The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Literacy Instruction in Nine First-Grade Classrooms: Teacher Characteristics and Student Achievement
Abstract
Classroom observations and in-depth interviews were used to study 9 first-grade teachers from 4 districts who had been nominated by languagearts coordinators as outstanding (N = 5) or typical (N = 4) in their ability to help students develop literacy skills. Based on observational measures of student reading and writing achievement and student engagement, 3 groups of teachers emerged from the original 9. The following practices and beliefs distinguished the instruction of the 3 teachers (2 nominated as outstanding, 1 as typical) whose students demonstrated the highest levels on these measures: (a) coherent and thorough integration of skills with high-quality reading and writing experiences, (b) a high density of instruction (integration of multiple goals in a single lesson), (c) extensive use of scaffolding, (d) encouragement of student self-regulation, (e) a thorough integration of reading and writing activities, (f) high expectations for all students, (g) masterful classroom management, and (h) an awareness of their practices and the goals underlying them. Teaching practices observed in 7 of the 9 classrooms are also discussed. The data reported here high-light the complexity of primary literacy instruction and support the conclusion that effective primary-level literacy instruction is a balanced integration of high-quality reading and writing experiences and explicit instruction of basic literacy skills.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Scaffolding in Teacher–Student Interaction: A Decade of Research
van de Pol, J., Volman, M., & Beishuizen, J. (2010) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9127-6 · Cited by 1,873
“, Mertzman 2008), or ‘effective’ or ‘high scope’ teachers (Pressley et al. 2001; Wharton-McDonald et al. 1998), were another common result of the descriptive studies.”
Pianta, R. C., & Hamre, B. K. (2009) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x09332374 · Cited by 1,331
Pianta, R. C., Hamre, B. K., & Allen, J. P. (2012) · Handbook of Research on Student Engagement · doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_17 · Cited by 1,055
A Framework for Designing Scaffolds That Improve Motivation and Cognition
Belland, B. R., Kim, C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2013) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2013.838920 · Cited by 306
Bohn, C. M., Roehrig, A. D., & Pressley, M. (2004) · The Elementary School Journal · doi:10.1086/499753 · Cited by 169
Self-citationScaffolding Students' Comprehension of Text
Clark, K. F., & Graves, M. F. (2005) · The Reading Teacher · doi:10.1598/rt.58.6.6 · Cited by 162
Connor, C. M., Spencer, M., Day, S. L., Giuliani, S., Ingebrand, S. W., McLean, L., & Morrison, F. J. (2014) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0035921 · Cited by 139
Correnti, R. (2007) · Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis · doi:10.3102/0162373707309074 · Cited by 69
Connor, C. M., Dombek, J., Crowe, E. C., Spencer, M., Tighe, E. L., Coffinger, S., Zargar, E., Wood, T., & Petscher, Y. (2017) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/edu0000128 · Cited by 63
Crossley, S. (2019) · Journal of Writing Research · doi:10.17239/jowr-2019.11.02.01 · Cited by 58
Metadata
- Authors
- Wharton-McDonald, R., Pressley, M., & Hampston, J. M.
- Venue
- The Elementary School Journal
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 1998-11
- Volume
- 99
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 101-128
- ISSN
- 0013-5984 (ISSN-L)
- 1554-8279
- OpenAlex
- W2062090332
- Cited by
- 353
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 16.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.