PLANNING FOR READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION WITH CORE READING ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PROCESSES AND PLANS PROGRAMS: By Laura J. Hopkins A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Curriculum, Instruction, and Teacher Education—Doctor of Philosophy 2018 ABSTRACT PLANNING FOR READING COMPREHENSION INSTRUCTION WITH CORE READING ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ PROCESSES AND PLANS PROGRAMS: By Laura J. Hopkins Reading comprehension instruction in the United States has historically been weak and provided limited support for diverse learners. Though the majority of teachers in the United States use core reading programs to design and teach reading comprehension lessons, virtually nothing is known about how teachers interact with core programs to develop instructional plans. Recognizing the potential of research on this topic for supporting instructional improvement efforts, this study used a qualitative, multiple case study design to examine how six elementary teachers planned reading comprehension lessons with core reading programs. In doing this, it addressed the following research questions: (1) How do teachers interact with core reading program materials when planning whole-group reading comprehension lessons? (2) What do their instructional plans involve, and how do those plans align with a research-derived framework for high-quality, responsive comprehension instruction? To inform the study’s design and analysis, I applied theories from research in science and mathematics that address the curriculum enactment process, including a view of teachers as instructional designers, a participatory view of the teacher-curriculum material relationship, and the construct of curricular noticing. Data sources included semi-structured interviews, staged lesson planning protocols, and the collection of core reading program lessons. To analyze the data, I engaged in inductive and deductive coding and created analytic tables. Findings speak to the participatory and contextual nature of teacher-curriculum material interactions, the influential role of teacher beliefs, and the complexity involved in teachers’ work with core programs. In terms of teachers’ planning processes, I found that teachers engaged in a common set of core planning activities that seemed to support them in making sense of and planning with the core programs. I also found that teachers’ planning processes were guided by planning routines and that their familiarity with the programs and their differing beliefs played a significant role in shaping planning processes and curricular noticing. Similarly, teachers’ instructional plans reflected the use of instructional activity routines and demonstrated the influence of teachers’ beliefs and experiences, core reading program characteristics, and contextual resources and constraints. In terms of quality and responsiveness, teachers’ instructional plans exhibited many strengths and even improved upon the core program lessons in some areas, especially in those requiring knowledge of students, although they also exhibited weaknesses in areas of comprehension instruction important for supporting diverse learners. These findings provide clear evidence that teachers can improve upon core programs in at least some areas and can use them to design instruction that is responsive to their particular students. At the same time, they suggest the importance of continued efforts to support instructional improvement in reading comprehension through teacher education, professional development, policy, and curriculum development. In terms of its contributions, this dissertation demonstrates the applicability of theories and constructs from research in mathematics and science to research in literacy. It also suggests the importance of teachers’ beliefs in shaping all aspects of teachers’ noticing and provides important foundational insights into the nature of teachers’ work with core reading programs that can inform continued research in this area. Copyright by LAURA J. HOPKINS 2018 In memory of my beloved mother and first reading teacher, Beverly Clark—for her contagious love of others, her curiosity, and her love of reading and learning. v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I want to begin by thanking the six teachers who participated in this work with me. Thank you for taking time out of your summers to engage in the complex and cognitively demanding work of planning lessons and engaging in interviews with me. I learned so much from all of you, and your thoughtful responses made the work both meaningful and enjoyable. Thank you, also, to the Graduate School for supporting this work with a Dissertation Completion Fellowship, which provided additional focused work time for my analysis and writing. I am so grateful for this generous award! Next, I want to thank my committee members for your invaluable guidance, support, and patience through each step of this work. Pat, thank you for supporting my interest in studying this topic from year 1, for the many long talks and wonderful career advice, and for encouraging me to connect to my work to the history of literacy and to think about what it means for literacy instruction to be equitable and responsive. Corey, thank you for shining a light on the tangled knots of my thinking at just the right angle to help me sort them out, and for challenging and encouraging me in just the right ways. I continue to be amazed by your quick and thoughtful feedback, as well as your generous and humble spirit. Tanya, thank you for the instrumental role you played in my work and learning, especially through the early years of my program and my practicum work. Thank you for your detailed feedback and for being willing to ask tough but important questions. Carrie, thank you for providing a fresh and different perspective by encouraging me to consider ideas from linguistics and disciplinary literacy and reminding me to take care of myself holistically. Your attention to detail and your positive outlook have been a tremendous support! I will miss you all, and I look forward to continued collaboration and conversation with each of you. vi I also want to thank my colleagues and friends in teacher education, both at MSU and other institutions, who encouraged me and kept me going on this work through rich conversations, hugs, kind words, and meeting for coffee and walks. Though so many contributed to my work and learning on this journey, I am especially thankful to Marliese Peltier, Blythe Anderson, Ann Castle, and Kirsten Edwards, who took time to read my work or think through analysis with me at various points in time. To the many others who have come alongside of me on this journey, you know who you are. Thank you! An extra special thanks goes out to my church family and small group at Red Cedar Church for the many meals, laughter, and prayers, and for sharing your lives with me and pointing me back to my greater purpose of loving and serving God and others. Saving the best and most important for last, I want to thank God and my family. I praise God, the ultimate teacher and designer, who creates, saves, sustains, and loves. He calls and equips His children for good works, and His mercies are new every morning. Thank you to my family for reminding me of what’s important and loving me through it all. For Zach and Eliana, thank you for bringing so much joy to my life each day. You have both grown up so much during the 5 years of this doctoral program, and I am so proud of the people you are becoming! For my loving and long-suffering husband, Walter, words cannot express my love or gratitude for persevering with me through this difficult season of life. I am looking forward to spending more quality time with you and taking better care of ourselves and each other in this next stage of life. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................ xii LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... xiv CHAPTER 1 ....................................................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1 Statement of the Problem .....................................................................................................1 Theoretical Frameworks ......................................................................................................5 Planning as Designing Instruction with Curriculum Materials ...............................6 Curricular noticing .......................................................................................9 Quality and Responsiveness of Instructional Plans ...............................................10 High-quality reading comprehension instruction ...........................11 Responsive literacy instruction ......................................................13 Cognitive and affective responsiveness .............................13 Cultural responsiveness .....................................................14 Conceptual Framework and Definitions ............................................................................17 Overview of Chapters ........................................................................................................19 CHAPTER 2 ..................................................................................................................................21 LITERATURE REVIEW ..............................................................................................................21 Teacher Planning ...............................................................................................................21 Curriculum Enactment .......................................................................................................27 Designing Instruction with Curriculum Materials .................................................27 Designing Instruction with Core Reading Programs .............................................33 CHAPTER 3 ..................................................................................................................................37 METHODS ....................................................................................................................................37 Core Programs ...................................................................................................................38 Lessons ...............................................................................................................................40 Participant Selection ..........................................................................................................42 Data Collection ..................................................................................................................45 Data Analysis .....................................................................................................................48 CHAPTER 4 .................................................................................................................................53 CROSS-CUTTING THEMES: TEACHERS’ ORIENTATIONS AND THE COMPLEXITY OF TEACHING ..................................................................................................................................53 Teachers’ Orientations to Core Programs in Reading Comprehension .............................53 Views of Teaching .................................................................................................57 Views of Themselves and of Core Programs .........................................................60 Views of Reading Comprehension ........................................................................61 Views of Students ..................................................................................................63 Six Teachers and their Orientations ......................................................................64 viii Amy: “probing them deeper” and “you just can’t do it all” ......................64 Amy’s views of teaching and herself .............................................64 Amy’s views of core programs ......................................................67 Amy’s vision of reading comprehension instruction .....................69 Amy’s views of her school community and students ....................69 Kierra: “organic conversation with kids” and “whatever sparkles in the moment” .....................................................................................................70 Kierra’s views of teaching .............................................................71 Kierra’s views of core programs ....................................................73 Kierra’s views of herself ................................................................75 Kierra’s vision of reading comprehension instruction ...................76 Kierra’s views of her school community and students ..................76 Karina: “getting them ready to take a test” and “everybody is an individual”..................................................................................................78 Karina’s views of teaching.............................................................78 Karina’s views of core programs and herself ................................79 Karina’s vision of reading comprehension instruction ..................82 Karina’s views of her school community and students .................83 Cathy: “there’s probably a lot I can learn from it” and “reading is part of our lives” ....................................................................................................84 Cathy’s views of teaching ..............................................................84 Cathy’s views of core reading programs .......................................86 Cathy’s views of herself.................................................................89 Cathy’s vision of reading comprehension instruction ...................89 Cathy’s views of her school community and students ...................91 Julie: “I know how to teach reading” and “texts should make you think” ....................................................................................................................92 Julie’s views of teaching ................................................................93 Julie’s views of core reading programs .........................................93 Julie’s views of herself...................................................................95 Julie’s vision of reading comprehension instruction .....................96 Julie’s views of her school community and students .....................97 Anastasia: “working with students on specific skills” and “literacy is really the hardest thing to teach” .........................................................................98 Anastasia’s views of teaching ........................................................98 Anastasia’s views of core reading programs .................................99 Anastasia’s views of herself .........................................................101 Anastasia’s vision of reading comprehension instruction ...........101 Anastasia’s views of her school community and students ...........102 The Complexity of Teaching Comprehension with Core Programs ................................104 Teaching as an Interactive, Human Endeavor .....................................................104 Interactive aspects of teaching .................................................................105 Human aspects of teaching ......................................................................106 ix Accountability to Multiple Stakeholders .............................................................111 Core programs ..........................................................................................111 Schools and districts ................................................................................114 State..........................................................................................................121 Parents and community members ............................................................122 Taxing of Teachers’ Capacity ..............................................................................123 Summary ..........................................................................................................................124 CHAPTER 5 ................................................................................................................................126 ANALYSIS OF PLANNING PROCESSES ...............................................................................126 Similarities in Planning Processes and Curricular Noticing ...........................................127 Similarities Across Teachers: Core Planning Activities ......................................127 Identifying learning targets and topic ......................................................128 Reading the text .......................................................................................130 Reading instructional suggestions............................................................131 Evaluating the text and instructional suggestions ....................................131 Consulting or selecting outside resources ................................................132 Formulating concrete plans ......................................................................134 Preparing materials ..................................................................................135 Similarities Across Core Programs ......................................................................136 Differences in Planning Processes and Curricular Noticing ............................................142 How Views of Teaching Shaped Planning ..........................................................142 Planning for teaching as conversation .....................................................143 Planning for teaching as performance ......................................................148 Planning for teaching as personal training ...............................................154 Noticing Core Programs Through the Lens of Their Beliefs ...............................160 Summary ..........................................................................................................................166 CHAPTER 6 ................................................................................................................................168 ANALYSIS OF INSTRUCTIONAL PLANS .............................................................................168 Analysis of Core Program Lessons ..................................................................................168 Descriptive Comparisons .....................................................................................169 Alignment with Research on High-Quality, Responsive Comprehension Instruction ............................................................................................................174 Analysis of Instructional Plans ........................................................................................182 Instructional Routines ..........................................................................................182 Similarities across teachers ......................................................................183 Similarities in instructional plans across programs for particular teachers ..................................................................................................................187 Teacher, Curriculum Material, and Contextual Contributions ............................193 Amy’s lesson plans ..................................................................................194 Cathy’s lesson plans .................................................................................197 Julie’s lesson plans ...................................................................................201 x Broader patterns across teachers ..............................................................206 Evaluation of Quality and Responsiveness ..........................................................215 Building conceptual and language knowledge ........................................216 Differentiating ..........................................................................................220 Explicitly teaching comprehension strategies ..........................................224 Purposefully selecting texts .....................................................................225 Teaching text structures and genres .........................................................226 Engaging students in text-based discussions ...........................................227 Generating motivation and interest ..........................................................228 Cognitive, affective, and cultural responsiveness ....................................229 Summary ..........................................................................................................................231 CHAPTER 7 ................................................................................................................................234 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................234 Summary of Findings .......................................................................................................234 Discussion and Implications ............................................................................................237 Planning ...............................................................................................................237 Routines in teacher planning ....................................................................238 The role of teacher beliefs........................................................................239 Implications..............................................................................................241 Trajectories of Use and the Role of Experience ..................................................243 Pedagogical Design Capacity and the Teacher-Curriculum Material Relationship ..............................................................................................................................245 Implications..............................................................................................248 High-Quality, Responsive Comprehension Instruction .......................................252 Limitations .......................................................................................................................255 Significance......................................................................................................................259 Conclusion .......................................................................................................................260 APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................262 APPENDIX A: PROTOCOLS ........................................................................................263 APPENDIX B: TABLES .................................................................................................268 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................275 xi LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Elements and Criteria for High-Quality Comprehension Instruction ...............................12 Table 2 Elements and Criteria for Responsive Literacy Instruction ..............................................16 Table 3 Core Program Lessons Selected .......................................................................................41 Table 4 District and School Characteristics ...................................................................................43 Table 5 Characteristics of Participating Teachers .........................................................................45 Table 6 Research Questions, Data Sources, and Initial Codes ......................................................47 Table 7 Patterns Across Teachers’ Orientations to Core Programs in Reading Comprehension ..58 Table 8 Teachers’ Orientations to Core Reading Programs in Reading Comprehension ..............65 Table 9 Core Planning Activities and Guiding Questions ...........................................................129 Table 10 Planning Processes: Amy and Cathy ............................................................................138 Table 11 Planning Approaches for Each View of Teaching........................................................143 Table 12 Curricular Noticing Excerpts Illustrating the Guiding Role of Beliefs ........................162 Table 13 Cathy’s and Julie’s Instructional Explanations of Summarizing ..................................165 Table 14 Instructional Routines for Each Program......................................................................171 Table 15 Core Reading Program Lesson Alignment with Elements and Criteria for High-Quality, Responsive Comprehension Instruction ......................................................................................176 Table 16 Common Instructional Routine .....................................................................................185 Table 17 Instructional Routines Used by Amy, Julie, and Karina ...............................................189 Table 18 Excerpts from Amy’s Lesson Plan ...............................................................................196 Table 19 Excerpts from Cathy’s Lesson Plans ............................................................................199 Table 20 Excerpts from Julie’s Lesson Plan ................................................................................203 Table 21 Core Program Components Most Commonly Used to Inform Lesson Plans ...............207 xii Table 22 Number and Type of Adaptations for Each Teacher and Lesson .................................210 Table 23 Quality and Responsiveness of Instructional Plans ......................................................217 Table 24 Planning Processes for All Six Teachers ......................................................................268 Table 25 Core Program Components Each Teacher Noticed During Planning ...........................270 Table 26 Analysis of Core Reading Program Texts ....................................................................271 xiii LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Remillard’s (2005) framework of components of the teacher-curriculum relationship ...8 Figure 2. Conceptual framework ...................................................................................................18 Figure 3. Excerpts from Amy’s, Karina’s, and Kierra’s lesson plans designed with Wonders ...146 Figure 4. Excerpts from Cathy’s and Julie’s lesson plans designed with Wonders ....................151 Figure 5. Excerpts from Anastasia’s lesson plans designed with Benchmark .............................156 Figure 6. Excerpts from third-grade core program lessons illustrating differences in alignment ......................................................................................................................................................181 Figure 7. The teacher-curriculum material relationship in elementary reading ...........................247 xiv CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION “In the United States basal readers dominate reading instruction. They are the most universally available (and often the only) materials for teaching reading.” --Kenneth S. Goodman (1986) Basal readers have remained a driving force in reading instruction in the United States from the time of the McGuffey Reader to today (Dewitz, Jones, & Leahy, 2009). Often referred to in the 21st century as core reading programs, these comprehensive sets of curricular and instructional materials for teaching elementary reading are used in classrooms across the country. Walk into any given school district and you will likely see on shelves and in use the teacher editions, student anthologies, leveled texts, and workbooks that comprise a core reading program. Yet research on the teaching of elementary literacy has devoted little attention to understanding how teachers use and make decisions with these ubiquitous materials. This dissertation examines how teachers work with core reading programs to design instruction in the essential area of reading comprehension, contributing foundational understandings to inform continued research and practice. Statement of the Problem The primary goal of reading instruction in the elementary grades is to support children in learning to read and comprehend a wide range of text types at increasing levels of difficulty and independence for a variety of purposes. Research indicates that most students can reach these goals in the elementary grades if they are provided with high-quality, responsive instruction and intervention (Chard et al., 2008; Vellutino & Scanlon, 2002). Although scholars have reached a general consensus regarding what comprises high-quality reading comprehension instruction 1 (Duke, Pearson, Strachan, & Billman, 2011; Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, & Baker, 2001; Kim, Linan-Thompson, & Misquitta, 2012; Shanahan et al., 2010), such instruction has been and continues to be rare in U.S. elementary school classrooms (Connor, Jakobsons, Crowe, & Meadows, 2009; Durkin, 1978; Pressley, Wharton-McDonald, Mistretta-Hampston, & Echevarria, 1998; Wright, 2012). In addition, students marginalized by systemic inequalities based on race, class, language, and ability classification often have less access to high-quality, responsive learning opportunities in school across subject areas and also in reading (Darling- Hammond, 2015; Hollenbeck, 2013; Klingner, Urbach, Golos, Brownell, & Menon, 2010; Kozol, 2012). Given the potential of high-quality, responsive instruction to support more equitable school literacy learning opportunities and outcomes in the essential area of reading comprehension, efforts to understand and support improvement in the daily work of teachers in this area are essential. This is the broad issue the present study seeks to address. One central aspect of many U.S. elementary teachers’ daily work is using commercially- published curriculum materials such as core reading programs (Ball & Cohen, 1996). In 2017, market research estimated that 65% of U.S. elementary teachers used district-adopted core reading programs (Simba Information, 2017). This widespread use of core reading programs is concerning, in some ways, because the programs typically provide limited support for high- quality instruction and responsive adaptation, especially in reading comprehension (Cummins, 2007; Dewitz, Jones, & Leahy, 2009; McGill-Franzen, Zmach, Solic, & Zeig, 2006; Valencia, Place, Martin, & Grossman, 2006), and teachers often have difficulty using them in ways that are reflective of their professional knowledge or responsive to students (Datnow & Castellano, 2000; Shelton, 2010; Valencia et al., 2006). At the same time, these programs can support teachers, simplifying the complex work of teaching and supporting curricular cohesiveness and 2 articulation within schools and districts by providing a common source of ideas and materials to inform instructional content and activities (McCutcheon, 1980; Valencia et al., 2006). The broader research on how teachers interact with and use curriculum materials suggests that although curriculum materials do have an influence on enacted instruction, teachers ultimately mediate the influence of written curriculum materials through the ways they interact with and use the materials to design instruction (Datnow & Castellano, 2000; Hopkins, 2017; Maniates, 2017; Roth McDuffie, Choppin, Drake, Davis, & Brown, 2017; Remillard & Bryans, 2004). As teachers interact with curriculum materials before, during, and after instruction, they can shape instruction in ways that increase, maintain, or eliminate high-quality, responsive learning opportunities in relation to the written curriculum materials (Hopkins, 2017; Maniates, 2017; Roth McDuffie et al., 2017; Remillard & Bryans, 2004; Shelton, 2010; Sherin & Drake, 2009). Examining what teachers do with curriculum materials and how they use the materials to inform their classroom practices is, thus, an important research focus, especially in the essential area of reading comprehension where core reading programs provide weak support (Dewitz, Jones, & Leahy, 2009; McGill‐Franzen et al., 2006). Research on how teachers interact with curriculum materials suggests that teachers invest significant time and energy into working with curriculum materials to design their instruction before teaching, and that they make key instructional decisions during this preactive planning stage (Clark & Yinger, 1979; McCutcheon, 1980; Schumm et al., 1995; Sherin & Drake, 2009; Yinger, 1979). Studying how teachers plan with curriculum materials is, thus, a critical focus for research aimed at understanding how teachers and curriculum materials interact to shape instruction. Yet teacher planning is a seldom-investigated aspect of the work of teaching, and virtually nothing is known about how elementary teachers in the 21st century use core reading 3 programs during planning. The broader research on instruction with core reading programs has focused primarily on how teachers use the materials during teaching (Datnow & Castellano, 2000; Maniates, 2017; Shelton, 2010; Valencia, Place, Martin, & Grossman, 2006) and has suggested that teachers using core programs often have difficulty teaching in ways that consider and respond to what they know about students, teaching, and content. Understanding how experienced teachers interact with core programs during the crucial planning stage could help the field to better understand the curriculum enactment process in elementary reading. This is essential for understanding the persistent rarity of high-quality, responsive comprehension instruction and informing the design of tools and experiences to support teachers in learning to use core programs to design higher-quality, more responsive instruction in this area. In this dissertation, I utilized a qualitative case study approach to address these issues. More specifically, I examined how six experienced elementary teachers planned for reading comprehension instruction with core reading program materials in order to answer the following research questions: (1) How do teachers interact with core reading program materials when planning whole-group reading comprehension lessons? (2) What do their instructional plans involve, and how do they align with a research-derived framework for high-quality, responsive comprehension instruction? By addressing these questions, this dissertation contributes important foundational insights into the nature of teachers’ work with core programs and of how teachers and curriculum materials interact to shape the quality and responsiveness of instructional plans. These insights can inform continued research and theory development, as well as policy and practice in the areas of curriculum material design and implementation, teacher professional development, and teacher education. Based on existing research (reviewed in Chapter 2), I hypothesized that teachers’ 4 planning processes and the quality and responsiveness of their instructional plans would differ at least somewhat across core programs as well as across teachers, and that different ways of engaging in planning and curricular noticing would result in qualitatively different instructional plans. Because research has repeatedly pointed out weaknesses of core reading programs and the influential role of teachers as instructional designers, I expected teacher resources and characteristics to contribute greatly to the quality and responsiveness of instructional plans. In particular, I hypothesized that teacher characteristics and resources such as deep knowledge of students and local community, understanding of the socially and culturally situated nature of literacy, knowledge and perceptions of comprehension development and instruction, and constructive experiences with and orientations to core program materials would shape how they used the materials during planning as well as the quality and responsiveness of their plans. I also hypothesized that more in-depth planning processes that involved the consideration and mobilization of these teacher resources, as well as close attention to evaluating and adapting particular aspects of the curricular resources, would lead to higher-quality and more responsive instructional plans. Theoretical Frameworks Given the lack of theorization of how teachers interact with curriculum materials in reading, this study employs theories and concepts from the more extensive research literature on teachers’ use of curriculum materials in other subject areas, which has focused on examining the teacher-curriculum material relationship and the activity of using curriculum materials (M. Brown & Edelson, 2003; Drake & Sherin, 2006; Remillard, 2005). The present study, thus, conceptualizes teaching as a complex, situated, and goal-directed activity and views curriculum materials as tools that mediate that activity, drawing upon Vygotskian ideas about tools and 5 mediated action (Vygotsky, 1978). Specifically, this study views the use of curriculum materials as an interactive and participatory design process involving teachers and curriculum materials (Brown & Edelson, 2003; Brown, 2009; Remillard, 2005). Planning as Designing Instruction with Curriculum Materials From this perspective, teachers are curriculum designers who engage in a dynamic and interactive relationship with curriculum materials as artifacts or tools (Brown & Edelson, 2003; Brown, 2009). As Brown (2009) explains, teachers act as designers because they craft instructional episodes for their particular students with particular goals in mind, using and transforming curriculum materials as tools throughout the process. Additionally, much like design work, teaching and planning for instruction are recursive and iterative processes. Perhaps most importantly, this perspective emphasizes that the teacher as designer and the curriculum materials as tools together shape instruction. In other words, teachers’ work with curriculum materials is interactive and participatory, shaped by characteristics and resources of both the teacher and the curriculum materials. As described in Brown’s (2009) Design Capacity for Enactment framework, curriculum material resources that shape how teachers interact with them include physical objects, domain representations, and procedures, while teacher resources that shape how they interact with curriculum materials include subject matter knowledge, pedagogical content knowledge, and goals/beliefs. These characteristics of both curriculum materials and teachers together influence pedagogical design capacity, a construct Brown developed to describe teachers’ capacity when interacting with particular curriculum materials in a particular context to perceive and mobilize available resources in order to design high-quality instruction that achieves their goals. Pedagogical design capacity is, thus, an evaluative construct used to identify the quality of the 6 instruction teachers do or can design through their interactions with curriculum materials, including the elegance, effectiveness, purposefulness, and responsiveness of the designed instruction for addressing the local context and the teacher’s own goals (Brown, 2009, p. 28). In this study, I employed the Design Capacity for Enactment framework and the construct of pedagogical design capacity to guide my analysis of teacher and curriculum material characteristics and to inform conclusions about the ways in which they together shaped instructional quality and responsiveness. While the notion of pedagogical design capacity focuses primarily on the teacher, Ben- Peretz (1990) provided a complementary way of conceptualizing the role of curriculum materials—the notion of curriculum potential, which she defined as the idea “that curriculum materials constitute an expression of educational potential, of intended, as well as unintended, curricular uses which may be disclosed through deliberate interpretation efforts” (p. 45). Conceptualized in this way, curriculum materials suggest possibilities for instruction, and they should support teachers in interpreting and enacting these possibilities in rich and varied, as well as personally and contextually meaningful, ways. According to Ben-Peretz, curriculum materials should offer rich content and be structured flexibly in order to support teachers in interpreting and enacting them in these kinds of ways. The present study employed the construct of curriculum potential to examine the variety of instructional plans participating teachers create from a common set of curriculum materials, exploring the idea of what is possible with a given set of curriculum materials. Remillard’s (2005) framework for the teacher-curriculum material relationship encompasses many of the above ideas from Brown (2009) and Ben-Peretz (1990), combining them into a framework that also includes factors outside of the teacher and curriculum materials 7 Figure 1. Remillard’s (2005) framework of components of the teacher-curriculum relationship that influence their interactions, namely context and students. Additionally, as shown in Figure 1, Remillard’s framework provides insight into the ways in which teachers use curriculum materials across time to shape both their planned and enacted curriculum. According to this framework, teachers engage with curriculum materials in a participatory relationship that directly shapes the planned curriculum. During classroom interactions with students, teachers transform the planned curriculum into the enacted curriculum. Importantly, Remillard depicts this process as interactive through the use of double arrows, illustrating the ways in which the planned and enacted curriculum shape the ongoing participatory relationship, the enacted curriculum influences the future planned curriculum, and the enacted curriculum in turn shapes the teacher. This framework, thus, depicts how a teacher’s experiences with curriculum materials shape both the teacher and the teacher’s future actions and interactions with curriculum materials, suggesting that teachers’ past experiences with curriculum materials may serve as resources that support them in planning for instruction with a different set of curriculum materials. Similar to Brown 8 (2009) and in line with his concept of pedagogical design capacity, Remillard noted that the dimensions of the teacher-curriculum relationship interact to influence the available capacity for instructional design. The design of the present study was, thus, guided by Remillard’s framework in addition to elements and constructs from Brown’s work. Curricular noticing. Although Remillard’s framework outlines the ways in which teachers interact with curriculum materials across time, it does not illuminate the specific actions or processes teachers engage in during planning. Because I was most interested in examining teachers’ reasoning during planning, I, thus, employed the framework of curricular noticing (Amador, Males, Earnest, & Dietiker, 2017) to examine the ways in which teachers reason with curriculum materials during planning. As Amador and colleagues (2017) define it, curricular noticing encompasses the activities teachers engage in as they make sense of the complex content and pedagogical opportunities available in curriculum materials when using them to make decisions with curriculum materials. These activities include attending, interpreting, and deciding how to respond to curriculum materials. Attending includes reading and identifying specific aspects of curriculum materials. Interpreting involves making sense of the aspects of curriculum materials to which one has attended, often through analyzing, evaluating, and critiquing them. Finally, deciding how to respond includes making decisions about how to use curriculum materials as a result of one’s attending and interpreting. In this way, the three aspects of noticing are interrelated and each one relies and builds upon the others. Because curricular noticing activities are largely reasoning activities that teachers engage in with curriculum materials, I use the terms curricular noticing and curricular reasoning (or simply reasoning), interchangeably. The above constructs and frameworks are empirically derived from research on how 9 teachers work with curriculum materials, but they have not yet been applied to inform research or theory development in the field of literacy. A secondary aim of this study is, thus, to evaluate the transferability of these frameworks and their constructs to literacy research, adapting them as needed to build subject-specific theory that can inform continuing research and practice in literacy. Quality and Responsiveness of Instructional Plans This study is informed by a view of literacy as a socially and culturally situated practice involving communication mediated by texts, where texts are broadly defined, and where literacy development is understood to unfold differently for different learners in ways shaped by individual as well as social and cultural factors. Additionally, this study defines reading comprehension as a particular aspect of literacy that involves actively and interactively constructing meaning with texts, with the goal of arriving at interpretations that are consistent with the information available in the text itself and also informed by the knowledge, experiences, and perspectives that readers bring to their interactions with texts. Building upon these assumptions, this study sees the goal of school-based comprehension instruction as supporting diverse learners in being able to actively construct meaning with increasingly complex and varied texts with increasing proficiency and independence in ways that equip them both for school and for their lives. With this goal in mind, I posit that in order to support students’ literacy learning in meaningful and equitable ways, school-based literacy instruction should be both of high-quality, meaning that it aligns with research on instruction likely to be effective with students in general, and responsive, meaning that it recognizes, values, and supports particular students in their unique trajectories of literacy learning and development. The two-part framework described below for high-quality, responsive comprehension 10 instruction is informed by literacy research undertaken from both cognitive and sociocultural perspectives, reflecting my belief in the importance and complementarity of these perspectives. Though this framework is based on research examining enacted instruction, I applied it in this dissertation to inform the study’s design and to guide my analysis of teachers’ instructional plans because of the lack of current, research-supported conceptions of lesson plan quality and responsiveness, both generally and in literacy or reading comprehension more specifically. Given the ways in which instructional plans inform enacted instruction (e.g., Remillard, 2005), it is reasonable to conclude that quality standards for enacted instruction will be useful for evaluating teachers’ lesson plans High-quality reading comprehension instruction. To develop the first part of my framework, which addresses high-quality reading comprehension instruction, I synthesized four well-known reviews of research on reading comprehension instruction published within the last 20 years. I selected these particular reviews of research because they represent varied theoretical perspectives and emphases, including both cognitive and sociocultural perspectives, and because they were published in a range of outlets and designed to address differing audiences including teachers, researchers, and policymakers. Through my synthesis of these four reviews, I identified the seven elements shown in Table 1 below that reflect the general consensus on high-quality comprehension instruction in the field (Duke, Pearson, Strachan, & Billman, 2011; RAND Reading Study Group, 2002; Shanahan et al., 2010; Wilkinson & Son, 2011). Providing all students with access to comprehension instruction that reflects these characteristics is a matter of equity because it suggests that they have value and potential as learners that warrants such investment. The characteristics of high-quality reading comprehension instruction noted with an 11 Table 1 Elements and Criteria for High-Quality Comprehension Instruction Element Component Criteria and References Building conceptual and language knowledge* • • instruction and activities that build and build upon disciplinary or world knowledge (Duke et al, 2011; Gersten et al., 2001; RAND, 2002; Wilkinson & Son, 2011) instruction and activities that build and build upon knowledge of words and language and their meaning, structure, and use (Duke et al., 2011; RAND, 2002) • Vocabulary instruction should involve: o explicit explanations of the meanings of new words o opportunities to use the words in conversation o opportunities for repeated exposure to these words across contexts (Duke et al., 2011; RAND, 2002) • teaching lessons to the whole class only when most students would benefit from that instruction (Duke et al., 2011) Differentiating* • using needs-based grouping (Duke et al., 2011) • adjusting levels of support for completing comprehension-related tasks (Denton et al., 2003; Duke et al., 2011; Gersten et al., 2001) • explicitly teaching why, how, and when to apply comprehension strategies (Duke et al, 2011; Shanahan et al., 2010) • supporting students in coordinating and using multiple strategies during reading (Duke et Explicitly teaching comprehension strategies* • • al., 2011; RAND, 2002) focusing on research-supported strategies (Duke et al., 2011; Shanahan et al., 2010) following a gradual release of responsibility that includes explicit description, modeling, collaborative use, guided practice, and independent application across texts and contexts (Denton et al., 2003; Duke et al., 2011; Gersten, 2001; Shanahan et al., 2010; RAND, 2002) • providing flexible, adaptive instruction aimed at supporting self-regulated application of Purposefully selecting texts Teaching text structures and genres Engaging students in text- based discussions* Generating motivation and interest strategies during reading across contexts (Wilkinson & Son, 2011) Choosing texts that: • support the purpose of instruction (Shanahan et al., 2010) represent multiple genres (Duke et al., 2011; Shanahan et al., 2010) • • contain rich and deep ideas and information (Shanahan et al., 2010) • place an appropriate level of demand on students for the purpose of the activity (Shanahan et al., 2010) • directly teaching the structures and elements typically found in different text genres (Shanahan et al., 2010; Duke et al., 2011) • explicitly teaching how to use text structures and genre elements to support comprehension (Duke et al., 2011) • opening space for collaborative exchanges of ideas aimed at improving students’ • understanding and interpretation of texts (Wilkinson & Son, 2011) including questions that go beyond surface-level understanding (Duke et al., 2011, Shanahan et al., 2002) • providing opportunities for students to argue for or against points raised in the discussion, resolve ambiguities in the text, and draw conclusions or inferences about the text (Duke et al., 2011; Wilkinson & Son, 2011) • helping students discover real-world purposes/benefits of reading (Shanahan et al., 2010) • creating opportunities for success (Shanahan et al., 2010) • giving students reading choices (Duke et al., 2011; Shanahan et al., 2010; RAND, 2002) • using texts, materials, or instruction that connect to students’ interests (Duke et al., 2011) • providing opportunities for collaborative learning (Shanahan et al., 2010; RAND, 2002) * Elements essential for supporting students experiencing reading difficulties. asterisk in Table 1 above are particularly important for supporting the learning and achievement of students who experience difficulty with reading and learning to read in school, including but 12 not limited to students who are culturally, linguistically, and ability diverse. These characteristics and approaches include differentiation, collaborative discussions of meaning-making, explicit instruction, modeling, and guided practice, and attention to the development of conceptual and language knowledge (Denton, Vaughn, & Fletcher, 2003; Gersten, Fuchs, Williams, & Baker, 2001; Kim, Linan-Thompson, & Misquitta, 2012; Piazza, Rao, & Protacio, 2015; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998; Wilkinson & Son, 2011). Providing these types of instruction in the general classroom is a matter of equity because it precludes labeling students as struggling, different, or in need of help as a prerequisite to providing appropriately differentiated instruction (Klingner & Edwards, 2006). Responsive literacy instruction. Literacy instruction that promotes equitable learning opportunities and outcomes must also be responsive, meaning that it recognizes, values, and supports individual students in their unique trajectories of literacy learning and development. Research on responsive literacy instruction addresses both general notions of teaching responsively to students’ interests and learning profiles in affective and cognitive senses as described in the research literature on differentiated instruction and adaptive teaching (Corno, 2008; Santangelo & Tomlinson, 2012; Tomlinson et al., 2003), and the notions of being culturally responsive and sustaining, as described in literature addressing asset-based pedagogies (Gay, 2013; Ladson-Billings, 1995; Lazar, Edwards, & McMillon, 2012; Paris, 2012). Cognitive and affective responsiveness. To address cognitive and affective aspects of responsiveness, I reviewed Tomlinson and colleagues’ (2003) research synthesis on differentiated instruction, selecting this particular framework because it reflects the findings of a published research synthesis similar to those above and because it involves honoring and respecting students’ individual learning needs while seeking to maximize each student’s learning 13 and potential (Santangelo & Tomlinson, 2012), ideas that resonate with my own beliefs. In a differentiated classroom, academic differences are seen and treated as normal and expected within any group of learners (Tomlinson et al., 2003). As Tomlinson and colleagues (Tomlinson et al., 2003) described, differentiation that leads to better instructional outcomes involves using knowledge of students’ readiness (their prior experiences and learning, attitudes, cognitive proficiency, and metacognitive skills), interests (topics and processes about which they are curious or by which they are most engaged), and learning profiles (the ways in which they learn best and most naturally) to inform instructional decisions about how and when to differentiate content, processes, products, and learning environments for individual students in a given class. Corno (2008) introduced a more complex picture of responsive teaching, advocating for a shift from differentiation that simply meets students where they are and perpetuates both differences and dependency on the teacher to adaptive teaching, an approach that addresses equity by also responsively scaffolding students toward independence and self-regulation and supporting them in becoming full participants in the classroom learning community by bringing students toward a common middle ground. This description of adaptive teaching aligns with reading comprehension research in that both emphasize the development of self-regulation and independence (Duke et al., 2011; RAND Reading Study Group, 2002; Wilkinson & Son, 2011). Cultural responsiveness. In addition to cognitive and affective responsiveness, instruction that aims toward equitable opportunities and outcomes must recognize, value, and address students’ cultural backgrounds and practices, as well as the social contexts that influence their learning (Gutiérrez, 2008; Ladson-Billings, 1995; McMillon & Edwards, 2000; Moll, Amanti, Neff, & Gonzalez, 1992). This is especially important in literacy instruction because of the inherently cultural nature of literacy (Heath, 1983; Lazar et al., 2012; Scribner & Cole, 1981) 14 and the ways in which failing to take culture into account can negatively impact culturally and linguistically diverse students’ learning (Compton-Lilly, 2007; Heath, 1983; McMillon & Edwards, 2000). Systemic inequalities and injustices embedded within society and public education limit some students’ access to opportunities to learn dominant language and literacies at the high levels valued in school and society (Artiles, Dorn, & Bal, 2016; Hollenbeck, 2013; Klingner & Edwards, 2006; Kozol, 2012). Yet, when teachers recognize and address literacy as socially and culturally situated, they tend to teach in ways that offer students enriched, high-level learning opportunities, fostering academic engagement and success (Au, 1980; Ladson-Billings, 1994; May, 2011; Moll et al., 1992; Steiner & Cassano, 2017). One of the first and most widely recognized conceptualizations of teaching that took culture into account was Ladson-Billings’ (1995) conception of culturally relevant pedagogy, which highlighted three characteristics common among the practices of teachers who were successful with African-American students, including promoting academic success, cultural competence, and critical consciousness. Specifically, Ladson-Billings found that the teachers she studied fostered academic success in spite of the obstacles presented by social inequities by motivating students to work hard through connecting learning to their interests and values. They also supported the development of cultural competence by helping students remain true to their community and heritage cultures while utilizing them as tools to support academic learning. Finally, they fostered students’ critical consciousness by engaging students in examining, critiquing, and taking action against the ways in which society perpetuates inequality. More recent work in this line has affirmed the importance of these three tenets for supporting equitable educational outcomes with culturally and linguistically diverse students more broadly. At the same time, recent scholarship has recognized the need for a new term, 15 culturally sustaining pedagogy, that further emphasizes the goal of sustaining students’ out-of- school cultures and cultural practices (Paris, 2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy builds upon Ladson-Billings’ three original tenets while foregrounding the additional goal of sustaining cultures that have been systemically marginalized in society (Ladson-Billings, 2014; Paris & Alim, 2014). Additionally, culturally sustaining pedagogy views culture as plural and evolving, and it maintains a critical perspective of the ways in which cultures have the potential to reproduce systemic inequalities (Paris & Alim, 2014). Other recent work in this line has framed asset-based, equity-seeking approaches in subject-specific ways, including the literacy-specific conceptualization of social equity teaching offered by Lazar, Edwards, and McMillon (2012). Table 2 summarizes these elements of responsive instruction. Table 2 Elements and Criteria for Responsive Literacy Instruction Elements Cognitive and affective responsiveness Criteria • Including decisions made in advance and in the moment of instruction to responsively support literacy learners within a particular class. • May involve: • Using teacher knowledge of students in the areas of readiness, interests, learning profiles (Tomlinson et al., 2003) • Making informed decisions about how and when to adapt content, process, product, learning environment (Tomlinson et al., 2003) • Providing scaffolding that supports for all students: • The development of self-regulation and independence • Participation in classroom learning activities with similar levels of challenge and support (Corno, 2008) Cultural responsiveness • Viewing literacy and literacy learning as socially and culturally situated (Lazar, Edwards, McMillon, 2012) • Promoting access to and success in learning dominant school language and literacy (Ladson-Billings, 1995; Lazar, Edwards, McMillon, 2012) • Sustaining the cultural and linguistic competence of students and their communities in ways that address both heritage and contemporary culture (Ladson-Billings, 1995 & 2014; Lazar, Edwards, McMillon, 2012; Paris & Alim, 2014) • Engaging students in examining and exposing sociopolitical inequities (Ladson- Billings, 1995 & 2014; Lazar, Edwards, McMillon, 2012; Paris & Alim, 2014) This framework speaks to broader conceptions of literacy and broader life goals for 16 students’ literacy learning in school, beyond school success and college or career advancement. Additionally, this framework reflects the perspective that curriculum materials can provide ideas and suggestions to support teachers in teaching responsively, but that responsive teaching is an intrinsically human endeavor in which teachers use their knowledge of their particular learners and context to design responsive instruction. Conceptual Framework and Definitions Having described the theoretical perspectives that frame this study, I now briefly discuss this study’s conceptual framework, as shown in Figure 2, in order to explain how the theories and constructs discussed above fit together to inform the design and focus of this dissertation. This framework as a whole shows the curriculum process in elementary reading, depicting the ways in which teachers interact with core reading programs to develop instructional plans in ways that are also shaped by characteristics of the context. The red ring in Figure 2 represents this study’s focus, which includes the planning processes teachers engage in as they interact with core reading programs to design instruction as well as the quality and responsiveness of the instructional plans they design. I define teachers’ planning processes as encompassing all of the activities teachers engage in while designing and preparing for instruction, including both mental reasoning and physical actions and including activities that do and do not involve curriculum materials. I use the term actions, not shown in Figure 2 but implied as part of the construct of planning processes, to refer to physical activities teachers engage in as part of planning, such as talking with other teachers or preparing materials. In contrast, I define curricular noticing as the mental activities teachers engage in with the curriculum materials, including attending, interpreting, and deciding how to respond. For the purposes of this study, I focus exclusively on teachers’ 17 curricular noticing before teaching, though I recognize that teachers also engage in noticing with curriculum materials during and after teaching. Because planning processes are the broader construct, and teachers’ curricular noticing before teaching is just part of their planning processes, I depicted planning processes in Figure 2 with the larger black multi-directional arrow, and I depicted the curricular noticing activities of attending, interpreting, and deciding to respond with the smaller blue multi-directional arrow contained inside. Figure 2. Conceptual framework This conceptual framework shows that instructional plans, including their quality and responsiveness, are informed by contributions from teachers, core programs, and contexts. Though the construct of pedagogical design capacity is not explicitly depicted, it can be understood as the ways in which characteristics of the teacher, core reading programs, and 18 contexts interact to support and constrain the total capacity available for teachers to leverage in support of designing high-quality, responsive instruction. Figure 2 also demonstrates the relationship between instructional plans and enacted instruction even though this is not the focus of the present study because it is important for the study’s rationale and significance. More specifically, Figure 2 shows that teachers work from their instructional plans to design the enacted instruction in interaction with students, suggesting that instructional plans inform the enacted instruction, though not directly. This means that the quality and responsiveness evident in a teacher’s instructional plans have implications for the potential quality and responsiveness of enacted instruction. Given the research that supports the relationship between instructional plans and enacted instruction, as cited above, I posit that designing high-quality, responsive instructional plans is a necessary but not sufficient condition for enacting instruction with these important characteristics. This relationship is important for this study’s significance because it speaks to the value of studying teachers’ planning processes and instructional plans because they have implications for the quality and responsiveness of instruction enacted in classrooms. Given that this relationship is not direct and that additional factors contribute to the quality and responsiveness of enacted instruction, which is what matters for students’ opportunities to learn, future studies should also include examination of these components of the framework. However, given the dearth of research investigating how elementary teachers interact with core reading programs to design instructional plans, this dissertation’s narrow focus on these components of the framework is warranted in order to allow for closer and more in-depth investigation of these important but under-studied components. Overview of Chapters This dissertation includes seven chapters. In Chapter 1, I introduced the study, stating its 19 focus on how teachers plan for reading comprehension instruction with core reading programs and situating it within the broader issues of reading comprehension instruction and teachers’ work with curriculum materials. I also described the study’s guiding frameworks, which include a view of teacher planning with curriculum materials as an interactive design process, and a focus on teachers’ curricular noticing and on high-quality, responsive comprehension instruction. In Chapter 2, I summarize my review of relevant literature on teacher planning and curriculum use. Chapter 3 provides a detailed description of the study’s methodology, describing its qualitative case study design and rationale, as well as methods used to collect and analyze data. Chapters 4 through 6 introduce findings, beginning with an overview of the cross-cutting themes of complexity and teachers’ orientations to core programs in reading comprehension in Chapter 4. I also use my overview of these themes to introduce my six participating teachers and their teaching contexts. In Chapters 5 and 6, I discuss how these themes connected through teachers’ planning processes with core programs (Chapter 5) and their resulting instructional plans (Chapter 6), demonstrating the complex, participatory, and contextual nature of teachers’ work with core programs and the ways in which teachers, curriculum materials, and contexts contributed to the teachers’ planning processes as well as to the quality and responsiveness of the instructional plans. Finally, in Chapter 7, I synthesize these findings, discussing them in relation to existing research and providing recommendations for future research as well as for policy and practice in the areas of teacher education and professional development, curriculum material design, and curriculum implementation. 20 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW In this chapter, I provide a review of relevant research on teacher planning and curriculum material use that is relevant to the design of the study and its findings. Teacher Planning Research on teacher planning has its origins in cognitively-oriented efforts to understand the thinking and decision-making of practicing teachers during the 1970s and 1980s, which aimed primarily to illuminate the complexity and centrality of invisible aspects of the work of teaching in order to professionalize teaching and inform teacher preparation (Clark & Lampert, 1986; McCutcheon, 1980; Morine-Dershimer, 1977; Peterson, Marx, & Clark, 1978; Yinger, 1979). Defining planning as the preactive (before teaching) decision-making processes whereby teachers transform curriculum into instruction, these studies confirmed that planning is a central and complex aspect of the work of teaching that significantly influences what teachers do in the classroom (Clark & Yinger, 1980; McCutcheon, 1980). This early research also confirmed that planning is a central concern of teachers and a crucial part of their work, finding that they spend between ten and twenty hours per week engaged in creating mental or written plans for instruction (Clark & Yinger, 1979). In terms of teachers’ planning processes, studies in the 1970s and 1980s countered earlier notions of planning as a linear process. Earlier linear models posited that planning begins with articulating objectives and moves on to selecting and organizing learning activities and evaluation procedures that align with these objectives (Tyler, 1950). In contrast, studies in the 1970s and 1980s found that teachers typically began their planning of a given lesson by selecting an activity and then moved through interactive cycles of elaborating and adapting their initial 21 plan (McCutcheon, 1980; Morine-Dershimer, 1977; Yinger, 1980). Some of these studies also found that the central focus of teachers’ planning was on activities and content, which they often focused on first and devoted most of their time and effort to during planning, devoting less time and effort to developing objectives and evaluation procedures (Morine-Dershimer, 1977; Clark & Yinger, 1979). Yinger (1980) conducted three studies of teacher planning and found that teachers engaged in planning at various nested levels, ranging from long-term yearly planning to short- term daily planning, with each level taking place within the context of broader levels. Additionally, at each of these levels of planning, teachers addressed different goals and drew upon different sources of information. Drawing upon findings from all three studies, Yinger (1980) developed the general-process model of teacher planning, which depicted planning as a design cycle in which teachers first discovered dilemmas in their teaching and then used planning to design and test out possible solutions. In addition, Yinger and others after him have contended that experienced teachers manage the complexity of planning by routinizing their planning processes and drawing the majority of their instructional activities from their existing repertoire of instructional routines or activity schema (Leinhardt & Greeno, 1986; Yinger, 1980). Yinger’s model of teacher planning, which is consistent with the findings of other studies conducted during and since that time (e.g., Bage, Grosvenor, & Williams, 1999; Brown, 1988; McCutcheon, 1980; Roche, Clarke, Clarke, & Sullivan, 2014), also depicts lesson planning as a fluid and ongoing mental activity that teachers engage in across time and space rather than an isolated activity that takes place at a set time. In terms of influences on planning, McCutcheon (1980) found that external forces, including teacher education experiences and institutional factors such as isolation from other 22 teachers, the available curriculum materials or textbooks, unpredictable events, scheduling, and school policies regarding curriculum and students, often constrained teachers’ capacity for planning. Other studies identified additional internal, teacher-specific factors that influenced planning including teachers’ previous teaching and planning experiences, personal teaching styles, and their theories and beliefs about students, teaching, content, materials, and themselves as teachers (May, 1986; Yinger, 1980). Of special interest to the present study, curriculum materials were mentioned across several of these early studies as exerting a strong influence on planning (McCutcheon, 1980; Morine-Dershimer, 1977; Yinger, 1980). Teachers in these and later studies used externally- developed curriculum documents—published curriculum materials and official guides such as curriculum maps and standards—as guides to determine instructional content and sometimes activities, as well as to inform their long-range planning (Brown, 1988; Clark & Peterson, 1984; McCutcheon, 1980; Roche et al., 2014; Siuty, Leko, & Knackstedt, 2016). Elementary teachers tended to base their planning on curriculum materials more frequently when planning for reading and mathematics than other subjects (McCutcheon, 1980; Morine-Dershimer, 1977; Yinger, 1980). In addition to influencing instructional plans, primarily in terms of content, several studies from this era found that using externally developed curriculum materials simplified planning for teachers by reducing the range of things teachers had to consider and make decisions about (McCutcheon, 1980). Some studies at that time found that curriculum materials largely eliminated teacher planning (Clark & Yinger, 1979), while others contended that teachers working with prescribed materials made intentional decisions during planning and maintained a sense of ownership (Clark & Elmore, 1981). Curriculum materials in these early studies were, 23 thus, presented as both supports and constraints for teacher planning, supporting teachers by simplifying the complex decision-making involved in teaching and by providing initial ideas for content and activities, while also potentially encouraging teachers to offload too many important decisions to externally-developed tools that have inherent shortcomings and may neither meet their own needs as teachers nor be well-suited to their students (Clark & Yinger, 1979a; McCutcheon, 1980; Yinger, 1980). These studies highlighted an enduring tension in research on curriculum development and enactment: the tension between externally-developed plans that are likely to be effective with students in general and plans that are responsive to local contexts, communities, and students (e.g., Bage et al., 1999; DeBarger, Choppin, Beauvineau, & Moorthy, 2013). In terms of the instructional plans teachers develop, research suggests that teachers often record only brief notes or outlines in plan books but develop more elaborate mental plans or visions for instruction based largely on past experience and instructional activity routines or schema (Leinhardt & Greeno, 1986a; Morine-Dershimer, 1977; Yinger, 1980). Additionally, teachers may not always articulate all aspects of instruction they have thought through or envisioned when prompted to do so (Morine-Dershimer, 1977). Research has also found that the structure, content, and level of specificity in lesson plans have been found to vary widely from teacher to teacher, much like planning processes; however, teachers tend to include learning goals, content, sequence of activities, and sometimes assessment when formulating instructional plans (Clark & Yinger, 1980). Some early studies of teacher planning demonstrated that characteristics of lesson plans or lesson planning processes related to the quality of the enacted instruction or to student outcomes. In other words, the ways in which teachers engage in planning and the instructional 24 plans they create matter for the quality of instruction they enact in classrooms and for student learning outcomes. More specifically, one study suggested that when teachers made highly detailed long-range plans at the level of a unit, they were less responsive to students in the moment of instruction than teachers who made more tentative long-range plans that they specified and adjusted on an ongoing basis (Zahorik, 1970). This finding reflects the often cited tension between the need to plan for instruction in advance, predicting and anticipating the course of a lesson, and the need to respond immediately to students in the moment of instruction (Bage et al., 1999; Fairbanks et al., 2010; Hoffman & Duffy, 2016; Leinhardt & Greeno, 1986a; Parsons, 2012). In contrast, Morine-Dershimer (1977) found that, when given a standard set of reading and mathematics curriculum materials from which to plan, teachers with higher pupil gain scores made more specific rather than more general statements in their plans. Examining the specific statements teachers with higher gain scores made in their instructional plans, she found that those statements involved investing teachers’ own cognitive resources into planning, such as by constructing their own instructional goal statements (rather than simply using those provided in curriculum materials) or attending to cognitive aspects of the lesson during planning (such as thinking through how best to introduce the lesson to students or make use of student ideas). In conjunction, these studies suggest that developing well-specified but flexible plans at the level of individual lessons by tailoring instructional goals to oneself or one’s students and thinking through the cognitive aspects of instruction, including envisioning different possibilities of how a lesson might unfold, may be important aspects of lesson planning. The more limited recent research on planning conducted with practicing teachers since the 1980s largely aligns with these early findings and conceptualizations of teacher planning. While early studies tended to focus either on all of a teacher’s planning activities across levels or 25 on planning at the level of lessons, and tended to focus on experienced elementary teachers in the United States, newer studies have also investigated planning at the unit level (Roche et al., 2014), with middle and high school teachers (McCutcheon & Milner, 2002; Siuty et al., 2016) and special education teachers (Schumm et al., 1995), and in a variety of countries including Australia, England, Italy, and Japan (Bage et al., 1999; Fernandez & Cannon, 2005; Lampert & Graziani, 2009; Roche et al., 2014). These studies largely confirm the findings of earlier research, though some have also suggested that ambitious teaching (Lampert et al., 2013) may require a different approach to planning than what teachers typically employ (Roskos & Neuman, 1995). In addition, they have pushed toward sociocultural conceptions of planning, suggesting that teacher planning is a cultural practice because teachers in different countries and contexts employ somewhat different planning processes that address different goals and bespeak culturally-embedded values and conceptions of teaching and learning (Fernandez & Cannon, 2005; Lampert & Graziani, 2009). Newer studies have also continued to utilize and confirm Yinger’s (1980) model of planning as a process of problem-solving and design, while conceptions of planning as a dialogical process (John, 2006) or an aesthetic and arts-based process (Uhrmacher, Conrad, & Moroye, 2013) have also recently emerged. The majority of the more recent literature has focused on planning in the context of teacher education, examining how teacher candidates learn to plan and how their plans relate to their enacted instruction (e.g., John, 2006; Kang, 2017). Given that experienced teachers typically think about and engage in planning and teaching differently from pre-service teachers (Borko & Livingston, 1989; Westerman, 1991; Wolff, van den Bogert, Jarodzka, & Boshuizen, 2015), I excluded these studies from my literature review. None of the recent research on teacher 26 planning has examined elementary in-service teachers’ planning with curriculum materials in literacy, which is the focus of this dissertation. Designing Instruction with Curriculum Materials Curriculum Enactment A significant body of research has emerged, primarily over the last 25 years, examining the curriculum enactment process. Much of this work has been conducted in the context of mathematics and science teaching and teacher education. This body of work includes studies and theoretical papers that address various aspects of the larger process of how curriculum is enacted, from officially sanctioned curriculum components to instructional materials that interpret and represent them to the curriculum teachers operationalize into instructional plans and enact in classrooms with students (Remillard & Heck, 2014). Studies have examined various components of this process, investigating, for instance, how curriculum materials represent the official curriculum (Polikoff, 2015) and can be designed as educative materials to support teacher learning (Davis & Krajcik, 2005), how teachers understand and address or use the official curriculum and curriculum materials to plan and enact instruction (Roth McDuffie, Choppin, Drake, Davis, & Brown, 2017), and how curriculum materials address or speak to teachers (Herbel-Eisenmann, 2007). Given the central role of curriculum materials in informing instruction (Ball & Cohen, 1996) and the central role of the teacher as the final designer and enactor of curriculum with and for students, many of the studies in this field have addressed how teachers interact with curriculum materials to shape instruction. The present study is situated within this body of work. As Remillard (2005) discussed in her review of literature on how mathematics teachers use curriculum materials, many early studies examining curriculum use in the 1970s to 1990s 27 depicted curriculum materials as complete representations of curriculum to be enacted, framing teachers as conduits of the written curriculum who either enacted the written curriculum with fidelity or subverted it (e.g., Freeman & Porter, 1989; Goodman, 1989). More recent research and theory has tended toward more nuanced, interactive, and subjective conceptualizations, framing teachers as decision-makers who exercise agency and professional knowledge as they determine how to use curriculum materials (Duffy, Roehler, & Putnam, 1987; Hoffman et al., 1998; McCutcheon, 1981), as interpreters of the subjective texts of curriculum materials (Collopy, 2003), and as curriculum designers who engage in interactive or participatory relationships with curriculum materials (Ben-Peretz, 1990; Brown & Edelson, 2003; Remillard, 2005). Even as they have elevated the role of the teacher in the curriculum enactment process, recent studies have also found that characteristics and features of curriculum materials, such as their voice or educative features, can influence the ways in which teachers use them (Arias, Bismack, Davis, & Palincsar, 2015; Herbel-Eisenmann, 2007), and that teachers can also learn from and be shaped by curriculum materials (Grossman & Thompson, 2008; Remillard, 2000; Remillard & Bryans, 2004a). These findings support the interactive or participatory model of the teacher-curriculum relationship (Remillard, 2005), as discussed in my theoretical framework in Chapter 1, which posits that both teachers and curriculum materials actively shape the planned and enacted curriculum. Though the body of research examining how teachers interact with curriculum materials is large, little of that research has focused specifically on examining the actions and reasoning experienced teachers engage in with curriculum materials when they design instruction during planning, which is the focus of the present study. Several studies have examined how teacher 28 candidates plan with curriculum materials (e.g., Beyer & Davis, 2009; Nicol & Crespo, 2006), but very few have examined this topic in the context of experienced teachers’ work. Sherin and Drake (2009) conducted one of the few published studies, investigating how ten elementary teachers transformed their understanding of curriculum materials into instruction. Using observations and post-observation interviews that focused on how teachers used their mathematics program materials before, during, and after instruction, Sherin and Drake and found that teachers engaged in the following three main interpretive activities with the materials: reading, evaluating, and adapting. The ten teachers interacted with the materials in a variety of ways. Some teachers read the curriculum materials to get a general picture of the lesson prior to teaching, others read in greater detail in order to receive specific guidance prior to teaching, and still others read for a general sense of the lesson before teaching and then read for more detailed guidance on such things as instructional language or examples during instruction. In terms of evaluating, teachers evaluated curriculum materials with different audiences in mind, evaluating in relation to the teacher by considering their own understanding of the lesson, in relation to their students by considering how well the materials did or would support their learning and participation, or in relation to parents and how they would respond to less traditional math strategies students invented. Here, too, Sherin and Drake observed different patterns across the teachers in the study in terms of how and when they evaluated their materials. Finally, teachers took three general approaches to adapting curriculum materials, which included creating new components, replacing or substituting components of the materials with their own, and omitting components of a lesson without adding anything back in to replace it. In line with research on planning, Sherin and Drake (2009) found that teachers tended to adapt activities at all three time periods including when they planned for instruction before teaching, 29 but that adaptations to the content took place less often and almost always during instruction. In other words, during pre-active planning, teachers in this study relied upon the curriculum materials to inform the content of their instruction, focusing their efforts on designing adaptations to activities. One limitation of this study noted by the researchers is that it did not relate teachers’ curriculum strategies to the effectiveness of instruction or to specific characteristics of the teachers or curriculum materials. Building on the work of Sherin and Drake (2009), this dissertation employs a modified version of the framework of reading, evaluating, and adapting to examine teachers’ noticing of curriculum materials during planning, including the activities of attending, interpreting, and deciding how to respond. It also extends the work of Sherin and Drake to make a novel contribution by relating the ways in which teachers engage in these activities to the quality and responsiveness of their instructional plans and to some teacher and curriculum material characteristics that seem to influence teacher-curriculum material interactions. Several more recent studies have examined these issues, shedding light on the ways in which the resources and characteristics of both teachers and curriculum materials shape their interactions and the resulting instruction. These studies have suggested that teacher characteristics that shape curriculum use include content knowledge and pedagogical content knowledge (Brown, 2009; Hill & Charalambous, 2012); knowledge and perceptions of students (Collopy, 2003; Davis, Janssen, & Driel, 2016); beliefs, values, goals and identities related to curriculum materials, teaching, and content (Beyer & Davis, 2012; Drake & Sherin, 2006; Roehrig, Kruse, & Kern, 2007); experiences with curriculum materials (Roth McDuffie et al., 2017); and orientations or stances toward curriculum materials (Remillard & Bryans, 2004). In particular, these studies suggest that the following may serve as resources that support teachers 30 in interacting productively with curriculum materials: rich and deep knowledge; experiences with curriculum materials; beliefs, values, goals, and identities that are compatible with the design of the curriculum materials; and an orientation toward curriculum materials as potentially productive guides. Characteristics of curriculum materials also influence how teachers interact with and use them. These include the materials’ intended audience and voice (Herbel-Eisenmann, 2007; Remillard, 2000), tasks (Stein & Kim, 2009), organization (in particular whether they are integral or modular1) (Stein & Kim, 2009), components or features including educative features (Arias et al., 2015), philosophy (Remillard, 2005), transparency of pedagogical design (Stein & Kim, 2009), and look (Remillard, 2000). Additionally, Brown (2009) specified that physical objects and representations of objects, representations of tasks, and representations of concepts also shaped how teachers used them and the resulting instruction. In particular, these studies suggest that curriculum materials that are more likely to be supportive of teachers as instructional designers speak to teachers by positioning them as instructional designers and decision-makers instead of attempting to speak through teachers by telling them what to do and say in a more directive way (Davis & Krajcik, 2005; Remillard, 2000). They also provide high-quality representations of high-level tasks, concepts, and objects, provide built-in supports such as educative features, are modular and transparent, and are consistent with the teacher’s own philosophy. 1 As Stein and Kim (2009) define these terms, an integral organizational structure involves units with interrelated learning outcomes that are intentionally sequenced to build on one another and that cannot be easily rearranged. A spiral curriculum is one example. In contrast, a modular organizational structure includes units with clearly identifiable learning outcomes that are largely independent of the learning outcomes of other units. Modular units can, thus, stand alone or be sequenced flexibly. 31 Beyond teacher and curriculum material factors, teacher-curriculum material interactions are shaped by resources and characteristics of the context. McClain et al. (2009) examined features of the institutional context that influence how teachers use curriculum materials. They identified two institutional features that influenced capacity for curriculum use within a given district school, including human capital (the capacity of individual people within the district or school to work with and learn from curriculum materials) and social capital (the structure, ties, and trust within social relationships in the district or school). In addition, several studies have found that the expectations for curriculum use matter. In particular, institutional contexts with restrictive policies governing curriculum material use, such as fidelity mandates and surveillance, and those that accord low professional status to teachers can influence teachers to follow curriculum materials more rigidly, making fewer adaptations (McClain, Zhao, Visnovska, & Bowen, 2009; Valencia et al., 2006). Finally, one study suggested that the availability of other curricular and instructional resources in the school context could support teachers in curriculum design efforts (Valencia et al., 2006). Taken as a whole, then, the existing research suggests that teachers actively engage with curriculum materials while planning for and enacting instruction, and that the ways in which they interact with the materials are shaped by the resources and characteristics of the teachers themselves, the curriculum materials, and the context (Remillard & Bryans, 2004; Roth McDuffie et al., 2017; Valencia et al., 2006). These interactions, in turn, shape teachers’ planned and enacted instruction. The studies cited above provide important insights into the resources and characteristics of teachers, curriculum materials, and contexts that shape how teachers work with curriculum materials and support their pedagogical design capacity on a general level. Yet only one of these studies was conducted in the context of literacy instruction (Valencia et al., 2006), 32 and little is known about whether and to what extent these resources and characteristics shape teachers’ use of curriculum materials or pedagogical design capacity in literacy. This dissertation, thus, builds upon and extends the existing research by examining the resources and characteristics of the teachers, curriculum materials, and contexts that seemed to shape how the teachers engaged in planning and their resulting instructional plans. Hypothesizing that many of the characteristics and resources from the broader research on teachers’ work with curriculum materials would be relevant to teachers’ planning with core reading programs, I included examination of teacher, curriculum material, and contextual factors as part of my data collection and analysis, using existing research to shape interview questions and initial deductive codes while also using open-ended questions and inductive coding to look for new possibilities. Designing Instruction with Core Reading Programs In contrast with the broader research on how teachers interact with curriculum materials, research in the field of literacy education on how teachers use core reading programs has largely centered on debates about whether and to what extent these curriculum materials deskill or de- professionalize teachers by usurping control of instructional decision-making (Apple, 1981; Baumann, 1992; Goodman, 1989; Shannon, 1989) and on calls for teachers to exert autonomy and agency in order to resist being controlled (Achinstein & Ogawa, 2006; MacGillivray, Ardell, Curwen, & Palma, 2004). This debate remains at the center of research on core reading programs and their use today, and publications on this topic over the past two decades have, thus, focused primarily on either evaluating and critiquing core programs (Dewitz et al., 2009) or on examining the extent to which the programs either deskill teachers or teachers resist them. In this way, research in the field of reading remains focused on the conduit metaphor that early studies in mathematics and science education tended to use—a metaphor that pits teachers and 33 curriculum materials against one another in a battle for control while also overlooking the complex ways in which teachers and curriculum materials interact and the ways in which teachers and core programs can collaborate productively to design higher-quality and more responsive instruction. Due in large part to their theoretical orientation and to the literature to which these studies are speaking, research examining how teachers use core reading programs has engaged in few close, qualitative studies of the ways in which teachers work with curriculum materials. In addition, because the message to teachers in the existing literature has been to resist core programs with their accompanying mandates and to abandon or significantly adapt core programs, almost no published research in the last twenty years has sought to evaluate the quality and responsiveness of the instruction teachers plan when working with core programs. As such, the field lacks a conceptualization of how teachers interact and reason with core programs to design instruction, though this is a central aspect of teachers’ daily work that has significant implications for the instruction they make available to their students. Rich, qualitative examinations of teachers’ work with core reading programs are needed to inform theory, practice, and continued research in this area aimed at both understanding and supporting teachers in their daily work. Though research on how teachers design instruction with core programs is limited, a few studies and findings bear consideration here because they provide some insights relevant to the present study. The existing research suggests that literacy curriculum materials that are comprehensive and prescriptive, as well as those that fall short of notions of high-quality, rigorous, and responsive instruction can constrain teacher-curriculum interactions and the resulting instruction (Duffy et al., 1987; Valencia et al., 2006). This is especially important given 34 that these constraining factors characterize many core programs, which suggests that core reading programs typically offer little support for teachers’ pedagogical design capacity (Dewitz, Jones, & Leahy, 2009). At the same time, research on how teachers use core programs also demonstrates that knowledgeable teachers who exercise agency and professional judgment can work with these materials to design high-quality literacy instruction that reflects their own beliefs and values while also being responsive to students (Kersten & Pardo, 2007; Maniates, 2017; Maniates & Mahiri, 2011). At the same time, Duffy and colleagues’ (1987) seminal work on teacher decision- making in the context of core reading programs suggests that this is difficult and perhaps unsustainable work for teachers to undertake in restrictive contexts such as those with fidelity mandates and surveillance. Fidelity mandates have been a central focus of several published studies on how teachers use curriculum materials, and this topic bears further discussion here given their pervasive and controversial nature. When adopting and implementing core programs, school districts often emphasize that the materials should be used with fidelity, an approach that suggests curriculum materials carry complete representations of teaching practice that teachers can objectively access and convey to students with no change (Chval, Chávez, Reys, & Tarr, 2009; Remillard, 2005). Such policies are consistent with a conduit metaphor, which frames teachers as conduits of the written curriculum. Research in reading has shown that teachers are less likely to make significant and high-quality adaptations to core programs in contexts with strict fidelity mandates (Duffy et al., 1987; Shelton, 2010; Valencia et al., 2006), suggesting that such mandates can have a restrictive effect. Yet research has also demonstrated that even in contexts of mandated fidelity and high accountability, teachers make adaptations to core programs that reflect their agency as designers of instruction (e.g., Datnow & Castellano, 2000; 35 Kersten & Pardo, 2007). The broader literature on how teachers work with curriculum materials suggests that core programs provide incomplete representations of practice that teachers interpret and transform as they plan for and enact instruction, viewing curriculum use as an inherently interpretive and subjective activity shaped by teachers’ particular beliefs, knowledge, and experiences (e.g., Remillard, 2005). Nonetheless, fidelity mandates often maintain a degree of influence in teachers’ work with core programs, illustrating the ways in which contextual factors shape teacher-curriculum material interactions in reading. These few studies in literacy provide some relevant insights into factors that may shape teachers’ core reading program use and the quality and responsiveness of their instructional plans. No studies of elementary teachers’ work with core reading programs have specifically focused on closely examining teachers’ actions and reasoning with curriculum materials during planning, with the exception of the limited attention to this in McCutcheon’s (1980) broader study of elementary teachers’ planning across subject areas. The present study seeks to begin redressing that gap. 36 CHAPTER 3 METHODS This qualitative, multiple case study (Glesne, 2010; Yin, 2013) employed semi-structured interviews and staged lesson planning protocols (Roth McDuffie et al., 2017) to investigate the lesson planning processes and curricular noticing, as well as the instructional plans, of six experienced elementary teachers as they interacted with core program materials. A case study design was well-suited to this topic because it allowed for examination of the ways in which particular contexts shaped teachers’ interactions with curriculum materials during planning, while also lending itself to analysis of both the particularities of each case and patterns across cases in order to inform understandings of the phenomenon of planning for comprehension instruction with core programs (Yin, 2013). I selected semi-structured interviews and staged lesson planning protocols because they allow for the examination of things that cannot be directly observed—participants’ experiences, perceptions, intangible resources, reasoning processes, and mental images (Glesne, 2010; Hilden & Pressley, 2011), which were of interest in this study. Interviews provided insight into the characteristics, resources, and teaching contexts of the participating teachers, focusing on their experiences, perceptions, and intangible resources related to teaching reading comprehension with core reading programs in their particular school and classroom contexts. Staged lesson planning protocols, a form of verbal protocol (Hilden & Pressley, 2011), allowed for more immediate and in-depth examination of teachers’ interactions with core program materials during planning and of their instructional plans. Interviews and staged lesson planning, used in combination, allowed me to examine teacher-curriculum material interactions during planning as situated within the particularities that shaped these interactions for each participating teacher. 37 As Hilden and Pressley (2011) describe, verbal protocols are often used in literacy research to examine readers’ thinking processes as they engage with texts. Verbal protocol research involves asking participants to think aloud as they engage in an activity or to describe their mental processes retroactively soon after completing an activity, with the goal of making unobservable mental processes visible for examination. Viewing teachers’ lesson planning with curriculum materials as a particular type of interaction with text, I selected this approach because of its potential to shed light on teacher characteristics and processes, as well as text and context factors that shape these interactions (Hilden & Pressley, 2011). Also, verbal protocols and staged lesson planning have provided valuable insights into teacher-curriculum material interactions and the curriculum enactment process in recent studies (e.g., Hodgkinson, Land, Johnson, & Beshchorner, 2016; Roth McDuffie et al., 2017), demonstrating for example the strategies that pre-service teachers use when reading curriculum materials and suggesting the complex ways in which aspects of curriculum materials’ design can interact with teachers’ own orientations to influence what they attend to and how they mobilize curricular resources. In the sections that follow, I describe the core programs and lessons, the participants, and the tasks I used in this study, as well as my procedures for data collection and analysis. Core Programs The programs I included are Reading Street (Pearson, 2013), Benchmark Literacy (Benchmark Education, 2012), and Wonders (McGraw-Hill, 2017). All three programs are marketed as aligned with the Common Core State Standards and with current research on effective reading instruction. I selected these particular programs because they provided the opportunity to examine how teachers plan with both familiar and unfamiliar programs. All three programs either were or soon would be in use in the county where I conducted the research, and 38 the selected teachers all had experience with either Benchmark or Reading Street but not Wonders at the time of data collection. I included Benchmark because, as I discuss in further detail below, it was structured differently from the other two programs and used a slightly different instructional model, which facilitated examination of the ways in which these differences mattered during planning. Benchmark Literacy is based on an apprenticeship model of literacy learning wherein teachers support new learning through explicit teaching and modeling, guided practice, and adjustable scaffolding leading toward increasingly independent and flexible application. This model applies a gradual release of responsibility (Duke, Pearson, Strachan, & Billman, 2011; Pearson & Gallagher, 1983). Broadly, the program addresses comprehension development through read-alouds, whole-group and small-group lessons, guided practice activities, and individual conferences that address comprehension strategies and genre features. In addition to providing recommendations for instruction and assessment, teacher materials contain brief portions of scripted language that include instructional explanations and questions, and the materials also feature optional ways of connecting reading and writing instruction. Each 3-week unit addresses one metacognitive strategy and one comprehension strategy (hereafter referred to collectively as comprehension strategies), as well as one text genre. These units are modular (Stein & Kim, 2009), meaning each one has clearly identifiable learning outcomes that are largely independent of the learning outcomes of other units. Wonders (2017) similarly focuses on one comprehension strategy, one comprehension skill, and one genre at a time across each week of instruction. Its instructional model for reading comprehension uses minilessons on Day 1 of each week that include explicit instruction and modeling, followed by student application of new content during the reading of common whole- 39 group texts and leveled small-group texts with teacher support on Day 2 and Day 3. In this way, it also utilizes the gradual release model. One feature that distinguishes Wonders from Benchmark is its emphasis on close reading of complex text during whole-group instruction, which is absent from Benchmark. Additionally, Wonders uses longer texts for whole-group instruction and application whereas Benchmark uses shorter passages that span only one page- spread, keeping whole-group instruction shorter and placing greater emphasis on small-group instruction. Finally, Wonders units are integral and follow a spiral structure, meaning the curriculum is structured in such a way that units build and depend on previous units and frequently revisit topics previously introduced but with increasing complexity and expectations of independence (Stein & Kim, 2009). Reading Street (2011 & 2013) uses a similar instructional model to Wonders for comprehension strategies, targeting two strategies each week, using a gradual release of responsibility, and providing longer texts for whole-group instruction and application. In contrast with Benchmark and Wonders, however, it does not focus on a single genre across weeks or units but instead includes a variety of text genres during each week and unit of instruction, and it does not emphasize genre study as part of comprehension instruction. Reading Street also builds in practice with comprehension strategies from other units within each unit during the reading of the main whole-group story or passage for the week. In this way, the Reading Street program is an integral, spiral curriculum like Wonders, with a structure teachers may find hard to adapt (Stein & Kim, 2009). Lessons The lessons used in the staged lesson planning protocol interviews consisted of six whole-group reading comprehension lessons, including one lesson from each of the three core 40 Table 3 Core Program Lessons Selected Core Program Grade Unit, Week, Day Comprehension Skills Text Title Benchmark Reading Street Wonders 3 4 3 4 3 4 & Strategies Unit 6, Week 1, Day 2 Unit 4, Week 1, Day 3 Unit 2, Week 1, Day 2 Unit 2, Week 3, Day 2 Monitor & Clarify; Fact Fix-Up Monitoring; Fact & Opinion Fix-Up Monitoring; Summarize Monitor & Clarify; Main Idea & Details & Opinion Unit 2, Week 4, Day 3 Unit 1, Week 3, Day 3 Reread; Author’s Point of View Reread; Compare and Contrast Sugar Maple Trees Botanists Penguin Chicks Horse Heroes: True Stories of Amazing Horses Whooping Cranes in Danger Earthquakes programs in each of the targeted grade-levels (3rd and 4th grades). To facilitate comparisons in instruction planned with different programs, I selected one whole-group comprehension lesson from each program that included expository texts addressing topics related to the natural world and that addressed the comprehension strategy of self-monitoring. Because I was interested in lessons that included both comprehension instruction and practice, and because core programs follow a common pattern of introducing new content on Day 1 and providing continued instruction and guided practice across Day 2 and Day 3, I selected lessons that encompassed Day 2 and/or Day 3 in each of the three programs, selecting the lessons in such a way as to include a comparable range of instruction and activities across programs. Each selected lesson involved instruction and practice with the strategy of self-monitoring, and often with other comprehension skills and strategies, in the context of reading a passage together as a class. In this way, the selected lessons followed a typical format for whole-group comprehension lessons in core programs. Because I was interested in the instruction and activities teachers planned for before, during, and after the reading of the text, I included instruction from each core program that addressed all three of these stages of reading and that involved reading an entire text. Table 3 41 above summarizes information about the selected lessons. Participant Selection I began selecting participants by first choosing three districts in one county in the midwestern United States that used one of the three selected core programs and that represented a range of geographic and demographic characteristics. I selected districts which had adopted core programs prior to 2015 because I was interested in examining the planning processes of teachers who were familiar with the programs they use, and because research suggests that teachers make changes in how they use curriculum materials after the first year (Drake & Sherin, 2009). Table 4 summarizes characteristics of the districts and schools that I ultimately included in the study.2 After obtaining IRB approval and district permission, I distributed a survey via email to all 3rd and 4th grade teachers at all elementary schools in these selected districts. I focused on these grade levels because they tend to include a greater focus on reading comprehension instruction than earlier grades. The survey shown in Appendix A included questions about teachers’ experiences and beliefs related to teaching, reading comprehension, and core programs, and about characteristics of their classroom and school contexts. I sent the initial survey via email to 88 teachers; 21 teachers responded, and 13 agreed to be interviewed. From among these thirteen teachers, I utilized purposive sampling to select experienced teachers who demonstrated knowledge of comprehension and comprehension instruction. I also selected teachers who reported making intentional adaptations to their core programs, viewing literacy as a cultural practice, and having deep knowledge of their students and their local school community. Teachers such as these are most likely to have established patterns for working with their core program materials during planning and to bring rich resources to their interactions with 2 All district, school, town, and teacher names used in this dissertation are pseudonyms. 42 core programs, which they can mobilize to support high-quality and responsive instruction as they attend, interpret, and make decisions about how to transform the written curriculum into instructional plans. Table 4 District and School Characteristics District School Community Racial and ethnic makeup Hudson Maple Grove urban fringe low-income and middle-class Greenville Union Elementary suburban wealthy Highview Elementary suburban socioeconomically diverse Milton Acorn Elementary rural middle-class Northview Elementary rural middle-class Racially and ethnically diverse, including: White; Black or African American; Middle Eastern or North African; Hispanic, Latino, or of Spanish Origin; Asian; American Indian or Alaska Native Racially and ethnically mixed, including: White; Black or African American; Hispanic, Latino, or of Spanish Origin; Asian; and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander Racially and ethnically diverse, including: White; Middle Eastern or North African; Hispanic, Latino, or of Spanish Origin; Asian Primarily White, including: White; Black or African American; Hispanic, Latino, or of Spanish Origin Primarily White, including: White; Black or African American; Middle Eastern or North African; Hispanic, Latino, or of Spanish Origin Linguistic Makeup Primarily native English speakers Core Program and Year of Adoption Reading Street 2014 Linguistically diverse, including some emergent bilinguals Reading Street 2010 Linguistically diverse, including some emergent bilinguals Primarily native English speakers Reading Street 2010 Benchmark 2012 Primarily native English speakers Benchmark 2012 In addition, I selected teachers who used and were familiar with two different core programs (Benchmark or Reading Street) in order to examine the ways in which characteristics of the materials shape how teachers use them during planning. I selected teachers who work with students of different cultural, linguistic, and socioeconomic backgrounds in order to shed light on 43 ways in which teachers’ adaptations are responsive to particular students, including the ways in which instructional plans designed with the same materials differ when teachers are seeking to be responsive to different student populations. I intentionally selected teachers I could group in these ways to allow for these types of comparisons, though my ultimate participant selection was constrained based on the characteristics of teachers who responded to the survey and agreed to further participation in the interviews. Representing the Hudson School District, I selected Amy and Kierra. At the time of data collection, Amy had taught fourth grade at Maple Grove Elementary for three years and had a total of 17 years of elementary teaching experience both in Hudson and in another district. Kierra had taught 3rd grade at Maple Grove for seven years and had taught in a neighboring urban district for a few years prior. Both had used Reading Street for three years, had completed master’s degrees, and had specialized in literacy at either the graduate or undergraduate level. Representing the Greenville District, I selected Julie and Karina. Julie had taught a 3rd/4th grade combined classroom at Union Elementary for five years at the time of the study, a teaching assignment that was unique to this public Montessori school. For the purposes of this study, I asked Julie to plan lessons using 3rd grade core program materials. Karina had taught 4th grade for nine years and had previously worked as an ESL teacher and as an upper elementary Montessori teacher at Union. Both teachers had participated in extensive Montessori training. Representing the Milton District, I selected Anastasia and Cathy. Anastasia had taught 3rd grade at Northview Elementary for fifteen years and had previously taught other elementary grades in the same district. At the time of the study, she had completed her master’s degree and was taking classes toward a doctorate. Cathy had taught 4th grade for five years and had previously taught for an additional eight years in the district and for a few additional years in California. She had 44 completed a master’s degree plus additional coursework. Neither teacher reported having completed specialized formal study of literacy. Table 5 summarizes these characteristics for each of the participating teachers. Table 5 Characteristics of Participating Teachers Teacher and Grade District and School Years teaching K-12 Years at Grade Years in this School Years with District Core Program Julie 3rd/4th Greenville Union 17 or more Kierra 3rd Hudson Maple Grove 7 to 16 Anastasia 3rd Milton Northview 17 or more Karina 4th Greenville Highview 7 to 16 Cathy 4th Milton Acorn 7 to 16 Amy 4th Hudson Maple Grove 17 or more 5 5 7 7 15 17 9 8 5 13 3 3 7 3 5 9 5 3 Level of education Specialization in literacy? Race/ ethnicity Master's degree plus additional coursework Master's degree Master's degree plus additional coursework Master's degree Master's degree plus additional coursework Master's degree plus additional coursework Yes, at the graduate level. White Yes, at the undergraduate level. No. Yes, at the undergraduate level. White Multi- Racial White No. White Yes, at the undergraduate level. White Data Collection Data collection took place in three stages from June through early November 2017, with the majority of interviews taking place during the summer to allow teachers to participate more reflectively and avoid overburdening them during the school year. I completed the first and 45 second stages of data collection in June 2017, which included distributing the initial screening survey to teachers via email and piloting my staged lesson planning (SLP) interview protocol with two teachers to ensure that it surfaced relevant information to address my research questions. I made minor revisions to the protocol after the pilot. The third and final stage of data collection involved conducting one general interview and two staged lesson planning interviews with each teacher. Appendix A contains the complete interview protocols for all three interviews and the instructions I gave the teachers to guide their planning. The general interview took place first and involved a 45- to 60- minute semi-structured interview focused on understanding teacher and contextual characteristics. This general interview (GI) provided insight into teacher characteristics, resources, and contextual factors that shaped teachers’ planning, as well as into teachers’ broader reading comprehension instruction and planning practices, primarily addressing my first research question. The second and third interviews consisted of SLP interviews. The first staged lesson planning interview (SLP1) utilized a lesson from the teacher’s district-adopted core program, which I refer to as their familiar core program or curriculum materials. The second staged lesson planning interview (SLP2) utilized the same format and questions but focused on a lesson from Wonders, a core program unfamiliar to all the teachers. I provided teachers with the core reading program materials and instructions on how to prepare for each staged lesson planning interview between 2 and 7 days before each SLP interview in order to allow them to have time across a few days to plan their lesson. As shown in Appendix A, the instructions asked teachers to plan as if they were going to teach the lesson to their current or previous class and then come to the SLP interview prepared to discuss their instructional plan, their planning process, and any resources they used. I gave teachers several days to plan because research has shown that planning takes 46 place across time and space boundaries rather than in one sitting (Morine-Dershimer, 1977). The SLP interviews addressed both of the research questions, providing insight into teachers’ planning actions and reasoning, as well as their instructional plans, including the Table 6 Research Questions, Data Sources, and Initial Codes Research Question RQ1: How do teachers interact with curriculum materials during planning? Data Sources: Question Numbers GI: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 SLP: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 S: 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 26 Initial Codes -Planning actions -Curricular noticing -Attend -Interpret -Decide how to respond GI: 2, 4, 7, 11, 12 SLP: 2, 3, 4 CRP materials (3 sets) RQ2: What do their planned lessons involve, and how do they align with notions of high- quality, responsive comprehension instruction? -Teacher resources: knowledge, goals, views and beliefs, experience -Context: external, community, district/school, teaching assignment, students -Core program lesson components: learning targets, representations of content, instructional activities/procedures, assessment, material objects -Planned lesson components: learning targets, representations of content, instructional activities/procedures, assessment, material objects -Adaptations: insertion, omission, modification, re-sequencing -High-quality comprehension instruction: building conceptual and language knowledge, differentiating, explicitly teaching comprehension strategies, purposefully selecting texts, teaching text structures and genres, engaging students in text-based discussions, generating motivation and interest -Responsive literacy instruction: cognitive and affective responsiveness, cultural responsiveness GI=general interview; SLP=staged lesson planning interview; S=survey; CRP=core reading program; numbers after “:” reflect the question number within each protocol. teacher, curriculum material, and context factors that seemed to shape their planning processes and products. Given that teachers typically develop more elaborate mental than written plans for instruction (Morine-Dershimer, 1977) and that planning processes, but not written plans, tend to 47 reflect consideration of particular students (Yinger, 1980), I did not collect written plans but instead asked teachers to talk me through their mental plans during the interviews. Using two different sets of curriculum materials with each teacher served to reveal the ways in which the core programs themselves shaped the teachers’ plans and planning processes. In addition, I included planning with an unfamiliar core reading program in order to increase the cognitive demand of the planning task, making planning processes and resources more visible. This was important because experienced teachers often use routines to make the complex work of teaching more manageable, which decreases their awareness of much of what they do (Leinhardt & Greeno, 1986), making it difficult for them to describe explicitly. At the end of SLP2, I asked additional concluding questions to address anything I was still wondering about. I video recorded and transcribed all three interview sessions with each teacher. Finally, I used the core reading program materials as a data source to inform understanding of how teachers’ plans compared with the original materials in terms of their alignment with standards for high-quality, responsive comprehension instruction. The relationship between these data sources and my research questions is displayed in Table 6. Although all data collected were in the form of self-report, questions were designed to address the same information in a variety of ways across data sources and over time to allow for triangulation and support credibility, dependability, and confirmability (Anfara, Brown, & Mangione, 2002). Data Analysis I analyzed the data qualitatively, beginning during data collection. Periodically during data collection, I wrote reflective and analytic memos to record my observations in relation to each research question. As soon as possible following data collection and transcription, I began 48 coding using the initial deductive codes shown in Table 6 to address each research question. During coding, I developed additional inductive codes and sub-codes to help me identify patterns and themes as I reviewed the data iteratively in comparison with existing research and theory. In this way, my coding scheme was both theoretically and empirically grounded, thus having the potential to add to existing knowledge and theory (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2013). To begin reducing my data and to facilitate later comparisons across lessons and teachers, during this initial analysis I created a descriptive profile of each teacher and summarized each core program lesson into a common lesson plan template. To address how teachers interacted with curriculum materials during planning (RQ1), I analyzed the descriptions teachers provided of their planning processes. In response to questions asked across all three interviews, teachers had the opportunity to address both their immediate planning processes with the materials provided for staged lesson planning and their typical planning processes during the academic year. Within these descriptions, I looked for verb phrases that signaled actions or steps in their planning processes, including those that did and did not explicitly involve curriculum materials. I also looked for specific ways in which teachers utilized and reasoned with the core program materials, including how they attended to, interpreted, and decided to respond to them (Amador et al., 2017). Finally, given my interest in comparing processes across teachers and sets of materials, I looked for patterns in planning processes and curricular noticing across teachers or groups of teachers and across core programs. A key difficulty I encountered in analyzing teachers’ planning was that they described their planning in different degrees of detail and included different content in their descriptions, with some teachers articulating a specific sequence of steps in detail and describing both their observable actions and their reasoning, while others provided more general descriptions focusing 49 primarily on observable activities. As a result of these differences, the amount and richness of the data I had from each teacher about her planning process and curricular noticing varied, and the lack of clear and detailed descriptions from some teachers made it difficult to draw conclusions about some aspects of the teachers’ planning or to compare planning across teachers. In order to compensate for the limited data I had about some teachers’ planning, and in particular their curricular noticing or reasoning, I supplemented teachers’ explicit descriptions of their planning with comments made when describing their instructional plans that illuminated their curricular noticing, drawing conclusions from these descriptions about what they would need to have attended to and how during planning in order to have arrived at the described instructional plan or evaluation of the core program. To avoid overreaching in these conclusions, I used only statements that included descriptions of teachers’ reasoning or pedagogical rationale, in which they explicitly stated the thinking behind what they had planned in ways that provided evidence of their curricular noticing. This approach is consistent with Mason’s (2017) application of noticing in educational research as a way of listening more deeply to what people are saying, asking oneself what participants would have needed to attend to and how in order to say and do what the data describe (p. 15). To further inform understandings of how teachers interacted with core reading programs during planning, I analyzed teachers’ descriptions of planning processes and instructional plans to identify any teacher, curricular, or contextual resources and characteristics they discussed utilizing or seeking to address. I also looked for patterns in the teacher, curricular, and contextual factors mentioned across teachers or groups of teachers and across sets of core program materials. Through this analysis, I found that teachers frequently expressed their reasoning in relation to individual and subjective goals and views or beliefs, and that they tended to approach 50 planning differently from one another, in ways that related to these goals and views/beliefs. Thus, in order to examine teachers’ goals and views/beliefs more closely, I created additional subcodes to classify them based on whether they pertained to students, core programs, or literacy. Noting the parallels between these subcodes and the components of Remillard and Bryans’ (2004b) construct of orientation toward curriculum materials, I added the subcode teaching from their framework. In my continued analysis, I observed additional patterns in teachers’ planning that related to their views of themselves, adding oneself as an additional subcode to inform continued analysis. To address the extent to which teachers’ planned lessons aligned with notions of high- quality, responsive comprehension instruction (RQ2), I first transferred the descriptions each teacher provided of his or her envisioned lesson into the same lesson plan template used to summarize the core program lessons. This initial step standardized the format of the lesson plans and identified key components common in lesson plans, such as learning goals, instructional activities, and assessment, in order to facilitate comparisons and inform the identification of adaptations. I then coded these planned lesson descriptions in comparison with the original core program materials to identify any apparent adaptations. After that, I coded the core reading program lessons, the teachers’ adaptations, and the instructional plans using the indicators of high-quality, responsive comprehension instruction in Tables 1 and 2 to identify any evidence of opportunities for this type of instruction. In a previous study (Hopkins, 2017), I found this approach helpful in identifying the ways in which curriculum materials and teachers contributed to the quality of enacted instruction. In the present study, this approach helped to illuminate the ways which curriculum materials and teachers interacted to shape the quality and responsiveness of instructional plans. Also, because of my interest in comparing planned lessons across teachers 51 and sets of materials, I looked for patterns in the quality and responsiveness of instructional plans across teachers and sets of core program materials. For the lessons planned with Wonders, I examined the variety of lessons planned from a common set of materials in order to explore the concept of curriculum potential (Ben-Peretz, 1990), shedding light on the variety of possible instructional plans that knowledgeable teachers working in different contexts with different students can design with common core program lessons. Finally, I synthesized my data, using analytic memos and tables to summarize patterns and evidence from my coding. This facilitated the identification of patterns in teachers’ planning processes and curricular noticing, as well as in characteristics of their instructional plans, including but not limited to quality and responsiveness. I then used these tables to identify connections across research questions, looking for ways in which characteristics of teachers, core program lessons, and contexts related to their planning processes and curricular noticing as well as to the quality and responsiveness of their instructional plans. I also looked for connections between the quality and responsiveness of instructional plans and the planning processes and curricular noticing in which teachers engaged when formulating those plans. I was particularly interested in looking for ways in which planning processes as well as teacher and curriculum material characteristics and resources seemed to relate to the design of high-quality, responsive comprehension instruction. Looking across these analytic memos and tables informed the identification of two cross-cutting themes: the influential role of teachers’ perspectives and dispositions, and the complexity of teaching with core reading programs. In the next chapter, I discuss these themes in detail. 52 CHAPTER 4 CROSS-CUTTING THEMES: TEACHERS’ ORIENTATIONS AND THE COMPLEXITY OF TEACHING In examining the planning processes and instructional plans of the six teachers in this study, I identified cross-cutting themes that captured both differences and similarities across teachers. Echoing the findings of previous research on teaching and on teachers’ work with curriculum materials, the six teachers voiced a shared concern with the complexity of teaching (e.g., McCutcheon, 1980; Valencia et al., 2006). In addition to this shared concern, the six teachers exhibited differences in their planning processes and instructional plans that seemed to stem from their different orientations to curriculum materials (Remillard & Bryans, 2004), a core set of perspective and beliefs that shaped how they interacted with the core programs. Together, the complexity of teaching and teachers’ orientations to curriculum materials seemed to play a major role in shaping the ways in which the teachers in this study interacted with the core programs and their resulting instructional plans. Given the ways in which these two cross- cutting themes weave through the other findings and draw them together, I devote this chapter to discussing these themes, beginning with teachers’ orientations to core programs and then moving on to complexity. Through my discussion of these themes, I also introduce the six teachers and their teaching contexts in greater detail. Teachers’ Orientations to Core Programs in Reading Comprehension The first theme I identified was the influential role of teachers’ beliefs and goals in their work with core reading programs. In my analysis, I found that the six teachers in this study frequently voiced explicit connections between their beliefs or views and goals and the ways in which they planned, including their noticing of the core programs. In addition, I found that particular views and goals recurred as a pattern for particular teachers or across teachers in ways 53 that paralleled and sometimes explicitly connected to patterns in their planning and noticing of the core programs. I interpreted this as evidence that teachers’ beliefs and goals mediated their approaches to planning and their noticing of the core programs or, in other words, that the teachers interacted with the core programs through the lens of their goals and beliefs during planning. Through my analysis, I identified five aspects of teachers’ beliefs and goals that seemed to mediate their approaches to planning and interacting with the core programs in this study. As the rows in Table 7 show, these aspects included the teachers’ views of teaching, of themselves as teachers, and of core programs, their ideas about comprehension and how it is learned, and their perceptions of students. These categories bear strong resemblance to Remillard and Bryans’ (2004) notion of teachers’ orientations toward curriculum materials, which they defined as, “a set of perspectives and dispositions about mathematics, teaching, learning, and curriculum that together influence how a teacher engages and interacts with a particular set of curriculum materials and consequently the curriculum enacted in the classroom and the subsequent opportunities for student and teacher learning” (p. 364). Similar to Remillard and Bryans (2004), I found that teachers’ differing orientations toward core reading programs seemed to influence how they interacted with the curriculum materials in this study. Thus, I modified Remillard and Bryans’ (2004) definition to fit the context and findings of the present study, defining teachers’ orientations toward core programs in reading comprehension as a set of beliefs and goals regarding teaching, oneself, core programs, reading comprehension, and students that together influence how a teacher engages and interacts with a particular core reading program and consequently the curriculum planned for enactment in the classroom and the resulting opportunities for teacher and, to some degree, student learning. In this definition, the term 54 “beliefs” encompasses teachers’ subjective ideals, views or perspectives, and dispositions, while the term “goals” refers to what teachers aim for as the ends or purposes of their instruction. I added the phrase “to some degree” to my definition because I recognize that, though instructional plans inform enacted instruction, I cannot make definite claims about opportunities for student learning because these opportunities come about when plans are enacted in the classroom and this study did not include examination of enacted instruction. My overarching finding regarding teachers’ orientations to core programs in reading comprehension was that this core set of beliefs mediated teachers’ planning processes and curricular noticing as well as their instructional plans, shaping the ways in which they viewed and approached planning and teaching as a whole as well as their interactions with the core programs and their instructional plans more specifically. This finding extends the work of Remillard and Bryans (2004), suggesting that teachers’ orientations to curriculum materials are influential across content areas and not just in mathematics. This study also adds on to Remillard and Bryans’ (2004) work by suggesting that, at least in literacy, teachers’ views of themselves as teachers and of their students may be important components to add to the construct of orientation to curriculum materials. The six teachers in my dissertation study described their beliefs and goals in rich, nuanced, and varied ways, and this richness and variation seemed to matter in their planning processes and instructional plans. For this reason, I describe and discuss teachers’ orientations to core programs in reading comprehension in detail in this introductory findings chapter. Later, in chapters addressing teachers’ planning processes and instructional plans, I connect back to the descriptions in these chapters in order to more fully develop aspects of this theme. As a preview, I briefly introduce more specific findings related to this theme below. 55 In relation to teachers’ interactions with or noticing of the curriculum materials, which I discuss in greater depth in the next chapter, I found that teachers’ subjective beliefs and goals seemed to have great influence throughout all of the activities involved in noticing, beginning with teachers’ attending to the curriculum materials. Though professional noticing theory formally acknowledges the role of teachers’ beliefs in guiding their noticing (Jacobs, Lamb, & Philipp, 2010; Roth McDuffie et al., 2017), much of the work on teachers’ professional noticing has emphasized the role of teachers’ knowledge (e.g., Choppin, 2011; Sherin & van Es, 2005) and the skills or actions involved in noticing (e.g., Amador et al., 2017; Choppin, 2011; Rosaen, Lundeberg, Cooper, Fritzen, & Terpstra, 2008). Teachers’ beliefs have not received much attention in the existing research on professional noticing or in the more limited research on curricular noticing. Similar to Remillard and Bryans’ finding that each teacher’s overall orientation and resulting use of the curriculum materials was somewhat unique to them due the unique combination of beliefs each one held, I found that no single belief or disposition, but rather the interactions among their beliefs, explained teachers’ approaches to core program use, and this was evident in the ways different combinations of beliefs led to somewhat different planning processes and instructional plans for different teachers. In other words, the patterns across teachers were more complex and less linear than they would have been if a single belief or disposition primarily guided their planning processes and instructional plans. Additionally, though each teacher planned with two different core programs, her beliefs and goals and resulting planning processes and instructional plans were more similar than different across programs, suggesting that teachers’ beliefs bear a great deal of influence. I discuss these findings further, providing evidence to support them, throughout my findings chapters. Because each 56 teacher held a unique combination of beliefs and, thus, a unique orientation to core reading programs in reading comprehension that led them to interact with core reading programs in unique ways and develop plans with unique characteristics, I found it important to discuss each teachers’ orientation in detail in this introductory findings chapter. Below, I begin by introducing patterns I identified across teachers in the five aspects of their orientations to core programs in reading comprehension. Table 7 summarizes these patterns. Then I move on to introduce each teacher, describing each one’s orientation to core programs with a focus on the beliefs and goals that they referred to most frequently and connected most explicitly to their interactions with core programs during planning. Table 8 summarizes these core beliefs and goals that comprised each of the six teachers’ orientations to core reading programs in reading comprehension. Views of Teaching I identified three central conceptions of teaching among the six teachers, linking each with a metaphor. These conceptions of teaching included teaching as conversation, teaching as interactive performance, and teaching as providing tasks with appropriate levels of challenge and support. I identified the metaphors of teaching as conversation and teaching as interactive performance from the language teachers explicitly used when talking about teaching in their interviews. The one teacher who described teaching as providing tasks with appropriate challenge and support did not use metaphorical language, so I consulted the work of Badley and Hollabaugh (2012) on metaphors that shape classroom practice in order to identify a metaphor that fit the language and ideas this teacher emphasized, deciding on the metaphor of teaching as personal training. Importantly, the conceptions of teaching that underlie these three metaphors are overlapping and not mutually exclusive, emphasizing related but somewhat different aspects 57 Table 7 Patterns Across Teachers’ Orientations to Core Programs in Reading Comprehension Similarities Across Teachers Differences Across Teachers A responsive endeavor Conversation Interactive performance Personal training Knowledgeable, experienced, and limited Beneficial but limited Confident in their knowledge and experience Skeptical Uncertain of themselves; aware of limitations; learners Trusting Requiring fluent reading for independent comprehension, comprehension strategies, differentiated small-group instruction Having strengths and potential; capable of learning. As a result, teachers have a responsibility to engage them in meaningful and accessible literacy learning opportunities. Literacy for school Literacy for life Static, binary; emphasizing student differences, weaknesses, limitations Complex, dynamic; emphasizing student strengths and potential. Aspect of Orientation View of Teaching View of Themselves View of Core Reading Programs View of Reading Comprehension View of Students of the work of teaching. One of the participating teachers in this study used language of two of the metaphors across interviews. The conception of teaching as conversation included a view of instruction as an interaction that unfolds in the moment, often somewhat unpredictably, as teacher and students respond to one another in contingent and authentic ways. The unpredictability of teaching and learning interactions and a desire to be authentic led teachers who held this view to emphasize the spontaneity and in-the-moment decisions involved in teaching. Teachers describing instruction as conversation frequently referred to their teaching using language such as “talk”, “discuss”, and “have a conversation”. They also emphasized the importance of classroom community, of monitoring and listening to students, and of making space for students to share their ideas and make contributions. 58 The idea of teaching as performance included a view of instruction as an interactive performance that teachers carefully prepare for in advance but then enact adaptively, taking care to read and respond to their audience by interacting with students and adjusting instruction to them responsively in the moment. This conception differs sharply from the more traditional idea of teachers as sages on the stage, spouting their wealth of wisdom to students, because it emphasizes the interactive and responsive aspects of teaching. Teachers who characterized teaching as an interactive performance used language such as “performance”, “choreograph”, “practice”, and “audience” when discussing their instruction. They also emphasized planning and preparing in detail as one might prepare for a stage performance. This included envisioning and preparing for how students might respond, an approach that contrasted with the more spontaneous approach of teachers who viewed teaching as conversation. Finally, the conception of teaching as providing tasks with appropriate levels of challenge and support emphasized the importance of students learning through doing work and the teacher’s role in selecting and engaging students in appropriately challenging tasks with appropriate levels of support to promote learning. According to this conception of teaching, the teacher’s role is like that of a personal trainer, giving students the right exercises to do or the right amount of weight to lift, and providing targeted coaching and support to help them do the exercises in such a way as to maximize benefits. The one teacher who emphasized this conception used language such as “work on”, “work with”, “at their level”, and “tools” when discussing her teaching. Each of these three conceptions of teaching emphasized different aspects of the work of teaching and had implications for the ways in which teachers thought about, talked about, and/or engaged in teaching, planning, and interacting with core programs in the study. Importantly, all 59 three conceptions emphasized responsiveness to learners and to their evolving learning, which led all six teachers to prioritize at least some aspects of cognitively and affectively responsive instruction in their plans as well as aspects of high-quality comprehension instruction that emphasized responsiveness, including building upon students’ conceptual and language knowledge and differentiating. Five of the six teachers each expressed a singular predominant conception, but Cathy consistently spoke about teaching as both conversation and performance, as indicated in Table 8. Views of Themselves and of Core Programs The six teachers as a group spoke about themselves and their teaching practice in ways that suggested they viewed themselves as knowledgeable and experienced professionals. Yet the teachers varied in the extent to which they trusted either their own knowledge and experience or the core programs. Teachers who expressed greater confidence in themselves as teachers, describing themselves as knowledgeable and experienced professionals, tended to be more skeptical in their views of and approach to core programs, whereas teachers who expressed greater difficulty or uncertainty in relation to literacy instruction, greater awareness of their limitations, or a learner stance tended to be more trusting of the programs. The degree of teachers’ trust in themselves and in core programs each fell along a continuum, with some teachers being more skeptical or more trusting than others, though all teachers expressed ways in which they both trusted and questioned the programs and themselves. In other words, all six teachers expressed at least some benefits of core reading programs and some recognition of the important role the programs played in their schools while also recognizing at least some limitations of the programs. This finding calls into question the frequent idealization of teachers who do not use or rely upon curriculum materials but instead design their own curriculum (Ball 60 & Cohen, 1996; Ball & Feiman-Nemser, 1988), suggesting that even knowledgeable and experienced teachers may desire the support of curriculum materials and find them to be beneficial. In this study, teachers tended to perceive the two programs they planned with as fairly similar and demonstrated comparable degrees of trust across programs, though several teachers also described ways in which their view of their familiar, district-adopted program had evolved over the period of time in which they had used it. Perhaps most importantly for this study, teachers’ degree of trust in themselves and in core programs had significant implications for the ways in which they worked with the curriculum materials. Views of Reading Comprehension In addition to their views of teaching, themselves, and core programs, the six teachers expressed a range of views about literacy and how it is learned that shaped how they interacted with the core programs. Teachers articulated different conceptions of the broad purposes of school literacy instruction. In particular, some teachers emphasized literacy for primarily school purposes, others emphasized literacy for broader life purposes, and still others emphasized a balance between the two. Teachers emphasizing literacy for school tended to emphasize the instrumental value of literacy and to discuss standards, testing, measurable progress, reading levels, cognitive aspects of literacy, and a view of reading as a technical skill. In contrast, teachers viewing literacy as primarily for life emphasized the intrinsic value of literacy and discussed multiple and authentic purposes for reading. For example, they talked about relating literacy learning to students’ lives, conversing about authors as real people and about genres as forms of text designed to reflect and accomplish particular communicative purposes, evaluating text and author reliability, cultivating readers and enjoyment of reading, and attending to social, affective, and aesthetic aspects of literacy. These differing views of reading comprehension had 61 significant implications for the quality of the reading comprehension instruction the teachers planned. Importantly, none of the teachers emphasized a cultural view of literacy, and this was reflected in the relative lack of cultural responsiveness in their plans, a finding I return to later. In addition to these broad purposes for literacy instruction, teachers articulated different visions of reading comprehension instruction. These broad visions included the concrete goals they had for literacy learning for students in general as well as their ideas about what students in general need in order to reach those goals. Importantly, teachers’ visions of reading comprehension instruction all included the following: fluent reading as a prerequisite for comprehending texts read independently, the use of comprehension skills and strategies as tools to support comprehension, and differentiated small-group instruction as a key form of instructional support for the development of comprehension. Most but not all teachers emphasized motivation and interest, vocabulary, background knowledge, and knowledge of text structure, features, and genres as important for comprehension. These aspects of the teachers’ shared visions of comprehension instruction align with many aspects of my research-supported framework for high-quality comprehension instruction, speaking to the depth of knowledge these experienced teachers brought to their interactions with the core programs. Additionally, most teachers mentioned a broad range of things as being important for comprehension development and instruction, suggesting that they viewed reading comprehension as complex and multifaceted. This also suggests the depth of their knowledge of reading comprehension. Within the context of planning whole-group reading comprehension lessons for particular students while using particular core reading programs, the teachers prioritized specific aspects of their overall visions for reading comprehension instruction. To distinguish between the ideas about comprehension instruction the teachers articulated on a general level and what they 62 prioritized in the context of planning within the study, I use the term vision of reading comprehension instruction to refer to their broader beliefs and the term instructional priorities to refer to the aspects of their vision which they emphasized during planning and in their instructional plans. Teachers’ instructional priorities are signaled by boldface text in Table 8. Views of Students Importantly, teachers’ perceptions of their students seemed to shape their particular instructional priorities. All teachers communicated, either implicitly or explicitly, a view of students as having strengths and potential, or as capable of learning. They also expressed ways in which particular student characteristics, limitations, or needs constrained or placed conditions upon student learning. Though the teachers all viewed students as simultaneously capable and limited, and though they all described a mix of positive and negative student characteristics, the six teachers nonetheless expressed a range of different perspectives. While some teachers articulated more static or binary views that emphasized student differences or limitations, other teachers articulated more complex or dynamic views that emphasized student strengths and potential. At the same time, all teachers expressed a sense of responsibility to engage their students in meaningful and accessible literacy learning opportunities that addressed both the official curriculum and their own particular visions and priorities as literacy teachers. Their particular perspectives of their students informed the particulars of how they planned to accomplish this. Importantly, it was not necessarily the case that teachers who held more positive views of their students planned higher-quality and more responsive instruction or that teachers who held more negative views of their students planned lower-quality instruction that was less responsive. Instead, the relationship between teachers’ views of their students and the quality and responsiveness of their instructional plans was more complex and nuanced. 63 Six Teachers and their Orientations Having introduced key patterns across the six teachers’ sets of beliefs, I now move on to introduce each teacher, focusing my description on the guiding beliefs that comprised each one’s orientation to core programs in reading comprehension as summarized in Table 8. These beliefs are important because they had significant implications for teachers’ planning processes and resulting instructional plans. I introduce the teachers in an order based on their views of teaching, starting with Amy, Kierra, and Karina, who viewed teaching as conversation, then moving on to Cathy who viewed teaching as both conversation and performance and Julie who viewed teaching as performance, and concluding with Anastasia who viewed teaching as providing tasks with appropriate challenge and support. Amy: “probing them deeper” and “you just can’t do it all”. Describing herself as a “late teacher” who had joined the profession after several years in business, Amy had taught middle and upper elementary grades with a primary focus on English language arts for 18 years at the time of the study. The last 13 of those years she had worked for Hudson Public Schools where she was in her third year of teaching fourth grade at Maple Grove Elementary. A self- proclaimed book lover and avid reader, Amy loved reading chapter books aloud to her students and discussing with them what they were reading. Before teaching at Maple Grove, she had not used a core reading program but had taught reading using a novel-based curriculum she had developed with grade-level colleagues. She had loved studying novels with her students, engaging them in “big class discussions or debates” and the “deep study of literature” (GI). Amy’s views of teaching and herself. Amy expressed a view of teaching consistent with the metaphor of teaching as conversation. She often spoke of getting her students engaged in talking about what they noticed in texts and discussing big ideas and themes. During instruction, 64 Table 8 Teachers’ Orientations to Core Reading Programs in Reading Comprehension Teacher Amy Ideas about teaching Teaching as… Conversation Making the official curriculum engaging and accessible Ideas about oneself a teacher Oneself as… Knowledgeable and experienced professional Scattered: “My head is everywhere… trying to think of so manythings.” Anastasia Providing reading tasks with appropriate levels of challenge and support Making sure kids “get what they need” to meet official curricular goals Conversation Performance Apprenticing students into reading for life Cathy Ideas about core programs Core programs as… A trustworthy and helpful but limited guide to comprehension curriculum and standards (“my go-to” but not “the end all be all”) A support for instruction, like “another teacher” Overall orientation: trusting but selective A trustworthy primary source of reading materials and tasks A helpful but sometimes insufficient resource to address official curricular expectations (a “jumping off point) Overall orientation: trusting Collaborative member of a resourceful team Unsure of herself as a literacy teacher, sees literacy as “the hardest thing to teach… abstract.” Learner More knowledgeable other Cheerleader and source of inspiration A trustworthy and research- based guide that should be piloted first and adapted later An opportunity to learn A guide to standards and cohesive curriculum Overall orientation: trusting 65 Vision of Comprehension Instruction Proficient comprehension as … Using strategies, background knowledge, and genre knowledge to read, make sense of, and deeply comprehend longer and grade-level texts independently. This requires fluent decoding, engagement and interest, and extensive reading on the part of students, with teacher support in the form of explicit instruction, high-level questions and discussions, small-group instruction, and high- quality read-alouds. Literacy for school and life Meeting district expectations and the CCSS; being able to read, make sense of, and answer questions about texts independently across content areas by using strategies, background and vocabulary know-ledge, and text structure and features. This requires fluent and independent reading, effort, and hard thinking from students, with teacher support through differentiation, strategy instruction, and finding relatable, engaging, and appropriately leveled texts Literacy for school Confidently and purposefully approaching texts for meaning and enjoyment; being able to use reading skills and strategies across the curriculum and in life, evaluate and talk about text, and identify and use new learning. This requires accurate and fluent reading, self-efficacy, and effort from students, with teacher support through modeling, instruction in text features, strategies, background and vocabulary knowledge, and inspiration. Literacy for life Perceptions of students Students as… Generally: capable of learning but often uninterested and unequipped Particular class: “challenged as far as traditional learning”; don’t read at home Generally: capable when given relatable texts at their level, often unmotivated to think and use what they know Particular class: great group of kids who wanted each other to do well; don’t read at home Generally: all have strengths and interests that can support learning; sometimes lack confidence, interest, or a sense of purpose for reading Particular class: collaborative, didn’t all enjoy reading, range of reading levels, strengths, attitudes Table 8 (cont’d) Teacher Karina Ideas about teaching Teaching as… Conversation Facilitating student learning Scaffolding and challenging kids as readers Kierra Conversation Getting kids engaged with reading and learning (Apprenticeship?) Ideas about oneself a teacher Oneself as… Knowledgeable and experienced professional Montessori teacher: “I tend to be discovery based. Let them discover on their own, Montessori, let them read, let them chew it over.” Focused on “the whole child” and “where the kids’ interests go” Creative, intuitive, energetic, absent- minded Loves working in a low SES school “with those kinds of kids and families” Ideas about core programs Core programs as… A limited but helpful source of materials and activities to select from and adapt A guide to official curricular goals Made “for the western states” or schools that “don’t have specials” or curriculum materials for other subjects Overall orientation: mixed A limited and sometimes limiting resource to use flexibly and critically An outline Misrepresenting the CCSS Overall orientation: skeptical Vision of Comprehension Instruction Proficient comprehension as … Reading grade-level texts of increasing length while making inferences and connections, being able to discuss literature, meeting the CCSS, and being a proficient test-taker. This requires background knowledge and the ability to use strategies and work through difficulties on the part of students, with teacher support through independent reading time, instruction in how to make connections and discuss literature, test-taking strategies, and opportunities to answer test-like questions. Literacy for school Being an engaged reader who makes texts “part of their life” by pursuing further learning; being able to evaluate and relate to texts, meet the CCSS, and show measurable growth. This requires background knowledge, experiences, and interest as well as accurate and fluent reading from students, with teacher support through exposure to different texts and genres, learning about authors, discussion of background and vocabulary knowledge and of texts, and instruction in comprehension skills. Literacy for school and life Perceptions of students Students as… Generally: “Everybody is an individual.” Capable of achieving different goals with different instruction and support. Just learning to discuss and comprehend texts at higher levels. Particular class: college- bound, mostly proficient in comprehension, like to read aloud, screen-oriented Generally: capable and having “something to contribute”, but lacking knowledge, experiences, skills, and interest to support them as readers Particular class: inattentive, didn’t monitor own learning or reading, struggled with high-level thinking, enjoyed real books 66 she reported focusing on listening to students, interacting with them about their ideas, and pursuing teachable moments as they arose during those interactions, sometimes to the point where she described herself as getting “lost in the content and the thinking and the teachable moments” (SLP2). Her emphasis on listening and responding to students’ ideas as they unfolded during classroom interactions led her to view her instructional plans with a degree of uncertainty, using language such as “I just have to see,” and expressing that she would have to make some decisions “on the fly” (SLP2). Amy’s views of core programs. In her work with core programs, Amy was both trusting and selective, expressing ways in which she saw them as both supportive and constraining of her conversational approach. She described her whole-group comprehension instruction as a time to have “those real meaty discussions” about texts (GI). During those discussions, she viewed core programs as providing both ideas for how to probe her students’ thinking more deeply and helpful reminders of the official curricular objectives. As she shared in one interview, “It helps me probe them deeper… I like that it's almost like having another teacher to say, ‘Why don't you ask this question?’ I know what I want to ask, but I also like, ‘Oh, yeah! I never thought of that!’” (SLP1). In this way, she expressed a sense of collaboration with the program because it provided ideas she would not have thought of on her own and supported her like a co-teacher might. In addition, Amy shared that she saw core programs as providing helpful reminders of “all the things I forget to do when I'm just so into engaging my kids and getting their thinking out… It reminds me of all those things I need to be doing, so I do like that” (SLP2). Recognizing that her tendency to get lost in conversation with students could lead her to neglect important objectives, Amy saw the core program as a helpful reminder and guide during her conversational interactions with students. At the same time, she lamented that these conversations were often 67 shorter and more superficial than those she had had with her previous novel-based curriculum because the core program texts didn’t provide “that much meat to debate things with” (GI) and because she was “just not sure where” to try to add in longer text-based discussions. Amy articulated her view of the role of core programs as trustworthy and helpful but limited guides saying, “you can't see it as the end all, be all… There has to be a balance between your professionalism and your engagement of what you know about children and this. It needs to be my go-to… like a little reminder to pull me back to Earth” (SLP2). Seeing the program as her “go-to” resource, Amy expressed a positive view of core programs and trusted them to guide many aspects of her instructional plans. Her trust in the program also seemed related to her awareness of her own limitations, particularly her tendency to be scattered and forget things. The program was a reliable support she could trust to balance out her own weaknesses. At the same time, not seeing a core program as “the end all, be all” meant that she also saw it as important for teachers to make adaptations during planning in recognition of the human aspects of teaching, bringing in things they are “passionate about” and using what they “know about children”. She shared that even though she thought Reading Street provided “good stuff”, it was important for her to adapt it because sometimes students found it to be dry and boring, or she felt they needed additional support to be able to fully access and engage with the texts and activities. At the same time, she felt that adding to the program in these ways every week would be unsustainable, so a balanced approach was needed (SLP2). Interestingly, though she repeatedly discussed the importance of making adaptations, at times she felt conflicted about this approach: It's hard to unpack when you first see it. It's huge, and you feel like you have to do it all because you're teachers and you want to do it right, and you want to do it all, and you just 68 can't… Figuring out where to cut without feeling like a bad teacher, that was the hardest thing for me. (SLP1) In this way, she described her desire to be a good teacher who does things “right”. Because she worked in a district with fidelity policies that asked teachers to “do it all”, she felt like a “bad teacher” when she made cuts, but she made them nonetheless because Reading Street was “huge” and she felt doing it all was impossible. The complexity and tensions involved in her work with core programs are apparent in her use of expressions such as “that would kill you”, “you just can’t”, and “that was the hardest thing”. Amy’s vision of reading comprehension instruction. Amy viewed the purpose of school literacy instruction as preparing students for both school and life. She frequently talked about school-related goals for her students’ literacy learning, such as being able to read and comprehend grade-level text, develop reading stamina, or ask the teacher questions when they didn’t understand (SLP2). Her goals for her students included technical skills such as decoding words as they go and figuring out the meaning of unknown words from context. At the same time, she expressed a desire to help her students become true readers by connecting them with “exciting books that aren’t too babyish, that aren’t too boring, that have the right amount of meat in them that will hook a kid” (SLP2) and exposing them to the structures and communicative purposes of different genres and types of texts. These goals aligned with a view of literacy for life. She described a view of proficient comprehension as automatically and independently using strategies and background knowledge to independently read for meaning, make connections, and self-monitor. Amy’s views of her school community and students. Amy described her school community as “really lower income… pretty urban… kids don’t have big backyards… don’t 69 really go places too much… inside… parents are working late jobs” (GI). She expressed a view that parents in the community were largely supportive, and she described her students as “mostly really nice kids” who were energetic and liked to learn (GI). Her perception that they were capable of learning was evident in her emphasis on making the curriculum accessible to the whole class during whole-group instruction and on following up later in small groups. It was her belief in their potential to meet official curricular expectations that motivated her to invest this level of effort. Yet she also described them as having limitations that impacted their literacy learning. These included the views that students in her district were often uninterested in reading and did not read at home, and that they were often unequipped for grade-level comprehension because many were “very challenged as far as traditional learning” (GI). In addition, she shared that her students sometimes lacked disciplinary content knowledge needed to comprehend grade- level texts independently (GI). Even as she expressed these views, she also articulated a view of students as still being moldable in fourth grade. She believed that when kids get older, “they either are true readers and they will read or they don't,” but that “they enjoy reading a little bit more in fourth grade… they usually try more” (SLP2). As a result, she invested time and energy into exposing them to a variety of genres and texts from outside the core program that she thought would engage their interest for independent reading and read-alouds. In this way, she expressed a dynamic perspective of her students that emphasized their potential, even amidst limitations, and her responsibility to provide motivating and supportive learning conditions. Kierra: “organic conversation with kids” and “whatever sparkles in the moment”. Creative, passionate, talkative, and opinionated when it came to discussing teaching, Kierra had started her career in family and community services with a focus on young children. She had changed her focus to elementary teaching through pursuing additional studies after a few years of 70 working in early childhood settings. At the time of the study, she had just completed her seventh year of teaching for Hudson Public Schools where she had taught kindergarten for two years and 3rd grade for seven. For five of those seven years, she had used a core program, including two years working with a Houghton-Mifflin program in kindergarten and three years working with Reading Street in 3rd grade. She had been a part of the district’s implementation team when Reading Street had been adopted three years prior, which had given her the opportunity to collaborate with other teacher leaders to pilot the program, create Smartboard slides with Reading Street content for district, and critically evaluate the program’s alignment with the CCSS. She lamented that the work of this committee had been cut short when the district adopted a new mathematics program and shifted all of its resources to focus on the implementation of the mathematics curriculum. In spite of her frustration over its unfinished work, Kierra expressed that she had benefited from participating in the committee. Building on that literacy-focused work, she planned to transition into a reading interventionist role in her district after the study ended in the fall of 2017. Kierra’s views of teaching. Kierra expressed a view of herself that was strongly rooted in her early career work with young children, voicing a passion for focusing on the whole child, creating a nurturing and loving classroom environment, and engaging in family and community advocacy. Like Amy, Kierra taught at Maple Grove Elementary where “historically in the district, we've always had the lowest socioeconomic status, and all of us that are there… want to work with those kinds of kids. I don't want to work at [a middle-income elementary]! I want to be here because I love working with those kinds of kids and families” (SLP2). Throughout her career she had chosen to work in urban and urban fringe areas similar to the Maple Grove community, which primarily served families who qualified for free and reduced lunch. 71 Kierra articulated a view of teaching as a conversation that unfolds in the moment. She expressed a deep love for authentic discussion saying, “I love conversation. I love organic conversation with kids” (SLP2). Across interviews, Kierra expressed a strong belief that teaching is and should be a very organic and unpredictable human interaction. During one of our interviews she expressed her view of teaching in a particularly rich manner, saying: I often get lost in conversation with kids, or I'm very much oriented to where the kids’ interests go. So if we're working on a nonfiction story and they have some questions about things, or they're just really… making some really great connections between the amazing words and the vocabulary words, and wanting to learn more about that… I'm much more apt to stop and just conversate around that, especially when I know the engagement is super high and the kids are highly interested. (GI) This quote expresses the importance Kierra placed on providing opportunities for students to share their thinking or ideas, attending and responding authentically to students in the moment of instruction, and following students’ lead, perhaps even to the point of getting lost in the conversation. In these ways, she was a truly conversational teacher. Kierra, like other teachers who emphasized a primarily conversational view of instruction, viewed instructional plans as flexible, uncertain, and open to adaptation, believing lesson plans should be sketched out on a general level rather than highly specified. During one interview she shared that, though there were many moving parts to her instruction, “a lot of that is not something that I plan. I feel like if I went through and I planned, or I went through and made sure I read each of these questions, it would be disconnected from me… Each day you read something, and you notice something new and different about the same thing. It's whatever sparkles in the moment, and that's how I roll with that” (SLP1). Highly specified plans did not 72 align with her organic approach to instruction. In fact, she expressed frustration in relation to lesson planning because she would often plan and then find that “everything I’ve written down is not even valid from this point forward because this group didn’t get to this, or we had a fire drill… It’s really difficult to find a fluid week where everything goes as planned” (GI). The unpredictability of classroom life combined with her view of instruction as a conversation necessitated general and flexible plans. Kierra’s views of core programs. Kierra often expressed that she viewed core programs as constraining, experiencing tension between her district’s expectation that she follow the core program recommendations closely and her own need to attend to and engage in conversation with her students organically. She shared that if she made sure to read all the questions in a core program’s whole-group comprehension lesson when teaching, her instruction would be “disconnected” from her (SLP1). She explained, “Even though there was a non-negotiable list of things to get done, sometimes if I was wrapped into a conversation with a kid, to me, that’s more important; they’re connecting with the material” (SLP1). Her organic, conversational view of instruction led Kierra to view core programs’ detailed scripts and prespecified plans as “too rigid” and constraining (SLP1). Relatedly, Kierra expressed an overall skeptical view of core programs and a strong sense of trust in her own knowledge, experience, and beliefs to guide her instruction. She thought core programs “should be more of an outline and a guide, and we should all be celebrated for the strengths that we are really good at as teachers” (SLP2). This quote demonstrates not only her view of the limited role core programs should play but also her valuing of the individuality and professional strengths of human teachers including herself. Describing her experiences with core programs, she shared, “I just feel like we’re teaching more robotic than teaching in response to 73 live bodies in front of us… To me, sometimes this is just too rigid… Some teachers feel very stifled by it, and there's times where I'm one of them” (SLP1). Her own creative and intuitive personality combined with her view of teaching as a deeply human, interactive, and spontaneously responsive endeavor, thus, led her to question programs and to trust teachers to design instruction, often in the moment, in interaction with their students. Another source of Kierra’s skepticism toward core programs was her perception of a mismatch between the standardized core program and her own students. She expressed a belief that most curriculum developers and publishers are “out of Texas” and that, as a result, “some of the stuff that they talk about really does only have to do with Texas [because] who’s writing it plays into what they think is important” (SLP2). In this way, she expressed a critical perspective of core programs as created by particular writers and companies for a particular geographically- bound audience that differed from her own student population. In addition to these critiques, Kierra’s experience on the Reading Street implementation team led her to question the alignment of core programs with the Common Core State Standards. While working on this committee, she had unpacked the standards and had begun critically evaluating Reading Street’s alignment with them, which caused her to realize that the standards often went deeper than the core program. This suggests the role of teachers’ experience with core programs in shaping their orientations. Though the committee had never finished its work, they had gotten far enough for Kierra to realize that Reading Street “hit the basics” of the CCSS but also left “some huge gaps” (SLP2). Given her perception that core programs were all “fairly the same,” she assumed, “You probably run into the same issue with almost any core, where they’re misinterpreting what the Common Core is saying” (SLP2). These three major areas of shortcoming—the programs’ rigidity, their mismatch with her student population, and their 74 superficial standards-alignment—characterized her view of core programs as limited and sometimes limiting resources that should serve only as an outline or general guide. In spite of her strong critiques of core programs, she did see them as helpful for creating “commonality between buildings and between classrooms… [so] that kids are getting a similar education no matter what space they're in within the district” (SLP2). Kierra valued that the core program could help support curricular alignment and provide similar learning opportunities for students across the district. She also valued the way using a common program supported collaboration among the elementary teachers in the district. Seeing some value in core programs, she recommended a moderate approach to them, saying, “You really shouldn't be reading it word for word and you shouldn't just put this to the side and ignore it” (SLP2). Kierra believed that by neither adhering to core programs too closely nor ignoring them completely, teachers could use core programs to inform their curriculum and instruction on a general level. When used in this flexible way, Kierra expressed that she didn’t mind having a core program as a guide, and she appreciated the ways in which it provided texts and activities centered around a question of the week that could prompt rich and ongoing discussion and knowledge development. Kierra’s views of herself. In relation to her views of herself and of her role as a teacher, she viewed adapting a standardized core program as an important part of a teacher’s role, especially for a knowledgeable and experienced teacher such as herself. For example, she expressed that after using a core program for a few years, she had become “comfortable taking what I can from something” and was willing to say, “that doesn’t really work for me, so I’m going to do this instead, as long as I know that I’m speaking to what my goals are as a teacher and what my job is to teach kids” (SLP2). Keeping the curricular goals in mind and following the outline of the curriculum, she viewed it as her role to adapt core programs to make them work 75 for her and for her students. She also recognized, “I don’t think I would have been able to do that my first year of teaching if I had this. I probably would have been a little bit more tied to this than I am now” (SLP1). In this way, she expressed the recognition that her knowledge and experience equipped her to use her core program flexibly and strategically to enact instruction in an organic way that aligned with her individual beliefs and teaching style. Kierra’s vision of reading comprehension instruction. Similar to Amy, Kierra viewed the purpose of school literacy instruction as preparing students for both school and life. When asked about her goals for her students’ literacy learning, she shared school-related goals that included helping students access and meet the CCSS and making “one year’s growth or more” in measurable ways. Yet she also discussed her personal goals for them that aligned with a view of literacy for life, which included becoming “engaged readers,” having their minds opened up “to different types of genres and books and reading,” and learning to “enjoy reading” (SLP2). In her instruction, Kierra emphasized teaching about the genres and purposes of texts as well as about authors so as to help students critically evaluate their expertise, see texts as authentic forms of communication, and become interested in reading other texts by that author. She viewed proficient reading comprehension as looking “different for different students”, but as typically involving accurate and fluent reading with good phrasing, inflection, and expression, and being “able to understand what they’re reading” (SLP1), which often involved relating the text to their lives. She also valued getting students interested in topics and making the topics “part of their life” by pursuing further reading and learning. Kierra’s views of her school community and students. Finally, in relation to her students, Kierra expressed a view of them as lacking much of the knowledge, experiences, skills, attention span, and interest that were needed to support them as readers. As a class, she described 76 them as enjoying real books and as accurate readers, though they “struggled with fluency, and many of them struggled to attend to their reading enough to support their comprehension” (GI). In relation to their knowledge and experiences, she shared that “some kids have never been outside of Hudson or [the next town over],” and that “they just have such little experience and background knowledge on so many of the things that we’re reading” (GI). In describing her perceptions of their lack of background knowledge, she often expressed deficit views and compared her students to her own son, saying for example: There’s going to be a lot of kids that don’t even know what a crane is. You know, I look at my son and we go up north and we see all different kinds of birds—cranes, egrets, and all kinds of stuff. Most of my kids have never even experienced even what a pond is versus a lake, you know, the different bodies of water. (SLP2) Comparing her own child to her students, she described the ways in which his life experiences prepared him to engage with a core program text about cranes while, in contrast, her students were unprepared to engage with the text because they lacked those experiences and might not “know what a crane is” or understand the difference between “a pond versus a lake,” though some of these ideas are fairly basic or were in the text itself. Her comments speak to deficit- based assumptions about her students’ knowledge and experiences, and her comparisons function as a form of othering, emphasizing the ways in which she and her son differed from her students. In spite of sometimes articulating deficit conceptions of her students and using language that positioned them as different and as “other”, she also expressed the asset-based view that “everyone always has something to contribute” to classroom conversations (SLP2). She described ways in which she structured certain aspects of her class discussions to allow all students to be “involved and have whatever they say connect. It's not right or wrong, it just 77 connects, so let's put it up here” (SLP1). In this way, she made space for all students to share their ideas, demonstrating the value of their thoughts by writing them all down on a chart. She also shared that, though her students lacked much of what they needed to be successful in school, she had learned that “their brains are malleable, and anything that we do can make a difference in these kids’ lives” (GI). Believing that she could make a difference in their lives and that they had potential in spite of their deficits, she consistently demonstrated a deep commitment to supporting their learning and addressing their challenges. Karina: “getting them ready to take a test” and “everybody is an individual”. As the third and final teacher who viewed teaching as a conversation, Karina was also a career changer. She often spoke matter-of-factly about her views, experiences, and instruction. With an undergraduate degree in Medieval Studies, she had gone back to school several years later to become a certified teacher. At the time of the study, she had been teaching for eleven years and had experience teaching kindergarten, ELL, and Montessori 4th through 6th grades, in addition to teaching traditional 4th grade in her current position at Highview Elementary in the Greenville Public School District. Of those eleven years, she had used Reading Street for nine years and had taught 4th grade for eight years. Her early experiences with teaching in the district’s public Montessori school and the training she had received there continued to influence many of her views and approaches to instruction, as I will discuss further below. Karina’s views of teaching. Like Kierra and Amy, Karina expressed a view of teaching as conversation, frequently using language such as “talk” and “discuss” when describing her teaching. One of her goals was for students to be able to have deep discussions about literature, making text-to-text, text-to-self, and text-to-world connections. She talked about spending a significant amount of time early in the school year “teaching [students] how to discuss a piece of 78 literature” (SLP2). Also consistent with the conversation metaphor, she described her role as “more of a facilitator than anything else” (SLP2). In describing her teaching, she emphasized the importance of classroom interactions being authentic. This created tension for her in her use of core programs and caused her to base her instruction on them only loosely and attend primarily to her students during classroom interactions because, “I can’t do this (pointing to the scripted language in the teacher’s edition) and be authentic” (SLP2). Also like Kierra and Amy, Karina viewed her instructional plans as uncertain and open to adaptation, often describing them in conditional language, saying “it depends”, “if”, and “depending on” to describe how she planned to adjust her plans according to students’ interest, learning, and the amount of time available. Karina’s views of core programs and herself. In comparison with Kierra, Karina expressed a somewhat more trusting view of core programs, although she also regularly expressed strong critiques of them and a strong sense of reliance on her own professional knowledge, experience, and beliefs. In evaluating her district-adopted core program, she shared that she thought “they do a good job with the comprehension pieces” (SLP2). In addition to this positive evaluation, she frequently expressed that her experience with using Reading Street had led her to trust certain components. Though she had at first thought that the animations provided for explicit comprehension strategy instruction were “so babyish that fourth-graders are going to hate it,” after using the program for a few years she realized, “They have to do a whole lot of intuitive thinking to figure out what’s going on in this picture, and not everybody gets all of them. I go back, and I do those now” (GI). She expressed a similar trust toward a vocabulary component of the program saying it was a piece “you just have to have faith in” because it had surprised her by introducing students to new vocabulary in a way that generated excitement and word consciousness even though she “didn’t buy into that the first couple of years” (GI). In other 79 words, though she had initially approached the program with a great deal of skepticism, using the program for a few years had led her to recognize some of its strengths and, thus, to trust certain components. Karina’s descriptions of her evolving views of Reading Street parallel Drake and Sherin’s (2009) notions of curriculum vision, or a sense of where the program was going and of how the suggested teaching and learning practices aligned with that, and curriculum trust, or a belief that the curriculum materials provided a developmental learning trajectory that would support students in reaching the curricular goals. Importantly, similar to the teachers in Drake and Sherin’s research, Karina’s curriculum vision and trust had developed over time through her experiences using the core program, suggesting again the importance of experience in shaping teachers’ orientations to and ways of using core programs. It also suggests that teachers’ curriculum use may follow a trajectory, evolving with experience over time. Even as she expressed a sense of curriculum vision and trust, Karina leveled several strong critiques against core programs. Some of these paralleled Kierra’s views, including a view of core programs as rigid and inauthentic for guiding conversational classroom interactions and a belief that the program developers had other kinds of schools in other geographic locations in mind when they designed the programs. In addition, Karina believed core programs were designed for schools that did not have as many other curricular resources or offer as many learning opportunities outside the regular classroom. As she shared in interviews, “There are more lessons and opportunities to do things in Reading Street than we have time for. It's really kind of set up for schools that don't have, say, specials or time away from the classroom” (GI), and “This is important for a school district that doesn't have anything. This is too much for us because we have this, we have Everyday Math, we have TCI science, and it is a lot of curriculum materials and there's reading across the curriculum” (SLP2). Viewing her district and school 80 context as richly resourced with curriculum materials and opportunities for students to engage in learning outside of the regular classroom, core programs provided more than what she needed or could reasonably use within a given school day. In contrast with Kierra, who critiqued core programs’ alignment with standards, Karina trusted the program to align with and address the Common Core State Standards. In discussing her views of the Common Core edition of Reading Street, which her district had adopted a few years prior, she explained that she used to spend time “making sure that what I was doing was connected to the Common Core State Standards,” but that she no longer did that since she now had the Common Core edition (SLP2). Trusting the program to address the standards, she offloaded that responsibility to Reading Street. As she explained, “I didn’t put that in my lesson plans because it’s right here and it’s all laid out for us. They did that so we wouldn’t have to” (SLP2). In this way, she articulated her trust in the core program as a guide that aligned her instruction with the official curriculum articulated in the standards. She saw the teacher’s role as using the program to address official curricular goals and inform instruction in areas where the program did “a good job”. At the same time, she viewed it as important for teachers to adapt programs both in advance of instruction using knowledge of learners and in the moment of instruction to respond authentically to classroom interactions as they unfolded. She viewed these kinds of adaptations as essential to using the core program as a helpful but limited guide and to teaching in a way that aligned with her view of teaching. In addition, her view of herself as a Montessori teacher heavily influenced her instruction. Though she did not teach in a Montessori school at the time of the study, she had previously taught in the district’s public Montessori school and she still viewed herself as teaching in a manner consistent with this philosophy. She expressed a belief that every student is 81 and should be treated as a unique individual (SLP2). This belief resonated strongly with Montessorian ideas about how children should learn and develop at their own, individual pace. In one interview, Karina articulated her Montessori ideals saying, “I tend to be... discovery based. Let them discover on their own. Montessori. Let them read, let them chew it over” (SLP2). Holding strongly to this view of herself as a Montessori teacher, she strove to teach in ways that treated her students as individuals and that allowed them to discover things on their own. Karina also discussed the ways in which her experiences using Reading Street while teaching at the public Montessori school had helped her to learn about the core program and, through that experience, to be able to use the program adaptively. She shared, “A new teacher would probably be following this very, very closely. It must have come from doing this when we first got the curriculum… There are ways to make it Montessori and that's probably where I became the most knowledgeable” (SLP2). In this way, she explained that adapting the curriculum to a Montessori approach had supported her learning. This finding echoes Remillard’s (2000) work in mathematics, which found that teachers learn more through using curriculum materials when they adapt them than whey they use them verbatim. It also speaks again to the role of experiences with curriculum materials in shaping how teachers use them. Karina’s vision of reading comprehension instruction. In relation to literacy, Karina emphasized school purposes for literacy instruction. For example, in describing her goals for her students, she explained that she hoped they would be “leaving our building reading so that when they get into 5th grade, they’re right where they need to be, at the end of 4th grade level” and that they would be able to engage in “sustained reading of a chapter book” (GI). Her focus on reading level and stamina were primarily school-focused goals aimed at preparing students for middle school. She described proficient comprehension as being able “to read a piece of text and make 82 inferences and make connections to other pieces of literature, connecting one area of academics to another” (SLP1). In this way, she expressed a view of proficient comprehenders as successful students who could make connections across school subjects and engage with literature at a higher level. She consistently expressed a strong sense of accountability to addressing the Common Core State Standards, which she described as the “overarching purpose” of her teaching, and to preparing her students to perform well on tests. Unlike Amy and Kierra, Karina made almost no mention of literacy for broader life purposes. Karina’s views of her school community and students. Karina’s beliefs about students were perhaps the most unique and influential in guiding her approach to planning and her overall instructional model. She expressed across interviews a strong belief that every child is a unique individual and, thus, needs different instruction. When asked to describe the principles and beliefs that guide her literacy instruction, she shared: That all children can learn to read. Everybody is an individual. You have to treat them as individuals and not as a group, which is a philosophy, that's the way you teach. Every child can learn to read. They might not learn to read at the same level as some of their peers, but they can learn to read. (SLP2) In this way, she articulated her view of children as individuals who learn to read in their own way and at their own level. Her view could be described as seeing all kids as capable, but capable of achieving different goals with different kinds of instruction and support. This belief led her to emphasize differentiating instruction and working with students in groups. For Karina, planning should begin with “first planning for the kids, to make sure that the kids are well grouped” (SLP1). She didn’t believe all students needed to participate in the core program’s whole-group comprehension lessons, so she would start by “chunking them out” into groups and 83 deciding what each group should be doing. She also emphasized the importance of small-group and individualized instruction to meet her students’ different learning needs, especially in the area of comprehension. In her words, “Each child is different, and you have to figure out with each child what is the best way to handle it” (SLP1). These views also reflect her Montessori training and identity as a teacher. Interestingly, when describing her students, rather than referring to them as individuals, she tended to talk about them in labeled groups, referring to “ELL students”, “smarty pants”, “kids who can’t read”, “those who have” and “those who have not”. In this way, her conversation seemed to reflect a view of students as groups of individuals with differing needs and abilities, and her approach to thinking about students emphasized their differences. Cathy: “there’s probably a lot I can learn from it” and “reading is part of our lives”. With 13 years of experience teaching 2nd and 4th grades in the western and midwestern U.S., Cathy had just completed her fifth year as a 4th-grade teacher at Acorn Elementary in the Milton public school district at the time of the study. She had used the Benchmark program for all five of those years and had no previous experience with a comprehensive core reading program. Having spent time in her classroom as part of a previous study, I came to know Cathy as a highly organized and engaging teacher. She was recognized as a leader in her district and had been selected to participate in the district’s coaching and walk-through initiatives. This had given her the opportunity to observe other teachers around her district across several years, learning from them and also contributing to their learning. Cathy’s views of teaching. Cathy articulated a view of teaching as both conversation and performance, using language associated with both metaphors across interviews. Each of these perspectives shaped her views of different aspects of teaching without directly contradicting one 84 another because both emphasized the humanly interactive nature of teaching. Cathy shared that she wanted her lessons to be “like a conversation” (GI), emphasizing social aspects of learning, building classroom community, listening to and making space for student ideas, and following the lead of students’ interests. These goals reflected her conversational conception of teaching. She described herself setting up for conversation-like interactions in her classroom by having students sit on the carpet, close to her and to each other, to create a sense of community. She also shared that for her, allowing students to share their personal experiences and connections was an important part of classroom interactions because “it really is inspiring to all of us” (GI). Additionally, she valued watching and listening to her students because this allowed her to adjust her instruction responsively to their learning and engagement. When working with a familiar core program, she thus described her instructional plans as open to adaptation, saying for example, “It would depend on time and interest...How is it fitting in that day, with that lesson, with that group?” (SLP2). Viewing instruction as a conversation among the members of her classroom community, Cathy was prepared to make adaptations to respond to the particulars of how the conversation unfolded with a particular group of students on a particular day. During instruction, she stressed the importance of watching and listening to her students, making in-the- moment decisions based on their engagement and interest. For example, she explained, “After going through [the text], I could see. To me it's exciting. If the students are also feeling that excitement, I could see where it would lend itself to a fun conversation.” (SLP2). Cathy often cited student engagement, interest, and connections to life experiences as things she would watch, listen, and adapt her instruction in response to as part of the conversational interactions in her classroom. Importantly, she shared these views primarily when discussing her use of Benchmark, the core program she had used for five years and knew well. As I discuss further 85 below, when planning for instruction with a new and unfamiliar program, she was less adaptive, stressing the importance of following it closely in order to learn from it and see what it could do. This approach created tension with her desire to adapt instruction responsively to students in the moment. In addition to viewing teaching as conversation, Cathy also saw it as an interactive performance, using language such as “performance,” “choreograph,” and “practice” when discussing her instruction. During one interview she explained, “I think sometimes teaching is like a performance, and I need to see that they’re engaged. So I’m looking for eye contact and faces, and them sitting up and on their knees” (GI). In this way, Cathy expressed a deeply interactive and responsive view of the performance of teaching that required her to read and respond to her audience. Cathy’s view of teaching as performance seemed to most strongly influence her views of planning and preparing for instruction. In contrast with Amy, Kierra, and Karina who emphasized a purely conversational view of teaching, Cathy emphasized the importance of planning in detail what to do and say, which included envisioning and being prepared for different possibilities of how instruction might unfold. Cathy described planning as “almost choreographing each lesson” so she could “give that flow” (SLP1) of a smooth enactment. In this way, her view of planning paralleled the careful planning and rehearsal of both actions and words that lead up to a stage performance. Cathy’s views of core reading programs. In relation to core programs, Cathy was the only teacher who viewed them as providing opportunities for her own learning. She shared that she was excited about the opportunity to use a new core program in the fall “because I really think that there’s probably a lot I can learn from it, and we’ll see if that replaces current thinking or refines past ideas” (GI). In order to learn as much as possible from a program, Cathy believed 86 teachers should follow a new program “as it’s scripted” and “use as many of the components as you can” in order to “find the value in those pieces” and determine “where did you get the most bang for your buck” during the first year of use (GI & SLP2). In this way, she expressed the importance of piloting a program in order learn from it and become “familiar with the materials” (GI). She also explained, “I want to try all the pieces to see what is most beneficial for students and their learning, what they enjoy” (SLP1). She saw this approach of thorough piloting as the best way to learn how to use the program as a tool to support students’ learning. Across interviews, she consistently expressed the trusting perspective that core programs were research- based and had a lot to offer both her and her students. This emphasis on piloting and learning from the program led her to view her instructional plans more rigidly during her first year of using a new program. When discussing how she would teach a lesson with Wonders, an unfamiliar program, Cathy’s interactive view of instruction created tension between attending to the written core program lesson and attending to her students during instruction. During one interview, she expressed this tension saying: I need to see that [students are] engaged…and offer them opportunities to respond, which I couldn’t do if I was reading a scripted lesson. I already feel like I’m going to be at such a disadvantage, like I’m not going to be a good reading teacher this year. And I’ll do my best to prepare, but I also know that… I’ll have to watch them. (GI) Her need to watch, listen, and adapt instruction to her students in the moment, thus, conflicted with her desire to follow core program lessons closely her first year of using them. She shared that she managed this tension by attending to the core program and teaching less adaptively and responsively her first year of using an unfamiliar program, focusing on “what I’m delivering”. In future years of use, she then attended more to students and less to the program and made more 87 adaptations. After an initial year of piloting, she believed teachers could understand “the gist” of core program lessons and begin to adapt them to connect to students’ particular interests, to make them “more like a conversation”, to extend or shorten lessons and units, and to focus on the components that gave “the most bang for your buck” (GI & SLP2). Though she described this general view of and approach to core programs, Cathy did express some differences in her perceptions of Benchmark and Wonders. For example, she expressed the view that Benchmark was not Common Core aligned and that the texts it provided for students to read were not always of high quality or well aligned with the learning objectives. She also shared that, though their shorter length was easier to manage during whole-group instruction, it was less authentic and did not promote transfer. On the whole, she thought, “There could be better [programs] out there, there could be worse” (GI). In contrast, she saw Wonders as an improvement, saying, “Wonders is research based so it really should deliver what it’s promised to deliver” (GI). In addition to being research based, she viewed Wonders as “more in depth… more comprehensive” and better aligned across whole- group and small-group instruction. Though she appreciated the quality of what Wonders had to offer, she also expressed that “there’s just a lot… the length concerns me,” and she said that it was all “a little bit overwhelming” (SLP1). She planned to try to pilot the program in the fall when she began using it in her classroom, but she also realized that given the sheer volume of what Wonders included, she might have to make some adjustments. In her words, “I might have this great plan starting out, and then within weeks it’s crumbling and I’m trying something else” (SLP1). In this way, she recognized that the differences in the two programs might make a different approach necessary with Wonders. Nonetheless, her planning processes within the study were more similar than different across the two programs, reflecting her overall trust in 88 core programs and her view of the role of core programs more than they reflected the differences in her evaluation of the individual programs. This suggests the importance of teachers’ orientation to core programs on a general level. Cathy’s views of herself. Complementing her overall trust in and desire to learn from core programs, Cathy expressed a view of herself as knowledgeable but nonetheless a learner. When discussing her district’s adoption of a new core program, she shared, “I’m really excited because I really think as much as I think I know, there’s probably more that I don’t know” (GI). In this way, she explained how her view of herself as having more to learn played into her trust of core programs. Cathy’s learner stance sometimes manifested itself as a questioning of her teaching. As she shared in one interview, “The longer I teach, the more I question my effectiveness as a teacher, always wondering am I really supporting them the best way I can?” (GI). For Cathy, questioning herself in this way led her to approach her interactions with core programs and with her students with a sense of hopeful expectation and curiosity, a theme I continue to discuss below in relation to her views of students. Cathy’s vision of reading comprehension instruction. In relation to her views of school literacy instruction, Cathy emphasized literacy for life. She seldom talked about testing, measurable progress, or reading as a technical skill. Instead, she emphasized, “Reading is just a part of our lives. It doesn't go away, and it really doesn't have to just be a school thing” (GI). In addition to viewing literacy as part of life, she wanted her students to see literacy in this way. One way she addressed this goal for her students was by inviting a guest reader to her class to share about the many texts she was reading, the book clubs she participated in, and the purposes for which she read. As Cathy shared, she believed that when students were exposed to reading role models who demonstrated purposeful reading and exposed them to the diversity of texts 89 available, they would say, “‘Gosh, reading is really important. I need this,’ and my hope is that they'll want to do that and be motivated to be better readers” (GI). In this way, she expressed that she wanted her students to catch a vision of all the reading they would encounter in life, and she saw her role as inspiring them to want to “help themselves become better” as readers and to make reading “meaningful, not just words on a page” (GI). She viewed her instruction as apprenticing students into literacy, and she saw her role as that of a knowledgeable and more experienced other who modeled and taught students what literacy for life looked like and involved. Cathy described her goals for her students saying, “I want them to be comfortable enough to approach any text” (GI), knowing when a text might be too difficult and seeking help, but also being aware of different purposes for reading, reading for enjoyment and making connections, but also reading to learn and evaluating the reliability of texts and authors. She also wanted them to be willing to challenge themselves as readers by reading more difficult and high-quality literature, which she saw as essential to her goal of “rais[ing] them as readers” (SLP2). Cathy also thought it was important to expose students to “as many different types of reading” as possible and to help them realize that “there are so many ways to look at reading”. She described proficient comprehension as involving reading with accuracy and fluency, but also being able to make connections and converse more broadly about the subject or identify new learning and be interested to do something with that information, such as doing research to learn more, reading other books by the same author, or using the information in their lives (GI). She hoped that students would take what they learned in her class and use it to build “a stronger person out of it within the real world” (SLP1). Additionally, she expressed a deeply-held belief that one of the major obstacles to proficient comprehension was a lack of self-efficacy, because “children who 90 really struggle with reading… think that’s not something they are going to be able to achieve” (GI). In working with such students, she, thus, tried to “draw on the strengths that they have” to support their learning and to be a “cheerleader,” telling them they might have to work harder and longer, but that the potential “absolutely is there” (GI). Cathy’s views of her school community and students. Across interviews, Cathy expressed a positive view that all students have strengths and interests that can be drawn upon to support their learning. In this way, she emphasized their potential and her role of encouraging and inspiring them. Though she expressed a view that her students had “different reading levels, different reading strengths, different attitudes about reading,” and that some students were less capable at the beginning of the year, she also expressed that she wanted them all “to experience what the more capable readers are, because I don’t want them to be stigmatized or limited, thinking what I think of them. Maybe they’re going to exceed my expectations” (GI). In this way, she expressed a commitment to providing equitable learning opportunities as well as a sense of hopeful expectation, curiosity, and a learner stance toward her students. As she shared on one occasion, “We’re all learners!” (GI) Conveying her firm belief in the potential of all students, Cathy also shared that students tended to leave her class at the end of the year “more competent and comfortable as readers” (SLP2). In describing her particular class at the time of the study, she also shared that they were talkative and highly collaborative, enjoying conversation but not always enjoying reading. She also expressed that her students were racially and ethnically homogeneous, but socioeconomically diverse. She shared that she worked with some parents who wanted their kids to be challenged more in school and others who gave their kids “very little support” for school learning, and that this diversity could be challenging to manage in the classroom. She explained, 91 “We have students that do not have internet or technology at home. They are probably the students that need the most support… They may have parents who are not fully literate…love their kid to pieces, but they don’t know how to support their child in this school setting” (GI). Though describing parents as “not fully literate” speaks to deficit conceptions, Cathy also articulated the positive view that these parents love their kids and just do not know how to support them in school. This mix of views seems contradictory, especially when compared to Cathy’s overall view that all students have strengths and interests that can support their learning. In spite of holding some contradictory views, Cathy, like the other teachers in the study, maintained an emphasis on the potential of all students and a sense of responsibility for providing meaningful and accessible literacy learning opportunities for all her students. Julie: “I know how to teach reading!” and “texts should make you think”. With 17 years of elementary teaching experience in two different school districts in the Midwest, Julie had taught 2nd, 3rd, and 4th grades, and had also served as a Title 1 teacher. Her experience and literacy-focused master’s degree led her to be recognized as a leader and resource among upper- elementary grade teachers at Union Elementary, a public Montessori school in the Greenville district. At the time of the study, she had worked as a 3rd-4th grade teacher at Union and used Reading Street for five years. She had no previous experience with core programs. Purposeful and student-centered, she expressed a deep sense of commitment to her values and ideals as a teacher. Before teaching at Union, she had participated in a county-sponsored balanced literacy training based upon the work of Marie Clay, where she had learned about running records, guided reading, and working with students at their “just-right” level. This professional development experience had a lasting impact on her teaching and its influence was evident in the ways she talked about her literacy teaching. 92 Julie’s views of teaching. Like Cathy, Julie characterized teaching as an interactive performance. She demonstrated her view of teaching as performance through comments that explained her instructional decisions in relation to “knowing my audience” or that articulated the importance of “reading your audience” as a teacher (SLP1). Like Cathy, Julie described the importance of reading and responding to her audience by interacting with students and adjusting instruction to them responsively. Also like Cathy, Julie saw planning as envisioning in detail and preparing for how the lesson might unfold. Although she did not explicitly discuss her views of planning, her approach involved planning some aspects of her instruction in detail, including envisioning in detail how students might respond and how she would, in turn, respond to them. On the whole, her emphasis on reading and responding to her audience and on preparing in detail for instruction were consistent with the conception of teaching as performance. Julie’s views of core reading programs. Like other teachers who emphasized interactive aspects of teaching, Julie expressed a tension between attending to the program’s script and reading and responding to students as her audience during instruction. For example, Julie voiced frustration over the scripted language and anticipated responses core programs provided because she couldn’t attend closely enough to the core program to use those components during instruction and also attend to her students. The interactive aspects of teaching performance, thus, led her to view core programs as limited in their ability to support teachers during instruction. In discussing her view of the role of core programs, Julie shared, “The nice thing that this has brought is a scope and sequence. I don’t think that a core program is a bad thing. I don’t! I think it helps keep people on the same page” (SLP2). For her, core programs offered some support for teachers in the complex work of teaching by providing a guide to the overall curricular goals. They were not “a bad thing”, but she saw them as holding limited value, 93 especially for seasoned professionals such as herself. She regularly questioned and critiqued aspects of the core program during our interviews, such as by critiquing the questions they provided for not being “meaty” enough and questioning whether the ways in which the lessons represented content were supportive of student learning. Julie did recognize that core programs might be of greater value to teachers who “don’t know what to do, they maybe are new teachers or new to the grade level, they’re not sure how to pace things… they can lean heavy and they’ll do fine” (SLP2). At the same time, she thought, “A more seasoned teacher puts their dukes up a little bit and is like, ‘Wait a minute! I know how to teach reading!’” (SLP2) Because of teachers’ differing levels of knowledge and experience, Julie believed core programs could and should play a different role in the work of different teachers, and that school districts should allow this. In her own words: I think when a district uses a core program, there needs to be a lot of professionalism involved where seasoned teachers need to be given that autonomy to follow the scope and sequence. I’m not saying abandon that, but maybe they don’t need to use and lean on the teacher guide as hard as a new person might have to. (SLP2) In this way, she articulated a view of core programs as potentially supportive resources that teachers could lean on or take from as much as they needed to. In addition to being helpful for guiding the scope and sequence, to “keep people on the same page”, and to support less knowledgeable or experienced teachers, Julie saw core programs as helpful for guiding teachers in supporting students who may need it in order to access the official curriculum. As she said, “I think teachers need it spelled out, for ELL learners, for those students we all know we have who can’t access this. I think these [suggestions] are important” (SLP2). In this way, she articulated a recognition that even a “more seasoned teacher” such as 94 herself may lack some of the knowledge needed to support the diverse range of learners in U.S. classrooms today in accessing the official curriculum and that core programs could provide helpful support for this important aspect of teachers’ work. Julie’s views of herself. Julie expressed a view of herself as one of the seasoned teachers who had her “dukes up” and questioned or resisted many elements of core programs. She shared that she was “pretty confident about content”, having participated in extensive professional development across the 17 years of her teaching career. Julie explained that she took a skeptical and adaptive stance toward core programs at least in part because of her knowledge and experience. In her words: I’m looking at this through the lens of teaching for many years, and I know how to look at this and scan and say, ‘Here’s the big idea,’ but for somebody new, there’s a lot here... I take the pieces from this that work for me that accomplish what my students need… I try to get right to the meat” (SLP1). She, thus, recognized that viewing core programs through the lens of her knowledge and experience enabled her to both critique the programs and use them flexibly and strategically. Beyond her view of herself as knowledgeable and experienced, Julie represented herself as both a balanced literacy and Montessori teacher. She explained that a balanced literacy training she participated in early in her career had helped her to develop deep knowledge and beliefs about literacy assessment and instruction that she continued to rely upon. The training had addressed such things as running records, matching kids to texts, and guided reading. She also strongly identified with the Montessori philosophy, which she saw as complementary to balanced literacy. She described her classroom as “a very highly orchestrated chaos, because everyone is doing something very different. I try to put as much back onto the children as 95 possible because, ultimately, it’s their education. I’m trying to develop the love of learning and life-long learners” (SLP1). Viewing herself as both a balanced literacy and Montessori teacher, she held strongly to a set of core beliefs that she trusted to inform her instruction. These included the importance of cultivating life-long learners, of designing and adapting instruction responsively to them with an emphasis on small-group instruction, and of students taking responsibility for their own learning and being challenged to work hard and engage with rigorous content. Some of these beliefs parallel Karina’s beliefs in the importance of students taking responsibility for their own learning and teachers differentiating instruction. Importantly, both teachers had Montessori training and experience. Although Julie did not explicitly state that she trusted her own knowledge over the core program, her frequent questioning of elements of the programs’ design and her decision to rely instead on her own knowledge, beliefs, and resources to guide much of her instruction provide evidence of her trust in herself as a seasoned and knowledgeable professional. Julie’s vision of reading comprehension instruction. Like Cathy, Julie viewed school literacy instruction as addressing literacy for life and seldom mentioned school-related literacy goals such as testing. She expressed the goal of wanting her students to “read for understanding and meaning” (SLP2) and to recognize that there are different purposes for reading. For example, she wanted them to understand that “texts should make you think” about “new ideas,” they might “challenge ideas you have,” or they might provide “just a fun story to be engaged in” because “reading is supposed to be pleasurable” (SLP1). In this way, she expressed a view of literacy as serving authentic and enriching purposes in students’ lives. In describing proficient comprehension, Julie shared that it involved accurate reading with prosody, which would allow students to “really focus on thinking throughout the text… to be able to articulate their thinking 96 about the story… make connections… and in conversations, interact fluidly with that piece of text” (SLP1). In order to help students reach these goals, she explained that she thought it was important to provide “a lot of scaffolding” in third grade because students had “never been taught… explicit comprehension instruction hasn’t happened for them” (SLP1), so they “really need guidance” to refine their comprehension and application of strategies with increasing independence (SLP2). She frequently talked about using a gradual release of responsibility when describing her instruction, using an approach I associated with an apprenticeship into reading for meaning. This approach reflected many of the ideas emphasized in the balanced literacy training she had participated in several years earlier. As an experienced and knowledgeable reader, her role was to provide the explicit instruction and guidance her students needed, to model what meaningful reading for life meant and looked like, and to adjust her scaffolding to match students’ level of independence during application. Julie’s views of her school community and students. Julie expressed a highly positive, asset-based perspective of her students, describing them as coming in “with quite a background knowledge in all subjects… curious, independent, and self-starting” (SLP1). Working at a public Montessori in a wealthy district, she explained that her students were unique because their families sent them there by choice. As a result, their families were often well-educated, highly committed to education, and involved in hands-on ways in their children’s learning. Many parents drove significant distances to bring their children to school each day. In contrast with other teachers who viewed their students as unequipped or having disparate levels of support at home, Julie perceived that her students’ families largely shared the values of the school and had the resources to support their children in school learning. She perceived that most of her students 97 were proficient in decoding and that all were “ready to take on comprehension” and begin learning to engage with texts in more precise, sophisticated, and independent ways with her guidance (SLP1). In this way, she expressed that she saw her students as well-equipped for what the school and the core program expected of them as literacy learners. Anastasia: “working with students on specific skills” and “literacy is really the hardest thing to teach”. Outgoing, humorous, and caring, Anastasia had grown up in the Milton community where she had taught Northview Elementary for the 17 years of her teaching career. Her deep knowledge of the community supported her in her instruction, although she did wish that the highly conservative community had changed a bit more over the years. Similar to Kierra, Anastasia had chosen teaching as a second career after obtaining an undergraduate degree in family and community services and working for a few years with young children and their families. Her teaching experience was concentrated in 3rd and 5th grades, and she had used the Scott Foresman reading program for many years before the district adopted Benchmark. As a result, she had extensive experience with core programs. Anastasia’s views of teaching. Anastasia was the only teacher who expressed a view of teaching as personal training, emphasizing providing students with a variety of reading tasks at an appropriate level to challenge and support their learning. In describing her comprehension instruction, she expressed that students need to be regularly “spending time in their text that they need to be in so they really can work on comprehension at that level” (GI). Anastasia viewed it as her role to give students learning tasks and then work with them as a way of providing support. She described her teaching as giving students opportunities to read “so that they have eyes on text” and “work[ing] with students on specific skills in their own books” (GI). In addition to this general language of working with students and giving them things to work on, 98 Anastasia described students as using “tools” to support them in their work (SLP1). These ways of describing teaching characterize teaching as personal training because they emphasize the importance of students working with individualized, professional support in order to become better readers. Anastasia also described a major part of her role as giving each student the right work to do with the right amount of support or challenge to maximize their learning, such as by adjusting the level of the text or the demand of the task. For example, she described her role as “finding out where they’re lacking and providing them support to help get them where we want them to go” (SLP2). For students who were “sort of already there,” her role was “to continue to challenge them… to really get them to dive in deeper to everything” (SLP2). Beyond giving students who were already there “higher level text and higher-level questions” in order to challenge them, she sought to provide “simple texts” and work more closely with students who needed to make more progress in order to reach official curricular goals (SLP2). She regularly discussed this differentiation of texts, tasks, and levels of support as a key aspect of her role as a teacher. In this way, she functioned as a personal trainer, providing the right exercises for each student and providing individualized support to maximize their progress. Anastasia saw this approach as a way to support each student in reaching “the level we want them to get to by the end of third grade,” thus meeting the official expectation of the district (SLP2), which she also saw as an important part of a teacher’s role. Anastasia’s views of core reading programs. As a result of her view of teaching as providing texts and tasks with appropriate levels of challenge and support, Anastasia viewed core programs as a helpful source of reading material and activities to engage in with students. In evaluating her core reading program, she shared, “I guess that's where I appreciated Benchmark 99 in that there could be a specific skill that we were working on and a specific book that we could look at to work on that skill” (GI). Core programs, thus, provided texts and tasks that she could give students to work on at their level to help them progress toward meeting the standards. On the whole, she tended to trust them and to view them as her primary source of reading material and activities for students. At the same time, she expressed a view of core programs as limited because “students always need more than what’s laid out in the curriculum” (SLP2). Because core programs were limited in this way, she explained, “I think the curriculum kind of provides a jumping off point, and it's the teacher's job to know when students are not getting what they need from the curriculum… and seek out information from other places” (SLP2). This view of core programs and of the teacher’s role in using them, in turn, led her to view seeking outside resources to use in supplementing the core program as an essential aspect of planning. Importantly, she expressed this view most often when planning with and talking about Benchmark, a program that offered fewer activities, materials, and instructional suggestions overall than Wonders or Reading Street did, and a program that was not Common Core aligned. When evaluating Wonders, she shared, “I think that a lot of the things that I feel are lacking [in Benchmark], like where do I go if my lower students don't get it? I feel like in Wonders… it all seems to be there” (SLP2). As a result, she expressed a hope that she might not have to supplement Wonders as much with outside materials as she had done with Benchmark. In the lessons she planned as part of this study, I did not identify a clear distinction in her approach to using the two core programs, perhaps because she evaluated these particular lessons in both programs positively. 100 Anastasia’s views of herself. In relation to her views of herself, Anastasia expressed a sense of uncertainty about herself as a literacy teacher saying, “For all my years of teaching, I have felt just like I'm doing the best I can and I'm hoping that it's good enough” (GI). In this way she expressed doubts about whether her instruction was good enough, in spite of her many years of experience. She explained that this uncertainty applied specifically to literacy saying, “I feel like literacy is really the hardest thing to teach. It's so much more abstract” than math or social studies (GI). This uncertainty in herself may have led Anastasia to rely more heavily upon core programs. Anastasia also described herself as a collaborative member of a resourceful team. She often described how she would plan with grade-level colleagues, who often shared resources with one another. Other teachers would look for outside resources from places like Teachers Pay Teachers, while Anastasia would pick and choose “from the actual Benchmark text what I thought was important” for the teachers to use or address as a grade-level (SLP2). When describing her typical approach to planning, she always described it as collaborative, mentioning ways in which the teachers both supported and were supported by one another. In this way, she conveyed an image of herself as a collaborative team member. Anastasia’s vision of reading comprehension instruction. When discussing her views of literacy instruction, Anastasia primarily talked about literacy for school purposes. She frequently talked about students’ reading levels or about levels of text, emphasizing the goal of helping students meet the district’s expected reading level of P for third grade. She also emphasized the importance of addressing “the Common Core Standards and making sure that those are being covered to the best of my ability” (SLP2). In describing her goals for her students, she expressed that she wanted them to be “willing to try dictionaries,” to use the text structure and features and 101 “all of the different things that the author is giving them to help them understand”, and to know when a text was too difficult to read on their own (SLP2). She viewed proficient reading comprehension as “all of the different pieces that we test for on AIMSWeb,” including reading with fluency and being able to answer questions about what they read (SLP2). She also explained that proficient readers make connections to their prior knowledge and self-monitor, knowing to reread “if they don’t understand something” (SLP2). Anastasia’s emphasis on literacy for school purposes is evident across these responses in her references to standards, reading levels, testing, and meeting official curricular goals. Anastasia’s views of her school community and students. Finally, in relation to her view of students, Anastasia expressed a view of students as having potential but often being uninterested in reading. She viewed this lack of interest and the resulting lack of engagement in regular reading as the major obstacle students faced in order to become proficient readers. During our final interview, she shared, “I think that a lot of kids don’t read. Reading at school, some of them go through the motions. They’re very good at fake reading... They don’t read for the entire summer” (SLP2). This lack of engagement in reading, in turn, led to them “going backwards” as readers, like an athlete who neglects to work out. Anastasia saw this lack of reading as stemming from the fact that students didn’t always “relate to all the texts we want them to read” and that “there’s just those kids in general that don’t like reading” (SLP2). Anastasia saw it as essential to motivate those students to “think a little bit harder” when they were reading, which was challenging because “they don’t want to [read] in the first place” (SLP2). For this reason, she saw it as a major part of her role to provide students with texts that would interest them and that they would relate to. 102 In describing her students more generally, Anastasia shared that they were a smaller class than what she typically had, and that they were “very kind kids” who “wanted to do well” and “supported each other” (GI). They also exhibited “quite the range of academic abilities” (GI). Perhaps at least in part as a result of this, Anastasia (like Karina) talked about her students as groups, describing “kids that were low,” kids that were “teetering on just below grade level that just needed to work a little on skills,” and kids that were working on “minimal things” that she did “not worry quite as much about” (GI). Though she viewed her students as falling into these groups, she also expressed how she saw them all as having potential as literacy learners, saying, “I believe that each one can and will learn (although on different days and in different ways)” (personal communication, May 3, 2018). She also perceived that students typically made tremendous growth over the course of the year in third grade. She stated, “It's always fun in third grade. They come in and they're just babies and then they leave and they're like little people and they're ready for so much more” (GI). At the same time, she viewed some students as more limited than others, saying, “My student at the kindergarten level was never going to be able to do our third grade work the way the other students were, but she was able to sort of model another student and go through some of the motions of the work” and be exposed to some of the language and tasks she would see on the state test (GI). Though Anastasia viewed this student as more limited in her potential, she valued giving her opportunities to participate in the work of the classroom community, working and learning with and from her peers and being exposed to the official curriculum. Anastasia also expressed that, though most parents in the community were “quite involved,” some families had “real limitations” such as limited English, limited income, or not viewing education as a priority. She responded to these perceived differences and limitations by seeking to support her students 103 in any way she could, such as by providing more one-on-one support, sending parent communication home in bilingual families’ native languages, and collecting grocery store gift cards to send to some of the lower-income families. In this way, though her descriptions of her students often emphasized difference and, for some students, limitation, she demonstrated a strong sense of commitment to supporting all of her students in their learning and in life. The Complexity of Teaching Comprehension with Core Programs The second theme I identified was the complexity of teaching with core programs, a topic teachers frequently discussed throughout interviews and descriptions of instructional plans. In line with ideas from previous research on teaching and on teachers’ work with curriculum materials (e.g., Debarger, Choppin, Beauvineau, & Moorthy, 2013; McCutcheon, 1980; Yinger, 1980), the teachers specifically cited concerns with complexity related to teaching as an inherently interactive, human endeavor and to their sense of being accountable to multiple stakeholders. In both areas, they characterized the complexity of teaching as contributing to specific tensions and dilemmas in their teaching practice and to a general taxing of their capacity. Notably, they described ways in which the core programs both added to (by their own complexity and additional demands) and helped them manage (by allowing them to offload some of the thinking and preparation work to the program) the complexity of teaching. As I describe in greater detail in subsequent chapters, the complexity of teaching seemed to constrain teachers’ interactions with core programs and their capacity for developing high-quality and responsive plans, leading them to rely on routines and make tradeoffs as ways of managing the complexity. Teaching as an Interactive, Human Endeavor All six teachers recognized and grappled with the complexity of teaching as an interactive and intrinsically human endeavor throughout their descriptions of their planning. 104 Interactive aspects of teaching. In relation to interactive aspects of teaching, the teachers discussed ways in which classroom interactions unfold somewhat unpredictably and require that teachers respond adaptively. As Amy explained, while teaching, she had to monitor students, considering, “Just how is their understanding doing? Asking questions as we're reading. I just have to see. After we read it, would I have them reread it, would I read part? I don't know. I just have to see how it went” (SLP2). In this way she explained that she could not fully specify her instruction before teaching because the interactivity and unpredictability of teaching and learning required her to monitor her students and make adjustments in the moment, based on “how it went”. I identified this theme of monitoring students and making adjustments across all six teachers. Teachers emphasizing a conversational view of teaching took a more spontaneous, improvisational approach, leaving their plans somewhat unspecified and deciding how to respond more authentically or organically in the moment during whole-group instruction. In contrast, teachers holding a view of teaching as interactive performance or as personal training planned in advance to monitor and follow up with students in small groups after the conclusion of whole-group instruction. Anastasia, for example, adapted instruction to her students by meeting with them later in a small group, finding “a page from the story that we could go back and kind of look at together in a small group… to support them and make sure that they could do that and work on the fact and opinion” (SLP2). Still other teachers, including Julie and Cathy, sought to anticipate how students might respond and prepare for those possibilities in advance. The interactive nature of teaching led to dilemmas in teachers’ core program use as they sought to use the detailed core program lessons while simultaneously monitoring and adjusting instruction to students interactively and responsively. In Julie’s words, “There’s a lot to be remembering to do…teachers feel like they have to say every single thing in blue as they walk 105 through [the core program lesson]. You can’t do that and be reading your audience, right? So I wrestle with that” (SLP1). The programs’ detailed scripts, often printed in blue, added to the complexity of teaching because teachers could not simultaneously follow them and monitor and respond to students. At the same time, the teachers articulated ways in which the programs at times supported them during interactions with students. For example, Amy shared that her core program supported her in remembering to address important curricular content and goals, saying, “I do like this because it gives you all the vocab and all of the skills, all the things I forget to do when I'm just so into engaging my kids and getting their thinking out” (SLP2). The program provided helpful reminders of what to focus on, and she used it to guide her interactions with students. Kierra expressed that she liked to have the core program on her lap while teaching because so much happens “on the fly, and then if I'm at a loss, I just look down and I read one of the questions that pop out of the book” (SLP1). Thus, though teachers did not always find the scripted language in the programs to be helpful or supportive, they valued having the core program available as a resource to consult as a support during interactions with students. This theme of the complexity of teaching as an interactive endeavor was particularly notable among teachers who articulated views of teaching as conversation and as interactive performance— views of teaching that emphasized these aspects of teaching. Human aspects of teaching. The six teachers in this study also articulated ways in which human aspects of teaching contributed to the complexity of working with core programs. These included the importance of and variation in teachers’ professional knowledge, strengths, and passions, and the centrality of addressing the learning and engagement of their particular students. 106 First, in relation to teachers as human professionals, the six teachers expressed the importance of using their passions, knowledge, and teaching style—in Kierra’s words, “what teachers are masters at and what they’re experts in” (SLP2). In discussing their interactions with core programs, the teachers frequently expressed ways in which these human characteristics remained in tension with the standardized content and teaching approach promoted in core programs. As Amy explained: You have to bring things in that you're passionate about. Some chapters or stories or weeks, you're going to go by the book and then other ones you're going to want to make a little more. I think not having to make everything more every week, that would kill you as a teacher, but you're going to find some that you connect with personally and you just want to go the extra mile or some are just so dry that you need to do something. I think there has to be a balance between your professionalism and your engagement of what you know about children and this. (SLP2) Though Amy voiced an ideal of using her passions and what she knew about children to adapt the core program’s standardized curriculum and approach, she also expressed the belief that making extensive changes by “making everything more every week” was not sustainable and would “kill you as a teacher.” In this way, she expressed both the recognition of her human limitations and the importance of striking a balance between going “by the book” and adapting the standardized curriculum to better fit herself and her students. At the same time, she described ways in which she felt unable to fully address her passions and her ideal vision of instruction when using her district-adopted core program. In particular, she had not been able to find a way to engage her students in “big class discussions or debates,” which had been a regular part of her teaching practice before using Reading Street, and 107 which she loved and missed. She conceded, “I haven’t gotten there yet with Reading Street… I do some of the stuff I used to do on a very much smaller scale, but nothing yet with debates… It’s just so overwhelming and it’s like, where do I fit it in?” (GI) Other teachers expressed a similar tension between the core programs and aspects of their passions, knowledge, and teaching style, and this theme recurs throughout the chapter. Second, in relation to students as human learners, teachers expressed the need to teach in ways that made sense for and engaged the particular students in their class each year. As Kierra explained, “To me, more of my planning is more about where are my kids at? What are my kids’ interests? What is everyone going to be able to do? What does everybody need access to?” (GI). This focus on tailoring instruction to a particular class of students often created tension for her and for other teachers as they used standardized core program lessons that were not necessarily reflective or supportive of who their particular students were or where they lived. As Karina reflected, “There's one story they throw a whole bunch of Spanish words in because [the program] was based in California. When they talk about ELL in Reading Street, they're talking about Spanish. They're not talking about everybody else on the planet” (SLP2). This mismatch between the core program’s assumptions and her particular students created frustration for Karina who worked in a very multicultural school with students from all over the world, including many dual language learners from China, Korea, and India, because the suggestions for supporting such students’ language development favored Spanish-speakers and often left her with insufficient support for her particular learners. Other teachers echoed the challenges Kierra and Karina voiced, critiquing the programs for being rigid and often mismatched with their students’ interests and engagement, vocabulary and background knowledge, language learning needs, and readiness for accessing complex and lengthy school texts. On the whole, the teachers 108 recognized and grappled with the reality that the programs were created for particular students and carried embedded assumptions about the characteristics of the human learners who would be participating in the instruction—assumptions that often did not align with their realities. Even as they recognized this mismatch, several of the teachers felt that it was important for core programs to provide teachers with support to differentiate instruction for students who could not independently access grade-level texts, including dual language learners and students who were still working to master automatic word recognition skills. They felt teachers needed guidance in supporting these students. As Julie shared, “I think teachers need it spelled out, for ELL learners, for those—we all know we have students who can’t access this, so I think these are important” (SLP2). Although she felt teachers needed support from core programs in this area, Julie also questioned the value of the suggestions in Wonders, saying, “I'm just curious about, with those students, what does this do to support? What I'm seeing is this just asking a lot of questions, but it doesn't necessarily present material in a different way. It doesn't necessarily show, you can use this organizer with them” (SLP2). In this way, she expressed her evaluation that the suggestions for differentiating instruction fell short of the kinds of supports students needed. In addition to the questions Julie referenced, the suggestions for supporting diverse learners in the core programs included directive language, telling teachers, for example, to “help students understand the meaning of science terms in the text, such as crust, plates, and upper mantle” (Wonders Grade 4 Unit 1, 2017). Rather than helping teachers anticipate student difficulties or think about how they might attend, interpret, and respond to students and their ideas, the program suggestions seemed to simply tell teachers what to do. In other words, the suggestions were directive rather than educative because they did not help teachers understand what might be challenging about the texts and why or how to scaffold for those challenges 109 (Davis & Krajcik, 2005). When these suggestions did not align with teachers’ knowledge of their particular learners, teachers perceived them as unhelpful and as adding to the complexity of making sense of the core program materials. This raises questions as to whether there may be ways to design more responsive supports to help teachers anticipate and manage the complexities of supporting a diverse range of human learners in interacting with and constructing understanding of texts. At the same time, some teachers voiced ways in which they felt the programs could help them support their particular learners. As Cathy shared, “Looking at some of the English Language Learner tips, I think those are really good tips in general, especially with this first year, where we may have some gaps in vocabulary or reading level” (SLP1). In this way, she evaluated the suggestions for differentiation as helpful for supporting all of her students in the first year of implementing a new program because she anticipated they would have gaps in their learning due to the increasing rigor of the new program. Elaborating further in a different interview, she shared, “This helps me to know where students might struggle, where the breakdown could be with vocabulary or comprehension, so I think that's a good piece” (SLP2). Cathy, whose school served a primarily monolingual student population, evaluated the ELL tips as useful for helping her anticipate and be prepared to address student difficulties as they transitioned to a new program, even though the tips were not designed for students like hers or written in such a way as to explicitly prompt teachers to anticipate “where students might struggle”. Cathy was the only teacher who expressed this view that the suggestions for differentiation could be helpful in anticipating student difficulties and being prepared to respond. Cathy was also the only teacher who expressed a view of core programs as offering teachers opportunities to learn, suggesting that her overall orientation to core programs may have helped 110 her to perceive and use this program component differently. Cathy’s teaching context may also have played a role in her positive evaluation of these suggestions because if she had many dual language learners in her class, she may have perceived a mismatch similar to what Julie and Karina expressed. Instead, her context and orientation to core programs seem to have supported her in evaluating the suggestions as useful and mobilizing them to inform her plans. Accountability to Multiple Stakeholders In addition to their descriptions of complexity related to the intrinsically human, interactive aspects of teaching, the six teachers regularly discussed the complexity of being accountable to multiple stakeholders. These stakeholders included themselves and their students, as articulated above, with the added complexity of also being responsive to parents and community members, the local school and district, state policies and expectations, and the demands brought on by core programs themselves, which I will discuss in this section. Teachers articulated consideration of these various stakeholders when describing their work with core programs throughout interviews, suggesting that these may be central concerns in teachers’ work with core programs. Teachers often described ways in which seeking to be responsive to multiple stakeholders created tensions in their work and taxed their capacity. Core programs. Teachers frequently voiced that simply trying to make sense of and use some of the core program lessons themselves when planning for instruction was complex and time consuming, often taking an hour or more each night just to prepare for reading instruction. They used words such as “survival” (Amy, GI) and “overwhelming” (Amy, GI; Cathy, SLP1 & SLP2; Julie, SLP1) to describe their experiences of planning with a new or unfamiliar program, and they referred to the programs as “hard to unpack” (Amy, SLP1), “all over the place” (Karina, SLP2), “busy”, “distracting”, and “confusing” (Kierra, SLP2). Notably, teachers cited these 111 concerns when planning with Reading Street and Wonders, the two programs that had an integral organizational structure and were more comprehensive, encompassing all aspects of language and literacy and addressing them all in one teacher’s edition. They did not cite these same concerns when planning with Benchmark, which was a less comprehensive program with a modular structure. This finding echoes previous research suggesting that teachers may have greater difficulty designing instruction with curriculum materials that are more complex and that have an integral organizational structure (Stein & Kim, 2009; Valencia et al., 2006). In other words, these characteristics of curriculum materials may limit pedagogical design capacity. When planning with Reading Street and Wonders, teachers specifically cited the sheer volume of information available in core program lessons as the characteristic that most often made the programs difficult to make sense of and use. Julie explained with exasperation, “Using it as a teacher I feel like there’s a lot of information here, and honestly, it’s pretty overwhelming” (SLP1). In addition to this general feeling of being overwhelmed by core programs, some teachers cited the volume of information on each page and the program’s layout as contributing to the difficulty of making sense of them and using them. Amy shared that she found her core program “overwhelming! It is so busy… and it freaked me out the first time I used them” (SLP2). Kierra similarly explained, “To me, Reading Street, the general page is way busier and there's a lot of stuff that you do not need when you go to teach… That stuff's distracting, like I can't find where the question is on the page. It all starts blending together” (SLP2). On the whole, teachers found both Reading Street and Wonders to be overwhelming in terms of both the sheer volume of information they provided and the way the information was organized. This may also limit teachers’ pedagogical design capacity. 112 As described earlier, Julie and Karina also found Reading Street’s online platform to be cumbersome. Additionally, several teachers explained that they wished the teacher’s edition provided clearer connections to the other program components it referenced. This was especially true when teachers planned with Wonders, an unfamiliar program and one that did not include clearly specified information or accompanying illustrations to guide teachers to program resources not housed within the teacher’s edition. As Amy expressed when asked how she would redesign the materials: Maybe those workbook pages kind of being here. Do you have a Venn diagram? It's not clear. Is there anything that you have to support us online, like, “Click on this and you'll be able to be brought to a whole site about earthquakes”? I can't tell… If there are tools like that, it would be nice to point it out on the page, “Use with online slide whatever” … Just a few of those little things to help my life be a little bit easier. (SLP2) In this way, Amy voiced her belief that if programs were designed to show clearer connections to outside resources, it could simplify teachers’ work in planning. Her words capture the teachers’ broader frustration with how difficult core programs were to use and their related desire for core programs to be more user-friendly to make teachers’ lives “a little bit easier.” These concerns and desires are not surprising given the amount of time teachers described themselves investing into planning their first year using a new core program. Amy shared that she would take “the whole weekend” to plan for reading instruction her first year using Reading Street, and that she would then spend more time “during the week adjusting and readjusting, so I don’t even know how many hours that would be planning” (GI). Cathy lamented the personal time she imagined herself sacrificing in order to be well-prepared to teach with Wonders in the fall, saying, “I could see it very well taking an hour every night, you know? 113 That's probably just going to be my nightly reading. Good-bye novels and People magazine” (SLP1). Karina described how, when her district had first adopted its core program, she would “spend a couple of hours every night figuring out Reading Street,” and she was grateful that this change had come about when her children “were in high school and self-sufficient. They didn’t need me to take care of them” (SLP1). The overall demand of making sense of and planning for instruction with an unfamiliar core program taxed teachers significantly. As a group, the six teachers described giving up their weekends, evenings, and early mornings, their personal reading time, and time with their children and families in order to be well-prepared to teach reading from a core program during its first year of implementation. These are significant sacrifices for teachers to make, raising questions and concerns about the extent to which this is reasonable and sustainable to expect of teachers, especially given that reading is just one of many subject areas elementary teachers typically teach and have to spend time preparing for. Schools and districts. The six teachers frequently mentioned seeking to address a wide range of demands from their schools and districts. These included curricular policies such as fidelity and non-negotiable lists, testing expectations, general expectations of what students should be able to do in the future, and accountability policies. Often, teachers seemed to respond to school and district expectations out of a sense of obligation or even fear, sometimes complying even when they disagreed with or questioned what was asked of them or when complying added significantly to the complexity of their work without clear benefits for themselves or their students. In addition, the layering of multiple mandates, of which expectations for core program use was just one, seemed to complicate the teachers’ work significantly. 114 All six teachers spoke of district curricular policies, though the specific concerns they mentioned varied, often based on the district but also at times based on the individual teacher. Amy and Kierra spoke often of their district’s non-negotiable list, a document that prescribed for each grade level which components of the curriculum teachers were expected to use. The list spelled out the requirement that teachers teach core program components that addressed weekly learning targets related to content knowledge, phonics and word analysis, vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension skills and strategies, as well as reading the program’s main selection at least twice each week, working with students in leveled groups, and giving both the weekly and unit tests. One of the dilemmas this extensive non-negotiable list created was the challenge of simply fitting everything in that the district expected. Amy expressed tension with regard to meeting this expectation, explaining that though she wanted to “do it right” and “do it all,” she had found this to be impossible, and she had had to decide where to cut in order to fit everything in. Kierra, similarly, shared that she and other teachers had started cutting things out because of time constraints. For Kierra, however, the non-negotiable list also created a deeper tension related to her beliefs and identity as a teacher. When asked what she thought was most important for students to learn and take away from the Reading Street lesson she had planned, she responded, “To me that’s a complicated question because it’s something that I taught with a scripted deal. Is that what I think is important, or is it what our non-negotiable list says has to be done on a daily basis, which is the main components?” (SLP1). In this way, Kierra voiced a tension between what “has to be done on a daily basis” and what she thought was important for her students. Later in the interview, she candidly discussed her experiences with the district’s fidelity policies, saying: 115 We were really pushed hard on the adoption of this, that it's fidelity, and “If you're not doing it over here, we're going to come with a fidelity check, and someone's going to walk in your room with a check board.” That's really scary for teachers to hear. Why don't you trust what's happening behind my doors? Even for me, that was, "I'm a rule follower. I'm going to follow the rule." But it didn't feel right as a teacher. Then, finally, I'm like, okay, so I teach my idea a little bit differently than this page does. Are they going to fire me for that? No. Are my kids going to actually do better because of the way I do it? Yes! (SLP1) In this way, she explained how the district policies had created fear and tension between what felt right for her as a teacher and her identity as a rule follower but had eventually resolved the dilemma by addressing the non-negotiable list flexibly and using her professional knowledge, talents, and passions to do what she believed was best for her students. Even so, she had grappled with this tension for some time before changing her approach. Anastasia shared time-related concerns similar to Amy’s, feeling that the district thought that “every subject we do, that's all we do, and that we have a million hours in the day to make sure that we cover that” (GI). Describing the district’s requirements more specifically, she shared that she was expected to be addressing and making sure students were meeting the standards and “making sure that they score really well on [AIMSWeb testing] as well… but then also just really getting that done in our reading block” (GI). In this way, she expressed her frustration with what she felt were unrealistic expectations from the district to follow the Benchmark program, address the standards, make sure students scored well on universal screening assessments, and accomplish all of this within the block of time allocated for reading instruction. These unrealistic expectations created tension for her in her work. 116 Cathy, who taught in a different elementary school in the same district as Anastasia, experienced the district context quite differently. She expressed a perception that she had fairly open expectations for reading instruction, saying “we were given a fairly open approach to reading” (GI). These differences seem to relate, at least in part, to differences in how their building principals translated district policies into building-level policies and practices. Individual differences may also have played a part as Anastasia may have felt more pressure to meet district expectations because she prioritized school purposes for literacy instruction and expressed less confidence as a literacy teacher than Cathy, who prioritized broader life purposes for literacy instruction and felt confident questioning expectations she felt were not in the best interest of kids. For example, she had questioned the principal on her practice of interrupting instruction with announcements over the PA system. She expressed concern over the fact that a new principal would start in the fall who “believes in complete fidelity and does not feel a teacher should ever leave her mark on any lesson” (GI). In response to this, she questioned, “How can we teach a program with complete fidelity while still differentiating instruction?” (GI) It was not clear from the interviews how she planned to respond to the expectation of “complete fidelity,” but it was clear that this created significant tension for her given her commitments as a teacher. Thus, on the whole, the expectation of fidelity created significant concerns and dilemmas for these four teachers, especially when layered with other district expectations. In contrast, Julie and Karina, who taught in the wealthiest of the three school districts, expressed somewhat more flexible expectations at the district and school levels. Julie shared that the district expected teachers to use Reading Street, addressing its key learning targets and giving the weekly test each week, as well as addressing the Common Core State Standards and the district mission of creating lifelong learners (SLP1). This list of expectations was much less 117 specified than the list Amy gave, suggesting a more flexible district policy context. Karina stated explicitly her district’s expectations were flexible, saying, “Our district superintendent in charge of curriculum said, ‘Do what makes sense. Take it and make it yours. We know you're not going to be able to do everything’” (SLP2). Still, even in this more flexible district and school context, Julie expressed a tension related to the district’s expectation that teachers give the weekly core program tests. She explained: What’s frustrating about these weekly tests is, great, they did terrible on monitor clarify. Next week we’re moving into a different strategy so how am I… it doesn’t make sense to me… Truth be told, there is so much going on in my head, I don’t remember to say, “Oh, Jill bombed monitor clarify last time, you better do it this time.” (SLP1) The dilemma for Julie was that the weekly tests gave her insight into her students’ learning strengths and needs, but the core program with its spiral organization moved on to a new topic the next week. In other words, they provided formative assessment data, but the curriculum structure and district expectations led to the assessments serving a more summative and evaluative role. With all she had to keep track of as a teacher, she did not always remember to follow up with students who performed poorly on the assessments in order to provide them with additional support. In this way, the district policies coupled with the core program’s structure presented a significant obstacle for Julie as she strove to teach responsively. In addition to addressing explicitly articulated district policies, the six teachers expressed a felt need to prepare students to be successful in what the district expected of them educationally, both in their K-12 career and beyond. Karina explained that she taught to the test each week because “that's what we're trying to get them ready to do is to be ready to take a test. They're going to be taking tests all the way through college. Most of our students are college- 118 bound, so, you know, that's a priority in our district” (GI). Working in a district that emphasized preparing students for college, Karina felt compelled to center her instruction around the weekly Reading Street tests and to teach students how to approach tests more generally. Beyond preparing students to take tests, Karina also spoke of wanting to ensure that her core group of students learned “the concepts of these skills and strategies” in the core program so they would be prepared for what teachers would expect of them the next year (SLP2). One of her s was to ensure that students reached end-of-grade-level expectations “so that when they get into 5th grade, they’re right where they need to be” (GI). Cathy spoke more broadly of giving students insight into the ways in which what they were learning in 4th grade was preparing them for reading they would do in the future. In her words, “really kind of leading them to this open door of all the reading that they’ll be faced with” (GI). In order to do that, she described how she would give them “sneak peeks into things they might encounter as readers” or tell them, “‘When you’re in tenth grade, you might come into contact with this’” (GI). Though Cathy and Karina voiced the same demand of preparing students for what they might face in their future educational careers as readers, their emphasis was somewhat different, reflecting their broad purposes for literacy instruction as Karina emphasized teaching and learning literacy for school purposes and Cathy emphasized teaching and learning literacy for life. Teachers also discussed accountability policies that placed demands both on them and on their students. These included district expectations of student performance on universal screening assessments such as AIMSweb used as part of the districts’ Response to Intervention systems and teacher evaluations linked to student performance or growth on standardized tests. Anastasia, Amy, Cathy, and Kierra shared concerns over the districts’ expected growth or performance 119 levels. As Anastasia explained, “Our kids are supposed to be doing well on the AIMSweb, which of course is very different skills than what we're actually teaching. We're taking teaching time away to teach them to do well on the AIMSweb” (GI). In this way, she expressed a concern with allocating time to prepare students for the AIMSweb universal screening tests her district used to hold students and teachers accountable. Amy discussed a similar tension related to finding time for this saying, “I haven't done a practice yet and it's already almost November. We were going to try to do it once a month, try to do it every two weeks, but that didn't happen. We were just too busy” (GI). This theme of accountability policies exacerbating the time constraints teachers already felt keenly in their daily work recurred across teachers. Teacher evaluation policies also put pressure on teachers. Kierra, in particular, cited concern over new district policies linking teacher evaluation to student assessment scores, which she feared might impact her professional status and salary. She shared, “We're all going to be evaluated based on our growth scores, which is ... I mean, I appreciate a growth model. Absolutely. But when I have a kid that scored less on the end of the year test than he did on the beginning of the year test because he just didn't want to take it that day? …I really struggle with that, and that’s one of the issues some of us are having. I'm going to get paid based on that and you're going to say I'm not doing a good job?” (SLP2) In this way, she voiced concerns over the ways in which student test scores could negatively affect her professional status in the district. Concerns about to time and professional status related to teacher and student accountability, thus, added a layer of complexity to these teachers’ work. Julie and Karina, who worked in a wealthier, high-performing school district and perceived less pressure from their district around these measures, were less concerned about student performance and more concerned with the time allocated for testing and the degree to 120 which the data they obtained was useful for informing their practice. Julie complained, “It’s really hard to read the print-out on each student… the data that we get is very vague” (SLP1). Adding to the challenge, the district had adopted a new online platform for Reading Street that did not provide helpful reports on how students had performed on the weekly tests the district expected teachers to give. As Julie vented, “My colleagues and I are pretty frustrated that that information is not accessible” (SLP1). Karina shared a similar difficulty with accessing student assessment data on Reading Street’s platform. On the whole, the teachers voiced frustration over allocating significant time to testing without receiving helpful data to inform instruction. State. The primary demand teachers cited at the state level involved addressing and helping students to meet the Common Core State Standards and be prepared for the related state tests. Teachers regularly cited the standards on a general level as something their districts expected them to address and as something that they themselves strove to address in their instruction. For example, Karina shared, “That would be the front, overarching purpose of my teaching. Very much the Common Core State Standards” (SLP2). When teachers perceived a program to be aligned with the standards, they viewed the programs as supportive in addressing the external demands of the official curriculum. Amy and Karina perceived both Wonders and Reading Street as aligned with the Common Core, while Anastasia and Cathy both viewed Wonders as well aligned and Benchmark as poorly aligned. As Amy shared, “The majority of the stories in Reading Street relate really well to the standards. Reading informational text... finding evidence in the text, supporting your answers in the writing, and the comprehension standards. I think it does a nice job. The district expects it, and I think it delivers” (SLP1). Other teachers spoke more generally of their perception of standards- alignment, such as when Karina evaluated Reading Street lessons saying, “They’re aligned to 121 Common Core Standards” (SLP1). The teachers in this study most often shared their evaluations of the programs’ degree of standards alignment using general statements such as these that gave little insight into the thinking behind that judgment. In their instructional decisions, when teachers perceived that the program delivered on its promise of being Common Core-aligned, they tended to offload that responsibility to the program, which simplified their work. In contrast, when teachers perceived that a core program addressed the standards poorly, this added complexity to their work because they invested additional time and energy into determining how to adapt the core program or supplement it to more fully address the standards. Anastasia, for example, described how she worked with her grade-level colleagues to adapt their core program Benchmark to more fully address the standards, streamlining parts that were “more loosely aligned to the standards” and supplementing in areas where Benchmark did not “hit it hard enough” (SLP2). Julie shared a similar approach of supplementing Reading Street with Time for Kids because Reading Street’s questions were “not meaty enough, they don’t get at what I know they are going to be assessed on” (SLP1) when they took the state test at the end of the year. Recognizing that students had to take the test and caring about their success, Julie sought out Time for Kids as an outside resource and found ways to weave it into her curriculum in order to prepare her students for what lay ahead. This additional work added yet another layer of complexity for teachers who perceived that the programs did not address the standards well. Parents and community members. Only three teachers explicitly mentioned responding to parents and community members. Cathy explained that during the first year of implementing a new program, she had to prepare parents to be flexible in their expectations. Cathy and Karina expressed that some parents would want their children to be challenged and not receive too much scaffolding. Karina also shared that parents of dual language learners in her classroom had 122 different expectations for what they would experience and learn in school, focusing on either learning academics in English or on English immersion with less concern for academics, depending on how long they planned to be in the United States. Anastasia and Karina explained that they had to manage concerns from parents when their students did not perform well on tests or when community members felt uncomfortable with some of the changes that accompanied the implementation of the Common Core State Standards. Anastasia, Cathy, and Karina all described ways in which they took the concerns of parents and community members into account in their curricular reasoning, deciding, for example, to offer students differing degrees of challenge and support, to adjust the focus of instruction for dual language learners depending on parents’ goals and desires, and to communicate with parents to address their concerns. These decisions added to the complexity of these teachers’ work. While I focused here on teachers’ comments about families’ curricular expectations, which added complexity to teachers’ work, it is also important to note that teachers mentioned ways in which parents and families supported their children’s learning, such as by helping them with homework and volunteering in the classroom. Taxing of Teachers’ Capacity I have thus far described many of the concerns, dilemmas, and complexities that the six teachers in this study described when discussing their work with core programs. Managing and seeking to respond to these many issues led teachers to feel taxed, stretched thin, and that they had too much on their minds and on their plates. As Amy shared, “My head is everywhere. I’m trying to think of so many things… It's just the nature of the teaching beast. You have so much on your plate and beyond” (GI). In this quote, she described herself as scattered, with so much to think about that her mind was going everywhere, having too much on her “plate and beyond”. Her language seems to convey a sense of being stretched beyond her limits, having her 123 responsibilities spill over the edges of her plate. Indeed, this metaphor seems appropriate to describe the ways in which teachers’ work spilled over into their personal lives. At the same time, Amy seemed to see this as simply the reality or the nature of teaching. Other teachers described the overall taxing of their capacity in similarly vivid ways. For example, Julie shared, “there is so much going on in my head” (SLP1). Ironically, teachers expressed gratitude for having a core program to help them manage the complexity of their work in spite of the overwhelming difficulty they described in using core programs during their first year of implementation. Amy explained her reliance on the core program saying, “So I do like this about Reading Street and a basal. I think it forces me to remember and to do things I need to do. That I really like because me, I can be scattered a little bit” (GI). Even though core programs could be overwhelming and hard to make sense of, Amy, thus, expressed that she found them to be helpful in managing the complexity of teaching. Similarly, Julie shared that she thought core programs were helpful “given all that we have on our plates as educators” (SLP2), and Anastasia declared, “With the expectations that we have, I feel like if there was no curriculum it would just be insane!”(GI) Though the programs in some ways added to the complexity of teaching, the six teachers in this study were thankful to have them as guides to the scope and sequence of the curriculum and as either resources to draw from or supports to lean on as much as they felt they needed to. Summary In this chapter, I introduced the cross-cutting themes of teachers’ orientations to core programs in reading comprehension and the complexity of teaching, which had significant implications for teachers’ planning processes and instructional plans. I also introduced key findings related to these themes. In relation to teachers’ orientations, the overarching finding was 124 that teachers’ orientations mediated their interactions with core reading programs, serving as a lens through which teachers noticed the curriculum materials. In order to introduce this theme and set the stage for its continued development in the next two chapters, I first described patterns I identified across teachers in the beliefs and goals that comprised their orientations and then I introduced each teacher and her orientation in greater detail. In introducing the theme of complexity, I discussed the various dimensions of complexity the teachers described in their work with core programs, including the ways in which complexity created tensions and dilemmas for them and taxed their overall capacity. In the next chapter, I will describe the implications of these two themes for their planning processes, focusing on how the teachers’ unique combinations of perspectives and beliefs, as well as the overall complexity of their work, shaped their interactions with the core programs during planning. 125 CHAPTER 5 ANALYSIS OF PLANNING PROCESSES In this chapter, I discuss my analysis of teachers’ descriptions of their planning, including their observable planning activities, such as jotting down notes about what they wanted to do, and the largely invisible reasoning processes that comprised their curricular noticing. Analyzing teachers’ planning across teachers presented challenges due to lack of detail with which some teachers described their planning and the wide degree of variation across teachers in the degree of specificity in their descriptions. In addition, teachers were not always able to elaborate upon their planning processes when I followed up with probing questions during our interviews, suggesting that they may not be fully aware of or able to articulate what they do when planning for instruction. Finally, I found that the level of detail with which they described their planning did not necessarily correspond with the degree of detail in their instructional plans. For example, Kierra designed fairly general instructional plans, but she described her planning process in great detail. In contrast, Julie designed very specific instructional plans, which suggests that she engaged in extensive and detailed planning, but her descriptions of how she planned were briefer even though they also alluded to a detailed level of planning, and they often segued into descriptions of her instructional plans. These patterns suggest that different teachers may have different levels of metacognitive awareness of what they do when planning for instruction. Alternatively, these patterns may simply reflect differences in the degree of detail with which teachers think, plan, and talk. In spite of these challenges, I identified several interesting patterns in the teachers’ planning for reading comprehension with core programs. Two of these patterns involved similarities in teachers’ planning and two involved differences. In terms of similarities, I found 126 that all six teachers engaged in some of the same planning steps or strategies, which I refer to as core planning activities. I also found that each teacher’s overall sequence of planning activities was more similar than different across the two programs, suggesting that teachers’ planning was guided by routines. The small differences I observed in each teacher’s planning across programs related more to their degree of familiarity with the programs than to characteristics inherent to the programs or lessons themselves, suggesting the important role of experience in shaping curriculum material use. In terms of differences, I found that the teachers’ different views of teaching played a key role in shaping their planning processes and curricular noticing. In relation to their curricular noticing, I found that teachers’ orientations shaped all aspects of their noticing and that it was the interactions among teachers’ beliefs rather than any single belief that best explained their noticing of the core programs. In this chapter, I first discuss findings related to similarities in planning processes and curricular noticing, and then I move on to discuss differences in their planning processes and curricular noticing that related largely to their differing orientations to core reading programs in reading comprehension and, to a lesser degree, their experiences with them. Similarities in Planning Processes and Curricular Noticing Similarities Across Teachers: Core Planning Activities All six teachers described engaging in seven of the same activities when planning for their reading comprehension lessons in this study, which I refer to as the core planning activities. Each activity involved at least one aspect of curricular noticing. In addition, I noted that during each activity, the teachers’ curricular reasoning seemed to be guided by a particular purpose. As part of my analysis I, thus, crafted a guiding question that summarized the teachers’ explicit and implicit purposes for engaging in each of the seven planning activities. The core planning 127 activities are outlined in Table 9, along with the associated guiding questions and the aspects of curricular noticing with which each activity was most strongly associated. As I discuss further in Chapter 6, the instructional plans teachers designed through using these core planning activities exhibited at least some characteristics of high-quality and responsive instruction and often improved upon the quality and responsiveness of the core program lessons themselves. This suggests that these planning activities may be important for designing high-quality, responsive comprehension instruction with core reading programs. Because the six teachers did not all use the activities in the same order, Table 9 reflects the most common sequence. Identifying learning targets and topic. Early in their planning, each teacher engaged in reading to identify the learning targets and topical focus of the lesson, an activity that typically involved attending to particular core program components that provided this information.3 When teachers engaged in this planning activity, they attended to a variety of core program components such as the weekly overview, the lesson objectives, the question of the week, or the weekly test, and occasionally to the lesson as a whole, with the goal of identifying the “big idea,” the “targeted skills”, or “what [the program] wants them to get.” Importantly, all six of the teachers specifically attended to the programs’ stated learning targets, question of the week, and targeted comprehension skills and strategies during this aspect of their planning, suggesting that these may be important core program components to attend to early in planning. The question that seemed to guide their thinking during this stage of planning was, “What is the purpose and focus of the written lesson?” Once the teachers had identified the purpose and focus stated in the core 3 The learning targets for the lessons in this study typically addressed comprehension skills and strategies (such as identifying main idea and details) or elements of genre (such as informational text features). The topical focus of each lesson involved the general topic addressed in the text being read (such as earthquakes), which in Wonders and Reading Street also connected to a broader topic addressed in a guiding question of the week (such as, “How do people respond to natural disasters?”). 128 Table 9 Core Planning Activities and Guiding Questions Activity Guiding Question Identifying the learning targets and topic of the lesson Reading the text Reading the instructional suggestions What is the purpose and focus of this lesson? What are the characteristics of the text the program provides to address the lesson purpose and focus? What are the instructional suggestions the program provides to address the lesson purpose and focus? Evaluating the text and instructional suggestions in light of knowledge and beliefs about students Consulting or selecting outside resources How accessible, engaging, and appropriate are the text and instructional suggestions to support my students in engaging with the lesson purpose and focus? What additional resources can help me support my students’ learning and/or engagement with the lesson purpose and focus? Aspects of Curricular Noticing Most Strongly Associated Attending Attending Attending, interpreting Interpreting Attending, interpreting, deciding how to respond Formulating concrete plans What instructional activities and materials will I plan to use with my students to address the lesson purpose and focus? Deciding how to respond Preparing materials What do I need to have ready in order to engage my students in the instructional activities I have planned? Deciding how to respond program lesson, they tended to state it in the form of a topic (e.g., main idea and details, earthquakes), which then served to focus the rest of their planning. As Amy shared, identifying the focus of the lesson helped her “put a lens on for what I need to do” (SLP2) that then guided her curricular noticing throughout the planning process. Beyond identifying the learning target and topic provided in the core programs, the teachers did not tend to articulate more elaborate formal learning objectives, a finding that aligns with previous research on teacher planning (Clark & Yinger, 1979; Morine-Dershimer, 1977). All six teachers drew the purpose and focus of both planned lessons from the core program materials without making adaptations in this 129 study. Teachers did not engage in this activity differently when planning with familiar and unfamiliar materials. Reading the text. At some point after identifying the learning targets and topic of the lesson, the teachers took time to read through the text provided in the core program for students to read. This activity was most closely associated with the attending stage of curricular noticing, and teachers used language such as “reading the student text,” “glancing over what students would be reading,” and “acquainting myself with the text” to describe how they engaged in this activity. Teachers described reading to identify such things as the genre of the text, its structure and features, the language it used, the content it addressed, and its overall length, as well as any connections to the lesson’s overall purpose and focus. Importantly, all six of the teachers specifically mentioned noting the topic of the text as well as the disciplinary content and concepts it addressed, while five of the teachers attended to the specific academic language used in the text, and four noted the text structure and features. This suggests that these may be important aspects of the text for teachers to attend to during this early stage of their planning. The question guiding their thinking as they engaged in this activity seemed to be, “What are the characteristics of the text the program provides to address the lesson purpose and focus?” I did identify some differences in this aspect of planning based on program familiarity. Three teachers either did not read the story or did not clearly explain whether they read the story when planning with a familiar program. Amy explicitly stated, “I don’t necessarily read the story over again” (SLP1). Julie and Karina did not explicitly describe reading the story and it was unclear from their broader data whether they reread the familiar text when planning. Though all three of these teachers made evaluative comments about the texts and designed instructional plans that reflected knowledge of the texts, these comments may reflect information recalled from memory 130 rather than from directly consulting the text. In contrast, Anastasia, Cathy, and Kierra all explicitly mentioned reading the text when planning with both core programs. Reading instructional suggestions. Teachers also described reading the instructional suggestions in the core program lessons, attending to them in order to identify, “What are the instructional suggestions the program provides to address the lesson purpose and focus?” They commented in interviews on reading to identify the specific content addressed, the language used to represent content to students, the questions and graphic organizers provided, and the overall sequence of the lesson. Teachers often described engaging in this step at the same time as or in close proximity to the reading of the text, and several described seeking to understand how the instructional suggestions connected to the text. The analytic thinking involved in making these connections went beyond attending to include interpreting the core program lesson. When reading the instructional suggestions, the teachers seemed to be focused on identifying what the core program lessons had to offer as tools to address the lesson purpose and focus. All six teachers described engaging in this activity with the unfamiliar core program, but I only found clear evidence that four of them read the instructional suggestions in their familiar program. It was unclear from my interviews with Julie and Kierra whether they read the instructional suggestions in their familiar program, Reading Street, during planning. As above, though they made evaluative comments about them in their plans, these may have been based on their memory of the instructional suggestions from previous years of experience rather than from reading the instructional suggestions printed in the core program as they planned. Evaluating the text and instructional suggestions. In addition to reading the text and instructional suggestions, all six teachers evaluated the text and often the instructional suggestions in light of their knowledge and beliefs about their students. They did this when 131 planning with both familiar and unfamiliar programs. This activity aligned with the interpreting component of curricular noticing and often involved comparing and contrasting the program content and expectations with what teachers knew, believed, or assumed about their students’ background knowledge and experiences, their reading proficiency, or their interest in the topic or genre. When engaging in this activity, teachers asked questions like, “How accessible is it to kids?” (Amy, SLP1) and made comments such as, “This is not something they are going to be able to do successfully on their own yet” (Julie, SLP2). The question that seemed to guide their reasoning during this stage of planning was, “How accessible, engaging, and appropriate are the text and instructional suggestions to support my students in engaging with the lesson purpose and focus?” Teachers’ interpretations of the core program lessons during this stage of planning reflected a shift in focus from reading and making sense of what the materials had to offer on a general level to critically evaluating how well-suited the materials were for supporting engaged and accessible learning for their particular students in their particular context. For these six experienced teachers, this seemed to be a crucial step to engage in before beginning to work with the standardized core program lessons to formulate concrete plans for their particular students. The finding that all six teachers engaged in this activity when planning with both familiar and unfamiliar programs is important because consideration of students is essential for responsive instruction. Because the particulars of how teachers evaluated the core program lessons varied from teacher to teacher based on their orientations to core programs in reading comprehension, I discuss these particulars later in the chapter. Consulting or selecting outside resources. At some point in their planning process, typically before formulating concrete plans, all six of the teachers also consulted or selected outside resources, looking for ideas, activities, instructional explanations, and materials that 132 would supplement the core program and help address areas in which they perceived the program might not sufficiently support their students. Teachers mentioned consulting such varied resources as professional texts, supplemental programs, specific internet applications such as Pinterest, and the internet in general, seeking to address a variety of areas in which they perceived the program did not align with their students’ needs. When engaged in this aspect of planning, teachers’ thinking seemed to be guided by the question, “What additional resources can help me to better support my students’ learning and engagement with the lesson purpose and focus?” In terms of curricular noticing, teachers explicitly described locating additional resources, which aligns with attending in the curricular noticing framework, and deciding to use the resources as part of their plan, which aligns with deciding how to respond. Though they did not typically discuss interpreting or evaluating these resources, they often articulated an explicit purpose or rationale for seeking or consulting outside resources, and their decision to use the resources suggests that they evaluated them as useful for addressing that purpose. For example, Amy, who felt that her students sometimes lacked disciplinary knowledge needed to comprehend some of the core program texts, described how she consulted “websites to get some more information… [and] just if there's anything online or a picture that will help them understand things better” (SLP1). Her purpose in seeking out additional resources was to help her students to more fully understand the disciplinary concepts in the text, and her selection of particular online and visual resources to use in her lessons suggests that she evaluated them as fulfilling that purpose. Most teachers consulted or selected outside resources when planning with both familiar or unfamiliar programs, with the exception of Anastasia and Cathy, who both evaluated the 133 unfamiliar Wonders lesson as being fairly complete and engaging. Interestingly, both of these teachers had previously worked with Benchmark, which provided shorter lessons and fewer resources. This is one case in which characteristics of the program itself may have shaped the teachers’ planning given that both described regularly supplementing the slimmer Benchmark lessons but neither planned to initially supplement the more comprehensive Wonders lesson with outside resources. Formulating concrete plans. Late in their planning, typically after engaging in all five of these steps, the teachers formulated concrete instructional plans, drawing upon their interpretations of what they had attended to in order to develop plans for their lessons. This aspect of teachers’ planning was, thus, most closely associated with deciding how to respond in the curricular noticing framework. The question that guided teachers’ reasoning during this aspect of planning was, “What instructional activities and materials will I plan to use with my students to address the lesson purpose and focus?” Though the teachers developed plans with differing levels of specificity, all six engaged in this aspect of planning with both familiar and unfamiliar core programs. This is, perhaps, not surprising given that formulating concrete lesson plans is the activity most often associated with instructional planning and is the activity that most tangibly and directly contributes to having a specific plan to enact. At the same time, focusing on this tangible aspect of planning obscures much of the important work of attending and interpreting, and the accompanying reasoning that the teachers engaged in as they prepared to formulate their plans. Importantly, the ways in which they engaged in these earlier planning activities (attending and interpreting) seemed to matter for the plans they developed and articulated, as I will discuss later. All six of the teachers articulated plans that included the following components: learning 134 targets, representations of content, and instructional activities. As they formulated their plans, all six of the teachers decided to use the learning targets and texts provided in both of the core program lessons, suggesting that these core program components may be particularly influential or useful for teachers. The teachers also all decided to make adaptations to the core program lessons, including insertions, modifications, omissions, and re-sequencings. Beyond those general commonalities, the specifics of their articulated plans and adaptations varied widely from teacher to teacher, as I discuss briefly below and more extensively in the next chapter. Preparing materials. Finally, after deciding upon their plans, teachers described spending time preparing materials. This planning activity was the last activity all six of the teachers described engaging in and it involved such actions as making copies of handouts, cueing up websites, drawing out graphic organizers on chart paper or a white board, and locating and testing out resources and materials provided with the core program (such as online videos or audio recordings of the text) or provided by the district for use with the core program (such as interactive white board slides). For example, this was the stage in which Kierra described herself checking over the district’s Reading Street Smartboard slides to make sure they were working, and in which Cathy described herself pretending to teach so as to ensure that she would be ready to use core program materials and technology fluidly during instruction. The question guiding teachers’ work in this stage of planning was, “What do I need to have ready in order to engage my students in the instructional activities I have planned?” Though the teachers did not often engage in this step as part of their planning within the context of the study, they did describe it as an important aspect of preparing for lessons they would actually teach. When describing this planning activity, teachers focused on describing observable actions they took in order to prepare. Because this preparation was an extension of their work in developing concrete plans, 135 which they engaged in as a result of attending and interpreting, I associated this planning activity with deciding how to respond. All six teachers described engaging in this step when planning with an unfamiliar program, but only four explicitly described doing this when planning with their familiar core program. Julie and Karina did not explicitly mention preparing materials when planning with Reading Street, though they did describe plans to use materials such as graphic organizers, photocopies of the text, or supplemental programs that seemed to require preparation. For this reason, I inferred that they would likely prepare materials if they were to teach the planned lessons to their students. On the whole, these six experienced teachers with their differing orientations, experiences, and contexts engaged in nearly all of the seven core planning activities when planning with both familiar and unfamiliar core programs, which themselves exhibited different characteristics. In addition, the knowledgeable and experienced teachers in this study used these core planning activities to design instructional plans that exhibited many characteristics of high- quality, responsive instruction and often improved upon the core program lessons, these core planning activities may help teachers. This finding suggests that the seven core planning activities may be useful aspects of planning that help teachers make sense of and design high- quality, responsive comprehension instruction with core programs. Similarities Across Core Programs In addition to these commonalities across teachers, each of the teachers engaged in a fairly similar sequence of planning activities across programs, engaging in many of the same steps and thinking through many of the same kinds of questions regardless of which set of materials they were using. The similarities in teachers’ use of the core planning activities across programs, described above, provide some evidence of this. Table 10 below further illustrates this 136 finding, summarizing the planning processes Amy and Cathy engaged in with both programs, illustrating the overall similarity and the comparatively minor differences in their planning across programs. Each step of their planning is numbered sequentially in the table. Steps teachers engaged in when planning with both programs are written in regular font, and steps they engaged in differently based on the program’s familiarity are written in italics with the word familiar or unfamiliar in parentheses at the end of the step to indicate the program with which they engaged in this step of planning. As Table 10 shows, though there were small differences in how each teacher planned with the two programs, the overall process remained quite similar across programs for each teacher. I selected data from Amy and Cathy to display and discuss here because the similarities in their planning across programs were representative of the similarities in planning that other teachers exhibited and because they articulated their planning processes more clearly and completely than some of the other teachers. Table 24 in Appendix B shows the planning processes for all six teachers. The finding that each teacher engaged in planning similarly across programs suggests that teachers use routines to guide their planning and that planning may be a fairly stable practice for experienced teachers. The most common differences in how the teachers planned with familiar and unfamiliar materials related to their attending to or reading of the materials. Teachers planning with unfamiliar materials tended to read more of the program components. For example, Amy, Julie, Karina, and Kierra all read the text and instructional suggestions when planning with Wonders, though they did not all read both of these when planning with Reading Street. In addition, they tended to read in greater detail. As Amy reflected while comparing her planning across programs, “I think it was pretty much exactly the same… There might be a few parts I would look at and say, ‘Where is this?’ just because I know Reading Street and I might not be used to 137 using [Wonders]” (SLP2). Similarly, Julie explained the differences in her planning across programs saying, “Because I’ve taught Reading Street before, I know the sequence of strategies, and I don't know that here. [Wonders] took a little bit longer mostly because I needed to familiarize myself with the lesson” (SLP2). Lacking some of the knowledge they felt they Table 10 Planning Processes: Amy and Cathy Amy Cathy 1- Read weekly overview and essential question to make sense of learning targets for the week 2- Eyeball the lesson, text, and pictures from student perspective (unfamiliar) 3- Read the suggestions for instruction, reading some details (unfamiliar: read instructional suggestions in conjunction with text) 4- Look at notes from last year (familiar) 5- Evaluate the topic, text, and instructional suggestions in light of knowledge of students 6- Decide how to present the story and whether/how to build background, how to read each part, which suggestions for instruction to use and how, following her routine. Make notes directly in TE. 7- Look through “accessories” 8- Identify outside resources to use 9- Make sure any graphic organizers or extra resources are ready 1- Get a sense of the unit as a whole, considering what it addresses, its duration, how it might connect with other units, lessons, and content areas (familiar) 2- Look at lesson purpose and content 3- Consider how the lesson connects with and builds upon previous lessons (familiar: “Yes, I remember this.” unfamiliar: “What were students exposed to? What was expected of them? How was that going to help them with lesson three?”) 4- Read through the student text, noting how it addressed learning targets for the week 5- Consider what aspects of the text might be challenging for students (vocabulary, text structure or features, concepts) 6- Read through the teacher points in detail, connecting them to the text (including the script and suggestions for Accessing Complex Text and for ELLs) 7- Think about how instructional suggestions might support particular students 8- Consider when the lesson will take place during the day, how much time she has or wants to spend 9- Determine specific plans, thinking through how to engage students at the beginning of the lesson and planning out the lesson sequence in detail. Plans include anticipated student responses. (familiar: consider whether to make any adaptations based on students or previous experiences with the lesson) 10- Determine whether to use any supplementary resources or connect to other content areas (familiar) 11- Prepare lesson materials. (unfamiliar: rehearse the lesson sequence and use of materials and technology) needed to plan with the unfamiliar core program, teachers took time to locate core program components, to read more of the core program materials, and to read them more thoroughly as they sought to develop a more complete picture of the curriculum sequence and the lesson itself. 138 Cathy also described investing time into rehearsing the lesson sequence and her use of materials and technology with an unfamiliar program in order to ensure that the lesson would flow smoothly. Planning with unfamiliar materials took longer due to these additional steps. In contrast, when planning with a familiar core program, teachers relied upon their existing knowledge of the particular curriculum, thus reading less and sometimes reading in less detail. When initially attending to the materials, teachers described looking over the materials more generally to refresh their memories and thinking such things as, “Oh yeah, that’s what we’re doing,” (Anastasia, GI) or, “Yes, I remember this” (Cathy, GI). In addition to reading the core programs on a more general level, Amy and Anastasia explicitly described taking steps to review and reflect upon their past experiences with the program by reviewing notes from last year or discussing with colleagues what they had done or what had worked well in the past before formulating specific plans. Cathy described reflecting upon previous experiences with the program while formulating her plans in order to inform decisions about whether and how to make adaptations in light of things that hadn’t worked well in the past, connect with other content areas, or include any supplementary materials or resources. In this way, the teachers expressed ways in which they drew upon past experiences with their familiar program when formulating their plans. Interestingly, some of the teachers who had previously used Reading Street also found their knowledge of that core program helpful when planning with Wonders, since they perceived the programs to be very similar. As Kierra shared, “They have that same essential question as Reading Street does, and it seems fairly similar as far as even the themes and stuff like that” (SLP2). Karina reflected that her knowledge of Reading Street had helped her make sense of Wonders because “it could have been written by the same people as Reading Street exactly” 139 (SLP1), and Amy shared that she found the similarity in features and layout helpful in making sense of Wonders, since both programs provided a weekly overview and had the student text in the middle of the page and instructional suggestions on the outer margins (SLP2). Anastasia and Cathy, who were familiar with Benchmark, the more different program, did not express ways in which their knowledge of Benchmark helped them make sense of and plan for instruction with Wonders. This suggests that teachers develop knowledge or schema about core programs through their experiences with them which can help them when planning with other programs that are designed similarly. This finding also speaks to the importance of teachers’ experiences with core programs in shaping how they use them and to the possibility that teachers’ curriculum use may follow a trajectory, evolving with experience over time. Teachers also exhibited some differences in their overall planning steps across programs that related to their evaluation of the quality and completeness of the specific program or lesson as it was written, but these differences were infrequent across the dataset as a whole. The differences I identified included differences in whether they consulted or selected outside resources and spent time preparing materials. I have already discussed how Anastasia and Cathy did not consult or plan to use outside resources when planning with Wonders though they did with Benchmark because they perceived Wonders to be “more in depth” and “much more comprehensive” than Benchmark (Cathy, SLP1). In contrast, Julie and Karina shared that they did engage in extra steps to prepare materials when planning with Wonders, but not with Benchmark, because of their negative evaluation of what Wonders provided. Julie shared that she was “not really pleased with” the graphic organizer Wonders provided, so she “played around with a couple of different things” and finally “settled on this particular one.” After developing the organizer, she had to prepare copies of it for her students to use during the lesson, 140 a step she would not have had to do had she used the graphic organizer Wonders provided. Similarly, Karina shared that she would have a graphic organizer “already prepared on the Smartboard or on the whiteboard” because she felt that if she had students fill out their own, they would be more focused on the mechanics of writing than on using the graphic organizer to support their comprehension. Teachers’ interpretations of the programs as more or less complete or adequate, thus, also contributed to their overall planning activities. Though teachers did share other ways in which their perceptions of the different programs influenced their reasoning and instructional decisions, the instances described here were the only cases in which such differences shaped teachers’ planning activities. I will discuss these differences later, when discussing differences in teachers’ curricular noticing based on their orientations. In sum, each teacher exhibited fairly consistent planning processes when planning with the two different core programs in this study. This finding demonstrates that teachers’ planning with core programs was guided by routines, confirming Yinger’s (1980) finding that teachers used executive planning routines to guide the process of their planning. In addition, Leinhardt and Greeno’s (1986) finding that teachers often routinize their practices as a way of managing the complexity of teaching suggests that teachers may have used routines when planning with core programs as a way of coping with the complexity of this work. The differences I identified seemed to relate more to teachers’ degree of familiarity with a program than to characteristics inherent to the program itself. This finding complements and extends findings from research on teachers’ curriculum strategies in mathematics (Drake & Sherin, 2009; Sherin & Drake, 2009), which suggested that elementary teachers employ consistent curriculum strategies across any given school year, but that their approach changes from year to year as they become more familiar with a program. This study echoes these 141 findings, suggesting that elementary teachers also employ consistent curriculum strategies in literacy, even when working with different core programs, and that teachers’ approach to planning with core programs may be guided more by teachers’ orientations and experience than by particular characteristics of a program. This study also suggests curriculum use may follow a trajectory, evolving over time as teachers gain experience with and knowledge of a program. Differences in Planning Processes and Curricular Noticing Having discussed similarities across teachers and across programs, I now turn to a discussion of differences in teachers’ planning processes and curricular noticing that related to their differing orientations to core programs. I begin by discussing the influential role of teachers’ views of teaching and then move on to discuss examples of three teachers’ curricular noticing that demonstrate the ways in which interactions among teachers’ differing beliefs mediated their curricular noticing. How Views of Teaching Shaped Planning I found that teachers engaged in planning differently based on their overall views of teaching, and this was the aspect of teachers’ orientations to core programs that seemed to contribute most to their planning processes, including their curricular noticing. More specifically, teachers’ views of teaching shaped the degree of detail with which they read the core programs, the extent to which their curricular noticing was more student- or teacher- focused, the degree of detail in their articulated plans, the extent to which they viewed their plans as flexible, and their approach to responsive adaptation during instruction. The influential role of teachers’ views of teaching, which shaped what they attended to, how they interpreted the core programs, and how they decided to respond, speaks to the ways in which teachers’ beliefs guided all aspects of their curricular noticing and, more than that, their planning processes as a whole. Table 11 142 summarizes the planning approaches that correspond with each of the three views of teaching. Planning for teaching as conversation. Amy, Karina, and Kierra, who conceptualized teaching as a conversation, approached planning as a process of creating general and flexible plans to guide their authentic and sometimes unpredictable classroom interactions. In terms of their curricular noticing, they read the core programs on a general level, and they interpreted the core program materials and articulated instructional decisions with a focus on students more than on themselves as teachers. Teachers in this group articulated general, adaptable, and somewhat uncertain plans. Table 11 Planning Approaches for Each View of Teaching Aspects of Planning Reading of core program materials Primary focus of curricular noticing Detail of plans Degree of flexibility Teaching as Conversation general overview Teaching as Performance detailed Teaching as Personal Training general overview students teacher students general highly flexible detailed somewhat flexible Approach to responsive adaptation adapt plans organically on the fly during whole- group instruction envision and prepare for specific possibilities and moments of adaptation during whole-group instruction general somewhat flexible adapt during follow-up instruction with individual students and small groups As they began the process of preparing those general plans, these three teachers described themselves as reading the core program at a general level. As shown in Table 25 in Appendix B, which displays the core program components each teacher attended to during planning, they attended to many of the components. At the same time, evidence from their descriptions of planning and from the plans themselves indicated that they typically read only briefly, often at a surface level. Amy, for example, described her reading of the core program saying, “I definitely look at all of it when I’m planning” (SLP2). In “looking at all of it,” however, she described 143 herself as “eyeballing” the lesson and text students would read, and she commented that she “didn’t really look at [some parts] too much,” (SLP2) and would quickly “double check” components such as the learning targets in her familiar program (SLP1). These terms speak to a general or superficial level of reading. Kierra and Karina used similar language in describing their planning. This approach of reading the core program on a general level was consistent with their views of core programs as general guides or outlines, and it seemed to support the teachers in getting the gist of the core program lesson before teaching, which was sufficient to inform their more general plans. However, this raises questions about whether this general approach to reading during planning allowed teachers to analyze the text sufficiently to identify potential areas of difficulty and plan appropriate scaffolding for their particular students, an aspect of planning that some scholars have contended is important for supporting students’ comprehension (e.g., Kucan, Hapgood, & Palincsar, 2011). Teachers in this group also interpreted the core program with a focus on students more than on themselves as teachers, and the majority of their interpretive comments focused on how engaging and accessible they thought the lesson would be for their students. As Kierra shared, “To me, my planning is more about where are my kids at? What are my kids’ interests? How can I connect them and make them interested?” (GI) Amy demonstrated a similar focus on students by taking time early in her planning, before looking at the suggestions for instruction or reading the text more thoroughly, to look through the text from a student perspective, thinking, “If I’m a kid, what am I feeling as I’m looking through this?” (SLP2) In addition, she regularly commented on the extent to which she perceived that the text and instruction would be engaging and accessible for her students, making statements such as, “What is the content of the story? How accessible is it to kids?” (SLP2). These quotes are representative of the student-focused 144 interpretations all three teachers in this group made during planning. Importantly, this approach of interpreting primarily from a student perspective was consistent with the teachers’ goal of engaging students in conversation around the text and giving them space to share their ideas and contributions because text-based conversation requires access to and interactive engagement with the text. Teachers in this group were less concerned with their own understanding of the text, lesson concepts, or instructional suggestions and activities, or with thinking through the details of how they might enact the lesson than they were with considering the extent to which the text and lesson were accessible and engaging to students. When formulating their plans, Amy, Karina, and Kierra created general plans that seemed to function as an outline or structure for their lessons. Kierra, for example, talked about her lesson plan as “a general guide” (SLP1), and her plans primarily addressed the overall structure of her lessons without providing specific details such as the questions she would ask, the specific vocabulary or text features she would provide instruction on, or her instructional explanations. Teachers in this group described their plans saying things such as, “go through using these sort of things (pointing to recommendations in margin of TE on page with map of earth's plates)” (Karina, SLP1), and, “overall, I would just kind of go through these” (Kierra, SLP2). Figure 3 shows excerpts of the teachers’ plans, designed with the Wonders program, that exemplify some of these characteristics. General descriptions of the kind shown in this table characterized the lesson plans that Kierra, Karina, and Amy described in the study. Amy provided more detail than the other two teachers in this group, but her plans were still less specified and included more of the general kinds of statements shown in Figure 3 than teachers who viewed teaching as performance. Kierra spoke explicitly about her difficulty in articulating her plans, saying, “I didn't realize how hard it would be to just talk about how I do it. It's different to come in and just 145 Specific lesson introductions demonstrating attention to engaging students in conversation and building background Amy- 4th Do our picture walk and notice. Have them raise their hand, "Tell me something you want to share that you noticed." I call on about five or six kids very briefly to get them just excited about the reading. Address the essential question. Talk about what is a natural disaster and about how people respond. Get them talking with partners. Talk about the genre before reading. "Now, this is expository or informational. What does that mean?" Read about half of the text this first day. Read the text together, taking it slow the first read, reading each page spread and then going back to the questions in the margin of the Teacher’s Edition (TE). Have students look back and reread some parts again as needed to answer questions. Address questions related to the genre. Discuss the text features and photos during reading. Pick and choose from the Think Alouds. Karina- 4th Go over the question for the week, the concept of natural disasters. Connect back to the Day 2 reading, “A World of Change”, then open it up for discussion based on text- to-text connections. Invite students to share their questions and thoughts. Limit discussion time and horrific disasters discussion. Ask what is expository text? What are the features of expository text and the graphic sources that can help you understand what you're reading? Move on to read the passage. Depending on how the class is that day, split them into small groups to read aloud to each other or do it as a class. If needed, use the suggestions in the TE for the on-level group. Go through using these sort of things (pointing to recommendations in margin of TE on page with map of earth's plates), maybe get up and do this sort of thing (pointing to graphic organizer on that page) on the whiteboard. Kierra- 3rd Show some visuals that would help with a whooping crane. Set the essential question and discuss. Create an anchor chart on author’s point of view that includes an explanation. Add an example from something students have already read to make it visible for them. “Remember, we’re always reading detectives, and we always have a purpose for reading, just like an author has a purpose for writing.” Go through some of what is provided here for the first read. The words that I use might be a little bit different. I would never read this word for word unless I was totally lost. Support comprehension through asking some of the questions in the teacher’s edition, focusing on author’s purpose, monitoring and clarifying, and learning the information. Quickly point out the captions and other text features, which I hope is something they’ve already been taught. General lesson descriptions Language conveying flexibility or uncertainty Figure 3. Excerpts from Amy’s, Karina’s, and Kierra’s lesson plans designed with Wonders 146 watch it happen than try to go back and actually think about what I do.” This quote captures her difficulty in articulating plans with greater specificity and connects it to her conversational view of instruction as something that happened organically. Interestingly, in spite of the lack of detail in their plans, the overall framework of conversational teachers’ instructional plans remained largely the same across programs, suggesting that they drew upon instructional routines or lesson schema when planning. Though they articulated the majority of their plans on a general level, the teachers in this group did provide some detail about particular aspects of their plans, addressing ways to make the texts and lessons more accessible and engaging for students and specifying some introductory components of their lessons. For example, as shown in Figure 3, Kierra and Amy both planned the specific resources they would use to build background and engage students in conversation around the question of the week at the beginning of their lessons, and Karina planned the specific questions she would ask before reading to guide students into conversations about the text’s genre and text-to-text connections. In addition, Amy explained that she decided to divide the reading of the texts in Reading Street and Wonders across multiple days because the text was complex, and she felt that if she “were to blow through that all in one day, the kids would lose it” (SLP1). Similarly, Karina explained that she had decided to omit a question from the Wonders lesson addressing why people should take warnings about tsunamis seriously, saying “[because of] the fear factor that they have, I wouldn't want them to dwell or ponder why is that important” (SLP1). Not surprisingly, these more specified lesson plan components demonstrate a primary focus on student access and engagement when deciding how to respond, which was rooted in the teachers’ student-focused interpretations of the core program lessons. Specifying these particular lesson plan components—how they would initiate the lesson and how 147 they would ensure student access and engagement—seemed important to getting the lesson conversation started and supporting student contributions. In addition to preparing general plans, all three teachers in this group expressed that their plans were flexible, adaptable, and somewhat uncertain. Kierra, for example, shared that even if she planned “a perfect lesson,” she would never enact it as planned. In her words, “Even if I have it right in front of me, I still change this every time, every day, every way. It just is whatever flows” (SLP1). Valuing authentic interaction and instruction that flowed organically, she explained that a lot of what she did in her classroom was not planned in advance but instead unfolded improvisationally in interaction with students. Teachers in this group also sometimes articulated their plans using flexible and uncertain language and stated that they would make additional decisions “on the fly” and “in the moment” as they monitored and responded to their students’ learning and engagement during their conversation-like interactions. All three teachers who viewed teaching as conversation, thus, read the core program on a general level, focused primarily on students when interpreting and deciding how to respond, and articulated general, flexible, and somewhat uncertain plans. Their general reading seemed to set the stage for general planning, their general plans were flexible and easily adaptable, and their student focus seemed to support teachers in being prepared to engage their students in text-based conversations. In this way, the different aspects of their approach to planning seem to be interconnected and to have their roots in the teachers’ conversational views of instruction. Planning for teaching as performance. Cathy and Julie, whose planning was guided by their conception of teaching as an interactive performance, approached planning as a process of choreographing their actions and words to prepare for a smooth enactment. As shown in Table 11, this approach to planning involved reading the core program in detail, planning with a 148 primary focus on themselves as teachers while also giving significant attention to envisioning possible student responses, developing detailed plans, and making specific plans to adapt the lesson responsively at particular moments. When preparing for their interactive teaching performance, Cathy and Julie both read the core program in detail. As shown in Table 25 in Appendix B, Cathy read 30 core program components and Julie read 31 during planning. More importantly, they engaged in close reading of these components, an approach that contrasted with the more superficial reading of teachers guided by a purely conversational view of teaching. Julie described herself as reading to “familiarize” herself with the lesson. As she did this, she attended to 31 core program components, more than any other teacher in the study. Though her descriptions of her planning were brief and lacked specificity, her many interpretive and evaluative comments about the core program lessons provided evidence that she had read the lessons in detail. For example, when she critiqued several of the specific tasks, questions, and graphic organizers the core program provided as being confusing for students, she articulated the specific language from the core program in her critique (SLP2). In this way, her interpretations of the core programs speak to a close reading. Cathy took an even more thorough and detailed approach when reading the core program lessons, accessing both general components of the core program, such as the overall scope and sequence, the unit, and the week of instruction, and detailed components such as the scripted language, suggestions for differentiated support, and suggested student answers, all of which few to no other teachers attended to during planning. The degree of detail with which she read these and many other program components was evident in her planning descriptions. For example, she explained that early in her planning process she typically read the student text to “see what 149 students would be exposed to” and that she then went back through the teacher points, reading them closely at the level of the script and identifying how they connected to the student text (SLP1). As she read, she “underlined or circled every time students were asked to reread” since that was the targeted comprehension strategy, and she also looked at all the questions and answers printed in the book (SLP1). In this way, both teachers provided evidence of reading and attending closely to the details of the core program lesson as they planned, down to the level of the script. In addition to this detailed reading, Julie and Cathy both planned with a primary focus on themselves as teachers. Their attending, interpreting, and deciding how to respond all showed significant attention to their own understanding and evaluation of the lesson’s structure and flow, representations of content, instructional activities, and suggestions for differentiation, as well as what they would need to know and do in order to be ready to teach. Cathy, for example, desired to understand how the lessons in a unit fit together, and how the unit fit within the curriculum as a whole, which drove her to access the scope and sequence, the overall unit, and the week of instruction as the very first step of her planning. When interpreting the core program, she also shared that she found the teacher think-alouds helpful in guiding her thinking so she would “know what to say,” and she spent time carefully connecting each instructional suggestion to the corresponding part of the text so she could “keep the lesson fluid” when teaching (SLP1). Julie showed a similar concern with making sense of what the core program lessons expected of her as a teacher, but her less trusting view of the programs led her to focus more on evaluating and critiquing the core program based on her knowledge and beliefs about teaching and learning. As a result, she spent time during her planning consulting Strategies That Work (Harvey & Goudvis, 2007) in order to “activate [her] deep knowledge” of comprehension strategies, using the 150 Specific statements of what they as teachers will do and say during the lesson. Cathy Start with the essential question, “How do people respond to natural disasters?” Make that the "I can" statement. Students should have some of the knowledge from the other two lessons on avalanches, and volcanoes, and landslides, which should pique their interest. Then I would say, “Because this is going to be some new information, and important information, oftentimes we're going to have to reread to make sure that we're understanding the vocabulary and the information.” The Teacher’s Edition refers to a graphic organizer. Have that up on the white board. Refer to the map in the book, but also look at a larger map that we have within the classroom. Also, possibly, the globe. Have students trace the edges of the earth’s plates or where earthquakes have taken place on the map. Here, we have this firsthand account. My thought was students would say, “This is authentic information because we have someone that's experienced this and is writing this as a scientist.” Then, one of the questions is, “Why did the author give this account?” So, it's lending purpose to why this is inserted in here. Talk with students about how, when that happens, you have to shift gears. It's like kind of teaching them the purpose and then what to do mentally to accommodate that information, teaching them how I’m a reader. Share with students, "Sometimes I simply read the information. Then, I might go back and read those extra things, just like before I read I would go through and look at my headings and my photographs and my captions." Julie “Readers, today we're going to revisit a strategy we already know with our new story, ‘Whooping Cranes in Danger.’ We will also learn what it means to take notes and summarize the text, and we will write a summary after reading this text together. So let's begin, and first let's look at the title, 'Whooping Cranes in Danger.' What do you believe the author wants to tell us just by reading this title?” and solicit student responses. Hopefully that will be, “They’re in danger or in the trouble,” or something along those lines. And then, “So do you feel like the author wants to inform us about whooping cranes, entertain us about whooping cranes, or make us understand their opinion about whooping cranes?” (solicit answers) “OK, let's keep that in our minds as we read. However, before you read I want to tell a bit more about summarizing. When readers summarize what they've read, they pull out the most important information and put it in their own words to remember it, and then they're able to explain what the text is about.” (Pass out graphic organizer, project teacher graphic organizer.) Go over each of the four boxes and explain that we’ll be taking notes. If they're getting it, then I'm releasing them to continue reading the text with their partner and filling in their organizer. If they're not, I might have to back up and say, “Let's read this page all together.” So we get to the end of the text and share out what our new learning was, and then from there, knowing my audience, I would be done for the day. Planning specific points to monitor students and adjust instruction Anticipated student responses Figure 4. Excerpts from Cathy’s and Julie’s lesson plans designed with Wonders 151 representations of content in that professional text to evaluate the core program lesson. She also read the suggestions for differentiation to see if they would help her support dual language learners in her class, though she ultimately found them to be unhelpful and developed her own plan to support these students. Both teachers focused on their own understanding of the content and procedures, seeking to understand what they would need to know and do and critiquing the core program based on their knowledge as they read and interpreted the core program. Their teacher-focused interpretations led to teacher-focused instructional decisions. As a result, Julie’s and Cathy’s detailed instructional plans also demonstrated significant attention to what they as teachers would need to do during the lesson. They carefully thought through and planned out instructional explanations, questions to ask, and actions in a way that paralleled preparing for a stage performance. As a result, their plans included specific language they would use to explain concepts to students, the specific wording of questions they planned to ask, and their ideas about how students might respond. Figure 4 shows excerpts of Cathy’s and Julie’s lesson plans, designed with Wonders, that demonstrate the specificity with which they articulated their plans as well as the focus on their role as teachers in the lesson. Both teachers also explicitly articulated a focus on themselves when talking about their planning process. Julie, for example, described her planning with Reading Street and Strategies That Work (Harvey & Goudvis, 2007) as guided by questions about “what I need to do” and “how I’m going to make this work” (SLP1). Cathy described how, in addition to thinking through the words she would say during instruction, she would also take time to plan out her actions and use of materials, thinking through which teacher and student pages she would be looking at and when they would be using the graphic organizer, “almost choreographing each lesson” (SLP1). She explained that before teaching a lesson with Wonders, she felt that she would need to go into her classroom to 152 “pretend to teach” to ensure that instruction flowed smoothly (SLP1). In this way, both teachers planned in detail with a significant focus on themselves as teachers. Additionally, recognizing the interactive nature of teaching, Julie and Cathy sought to envision and prepare for various possibilities of how their lessons might unfold. One way they did this was by envisioning and preparing for specific ways their students might respond during instruction. The lesson plans in Figure 4 show specific comments the teachers anticipated receiving from students as well as how they imagined themselves responding. In addition to these examples, Cathy shared that she used the core program suggestions for differentiation to help her anticipate and be prepared to respond to student difficulties. This was another way in which she trusted core programs and used them to support her own learning as well as her teaching. Together, these examples demonstrate that one way in which Julie and Cathy showed attention to students and planned for responsive adaptation of their instruction in their very specific plans was to envision and prepare for possible student responses. A second way in which they did this involved planning specific points in the lesson to monitor students and adjust their instruction in one of several planned ways. This approach resembles the responsive scaffolding that characterizes a gradual release of responsibility in comprehension instruction. Figure 4 shows examples of how both Julie and Cathy did this. On the whole, their approach to planning for responsive adaptation by anticipating and preparing for student responses and by planning to monitor and adapt instruction at particular moments differed from the improvisational approach of conversational teachers who did not show evidence of thinking through specific possibilities but instead created general plans that left room for them to respond to students authentically in the moment. Both groups of teachers planned for responsive adaptation, but in different ways. I will return to this comparison in the 153 section on how the teachers’ instructional plans demonstrated responsiveness. The approach Julie and Cathy took to planning for responsive adaptation demonstrates that their plans were adaptable at particular moments, even as they were also highly specified. Though these teachers planned to follow their developed plans closely, the plans were not in themselves rigid, and they included possibilities for adaptation and responsiveness. This was less true for Cathy when planning with an unfamiliar core program because she wanted to follow the program closely, with fidelity, her first year of implementation in order to learn from it and see what it could do. She did still plan to monitor her students and adjust her instruction at a few points, such as when she shared that she might omit the author page “depending on time and interest,” and she used the program to help her anticipate student responses, but her plans overall included fewer instances of planned-for adaptation when she designed them with an unfamiliar program. Though she lamented that this might result in her instruction being more “stilted” and less conversational, and that it would be difficult for her to monitor and respond to her students that first year, her desire to learn from the program by piloting it led her to maintain this approach. On the whole, then, Julie and Cathy saw their plans as at least somewhat adaptable, though not as flexible as the conversational teachers. Planning for teaching as personal training. Anastasia, who viewed teaching as personal training, approached planning as selecting reading tasks for her students and determining appropriate levels of support and challenge. In taking this approach, Anastasia read the core program and articulated her plans in less detail than any of the other teachers, focusing her attention during planning primarily on her students. She also planned collaboratively, relying on her colleagues as a source of texts and tasks she could use to supplement the core program. It was unclear to what extent she viewed her plans as flexible, though she did plan to make 154 adaptations during instruction through following her whole-group instruction with more targeted small-group instruction. While planning for instruction, Anastasia described reading the core program materials at a more general level than any of the other teachers. As shown in Table 25 in Appendix B, she described attending to only 22 components of the core programs during her planning. In describing her planning, she talked about reading the core program to get “the layout of the land” (GI), and she said that she “looked at what the objectives were and then read through everything” (SLP2). This language, combined with the number of overall components she referenced, suggests that she read the core program lessons on a general overview level. Anastasia also articulated her plans with a low level of detail. Figure 5 shows excerpts of the plan she designed with Benchmark, which demonstrates the general, undetailed descriptions and language she used in her plans. For example, she said she would “talk through all the things that we’re working on” with the students as a whole class and that she would then send “them back to their seats to do something with this perhaps on their own” (SLP2). When planning with Wonders, she identified specific components of the core program lesson she would use or words and concepts she would address, but she provided little to no detail about what she would do during the lesson to engage students in interacting with the content. Instead, her lesson plans resembled a to-do list of elements from the core program lesson to address during instruction. Neither of her lesson plans clearly described the modeling or instruction she planned to provide or the tasks she would give students, though they did sometimes include a few of the questions she might ask. This approach of reading and planning with little detail may relate to the fact that Anastasia planned to closely follow the core program and have it available to consult when 155 General lesson description Anastasia Go through it all, doing the minilesson together as a group. Start by reading through the poster together and talking through all of the things that we’re working on, talking about the fact and opinion and fix-up monitoring. Talk through identifying the facts and opinions from the text and write them down. Draw sticks to call on students. Intentionally draw sticks of certain students to make sure they are engaged and understanding. Have students go back to their seats to do something with this on their own. Pair extremely low students with a higher student so they have someone who can support them as they start writing their fact and opinion down from what we read. Have students highlight fact/opinion words in the passage. Make a poster of fact and opinion words to leave up as a reference. See if they are able to come up with fact versus opinion when they go back to their seats. In small groups, are they able to understand whatever story it is that they’re taking a look at, and are they able to pull out fact versus opinion and reread to fix-up and understand what they might have misunderstood? Following up individually and in small groups Figure 5. Excerpts from Anastasia’s lesson plans designed with Benchmark enacting the lessons. She expressed that “a lot of times I do it literally as prescribed… Starting out with the poster and doing the entire lesson kind of as written” (SLP1). Perhaps as a result of this, the descriptions she did provide of her instructional plans pointed back to the core program materials themselves. For example, she started her Benchmark lesson description by saying she would bring her students to the carpet and then “do the minilesson together as a group” (SLP2). Her use of the word minilesson echoes the term Benchmark used to describe whole-group comprehension instruction, suggesting that she planned to do the Benchmark lesson. Similarly, 156 in her Wonders lesson plan she referenced lesson components like “Stop & Check,” which was one of the headings in the instructional suggestions for teachers. Her general reading and undetailed plans may, thus, have been sufficient to direct her to the core program components she planned to use to guide her instruction while teaching. Her very general descriptions of her plans for whole-group comprehension instruction may also be further explained in relation to her view of teaching as personal training, which emphasized individualized instruction, tasks, and support more than whole-group instruction and practice. For Anastasia, it was that time of providing more targeted texts, tasks, and instruction that was most important. She did see the whole-group instruction time as a purposeful time to model her own use of skills and strategies during reading, but she seemed to value this because of the way in which it supported students in their work. As she explained in her final interview, “I think that it’s good for the kids to hear [me modeling and thinking aloud], and then I think that a lot of them are able to take that on and do it, whether they’re in a small group with me or just doing it in their heads” (SLP2). In both lesson plans, she, thus, emphasized following up with small groups and individual students to continue working on the targeted lesson content. Figure 5 includes an example of this from her Benchmark lesson. One unique characteristic of Anastasia’s planning in comparison with the other teachers in this study was that she typically planned collaboratively with her colleagues, working with them to read over the lessons, remind themselves of what had worked well the previous year, and share supplemental resources. This final task of sharing supplemental resources seemed important and complementary to Anastasia’s view of teaching as personal training because core programs did not always provide sufficient and adequate texts and tasks for the range of learners in her class. Working with her colleagues, she had access to more resources that she could use to 157 “support our lower students that maybe need additional opportunities… or maybe someone had found a perfect text that would work for a certain level of student” (SLP2). Collaborating with her colleagues, thus, gave her access to a broader range of texts and tasks so she could give her students just the right amount of challenge to strengthen their proficiency as readers. Anastasia’s emphasis during collaboration on finding texts and tasks that would support particular levels or groups of students was consistent with her overall focus on students during her planning. Her descriptions of planning show only superficial attention to making sense of or evaluating what the program recommended for her to do as a teacher to provide instruction or model the content, and her decisions about how to respond included little information about what she would do and say. This contrasts sharply with Cathy’s and Julie’s detailed and teacher- focused plans and planning approach. Conversely, Anastasia’s curricular noticing seemed almost entirely focused on students. For example, she evaluated core program texts in relation to how relatable they would be for students given their life experiences or how accessible the vocabulary would be. In discussing her Wonders lesson plan, she shared, “Some of the vocabulary might be challenging for them, like the word marsh that is not pre-taught or highlighted. There are some words there I would want to teach” (SLP1). This quote demonstrates both Anastasia’s student- focused interpretations and her general descriptions of how she would respond. The majority of her comments about planning were similar to these and involved identifying how well she thought the core program resources would support her students and stating that she would provide support where she perceived the program was insufficient. This approach is consistent with her view of teaching as personal training. The lack of specificity in Anastasia’s articulated plans and the general ways in which she spoke of her planning process and instruction more generally made it difficult to determine the 158 extent to which she saw her plans as flexible. She did state that she typically followed the core program closely, and she seemed to intend to follow her plans closely during whole-group instruction like Julie and Cathy. Different from them, however, she did not articulate plans to monitor students and adapt her instruction responsively to them during whole-group instruction. Instead she planned to provide responsive support for their learning by following up with students later in smaller groups or individually. This was the only way she explicitly described planning to make adaptations during instruction or to implement her instruction with flexibility. On the whole, then, the six teachers engaged in their planning differently based on their views of teaching. Teachers emphasizing views of teaching as conversation, including Amy, Karina, and Kierra, attended to the core program materials on a more general or surface level, focused on students during planning, and articulated less detailed and more flexible lesson plans that left room for adaptation on the fly. Teachers emphasizing a view of teaching as performance, including Cathy and Julie, attended to the core program materials in greater detail, focused on themselves as teachers during planning, and articulated more detailed lesson plans that included anticipated student responses and preparation for various specific possibilities. They planned for particular moments of adaptation and planned to follow their well-specified but adaptable plans during instruction. Finally, Anastasia, who viewed teaching as personal training, read core program materials and planned for instruction on a general level, focusing on students during the majority of her planning and intending to adhere to her plans during whole-group instruction and adapt instruction responsively to students later during individualized and small- group follow-up instruction. In these ways, teachers with different views of teaching engaged differently in curricular noticing during planning. In addition, all teachers showed consideration of their particular students in their interpretations and decisions about how to respond, though 159 they took different approaches to planning for responsive instruction. Noticing Core Programs Through the Lens of Their Beliefs Having described the influential role of teachers’ views of teaching in shaping their planning and curricular noticing, I now move on to focus on teachers’ curricular noticing, describing how Amy, Cathy, and Julie engaged in the three noticing activities through the lens of the beliefs that comprised their orientations to core programs in reading comprehension. I use my discussion of this finding to provide connected examples of the teachers’ attending, interpreting, and deciding how to respond that also illustrate the ways in which the interactions among teachers’ beliefs shaped their curricular noticing. Amy typically attended to the core program at a general overview level characteristic of her conversational view of teaching as reflected by the comment that she acquainted herself with “the text very briefly” (see Table 12). At the same time, as shown in Table 12, she demonstrated more focused attention to particular core program components that aligned with her instructional priorities. In particular, she took time to read all of the discussion questions and to attend to instructional recommendations that addressed text structures and genres. Her attending was, thus, guided by her instructional priorities in these areas. In terms of interpreting, she described taking time to evaluate the core program lessons’ texts, discussion questions, instructional suggestions, in light of her view of students as often uninterested and unequipped and her related instructional priorities of engagement, discussion, and building background and text structure/genre knowledge. For example, she evaluated the discussion questions in order to decide which ones she liked and then took time to “star things that I think are questions we would want to get at” (SLP2). She planned to use the questions she had starred to guide conversational interactions during instruction. In addition, while attending to the text “very briefly,” she evaluated it and 160 decided how to respond in light of how engaging it was likely to be for students and how well it supported the development of their background and genre knowledge. This pattern of noticing reflected her instructional priorities in these areas as well as her view of students as often unequipped to engage with and comprehend grade-level nonfiction texts. Table 12 shows these and other examples of her curricular noticing that illustrate the ways in which her beliefs interacted to guide all aspects of her curricular noticing, shaping how she attended, interpreted, and decided to respond to the core program lessons. In contrast with Amy, Cathy and Julie both attended to the core program lessons in detail, reflecting their view of teaching as an interactive performance. Much like Amy, the specifics of what they chose to attend to, and how they evaluated that information and decided to respond, were also guided by other beliefs and by their instructional priorities. Reflecting her broad instructional priorities for reading comprehension, Cathy attended to where the targeted vocabulary appeared in the text and what non-fiction text features the text included. She then evaluated these elements and decided how to use them in her instructional plans, as shown in Table 12. Reflecting her trusting approach to core programs, Cathy typically planned to use core program suggestions as they were, especially when working with an unfamiliar program like Wonders. As a result of her trusting view of core programs, her instructional explanations closely mirrored those provided in the core program lessons, as illustrated in Table 13, which shows the instructional explanations of summarizing from her Wonders lesson plan. Table 12 provides examples of all of these patterns in Cathy’s curricular noticing, drawn from her planning with Wonders. Like Cathy, Julie attended to many elements of the core programs during planning; however, reflecting her narrower instructional priorities, which focused primarily on 161 Table 12 Curricular Noticing Excerpts Illustrating the Guiding Role of Beliefs Teacher Amy Cathy Interview Excerpts Demonstrating Curricular Noticing Annotations I just noticed that this one had more close reading and suggestions. Part of that I liked, part I didn't because the kids hate to read something twice, especially a whole story. What we do is we read parts twice to make it palatable and make it look like we are more investigating versus we're going to just read it again. I acquainted myself with the text very briefly. I thought this looked engaging enough to where I wouldn't have to in whole group do any extra sites. I know I would do some sites for like our computer lab where I teach [small groups] … That's a way I would enhance this in technology. I definitely look at all of this when I'm planning (pointing to side margin suggestions and questions for teachers), and they talk about expository text … I do talk about the genre before we read anything, and I probably left that off, but we just say, "Now, this is expository or informational. What does that mean?" I don't do a whole mini lesson right before the lesson, but I'm going to use this and star things that I think these are like questions that we would want to get at for the expository. What I do is I read the two pages and then I go back and visit the questions, so I would have them look back at the photograph. "How does that help you? What does that mean for you for a hurricane, looking at this? What could that be?" Part of that comes out during the picture walk too. They'll just bring that out naturally. We'll talk about photos and captions … I definitely use these as I'm reading and talking about the questions … I pick and choose the Think Alouds. I wouldn't use this exact script. I found lesson three. Then, realizing it was within a unit I went back, and I looked at lesson one and two because I wanted to know what were students exposed to? Then I went through what students would be reading. I just got a feel for, "Oh, that's where the vocabulary came in." Then I went back again, and I went through what were the teacher points? How are these teacher points on the side of the page connected to what the students are going to be looking in? My thought with the first time through this program is I'm going to really be looking at raising the questions and expecting the answers that are printed within the book before I divert any way. Then, just looking at it again, saying, "We have two things going on. One is re-reading with purpose, answering questions. Then, another one is using this compare and contrast." That is just such a visual thing for children to do. Really it's very simple. I thought that is really going to be great for students. Then, there's the thought, "Okay, we've got some non-fiction text features," and looking at this is unit one. We might not have done that as writers or any other context. It's like making sure I'm identifying, "So let's look at the caption for that picture." The caption is visually pointing and just saying how does that information help us as readers? So just kind of doing that. Then, like I said, the ELLs, that's really good information, because I can assume students have this vocabulary development and they may not. There are students who have, they're not language impaired, but it's not information that would hurt any learner. Then, I might, in the future, thinking I definitely once I'm through these lessons saying, "How could I possibly maneuver certain topics like science to maybe be covered during this?" This is the only time that this information is introduced. Hey, why not do our science unit that covers this? 162 Attending, interpreting, and deciding to respond guided by view of students as uninterested, instructional priority of engagement, and trusting but selective approach to core programs. Attending, interpreting, and deciding to respond guided by conversational view of teaching, instructional priorities of engagement and building background knowledge. Attending, interpreting, and deciding to respond guided by instructional priorities of discussion and building text structure and genre knowledge, and trusting but selective approach to core programs. Attending, interpreting, and deciding to respond guided by conversational view of teaching, trusting but selective approach to core programs, and instructional priority of building text structure and genre knowledge. Detailed attending guided by view of teaching as interactive performance; attending guided by broad instructional priorities that included vocabulary; deciding to respond guided by trusting view of core programs. Attending, interpreting, deciding to respond guided by instructional priority of teaching comprehension strategies and trusting view of core programs. Attending, deciding to respond guided by instructional priority of teaching text structures and genres. Attending, interpreting, deciding to respond guided by instructional priority of building vocabulary, trusting view of core programs. Deciding to respond guided by authentic view of literacy. Table 12 (cont’d) Teacher Julie Interview Excerpts Demonstrating Curricular Noticing And I know how to look at this and scan and say, “Here’s the big idea,” but for somebody new, there’s a lot here and I also think when I look at all this, I think to myself, “Who’s doing all the work? It’s not the students if you do it this way. It’s me! I’m exhausted after this lesson, but they’re not!” And so that is, it’s frustrating to me that it’s not so user-friendly. I like that there’s a sequence, a structure for teaching comprehension strategies, right? But, I question that now that I’ve been doing it, and I wonder what that spiral, and I wrestle with is it okay to spiral comprehension or should unit one really hit monitor and clarify for every week and really teach it well? So first I looked at the Day Three that you had tabbed here and just checked out, “What are the strategies that we’re looking at here?” so, I read this section here (pointing to sidebar on page T225A). And then from there I pulled out Strategies that Work and I reminded myself about summarizing again. They really in that book talk about the synthesizing piece pretty heavily along with summary, so that was, I had to weigh that as well, but, with the taking notes piece. So then I thought to myself, “OK, I have purpose here, connection of ideas, and this idea of summary.” So I wanted to make sure that we talked about what we thought author purpose would be and what background knowledge and how that can help you understand a text. And then again it said notes and note taking and I know that there is an organizer that is provided with Wonders, but I find these kind of limiting. I was just thinking that's going to confuse everyone, so that's why I wanted to create this (pointing to teacher-created graphic organizer) … And then the text feature that's brought out, the vocabulary, it’s kind of—they don't seem to be very integral in the way the lesson is supposed to flow. It's like, “Oh yeah, let's look at this caption.” Annotations Attending, interpreting, and deciding to respond guided by skeptical view of core programs and instructional priority of teaching comprehension strategies. Attending and deciding to respond guided by skeptical view of core programs and instructional priority of teaching comprehension strategies. Attending, interpreting, and deciding to respond guided by skeptical view of core programs and instructional priority of teaching comprehension strategies. comprehension strategies, her interpreting and deciding to respond focused almost exclusively on these components. When she did take time to evaluate core program components addressing other topics, such as vocabulary, she typically evaluated them negatively and chose not to use them in her lesson. In addition to reflecting her narrower instructional priorities, this pattern shows the influence of her more skeptical view of core programs because she was more likely than Cathy to be critical of the programs’ suggestions and to decide not to use them. As a result of these views, Julie also decided to supplement the core program suggestions by consulting Strategies that Work as a resource during planning, deciding to use instructional explanations from that professional text in her lessons instead of using those provided in the core program lessons. Table 13 provides examples of Julie’s instructional explanations that demonstrate this 163 pattern of use. This pattern contrasts sharply with Cathy’s curricular noticing as described above and illustrated in Tables 13 and 14, demonstrating the ways in which each teachers’ various beliefs interacted with one another to shape their curricular noticing, with differences in their beliefs leading to differences in the ways in which they attended, interpreted, and decided to respond to the core program lessons during planning. At the same time, Julie and Cathy exhibited similarities in their curricular noticing that reflected similarities in their beliefs. Sharing a belief in the importance of authentic literacy instruction, Cathy and Julie both prioritized helping students make connections across subject areas and from school to life by making cross-curricular connections and emphasizing the value and application of comprehension strategies across subjects and in life. Both teachers talked about wanting students to understand the connections across subject areas and to use reading strategies to support their work and learning in those subjects and in life. As Julie expressed: Within most elementary days, everything is very compartmentalized. I feel like there’s ways we can draw back to this text, or use the words monitor and clarify in math, use them when we’re reading for science or social studies as well. So I take those opportunities across all the subject areas to make them realize this isn’t just a reading thing, but actually it’s something we do all the time. (SLP1) Because of this emphasis on connections and on the applicability of reading instruction to life, both teachers evaluated the lessons positively as providing opportunities for that kind of instruction and transfer. In addition, as Julie shared in the quote above, they thought about ways to “draw back” to texts and lessons from reading in other subject areas. Cathy described herself as thinking about ways to “coordinate with other units” during early stages of her planning when she looked at the unit as a whole. In addition to inserting connections to this lesson into other 164 subject areas, Cathy specifically planned to insert connections to science content during her Benchmark lesson, and she planned to emphasize comparing and contrasting from the Wonders lesson during science, social studies, and writing. Her different strategies for making cross- Table 13 Cathy’s and Julie’s Instructional Explanations of Summarizing Teacher and Lesson Instructional Explanations Consulted During Teacher’s Instructional Explanation “To be able to summarize, I would look for a big idea from each of the three paragraphs, and then tie those three big ideas into one sentence, which would be the summary” (SLP2). “It helps to identify a big idea, and we can do that from each of the paragraphs because there's a lot of information in a three-paragraph passage. Then come up with a summary at the end” (SLP2). “When readers summarize what they’ve read, they pull out the most important information and put it in their own words to remember it, and then they’re able to explain what the text is about” (SLP2). “Our background knowledge influences our ability to summarize.” (SLP2). Planning “When you tell only the big ideas, or most important ideas, you summarize… Good readers know how to identify the most important ideas in a text and then put those ideas together in a sentence or two that tell what the text is all about.” (Unit 4, Day 1, p. 2) Wonders “As I read Whooping Cranes in Danger, I collected information about what the author thought throughout the text. To summarize, I will identify key ideas and details in the text and organize them in a logical way” (Unit 2, p. T225N) Strategies that Work “When we summarize information during reading, we pull out the most important information and put it in our own words to remember it. Each bit of information we encounter adds a piece to the construction of meaning” (p. 179). “We begin by teaching our students to take stock of meaning while they read, summarizing the information to add to their store of knowledge… Background knowledge makes a difference” (p. 180). Cathy Benchmark 4th grade “Botanists” Julie Wonders 3rd grade “Whooping Cranes in Danger” curricular connections across programs are consistent with her trust in them and her resulting pattern of using familiar programs more adaptively and seeking to minimize adaptations when using new programs, in this case by drawing out the connections during other subject areas instead of inserting them into the reading lesson. 165 Julie and Cathy both also prioritized explicit instruction and modeling of comprehension strategies in depth, a priority that aligned with their overall apprenticeship approach to comprehension strategy instruction. Both teachers read the instructional explanations of strategies in the core program lessons during planning and then planned out some of the language they would use to explain and model the comprehension strategies, though they used different sources to inform their explanations that reflected their differing degrees of trust in the programs and interpretations of the value of the core program suggestions, as discussed above and illustrated in Tables 13 and 14. In sum, each teacher’s beliefs and instructional priorities shaped her curricular noticing, informing the components she attended to, how she made sense of and evaluated them, and how she decided to respond. The examples provided in this section demonstrate ways in which no single belief or characteristic was most influential in each teacher’s interactions with the core programs during planning, showing that it was the interactions between beliefs and characteristics that together shaped their planning. Summary In this chapter, I discussed how the teachers interacted with the core programs during planning, focusing first on similarities in planning across teachers and across programs and then on differences in planning across teachers that related to their beliefs and, to a lesser extent, their experiences with core programs. In terms of similarities, I identified seven common steps in the teachers’ planning, which I referred to as core planning activities, suggesting that these steps may be important for designing high-quality, responsive comprehension instruction with core programs. Each teachers’ overall approach to planning remained largely the same across programs, suggesting that they used routines to manage the complexity of planning and teaching 166 with core programs. The few differences I identified in each teacher’s planning across programs related more to their degree of familiarity with a program than to particular characteristics of the programs themselves. In terms of differences across teachers in their planning and curricular noticing, I found that teachers’ views of teaching played an influential role. More broadly, I found that teachers noticed the core programs through the lens of their beliefs, attending, interpreting, and deciding how to respond in ways that were shaped by their beliefs, and that the interactions between their beliefs rather than any single belief best explained their curricular noticing. These findings speak to the influential role teachers play in shaping teacher-curriculum material interactions during planning while also reinforcing the importance of teachers’ beliefs and routines in guiding their curricular noticing during planning. Having discussed teachers’ planning processes in this chapter, including their curricular noticing, in the next and final findings chapter, I focus on my analysis of the instructional plans that resulted from these planning processes and on my evaluation of their quality and responsiveness. 167 CHAPTER 6 ANALYSIS OF INSTRUCTIONAL PLANS In this chapter, I discuss my analysis of the twelve lessons the teachers planned. To provide the foundation for my later discussion of how core program lessons contributed to the instructional plans, I begin with my analysis of the written core program lessons themselves before moving on to analyze the twelve instructional plans. In relation to the core program lessons, I demonstrate that each core program used a consistent instructional routine that reflected its instructional model, and that no lesson or program was stronger overall because each exhibited both strengths and weaknesses. Similarly, teachers’ instructional plans reflected the use of instructional activity routines and the influence of teachers’ beliefs, experiences, and contexts. The instructional plans also demonstrated the participatory and contextual nature of teacher- curriculum material interactions and the influential role of teachers as instructional designers. In terms of quality and responsiveness, teachers’ instructional plans exhibited many strengths and even improved upon the core program lessons in some areas, although they also exhibited weaknesses. These weaknesses speak to the complexity of teachers’ instructional design work, reflecting tensions and dilemmas as well as limitations in the overall capacity available for designing high-quality, responsive instruction. Analysis of Core Program Lessons In this section, I provide a detailed description and analysis of the core program lessons used in this study in order to set the stage for discussing how teachers used these written lessons to design their lesson plans. As a reminder, each core program lesson selected for use within the study provided instruction and practice with a comprehension strategy and skill and included an expository text intended for whole-group comprehension instruction and guided practice. Table 4 168 in the Methods chapter provides basic information about each lesson, including the unit, week, and day(s) of instruction included, the targeted comprehension strategy and skill, the text title and genre, and the text’s Lexile level. Though these lessons were central to the core programs’ pedagogical design for comprehension instruction, it is important to note that the core programs also addressed comprehension in other ways, such as through read-alouds, small-group instruction, or through lessons that specifically targeted elements of genre rather than strategies and skills. The analysis presented here is, thus, not intended to describe or evaluate the comprehension instruction in these core programs as a whole, but rather to describe and evaluate the specific whole-group comprehension lessons from Days 2 and/or 3 of each program that were included in this study, as well as similar lessons that followed the same structure or routine. Below I provide additional descriptive comparisons of the core program lessons used in the study, including a discussion of their routines and instructional models, before moving on to discuss my analysis of how the lessons reflected elements of high-quality, responsive comprehension instruction. Descriptive Comparisons Each core program had a standard routine for whole-group comprehension instruction that included instructional activities for before, during, and after reading a common text. I identified these routines in my analysis by first comparing the two lessons used in the study to identify common elements and then checking Day 2 and/or Day 3 lessons from four other weeks of instruction within the unit and across units at each grade level to ensure that the routine was representative of this type of lesson across the year of instruction in both grades. In all three programs, the instructional routines were the same in both 3rd and 4th grade. In Reading Street and Wonders, I found that the lesson routines were consistent across weeks of instruction 169 throughout the year. In Benchmark, the lesson routines I identified were characteristic of only the first week of instruction in each unit, which focused on comprehension strategies, because the second and third weeks of instruction focused on genre and fluency respectively, and lessons on these topics followed a different routine. In addition, the lesson routines in Benchmark differed across Day 2 and Day 3 in ways that reflected a gradual release of responsibility, with the teacher doing more modeling on Day 2 and then giving students responsibility for application with responsive scaffolding on Day 3. In the table below, I included information about the Day 2 and Day 3 lesson routines for Benchmark because I used a Day 2 lesson in grade 3 and a Day 3 lesson in grade 4. The routines shown in Table 14 below are representative of each program’s whole-group comprehension lessons more broadly, with those qualifications. As Table 14 shows, some instructional activities were common across programs. These included providing some way of introducing the text title, genre, topic, or learning targets before reading as a way of setting purpose, pausing periodically during reading to ask and discuss questions or provide brief instruction, rereading at least some portion of the text, and having students answer or discuss questions after reading. This common instructional routine is similar to Betts’ (1946) description of directed reading activity. Common elements of directed reading activity included engaging students in building or connecting to background knowledge and establishing purpose before reading; having students read a text in sections and pausing to answer questions during reading; rereading portions of the text for a different purpose; concluding the lesson with a follow-up activity related to the text. The similarity between the core program lessons and directed reading activity is not surprising given that basal reading lessons have long followed a directed reading activity routine (Betts, 1946). This suggests that some elements of core program lessons have changed little over time, even though research on 170 Table 14 Instructional routines for each program Stage Benchmark Reading Street Wonders Before reading • Introduce learning targets and lesson purpose (Day 2: before reading; Day 3: after first reading) • • Introduce and discuss text topic and/or question of the week to build background knowledge and generate interest Introduce text genre and title; have students preview the text and make predictions. • • Introduce and discuss text topic and question of the week to build background knowledge and generate interest Introduce graphic organizer and ask students to take notes to address learning targets as they read. • Haver students read to address the question of the week. During reading • Pause periodically to ask and • Pause periodically to ask • Pause periodically to ask discuss questions and/or provide brief instruction addressing learning targets. (Day 2) • Reread at least part of the text (Day 2) and discuss questions and/or provide brief instruction addressing learning targets and text features, vocabulary, and content. • Reread the entire text • Have students record and share thinking and strategy application using graphic organizers (Days 2 and 3) • Provide responsive prompting to help students apply strategies (Day 3) • Divide the reading across two days, either reading half of it twice each day or reading the entire text once each day. and discuss questions and/or provide brief instruction addressing learning targets and text features, genre, vocabulary, content, and author’s craft. • Reread the entire text • Record and share thinking and strategy application using graphic organizers After reading • Have students answer and/or • Have students answer • Read and discuss discuss questions about the text and learning targets (Days 2 and 3) and/or discuss questions about the text and learning targets information about the author • Have students answer • Reflect upon strategy • Read about the author application and discuss broader applicability and transfer. (Days 2 and 3) and/or discuss questions about the text and learning targets • Partner work (Day 3) • Partner work Approaches & characteristics across stages reading comprehension development and instruction has provided many new insights since the 171 1940s. It also speaks to the idea that this instructional routine may be a type of cultural script4 for teaching reading comprehension that has been handed down across generations of teachers, and that core programs may serve as tools that support the passing on of this cultural script. While the similarities in the core program lessons reflect longstanding instructional routines that may function as cultural scripts for teaching reading comprehension, it is also important to note that the core program lessons differed from each other across programs in important ways. Reading Street and Wonders lessons were more similar on the whole, following a more common and traditional basal or core reading program structure characterized by a spiral structure and longer whole-group lessons. The spiral structure integrated both instruction and practice and addressed many comprehension-related topics in each lesson, and the longer lessons included traditional activities such as worksheets and written comprehension questions to answer after reading. Benchmark, in contrast, patterned itself after a workshop and apprenticeship model of instruction characterized by shorter and more focused whole-group mini-lessons that closely followed a gradual release of responsibility. In addition, the program’s overall instructional model emphasized follow-up instruction in small groups as well as independent reading and individual conferencing, all focused on providing responsive scaffolding to support students in applying what they were learning with increasing independence. Below, I describe some of the differences in the instructional routines across programs in order to further illustrate the ways the lessons reflected these models. As shown in Table 14, in the before reading stage, Reading Street and Wonders both included a question of the week, which focused on a topic that tied together all of the texts read and vocabulary taught throughout the week. The lessons in these programs suggested that 4 My use of this term is based on Barrett-Tatum and Dooley’s (2015) definition of cultural scripts as normative patterns of participation, discourse, and interaction that are internalized and reproduced within communities. 172 teachers start the lesson by discussing the question with students in order to activate and build background knowledge, generate interest in the text, and establish a purpose for reading. Reading Street also specifically recommended that teachers introduce the text title and briefly discuss the genre with students before reading, whereas Wonders did not. In contrast with both of these programs, Benchmark emphasized introducing the comprehension strategies that were the learning targets of the lesson before reading as a way of providing purpose for the lesson. In this way, in the before reading stage, Reading Street and Wonders focused more on the content of the text while Benchmark focused more on the strategies to be applied. During reading, Benchmark maintained a similar, unified focus on the targeted strategies, which is characteristic of mini-lessons. Reading Street and Wonders maintained a broader focus reflective of their integrated, spiral curricular structure. Lessons in these programs were longer and addressed text features, genre, vocabulary, content, author’s craft, and information about the author. They also included questions prompting students to apply other comprehension strategies and skills that were not targeted in the lessons, while Benchmark lessons focused almost exclusively on the targeted strategies and skills, only occasionally referencing other strategies and skills. Benchmark lessons also more clearly followed a clear gradual release of responsibility characteristic of a workshop model in which Day 2 lessons focused primarily on modeling with some guided practice and Day 3 lessons involved guided practice with increasing independence. In addition, they supported increasingly independent and self-regulated use by emphasizing reflection upon strategy use, the broader applicability and transfer of strategies across texts and contexts, and occasionally self-regulated use of multiple strategies to support comprehension. Reading Street and Wonders, in contrast, did not use the same clear gradual release structure but instead emphasized explicit instruction and modeling on Day 1 of each week and 173 guided practice throughout the week without moving students toward increasing independence or self-regulation but instead emphasizing practice through prompted application. In terms of rereading, Reading Street and Wonders emphasized repeated and close reading of the entire main selection, reflecting the CCSS, while Benchmark emphasized a more selective, strategic approach to rereading that encouraged students to reread only as needed to complete the task at hand. After reading, Wonders and Reading Street provided formal written questions for students to answer, and teachers in the study interpreted these as intended for students to answer in writing independently as a way of assessing comprehension. They also provided information about the authors for students to read, and Wonders included specific questions to prompt discussion about the authors. Benchmark, in contrast, did not include information about authors and provided questions for students to discuss together after reading in order to reflect upon their application of the strategies and consider their broader applicability beyond the lesson context. In terms of the texts used for instruction, all three programs incorporated a balance of expository and narrative texts across weeks, though the lessons used in this study all included expository texts. Reading Street and Wonders used longer texts ranging from 10 to 12 pages in length that provided opportunities for instruction and practice with the wide range of comprehension topics addressed in the lessons, while Benchmark included shorter texts ranging from 3 to 5 paragraphs in length that lent themselves to the shorter and more focused whole- group lesson structure it used. In these ways, the instructional routines and texts used in each program reflected their different instructional models. Alignment with Research on High-Quality, Responsive Comprehension Instruction On the whole, the core program lessons aligned with some elements of high-quality, 174 responsive comprehension instruction and not others. The two lessons I evaluated from each program were more similar to than different from each other in their alignment with these elements, reflecting the common instructional routines each program used across lessons and grade levels. I identified only a few differences across lessons for each program. No single program or lesson was clearly stronger across the board, but rather, each program and lesson demonstrated areas of strength and areas of weakness. In addition, Reading Street and Wonders lessons had similar strengths and weaknesses, while Benchmark lessons exhibited several different areas of strength and weakness. Table 15 shows my overall evaluation of the core program lessons’ alignment with elements of high-quality, responsive comprehension instruction. Checkmarks in the table represent criteria for which the core program lesson provided at least some evidence of alignment, X marks represent criteria for which the core program lesson did not provide evidence of alignment, √/X represent criteria with which the core program lessons aligned in part (typically because these criteria had multiple parts and the core program lesson aligned with some parts and not others), and question marks represent criteria for which there was insufficient evidence in this study to provide an evaluation. Most often, question marks represent student-specific criteria, which I could not evaluate without knowledge of the particular students in each class and which may have received different evaluations for each teacher’s class. As shown in Table 15, the core program lessons all aligned at least in part with at least one criterion for each element, suggesting that the lessons address a wide range of characteristics of instruction likely to support comprehension development among students generally and that they may lend themselves to at least some responsive adaptation to support particular learners in particular contexts. In terms of the elements of quality, the program lessons all exhibited some 175 Table 15 Core Program Lesson Alignment with Elements and Criteria for High-Quality, Responsive Comprehension Instruction Element Component Criteria and References Building conceptual and language knowledge* Differentiating* Explicitly teaching comprehension strategies* • • instruction and activities that build and build upon disciplinary or world knowledge (Duke et al, 2011; Gersten et al., 2001; RAND, 2002; Wilkinson & Son, 2011) instruction and activities that build and build upon knowledge of words and language and their meaning, structure, and use (Duke et al., 2011; RAND, 2002) • Vocabulary instruction should involve: o explicit explanations of the meanings of new words o opportunities to use the words in conversation o opportunities for repeated exposure to these words across contexts (Duke et al., 2011; RAND, 2002) teaching lessons to the whole class only when most students would benefit from that instruction and in such a way that most students can access the targeted content and benefit as literacy learners • • using needs-based grouping to address students’ specific learning needs • adjusting levels of support for completing comprehension-related tasks • using teacher knowledge of individual students in the areas of interests, readiness, learning profiles • making informed decisions about how and when to adapt content, process, product, learning environment • providing scaffolding that facilitates for individual students: o participation in classroom learning activities with similar opportunities for challenge and support o the development of self-regulation and independence • explicitly teaching why, how, and when to apply strategies (Duke et al, 2011; Shanahan et al., 2010) • supporting students in becoming strategic by helping them learn to coordinate the use of multiple strategies during reading to support their comprehension (Duke et al., 2011; RAND, 2002) focusing on research-supported strategies (Duke et al., 2011; Shanahan et al., 2010) following a gradual release of responsibility that includes explicit description, modeling, collaborative use, guided practice, independent practice, leading toward self-regulated application (Denton et al., 2003; Duke et al., 2011; Gersten, 2001; Shanahan et al., 2010; RAND, 2002) • • Choosing and using texts that: • support the purpose of instruction (Shanahan et al., 2010) • represent multiple genres (Duke et al., 2011; Shanahan et al., 2010) • contain rich and deep ideas and information (Shanahan et al., 2010) • place an appropriate level of demand on students for the purpose of the activity (Shanahan et al., 2010) √/X n.a. X X? √ n.a. √ √? Purposefully selecting texts 176 3rd grade 4th grade B √/X RS W √/X √/X B √/X RS W √/X √/X √/X √/X √/X √/X √/X √/X √/X √ √/X X X √/X √/X √/X √? X √ √ √ √ X X √ X X √/X √/X √/X √? X √/X X √ √/X √ X √ X X √/X √/X √/X √? X √ X √ √/X √ n.a. √ √? √/X √/X √ X X X √/X √/X √/X √? X √/X √/X √ √ √ √ X X √/X √/X √/X √? X √/X X √ √/X √/X n.a. √/X √? √ n.a. √ √? √ √ √ X X √/X √/X √/X √? X √/X X √ √/X √ n.a. √ √? Table 15 (cont’d) Element Component Criteria and References 3rd grade 4th grade Teaching text structures & genres Engaging students in text- based discussions* Generating motivation and interest Cognitive and affective responsiveness • directly teaching the structures and elements typically found in different text genres (Shanahan et al., 2010; Duke et al., 2011) • explicitly teaching how to use text structures and genre elements to support comprehension (Duke et al., 2011) • opening space for collaborative exchanges of ideas aimed at improving students’ understanding and interpretation of texts (Wilkinson & Son, 2011) including questions that go beyond surface-level understanding (Duke et al., 2011, Shanahan et al., 2002) • • providing opportunities for students to argue for or against points raised in the discussion, resolve ambiguities in the text, and draw conclusions or inferences (Duke et al., 2011; Wilkinson & Son, 2011) • helping students discover real-world purposes/benefits of reading (Shanahan et al., 2010) • creating opportunities for success (Shanahan et al., 2010) • giving students reading choices (Duke et al., 2011; Shanahan et al., 2010; RAND, 2002) • using texts, materials, or instruction that connect to students’ interests (Duke et al., 2011) • providing opportunities for collaborative learning (Shanahan et al., 2010; RAND, 2002) • Providing scaffolding that facilitates for all students: • • participation in classroom learning activities with similar opportunities for challenge and support the development of self-regulation and independence (Corno, 2008) • May involve: • Using teacher knowledge of the class as a whole in the areas of: readiness, interests, learning profiles (Tomlinson et al., 2003) • Making informed decisions about how and when to adapt content, process, product, learning environment for the whole class (Tomlinson et al., 2003) • Includes decisions made in advance and those made in the moment of instruction to responsively support literacy learners within a particular class. • Viewing literacy and literacy learning as socially and culturally situated (Lazar, Edwards, McMillon, 2012) • Promoting access to and success in learning dominant school language and literacy (Ladson-Billings, 1995; Lazar, Edwards, McMillon, 2012) Cultural responsiveness • Sustaining the cultural and linguistic competence of students and their communities in ways that address both heritage and contemporary cultures (Ladson-Billings, 1995 & 2014; Lazar, Edwards, McMillon, 2012; Paris & Alim, 2014) • Engaging students in examining and exposing sociopolitical inequities (Ladson-Billings, 1995 & 2014; Lazar, Edwards, McMillon, 2012; Paris & Alim, 2014) B √/X X √ √ X √/X √? X ? √ √? √ X X √/X X √? √/X ? X RS W √ √ X √ √ √ X √ √ √ √/X √? X ? √/X √/X √? X ? √ √? X √ √ √? X √ √ B X X √ X X √/X √? X ? √ √? √ √ √ RS W √ √ √ √ √ √ X √ √ X √/X √? X ? √/X √/X √? X ? √/X √? X √ √ √? X √ √ √/X √/X √/X √/X √/X X √? √/X ? X X √? √/X ? X X √? √/X ? X X √? √/X ? X X √? √/X ? X * Elements essential for supporting students experiencing reading difficulties.; X=lack of alignment; √=alignment; √/X=partial alignment; ?=somewhat unclear, insufficient evidence to inform a definite conclusion; n.a.=not applicable. 177 strengths in the areas of building conceptual and language knowledge, differentiating instruction for individual students, explicitly teaching comprehension strategies, and engaging students in text-based discussions. Core reading programs were weaker in the area of generating motivation and interest, and their quality varied across programs in the area of purposeful text selection. Across all of the elements, core programs fell short of at least some of the criteria and they often provided only partial evidence of alignment with more complex criteria, suggesting that these were also areas of weakness for the programs. For example, many of the core program lessons included explicit comprehension strategy instruction but only addressed how or why to use the strategies, rather than thoroughly addressing how, when, and why to use them. In terms of responsiveness, the core program lessons as a whole included some supports for cognitively and affectively responsive instruction. Central to responsive instruction is the idea that teachers should consider and respond to what they know about their particular students, which is something a core program cannot do, though it can provide support and encouragement for teachers to engage in this work. In my analysis, I found that the core program lessons did little to support or encourage teachers to engage in thinking about their students as they planned. Instead, the core program lessons simply told teachers what to do in order to support their students. In this way, they provided some support for scaffolding students in participating in classroom activities with appropriate levels of challenge and support, for developing self- regulation and independence, for supporting learners who exhibited a range of readiness, and for adapting process and sometimes learning environment. In contrast, I found little evidence of alignment with criteria for culturally responsive instruction. The programs tended to address literacy and literacy learning as technical and cognitive skills rather than as authentic social and cultural practices. Though they aligned with the criteria of providing access to and support for 178 learning dominant school language and literacy through explicit instruction and suggestions for differentiated support, they offered virtually no opportunities to sustain the cultural and linguistic competence of students and no opportunities to engage students in critically examining and exposing sociopolitical inequities. Comparing the programs and lessons, as shown in Table 15, Benchmark lessons provided stronger support for explicit comprehension strategy instruction and differentiation but weaker support for building conceptual and language knowledge, purposeful text selection, and teaching text structures and genres. This is not surprising given that the selected Benchmark lessons focused almost exclusively on comprehension strategies and addressed other comprehension targets such as text structure and genre in other lessons. The narrower focus of Benchmark lessons allowed for more focused attention to incorporating the type of strategy instruction that research supports. Unlike Reading Street and Wonders lessons, Benchmark lessons more thoroughly addressed why, how, and when to apply strategies and followed the gradual release of responsibility in such a way as to scaffold students toward self-regulated and independent application. They did this through incorporating practice with greater independence and less prompting into the Day 3 lessons, by engaging students in reflecting upon the usefulness and broader applicability of strategies, and by specifically discussing how and why to use the strategies during independent reading. In these ways, the lessons supported students in becoming strategic and self-regulated readers. In terms of differentiation, Benchmark lessons included ways to differentiate the learning environment by recommending that teachers pair students up with supportive partners based on their “needs and abilities” (Benchmark, Unit 4, Day 3, p. 8). Figure 6 provides excerpts from the core program lessons that illustrate these patterns. 179 Benchmark lessons were less aligned with criteria for building conceptual and language knowledge, purposeful text selection, and teaching text structures and genres, perhaps at least in part because these aspects of comprehension were not the targeted focus of the lessons. In addition, however, the shorter texts in Benchmark were less complex according to both quantitative and qualitative dimensions of complexity, having lower Lexile levels, simpler and less essential graphics, little variation and richness in word choice and sentence structure, and few complex or discipline-specific concepts and terms. In this way, the texts did not lend themselves to the purpose of instruction, which focused on fix-up monitoring, because they offered few potential challenges to comprehension that would require fixing up. Additionally, the texts offered few opportunities for building conceptual and language knowledge, and perhaps relatedly, the lessons devoted virtually no direct or explicit attention to developing knowledge of content and language related to the texts, perhaps because the program developers did not anticipate that students would need such instruction and support in order to access and make sense of the texts. Table 26 in Appendix B shows my analysis of the texts in each program lesson. In contrast with Benchmark, Reading Street and Wonders lesson aligned more closely with the criteria for building conceptual and language knowledge, purposeful text selection, and teaching text structures and genres, as shown in Table 15. In addition to incorporating a specific focus on developing students’ knowledge of text content, language, genre, and structure, the texts in Reading Street and Wonders lessons were more complex both quantitatively and qualitatively because of their length, graphics, academic and discipline-specific language, discipline-specific knowledge demands, and more highly varied and rich word choice and sentence structure. See Table 26 in Appendix B for a more complete analysis of the texts. 180 Perhaps at least in part because of the added demands of the texts themselves, Reading Street and Wonders lessons incorporated instruction, questions, and activities designed specifically to When, why, how to use strategy How to use strategy Reflection on broader applicability Discussion of how to use strategy during independent reading Benchmark Explain: “Yesterday when I looked at the “Monarch Butterflies” poster, I reviewed and thought about its parts to help me understand what the photograph showed. When I don’t understand a part of what I study, I review it and think about the content to fix the problem. I’ll show you how to do this” (p. 5). Reread paragraph 1. Think aloud: “In the first paragraph, I didn’t understand what tasty treats have to do with sugar maples. Then I thought about the pancakes I had for breakfast. I put maple syrup on them, and they were delicious. I think maple syrup is a tasty treat sugar maples provide. I’ll look for clues about maple trees to see if I am correct.” Reflect and Discuss: Ask and discuss the following questions: “How does the fix-up monitoring strategy help you as a reader? How does identifying facts and opinions help you understand what you are reading? How do signal words help you identify opinions?” Connect and transfer: Ask: “How will you use what you have practiced today when you read on your own?” Reading Street Introduce genre: Explain that expository texts tell about real people, things or events. They are often organized by text features, such as headings and subheadings. Have students think of other expository texts they have read. Encourage them to ask questions about these texts. Establish purpose: read to gain knowledge about animal structures that help solve problems. Main idea and details: Ask students to identify the main idea. (The mother laid an egg and the penguins must keep it warm.) Have students read pp. 210-211 and identify the details that support this idea. Model: “I can identify the main idea by asking, What is this text about? I read that the mother penguin has laid an egg. The father puts the egg on his feet. I read another detail—the father keeps the egg warm with his brood patch. The main idea is that the mother has laid an egg and the penguins must keep their egg warm.” On their own: Have students find another detail that supports the idea that the egg must be kept warm. (A parent stays with the egg to keep it warm. Develop language: Have students reread the first paragraph on p. 219. What does toboggan mean? How does the illustration help you understand the meaning of the word toboggan? Explicit instruction in genre instruction Purpose for reading focused on text content Activating and building background knowledge and vocabulary Prompted use of text features to support comprehension Incomplete modeling of how to use strategy, no attention to when or why Prompted strategy application Prompted strategy application Wonders Tell students they will be reading about how a group of scientists are helping whooping cranes survive. Ask students to predict how the selection will help them answer the Essential Question: "How can people help animals survive?" Build vocabulary: devote, dreadful, resources, refuge, migrate, operation, revved, predator, recovery Text Features: Photographs: Have students look at the photograph and text on pages 172-173 with a partner and discuss what is shown and what they can learn from the photograph and text. Skill: Author’s Point of View: Ask what the author’s position is about what has happened to the whooping cranes and cite details that show the author’s position, adding information to their notes. Stop and Check: Reread to answer the question: Why did scientists wear white costumes and use puppets? Prompted use of context clues Figure 6. Excerpts from third-grade core program lessons illustrating differences in alignment 181 address some of what made the texts complex by activating and building background and vocabulary knowledge and by providing explicit instruction in text structure and genre features as well as in the use of context clues. Figure 6 provides excerpts from the core program lessons that illustrate these patterns. At the same time, lessons in these two programs did not align as well as Benchmark lessons did with criteria for explicit comprehension strategy instruction. More specifically, the lessons in these programs did not do the following: provide complete instruction in why, how, and when to apply strategies; support students in becoming strategic by helping them learn to independently coordinate the use of multiple strategies; or utilize a complete gradual release of responsibility. Instead, they provided briefer and less complete explicit teaching and modeling of the strategies and they included guided practice with heavy scaffolding by prompting students to use the strategies at particular moments during the lesson. This support was not faded to allow students to apply the strategies in a more self-regulated or independent manner, nor was there discussion of the broader usefulness and transferability of the strategies. Figure 6 illustrates these patterns. On the whole, then, the core program lessons exhibited different patterns of strengths and weaknesses that reflected their overall instructional model and routines. Each program and lesson exhibited areas of alignment and misalignment with the elements of high-quality, responsive comprehension instruction used in this study, and no program or lesson was clearly stronger than any other overall. Instructional Routines Analysis of Instructional Plans When planning for instruction with core programs that followed a routine lesson 182 structure, it is not surprising that the teachers often discussed their comprehension instruction in ways that suggested the use of instructional routines. During interviews, they talked about things they always or typically did in their lessons, and some even used the word routine to describe their comprehension instruction. Amy talked explicitly about using her routine to guide her plan. She shared, “I have my routine that I like… If I look at that story, I'm going to go, okay, how do I want to break this story up? I know from my routine, I like to do certain things” (SLP1). Breaking the text up to read across several days was part of Amy’s instructional routine, which she used to inform her decisions as she planned. Other teachers frequently talked about things they “always” or “typically” did when describing either their general comprehension instruction or their instructional plans. This again suggests the use of routines and demonstrates that, in addition to using executive planning routines to guide their planning processes, teachers used instructional activity routines to inform the design of their instructional plans (Yinger, 1980). Drawing upon Leinhardt and Greeno’s work (1986), I suggest that the use of these routines may have been a mechanism for coping with the complexity of planning and teaching generally as well as with core programs. In addition to the evidence described above to support this conclusion, the teachers’ lesson plans also exhibited evidence of the use of these instructional activity routines, containing many of the same instructional activities and often following a common sequence. In the sections that follow, I first discuss similarities in instructional plans across the six teachers as a whole and I then describe similarities across lessons planned with different programs by the same teacher. Similarities across teachers. The common instructional activities shared across teachers in this study encompassed the before, during, and after reading stages of the lesson. In my analysis, I identified an instructional activity as common across teachers if it was evident in at 183 least 8 out of 12 lesson plans or in at least 4 of the 6 teachers’ lesson plans and broader interviews in which they described their typical comprehension instruction. Because the teachers always used these activities in the same sequence, I called the entire sequence of common instructional activities the common instructional routine. Table 16 below shows this common instructional routine for whole-group comprehension lessons, which shows the instructional activities teachers used in the before, during, and after reading stages. It also shows the teachers who used each instructional activity and the written core program lessons that included these components. As shown in the table, the six teachers in this study began their lessons by introducing and discussing the text, learning targets, and topic before reading. While reading the text, they read most or all of it aloud while students listened, and they paused to ask and discuss questions and to provide brief instruction. They also engaged students in reading and/or rereading at least portions of the text and in recording and sharing their thoughts about the text and their strategy application. The one shared activity teachers planned for after reading was answering additional questions about the text. Across stages of the lesson, partner work and a think-pair-share conversation structure were common. Importantly, teachers used these instructional activities in this order across district and school contexts, across grade levels, and across core programs, even when the core programs themselves did not include these components. For example, as shown in Table 16, Anastasia and Cathy planned to introduce and discuss the text topic and/or question of the week before reading in order to build background knowledge and generate interest before reading, though Benchmark lessons did not include this. To give another example, Julie, Karina, and Kierra all planned to explicitly introduce the learning targets and lesson purpose to students before reading when planning with Reading Street and/or Wonders, though the core program 184 lessons did not include these explicit purpose statements. In addition, teachers typically planned to have students listen to the text read aloud early in the lesson and to have students read at least portions of the text later in the lesson, as well as to have students record and share their thinking about the text and/or their strategy use during and after reading. This pattern shown in Table 16 Table 16 Common instructional routine Stage Description of instructional activities Teachers who included the activities Core programs that included the activities Before reading • Introduce and discuss text topic and/or question of the week to build background knowledge and generate interest • Introduce learning targets and lesson purpose • Introduce text title and genre During reading • Read most or all of the text aloud or have students listen to the core program’s audio version. • Amy, Anastasia, • Reading Street, Cathy, Karina, Kierra Wonders • Cathy, Julie, Karina, • Benchmark* Kierra • Amy, Anastasia, • Reading Street Karina, Kierra • Amy, Cathy, Julie, • None Kierra • Pause periodically to ask and discuss • Amy, Anastasia, • Benchmark, questions and/or provide brief instruction addressing learning targets and text features, vocabulary, and content. • Have students read later portions of the text aloud to the class or with a partner • Reread at least part of the text • Record and share thinking and strategy application using graphic organizers, white boards, or sticky notes Cathy, Julie, Karina, Kierra • Amy, Cathy, Julie, Karina Reading Street, Wonders • None • Amy, Anastasia, • Benchmark, Cathy, Julie, Kierra • Amy, Anastasia, Cathy, Julie, Karina, Kierra Reading Street, Wonders • Benchmark, Wonders • Have students answer and/or discuss questions about the text and learning targets • Amy, Anastasia, • Benchmark, Cathy, Julie, Karina, Kierra Reading Street, Wonders • Partner work and think-pair-share • Amy, Anastasia, • Benchmark, After reading Approaches & characteristics across stages conversation structure Cathy, Julie, Karina, Kierra * Included before reading in 4th grade and after the first reading in 3rd grade. ± Included only one time in lesson or only in margin suggestions for differentiation. Reading Street±, Wonders 185 suggests that the instructional activities and the overall routine may be common in upper elementary reading comprehension instruction across contexts and grade levels. It also suggests that teachers do not rely solely on the instructional activities and routines found in core programs to guide their instruction, but that they also use their own schema and routines to guide instructional plans. This common instructional routine is similar to the shared elements of core program lessons described above, which resembled Betts’s (1946) directed reading activity. Additionally, this routine bears some resemblance to Durkin’s (1978) findings that upper elementary teachers across schools and classrooms tend to address comprehension by asking students questions and providing them with reading assignments, with less time devoted to instruction than to these other activities. This finding is disheartening because these practices do not reflect research regarding high-quality or responsive comprehension instruction. The parallels between the instructional routines teachers in this study used and earlier research on comprehension instruction suggests that some aspects of the common instructional routine shown above may be cultural scripts—common instructional routines handed down as conceptual tools for teaching across generations of teachers as part of the cultural practice of teaching in the United States. The finding that some of the similarities in teachers’ instructional routines paralleled the routines embedded in core programs while others did not suggests that some cultural scripts may be passed down through core programs while others may be transmitted in other ways, such as through formal teacher education or more directly from teacher to teacher. At the same time, this overall routine shows some important and encouraging differences in instruction from earlier observational studies of comprehension instruction (e.g., Durkin, 1978), which suggested that virtually no comprehension instruction took place in elementary 186 classrooms. In contrast, teachers in the present study typically planned to provide at least some explicit comprehension instruction that addressed and supported broader meaning making. There was little mention of using worksheets or giving students reading assignments to complete on their own. Instead, teachers often had students work with partners and engaged them in active and collaborative meaning-making, such as through the use of graphic organizers and brief discussions, rather than simply asking rote recall questions or giving independent assignments. These elements of the teachers’ common instructional routine align with characteristics and approaches from research on high-quality comprehension instruction. This suggests some encouraging shifts in comprehension instruction since the time of Betts and Durkin. Similarities in instructional plans across programs for particular teachers. In addition to these similarities across teachers, I identified similarities across the lessons planned with different programs by the same teacher, regardless of whether the written core program lessons included those elements. In particular, I encountered evidence that each teacher used instructional routines that included the elements that reflected their individual orientations and experiences as well as their contexts. This suggests that teachers may appropriate standard or common instructional routines and adapt them individually and contextually. In this section, I discuss the instructional routines that Amy, Julie, and Karina used across lessons in order to illustrate these points. Table 17 below provides an outline of the three teachers’ instructional routines, showing the ways in which instructional activities and strategies that comprised their routines reflected their visions of comprehension instruction, their perceptions of their students, contextual factors, and their previous experiences with core programs. In the table, instructional activities and strategies that reflect the teachers’ visions of comprehension instruction are underlined, those that reflect perceptions of students are noted 187 with a St, those that reflect contextual factors are italicized, and those that reflect previous experiences with core programs are noted with an asterisk. Amy, whose vision of comprehension instruction emphasized engagement and interest in reading and active and interactive meaning making such as through text-based discussions, included activities in her instructional routine that addressed these goals. These instructional activities, underlined in Table 17 below, included a picture walk to generate interest, discussing questions after reading rather than having students write answers, and a pair-share conversation structure throughout the lesson to maximize discussion and interactive meaning making. Her plan to use a picture walk before reading in both lessons reflects the possible influence of Reading Street use on Amy’s lesson schema (denoted by the asterisk in Table 17) because she included this activity from Reading Street in the lesson plan she created with Wonders even though the written Wonders lesson did not include such an activity. In addition, her instructional routine reflected her perceptions of her students as challenged in traditional learning and her resulting priority of keeping lessons short and promoting access to the text and the learning targets for all students. In particular, her emphasis on building background knowledge and on reading the majority of the text to students were designed to support access to the text. Also, her practices of dividing the reading across two to three days and rereading selectively were designed to reduce the cognitive and attentional demands on students in order to maximize both engagement and access. Here again, the similarities across Amy’s two lesson plans seem to reflect the influence of her experience with the Reading Street program, which recommended dividing the reading across two days. Importantly, Amy planned to divide the reading across days in both lesson plans even though Wonders recommended reading the entire text twice on 188 Table 17 Instructional Routines Used by Amy, Julie, and Karina Before reading During reading Amy Julie Karina • Do a picture walk* • Discuss essential question • Build background knowledgeSt • Introduce the targeted • Differentiate by assigning a comprehension strategy as the lesson’s purpose • Provide explicit instruction about what the strategy is and when/why to use it different text/task to advanced students and intentionally pairing students who need additional supportSt • Discuss essential question and unit questionSt • Discuss genre* • Read questions at end of story to provide purpose for reading and teach a test- taking strategy • Read the text aloud to • Read the beginning of the text • Pause after each page to students or use the core program’s audio versionSt • Pause after each page spread to discuss questions and provide instruction about strategies, text features, vocabulary, and content. • Have students reread as needed to answer questionsSt • Divide the reading up across 2-3 days*St aloud to students discuss questions • Provide explicit modeling of the targeted strategy in the form of think-alouds • Provide materials for documenting strategy use and model how to do it • Pause after each page and have students discuss and record their strategy use • As students show mastery, release them to finish reading and applying/ documenting strategies with a partner. After reading • Discuss at least one summative question • Have students record and share their thinking about the essential question or learning targets • Come back together to discuss strategy use and share thinking about the text • Have students answer the questions at the end of the text in writing • Wrap up the lesson with a statement summarizing the strategy • Model how to write the answers as a complete sentenceSt Strategies and characteristics of instruction across lesson segments • Pair-share conversation • Partner work and pair-share • Draw popsicle sticks to select structure • Engagement strategies • Focused rereadingSt conversation structure • No attention to background knowledge and vocabularySt • Full second read, addressing students to read or answer questions aloud. • Does not typically rereadSt the second core program learning target as a separate lesson, following the same process* Underlined text=instructional activities and strategies that reflect the teacher’s vision of comprehension instruction St=instructional activities and strategies that reflect the teacher’s perceptions of students Italicized text=instructional activities and strategies that reflect contextual factors *=instructional activities and strategies that reflect the teacher’s experiences with core programs 189 one day. This reflects a possible carryover from her Reading Street use into her planning with Wonders. Finally, Amy used engagement strategies throughout both lessons, an instructional strategy she had taken up from her participation in county-sponsored professional development because she saw their value for actively engaging students. The core program lessons did not specify conversation structures or engagements strategies to use, so Amy’s use of them demonstrate ways in which her experiences and context contributed to her instructional plans. Table 17 shows these instructional activities that Amy included in both of her lesson plans as well as how they fit into her overall instructional routine. Julie’s instructional routine reflected her vision of comprehension instruction as involving focused lessons targeting comprehension strategies and apprenticing students into literacy for life. Similar to the apprenticeship model used in the Benchmark program, Julie planned to begin her lessons by introducing the targeted strategy to provide purpose for the lesson. She planned to then provide explicit instruction about the strategy, addressing what the strategy is and when, why, and/or how to use it. Unlike other teachers in the study, she did not plan to address vocabulary or background knowledge development as part of the whole-group lessons, and this reflects both her emphasis on a focused, apprenticeship approach and her perception that her students came equipped with a great deal of knowledge and experiences to support comprehension. During reading, she planned to begin by reading the text aloud to students and pausing periodically to model her strategy application in the form of a think-aloud. She also planned to provide students with materials to use to document their own strategy application and modeled how to use them. After a few instances of modeling, she planned to begin gradually releasing responsibility to students as they were ready, releasing them to work 190 with partners to continue reading the text and applying, discussing, and documenting their strategy use. She planned to conclude her lessons by bringing students back together to share and discuss their strategy use and thinking about the text and providing a summary of the strategy they had learned about and applied that day. Throughout this overall instructional routine, Julie planned to model and discuss strategies as authentic ways to support comprehension when reading across contexts, both in school and in real life, reflecting her emphasis on literacy for life. In order to address core program recommendations and district requirements of addressing two learning targets and reading the text twice, Julie planned to read the text again the following day, providing instruction and practice that followed a similar model and addressed the second core program target. Out of all the teachers in this study, Julie’s instructional routines bore the least resemblance to the core program lessons with which she had planned, a finding that reflects her view that core programs provide a scope and sequence and that it is the role of knowledgeable professional educators to design instruction. Not surprisingly, her routine was highly consistent across programs, showing little influence of the core programs beyond her use of the learning targets and texts. Additionally, Julie’s instructional routine differed from other teachers in that I did not identify any evidence of Reading Street carrying over into the instruction she planned with Wonders. This suggests that the ways in which teachers use curriculum materials may shape the opportunities they have to learn from them as well as their subsequent use of other programs because Julie did not seem to have appropriated instructional routines from Reading Street into her repertoire of lesson schema as other teachers did, but instead used her own lesson schema based on an apprenticeship model to guide her instruction with both core programs. 191 Finally, Karina’s instructional routine reflected her vision of comprehension instruction as providing differentiated support, preparing students to be successful in school and on tests, and making connections. Reflecting her view of students as unique individuals and her resulting emphasis on differentiation, Karina started both lesson plans by assigning different texts and tasks to students in the class whom she felt did not need the core program lessons. She then moved on to discuss the question of the week, bringing in the broader question of the unit as well, though the core programs did not recommend this, as a way of teaching students to make connections across texts and from texts to their lives. This instructional activity also reflected her perception that her students were just beginning to learn to comprehend and discuss texts at higher levels. Next, she engaged students in a brief discussion of the text genre, doing this in both lesson plans even though it was only included in Reading Street and not Wonders, which suggests the possible influence of Reading Street on her instructional routine and perhaps her lesson schema. Reflecting her emphasis on preparing students to be successful in school and on tests, as well as the district’s emphasis on test success, she then engaged students in reading the questions at the end of the text as a way of setting purpose and preparing them to read in such as way as to be prepared to answer those questions, like they might need to when taking a standardized test. At the end of the lesson, after reading the text, she planned in both lessons to have students answer the questions at the end in writing. Reflecting her perception that her students were just beginning to learn to engage in more challenging comprehension-focused tasks such as these, she also planned to model for them how to write answers in complete sentences. The instructional routines these three teachers employed illustrate the wide range of possibilities available when knowledgeable teachers with different perspectives and dispositions 192 plan for instruction with a common set of core reading programs and lessons. This speaks to the idea of curriculum potential (Ben-Peretz, 1990)—that curriculum materials have rich potential, beyond what their developers envisioned, to support teachers in designing a wide array of possible plans that express their individuality as teachers while also responding to the particularities of their local context and students. I continue to discuss this idea below in my analysis of the contributions of teachers, curriculum, materials, and context to the teachers’ instructional plans. In addition, the findings that each teacher’s instruction remained similar in many ways even when planning with two different programs and that these routines were shaped by teachers’ experiences, perspectives, and dispositions suggests the influence teachers have as instructional designers when they transform written core program lessons into instructional plans. They also suggest that adopting new curriculum materials may not be sufficient to support changes in teachers’ practices if they continue to rely on their existing lesson schema or instructional routines during planning, and that changing teachers’ classroom practices may require addressing their existing schema and routines more directly. Finally, these findings suggest that experiences with core programs may contribute to the development of teachers’ repertoires of instructional routines or lesson schema, which they can leverage to support planning with a different core program. Teacher, Curriculum Material, and Contextual Contributions Looking more closely at teachers’ lesson plans, beyond the level of instructional routines to the particulars of what they planned for each individual lesson, revealed more closely the ways in which teacher, curriculum material, and contextual characteristics all contributed to the instructional plans. In this section, I first provide detailed examples from three teachers’ lesson plans and then describe additional patterns across the six teachers more briefly in order to 193 illustrate this point. I decided to focus on Amy’s, Cathy’s, and Julie’s lesson plans in this section because they provided more consistently clear and specific descriptions of their instruction, which facilitated analysis and led to clearer examples of the patterns I am seeking to illustrate. Amy’s lesson plans. Amy, who was trusting toward core programs but selective in her use of them, and who believed that they should be her “go-to” resource but not the “end all be all”, planned lessons that reflected significant contributions from the core programs but also showed her agency in adapting them to align with her beliefs and experiences and to address her context. Table 18 shows excerpts from the lesson she planned with Reading Street in comparison with excerpts of the written core program, annotated to indicate contributions to the instructional plans from the core program, the teacher, and the context. As shown in the table, Amy used the text and learning targets from the core program lessons without changing them. She also used many of the questions the core program lessons provided, including them in her lesson plan as written in the core program or with some modifications as shown in Table 18 below. For example, she used the question, “Do horses seem to have a sixth sense that warns them of danger?” from the Reading Street lesson plan without modification. She also used the question about why Gato and Mancha were amazing, which Reading Street included as an after- reading question, and which Amy modified to use during an activity of her own design aimed at getting students actively engaged in discussing the question as a way of helping them articulate their thinking about this question in preparation for the weekly test the district required of them. She also planned to use engagement strategies while discussing Reading Street questions, suggesting the influence of the resources and priorities available and emphasized in her context. In this way, her decisions about how to use and adapt Reading Street questions reflected her own conversational view of instruction, her emphasis on active and interactive meaning construction 194 with texts, and her district context. Amy’s pattern of drawing questions from the core program lesson with some modifications held true across the lessons she planned with both programs, reflecting the influence of the programs themselves and also Amy’s trust in and reliance upon them as a source of questions that helped her students think more deeply about the text and that helped her keep her lessons focused on the learning targets. At the same time, she omitted questions from both core program lessons (see, for example, Table 18) reflecting her perception that teachers can’t “do it all” because programs provide too much. In this case, she omitted questions about context clues, which was not the main target of the lesson, such as the question about the word rickety in Table 18. She also omitted some of the during reading questions that addressed the lesson target of fact and opinion. This decision is puzzling given her explicit attention to prioritizing the lesson’s intended learning targets during planning. It was not clear from our interviews why she omitted these, though she did describe addressing this target in other ways throughout the week, suggesting that she valued it but simply did not choose to prioritize it within this particular lesson. In addition to these patterns of using core program elements as written or with some modifications and to omitting some of the core program questions, Amy made a variety of insertions. She inserted questions and instruction that addressed her vision of comprehension instruction, including her emphasis on building students’ disciplinary and conceptual knowledge and on helping them see literacy as meaningful and engaging. For example, she inserted questions into the lesson in several places that asked students to think about and discuss how the horses they read about were heroes. These questions provided opportunities to build students’ conceptual knowledge and make connections to students’ lives and interests, while also serving the function of tying together the different excerpts of the story, which they read across three 195 Table 18 Excerpts from Amy’s Lesson Plan Reading Street Lesson Amy’s Reading Street Lesson Plan Annotations Learning Target: Monitor and clarify; fact and opinion pp. 266-267: Evaluation: Text Evidence: How does the author support the opinion that the riders were brave? Explain why this is a well-supported or faulty opinion. (This is a well-supported opinion. In the first paragraph of p. 267 the author supports the opinion by describing the harsh conditions they faced. I think these dangers support the opinion.) pp. 268-269: Analysis: Text Evidence: Give an example of a context clue you can use to tell the meaning of the word “rickety”. (On p. 269, paragraph 3, it says that the sight of the bridge “made Tschiffely’s blood run cold”, and that the bridge was “old”. So rickety must mean old and unsafe. Evaluation: Text Evidence: Do horses seem to have a sixth sense that warns them about danger? Explain your answer with text evidence. (Horses do seem to have a sixth sense. In the story, the horses helped save Tschiffely’s life in Peru a number of times.) pp. 272-273 Synthesis: Text Evidence: Using what you learned in this selection, tell how people and animals can work as a team. Have students cite examples from the text to support their responses. Look Back and Write: Look back at pages 268- 271. What made Gato and Mancha so amazing? Provide evidence to support your answer. Learning Target: Monitor and clarify; fact and opinion Use Reading Street audio version of the story and have students listen and follow along as it is read aloud. Stop after each page, look at the pictures, ask the questions provided in Reading Street. Use a pair-share conversation structure and engagement strategies to try to get a 100% response. Also ask, "What don't we get? What don't we know what it means?" during reading to encourage self-monitoring and clarifying. p. 267: Discuss what a telegraph is. Relate it to codes and keyboards, explain how it worked. Show additional pictures of Pony Express, telegraph, Morse code. Ask students: “What do you remember about the Pony Express? I want you to think about how horses are heroes. How can it be a hero in this story?” pp. 268-269 Show them the map, talk about how to pronounce the name. Aime Tschiffely is really hard, Criollo. There's a lot of tough words, even Mancha and Gato. Those aren't typical words our kids see. Talk about, do horses seem to have a sixth sense that warns them of danger? pp. 272-273 Talk about, how are they working as a team? Is this horse considered a hero? Because it's just a movie horse, how could it be a hero? Then, ask kids to go back to Gato and Mancha. All turn back to that story. “I'm going to give everybody a sticky note and I want you to give me one example of why these horses were amazing, so I want you to go back to the text. I want you to find it and put on your sticky note the page number and then, why are the horses amazing?” The reason I chose that question was because that was a test question of the writing. I want them kind of pre-thinking that. Use of learning target from program Use of program’s audio version, questions, and pattern of stopping after each page. Use of engagement strategies from context. Use of teacher-inserted instruction, questions, activities; omission of core program suggestions from pp. 266-269 Use of questions derived from program Rationale reflecting influence of context different days, and connecting them meaningfully to the title, thus supporting the coherence of the lesson and helping students see the text as a cohesive whole. Amy also inserted instruction 196 and discussion targeting historical knowledge that she perceived her students lacked, such as what a telegraph is, addressing simultaneously her belief in the importance of building background and vocabulary knowledge to make the text accessible and her perception that her students lacked disciplinary knowledge. Interestingly, she did not do this in her Wonders lesson plan because she perceived that the text and lesson were engaging and supportive enough as written. Here again, the interaction between teacher and curriculum materials is clear as both shaped the instructional plans in different ways. Amy’s Wonders lesson plan followed similar patterns of core program use and adaptation. On the whole, then, Amy’s lesson plans demonstrate the ways in which core program, teacher, and contextual factors all contributed to her instructional plans. Importantly, though contributions from the core programs and the context are evident in both lesson plans, the examples above also demonstrate the influence and agency of the teacher in designing instruction because Amy ultimately decided, based upon her orientations and situated instructional priorities, what contributions the core program and context would make to her instructional plans. In this way, Amy’s lesson plans demonstrate her pedagogical design capacity (Brown, 2009)—her ability to perceive and mobilize the potential of the core program lessons in combination with her own resources and those available in her context to design instruction that reflected her individual commitments and dispositions as a teacher as well as addressing her local context and students. Cathy’s lesson plans. In contrast with Amy, whose lesson plans were similar across programs, Cathy, who planned with two more widely divergent programs (Benchmark and Wonders), demonstrated more differences across her lesson plans, a finding that attests to the influence of both teachers’ views of core programs and the core program materials themselves. 197 In particular, Cathy’s Benchmark lesson plan reflected the program’s apprenticeship model while her Wonders lesson plan reflected the program’s more traditional and integrated curricular model. Table 19 displays excerpts from the core programs and from Cathy’s lesson plans that demonstrate the close connections between the written curriculum and the instructional plans as well as the differences between the two planned lessons. The annotations in the table identify the elements of each program’s instructional model evident in the written core program lesson and in Cathy’s instructional plans. As shown in Table 19, Cathy’s Benchmark lesson plan began by introducing the comprehension strategies that would be the lesson’s learning targets, and her lesson maintained an almost exclusive focus on these targets throughout. Cathy did insert some instruction addressing text content and vocabulary into her Benchmark lesson plan, discussing ancient, Chinese, Egyptians, and Romans, an adaptation that reflected her view that building knowledge is an important aspect of comprehension instruction, but her attention to these aspects of comprehension was limited in her Benchmark lesson. Though she made some adaptations like these, her lesson closely paralleled the Benchmark lesson, emphasizing guided practice with increasing independence during reading, selective rereading, reflection upon and discussion of questions about strategy application after reading, and discussion of the broader applicability and transfer of strategies incorporated more explicit instruction on the targeted skill and strategy of summarizing and fix-up monitoring, as well as more focused guided practice with a greater degree of independence. Additionally, two of her adaptations—reading the text to students in order to provide additional support and inserting explicit strategy instruction—were also consistent with the apprenticeship model, suggesting that even when making adaptations, her reasoning may have been guided by the broader instructional design of the program. 198 Table 19 Excerpts from Cathy’s Lesson Plans Benchmark Lesson Plan Cathy’s Benchmark Lesson Plan Ask students to think about what summarizing is and what its purpose is, reminding them that this was explained in lesson one. Have students share their thoughts with a partner. Ask students when they would need to use a fix-up monitoring strategy and what they can do when they’re not understanding. Read passage aloud to students. Talk about the second paragraph, discussing the word ancient and concepts related to Egyptians, Chinese, and Romans. In the third paragraph, help students understand what these scientists do and that if they like plants, maybe they could be botanists. This could lend itself to a fun conversation. Tell students they will be rereading the passage. Share my thinking with them to let them know that good readers don’t just read things one time and get it: “Oftentimes I read something once just to learn the science content. Then I read it again to start remembering the information in a way that makes sense, and sometimes I have to read something three times, especially if I'm stuck or when I realize I didn’t understand.” Have students reread the first paragraph on their own or with a partner, determine the main idea, and write it down. Do the same with the second and third paragraphs. Based on these big ideas, have students work on their own or with a partner to summarize the passage. Remind them that summaries are not real long and tell what the passage is about. Have them evaluate whether their summaries might be too long or too short. Have students share some of their summaries by writing them on the white board and compare to what the book has. Tell students, “As readers, you need to make sure that you are monitoring your thinking and understanding. If you’re not, what are two things you can do?” (Reread and highlight.) Today you’re going to practice reading and summarizing information in a text. Remember to use what you’ve learned. You can use fix-up monitoring strategies to help you understand. Based on students’ needs and abilities, ask them to read the passage independently or with a partner. Tell them to locate and write the most important ideas in the Big Ideas box. Encourage students to write a summary sentence in the Summary box. Tell students to underline, circle, or flag key information as they read. Invite individual students or pairs to share the big ideas they identified and the summary they wrote. Record students’ findings on the poster or on chart paper. Reflect and Discuss: How does summarizing help you monitor whether or not you understood what you read? Tell about some summaries you have read. Connect and transfer. Say: Remember that any text includes both important ideas and less important information. As you read today, ask yourself which information is important for you to remember. Concentrate on what you read and monitor how well you understand it. When you get confused, use fix-up strategies to understand text ideas and their connections. Annotations Introduction to learning targets and lesson purpose Teacher- inserted attention to text content, vocabulary, and conversation Teacher- inserted strategy instruction Guided practice during reading with increasing independence Selective rereading Reflection upon and discussion of questions about strategy application Discussion of broader applicability and transfer 199 Table 19 (cont’d) Wonders Lesson Plan Tell students they will be reading about how earthquakes and tsunamis happen and how people prepare for them. Ask students to predict how the selection will help them answer the Essential Question: How do people respond to natural disasters? Skill: Compare and Contrast: How are Earth’s plates and boiling milk similar? (Heat causes milk to boil and to move the layer of cream that floats on top of it. Heat also causes the upper mantle to push and pull, or move, the plates that float on top of it.) What difference does Dr. Cifuentes point out? (The Earth’s crust is much harder than a layer of cream.) Use this information to fill in the Venn diagram. Purpose: Students may be confused by the insertion of a firsthand account feature in the middle of this expository text. Discuss why an author might do this and what it adds to the selection. Why did the author give Dr. Cifuentes’s account? (to explain why Dr. Cifuentes became a seismologist.) How would the selection have been different without the firsthand account? (The selection would have only given the scientific explanation of earthquakes and would not have allowed the reader to understand the personal experience that led Dr. Cifuentes to study them.) Vocabulary: Multiple-Meaning Words: What is the meaning of the word fault in the text? (a break in Earth’s crust.) What is another meaning of the word fault? (mistake or blame) Stop and Check: Reread: How do scientists measure earthquakes? Teacher Think Aloud: I can reread the first paragraph to better see how seismologists measure an earthquake’s size. The text says that seismologists use seismographs, which measure ground motion. The readings are used to calculate an earthquake’s size. How do scientists compare the sizes of different earthquakes by using their magnitude? Prompt students to apply the strategy in a Think Aloud by rereading to confirm their understanding of magnitude scales and how earthquakes are measured. Cathy’s Wonders Lesson Plan Start with the essential question, “How do people respond to natural disasters?” Making that the "I can" statement. Students should have some of the knowledge from the other two lessons on avalanches, volcanoes, and landslides, which should pique their interest. Then I would say, “Because this is going to be some new information, and important information, oftentimes we're going to have to reread to make sure that we're understanding the vocabulary and the information.” p. 50 (T153C-D)- On the next page they introduce an author, a seismologist, who is kind of throughout the text. He does an interesting analogy between boiling milk and the earth's crust. That could be a visual that most students could relate to, even if it were just that boiling water. Have students complete a Venn diagram: How is it alike, how it is different? Here, we have this firsthand account. My thought was students would say, this is authentic information because we have someone that's experienced this and is writing this as a scientist. Then, one of the questions is, “Why did the author give this account?” (pointing to question about Purpose on p. T153D). So, it's lending purpose to why this is inserted in here. But then you've got a first- person account just shoved in there. Talk with students about how, as a reader, when that happens you have to shift gears. It's like kind of teaching them the purpose and then what to do mentally to accommodate that information. “Sometimes I simply read the information. Then, I might go back and read those extra things, just like before I read I would go through and look at my headings and my photographs and my captions." It's teaching them how I'm a reader. p. 52 (T153E-F)- Let's see, here we would have to pull back into some of the vocabulary, because now we move into more of the technical information with earthquakes and faults. We have the question, “How do scientists measure earthquakes?” We had the information, but then we need to reread to specifically identify the measure. I could see where some of these words could possibly slow children down. So, here, they're trying to use these words in context. And this is even stepping away from, have they decoded them correctly, and maybe the technical definition, asking them to create a visual about what's happening. So, the diagram helps. It's labeled. And then I reread this for this information and then have students reread with the purpose of understanding the magnitude scale. Prompt students saying, “Using the vocabulary word or words, explain to your partner that answer.” Annotations Introduction to and discussion of text topic and question of the week Teacher-inserted strategy instruction. Discussion of questions addressing learning targets; prompted strategy use; recording strategy application on graphic organizer. Discussion of questions addressing text structure and features. Teacher-inserted strategy instruction. Brief instruction addressing vocabulary. Discussion of questions addressing learning targets to prompt strategy use. 200 In contrast, her Wonders lesson plan reflected the program’s more traditional and integrated curricular model, as shown in Table 19. In particular, her Wonders lesson addressed a wider range of content, including the targeted skill and strategy of compare and contrast and rereading as a way of self-monitoring, but also including attention to text structure and vocabulary, such as when she addressed the firsthand account and discussed the words fault and magnitude scales—text elements and terms that the written Wonders lesson also addressed. Though Cathy provided less instruction and focused practice with the targeted comprehension strategies in her Wonders lesson plan, she still inserted explicit strategy instruction beyond what the core program provided, as she had done in her Benchmark lesson, a move that speaks to her agency and influence in designing instruction. At the same time, however, Cathy’s Wonders lesson plan did not move students toward independence in their guided practice of the strategy, but instead maintained heavy scaffolding of strategy application throughout the lesson through the use of questions that prompted strategy practice at particular moments in time an approach that contrasted with the relatively more independent level of practice in her Benchmark lesson. In this way, the lesson she planned with Wonders reflected the program’s more traditional and integrated instructional model. These differences, shown in Table 19 above, demonstrate how planning with widely differing curriculum materials can result in vastly different instructional plans, especially for teachers like Cathy who trust core programs and choose to closely follow them when designing instruction. Julie’s lesson plans. Julie, who viewed core programs as helpful for providing a scope and sequence, but who was skeptical of them otherwise, planned lessons that showed limited influence of the core programs and heavy influence of her own resources and orientations. In particular, her lessons reflected her own knowledge, perceptions, and dispositions about 201 comprehension instruction, about her students, and about her district context, as well as the influence of an outside resource she consulted, the professional text Strategies that Work (Harvey & Goudvis, 2007). Table 20 below shows excerpts of her Reading Street lesson plan with annotations to illustrate these influences, as well as excerpts from the written Reading Street lesson with annotations to indicate how Julie adapted the lesson and to show the contrasts between the written curriculum and her instructional plans. Julie’s lesson plan in Table 20 closely followed an apprenticeship model of instruction that reflected the influence of her own views that comprehension instruction should be focused and authentic, and that also reflected the influence of Strategies that Work. More specifically, as shown in Table 20, her lessons incorporated a narrow focus on one single comprehension strategy, explicit attention to teaching, modeling, and reflecting upon the application and broader applicability of the strategy, and a clear gradual release of responsibility across the lesson as a whole. She, thus, omitted core program components that included a broader focus, including those addressing genre, the essential question topic, and the review skill of compare and contrast as shown in Table 20. She began her lesson by providing explicit instruction addressing how readers use the strategy of monitoring comprehension to pay attention to the conversation in their head while reading, which supports them in making sense of texts. She abandoned Reading Street’s representations of content and instead explained monitoring comprehension using language from Strategies that Work, referring to reading as thinking and to comprehension monitoring as an “inner conversation”, and using sticky notes to leave “tracks of her thinking” (Harvey & Goudvis, 2007, p. 78) during reading. She included several think-alouds to model her strategy use early in the lesson, speaking authentically about reading and strategy use as a reader in a way that reflected her emphasis on authentic literacy for life. After this modeling, she 202 Table 20 Excerpts from Julie’s Lesson Plan Reading Street Lesson Plan Julie’s Lesson Plan Annotations Introduce genre: Explain that expository texts tell about real people, things or events. They are often organized by text features, such as headings and subheadings. Establish purpose: read to gain knowledge about animal structures that help solve problems. -Main idea and details: Ask students to identify the main idea. Have students read pp. 210-211 and identify the details that support this idea. Model: “I can identify the main idea by asking, What is this text about? I read that the mother penguin has laid an egg. The father puts the egg on his feet. I read another detail—the father keeps the egg warm with his brood patch. The main idea is that the mother has laid an egg and the penguins must keep their egg warm.” On their own: Have students find another detail that supports the idea that the egg must be kept warm. -Monitor and Clarify: Have students read pp. 212-213. Tell students they should stop often to ask themselves questions about what they have just read. Model: "After I read that the mother uses her flippers and webbed feet to push herself forward, I stop and ask myself what this means. If I am confused about this fact, I can look it up in an encyclopedia to find pictures and information about the emperor penguin.” On their own: Have partners read pp. 212-213 aloud, stopping after each paragraph to ask questions about the reading. If they are confused about a fact, have them look up the information. Before reading, support ELLs and students who lack vocabulary knowledge by working with them one-on-one to discuss and pre-teach the vocabulary, being sure to address words that come up on the weekly test. “We’re going to learn about a comprehension strategy that you probably use all the time, but you’ve never thought about it before. Think about a time that you were reading something that didn’t make sense. What did you do? How did you know it didn’t make sense? (solicit answers) Guess what? That’s monitoring your comprehension. You are actually doing that! Readers pay attention and they think about the words and the ideas that the text is bringing out, and when you’re doing those things you are having a conversation in your head. Nobody can hear it but you, and that is monitoring and clarifying, and that is what we’re going to talk about today.” Talk more about the inner voice. For example, “When I’m confused, my inner voice might say, ‘Hmm, I don’t get it,” and if I read on I might get it again. Or if I don’t, I reread it. Or something I read makes me say, ‘Oh, wow! I didn’t know that! That’s really interesting.’ Or something that I’m challenged by, ‘That doesn’t make sense to me. That’s not what I know about that subject.’ So kind of wondering then, ‘Am I going to change my thinking after I’m done reading?’” Look at first page together, read through it and model thinking. Then have students talk to a peer. “What is something that was going on in your head when you were reading this text?” Again, read aloud. This time model writing thoughts on sticky note with goal of having them leave a thought track through the text. Model answering the question, “What are you thinking about as you are reading?” The goal by this point in the lesson is to have them read with their reading buddy, recording thought tracks and leaving them on the page. Monitor pairs and check in, “Tell me what you’re thinking about.” 203 Insertion of individualized vocabulary instruction to support students in accessing text and succeeding on tests Introduction to learning target; omission of instruction related to genre and of focus on text topic/content. Explicit strategy instruction, including explanation of monitoring comprehension taken from Strategies that Work; re-sequencing to address main idea and details on another day. Explicit strategy instruction using language from Strategies that Work; modeling with authentic think-alouds; omission of Reading Street modeling and explanation of monitor and clarify. Early guided practice with prompting and immediate feedback Increasing independence reflecting a gradual release of responsibility; omission of prompted practice Table 20 (cont’d) Reading Street Lesson Plan -Compare and contrast: Remind students that when they compare and contrast two or more things, they tell how the things are alike and different. “How can you compare and contrast the father penguin’s job with the mother penguin’s job?” Model: Draw a Venn diagram on the board with labels Mother and Father… On their own: Have students complete the Venn diagram to compare and contrast the jobs of the mother and father penguins. Julie’s Lesson Plan At the end of the story, have them share their inner conversation. “What were some things you were thinking about while you were reading the rest of this text with your reading buddy?” Remind them, “Readers, you have had a wonderful conversation about this story, your inner conversation, and remember that reading is thinking. When you’re paying attention to the words and ideas, you’re monitoring and clarifying. This is something we will be talking about and working on all year long.” Annotations Reflection upon strategy use and emphasis on broader applicability; omission of instruction and activities addressing text structure and content included a gradual release of responsibility, first having students practice the strategy on a single page while sitting on the carpet near her so she could listen and provide immediate feedback, and gradually allowing them to work with partners to read the rest of the selection on their own with less monitoring and support. At the end of the lesson, she gathered students back together to reflect upon their strategy use and to emphasize the broader applicability of the strategy. In this way, her instruction reflected an apprenticeship model that was quite different from the Reading Street lesson because Reading Street did not provide the same level of attention to explicit comprehension strategy instruction and gradual release but instead incorporated instruction and activities addressing a broad range of comprehension-related content—including genre, reading to gain knowledge, main idea and details, and compare and contrast. Julie omitted these additional topics from the lesson in order to maintain a narrower focus on strategies. Reflecting both her vision of comprehension instruction and her perception of her students as having ample knowledge and experiences to support their comprehension, she omitted questions and activities designed to address background and vocabulary knowledge for the class as a whole. 204 At the same time, she inserted individual instruction before reading for ELLs and other students who lacked vocabulary knowledge in order to address words they would need to know to understand the text and succeed on the weekly test. This adaptation reflects her knowledge and perceptions of her students and also the influence of the district context because the district required that all students take the weekly tests. Though Julie prioritized authentic purposes for literacy instruction, she valued supporting her students in being and feeling successful and, for this reason, she emphasized addressing the tested vocabulary. In this way, her instructional plans as a whole reflected her own knowledge and vision of comprehension instruction, her use of the professional text Strategies that Work as a resource, her knowledge and perceptions of her students, and the influence of the district context. The core program lesson provided only the text and learning targets. These patterns were also largely true of her Wonders lesson plan. Given the similarities in Julie’s and Cathy’s visions of comprehension instruction, it is interesting to compare their instructional plans. Both teachers incorporated an apprenticeship model of instruction into at least some of their lessons, though Cathy abandoned this when planning with Wonders because she strove to follow this unfamiliar core program closely as a way to learn from it and uncover its potential. Julie, in contrast, maintained an apprenticeship model when planning with both programs, a decision that reflected her confidence in herself as a literacy teacher and her skepticism toward core programs. Comparing the lessons these two teachers planned provides evidence that teachers’ orientations to core programs mediate the relationship between their visions of instruction and the instruction they plan with particular programs. It also speaks to the ways in which interactions between teachers’ various beliefs, rather than any single belief, shaped their instructional plans. 205 Broader patterns across teachers. In addition to these specific examples, a few broader patterns across teachers bear further discussion here. These broader patterns all speak to the ways in which curriculum materials, teachers, and context all contributed to the teachers’ instructional plans. In terms of the influence of curriculum materials, all six of the teachers used the core program to guide at least some aspects of their lesson plans, as evidenced by their instructional plans showing clear connections to specific components of the written core program lessons. All of them used the core program texts and learning targets in their lessons without modification. In addition, as discussed above, their lessons bore some resemblance on a general level to the core programs’ common instructional routine of before, during, and after reading activities. Table 21 shows the core program components that were most commonly used to inform plans, broken down by teacher and lesson to show both similarities and differences across teachers and programs. Speaking to the influence of teachers’ role as instructional designers, the degree to which core program lessons contributed to instructional plans largely reflected the teachers’ orientations, especially their views of core programs. More specifically, the core program lessons had a greater influence on the instructional plans of teachers such as Amy, Cathy, and Anastasia, who were more trusting in their views of core programs. These three teachers tended to use the graphic organizers the programs provided, to address much of the content the program lessons addressed and occasionally to use the core programs’ instructional explanations and even at times their scripted language when teaching the content. They also tended to use more of the core programs’ questions, activities, and suggestions for differentiated support. This was true regardless of the degree of detail with which they described reading and evaluating core program 206 Table 21 Core Program Components Most Commonly Used to Inform Lesson Plans √=component used in teacher’s lesson plan Core program components Evidence that component informed lesson plan Material objects Content • Main text for the week • Graphic organizer • Audio recording of the text (disc/software) • Vocabulary (words and/or definitions) • Comprehension skills and strategies learning target instructional explanations • • • modeling/think-alouds • Genre • definition explanations and modeling of text structure/features • • Essential question • • week level unit level Tasks/ Activities/ Procedures Structure • Questions to ask students before reading during reading after reading • • • Instructional suggestions for teachers Suggestions for differentiated support • • • Objectives/learning targets y m A t e e r t S g n i d a e R √ n.a. √ √ √ √ ? ? √ ? ? ? ? ? (√) ? (√) (√) (√) ? √ y m A s r e d n o W a i s a t s a n A k r a m h c n e B a i s a t s a n A s r e d n o W y h t a C k r a m h c n e B y h t a C s r e d n o W e i l u J t e e r t S g n i d a e R e i l u J s r e d n o W a n i r a K t e e r t S g n i d a e R a n i r a K s r e d n o W a r r e i K t e e r t S g n i d a e R a r r e i K s r e d n o W √ √ n.a. (√) √ √ (√) (√) √ n.a. (√) √ X √ (√) ? (√) (√) (√) X √ √ n.a. n.a. (√) √ √ ? ? n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a n.a. n.a. (√) n.a. (√) (√) (√) X √ √ √ n.a. ? √ √ (√) ? √ n.a. ? √ √ √ (√) (√) (√) (√) (√) X √ √ n.a. n.a. (√) √ √ (√) (√) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a n.a. n.a. (√) n.a. (√) (√) (√) (√) √ √ √ n.a. (√) √ √ (√) (√) √ n.a. (√) √ X √ (√) (√) (√) X (√) (√) √ √ X X X √ √ X X X X X X X X X X X X X X √ √ n.a. X X √ √ X X X n.a. X X X X X X X X X X √ √ n.a. X √ √ √ (√) ? √ √ (√) √ √ √ (√) (√) (√) √ (√) X √ √ √ n.a. √ (√) (√) (√) ? √ n.a. (√) √ X √ (√) (√) (√) √ (√) X √ √ X √ √ √ √ X X √ ? X √ √ √ (√) X (√) (√) (√) X √ √ √ n.a. (√) √ √ X X X n.a. (√) √ X √ (√) X (√) (√) (√) X √ (√)=component used in teacher’s lesson plan with adaptation X=component not used in teacher’s lesson plan ?=unclear if component was used in teacher’s lesson plan n.a.=component not in core program lesson 207 lessons during planning. Anastasia, for example, who read the core program lesson on a very general level, developed outline-like plans that closely paralleled and referred back to the core program lessons themselves, while Cathy read the core program lessons in detail and developed highly-specified plans. Both teachers’ instructional plans closely reflected the core program lessons. In other words, for teachers who trusted core programs, their decisions about how to respond to the core program lessons were shaped more by their overall trust in core programs generally than by the degree of detail with which they read them. As a result, for teachers who were trusting toward core programs, differences in their two instructional plans tended to reflect differences in the written core program lessons. For example, Cathy provided more instruction in background and vocabulary knowledge when planning with Wonders but more instruction in comprehension strategies when planning with Benchmark since the program lessons placed different levels of emphasis on these aspects of comprehension development. At the same time, their lesson plans also showed evidence of being shaped in smaller ways by the teachers’ beliefs and instructional routines. In contrast, teachers who were more skeptical toward core programs, such as Julie, Karina, and Kierra, planned lessons that reflected less core program influence and more influence of their own resources and orientations, as Julie’s lesson plan above demonstrates. This meant that some characteristics of their lesson plans were more static across lesson plans, as reflected by Julie’s use of an apprenticeship model in the lessons she planned with both programs even though both followed a more traditional and integrated model of instruction. This was true even when skeptical teachers closely read and evaluated the core program lessons. For example, Julie read the core program lessons with a high degree of detail, but little of what she read in the core program lesson was reflected in her instructional plans. Teachers holding 208 skeptical views of core programs, thus, seemed to evaluate them negatively and then to decide to adapt much of what they had attended to in the core program. Also speaking to teachers’ influential role as instructional designers, all six of the teachers made adaptations to the core program lessons when planning. In terms of the types of adaptations they made, all six teachers frequently omitted components from the core program lessons, a pattern that reflected the influence of the core program lessons themselves and, most notably, the large volume of content and instructional activities in the lessons—especially Reading Street and Wonders, which teachers felt it was impossible to do justice to all of, and which teachers made noticeably more omissions to, as shown in Table 22. The volume of adaptations teachers made reflected their orientations toward core programs. Teachers who were more trusting of core programs, including Amy, Anastasia, and Cathy, also made fewer adaptations to the core program lessons. Table 22 shows the number and type of adaptations each teacher made in each lesson plan, demonstrating that the total number of adaptations these trusting teachers made across lessons ranged from 25 to 48 for each teacher. I identified a relatively large number of adaptations in Cathy’s Wonders lesson plan in comparison with other trusting teachers’ lesson plans due to the fact that she described this lesson in great detail and that I was, thus, able to more conclusively identify adaptations in this lesson plan than in many of the others in the dataset. In terms of types of adaptations, these three teachers tended to follow what they interpreted to be the intended core program lesson sequence with little re- sequencing. This suggests that they allowed the core program to guide their overall lesson sequence. They also made fewer omissions and modifications than teachers who were more skeptical toward core programs overall, reflecting their overall trust in the design of the core program components and their related desire to use much of what the programs provided with 209 Table 22 Number and Type of Adaptations for Each Teacher and Lesson Teacher (view) Anastasia (trusting) Amy (trusting but selective) Cathy (trusting) Julie (skeptical) Karina (mixed) Kierra (skeptical) Core Program Number of Adaptations Insertions Modifications Omissions Re- sequencings Benchmark lesson Wonders lesson Reading Street lesson Wonders lesson Benchmark lesson Wonders lesson Reading Street lesson Wonders lesson Reading Street lesson Wonders lesson Reading Street lesson Wonders lesson 11 14 22 17 17 31 34 67 39 26 35 30 7 1 10 3 7 6 4 13 6 6 5 3 1 9 3 5 6 11 13 26 12 8 12 12 3 3 8 7 4 13 14 23 17 12 12 10 0 1 1 1 0 1 3 5 4 0 6 5 limited change. The number of insertions they made was comparable to teachers who approached core programs with greater skepticism, and these insertions reflected the trusting teachers’ knowledge of their particular students and their goals of making core program lessons accessible and engaging. The majority of these insertions addressed vocabulary and background or disciplinary knowledge they felt their students needed additional support to comprehend or engage with, and specific examples of these adaptations from Amy’s and Cathy’s lesson plans are shown in Tables 19 and 20 above. Broader interview data confirmed that these three teachers sought to use the core program lessons with minimal adaptation. 210 In contrast, teachers who expressed a more skeptical view of core programs, including Karina, Kierra, and Julie, made more adaptations overall, with Karina and Kierra making 65 and Julie making 105. The difference between the total number of adaptations I identified for each of these three teachers reflects the differences in the detail and specificity of their plans, which made it possible for me to identify adaptations at a fine-grained level in Julie’s lesson plans but not in Karina’s or Kierra’s. These three teachers made similar types of adaptations as one another, with the majority of their adaptations involving omitting, modifying, and re-sequencing core program components. These patterns of adaptation show an overall more flexible use of the core program than trusting teachers, with less intention to follow the overall core program lesson sequence or to use the activities and instructional suggestions as written. On the whole, then, teachers’ views of core programs influenced the degree to which core program lessons contributed to their instructional plans as well as the degree and type of adaptations they made, again speaking to the ways in which curriculum material and teacher characteristics interact to inform instruction. Teachers’ instructional plans also reflected the influence of resources and characteristics of their contexts. In describing their curricular reasoning and pedagogical rationale, teachers in this study made explicit mention of some ways in which their plans reflected and addressed contextual factors. As mentioned above, Amy made explicit reference to the county’s engagement-focused initiatives in describing her inclusion of engagement strategies in her plans. Similarly, Cathy referred to giving students opportunities to respond, a term that was also emphasized in the county’s initiatives. In addition, Julie, Karina, Kierra, and Amy all made explicit mention of including or addressing specific things in their lesson plans in order to prepare students for the district-required weekly tests, which were included on district non- 211 negotiable lists. For example, Julie included individual vocabulary instruction and Karina used the questions at the end of the story to set purpose for reading. Additionally, Karina, Kierra, and Amy all addressed particular questions in their lessons because they knew they would be addressed on the weekly test and they wanted to give students the opportunity to begin thinking about those questions in advance, like Amy did with the question about what made the horses Gato and Mancha amazing. Kierra also made mention of district-created Smartboard slides, which she used during her Reading Street lesson. In addition to district resources and pressures, the influence of the CCSS was also apparent in lesson plans though teachers did not explicitly describe consulting the standards or seeking to align their plans with them within the study. In particular, the lessons emphasized close reading, as evidenced by their use of multiple readings with different emphases and finding textual evidence to support answers, and the use of complex texts was particularly evident in lessons planned with Reading Street and Wonders. Importantly, all of these CCSS influences reflect the written core program lessons, suggesting that the CCSS may have influenced teachers’ plans indirectly through the core programs. This indirect influence seems especially likely given that only Kierra explicitly mentioned referring to or thinking about the standards during planning. On the whole, I found consistent evidence of a participatory and contextual relationship informing instructional plans. This was evident, for example, in the ways in which teachers’ instructional plans did not always fully reflect their ideal visions for comprehension instruction, and teachers sometimes left things out of their lessons that they deeply valued, often because of the contextual or core program constraints. For example, Amy, who valued deep study of literature through reading and extended discussion of novels and other texts longer than those 212 included in the core program, did not incorporate either of these things into her plans because, as she explained, she had not been able to figure out how to do this while still using the core program. To manage the dilemma this created for her, she engaged students in reading longer texts during her read-alouds at a different time in the day, and she incorporated shorter discussions into her lessons where she could. She expressed that the core program texts and lessons didn’t provide enough meat for a rich or extended debate and that she also hadn’t figured out where to fit longer discussions in. These elements of Amy’s broader vision of comprehension instruction, thus, were not fully reflected in her lesson plans due to the constraints of the materials themselves. Similarly, even though Kierra used the core program lessons flexibly and adaptively, she expressed tension in teaching with programs saying, “It's something that I taught with a scripted deal, is that what I think is important, or is it what our non-negotiable list says has to be done?” (SLP1). One core programs characteristic that constrained teachers’ planning, leading them to omit things they valued, was the sheer volume of content and instructional activities the lessons provided. For example, Amy, who frequently expressed that she prioritized addressing the core program learning targets in her instruction, omitted instruction and practice with the targeted skill of fact and opinion in her Reading Street lesson plan, choosing to address that learning target in a more focused way on a different day. Similarly, Kierra omitted discussing the genre before reading in her Wonders lesson plan though she repeatedly spoke of the importance of students learning about genre. This pattern of omitting things they valued from core program lessons was evident across teachers and programs and seems to be a strategy for coping with the complexity and dilemmas that arose due to the overwhelming volume of content and instructional activities the core program lessons provided. As Amy shared, “cutting and figuring 213 out where to cut… that was the hardest thing for me... I do, unfortunately, skip a lot of… It's all good stuff, all of it, but it's hard to feel like you're doing it justice” (GI). In this way, she expressed the tension that arose for her when core program lessons provided more “good stuff” than she could fit in, a tension that led her to “skip a lot of it,” even skipping things she felt were important. This quote reflects the necessity of making omissions as well as the tensions and dilemmas this created for the teachers in their work. I posit that this pattern of teachers omitting things they valued may be a way of managing the complexity of the core program lessons as well as limitations in their own instructional design capacity, in students’ capacity for attention and for learning new content, and in overall instructional time. Interestingly, even as they experienced these tensions, teachers also voiced ways in which they felt the programs supported them in designing high-quality instruction that reflected their visions of comprehension instruction. Amy, for example, expressed gratitude for having a program as a source of ideas and questions that she wouldn’t have been able to come up with on her own but that helped her support her students’ learning, like having another teacher in the room. Kierra shared, “I like the systematic piece of it and that the themes kind of go together. Everything goes back to that question of the week. I love that connection” (SLP2). These quotes exemplify the ways in which teachers saw the programs as helpful for supporting their instruction even as they felt constrained by them, at times unable to teach in ways that fully reflected their visions of comprehension instruction. Though the teachers exerted a powerful influence over their instructional plans, the influence of the core programs remains apparent as both a supporting and constraining factor, confirming the interactive and participatory nature of the teacher-curriculum relationship. 214 In sum, the teachers’ lesson plans provide evidence of contributions from the context, the core programs, and the teachers themselves. Teachers and core programs contributed more directly and shaped more elements of the instructional plans, doing so in interactive and participatory ways, while contextual factors exerted a more focused influence, shaping a few particular aspects of the lesson plans as described above. Evaluation of Quality and Responsiveness In terms of the alignment of the instructional plans with elements of high-quality, responsive instruction, every lesson plan aligned with at least one criterion for each of the nine elements, indicating that the lessons addressed a wide range of characteristics of instruction likely to support comprehension development among students generally and demonstrated at least some attention to responsively supporting the learning needs of particular learners and contexts. In addition, each lesson plan exhibited both strengths and weaknesses that reflected positive and negative contributions from teachers and core programs. As I discuss further below, teachers improved upon the program lessons in several areas, planning stronger instruction than what the core program lessons offered, though at times they also made adaptations that decreased alignment with the standards I used to evaluate quality and responsiveness. Often, the quality and responsiveness of the instructional plans reflected the complex interactions between the characteristics, resources, and limitations of the teacher and the core program, including their orientations and routines. I also found that sometimes teachers made seemingly random omissions when designing instruction led to inconsistencies in the quality and responsiveness of each teachers’ instructional plans that had no clear connection to their knowledge and beliefs, their noticing of the materials, or the core program resources themselves. 215 Methodologically, I found that the vagueness with which some teachers described their plans and the student-specific nature of some criteria for high-quality, responsive comprehension instruction made some of the criteria difficult to evaluate. I avoided making inferences and left question marks in the tables below to indicate areas in which I could not make an evaluation for either of these reasons. In this section, I discuss my evaluation of the twelve planned lessons, organizing my discussion by element and demonstrating the ways in which teachers and core programs made positive and negative contributions to the quality and responsiveness of the instructional plans. Table 23 summarizes this evaluation, showing how the twelve instructional plans aligned with the elements of high-quality, responsive comprehension instruction, as well as whether teachers’ adaptations increased or decreased alignment with these elements. Building conceptual and language knowledge. All twelve lesson plans included at least some attention to developing students’ disciplinary and world knowledge and/or their vocabulary and language knowledge. Many lessons also involved at least some opportunities to use new words in conversation and most provided opportunities for repeated exposure to new words. On the whole, building conceptual and language knowledge was an area of particular strength in most teachers’ instructional plans, reflecting some strong contributions from both the core program lessons and the teachers. All of the core program lessons provided at least some support for building conceptual and world knowledge and for building knowledge of words and language, both through the texts they included and through their suggestions for instruction, activities, and differentiated support. They also tended to provide opportunities for students to use words in conversation, often through questions that prompted discussion of words and concepts from the text, and for repeated exposure to new words across contexts, often through addressing words in the focal lessons that were also addressed throughout the broader week of 216 Table 23 Quality and Responsiveness of Instructional Plans Element Component Criteria Building conceptual and language knowledge* • • instruction and activities that build and build upon disciplinary or world knowledge instruction and activities that build and build upon knowledge of words and language and their meaning, structure, and use • Vocabulary instruction should involve: o explicit explanations of the meanings of new words o opportunities to use the words in conversation o opportunities for repeated exposure to these words across contexts teaching lessons to the whole class only when most students would benefit from that instruction and in such a way that most students can access the targeted content and benefit as literacy learners • • using needs-based grouping to address students’ specific learning needs • adjusting levels of support for completing comprehension-related tasks • using teacher knowledge of individual students in the areas of interests, Differentiating* readiness, learning profiles • making informed decisions about how and when to adapt content, process, product, learning environment • providing scaffolding that facilitates for individual students: o participation in classroom learning activities with similar opportunities for challenge and support the development of self-regulation and independence o explicitly teaching why, how, and when to apply strategies supporting students in becoming strategic by helping them learn to coordinate the use of multiple strategies during reading to support their comprehension focusing on research-supported strategies following a gradual release of responsibility that includes explicit description, modeling, collaborative use, guided practice, independent practice, leading toward self-regulated application • • • • Explicitly teaching comprehension strategies* Purposefully selecting texts Choosing and using texts that: • • • • place appropriate demand on students for the purpose of the activity support the purpose of instruction represent multiple genres contain rich and deep ideas and information 217 t e e r t S g n i y m A d a e R √/X+- √/X+ √+ √+ √ X X √/X √/X a i s a t s a n A k r a m h c n e B a i s a t s a n A s r e d n o W y h t a C k r a m h c n e B y h t a C s r e d n o W e i l u J t e e r t S g n i d a e R √ √/X √+ √/X X- √/X √/X √+/- √/X? √/X+/- √/X √/X √/X X X √/X √/X √ X √ X X √/X√ /X √/X √/X X X ? √/X- √/X √/X √/X √ X ? √/X- √/X √/X √/X √+ X √+ √+ √/X y m A s r e d n o W √/X+ √/X+- √+- √/X? √ X X √/X √/X e i l u J s r e d n o W √+ X- X- X- √ X √+ √+ √/X t e e r t S g n i a n i r a K d a e R √+/- √/X+/- √/X+/- √/X √ √+ X t e e r t S g n i a r r e i K d a e R √+/- √+/- ? ? √ X X a r r e i K s r e d n o W √+ √/X X- √/X+ √+ X X a n i r a K s r e d n o W √+/- √/X- X √/X √ √+ X √/X+/- √/X √/X+/- √/X √/X+/- √/X √/X+/- √/X √/X √/X √/X √/X √/X √/X √/X √/X √/X √/X √/X √/X ? X ? X √ √/X- √ n.a. √ √ ? X √/X X √ √/X √ n.a. √ √ ? X √ √ √ √ ? X √ X √ √/X ? √ √+/- √/X √ √ ? √ √+ X √ ? √ √/X+/- X √+ ? √ √ X √ √/X √/X √/X+ ? X X- √/X? √- X √/X n.a. X X? √ n.a. √ √? √/X n.a. √/X √? √ n.a. √ √? √ n.a. √ √? √ n.a. √ √? √ n.a. √ √? ? X √/X- X √- √/X √ n.a. √ √? ? X √ X √ ? X √/X X √ √/X √/X √ n.a. √ √? √ n.a. √ √? Table 23 (cont’d) Element Component Criteria y m A t e e r t S g n i d a e R y m A s r e d n o W a i s a t s a n A k r a m h c n e B a i s a t s a n A s r e d n o W y h t a C k r a m h c n e B y h t a C s r e d n o W t e e r t S g n i e i l u J d a e R √/X- X- √+ X- X e i l u J s r e d n o W √- √- √+ X- X- √/X √+ X √ √+ √/X √+ X ? √+ √+ √+ √+ √+ √+ √+ √+ √+ √+ √+ t e e r t S g n i a n i r a K d a e R √/X- a n i r a K s r e d n o W √/X- √/X- √/X- X √+/- X X √+/- X ? √/X √+ X √+ √+ √+ √ √ X X √+/- X ? √+/- √+ X √+ √+ √+ a r r e i K t e e r t S g n i d a e R a r r e i K s r e d n o W √ X √+ √ X X √? √+ √ X- √/X √+ X √+ √+ √/X √+ X √+ √+ √+ X √+ √+ √+ √+ X √+ √+ √+ √+ X √+ X X X √ X ? √ √+ √+ √+ √+ √+ √/X √+ √ √/X X X √+ X √? √ √+ √+ √+ √+ √+ √/X √/X Teaching text structures & genres • directly teaching the structures and elements typically found in different text • genres explicitly teaching how to use text structures and genre elements to support comprehension Engaging students in text- based discussions* • opening space for collaborative exchanges of ideas aimed at improving students’ understanding and interpretation of texts including questions that go beyond surface-level understanding • • providing opportunities for students to argue for or against points raised in the discussion, resolve ambiguities in the text, and draw conclusions or inferences Generating motivation and interest creating opportunities for success • helping students discover real-world purposes/benefits of reading • • giving students reading choices • using texts, materials, or instruction that connect to students’ interests • providing opportunities for collaborative learning • Providing scaffolding that facilitates for all students: Cognitive and affective responsiveness o participation in classroom learning activities with similar opportunities for challenge and support the development of self-regulation and independence o • May involve: o using teacher knowledge of the class as a whole in the areas of: readiness, interests, learning profiles o making informed decisions about how and when to adapt content, process, product, learning environment for the whole class • Includes decisions made in advance and those made in the moment of instruction to responsively support literacy learners within a particular class. √ √ √? √- X X √+ X √+ √+ √+ X √+ √+ √+ √ √? √ X X √ X √ √ √+ X √+ √+ √+ √ √ √ √ √ X √ √ X √/X √/X √ X √ √ √+ X √+ √+ √+ √ X √ √ √+ X √+ √+ √+ • Viewing literacy and literacy learning as socially and culturally situated • Promoting access to and success in learning dominant school language and X √/X+ X √/X+ X √/X+ X X X √/X+ √/X+ √/X+ X √/X+ X √/X+ X √/X+ X √/X+ X X √/X+ √/X+ Cultural responsiveness literacy • Sustaining the cultural and linguistic competence of students and their communities in ways that address both heritage and contemporary cultures • Engaging students in examining and exposing sociopolitical inequities X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X √=Lesson plan aligned with criteria; X=Lesson plan not aligned with criteria; √/X=Lesson plan aligned with some aspects of criteria but not others; ?=Alignment is somewhat unclear; +=Productive adaptation (increased alignment with criteria); -=Unproductive adaptation (decreased alignment with criteria) 218 instruction. Teachers also often made positive adaptations in this area of instruction, inserting instruction and questions aimed at helping students connect new conceptual and language knowledge meaningfully to their existing knowledge and experiences, thus building upon students’ knowledge in these areas in ways the core program lessons could not do given that this requires knowledge of students. These adaptations stemmed from teachers’ own visions of comprehension instruction and their perceptions of their students. In terms of overall weaknesses, the planned lessons were less likely to include teacher- provided explicit explanations of the meanings of new words. Instead, teachers typically included questions aimed at prompting discussion of the words, and though this may have led to explicit explanations during the enactment of instruction, the teachers did not explicitly state a plan to provide such explanations. An example of this is Cathy’s plan to discuss the word ancient but not necessarily provide an explicit definition or explanation of it during her Benchmark lesson, as shown in Table 19. This was an area in which core program lessons did not always provide strong support, and teachers’ adaptations tended to omit at least some of the explicit instruction core programs recommended in this area. This finding is concerning given the importance of explicit instruction to support culturally, linguistically, and ability diverse learners (Piazza et al., 2015). In terms of differences across teachers and core programs, lessons planned with the Benchmark program and those that Julie planned were weaker overall in their alignment with criteria for building conceptual and language knowledge, reflecting the more focused apprenticeship model of instruction they used, which emphasized comprehension strategies and minimized attention to other comprehension-related content. Though Cathy also often followed an apprenticeship model, her close following of the core program lessons resulted in greater 219 attention to this aspect of instruction when she planned with Wonders. When planning with Benchmark, Cathy and Anastasia both made adaptations that enhanced their instruction in this area, inserting into their lessons opportunities for students to make connections to students’ background knowledge and experiences and to discuss words and concepts they may have found challenging or unfamiliar in the text. In contrast, Julie omitted instruction and activities from the core program lessons that targeted the development of conceptual and language knowledge even though she planned with two core program lessons that provided significant attention to these aspects of comprehension. These patterns of core program use reflect the teachers’ visions of comprehension instruction and their instructional priorities for their particular students, speaking to the influential role of teachers as instructional designers who interact with curriculum materials through the lens of their orientations. Differentiating. In terms of differentiating, the planned lessons were not consistently strong in this area. Every lesson plan involved at least some degree of adjustable support for individual learners to assist them in completing comprehension-related tasks, reflecting positive teacher and core program contributions. Core programs tended to provide at least some adjustable support and some teachers made additional positive adaptations, such as through intentionally pairing students with supportive partners, providing additional instruction and support before or after the whole-group lesson, or monitoring and adjusting support during the guided practice. This final approach was common among teachers using an apprenticeship model. On the downside, however, the lesson plans did not tend to use whole-group instruction only when and in such a way that most students could access the targeted content and benefit from the lesson, and most lesson plans included the use of reading-level based groups during 220 follow-up instruction. In these two areas, instructional plans tended to reflect the design of core programs, which recommended that all students participate in the whole-group lessons, offered limited supports for diverse learners during these lessons, and recommended reading-level based groups. This finding suggests that core programs may have a significant influence on the degree and types of differentiated support teachers plan to make available to their students. Given the core programs’ overall weaknesses in this area, this finding suggests that this may be an important area for curriculum developers to focus on strengthening. In terms of differences across teachers, all teachers planned for specific ways to provide their students with differentiated support, though they took three different approaches to doing this. These included pre-teaching challenging content before the lessons and pairing students up during the lessons (an approach I call pre-teaching and pairing), monitoring students during instruction to provide adjustable scaffolding (an approach I call monitoring and adjusting, which is characteristic of an apprenticeship model and the gradual release of responsibility), and providing different instruction for different groups of students (an approach Karina called “chunking them out” (SLP1). These three approaches to differentiation led to different kinds of opportunities and support for diverse literacy learners—differences that matter in relation to broader, equity-focused goals of differentiation that Corno (2008) emphasized, including bringing students toward a common “middle ground” and promoting self-regulation and independence. The first approach to differentiated support involved pre-teaching and pairing. Teachers who took this approach, including Amy, Julie, Cathy, Anastasia, and Julie, emphasized the importance of all learners participating in and having access to common, often rigorous, learning experiences. These teachers often spoke of students’ diversity as literacy learners by describing 221 them as “a range of readers,” (e.g., Julie, GI) or as having “different reading levels, different reading strengths, different attitudes about reading” (Cathy, SLP2). This language communicates a fluid, dynamic, and multidimensional view of students rather than sorting them into distinctive categories. Teachers who took this approach planned to pre-teach concepts and words they anticipated students would have difficulty with during the lesson and then paired students up so they could support one another’s learning during instructional interactions. The common learning experiences and collaborative support emphasized in the pre-teaching and pairing approach, thus, helped bring all learners in the class toward a common “middle ground” (Corno, 2008) as literacy learners, reflecting a belief that this approach would benefit all learners. It also generated interdependence among students rather than cultivating dependence on the teacher. This approach, thus, helped bring instruction into greater alignment with the criteria of adjustable support, teaching lessons in such a way that students can access and benefit from the instruction and targeted content, bringing students toward a common “middle ground,” and fostering independence from teacher support. The second approach to differentiation involved monitoring students and providing adjustable scaffolding. This approach was grounded in a view that school literacy learning should be purposeful for life and, thus, authentic. Julie and Cathy both consistently articulated this perspective and expressed related views of literacy instruction as an apprenticeship. The approach of monitoring students and providing adjustable scaffolding is consistent with the gradual release of responsibility used in a literacy apprenticeship. In an apprenticeship, more knowledgeable and experienced readers authentically model how they make sense of text and then engage students in guided practice with a gradual release of responsibility leading toward independence. Adjustable scaffolding characterizes the gradual release of responsibility, 222 allowing the teacher to provide just enough support to allow students to practice with increasing independence. An important aspect of providing adjustable scaffolding is monitoring students as they practice in order to provide timely support and release students to independent application as soon as they are ready. Adjusting support for students in this way often enhanced core program lessons, allowing Julie and Cathy to provide their students with common learning experiences that helped establish a “common ground” while also promoting each student’s individual learning. This approach to differentiation, thus, enhanced instruction according to the criteria of adjustable support, teaching lessons in such a way that students can access and benefit from the instruction and targeted content, bringing students toward a common “middle ground,” and fostering independence from teacher support. The third and final approach to providing differentiated support was “chunking them out”. Karina and Anastasia both used this approach, providing different instruction and learning opportunities for different groups of students. Both teachers frequently talked about their students in ways that suggested mental category systems (Horn, 2007). They talked about “kids that were low” and kids that only needed to work on “minimal things”, (Anastasia, GI), or “smarty pants,” “ELL students,” and “kids who can’t read” (Karina). They also referred to children whose parents were “quite involved” versus those whose families had “real limitations,” and as “those who have” and “those who have not”. As Corno (2008) noted, teachers often use their knowledge of students to generate such mental subgroups of students as a heuristic tool for managing the complexity of addressing students’ diverse learning needs by quickly determining and adjusting the level of attention and support particular students need to complete particular tasks. Anastasia and Karina both showed evidence of using such mental subgroups to facilitate differentiation, using them to determine what instruction, tasks, and support to provide for 223 different students at different points in time. Karina to provide different reading tasks for her “smarty pants” to complete independently while she taught the core program lessons to the rest of the class because she perceived that those students had progressed beyond the core program lessons. In contrast, Anastasia had all students participate in the whole-group core program lessons but then provided follow-up practice with differentiated texts and levels of support. The approach of “chunking them out” did seek to provide differentiated support for diverse learners by providing opportunities for learning appropriate for their pace and level, thus enhancing instruction according to the criteria of adjustable support and teaching lessons to the whole group only when and in such a way that students can access and benefit. It did not support students in moving toward a common “middle ground” or foster independence from teacher support. In this way, the “chunking them out” approach emphasized and perpetuated differences and teacher dependence, thus falling short of the broader, equity-oriented goals of differentiation Corno (2008) emphasized. Explicitly teaching comprehension strategies. In relation to comprehension strategy instruction, planned lessons tended to include at least some explicit teaching of strategies, though they did not always thoroughly and clearly address why, when, and how to apply strategies. They also tended to address research-supported strategies and to include at least some elements of a gradual release of responsibility. In these last two areas, the planned lessons tended to reflect contributions from the core programs because teachers taught the program-recommended strategies and typically did little to alter the aspects of gradual release included in the core program lessons. In contrast, none of the planned lessons provided support for learning to coordinate the use of multiple strategies during reading to support comprehension. Core program 224 lessons did not address this complex but important element of comprehension strategy instruction, and teachers did not make adaptations in this area. Benchmark lessons and lessons planned by Julie and Cathy, which emphasized an apprenticeship model of instruction, made adaptations that enhanced the core program lessons and thus offered stronger instruction in this area, while other teachers who were more adaptive, including Kierra and Karina, made adaptations that eliminated some of the core program lessons’ supports and thus offered weaker instruction in this area. In particular, Kierra and Karina omitted instances of explicit comprehension strategy instruction from the core program lessons, which contributed negatively to the overall quality of their lessons in this area. Karina also omitted instances of prompted strategy practice, providing fewer opportunities for guided practice and a gradual release of responsibility. In contrast, Julie and Cathy, who emphasized an apprenticeship model of instruction, both enhanced core program lessons by inserting additional explicit teaching of strategies across both of their lesson plans. Julie also enhanced core program lessons in this area by inserting her own instructional activities that more clearly followed a gradual release of responsibility than either core program lesson. Amy and Anastasia did not make adaptations in the area of explicit comprehension strategy instruction, relying on the lessons to inform their plans. Purposefully selecting texts. In the area of text selection, teachers in all twelve lesson plans used the texts the core program lessons provided. As a result, my evaluation of purposeful text selection in their lesson plans aligns with my evaluation of the core program lessons’ text selection. As I have already discussed, lessons planned with Benchmark were weaker in this area overall, while lessons planned with Reading Street and Wonders were stronger in this area overall. This again suggests the influence of core programs and the importance of core programs 225 including high-quality texts that support the purposes of instruction, include rich and deep ideas and information, and place appropriate levels of demand on students. Teaching ext structures and genres. In the area of teaching text structures and genres, lessons planned with Reading Street and Wonders tended to offer higher-quality instruction while those planned with Benchmark or by teachers who were more highly adaptive in their core program use tended to provide less support for student learning in this area. Cathy and Anastasia both had stronger instruction in this area when planning with Wonders. This was true even though Cathy inserted instruction addressing text features into her Benchmark lesson because she did this only once, whereas in her Wonders lesson she repeatedly attended to text structure and genre elements. In Cathy’s case, the Benchmark text was shorter and included fewer authentic features of expository text that Cathy could address in her instruction. This suggests the influence that limitations in core program lessons themselves can have on teachers’ instructional plans. In contrast with Cathy, who enhanced the Benchmark lesson, Karina and Julie both omitted instruction addressing text structures and genre elements from core program lessons when designing their instruction. Karina did this in both lesson plans, which resulted in a mixed evaluation of her overall plans, whereas Julie made fewer omissions in her Wonders lesson plan, which resulted in stronger instruction. When planning for her Reading Street lesson, Julie indicated that the text features were important for students to learn, but she did not include attention to them in her lesson plan as she did in her Wonders lesson plan. This difference in her instructional plans across core programs is another example of seemingly inexplicable misalignment between teachers’ vision of comprehension instruction and their core program use. 226 Engaging students in text-based discussions. Teachers’ instructional plans in the area of engaging students in text-based discussions was mixed overall, demonstrating some strengths and weaknesses. All lesson plans included at least some opportunities for students to engage in collaborative exchanges of ideas aimed at supporting text comprehension and interpretation, as evidenced by their inclusion of open-ended questions and tasks that engaged students in active and collaborative meaning-making. Teachers either planned to follow core program suggestions or made adaptations that enhanced opportunities in this area. In terms of including questions that go beyond surface-level understanding, lessons planned with Reading Street and Wonders were more likely to align given that teachers did not enhance their instruction in this area by adding questions or activities to their lesson plans that required higher-order thinking or deeper engagement with the text. They did, however, sometimes omit these kinds of questions when core program lessons included them, as seen in Amy’s Reading Street lesson plan and in both of Karina’s and Julie’s lesson plans. This is another pattern of omissions that seems random and has no clear connection to teachers’ orientations. Finally, in relation to providing opportunities for argumentation, lesson plans were weak on the whole. The only lesson that included such an opportunity was Anastasia’s Wonders lesson plan. The Wonders lesson itself included an opportunity for argumentation, asking students to discuss with a partner whether they agree with the author’s opinion about the scientists who help whooping cranes, using the sentence frame, “One difference between my opinion and yours is…” (Wonders, 2017, p. T225M) to help them engage with one another’s ideas and prompting students to use text evidence to support their opinions. Anastasia was the only third grade teacher who planned to address this question in her lesson as both Kierra and Julie left it out of their plans, again for reasons that they did not discuss and that have no clear connection to their 227 orientations or their noticing of the curriculum materials. None of the other core program lessons provided opportunities for argumentation, resolving ambiguities, or drawing conclusions and inferences, nor did any of the teachers insert opportunities for this kind of talk. This suggests that adding support for argumentation into core program lessons may be a helpful but insufficient step in supporting teachers to enact this kind of instruction. On the whole, the lessons that Anastasia and Kierra planned both demonstrated strengths in the area of text-based discussions because both teachers frequently included more open-ended and higher-level questions in their lesson plans and because Anastasia included an opportunity for argumentation. The strengths in Kierra’s and Anastasia’s instructional plans in this area reflect the strengths of the core program lessons with which they planned, and in Kierra’s case they also reflect her conversational view of instruction. The finding that Julie’s lesson plans demonstrated weaknesses in this area reflects her emphasis on comprehension strategy instruction and practice as the strategies themselves took center stage in her lessons rather than the content or structures of the texts themselves. Generating motivation and interest. On the whole, the planned lessons demonstrated strengths in this area, especially in terms of creating opportunities for success, connecting to students’ interests, and providing opportunities for collaborative learning. Core program lessons themselves tended to provide opportunities for collaboration, and some teachers inserted additional opportunities. The lesson plans’ strengths in the areas of creating opportunities for success and connecting to students’ interests most strongly reflect teachers’ instructional design efforts as they added supports and connections to the standardized core program lessons in order to address their particular learners. The student-specific nature of these criteria suggests the 228 important role of teachers in tailoring standardized core program lessons to engage and support their students. In contrast with these areas of alignment, core program lessons did not offer students reading choices, and they only somewhat addressed the real-world purposes and benefits of reading by talking more broadly about what good readers do, addressing the broader applicability of strategies (this was seen in Benchmark lessons only), or relating text ideas to everyday life today. Teachers, in turn, did not make adaptations to enhance instruction in these areas. They did not provide students with reading choices during their planned lessons, though many talked about providing students with opportunities to read texts of their choice during a separate independent reading time. They also did not provide opportunities for students to engage in literacy more authentically in ways that went beyond what the core program lessons addressed, though teachers who emphasized literacy for life did tend to speak in more authentic ways about literacy during instruction. This was another area in which teachers’ broader descriptions of their comprehension instruction suggested stronger instruction that went beyond what the core program lessons had to offer, though their specific descriptions of instructional plans did not provide evidence of this. Cognitive, affective, and cultural responsiveness. In terms of responsiveness, teachers used knowledge of their particular learners to provide them with tailored support. In particular, they made adaptations to maximize participation in classroom learning activities, address student readiness, interests, and learning profiles, and make classroom processes, products, and learning environments more supportive of their students. All teachers made student-focused decisions during planning and explicitly described ways in which they planned to make additional responsive adaptations in the moment of instruction. Julie and Cathy addressed the development 229 of self-regulation and independence as part of their apprenticeship approach, but the other teachers did not. In addition, none of the teachers planned to adapt lesson content as a way of supporting their students, though several spoke of doing this later during small-group instruction. On the whole, these six teachers planned their lessons to be responsive to and supportive of cognitive and affective dimensions of students’ literacy learning. In contrast, teachers’ instructional plans on the whole demonstrated virtually no attention to culturally responsive literacy instruction, with one exception. Most lessons did emphasize providing access to and success in learning dominant school literacy by maintaining high expectations for all students, providing differentiated support, providing meaningful and motivating conditions for literacy learners, and fostering a community of learners characterized by collaborative learning and mutual responsibility. Yet they left out the essential cultural emphasis of this criterion, failing to validate students’ home and community language and literacy practices or to use cultural knowledge to build strong relationships with students and a sense of connectedness. Teachers’ lesson plans, much like the written core program lessons, did not address literacy and literacy learning as socially or culturally situated, nor did they seek to sustain the cultural and linguistic competence of students and their communities or engage students in critical practices of examining and exposing sociopolitical inequities. Though all teachers responded to my initial questionnaire stating that they viewed literacy as a cultural practice, they did not address it as such in their instruction. On the whole, teachers reported limited knowledge of students’ home and community language and literacy practices and cultures, which are important resources for designing culturally responsive instruction. This suggests that this is an important area to support teachers in their daily work, especially when planning with core program lessons that provided virtually no support for this. 230 Summary On the whole, teachers’ instructional plans reflected the interactions between contextual factors, characteristics of the programs—including their instructional model, routines, and resources—and the orientations, instructional priorities, and routines of teachers. The quality and responsiveness of teachers’ instructional plans also reflected these interactions, demonstrating the influence of both core program lesson characteristics and teachers’ work as instructional designers. The lesson plans reflected positive and negative contributions from both teachers and core program lessons, and they often aligned with teachers’ beliefs and priorities. Yet my analysis also revealed inconsistencies in the quality and responsiveness of each teachers’ instructional plans that had no clear connection to their orientations and priorities or to their patterns of curricular noticing. Though these inconsistencies seem random, there is some evidence that they are a product of the complexity and volume of the core program lessons themselves, which made it impossible for teachers to “do justice” to everything the lessons included. These findings speak to the participatory nature of the teacher-curriculum material relationship and to the ways in which teachers, curriculum materials, and contexts all contribute to instructional plans. In terms of quality and responsiveness, teachers developed instructional plans that aligned with elements of high-quality and responsive comprehension instruction and that often improved upon what the core programs offered, suggesting that this kind of design work is possible for knowledgeable and experienced teachers. At the same time, teachers’ instructional plans also exhibited weaknesses that suggest areas for continued improvement. More specifically, teachers designed relatively strong instructional plans in the areas of building conceptual and language knowledge, purposefully selecting texts, generating motivation and 231 interest, and providing cognitively and affectively responsive instruction, though their lesson plans also exhibited some weaknesses in these areas. Their instructional plans were of mixed quality in the areas of text-based discussions, text structure and genre instruction, and comprehension strategy instruction. Finally, they were weaker in the areas of differentiation and cultural responsiveness. Teachers contributed most positively across the board in areas that required knowledge of students, including building upon students’ conceptual and language knowledge, providing opportunities for success, and providing cognitively and affectively responsive instruction. They also often contributed in mixed ways to explicit teaching of comprehension strategies. Teacher contributions beyond these commonalities varied widely by teacher, often in ways that reflected their views of core programs, their vision of comprehension instruction, and their perceptions of their particular students. In particular, teachers often inserted components into their lesson plans or modified core program lesson components in such a way as to emphasize their beliefs and priorities. The most frequent differences across teachers were based on teachers’ views of core programs—with trusting teachers adapting them less and skeptical teachers adapting them more—and their visions of reading comprehension instruction—most notably whether or not their beliefs aligned with an apprenticeship model of comprehension instruction. Core programs contributed most positively through their selection of research-supported comprehension strategies as learning targets and, in the case of Reading Street and Wonders, their text selection. They contributed most negatively through suggestions for needs-based grouping in the area of differentiation, lack of attention to developing self-regulation and coordinating multiple strategies in explicit comprehension strategy instruction, the exclusion of argumentation from most lessons in the area of text-based discussions, a lack of reading choices 232 in the area of motivation and interest, and a lack of attention to culturally responsive instruction. The most frequent differences across programs stemmed from differences in the instructional model Benchmark used, which contrasted sharply with the other two programs’ more traditional and integrated core program model. These patterns reflect the participatory and contextual nature of teachers’ planning with curriculum materials, the influential role of teachers’ orientations, the complexity of teaching reading comprehension with core programs, and the limitations in the capacity of both teachers and core programs. They also provide an existence proof, suggesting that knowledgeable and experienced teachers can develop instructional plans that align in many ways with research on high-quality, responsive comprehension instruction when planning with core programs. Perhaps most importantly, my analysis of teachers’ instructional plans speaks to the ways in which they leveraged their knowledge of students to adapt standardized core reading program lessons to be responsive to their particular students. Though these findings speak only to the quality of instructional plans and do not speak directly to the quality or responsiveness of enacted instruction, the relationship between instructional plans and enacted instruction suggests that instructional plans that bear these qualities may be a necessary but not sufficient condition for the enactment of high-quality and responsive instruction (Clark & Yinger, 1979; Remillard, 2005; Yinger, 1979; Zahorik, 1970). 233 CHAPTER 7 CONCLUSION In this chapter, I summarize the findings and discuss them in the context of research and theory on teachers’ planning, work with curriculum materials, and reading comprehension instruction. I also discuss the implications of the findings for continuing research and practice. Summary of Findings This dissertation examined six elementary teachers’ interactions with curriculum materials in the context of planning for reading comprehension instruction, including their planning processes as a whole and their curricular noticing more specifically. It also described teachers’ instructional plans and evaluated the plans’ alignment with research-based criteria for high-quality, responsive comprehension instruction. In relation to teachers’ planning processes, I found that all six of the teachers engaged in a common set of core planning activities that seemed to support them in making sense of the core program lessons and designing high-quality, responsive instructional plans. In addition to these core planning activities shared across teachers, each teacher used a similar sequence of planning activities across programs that reflected aspects of her orientation to core programs and suggested the use of planning routines. These similarities suggest that teachers use planning routines to guide their planning processes, which may be a way of coping with the complexity of teaching reading comprehension with core programs. My examination of differences in teachers’ planning revealed that these differences often fell into patterns according to teachers’ views of teaching. In particular, teachers with different views of teaching exhibited different patterns in the focus of and degree of detail in their attending, interpreting, and deciding how to respond, as well as in the flexibility of their articulated plans and the ways in which they planned to responsively adapt their instruction. On a 234 more general level, I found that the guiding beliefs that comprised teachers’ orientations to core programs in reading comprehension seemed to serve as a lens through which they noticed the core programs, and each teacher’s various beliefs interacted to shape what she attended to, how she interpreted the core program elements to which she had attended, and ultimately how she decided to respond when designing her instructional plans. In terms of their instructional plans, teachers often used routines to inform their plans, which manifested themselves as similarities in the general sequence of instructional activities across teachers as well as within teachers across programs. On the whole, teachers’ instructional plans reflected contributions from teachers, programs, and contexts, speaking to the participatory and contextual nature of teachers’ interactions with core programs. At the same time, their instructional plans also demonstrating the ultimate influence of the teacher as instructional designer. The quality and responsiveness of instructional plans also reflected these interactions, demonstrating the influence of core program lesson characteristics and of the ways in which teachers worked with the core program lessons to craft instructional plans that aligned with their beliefs and instructional priorities. In particular, core programs seemed to contribute most strongly to the learning targets, texts, overall content, and general lesson sequence, and teachers tended to make adaptations to instructional explanations and activities. My analysis also uncovered inconsistencies in the teachers’ instructional plans that seemed random, having no clear connection to their orientations and priorities or to characteristics of the core program lessons. However, these inconsistencies may be a product of the complexity of the core program lessons themselves, which made it impossible for teachers to “do justice” to everything the lessons included. 235 The instructional plans the teachers in this study designed were overall of higher quality and more responsive than the core program lessons themselves, though this was not true for all elements and criteria of my research-supported framework. Overall, the lesson plans demonstrated both strengths and weaknesses in terms of their quality and responsiveness that reflected positive and negative contributions from both teachers and core program lessons. Though there were differences across teachers and core programs, the planned lessons were generally strong in the areas of building conceptual and language knowledge, purposefully selecting texts, generating motivation and interest, and providing cognitively and affectively responsive instruction, though they did not align with all criteria for these elements. Across teachers, lesson plans tended to be weaker in the areas of differentiation, teaching text structures and genres, teaching comprehension strategies, text-based discussions, and cultural responsiveness. Across these findings, the themes of complexity and of teachers’ orientations to core programs in reading comprehension recurred. I have already discussed the theme of teachers’ orientations in my summary above. In relation to the theme of complexity, teachers’ planning and instructional plans revealed two dimensions of complexity, including the humanly interactive aspects of teaching with standardized core program materials, and teachers’ concern with being responsive to multiple stakeholders. These dimensions of complexity manifested themselves in tensions and dilemmas in teachers’ planning processes and instructional plans, as well as in the overall taxing of their capacity. Teachers seemed to manage the complexity of teaching by relying on planning routines and instructional routines, which they often shaped to align with the beliefs and perceptions that comprised their orientations to core programs in reading comprehension and resources and constraints in their teaching contexts. 236 Discussion and Implications Having summarized the study’s findings above and argued for their significance, I now turn to a discussion of how this study and its findings connect to and extend the existing research in the areas of planning, curricular noticing, pedagogical design capacity and the teacher- curriculum material relationship, and the quality and responsiveness of reading comprehension instruction. I weave implications for teacher education and professional development, curriculum implementation, curriculum material design, and continuing research through this discussion. Planning This dissertation confirms much of the existing research on teacher planning, demonstrating for example that planning is a complex and dilemma-ridden endeavor for teachers (Yinger, 1980) and that planning varies across teachers in ways that reflect individual and contextual resources and characteristics (May, 1986; McCutcheon, 1980; Yinger, 1980). In line with several earlier studies, this dissertation found that most teachers drew significantly from curriculum materials when planning for reading instruction (McCutcheon, 1980; Morine- Dershimer, 1977; Yinger, 1980) and that this supported their planning by reducing some of the complexity involved (McCutcheon, 1980). This study adds nuance to that earlier finding, suggesting that curriculum materials may add complexity to teachers’ work during their initial year of use due to the challenges involved in the initial work of making sense of unfamiliar materials, but that in subsequent years they may reduce the complexity of planning. This dissertation also counters the findings of earlier studies which contended that prescribed curriculum materials largely eliminated teacher planning (Clark & Yinger, 1979), suggesting instead that teachers maintain significant influence as instructional designers and that the work of designing instructional plans is complex and time-consuming even with the support of 237 curriculum materials. Finally, in relation to the specificity of teachers’ instructional plans, this study countered earlier studies that suggested a relationship between the specificity of instructional plans and the responsiveness of instruction (Morine-Dershimer, 1977; Zahorik, 1970), finding no connection between the specificity and responsiveness of teachers’ instructional plans. Routines in teacher planning. This dissertation found several ways in which planning and instructional plans reflected the use of routines or schema. Teachers’ planning in the context of the study confirmed Yinger’s (1980) findings that teachers use executive planning routines to guide the process of their planning and that they use instructional activity routines to guide their instructional plans. Considering teachers’ use of routines in conjunction with the complexity that characterized their work with core programs and in relation to the broader literature (Leinhardt & Greeno, 1986a; R. J. Yinger, 1980) suggests that teachers’ use of routines may be a strategy for managing the complexity of their daily work. The use of common planning and instructional routines across programs suggests the influence of teachers’ experience with core programs, demonstrating that teachers were able to leverage the routines they developed while planning with one program to support their planning with a different program, and this was especially true across programs that were more similar— in this case, Reading Street and Wonders. This finding also confirms the findings of previous research on teachers’ work with curriculum materials, which demonstrated that teachers tend to interact with curriculum materials in fairly stable ways during a given school year, and that greater differences are observable across teachers than across lessons for the same teacher (Drake & Sherin, 2009; Remillard, 2018; Sherin & Drake, 2009). 238 The finding that teachers all used a common set of planning and instructional activity routines suggests that these routines may not simply reflect strategies they developed individually to manage the complexity of their work but instead that they may be learned through their engagement with other teachers as part of the shared knowledge of the profession. Future research could investigate this possibility by explicitly asking teachers about how they developed the routines that inform their planning. In addition, the finding that teachers’ use of the seven core planning activities led to instructional plans that reflected and often enhanced many of the strengths of the core programs suggests that these seven planning activities may be productive tools for helping teachers manage the complexity of making sense of and planning with core reading programs. Future research could examine the extent to which teachers use these core planning activities across contexts, grade-levels, core programs, and levels of experience, and the extent to which the use of these activities relates to the planning and enactment of high-quality, responsive instruction. This research could help to further illuminate teachers’ lesson planning and instructional design processes in ways that could help inform teacher education, professional development, and the design of curriculum materials and planning supports. Additionally, given the challenges that teacher candidates and early-career teachers often have in making sense of and planning with comprehensive core programs (Valencia et al., 2006), future research could examine whether teaching these core planning activities to teacher candidates and early-career teachers or embedding them in supportive planning tools could support them in their work of planning and teaching with core programs. This is a topic I hope to examine in my continuing research. The role of teacher beliefs. Much of the existing literature on teachers’ professional noticing has emphasized the role of teachers’ knowledge and experiences on the ways in which 239 they notice and reason about classroom interactions and curriculum materials (Choppin, 2011; Sherin & van Es, 2005), the ways in which noticing practices contribute to teacher learning and instructional decisions (Amador et al., 2017; Choppin, 2011, 2011; Rosaen et al., 2008), and the ways in which characteristics of curriculum materials shape teachers’ noticing of them (Roth McDuffie et al., 2017). In contrast, the present study found that teachers’ orientations or beliefs played a significant role in shaping their noticing of curriculum materials, influencing what teachers attended to in the materials and at what level of detail, as well as how they interpreted and decided to respond to that information. While research and theory on professional noticing has recognized the role of beliefs and dispositions in guiding noticing (Jacobs, Lamb, & Philipp, 2010; Roth McDuffie et al., 2017), this has not been a primary focus in research on professional noticing or in professional development and teacher education efforts using a professional noticing framework. However, the present study found that teachers’ orientations toward core programs, which included their beliefs about teaching, curriculum materials, content, themselves, and students served as a lens through which the teachers noticed the curriculum materials during planning. This suggests that teachers’ curricular noticing is an interpretive and subjective process guided by teacher beliefs as much as by their knowledge, experiences, or noticing skills. This finding aligns with the broader research on teacher beliefs, which suggests that beliefs act as filters through which teachers filter new information they receive (Cohen & Ball, 1990; Stipek, Givvin, Salmon, & MacGyvers, 2001).Given the ways in which the beliefs and dispositions that comprised each teachers’ orientation to core programs in reading comprehension within this study guided what teachers attended to in the core reading programs and, as a result, the curricular resources available to them for interpretation and decision-making, research on 240 teachers’ noticing should more explicitly address teacher beliefs and dispositions in addition to knowledge. Additionally, this dissertation’s successful application of the curricular noticing framework to inform close examination of experienced teachers’ reasoning during planning suggests the value of this framework for informing continued insights in research on experienced teachers’ use of curriculum materials in general as well as core reading programs more specifically. Previously, curricular noticing has been examined primarily on the contexts of pre- service mathematics teachers’ interactions with curriculum materials (e.g., Amador et al., 2017; Males, Earnest, Dietiker, & Amador, 2015). Implications. The findings regarding routines and the important role of teacher beliefs in planning and curricular noticing have several implications for practice in the areas of professional development and curriculum implementation. First, in terms of professional development, the influential nature of teachers’ routines and beliefs suggests that professional development efforts that aim to support teachers’ learning or shift how teachers’ plan or interact with core reading programs should take into account and address teachers’ current routines and beliefs. Given that changing routines and beliefs is likely to require sustained and active engagement and support over time as well as critical reflection, professional development initiatives should abandon the single-day workshop model in favor of long-term, inquiry-focused models (Stipek et al., 2001). These recommendations are in line with current research on teacher professional development (e.g., Desimone, 2009). In terms of curriculum implementation, districts would do well to consider teachers’ current planning and instructional routines as well as their beliefs when selecting and implementing new curriculum materials. Teachers may be able to use a newly-adopted program 241 with less difficulty if it is structured and organized similarly to programs currently in use, using their current routines and schema to guide their work and reducing the cognitive demand of working with an unfamiliar program. However, this may not always be desirable or in line with district goals, and rightfully so, because districts often use the adoption of a new program as a way to bring about changes in curriculum and instruction. In this kind of situation, districts should recognize the challenges involved in learning to use a new core programs, providing teachers with resources and support to make this transition more manageable and meaningful. These could include practical and pedagogical information about the new programs including how they relate to and differ from existing programs, ideas and resources to help them adapt existing routines to better align with the new curriculum materials, and additional planning time and opportunities for collaboration. Districts and school adopting new programs that differ significantly from their existing curriculum materials should also recognize that when beginning to use new curriculum materials, teachers may adapt them in ways that allow them to continue teaching in ways that reflect their current routines and beliefs, as Julie did. This can lead to instruction that provides rich learning opportunities for students, as evidenced in Julie’s rich comprehension strategy instruction, but can also undermine key aspects of the written curriculum materials, as Julie did when she omitted instruction addressing disciplinary and conceptual knowledge and text structures and genres. Helping teachers understand the pedagogical design of the new program and the rationale for any changes and providing supports for teachers to collaboratively engage in collaborative inquiry focused on making sense of and using the materials are two approaches to curriculum implementation and professional development that take teachers’ current beliefs and practice into account while also supporting them in engaging more meaningfully with a new set of curriculum 242 materials (Choppin, 2011; Remillard, Harris, & Agodini, 2014; Sherin & van Es, 2005). These approaches recognize the important and influential role of the teacher as curriculum designer and view the use of a new set of curriculum materials as involving teacher learning rather than simply complying with mandates or conveying the curriculum to students. Similarly, curriculum materials could support teachers in learning to use them well if they were designed in such a way as to provide teachers with information regarding their pedagogical design and its rationale, including how the materials might differ from typical or current practice. In order to support teachers’ work and learning more meaningfully, curriculum materials could also encourage teachers to reflect upon and reason about their teaching practices and beliefs rather than simply dictating to teachers. These recommendations align with some of the recommendations for the design of educative curriculum materials in the existing research literature (e.g., Davis & Krajcik, 2005b; Davis, Palincsar, Smith, Arias, & Kademian, 2017), suggesting more broadly that core programs could be strengthened through the addition of educative features designed to support teachers’ work and learning as instructional designers rather than positioning teachers as conduits of the curriculum and seeking to speak through or dictate to them. Trajectories of Use and the Role of Experience Teachers in this study talked about their core program use in ways that suggested trajectories of use over time and the importance of experiences with curriculum materials. All six of the teachers spoke of the challenges and demands of making sense of a new program during their first year of using it, describing ways in which this became easier over time as the program became more familiar. In addition, teachers engaged in reading more of the core program components when planning with an unfamiliar program and read them more closely, taking time 243 to make sense of them, whereas they tended to more briefly consult or remind themselves of the content and procedures in familiar core program lessons. Some teachers also described ways in which their decisions about how to use core program lessons changed over time as they became more familiar with a given program. Cathy, for example, spoke of following a core program closely her first year using it in order to learn from it and explore its potential, beginning to make adaptations the following year, and using it even more adaptively in her third year and beyond. Amy discussed how she had not found ways, in her third year of using Reading Street, to weave in debates and more extended discussion, though she hoped to do this in the future. Even in this third year of use, she still felt she was fairly new to the program, especially given that Reading Street was the first core program she had ever used. In addition to suggesting that teachers’ curriculum material use evolves over time from year to year, this suggests that learning to use a new set of curriculum materials is a multi-year process and that teachers can benefit from repeated opportunities over time to teach with and reflect upon their use of a set of curriculum materials. The present study also suggested ways in which teachers learned from their use of curriculum materials as they worked with them over time. Teachers learned about the strengths of the materials’ pedagogical design in ways that reflected increasing curriculum vision and trust (Drake & Sherin, 2009). For example, Karina reflected on how she had learned the benefit of the Amazing Words in Reading Street over time. The core programs also seemed to shape teachers’ instructional routines, as evidenced by the teachers’ use of lesson components and characteristics from their familiar core program in the lessons planned with the unfamiliar core program. Though my data do not clearly demonstrate that the familiar core program was the source of these lesson components and characteristics—in other words, they may have been common in 244 the teacher’s practice before using that program—this finding may reflect another way in which core programs contribute to teacher learning. Finally, teachers’ use of common planning routines across programs also seems to reflect learning. The teachers developed routines to manage the complexity of planning with one program, and they were able to use those routines strategically to support planning with a different program. These findings confirm and extend Drake and Sherin’s (2009) finding that teachers interact with curriculum materials in fairly stable ways across a given school year, but that their curriculum strategies evolve from year to year in ways that reflect a deepening understanding of and collaboration with the materials that they called curriculum vision and trust. The findings also support Choppin’s (2011) recommendation that stability in curricular contexts supports teacher learning by allowing for repeated enactments of instruction with the same materials. District curriculum leaders should provide teachers with stable enough curricular contexts to allow teachers to repeatedly teach with and reflect upon their use of the same set of curriculum materials. Pedagogical Design Capacity and the Teacher-Curriculum Material Relationship In relation to the nature of the teacher-curriculum material relationship in reading, this dissertation provided compelling evidence of its interactive, participatory, and context-specific nature (Remillard, 2005). In particular, the planning and instructional plans of the six teachers in this study clearly demonstrated the influence of both the core reading program lessons and the teachers, also showing some influence of the context. At the same time, this study demonstrated that teachers exerted an ultimate influence through their role as instructional designers. In this way, the present study confirms that the frameworks of curriculum use as design and as an interactive, participatory relationship, drawn from research in mathematics and science, apply in 245 the field of literacy and are useful for informing continued research and theory development in this field. In terms of Remillard’s (2005) framework of the teacher-curriculum material relationship, this dissertation suggested that important teacher characteristics that shape the relationship include their beliefs and goals about teaching, themselves, core programs, content, and students, which comprise their orientation to curriculum materials, as well as their previous experiences with teaching and curriculum materials and their resulting knowledge in the form of schema or routines about curriculum materials, planning, and instruction. On the whole, this aligns with previous research on teacher-specific factors that influenced planning, which suggested that teachers’ previous teaching and planning experiences, personal teaching styles, and their theories and beliefs about students, teaching, content, materials, and themselves as teachers shaped their planning (May, 1986; Yinger, 1980). One key difference was that previous research (McCutcheon, 1980) suggested that teacher education experiences contributed to teachers’ capacity for planning. The present study did not suggest any clear connection between the teachers’ planning and their pre-service teacher education, perhaps because these were all highly experienced teachers for whom teacher education was a distant memory. Figure 7 depicts these teacher factors in a modified version of Remillard’s (2005) model designed to reflect the findings of the present study in literacy. In terms of teachers’ pedagogical design capacity, teachers’ experiences with core programs and resulting schema and routines seemed to support them in noticing and mobilizing the resources available in core programs to support high-quality, responsive comprehension instruction, as did a balanced view of core programs as helpful but limited resources. 246 Core Programs Learning targets Texts General instructional routine Questions (Instructional explanations) (Graphic organizers) Volume and complexity Voice Teacher Orientations to core programs/ core beliefs and goals Experiences Knowledge as routines and schema Instructional Plans Context Curricular policies Standards Testing Accountability policies Collaborative planning time District-developed resources Change Figure 7. The teacher-curriculum material relationship in elementary reading As Figure 7 shows, curriculum material resources and characteristics that seemed to shape teachers’ planning and instructional plans included learning targets, texts, general instructional routine, questions to ask students, and volume and complexity. Instructional explanations and graphic organizers are shown in parentheses because many but not all of the teachers used them. Research-aligned core program components and characteristics seemed to support teachers’ capacity for planning high-quality, responsive comprehension instruction. At the same time, research-aligned core program components and characteristics were not sufficient to support all teachers in aligning their instructional plans with elements of high-quality, 247 responsive comprehension instruction. This suggests that teachers may benefit from additional supports in order to notice and mobilize the opportunities and resources available in core programs. In addition, the overall volume and complexity of the core program lessons seemed to complicate teachers’ planning, leading to inconsistencies in the quality and responsiveness of their instructional plans. Contextual factors seemed to have had a more direct influence on teachers in the present study than that depicted in Remillard’s original model, as teachers frequently mentioned directly experiencing and grappling with the demands of their contexts in ways that impacted them personally and professionally, as well as impacting their use of the curriculum materials. I depicted this with an arrow directly from context to teacher in Figure 7. The contextual factors that came to bear most often in this study were district curricular policies and accountability policies, standards, testing, collaborative planning time (or, in most cases, lack thereof), district- developed resources, and change. Flexible district curricular policies seemed to support teachers’ pedagogical design capacity by reducing the number of external demands and pressures that taxed them, while district-developed resources and collaborative planning time seemed to provide support for teachers in their planning. Fidelity policies, accountability policies, testing, and change seemed to tax teachers’ overall capacity. Implications. A few implications bear further consideration here. In relation to the design of core programs, this study suggests possible changes to core programs’ design that may support teachers in being able to enact consistently stronger, more rigorous, and more responsive lessons. First, core program developers should consider strengthening their supports for differentiation and cultural responsiveness, and for helping students learn to coordinate the use of multiple strategies, to practice strategy application with increasing independence, to explicitly 248 teach students how to use text structures and genre elements to support comprehension, to give students reading choices, and to engage in discussions that involve argumentation, resolving ambiguities, and making inferences. In many of these areas, teachers’ instructional plans reflected the low quality or responsiveness of the core program lessons themselves, suggesting that improving core programs may be an important first step toward supporting improvements in instruction. Second, given that teachers frequently mentioned grappling with how best to use the programs because of their overall volume and complexity, core program developers should consider streamlining their overall design in order to support teachers in making sense of and mobilizing the resources and opportunities in the core program lessons. For teachers in this study, finding that there was too much in the core program lessons to address well sometimes led them to eliminate important components of instruction, such as explicit explanations of new words or higher-level thinking questions, because they did not feel they would be able to do justice to them. In addition to streamlining, core program developers could make the programs more transparent by including design features that make clear to teachers what is essential in the design of the lesson and what is supplemental or optional. These changes would support teachers in making sense of the materials by limiting the range of what they would have to attend to, interpret, and make decisions about in the core program materials themselves, leaving more time and resources available for teachers to give consideration to their students and to their own resources as they engage in the designing of their lessons. Third and finally, core programs could be designed in such a way as to support teachers in reasoning and making decisions about instruction rather than dictating what teachers should do. This recommendation seems especially likely to support teachers in giving consideration to 249 their students during planning in order to provide more responsive and meaningfully differentiated instruction. All three of the core programs used in this study included directive language that simply told teachers what to do and say, positioning teachers as conduits rather than as designers. In contrast, curriculum materials designed to support teachers as designers could include educative features (Davis & Krajcik, 2005b)—for example, providing teachers with ideas of how to learn about their students, especially in areas that matter for their literacy learning including background knowledge, interests, and home and community language and literacy practices, and to use that knowledge to make intentional instructional design decisions before and during instruction. They could also include features designed to help teachers anticipate student responses and misunderstandings and be prepared to respond, such as signaling to teachers when a particular text feature or structure may present challenges for students or suggesting cues to look for that signal students may be ready to engage in more independent practice with less teacher scaffolding. I would argue that these kinds of features should be designed to speak to teachers as professionals and to support them in their reasoning and instructional design work rather than dictating to or seeking to speak through them. To do this, they could be framed in terms of “if you observe… then consider…” statements, include observable behaviors (“If students retell the story out of sequence”) rather than general statements (“If students have difficulty retelling”), and suggest things for teachers to think about to inform their decisions. Changing the design of core programs in ways that encourage teachers to reason about their practice and turn their attention to their students seem likely to help teachers move away from traditional, teacher- centered and directive instructional approaches to design instruction that is more student- centered, responsive, and dialogic. Such changes would provide the six teachers in this study 250 with curriculum materials that aligned more closely than existing core programs do with their visions of instruction as conversation, interactive performance, and personal training. In addition, these kinds of changes seem especially likely to support teachers in providing more responsive instruction. Some might argue that it is the teacher’s role to ensure that curriculum and instruction are responsive to particular students and local contexts. I contend, however, that core programs could support teachers in this work, and the teachers in this study seemed to agree, saying this was an area in which they felt they needed support and that core programs should provide that support. Finally, in relation to district fidelity mandates, the present study suggests that such policies may tax teachers’ pedagogical design capacity more than supporting them in designing high-quality, responsive comprehension instruction. If we recognize the complex, human, and interactive nature of teachers’ work, the tensions and dilemmas they encounter each day, and the interpretive and subjective nature of their curricular noticing, policies that dictate to teachers seem as unlikely to support them in doing high-quality work as curriculum materials that take this approach. The six teachers in this study were thankful to have core programs to support them in their work, and they all used them as key resources to guide their instruction. Rather than mandating fidelity, districts would do well to engage teachers in professional development and curriculum implementation initiatives that take into account the complexity and subjectivity of teachers’ work with core programs, that recognize teachers’ important role as instructional designers, and that support them in that work. As I began to suggest above, such efforts should support teachers’ reasoning, build capacity, be locally adaptable, and take teachers’ current views, knowledge, and practices into account while engaging with teachers over time to support incremental and sustainable change. 251 High-Quality, Responsive Comprehension Instruction Finally, in relation to high-quality, responsive comprehension instruction, the twelve instructional plans designed in this study demonstrated mixed quality and responsiveness. The instructional plans demonstrated some important strengths that evidenced contributions from core programs, teachers, and contexts, with teachers making especially positive contributions in areas that required knowledge of students. This speaks to the importance of teachers’ work as instructional designers, suggesting that teachers can improve upon at least some of core programs’ weaknesses and design responsive instruction even with core programs that are highly standardized. This is a strong and important message for researchers, teacher educators, and teachers who decry core programs, believing they lead to poor quality instruction that is not responsive to particular students or local contexts. Elements in which instructional plans were overall stronger included building conceptual and language knowledge, purposefully selecting texts, generating motivation and interest, and providing cognitively and affectively responsive instruction. At the level of criteria, instructional plans demonstrated additional strengths in the areas of explicitly teaching research-supported comprehension strategies and engaging students in collaborative exchanges of ideas centered on making sense of texts. These strengths contrast with findings from earlier research on comprehension strategy instruction in classrooms (Durkin, 1978) because they suggest that, if teachers enact instruction in ways that reflect their instructional plans, their comprehension instruction will demonstrate significant improvement from the findings of this disheartening historical research. Considering the core program lessons’ relative strengths in some of these areas in comparison with findings from historical studies (Durkin, 1981) and recent research (Dewitz et al., 2009) also suggests that they may be 252 improving over time, becoming at least somewhat more research-aligned. These findings are encouraging. At the same time, both core program lessons and instructional plans demonstrated significant weaknesses, many of which are in areas of instruction especially important for students who are diverse in terms of culture, language, class, and ability, who typically have less access to appropriate, high-quality, responsive instruction. In particular, instructional plans were weak in the elements of differentiation and cultural responsiveness, as well as in the additional criteria of supporting students in applying comprehension strategies with independence and self- regulation, providing opportunities for text-based, argumentation, giving students reading choices, and helping students see the real-world purposes and benefits of literacy. Core programs were also often weak in these areas, but teachers also occasionally decreased quality and responsiveness in these areas through their adaptations. Given the research suggesting that teachers sometimes enact instruction in ways that are less ambitious than their instructional plans (Roth McDuffie et al., 2017), it seems unlikely that teachers would enact instruction that was stronger than their plans in these areas. These findings are disheartening. New and continued efforts to support improvement in reading comprehension instruction are needed, and this is an urgent and equity-related matter. Given that teaching reading comprehension is complex work and instructional improvement in this area has been slow over the last 50 years, efforts to bring about needed changes in this essential area of literacy instruction should be more comprehensive and try new and innovative approaches that address curriculum materials, teachers, and contexts. This is likely to be difficult work given the ways in which cultural scripts and routines are transmitted and appropriated within the profession and given the complexity of teaching reading 253 comprehension in schools today as suggested in this dissertation. Still, this is an important focus area to address through teacher education, professional development, curriculum development, and policy efforts. One last question bears discussion here: if instructional plans designed with core programs demonstrate weakness in these important areas, should districts and teachers stop using them in order to improve comprehension instruction? This study does not offer conclusive answers to this question, and continued research comparing teachers’ instructional design efforts and enacted instruction in different kinds of curricular contexts is needed. However, I would argue that the findings of this study do not seem to support such an approach of eliminating core programs as the best way to support improvement, especially in districts and schools that are currently using them, for several reasons. First, the instructional plans designed in this study had significant strengths and these strengths often reflected the strengths of the core program lessons themselves - suggesting that the programs may have had at least some positive influence. Second, teachers explicitly voiced appreciation for the materials and talked about ways in which core programs supported them in their work. Given the complexity that characterizes teaching and planning, especially in the area of reading comprehension, eliminating core programs entirely would likely tax teachers’ capacity even more and could potentially lead to lower-quality instruction in districts and schools where teachers are accustomed to using a core program. Rather than eliminating core programs, especially in these kinds of contexts, I suggest that, instead, districts should consider efforts to improve core programs, support teacher learning, and provide more supportive contexts for teachers’ instructional design work in reading comprehension, as I have already discussed above. 254 Limitations Though this study provided important initial insights into little-examined aspects of the daily work of teachers that are useful for informing continued research as well as theory and practice, it also has several limitations. First, the study used only data collected from interview and self-report measures, all administered by the same researcher, which may be subject to an interviewer effect and social desirability bias. To guard against this and to build rapport with participating teachers, I briefly shared my background as a former elementary school teacher who taught with core programs in my early career. I was careful to take a non-evaluative stance during interviews, and I reviewed interview videos regularly to maintain awareness of how I was interacting with the teachers during interviews. Second, the study used retrospective self-report measures to examine teachers’ actions and reasoning during planning. This afforded only indirect examination of teachers’ planning, which was limited due to the time in between when teachers planned and when I conducted interviews and due to the fact that the data were limited to what teachers could explicitly describe. I found that the teachers’ descriptions of their planning varied in the degree of detail they included in regard to both actions and noticing. As a result, the conclusions I was able to make about teachers’ planning activities and curricular noticing were somewhat limited. Though I did not identify differences in the quality or responsiveness of teachers’ instructional plans that related to the degree of detail in their planning, previous research has suggested that differences in the degree of specificity with which teachers plan for and talk about their practice may relate to differences in metacognitive awareness, and that these differences matter for the instruction they plan and enact (Artzt & Armour-Thomas, 1998). This raises questions about whether other methodological approaches, such as in-the-moment think-alouds or video-stimulated recall may 255 be able to help teachers become more aware of their planning processes and articulate them more clearly and specifically. Given the ways in which teacher metacognition relates to their teaching practice, it seems likely that helping teachers become more metacognitively aware of their planning may help support them in their teaching. In other words, using other approaches to study teacher planning may support teacher learning and practice as well as informing research and theory. Third, the lessons the teachers planned were purely hypothetical and they were planned during the summer, which may have changed the nature of what teachers did and the lessons they planned because they had more time to reflect and because they were not engaged in daily interactions with the students for whom they planned the instruction. Though I sought to make the staged lesson planning task more authentic by having teachers plan the lesson as if they were going to teach it to their students and by asking teachers to plan, as much as possible, the way they would during the school year, I recognize that there was, nonetheless, a degree of artificiality to the task and context. As a result, some teachers seem to have engaged in planning less thoroughly in the study than they would have if they were preparing for a lesson they were going to teach. I found some evidence that of this in the teacher interviews. For example, Karina expressed: “I didn't take it a hundred percent seriously. Because I'm not teaching the lesson, so I did not give you my best effort” (SLP1), and Amy shared, “I didn’t delve into them like I might if I was really teaching this lesson” (SLP2). This raises questions as to whether the limited degree of detail in some of the teachers’ lesson plans and descriptions of planning may be due, at least in part, to the artificiality of the planning task. Teachers who engaged in planning less thoroughly in the context of the study, such as Amy and Karina, may simply have had less to say because they had not thought through their plans as completely. In order to address these 256 limitations, I included interview questions addressing teachers’ typical planning and soliciting comparisons between their planning in the study and their typical planning during the school year. These questions provided insight into the degree to which planning practices reported in the study reflected those engaged in during the school year, and teacher responses indicated close alignment in most cases. Still, it is possible that teachers may have been better able to describe their planning in detail if they had been engaged in it authentically as a daily activity of their lives as teachers during the study. At the same time, the benefits of engaging teachers in reflecting upon their planning during the summer, when they were slightly more removed from teaching and could reflect in greater depth, may have outweighed this limitation. The overall richness of the data I collected suggests that this may be the case. Additionally, it is unlikely that teachers working with district-adopted programs would be willing or able to plan a lesson with unfamiliar materials during the schoolyear due to the many demands they already juggle and the time-consuming and cognitively demanding nature of planning with an unfamiliar core program. Fourth, teachers in the study each planned only one lesson from each set of materials, providing limited insight into how they do or would use other lessons from the same set of materials, including lessons that differ in their content or activities. They also planned only for one component of the instruction the would enact on that day, namely their whole-group comprehension lesson. Core programs and teachers’ instruction typically include other components of instruction that address comprehension on any given day, such as read-alouds, vocabulary instruction, small-group instruction, independent reading time, and conferencing. As a result, I could not make claims about how well each teacher or core program addressed elements of high-quality, responsive comprehension instruction more broadly. It is likely that teachers and core programs addressed some elements of my framework outside of the particular 257 lesson type I examined, such as “giving students reading choices” under generating motivation and interest or providing “explicit explanations of the meanings of new words” under building conceptual and language knowledge. In the future, I plan to study teachers’ planning for these other aspects of comprehension instruction in order to provide additional insights into the ways in which core programs and instructional plans may or may not address these elements. Fifth, the present study focused exclusively on teacher planning, without linking instructional plans to the enacted instruction. Though previous research suggests that instructional plans inform the instruction teachers enact with students in classrooms, it also suggests that the relationship is not linear because teachers, students, and contextual factors continue to shape instruction as it unfolds in the classroom (e.g., Remillard, 2018). Additionally, teachers’ work with curriculum materials, including their curricular noticing, extends beyond planning and encompasses the before, during, and after teaching stages. This study provides important insights into one aspect or stage of teachers’ work with curriculum materials that has implications for the learning opportunities that may be made available to their students. Additional studies that examine teachers’ curricular noticing and instructional practices more broadly are needed, especially in literacy, to connect planning processes and instructional plans to enacted instruction and to teachers’ subsequent engagement with curriculum materials. This is a future direction for my research. Finally, this study’s use of a qualitative case study design allows only for theoretical generalization and not for generalizations to the broader population of teachers or to core programs as a whole. As a result, additional studies of teachers’ planning across contexts, programs, and grade levels are warranted in order to inform more complete understandings of how teachers engage in planning with core programs and how resources and planning relate to 258 quality and responsiveness. This dissertation provides important insights in terms of methodology, findings, and theory to inform continued research of this kind. Significance This study and its findings are significant because they provide important foundational understandings of the nature of teachers’ instructional design work with core reading programs, extending theory and research findings from mathematics and science into the field of literacy. To my knowledge, this study is the first in literacy to apply the constructs of curricular noticing, orientation to curriculum materials, pedagogical design capacity, and the teacher-curriculum material relationship to inform its design and analysis. The finding that these constructs and the broader theoretical perspective of teachers as instructional designers who participate with curriculum materials in the design process could be easily applied to research in literacy and could inform findings that connected to and extended existing research in mathematics and science suggests that these constructs and perspectives have great potential to inform continued research in literacy. This study’s focus on instructional planning is also unique and needed given that recent research has devoted little attention to examining the instructional planning of experienced teachers. In all of these areas, the present study provided foundational insights that can inform continued research and practice. In particular, this study makes a significant contribution by demonstrating the nature of teachers’ planning with core reading programs, suggesting that it is complex, that it is shaped significantly by teachers’ beliefs, as well as their experiences and knowledge, and that it is participatory and contextual, shaped by characteristics and resources of the teacher, the curriculum materials, and the context. This finding is particularly significant for curriculum designers and for district and school administrators involved in curriculum implementation 259 efforts because they often overlook or fail to take into account the nature of teachers’ work with core reading programs. It is also significant for researchers because it suggests a more complex and balanced view of the role of core reading programs than the more common, polarizing perspectives in the field that still echo the de-skilling debates. Research that builds on the present study, taking into account the nature of teachers’ work with core programs and employing some of the theory and constructs applied here has great potential to inform efforts to support teacher learning and instructional improvement in literacy. Another significant contribution this study makes is its finding that every aspect of teachers’ curricular noticing from start to finish was shaped by their beliefs. This is particularly important given that the subjective nature of professional noticing is acknowledged as part of noticing theory, but the existing research has largely ignored the role of beliefs, focusing instead on teachers’ knowledge and noticing practices as mechanisms for learning and change. Finally, this study serves as a form of existence proof, demonstrating that teachers can design instructional plans that reflect many elements of high-quality, responsive comprehension instruction when working with core programs. This is especially important given the widespread use of core programs as well as the weak support they offer for this kind of instruction. At the same time, this study demonstrates that even knowledgeable and experienced teachers may not be able to improve upon all of the weaknesses of core programs, suggesting the importance of continuing to improve core programs as a way of supporting teachers in their instructional design work. Conclusion In sum, this study demonstrated that planning for reading comprehension with core programs is complex, situated, interactive, and interpretive work. What the six participating 260 teachers believed shaped how they perceived and in turn interacted with the human, contextual, and curricular resources and constraints they encountered as they worked with the core reading programs to plan for instruction. The influence of teachers’ orientations was particularly evident in their noticing of the curriculum materials. Perceiving core programs as helpful but also limited and sometimes limiting tools, the teachers grappled with and ultimately managed complexity and limitations in their capacity by making many intentional decisions that were guided by their beliefs and by developing schema and routines that helped reduce the number of decisions they needed to consciously make each day. The combined result of complexity, limitations, beliefs, and routines was that teachers’ lesson plans showed some strengths but also inevitably left some things out. Given the recurring themes of complexity and limitations, the finding that these six teachers managed to craft a variety of plans that reflected their own beliefs and priorities while also aligning with many elements of high-quality and responsive comprehension instruction and addressing their local contexts and their perceptions of their students’ strengths and needs suggests the richness of the teachers’ pedagogical design capacity. These are initial findings in the field of literacy that complement and extend the findings of research on teachers’ work with curriculum materials in science and mathematics. As such, this study provides a foundation for continued research and theory to build on these initial findings in literacy as well as providing initial insights to inform practice. At the same time, many questions remain to be explored in order to better understand and support teachers in their complex and important work of designing high-quality, responsive comprehension instruction with core reading programs. 261 APPENDICES 262 APPENDIX A: PROTOCOLS 1. How do you typically plan for reading instruction? Describe what you do when you plan. Interview 1: General Interview How long do you spend planning? 2. What influences or informs your planning? (Probe for community, students, core program, T’s own knowledge/beliefs) 3. Please describe the community in which your school is located. How have you learned about the community? 4. Please describe the students you had in your class last year, both as people and as literacy learners. How have you learned about these students? 5. What principles or beliefs guide your reading instruction? What has influenced or informed those principles or beliefs? 6. As a 3rd/4th grade teacher, what goals do you have for your students in terms of what they should know and be able to do as readers by the end of the school year? Why are these goals important for students in 3rd/4th grade? What challenges or obstacles do students face in accomplishing these goals by the end of the year? What is your role in supporting their learning? 7. Describe what proficient reading comprehension entails. How do proficient readers read and make sense of texts? 8. How do you teach reading comprehension? Have you taught reading comprehension differently in the past? Tell me about that. 9. Please describe the expectations in your school regarding reading instruction. (Probe for expectations related to how curriculum materials are used, how expectations address reading comprehension, sources of expectations, who creates these expectations, whether and how teachers are monitored or held accountable.) 10. What resources are available in your school to support you in planning and teaching reading comprehension? (Probe for instructional coaches, opportunities for collaborative planning, opportunities for feedback on instruction, supplemental resources and materials, time.) 11. Please describe the core reading program your district used last school year. How does it suggest that you teach reading comprehension? Describe how it suggests students should practice reading and making sense of texts. 12. In your survey response, you described the ways that you use and adapt the program by saying ________________________. What does that look like on a day to day or week to week basis in your classroom? Tell me more about why you use and adapt the program in those ways. 13. Have you always used the program in this way? Was there a time when you did not? Tell me about that. 14. How should teachers use core reading programs such as X to inform their curriculum and 263 instruction? What is the role of the materials in shaping curriculum and instruction? What is the role of the teacher in shaping or designing curriculum and instruction? 15. How well does the program support you in teaching reading comprehension? How well do you think it supports students in learning to read and comprehend texts? Why do you think that? 16. This is the set of core program materials I will have you use to plan a lesson before we meet for the next interview. Imagine you are sitting down to begin planning this lesson. Show me and talk me through the parts you would usually read or consult to help you get started with planning. As you read, talk about what you are reading and thinking. (5 minutes.) Interviews 2 & 3: Staged Lesson Planning with Familiar Materials (SLP1 & 2) Lesson Plan Description 1. Describe the class you had last year, which is the class for which we asked you to plan this lesson (e.g., grade, prior mathematical achievement, size of class), without revealing student names. 2. What are the most important ideas or content in this lesson? [Prompt for evidence for their claims.] Why are these ideas or content important for students’ literacy learning? a. If you were planning this lesson to teach to the students you had last year, to what extent would you say the content is appropriate for those students? b. If it is not appropriate, ask: In what ways is it not appropriate and how (if at all) could you adapt the lesson to better fit with your students? 3. Describe the lesson from start to finish, as you planned/designed/envisioned it. As much as possible, describe your reasoning or rationale for designing the lesson in these ways. (Questions to probe for reasoning/rationale: How would this support your students? What is the thinking behind doing that? Probe for components and characteristics of the lesson using prompts below if teacher provides little or superficial information.) a. Given your previous experiences with these students and this content, what strategies will you use to help them during the lesson? b. How would you start the lesson? c. How would you introduce the topic? What instructional approaches or strategies would you use? d. What text(s) would you use? e. What kinds of tasks/practice would the students work on? f. What activity structures would you use, and what are your goals for each (e.g., what do you hope to accomplish in a whole class discussion)? i. whole class lecture, ii. whole class discussion, iii. small group work, iv. independent seat work v. something else (pair work, pair consultation during independent work, etc.) g. What kinds of student reasoning/student strategies/student misconceptions/student responses would you anticipate? h. How would you address or respond to these challenges and anticipated student 264 reasoning? * I anticipate teachers may not address this on their own, and I may need to ask these questions more directly in order to get at this. However, these seem important to ask given my interest in responsive instruction. i. What do you hope students walk away with as a result of this lesson (what would you like them to know or be able to do; what are the learning goals, outcomes, or objectives you have in mind for this lesson)? j. How would you informally assess your students during the lesson? What indicators of learning or needs would you would look for? How will you know they have achieved the objectives? What are some of the questions you plan to ask? k. How would you conclude the lesson? l. What outside materials, if, any, would you use during the lesson? m. Would you plan to do anything different from what you described to support the learning of particular students? Describe these students. What would you do to support them within this lesson? How do you imagine this plan will support these particular students in their learning? 4. Now we are going to talk about the ways that the lesson content and activities develop student thinking, and how the lesson connects to and supports students’ literacy learning across time. a. Progression within the lesson: In what ways do you see the sequence or progression of the lesson you described as supporting students’ understanding or ability to apply the content? How do the lesson’s activities support students in progressing toward being able to apply lesson content to support their comprehension when reading independently (may include gradual release of responsibility or introducing a concept or task, problem solving, summary discussion, etc.)? b. Progression and connections to learning and curriculum beyond the lesson: i. What kinds of knowledge (skills, strategies) will students develop across the lesson and how will they develop this knowledge? (Probe for strategic knowledge, disciplinary or conceptual knowledge, vocabulary or language knowledge, and knowledge of text structures or genres.) How will this knowledge support them as readers? ii. How does this lesson address essential understandings, strategies, or skills students should learn in this grade level? How does the lesson relate to the broader picture or progression of their learning within the grade level and across grade levels? (Probe for connections to prior learning or knowledge ad for how lesson knowledge will be used or built upon later.) iii. How does the content relate to or address learning standards and local curricular expectations (may include CCSS, curriculum maps, pacing guides, policies, etc.)? Lesson Planning Process Description 5. Describe how you used the student text and teacher resources to plan the lesson. As much as possible, walk me through your planning processes, talking me through what you did and why. 265 a. What did you read/look for? What did you hope to learn from that feature/component/element, and how would (or did) it help you in your planning? What did you think about as you were reading through the materials? b. How did you make sense of the materials? Was there anything you didn’t understand or that you had questions about in terms of the materials and their design? How did you answer these questions? Are there any questions you still have about the materials or their design? c. What specific adaptations (omissions, modifications, substitutions, additions, resequencing) did you make to the core program? What was the thinking behind those adaptations? How did you decide what components of the lesson to use as written in the core program and which components to change (omit, modify, substitute, add, resequence)? d. As you designed your lesson, what outside resources or materials did you consult or bring in to supplement the core program? How did you hope these outside resources would support you in planning and teaching this lesson? Where are these materials from/how did you find or access them? e. What kinds of things did you consider or take into account as you were planning this lesson? (Teachers may speak about characteristics of: teacher (beliefs, dispositions, orientations, knowledge of teaching and learning, goals, identity, experiences), students, local community, institutional context) 6. Was this process for planning this lesson similar to when you plan a lesson with your regular materials (or during the school year)? How/why? (Probe for access to different resources, timing and cognitive load, ways of thinking about students, opportunities for collaboration.) 7. Was the time you spent typical for planning a lesson with your regular materials, or during the school year? How/why? Evaluation of the Core Program 8. How were these materials different than your regular materials? (ONLY for new materials) 9. What are the strengths of the core program materials you used to plan this lesson? What are the limitations or weaknesses of the materials? (Probe for representations and explanations of content; pedagogical procedures for what teachers and students will do; physical materials such as texts, posters, worksheets. These should include student and teacher materials.) a. How well did the materials support you in your planning? What components or characteristics were especially helpful or supportive during planning? What components or characteristics presented challenges for you during planning? (If teachers provide little information, ask about the components below.) i. The student materials (texts, posters or other supports, examples or explanations, practice activities) ii. The teacher materials iii. Assessment materials/resources b. What are the strengths of the materials in terms of supporting your students’ learning in the area of reading comprehension? What are the materials’ limitations in this area? (May address the following:) 266 i. The student materials (texts, posters or other supports, examples or explanations, practice activities) ii. The teacher materials c. For any aspects of the materials discussed as challenges or limitations, follow up with: What sense do you have, if any, about why the materials (structure, content, processes) are designed this way? [Probe for insight into design rationale or underlying assumptions of curriculum developers.] 10. If you were to redesign the teacher resources, what would you suggest? How would these changes improve the materials? 11. Do you have any final thoughts? Concluding question for SLP1 only: This is the set of core program materials I will have you use to plan a lesson before we meet for the next interview. Imagine you are sitting down to begin planning this lesson. Show me and talk me through the parts you would usually read or consult to help you get started with planning. As you read, talk about what you are reading and thinking. (5 minutes.) Prompt for Staged Lesson Planning Using the materials you have been given today, I am asking you to plan a lesson as though you were going to teach it to the class you had last year. As much as possible, use the process you would have used to plan a lesson for these students during the school year. If you would usually consult or use outside resources, please feel free to do this. Plan to bring specific references or copies of these outside resources to your next interview. As you plan, please be sure to think through all the parts you would typically include in a lesson, such as learning goals, texts and materials, explanations, questions, activities, and formal or informal assessments, among others. During your next interview, I will ask you to describe the lesson you planned and to explain the process you used to plan that lesson. I will also ask you to describe any additional resources you used or consulted. Please come prepared with any mental or physical notes you might need to discuss your lesson plan, planning processes, and resources you used. I plan to record the interview, but I will not collect any notes you bring with you. If you have any questions, please contact Laura Hopkins at hopki144@msu.edu or 585-307-1385. Thank you for your continuing participation in this study! I look forward to meeting with you on (fill in date) at (fill in time) at (fill in location) for your next interview. 267 APPENDIX B: TABLES Table 24 Planning Processes for All Six Teachers Amy 1- Read weekly overview and essential question to make sense of learning targets for the week 2- Eyeball the lesson and text from student perspective (unfamiliar) 3- Read the suggestions for instruction in conjunction with the text, reading some details 4- Look at notes from last year (familiar) 5- Evaluate the topic, text, and instructional suggestions in light of knowledge of students Anastasia 1- Look at objectives (familiar: layout of the land; unfamiliar: the big main ideas; general: with colleagues, in study: on her own) 2- Read through everything on a general level (general: with colleagues, in study: on her own) 3- Evaluate how well the text relates to students’ lives and background knowledge, how well the lesson addresses the CCSS (unfamiliar) 4- Discuss with colleagues what they did and what worked well in the past (familiar, general) 5- Share outside resources (general) Cathy 1- Get a sense of the unit as a whole, considering what it addresses, its duration, how it might connect with other units and content areas 2- Look at lesson purpose and content 3- Consider how the lesson connects with and builds upon previous lessons 4- Read through the student text, noting how it addressed learning targets for the week 5- Consider what aspects of the text might be challenging for students (vocabulary, text structure or features, concepts) Karina 1- Consult “cheat sheet” about students to deter-mine who does not need to be involved and what they will do instead. Determine how to group students based on time of year and group dynamics. 2- Select outside materials for students who will not participate in the core program lesson 3- Look at the test to deter- mine what to focus on in the lesson (including vocabulary words, text structure/features, skill & strategy of the week). 4- Look over the big question/big idea for the unit and the week 5- Plan for how to talk about genre when introducing the text Kierra 1- Look at the unit overview 2- Look at the weekly preview and question of the week to determine the learning targets and topic. 3- Read the lesson introduction and the text, then rereads the text while looking at the instructional suggestions and questions. 4- Consult CCSS and district “I can” statements to understand “where am I really supposed to get kids?” 5- Evaluate the text in light of students’ background knowledge and experiences Julie 1- Read learning targets and topic of the lesson 2- Read corresponding chapter in Strategies that Work to “activate deep knowledge” 3- Read through the text, scanning suggestions for instruction in margins and questions at end. 4- Evaluate utility & appropriateness of sugges- tions, comparing program w/ Strategies that Work 5- Determine specific plans, including language for explicit explanations and modeling of some content, where to pause for practice or instruction. Plans include places to monitor students and release responsibility as they show readiness 268 Table 24 (cont’d) Amy Anastasia Cathy Julie Karina Kierra 6- Determine specific plans, including whether to supplement with outside resources or address additional background/ vocabulary knowledge 7- Prepare materials, making a packet of any handouts for the entire week 6- Read through the teacher points in detail, connecting them to the text (including the script and suggestions for Accessing Complex Text and for ELLs) 7- Think about how instructional suggestions might support particular students 8- Consider when lesson will take place during the day, how much time she has or wants to spend 9- Design specific plans, including how to engage students at beginning of lesson and planning out lesson sequence in detail, including anticipated student responses 10- Determine whether to use any supplementary resources or connect to other content areas 11- Prepare lesson materials, rehearsing the lesson sequence and use of materials and technology 6- Decide how to present story, whether or how to build back- ground, how to read each part, which suggestions to use and how. Make notes in TE. 7- Look through “accessories” and decide what to use 8- Identify outside resources to use 9- Make sure any graphic organizers, accessories, and outside resources are ready 6- Prepare additional materials such as graphic organizers as needed 6- Read through the text and suggestions for instruction, looking at the pictures, text features, workbook pages, and the questions at the end, making sense of it all 7- Evaluate the text, instructional suggestions, and questions in light of knowledge of students 8- Prepare a general plan that follows routine, specifying how to group students, discuss question of unit and week, and introduce genre, as well as which graphic organ- izer(s), questions, and work- book pages to use and how 9- Prepare materials such as a graphic organizer 6- Consult outside resources such as Pinterest for ideas for anchor charts or to build background knowledge 7- Decide how to get students interested and build background before reading, plan lesson intro- duction w/ some specif- icity, quickly draw anchor charts and list materials 8- Sketch out a general and flexible plan for the rest of the lesson, deciding tentatively on which questions she might use during and after reading 9- Check over the district Smart Board slides quickly before teaching 269 Table 25 Core Program Components Each Teacher Noticed During Planning Core program components Evidence in instructional plans demonstrating noticing of component • Main text for the week • Other texts • • • • learning target instructional explanations Graphic organizer Audio recording of the text (disc/software) Vocabulary (words and/or definitions) Comprehension skills and strategies • • • modeling/think-alouds Genre • • definition explanations and modeling of text structure/features Material objects Content Tasks/ Activities/ Procedures • • unit level Essential question • • week level Connect to Content Areas • • Questions to ask students • • before reading during reading after reading • • • Instructional suggestions for teachers Suggestions for differentiated support • • • ELLs Below-level and Above-level students Accessing Complex Text Structure TOTAL • Objectives/learning targets • 29 Scripted language √=evidence in instructional plan that the teacher noticed the component X=no evidence in instructional plan that the teacher noticed the component n.a.=not applicable; component not included in core program lesson ASH ASH B √ X n.a. n.a. (√) √ √ ? ? n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a n.a. n.a. n.a. (√) n.a. (√) (√) (√) X X X X √ ? 9 W √ X √ n.a. ? √ √ (√) ? √ n.a. ? √ √ √ ? (√) (√) (√) (√) (√) X X X X √ ? 14 CC B √ X n.a. n.a. (√) √ √ (√) (√) n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a n.a. n.a. n.a. (√) n.a. (√) (√) (√) (√) (√) (√) n.a. √ X 9 CC W √ X √ n.a. (√) √ √ (√) (√) √ n.a. (√) √ X √ X (√) (√) (√) X (√) (√) (√) (√) (√) √ (√) 21 JH RS √ X X X X √ √ X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X √ X 4 JH W √ X n.a. X X √ √ X X X n.a. X X X X X X X X X X X X X X √ X 4 KC RS √ √ n.a. X √ √ √ (√) ? √ √ (√) √ √ √ X (√) (√) (√) √ (√) X X X X √ X 18 KC W √ √ √ n.a. √ (√) (√) (√) ? √ n.a. (√) √ X √ X (√) (√) (√) √ (√) X X X X √ X 17 KV RS √ X X √ √ √ √ X X √ ? X √ √ √ X (√) X (√) (√) (√) X X X X √ X 14 KV W √ X √ n.a. (√) √ √ X X X n.a. (√) √ X √ X (√) X (√) (√) (√) X X X X √ X 13 AH RS √ X n.a. √ √ √ √ ? ? √ ? ? ? ? ? ? (√) ? (√) (√) (√) ? ? ? ? √ X 12 AH W √ X √ n.a. (√) √ √ (√) (√) √ n.a. (√) √ X √ ? (√) ? (√) (√) (√) X X X X √ X 17 270 Implicit purpose (hidden, obscure) Botanists: the text’s purpose is not explicitly stated. Earthquakes: the text’s purpose is not explicitly stated. Sugar Maple Trees: the text’s purpose is not explicitly stated. Penguin Chick: the text’s purpose is not explicitly stated. Complex structure Implicit structure Traits specific to a particular discipline Table 26 Analysis of Core Reading Program Texts Explicitly stated purpose Horse Heroes: introductory paragraph makes the text’s purpose explicit (informing readers about horses who worked with people and became famous heroes). Whooping Cranes: purpose of informing readers about how scientists are helping whooping cranes is somewhat explicit. Simple structure Botanists: text structure is straightforward and easy to follow. Earthquakes: text structure is straightforward and easy to follow. Horse Heroes: text structure is straightforward and easy to follow Sugar Maple Trees: three of the paragraphs have similar structure and the overall text is structured chronologically. Penguin Chick: overall text is structured chronologically and has a narrative-like structure though it is expository in genre. This makes it accessible for young readers accustomed to narratives. Whooping Cranes: text follows a common, fairly simple problem- solution structure. Explicit structure Botanists: each paragraph begins with a clear main idea statement, making the organizational structure fairly explicit Earthquakes: clear headings signal text structure Horse Heroes: clear headings signal text structure Sugar Maple Trees: clear signal words introduce each paragraph, conveying the overall structure of the text. Penguin Chick: signal words such as “after three days” and “finally” convey the chronological, narrative structure. Whooping Cranes: text structure is made explicit through headings. Traits of a common genre or subgenre Botanists: includes a title and graphic, representative of fairly simple expository texts. Earthquakes: uses common text features such as graphics with captions, headings, and sidebars. The insertion of a firsthand account into an expository text may be unfamiliar to some readers. Horse Heroes: uses common text features such as graphics with captions, headings, and call-outs. Sugar Maple Trees: includes a title and graphic, representative of fairly simple expository texts. Penguin Chick: includes graphics and italicized text, representative of fairly simple expository texts. Whooping Cranes: includes graphics with captions and headings. 271 Table 26 (cont’d) Simple graphics Botanists: text contains one photograph, which is clear and simple, showing a scientist examining something under a microscope. Earthquakes: text contains many graphics, most of which are photographs but two of which are information-rich and support understanding of key disciplinary ideas in the text (a map of Earth’s plates and a diagram of faults). These are fairly simple and straightforward to understand. Horse Heroes: text contains many graphics, most of which are photographs but three of which are more information-rich (two maps, one poster for the Pony Express). All photographs are accompanied by captions or call-outs that contain additional information. These are fairly simple and straightforward to understand, although the sheer number of them on each page may make the reading of the text somewhat more complex and less linear. Sugar Maple Trees: text contains one graphic, which is clear and simple, showing buckets used to collect maple sap for syrup- making. Penguin Chick: text contains many graphics, most of which are illustrations without captions, but some of which are more information-rich including a timeline showing stages in the chick’s life and a diagram showing what the penguins eat. These are all fairly simple and straightforward to understand. Whooping Cranes: graphics are mostly photographs with captions, and there is one map. Some are information-rich, but they are straightforward to understand. Graphics unnecessary or supplementary to understanding text Botanists: photograph does not have a caption or convey necessary information. Sugar Maple Trees: photograph does not have a caption or convey necessary information. Penguin Chick: graphics contain supplementary rather than essential information and do not communicate much beyond what is in the text. Sophisticated graphics Graphics essential to understanding, may provide information not otherwise in text Earthquakes: graphic on page 50 (map showing earth’s plates and locations where earthquakes have occurred) provides information essential to understanding the text not otherwise in the text; other graphics are supplementary; captions do provide some information not otherwise in text. Horse Heroes: graphics and related captions and call-outs contain a significant amount of information not otherwise in the text, though this is primarily supplemental. Whooping Cranes: some graphics and captions provide essential information needed for understanding ideas referenced in the text such as the puppet parents and the whooping cranes’ migration path. Figurative, ambiguous, or purposefully misleading Literal, clear language Botanists: literal, clear language Horse Heroes: literal, clear language Earthquakes: literal, clear language Sugar Maple Trees: literal, clear language Penguin Chick: literal, clear language Whooping Cranes: literal, clear language 272 Table 26 (cont’d) Contemporary, familiar, conversational language Everyday knowledge required Sugar Maple Trees: everyday knowledge of trees and seasons is required. Perhaps some cultural knowledge required for understanding references to maple syrup and pancakes (may present a challenge for international students) Low intertextuality Botanists: few if any references/allusions to other texts Horse Heroes: few if any references/allusions to other texts Earthquakes: few if any references/allusions to other texts Sugar Maple Trees: few if any references/allusions to other texts Penguin Chick: few if any references/allusions to other texts Whooping Cranes: few if any references/allusions to other texts Archaic, unfamiliar, academic, or discipline-specific Botanists: a few perhaps unfamiliar, academic, or discipline- specific words: environment, Egyptians, Chinese, Romans, Greek, Theophrastus. Horse Heroes: some perhaps unfamiliar, academic, or discipline- specific words: religion, mythology, mustang, continent, wagon, Pony Express, territory, ambush, milestone, pioneer, tribute, resourceful, Criollo, headstrong, fatal, companions, instinctively, palomino, mare, debut, holster, passport, listless Earthquakes: crust, plates, mantle, seismologist, tsunami, precursor, forerunner, faults, seismographs, magnitude scale, geography, engulfed, debris, hurl, inland coastal, utility ducts Sugar Maple Trees: capture, sap, dormant Penguin Chick: brood patch, rookery, tobogganing, krill, huddle, down, preen, crèche, waterproof, mate Whooping Cranes: devote, dreadful, marshes, resources, refuge, migrate, whoopers, whooping cranes, ultralight planes, operation, revved, strayed, predator, currents, route, trackers, recovery, threatened, endangered. Extensive, perhaps specialized discipline-specific or cultural knowledge required Botanists: Understanding of ancient history and ancient civilizations needed to understand references such as long ago, “Ancient Egyptians, Chinese, and Romans,” and 300 B.C. Horse Heroes: Understanding of U.S. history and geography needed to understand references such as 1860, West Coast, wagon, California, American Indians, Nevada, pioneers, mail, 1925, Costa Rica, White House Earthquakes: Scientific knowledge needed to understand references to Earth’s crust, tsunami, waves of energy; geographic knowledge needed to understand references to Chile, Japan, Hawaii, Alaska, Haiti; mathematical knowledge to understand 82 feet (25 meters), 150 miles per hour, 30 feet (10 meters), 50-foot (15-meter) Penguin Chick: scientific knowledge needed to understand bird life cycle; geographic knowledge needed to understand the text’s setting in Antarctica, including why it is so bitterly cold and difficult to get to food. Whooping Cranes: scientific knowledge of concepts such as migration, endangered species, predator, bird life cycles; geographic knowledge of the U.S.; mathematical knowledge to understand 1,200 miles High intertextuality 273 Table 26 (cont’d) Little variation and richness in word choice and sentence structure Botanists: simple sentence structure with little variety, frequent use of passive voice and common words, no vivid or richly descriptive language. Example sentences: “Botanists are scientists who study plants. They study where plants live and how plants affect the environment around them. Some botanists study plant diseases and try to find cures.” Sugar Maple Trees: simple sentence structure some variety, some use of passive voice, many common words, some descriptive language. Example sentences: “What is your favorite tree? May people think sugar maples are the best! Not only are the trees beautiful, but they provide a tasty treat.” Low writing quality and appeal Botanists: no hook or connection to students’ lives. Photo may appeal to students already interested in science High variation and richness in word choice and sentence structure Horse Heroes: varied sentence structure and length, active voice and vivid or richly descriptive language. Example sentences: “When the little mustang came into view, the crowd began to cheer. Her rider, Johnny Fry, led her into the packed town square of St. Joseph, Missouri, that warm April evening in 1860. Johnny checked the mail pouch on the mustang’s back for the last time as she snorted excitedly.” Earthquakes: varied sentence structure, active voice and some vivid or richly descriptive language. Example sentences: “We like to believe that the ground under our feet is solid and secure. People who have felt the ground shake know differently. They have lived through an earthquake.” Penguin Chick: some variety in sentence structure, some passive voice, some vivid or richly descriptive language. Example sentences: “The new penguin father uses his beak to scoop the egg onto his webbed feet. He tucks it under his feather-covered skin, into a special place called a brood patch. The egg will be as snug and warm there as if it where in a sleeping bag.” Whooping Cranes: some variety in sentence structure, some passive voice, some vivid or richly descriptive language. Example sentences: “By 1941, only fifteen whooping cranes were left in the wild. It looked as if they could die out forever. Some people refused to let this happen. The government reserved land for these cranes to live on.” High writing quality and appeal Horse Heroes: subtitle uses high-interest language (True Stories of Amazing Horses); text opens with a narrative account of Pony Express rider being cheered into town with crowds and booming cannons; topic of animals likely to be engaging; photographs add interest. Earthquakes: opening page includes large photo of a crack running down the middle of a road; other photos and graphics add interest; topic of natural disasters likely to be engaging; begins by debunking a common belief that the earth is solid under our feet. Sugar Maple Trees: text opens with a question as a hook, writing style and topic are somewhat engaging. Penguin Chick: text opens with a description of the fierce Antarctic climate into which penguin chicks are born; topics of animals and survival likely to be engaging; writing style is engaging, graphics add visual appeal. Whooping Cranes: text opens with a hook about heroes; topic of endangered species likely to be engaging; graphics add interest. 274 REFERENCES 275 REFERENCES Achinstein, B., & Ogawa, R. T. (2006). (In)fidelity: What the resistance of new teachers reveals about professional principles and prescriptive educational policies. Harvard Educational Review, 76(1), 30–63. Amador, J. M., Males, L. M., Earnest, D., & Dietiker, L. (2017). Curricular noticing: Theory on and practice of teachers’ curricular use. In E. O. Schack, M. H. Fisher, & J. A. Wilhelm (Eds.), Teacher Noticing: Bridging and Broadening Perspectives, Contexts, and Frameworks (pp. 427–443). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing AG. Anfara, V. A., Brown, K. M., & Mangione, T. L. (2002). Qualitative analysis on stage: Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 28–38. Apple, M. W. (1981). Curricular form and the logic of technical control. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 2(3), 293–319. Arias, A. M., Bismack, A. S., Davis, E. A., & Palincsar, A. S. (2015). Interacting with a suite of educative features: Elementary science teachers’ use of educative curriculum materials. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 53(3), 422-449. Artzt, A.F. & Armour-Thomas, E. (1999). Mathematics teaching as problem solving: A framework for studying teacher metacognition underlying instructional practice in mathematics. Instructional Science 26(2), 5-25. Artiles, A. J., Dorn, S., & Bal, A. (2016). Objects of protection, enduring nodes of difference: Disability intersections with “other” differences, 1916 to 2016. Review of Research in Education, 40(1), 777–820. Au, K. H. (1980). Participation structures in a reading lesson with hawaiian children: Analysis of a culturally appropriate instructional event. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 11(2), 91–115. Au, K. H., & Mason, J. M. (1981). Social organizational factors in learning to read: The balance of rights hypothesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 17(1), 115–152. Badley K. & Hollabaugh, J. (2012). Metaphors for teaching and learning. In K. Badley & H. VanBrummelen, (Eds.) Metaphors we teach by: How metaphors shape what we do in classrooms (pp. 52-67). Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers. Bage, G., Grosvenor, J., & Williams, M. (1999). Curriculum planning: prediction or response? A case‐study of teacher planning conducted through partnership action research. Curriculum Journal, 10(1), 49–69. Ball, D. L., & Cohen, D. K. (1996). Reform by the book: What is—or might be—the role of 276 curriculum materials in teacher learning and instructional reform? Educational Researcher, 25(9), 6–14. Ball, D.L., & Feiman-Nemser, S. (1988). Using textbooks and teachers’ guides: A dilemma for beginning teachers and teacher educators. Curriculum Inquiry, 18(4), 401-423. Barrett-Tatum, J. & Dooley, C.M. (2015). From idealized to actualized instruction: Two elementary teachers’ enactment of the ELA Common Core State Standards in instructional scripts. Literacy Research and Instruction, 54(4), 257-284. Baumann, J. F. (1992). Commentary: Basal reading programs and the deskilling of teachers: A critical examination of the argument. Reading Research Quarterly, 27(4), 390–398. Ben-Peretz, M. (1990). The teacher-curriculum encounter: Freeing teachers from the tyranny of texts. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Benchmark Literacy. (2012). New Rochelle, NY: Benchmark Education Company. Betts, E. (1946). Foundations of reading instruction. New York, NY: American Book. Beyer, C. J., & Davis, E. A. (2012). Learning to critique and adapt science curriculum materials: Examining the development of preservice elementary teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge. Science Education, 96(1), 130–157. Borko, H., & Livingston, C. (1989). Cognition and improvisation: Differences in mathematics instruction by expert and novice teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 26(4), 473–498. Brown, D. S. (1988). Twelve middle-school teachers’ planning. The Elementary School Journal, 89(1), 69–87. Brown, M.W., & Edelson, D. (2003). Teaching as design (Design Brief). Evanston, IL. Retrieved from http://www.gse.upenn.edu/~janiner/pdf/teaching_as_design-Final.pdf Brown, M.W. (2009). The teacher-tool relationship. In Remillard, J.T., Herbel-Eisenmann, B.A., & Lloyd, G.T., (Eds.) Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials and classroom instruction (pp. 17–36). New York, NY: Routledge. Chard, D. J., Stoolmiller, M., Harn, B. A., Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Kame’enui, E. J. (2008). Predicting reading success in a multilevel schoolwide reading model: A retrospective analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41(2), 174–88. Choppin, J. (2011). The impact of professional noticing on teachers’ adaptations of challenging tasks. Mathematical Thinking and Learning, 13(3), 175–197. 277 Chval, K. B., Chávez, Ó., Reys, B. J., & Tarr, J. E. (2009). Considerations and limitations related to conceptualizing and measuring textbook integrity. In J. T. Remillard, B. A. Herbel- Eisenmann, & G. T. Lloyd (Eds.), Mathematics teachers at work: Connecting curriculum materials ana classroom instruction (pp. 70–84). New York, NY: Routledge. Clark, C.M., & Lampert, M. (1986). The study of teacher thinking: Implications for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 37(5), 27–31. Clark, C. M., & Elmore, J. L. (1981). Transforming curriculum in mathematics, science, and writing: A case study of teacher yearly planning. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED205500 Clark, C. M., & Peterson, P. L. (1984). Teachers’ thought processes. Occasional Paper No. 72. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED251449 Clark, C. M., & Yinger, R. J. (1979). Three studies of teacher planning. Research Series No. 55. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED175855 Collopy, R. (2003). Curriculum materials as a professional development tool: How a mathematics textbook affected two teachers’ learning. The Elementary School Journal, 103(3), 287–311. Compton-Lilly, C. (2007). The complexities of reading capital in two Puerto Rican families. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(1), 72–98. Connor, C. M., Jakobsons, L. J., Crowe, E. C., & Meadows, J. G. (2009). Instruction, student engagement, and reading skill growth in Reading First classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 109(3), 221–250. Corno, L. (2008). On teaching adaptively. Educational Psychologist, 43(3), 161–173. Cummins, J. (2007). Pedagogies for the poor? Realigning reading instruction for low-income students with scientifically based reading research. Educational Researcher, 36(9), 564– 572. Davis, E. A., & Krajcik, J. S. (2005). Designing educative curriculum materials to promote teacher learning. Educational Researcher, 34(3), 3–14. Darling-Hammond, L. (2015). The flat world and education: How America’s commitment to equity will determine our future. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Datnow, A., & Castellano, M. (2000). Teachers’ responses to Success for All: How beliefs, experiences, and adaptations shape implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 37(3), 775–799. Davis, E. A., Janssen, F. J. J. M., & Driel, J. H. V. (2016). Teachers and science curriculum 278 materials: Where we are and where we need to go. Studies in Science Education, 0(0), 1– 34. DeBarger, A. H., Choppin, J., Beauvineau, Y., & Moorthy, S. (2013). Designing for productive adaptations of curriculum interventions. National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook, 112(2), 298–319. Denton, C. A., Vaughn, S., & Fletcher, J. M. (2003). Bringing research-based practice in reading intervention to scale. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 201–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-5826.00075 Dewitz, P., Jones, J., & Leahy, S. (2009). Comprehension strategy instruction in core reading programs. Reading Research Quarterly, 44(2), 102–126. Drake, C., & Sherin, M. G. (2006). Practicing change: Curriculum adaptation and teacher narrative in the context of mathematics education reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(2), 153–187. Duffy, G. G., Roehler, L. R., & Putnam, J. (1987). Putting the teacher in control: Basal reading textbooks and instructional decision making. The Elementary School Journal, 87(3), 357–366. Duke, N., Pearson, D., Strachan, S., & Billman, A. (2011). Essential elements of fostering and teaching reading comprehension. In S.J. Samuels & A.E. Farstrup (Eds.) What Research Has to Say about Reading Instruction (4th ed., pp. 51–93). Newark, DE: International Reading Association. Durkin, D. (1978). What classroom observations reveal about reading comprehension instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 14(4), 481-533. Fairbanks, C. M., Duffy, G. G., Faircloth, B. S., Ye He, Levin, B., Rohr, J., & Stein, C. (2010). Beyond knowledge: Exploring why some teachers are more thoughtfully adaptive than others. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 161–171. Fernandez, C., & Cannon, J. (2005). What Japanese and U.S. teachers think about when constructing mathematics lessons: A preliminary investigation. The Elementary School Journal, 105(5), 481–498. Freeman, D. J., & Porter, A. C. (1989). Do textbooks dictate the content of mathematics instruction in elementary schools? American Educational Research Journal, 26(3), 403– 421. Gay, G. (2013). Teaching to and through cultural diversity. Curriculum Inquiry, 43(1), 48–70. Gersten, R., Fuchs, L. S., Williams, J. P., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching reading comprehension strategies to students with learning disabilities: A review of research. Review of 279 Educational Research, 71(2), 279–320. Glesne, C. (2010). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4 edition). Boston: Pearson. Goodman, K. S. (1986). Basal readers: A call for action. Language Arts, 63(4), 358–363. Goodman, K. S. (1989). Access to literacy: Basals and other barriers. Theory into Practice, 28(4), 300–306. Grossman, P., & Thompson, C. (2008). Learning from curriculum materials: Scaffolds for new teachers? Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(8), 2014–2026. Gutiérrez, K. D. (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(2), 148–164. Harvey, S., & Goudvis, A. (2007). Strategies that work: Teaching comprehension for understanding and engagement, Second Edition. Portland, ME: Stenhouse. Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: language, life and work in communities and classrooms. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Herbel-Eisenmann, B. A. (2007). From intended curriculum to written curriculum: Examining the “voice” of a mathematics textbook. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 38(4), 344–369. Hill, H. C., & Charalambous, C. Y. (2012). Teacher knowledge, curriculum materials, and quality of instruction: Lessons learned and open issues. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(4), 559–576. Hodgkinson, T., Land, T. J., Johnson, J., & Beshchorner, B. (2016). Comprehension matters: Factors influencing preservice teachers' reading of standards-based mathematics curriculum. Curriculum & Teaching Dialogue, 18(1/2), 57–73. Hoffman, J. V., & Duffy, G. G. (2016). Does thoughtfully adaptive teaching actually exist? A challenge to teacher educators. Theory Into Practice, 55(3), 172–179. Hollenbeck, A. R. F. (2013). Beyond talking about books: Implications of the reading comprehension instruction and pedagogical beliefs of a special educator perceived as effective. Learning Disability Quarterly, 36(2), 112–125. Hopkins, L.J. (2017, December). Teaching reading comprehension with a core reading program: One teacher’s productive adaptations. Paper presented at the Literacy Research Association Annual Conference, Tampa, FL. John, P. D. (2006). Lesson planning and the student teacher: Re‐thinking the dominant model. 280 Journal of Curriculum Studies, 38(4), 483–498. Kang, H. (2017). Preservice teachers’ learning to plan intellectually challenging tasks. Journal of Teacher Education, 68(1), 55–68. Kersten, J., & Pardo, L. (2007). Finessing and hybridizing: Innovative literacy practices in Reading First classrooms. The Reading Teacher, 61(2), 146–154. Kim, W., Linan-Thompson, S., & Misquitta, R. (2012). Critical factors in reading comprehension instruction for students with learning disabilities: A research synthesis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27(2), 66–78. Klingner, J. K., & Edwards, P. A. (2006). Cultural considerations with Response to Intervention models. Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 108–117. Klingner, J. K., Urbach, J., Golos, D., Brownell, M., & Menon, S. (2010). Teaching reading in the 21st Century: A glimpse at how special education teachers promote reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(2), 59–74. Kucan, L., Hapgood, S., & Palincsar, A. (2011). Teachers’ specialized knowledge for supporting student comprehension in text-based discussions. The Elementary School Journal, 112(1), 61–82. Kozol, J. (2012). Savage inequalities: Children in America’s schools. New York, NY: Random House. Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally relevant pedagogy 2.0: A.k.a. the remix. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 74–84. Lampert, M., Franke, M. L., Kazemi, E., Ghousseini, H., Turrou, A. C., Beasley, H., Cunard, A., & Crowe, K. (2013). Keeping it complex: Using rehearsals to support novice teacher learning of ambitious teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(3), 226–243. Lampert, M., & Graziani, F. (2009). Instructional activities as a tool for teachers’ and teacher educators’ learning. The Elementary School Journal, 109(5), 491–509. Lazar, A. M., Edwards, P. A., & McMillon, G. T. (2012). Bridging literacy and equity: The essential guide to social equity teaching. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. 281 Leinhardt, G., & Greeno, J. G. (1986). The cognitive skill of teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(2), 75. MacGillivray, L., Ardell, A. L., Curwen, M. S., & Palma, J. (2004). Colonized teachers: Examining the implementation of a scripted reading program. Teaching Education, 15(2), 131–144. Maniates, H. (2017). Teacher adaptations to a core reading program: Increasing access to curriculum for elementary students in urban classrooms. Literacy Research and Instruction, 56(1), 68–84. Maniates, H., & Mahiri, J. (2011). Post-scripts: Teaching reading in the aftermath of prescriptive curriculum policies. Language Arts, 89(1), 10–21. May, L. (2011). Animating talk and texts: Culturally relevant teacher read-alouds of informational texts. Journal of Literacy Research, 43(1), 3–38. McClain, K., Zhao, Q., Visnovska, J., & Bowen, E. (2009). Understanding the role of the institutional context in the relationship between teachers and text. Mathematics Teachers at Work: Connecting Curriculum Materials and Classroom Instruction, 56–69. McCutcheon, G. (1980). How do elementary school teachers plan? The nature of planning and influences on it. The Elementary School Journal, 81(1), 4–23. Mccutcheon, G., & Milner, H. R. (2002). A contemporary study of teacher planning in a high school English class. Teachers and Teaching, 8(1), 81–94. McGill‐Franzen, A., Zmach, C., Solic, K., & Zeig, J. L. (2006). The confluence of two policy mandates: Core reading programs and third‐grade retention in Florida. The Elementary School Journal, 107(1), 67–91. McMillon, G. T., & Edwards, P. A. (2000). Why does Joshua “hate” school ... but love Sunday School? Language Arts, 78(2), 111–120. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2013). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (Third Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31(2), 132–141. Morine-Dershimer, G. (1977). What’s in a plan? Stated and unstated plans for lessons. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED139739 282 Nicol, C. C., & Crespo, S. M. (2006). Learning to teach with mathematics textbooks: How preservice teachers interpret and use curriculum materials. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 62(3), 331–355. Paris, D. (2012). Culturally sustaining pedagogy: A needed change in stance, terminology, and practice. Educational Researcher, 41(3), 93–97. Paris, D., & Alim, H. S. (2014). What are we seeking to sustain through culturally sustaining pedagogy? A loving critique forward. Harvard Educational Review, 84(1), 85–100. Parsons, S. A., Vaughn, M., Scales, R. Q., Gallagher, M. A., Parsons, A. W., Davis, S. G., Pierczynski, M., Allen, M. (2017). Teachers’ Instructional Adaptations: A Research Synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 88(2), 205–242 Peterson, P. L., Marx, R. W., & Clark, C. M. (1978). Teacher planning, teacher behavior, and student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 15(3), 417. Piazza, S. V., Rao, S., & Protacio, M. S. (2015). Converging recommendations for culturally responsive literacy practices: Students with learning disabilities, english language learners, and socioculturally diverse learners. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 17(3), 1–20. Polikoff, M. S. (2015). How well aligned are textbooks to the Common Core Standards in mathematics? American Educational Research Journal, 52(6), 1185–1211. Pressley, M., Wharton-McDonald, R., Mistretta-Hampston, J., & Echevarria, M. (1998). Literacy instruction in 10 fourth-grade classrooms in upstate New York. Scientific Studies of Reading, 2(2), 159–194. RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding: Towards an R & D program in reading comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. Reading Street. (2011). Pearson Education. Reading Street. (2013). Pearson Education. Remillard, J. T. (2000). Can curriculum materials support teachers’ learning? Two fourth-grade teachers’ use of a new mathematics text. The Elementary School Journal, 100(4), 331– 350. Remillard, J. T. (2005). Examining key concepts in research on teachers’ use of mathematics curricula. Review of Educational Research, 75(2), 211–246. Remillard, J. T., & Bryans, M. B. (2004). Teachers’ orientations toward mathematics curriculum materials: Implications for teacher learning. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 35(5), 352–388. 283 Remillard, J. T., & Heck, D. J. (2014). Conceptualizing the curriculum enactment process in mathematics education. ZDM, 46(5), 705–718. Roche, A., Clarke, D. M., Clarke, D. J., & Sullivan, P. (2014). Primary teachers’ written unit plans in mathematics and their perceptions of essential elements of these. Mathematics Education Research Journal, 26(4), 853–870. Roehrig, G. H., Kruse, R. A., & Kern, A. (2007). Teacher and school characteristics and their influence on curriculum implementation. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 44(7), 883–907. Rosaen, C. L., Lundeberg, M., Cooper, M., Fritzen, A., & Terpstra, M. (2008). Noticing noticing: How does investigation of video records change how teachers reflect on their experiences? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(4), 347–360. Roskos, K., & Neuman, S. B. (1995). Two beginning kindergarten teachers’ planning for integrated literacy instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 96(2), 195–215. Roth McDuffie, A., Choppin, J., Drake, C., Davis, J. D., & Brown, J. (2017). Middle school teachers’ differing perceptions and use of curriculum materials and the Common Core. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, https://doi- org.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/10.1007/s10857-017-9368-0 Santangelo, T., & Tomlinson, C. A. (2012). Teacher educators’ perceptions and use of differentiated instruction practices: An exploratory investigation. Action in Teacher Education, 34(4), 309–327. Schumm, J. S., Vaughn, S., Haager, D., McDowell, J., Rothlein, L., & Saumell, L. (1995). General education teacher planning: What can students with learning disabilities expect? Exceptional Children, 61(4), 335–352. Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1981). The psychology of literacy (Vol. 198). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Shanahan, T., Callison, K., Carriere, C., Duke, N. K., Pearson, P. D., Schatschneider, C., & Torgesen, J. (2010). Improving reading comprehension in kindergarten through 3rd grade: IES practice guide. NCEE 2010-4038. What Works Clearinghouse. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED512029 Shannon, P. (1989). The struggle for control of literacy lessons. Language Arts, 66(6), 625–634. Shelton, N. R. (2010). Program fidelity in two Reading Mastery classrooms: A view from the inside. Literacy Research and Instruction, 49(4), 315–333. Sherin, M. G., & Drake, C. (2009). Curriculum strategy framework: Investigating patterns in 284 teachers’ use of a reform‐based elementary mathematics curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 41(4), 467–500. Simba Information (2017). K-12 Reading market survey report 2017. Retrieved from https://www.simbainformation.com/Reading-Survey-10538016/ Siuty, M. B., Leko, M. M., & Knackstedt, K. M. (2016). Unraveling the role of curriculum in teacher decision making. Teacher Education and Special Education, 41(1) 39–57. Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Stein, M. K., & Kim, G. (2009). The role of mathematics curriculum materials in large-scale urban reform. Mathematics Teachers at Work: Connecting Curriculum Materials and Classroom Instruction, 37–55. Steiner, L., & Cassano, C. (2017). An Intervention to Support Teachers in Building on Children’s Home Literacy Backgrounds. Journal of Family Diversity in Education, 2(3), 19–40. Tomlinson, C. A., Brighton, C., Hertberg, H., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., Brimijoin, K., Conover, L.A., & Reynolds, T. (2003). Differentiating instruction in response to student readiness, interest, and learning profile in academically diverse classrooms: A review of literature. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27(2–3), 119–145. Tyler, R. W. (1950). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Uhrmacher, P. B., Conrad, B. M., & Moroye, C. M. (2013). Finding the balance between process and product through perceptual lesson planning. Teachers College Record, 115(7). Valencia, S. W., Place, N. A., Martin, S. D., & Grossman, P. L. (2006). Curriculum materials for elementary reading: Shackles and scaffolds for four beginning teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 107(1), 93–120. Vellutino, F. R., & Scanlon, D. M. (2002). The Interactive Strategies Approach to reading intervention. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 27(4), 573–635. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Westerman, D. A. (1991). Expert and Novice Teacher Decision Making. Journal of Teacher Education, 42(4), 292–305. Wilkinson, I. A., & Son, E. H. (2011). A dialogic turn in research on learning and teaching to comprehend. Handbook of Reading Research, 4, 359–387. 285 Wolff, C. E., van den Bogert, N., Jarodzka, H., & Boshuizen, H. P. A. (2015). Keeping an Eye on Learning: Differences Between Expert and Novice Teachers’ Representations of Classroom Management Events. Journal of Teacher Education, 66(1), 68–85. Wonders (2017). McGraw-Hill. Wright, T. S. (2012). What Classroom Observations Reveal About Oral Vocabulary Instruction in Kindergarten. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(4), 353–355. Yin, R. K. (2013). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (Fifth Edition). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Yinger, R. J. (1979). Routines in teacher planning. Theory into Practice, 18(3), 163–169. Yinger, R. J. (1980). A study of teacher planning. The Elementary School Journal, 80(3), 107– 127. Zahorik, J. A. (1970). The effect of planning on teaching. The Elementary School Journal, 71(3), 143–151. 286