. Again, this could be due to current societal,

political and educational policy in which reading skills are emphasized (Allington, 2002;

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2003; National Reading Panel,

2000a, 2003). It could also be explained by the dynamics of the specific school in this study.

Bartel Academy is a close-knit community with a tremendous amount of parent involvement and

home-school communication about academic expectations and performance.

Less agreement was found among trends regarding learning to read experiences where

only 12 triads match, 10 reporting formal experiences and 2 reporting informal experiences.

There are several explanations for this result. First, generational differences play a role with

most parents learning to read during the look-see or phonics movements of the 1960’s and

1970’s (N. B. Smith, 2002), but likely are aware of the current climate that it’s important to read

92
to children or encourage other informal experiences with reading (National Institute of Child

Health and Human Development, 2003; Wasik & Hendrickson, 2004). Second, students are

currently immersed in the educational process which teaches primarily through formal

experiences and explicit instruction.

The most variation in agreement among triads occurred with purposes for reading in

which 33 of the triads agreed on a purpose of pleasure/recreational, informational/learning,

required for school or both recreational/pleasure and informational/learning. At Bartel

Academy, children, parents and teachers see multiple purposes for reading and have strong

agreement with each other on at least one purpose.

Additional Findings of Interest

Two additional themes emerged when reviewing the answers provided by participants.

First, participants mentioned the people who were involved in the reading process. Second,

reading was considered an overall positive experience. These two findings are important to

explore within the reading belief system.

People in the Reading Process

Although not specifically addressed as a research question, those interviewed provided

details about the people who helped them learn to read. People play an important role in the

reading process (F. Smith, 1992). In this study, parents and teachers were mentioned most

frequently. Participants also mentioned friends, babysitters, cousins, grandparents and helpers at

school. In addition, there was a social network implied in some definitions of reading such as

“the words someone wants to give you;” therefore, demonstrating the reciprocal network of

exchange between reading and writing (Barton, 2001). Edmunds and Bauserman (2006) found

93
that teachers, family members and peers are also valuable sources in exposing children to a

variety of books as well as motivating them to read. Results of this study support that

individuals are aware of responsibility others have in the reading process. It is especially

important to consider the role family members play in literacy practices; as well as, teachers in

preschool and school environments.

Reading as a Positive Experience

For the participants in this study, memories of learning to read as well as purposes for

reading tended to be positive. Of the 93 individuals interviewed, no one said they did not like or

did not know how to read. A few adults mentioned they had a difficult time learning to read or

their children struggled to learn to read but all saw themselves or their children as readers. There

are three possible explanations about most participants reporting positive experiences when

reading. First, each episode of reading while learning to read can have an impact on reading

attitudes (McKenna, 2001). In the case of those interviewed in this study, the collective reading

episodes were valuable, pleasurable or informational and could have positively influences

reading attitudes. Even those who reported struggling with reading, the experiences did not

translate into a negative attitude about reading. Second, beliefs about reading can also be based

on subjective norms (McKenna, 2001). Parents, family, teachers and peers make up the social

communities in which a child belongs (Gee, 2001). Bartel Academy is a very close-knit

community in which most students attend from kindergarten through eighth grade. In addition,

many of the students have siblings and sometimes even parents or grandparents who have

attended Bartel Academy. Therefore, the positive reports of learning to read and purposes for

reading found in this study may be influenced by the collective beliefs of the community.

Furthermore, these results reinforce normative beliefs of the community that reading is a positive

94
experience. Finally, participants’ beliefs that reading is positive may have been some effect from

the researcher-participant relationship. Participants were aware that I worked in the school and

nature of the project was fully disclosed. Some participants, especially adults, may express

views, whether their own or not, that are consistent with the social standards in which reading is

a positive experience and a valued tool for success. Children might have felt pressured to say

something good or right because an adult was asking them a question. In addition, due to the one

time nature of the interview, participants may have wanted to present themselves, the school and

their experiences positively. Even though there may have been some effect from the researcher-

participant relationship, due to the high number of responses and nature of the community,

learning to read appears to be a positive experience for participants in this study. Positive

experiences in learning to read can translate into motivation to continue reading and with

increased practice reading, individuals usually become better readers (Gonzalez-DeHass et al.,

2005; Guthrie & Knowles, 2001; McKenna, 2001).

Implications

Teachers working in the schools, especially in Ohio, must have an understanding of

knowledge base and beliefs about reading (Ohio Department of Education, 2002a). Specifically

related to this study, the standards address:

2.2 Understands and respects cultural, linguistic, and ethnic diversity and
recognizes the positive contributions of diversity.
2.4 Demonstrates an understanding of the influence of development (physical,
perceptual, emotional, social, cultural, environmental, cognitive) and background
experiences on what the reader brings to the reading/literacy situation. (p. 4)

The results of this study provide a foundation about belief systems across child, parent

and teacher triads. It will allow pre-service teachers to compare their own belief systems to a

95
documented set of other belief systems. In addition, it demonstrates the ease in interviewing

children and parents about their belief systems. Child interviews took less than 5 minutes and

parent phone interviews were usually less than 10 minutes. This indicates that a teacher could

interview an entire class of 30 students in less than 2 ½ hours. A few questions to parents about

reading beliefs could be asked during curriculum night or parent teacher conferences. Although

the questions could easily be sent home as part of a survey, it may leave out those parents who

have poor literacy skills or who are English language learners. By interviewing children and

parents, teachers would better understand the child’s beliefs about reading and the influences of

home environments. It would also open a dialog for parents who had different instructional

experiences to learn about current teaching methods.

Teachers may need to provide more information about reading instruction in their

classroom to parents, especially at the primary level. Explicit instruction, including phonics, was

observed in some classrooms. However, other instructional methods, such as cooperative

learning were also used. In addition, specific phonics instruction was not observed in the upper

grade levels. Reading instruction was a part of every grade level even though third and fifth

grade were no longer learning to read but extensively used reading to access the curriculum.

One parent had the following comment about her child learning to read,

He started off in preschool and um he did um very well with his letters and
sounds. Um, and then he got to Bartel and um I never could quite figure out what
the method was to be quiet honest. There was a lot of sight memorization that
they did, um some sounding out of the words that I could tell, but didn't seem to
be phonetically based as much as what it was like when I was growing up.

In order to support parents understanding of instructional methods, teachers can do several

things. At the elementary level, they may need to clarify about the use of phonics and other

reading instructional methods in the classroom. Teachers may also need to clarify the methods

96
and purposes for reading that are being utilized in their classroom and how it differs from

previous grades. In addition, parents may benefit from a review or glossary of similar sounding

terms such as that provided by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development

(2003). Finally, this should be balanced with valuing family literacy practices of their students.

Due to recent emphasis on using formal instruction to teach phonics and skills for

reading, individuals need to remember the other components and purposes for reading. No Child

Left Behind ("Public law no: 107-110 ", Enacted January 8, 2002) requires research-based

reading instruction and the National Reading panel emphasizes systematic and explicit

instruction (National Reading Panel, 2000a, 2000b, 2003). However, as indicated with this

research, reading is more than learning to read through explicit instruction. Reading can be

about the knowledge that is gained during the process or feelings that one has while reading. It’s

also related to the purpose of reading. Most participants in this study found reading to be a

source of pleasure or recreational in nature. Four out of five purposes that Goodman (1996)

suggests for reading were mentioned by at least one participant: environmental, informational,

occupational and recreational. In addition, it was found that some participants also stated

required reading as members of society or to complete school. Teachers and parents need to

continuously emphasize and model the various reasons and purposes for reading so that students

see reading beyond the skills needed to learn to read.

Limitations

This study sought to describe reading beliefs between and across children, parents and

teachers. To support the qualitative nature of this research, participants from one site were

selected using convenience sampling. The participants were representative of students, parents

97
and teachers at this one Catholic school. In addition, specific information about income was not

collected but based on known information about parents’ educational levels and employment,

most participants in this study would be considered from a higher socioeconomic status.

Therefore, participants in this research study may differ from other individuals in an urban area

and results may not generalize to all individuals engaged in learning to read. Another limitation

of the study was using a one-time classroom observation. The information gathered was used to

triangulate data provided by students, parents and teachers during interviews. Teachers also

were given the opportunity to check the accuracy of the observation as a representation of

classroom instruction. Conducting multiple observations across various instructional periods,

however, would have strengthened descriptions of current instructional methods utilized.

Finally, interviews were structured to provide comparison across participants and allowed for

interpretations about themes and patterns of similarities. Interviewing fewer participants using a

semi-structured interview and follow-up questions may have yielded richer data about

differences in belief systems.

Another limitation that researchers must consider came to light during a parent interview.

When I asked, “Why do you read?” a parent replied, “Well, that assumes that I read.” In this

study, I did assume all adults were readers. It was necessary to read to complete the consent

form allowing me to interview them and their child. I did not have any participants tell me that

they were not readers. However, limiting the study to participants who are readers leaves out an

important group of participants, those who have low literacy skills or are illiterate After the

parent made this comment, I reviewed the literature and did not find any studies that included or

addressed reading belief systems held by individuals who are illiterate. Gaining access and

98
consent from this population would be a challenge; however, the data collected would greatly

add to the knowledge base of reading belief systems.

Future Research

Additional data were collected during this research project that still need to be analyzed.

Parents and teachers were asked, “What is the best way for a child to learn to read?” so that

responses can be compared to how they think they and their children learned to read. In

addition, parents were asked specifically how they use reading for work to determine

occupational reading needs to a variety of jobs. Finally, all participants were asked, “In general,

what do you think about reading?” as a final, wrap-up question. Although data analysis is on-

going, overall, all responses were positive.

Based on results of this study, the next step is to interview children with specific

language impairment (SLI) and reading disabilities to establish their belief systems. It has been

documented that individuals who struggle with reading usually spend less time engaged in

reading activities and their attitudes are less positive (McKenna, 2001; McKenna et al., 1995).

In addition, few studies investigate home and school influences on children with disabilities

(Rashid et al., 2005). Comparing responses of children with disabilities to their same-aged peers

will provide valuable information to parents, teachers and specialists about the influence of

reading belief systems.

Conclusion

The purpose of this study was to explore children, parents and teachers’ beliefs about

reading, learning to read and purpose for reading. In addition, the relationship between children,

parents and teachers’ definitions of reading and beliefs about learning to read was compared to

99
previous and current models of reading instruction. Participants primarily used action/skills

definitions of reading across all grade levels and participant groups. Definitions were also

aligned with current instructional methods in which skills, decoding and comprehension are

emphasized. In regard to questions about learning to read, both formal and informal reading

experiences were reported. Students reported more formal reading experiences, probably due in

part to their immersion in school and the amount of direct instruction that occurs on a daily basis.

Parents were divided on the experiences they reported for themselves and their children, with

slightly more reporting formal experiences closely followed by reporting both types of

experiences. Finally, multiple purposes for reading were reported including environmental,

informational/learning, occupational, pleasure/recreational and required. First graders were the

only students to report that a purpose of reading was to learn to read. Third and fifth graders, as

well as a few parents and teachers, reported required reading for school. The most reported

purpose for reading was pleasure/recreational, including 26 of the 47 students stating that they

specifically read for fun. Most participants followed a pattern of defining reading as an action/

skill and describing a pleasure/recreational purpose for reading. For the participants who defined

reading as an emotional/affective response, most stated a pleasure/recreational purpose for

reading. There was no pattern for the few participants defining reading as a knowledge/learning

response. When compared to current instructional methods across grade levels, responses were

similar to observations. Instruction in the classrooms observed followed a two to four part model

with emphasis on skills, comprehension, reading for multiple purposes and extension activities.

The results of this study provide a foundation about belief systems across child, parent and

teacher triads. It will allow others to compare their own reading belief systems to a documented

set of belief systems and therefore broaden their perspectives.

100
 REFERENCES

Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge: MIT
Press.

Allen, S. (2003). An analytic comparison of three models of reading strategy instruction. IRAL,
41(4), 319-338.

Allington, R. L. (Ed.). (2002). Big brother and the national reading curriculum: How ideology
trumped evidence. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Alvermann, D. E. (2006). Struggling adolescent readers: A cultural construction. In A.

McKeough, L. M. Phillips, V. Timmons & J. L. Lupart (Eds.), Understanding literacy
development: A global view (pp. 95-111). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2001). Roles and responsibilities of speech-

language pathologists with respect to reading and writing in children and adolescents.
Rockville, MD: Author.

Bakeman, B., & Gottman, J. (1997). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential

analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Baker, L., & Scher, D. (2002). Beginning readers' motivation for reading in relation to parental
beliefs and home reading experiences. Reading Psychology, 23, 239-269.

Baker, L., Scher, D., & Mackler, K. (1997). Home and family influences on motivations for
reading. Educational Psychologist, 32(2), 69-82.

Barton, D. (2001). Literacy in everyday contexts. In L. Verhoeven & C. E. Snow (Eds.), Literacy
and motivation (pp. 23-36). Mahwah, New Jersey: LEA.

Berg, B. L. (2007). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (6th ed.). Boston:
Pearson.

Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory
and methods (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

101
Bos, C., Mather, N., Dickson, S., Podhajski, B., & Chard, D. (2001). Perceptions and knowledge
of preservice and inservice educators about early reading instruction. Annals of Dyslexia,
51, 97-120.

Bush, G. W. (2001). No child left behind blueprints. Retrieved August 22, 2006, from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/reports/no-child-left-behind.html

Cairney, T. (2002). Bridging home and school literacy: In search of transformative approaches to
curriculum. Early Child Development and Care, 172(2), 153-172.

Cooper, J. D., & Pikulski, J. J. (2006). Houghton Mifflin reading. Grade 1 (Vol. 4: Treasures,
Level 1.4). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Cunningham, J. W., Many, J. E., Carver, R. P., Gunderson, L., & Mosenthal, P. B. (2000). RRQ
snippet: How will literacy be defined in the new millennium. Reading Research
Quarterly, 35(1), 64-71.

Darling, S., & Westberg, L. (2004). Parent involvement in children's acquisition of reading.
Reading Teacher, 57(8), 774-776.

DeFord, D. E. (1985). Validating the construct of theoretical orientation in reading instruction.

Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 351-367.

Dowd, V. (2007). The phonics dance. Retrieved June 12, 2007, from
http://www.phonicsdance.com/

Dragon naturally speaking 9. Nuance Communication Inc.

Edmunds, K. M., & Bauserman, K. L. (2006). What teachers can learn about reading motivation
through conversations with children. The Reading Teacher, 59(5), 414-424.

Ehri, L. (2005). Learning to read words: Theory, findings, and issues. Scientific Studies of
Reading, 9(2), 167–188.

Ehri, L., & Snowling, M. (2004). Developmental variation in word recognition. In C. A. Stone,
E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy. New
York: Guilford Press.

102
Elley, W. B. (2001). Literacy in the present world: Realities and possibilities. In L. Verhoeven &
C. E. Snow (Eds.), Literacy and motivation (pp. 225-242). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.

Erickson, K. A. (2000). All children are reading to learn: An emergent versus readiness
perspective in early literacy assessment. Seminars in Speech and Language, 21(3), 193-
203.

Evans, M. A., Barraball, L., & Eberlee, T. (1998). Parental responses to miscues during child-to-
parent book reading. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 19, 67–84.

Evans, M. A., Fox, M., Cremaso, L., & McKinnon, L. (2004). Beginning reading: The views of
parents and teachers of young children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 130–
141.

Express scribe 4. NCH Swift Sound.

Foorman, B. R., & Schatschneider, C. (2003). Measurement of teaching practices during

reading/language arts instruction and its relationship to student achievement. In S.
Vaughn & K. L. Briggs (Eds.), Reading in the classroom: Systems for observation of
teaching and learning (pp. 1-30). Baltimore: Brookes Publishing.

Galentine, J. K. (1996). Reading before preschool: Reading behaviors of toddlers. Infant-Toddler

Intervention, 6(4), 255-285.

Gee, J. P. (2001). Reading as situated language: A sociocognitive perspective. Journal of

Adolscent & Adult Literacy, 44(8), 714-725.

Gonzalez-DeHass, A. R., Holbein, M. F. D., & Willems, P. P. (2005). Examining the

relationship between parental involvement and student motivation. Educational
Psychology Review, 17(2), 99-123.

Goodman, K. (1996). On reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Guthrie, J. T., & Knowles, K. T. (2001). Promoting reading motivation. In L. Verhoeven & C. E.
Snow (Eds.), Literacy and motivation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Hansen, A. (2006). Children's perspectives on how they learn to read (pp. 1-58): University of
Cincinnati.

103
Hansen, A., Garrett, J., & Prendeville, J.-A. (2007). Finding a code and having your mind
decrypt it: Children’s perspectives on how they learned to read.Unpublished manuscript.

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life and work in communities and classrooms.
Cambridge: Cambridge Univresity Press.

House, J. D. (2003). Self-beliefs and reading achievement of elementary-school students in Hong

Kong and the United States: Results from the PIRLS 2001 assessment. Child Study
Journal, 33(4), 195-212.

Jacobs, J. E., & Paris, S. G. (1987). Children's metacognition about reading: Issues in definitions,
measurement, instruction. Educational Psychologist.

Kamhi, A. G. (2007). Knowledge deficits: The true crisis in eduction. The ASHA Leader, 7(12),
28-29.

Kucer, S. B. (2005). Dimensions of literacy: A conceptual base for teaching reading and writing
in school settings (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical
data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159-174.

Lehman, B. A., Allen, V. G., & Freeman, E. B. (1994). Children's literature and literacy
instruction: "literature-based" elementary teachers' belief and practices. Reading
Horizons, 35(1), 3-29.

Lindfors, J. W. (1984). How children learn or how teachers teach. Language Arts, 61, 600-606.

Lofland, J., & Lofland, L. H. (1984). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative
observations and analysis (2nd ed.). Belmonth, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

Lynch, J., Anderson, J., Anderson, A., & Shapiro, J. (2006). Parents' beliefs about young
children's literacy development and parents' literacy behaviors. Reading Psychology, 27,
1-20.

McCutchen, D., Harry, D. R., Cunningham, A. E., Cox, S., Sidman, S., & Covill, A. E. (2002).
Reading teachers' knowledge of children's literature and English phonology. Annals of
Dyslexia, 52, 207-228.

104
McKenna, M. C. (2001). Development of reading attitudes. In L. Verhoeven & C. E. Snow
(Eds.), Literacy and motivation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

McKenna, M. C., Kear, D. J., & Ellsworth, R. A. (1995). Children's attitudes toward reading: A
national survey. Reading Research Quarterly, 30, 934-956.

Meyers II, M., & Paris, S. G. (1978). Children's metacognitive knowledge about reading. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 70(5), 680-690.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA.

Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students' metacognitive awareness of reading
strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249-259.

Monaghan, E. J., & Hartman, D. K. (2002). Undertaking historical research in literacy. In M. L.

Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.), Methods of literacy research
(pp. 33-45). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.

Moore, P. (1985). Beliefs about reading: Of authors, teachers and children. Australian Journal of
Reading, 8(1), 3-13.

Morrow, L. M., & Gambrell, L. B. (2002). Literature-based instruction in the early years. In S.
B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 348-
360). New York: Guilford Press.

Mosenthal, P. B. (2002). Reading research as an agenda-setting enterprise: Bringing science to

art, and art to science. In D. L. Schallert, C. M. Fairbanks, J. Worthy, B. Maloch & J.
Hoffman (Eds.), 51st yearbook of the national reading conference. Oak Creek, WI:
National Reading Conference, Inc.

Muchmore, J. A. (2001). The story of "Anna": A life history study of the literacy beliefs and
teaching practices of an urban high school English teacher. Teacher Education Quarterly,
28(3), 89-110.

Nagle, J. P. (1999). Histories of success and failure: Working class student's literacy experiences.
Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 43(2), 172-185.

105
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2001). Put reading first: Helping
your child learn to read. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2003). A child becomes a reader:
Birth through preschool, 2nd ed. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

National Reading Panel. (2000a). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of

scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction.

National Reading Panel. (2000b). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of

the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction—
reports of the subgroups.

National Reading Panel. (2003). Put reading first: The research building blocks for teaching
children to read.

O'Sullivan, J. T. (1992). Reading beliefs and reading achievement: A development study of

students from low income families. Report number 6. Summary reports of paths to
literacy and illiteracy in Newfoundland and Labrador. (pp. 1-22).

Ohio Department of Education. (2002a). Document C: State mandated reading core: Author.

Ohio Department of Education. (2002b). State mandated content area reading requirement:
Author.

Ohio Department of Education. (2007). Standards and submission guidelines for licensure
programs. Retrieved June 15, 2007, from
http://www.ode.state.oh.us/GD/Templates/Pages/ODE/ODEDetail.aspx?page=3&TopicR
elationID=556&ContentID=1224&Content=29231

Olson, J. R., & Singer, M. (1994). Examining teacher beliefs, reflective change, and the teaching
of reading. Reading Research and Instruction, 34, 97-110.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Payne, R. K. (2003). A framework for understanding poverty. Highlands, TX: aha! Process.

106
Pellegrini, A. D. (2002). Some theoretical and methodological considerations in studying literacy
in social context. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy
research (pp. 54-65). New York: Guilford Press.

Perez, B. (Ed.). (2004). Sociocultural contexts of language and literacy (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

Public law no: 107-110 (Enacted January 8, 2002).

Purcell-Gates, V. (2000). Family literacy. In M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson & R.

Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. III, pp. 853-870). Mahwah, NJ: LEA,
Inc.

Rashid, F. L., Morris, R. D., & Sevcik, R. A. (2005). Relationship between home literacy
environment and reading achievement in children with reading disabilities. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 38(1), 2-11.

Rath, L. K., & Kennedy, L. (2004). The between the lions book for parents: Everything you need
to know to help your child learn to read. New York: HarperCollins.

Rayner, K., Foorman, B. R., Perfetti, C. A., Pesetsky, D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2002). How
should reading be taught? Scientific American, 286(3), 84-92.

Richardson, V., Anders, P., Tidwell, D., & Lloyd, C. (1991). The relationship between teachers'
beliefs and practices in reading comprehension instruction. American Educational
Research Journal, 28, 559-586.

Ryder, R., Burton, J. L., & Silberg, A. (2006). Longitudinal study of direct instruction effects
from first through third grade. Journal of Educational Research, 99(3), 179-191.

Saracho, O. N. (2002). Family literacy: Exploring family practices. Early Child Development
and Care, 172(2), 113-122.

Senechal, M. (2006). Testing the home literacy model: Parent involvement in kindergarten is
differentially related to grade 4 reading comprehension, fluency, spelling, and reading for
pleasure. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(1), 59-87.

107
Senechal, M., & LeFevre, J.-A. (2002). Parental involvement in the development of children's
reading skill: A five-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 73(2), 445-460.

Shermer, E. T. (2003). Reading with and without Dick and Jane. Retrieved May 8, 2007, from
http://www.virginia.edu/oldbooks/2005/exhibitions/dickandjane.shtml

Smith, F. (1992). Learning to read: The never-ending debate. Phi Delta Kappan, 73(6), 432-440.

Smith, F. (1999). Why systematic phonics and phonemic awareness instruction constitute an
educational hazard. Language Arts, 77(2), 150-156.

Smith, N. B. (2002). American reading instruction (special edition). Newark, DE: International
Reading Association.

Stahl, N. A., & Hartman, D. K. (2004). Doing historical research on literacy. In N. K. Duke &
M. H. Mallette (Eds.), Literacy research methodology (pp. 170-196). New York: The
Guilford Press.

Stahl, S., Duffy-Hester, A., & Stahl, K. (1998). Everything you wanted to know about phonics
(but were afraid to ask). Reading Research Quarterly, 33, 338-355.

Stahl, S. A. (2002). Teaching phonics and phonological awareness. In S. B. Neuman & D. K.

Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 333-347). New York:
Guilford Press.

Stone, C. A. (2004). Contemporary approaches to the study of language and literacy

development. In C. A. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of
language and literacy (pp. 3-24). New York: Guilford Press.

Swanson, B. B. (1985). Listening to students about reading. Reading Horizons, 25(2), 123-128.

Tabors, P. O., Roach, K. A., & Snow, C. E. (2001). Home language and literacy environment:
Final results. In D. K. Dickinson & P. O. Tabors (Eds.), Beginning literacy with
language: Young children learning at home and school. Baltimore, MD: Brookes
Publishing.

The Partnership for Reading. (n.d.). The definition of reading. Retrieved July 31, 2006, from
http://www.nifl.gov/partnershipforreading/explore/reading_defined.html

108
Thomas, K. F., & Barksdale-Ladd, M. A. (1997). Plant a radish, get a radish: Case study of
kindergarten teachers' differing literacy belief systems. Reading Research and
Instruction, 37, 39-60.

Turbill, J. (2002). The four ages of reading philosophy and pedagogy: A framework for
examining theory and practice. Retrieved July 31, 2006, from
http://www.readingonline.org/international/inter_index.asp?HREF=turbill4/index.html

Vacca, J. A. L., Vacca, R. T., Gove, M. K., Burkey, L., Lenhart, L. A., & McKeon, C. (2003).
Reading and learning to read (5 ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

van der Voort, T. H. A. (2001). Television's impact on children's leisure-time reading and
reading skills. In L. Verhoeven & C. E. Snow (Eds.), Literacy and motivation (pp. 95-
119). Mahwah, NJ: LEA.

Van Sluys, K., Laman, T. T., & Legan, N. (2005). Critical literacy and preservice teachers:
Changing definitions of what it might mean to read. Journal of Reading Education, 31(1),
13-22.

van Steensel, R. (2006). Relations between socio-cultural factors, the home literacy environment
and children's literacy development in the first years of primary education. Journal of
Research in Reading, 29(4), 367-382.

Vaughn, S., & Briggs, K. L. (Eds.). (2003). Reading in the classroom: Systems for the
observations of teaching & learning. Baltimore: MD.

Wasik, B. H., Dobbins, D. R., & Herrmann, S. (2002). Intergenerational family literacy:
Concepts, research and practice. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook
of early literacy research (pp. 444-458). New York: Guilford Press.

Wasik, B. H., & Hendrickson, J. S. (2004). Family literacy practices. In C. A. Stone, E. R.

Silliman, B. J. Ehren & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy (pp. 154-
174). New York: Guilford Press.

Wellman, L. (2007). Teachers' and speech-language pathologists' definitions of reading and

perceived roles of school-based speech-language pathologists: Effect on teacher referral
practices. Paper presented at the Ohio Speech-Language-Hearing Association
Conference, Columbus OH.

109
Wells, C. G. (1986). The meaning makers: Children learning language and using language to
learn. Portsmouth, N.H.: Heinemann.

Whitehurst, G. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (1998). Child development and emergent literacy. Child
Development, 69(3), 848-872.

Whitehurst, G. J., & Lonigan, C. J. (2002). Emergent literacy: Development from prereaders to
readers. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research.
New York: Guilford Press.

Wink, J., & Putney, L. (2002). A vision of Vygotsky. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

110
 Appendix A

Child Interview Questions:

05-12-21-04E--How Children's Beliefs About Reading Compare to Current Teaching Strategies

Child Code:
Date:
Start time: End time:
Location:

Age: Gender:

What is reading?

How do you think you learned to read?

Where did you learn to read?

Why do you read?

What do you think about reading?

Why?

111
 Appendix B

Parent Phone Interview Questions:

05-12-21-04E--How Children's Beliefs About Reading Compare to Current Teaching Strategies

Parent Code:
Date:
Start time: End time:
Location:
Your age: Child’s age: Gender: Race/Ethnicity:

Highest Educational Level:

___ Did not complete High School ___ High School Graduate/GRE
___ Some college ___ College Graduate

What is reading?

How do you think your child learned to read?

How do you think you learned to read? Is it the same or different from your child?

Where did you learn to read?

What is the best way for a child to learn to read?

Why do you read?

How do you use reading at work?

What do you think about reading?

Why?

112
 Appendix C

Teacher Interview Questions:

05-12-21-04E--How Children's Beliefs About Reading Compare to Current Teaching Strategies

Teacher Code:
Date:
Start time: End time:
Location:
Your age: Gender: Race/Ethnicity:

College Attended/Degrees/Year Years of Teaching and Subjects/Grade Levels

What is reading?

How do you think children learn to read?

How do you think you learned to read? Is this the same or different from children nowadays?

Where did you learn to read?

What is the best way for a child to learn to read?

Why do you read?

Tell me about reading in your classroom? How does it happen? What current reading
instruction/methods do you use in your classroom?

Is this a personal/grade/school/district adopted method?

What measure(s) do you use to assess student’s reading?

What do you think about reading?

Why?

113
 Appendix D

Definition of Reading Categories

Action/Skills of Reading (AS): steps, process and/or skills of reading. Includes understanding,
use and/or mental processing of letters, sounds, words, sentences, stories, books.

Examples:
“You read kinda quietly or you read it with your mind” (1st grader)
“Looking at words in a book” (3rd grader)
“Letters and different sounds that make up words” (5th grader)
“It’s sounding out words and then comprehending their meaning” (adult)

Learning/Knowledge from Reading (LK): gaining information or knowledge from reading or

the product of reading (i.e. “smart”)

Examples:
“You know how to write more words” (1st grader)
“It helps you learn” (3rd grader)
“I think it’s something that teaches you things” (5th grader)
“It’s education” (adult)

Emotional or Affective Response (EA): feelings and emotions related to or in response to

reading

Examples:
“Fun” (1st grader)
“You just like it” (3rd grader)
“Something to just fill in free time” (5th grader)
“Reading is an escape” (adult)

No Response: did not respond to question or said “I don’t know”

Outliers/Other: responses that do not fit into a category

114
 Appendix E

Learning to Read Categories

Experience: response made by an individual indicating that they engaged in some event(s)
related to learning to read. This can include responses in which people or locations are
described.

Informal Experiences (IE): exposure to written language incidentally (Senechal, 2006)

This includes listening to books, oral interactions, looking at pictures

Example:
“You look at books” (1st grader)
“You just get used to people reading a lot to you and one day you start
reading and cause you get it” (3rd grader)
“She learned a lot by following along when she was being read to” (adult
describing child)

Formal Experiences (FE): direct teaching or learning of literacy skills (Senechal, 2006).
This can include teaching or learning letter names, grapheme-phoneme correspondence
and structure or rules of written language. The definition also includes response related
to practicing skills

Examples:
“By listening to my teacher and practicing a lot” (1st grader)
“You sound out the vowels” (3rd grader)
“At first I started out by being taught the ABCs. Then just started looking
at the words and started taking them out one by one and started like saying the
words like “word” like /w/ /a/ /word/.” (5th grader)
“We learned phonics and a lot of memorizing” (adult)

Both informal and formal experiences (Both): components of both categories are
mentioned

Examples:
“I remember phonics books…and the teacher normally read to us” (adult)
“From an academic perspective you read to a kid and they learn to read. From an
execution I would say it was a lot from school and preschool for her” (adult
describing a child)

No Response: did not answer the question or said “I don’t know”

115
Learning to Read Categories continued

Outliers/Other: responses that do not fit into a category of experience

People: Only indicated individuals responsible for teaching or learning but did not
include an experience

Example:
“By my mom” (1st grade)
“B your parents or by your teachers” (3rd grade)

116
 Appendix F

Purposes for Reading Categories

Environmental (E): Reading print that is all around us (Goodman, 1996).

“There’s a lot of information out there that’s printed” (adult)
“There’s words in front of my face” (adult)

Informational/Learning (I/L): Reading for the purpose gaining knowledge (Goodman, 1996)
or learning. This includes reading books, labels and dictionaries for facts or specific details.
Also includes responses of reading to increase general knowledge (i.e. “makes me smarter”).
Student responses that included reading to learn to read better were coded as
Information/Learning: Read (IL: Read).

Examples:
“So you can learn more words” (1st grader)
“My favorite books are science books that tells you about animals, planets and
everything science cause those inspire me to become a scientist in college” (3rd grader)
“I like to find things out that I didn’t know” (5th grader)
“I read for knowledge. I’m always getting books on how to use technical equipment”
(adult)

Occupational (O): Reading that is related to or necessary for employment (Goodman, 1996).
This includes reading letters, materials and email for work.

Example:
“I read for work purposes” (adult)

Pleasure/recreational (P/R): Reading as a leisure activity (Goodman, 1996) and for pleasure. If
the participant specifically mentioned “fun” it was coded as P/R: Fun.

Examples:
“Because it’s fun” (1st grader)
“Because if you don’t want to play PlayStation or something and you want to rest your
eyes reading is good” (3rd grader)
“Because I like to read” (5 grader)
“To relax” (adult)

117
Purposes for Reading continued

Required (Rq): reading that is mandatory. This includes responses such as “you have to read to
survive,” as well as, school requirements such as, “you have to do it for class.” If a participant
specifically mentioned reading required at school is was coded as Rq: School.
Examples:
“We have a grade on reading so you can get beter grades and stuff on reading” (3rd
grader)
“Sometimes it’s for school and grades” (5th grader)
“Getting my master’s degree because I had to” (adult)

No Response: Did not answer the question or responded, “I don’t know”

Outliers: Other responses

118